In addition to the national debt, how are we going to pay more than $200 trillion ($600,000 for every man, woman, and child) in unfunded liabilities?

[KelleyNice]

According to Forbes, the unfunded liabilities are $210 Trillion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pension-is-a-lie-theres-210-trillion-of-liabilities-our-government-cant-fulfill/?sh=799dfad365b1

According to Gary North, the unfunded liabilities are $205 trillion, and that was 8.5 years ago: https://dailyreckoning.com/205-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

According to Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff, the true national debt, including unfunded liabilities is $222 trillion: https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/222-trillion-true-size-of-us-national-debt-including-unfunded-liabilities/

[abc3643]

It's not that big of a deal.

First-off, who do you think we owe all that money to?

Mostly (over half) is owed to YOU AND ME and a vast number of other Americans.

Second, as crazy as this might sound, America needs debt. Why? The ability of the American government to go into debt provides the safest investment in the history of the world because the US Treasury in well over 200 years has never defaulted on debt. This is why the US Dollar is the world's benchmark currency.

Besides, the real figure you need to worry about is debt-to-GDP ratio.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtgdpratio.asp

In a sense, that's basically a nation's debt / a nation's income.

So, think about it like this:

Suppose I make $100,000/year and I buy a new house for $500,000.

Then my debt/income ratio = $500,000 / $100,000 = 5 = 500%

Is that bad? Well, if I didn't have to eat or pay taxes of any other bills, then it would take me 5 years to pay off that $500k. In reality, though, because I borrowed, there'd be some interest that I'd have to pay so it'd take me more time to pay it all off.

Regardless, look at it like this:

If __I__, making $100k/year, had to pay that debt, it'll be challenging and take me 5 or more years to pay it off.

What about if Elon Musk bought that house?

In 2021, Elon Musk made about $23.5 billion. His debt to income ratio is...

$500,000/$23,500,000,000 = 2.1277 x 10^-5 or 0.0021277%

How long does it take Elon to buy that house?

First, there are 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute and 365 days in a year, so how many seconds in a year?

(365 day/year) * (24 hr/day) * (60 min/hr) * (60 sec/min) = 31,536,000 seconds/year.

But, if Elon is making $23,500,000,000 / year, then he is making...

($23,500,000,000 / year) / (31,536,000 seconds/year) = $745.18 / second.

That's right. Every second of every day, Elon Musk makes about $750 whether he's working, sleeping, pooping, or having sex with his wife.

OK, so how many seconds does Elon have to earn income to pay the $500,000?

$500,000 / ($745.18/sec) = 670.98 seconds.

That's right, it takes Elon Musk 11 minutes and 11 seconds to buy the house that it'd take me 5 years to buy.

For ME, $500,000 in debt is a lot of debt.

For Elon Musk, $500,00 in debt is nothing because it gets paid off between TV commercial breaks.

>>>>> My point in using this example is that the amount of debt is irrelevant. The ability to pay that debt is relevant. That's why debt-to-income or debt-to-GDP is more important than the debt itself.

So, what's the debt/income ratio for the US? That is, what is its debt-to-GDP ratio?

Let's talk to FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) based out of the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank.

According to FRED...

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GFDEGDQ188S)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

For the first quarter of 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 124.66188%. That is very high for the US, but not really that high. Quite a few nations are higher.

So, about 125% for the US Federal Government.

What was mine again with that house? Oh, yeah, 500%.

What about the rest of America?

The per capita GDP of Americans is about $60,000/year.

The average home value was about $375,000.

So, $375,000 / $60,000 = 6.25 or 625%.

That is, if the average American was to buy the average home, their debt-to-income ratio would be 625%.

Yet, miraculously, they're not worried and they continue to buy houses.

What's the debt-to-income ratio of the USA again? 125%

If people aren't worried about giving themselves a debt-to-income ratio of 625%, then they shouldn't at all be worried about the Federal Government having one at 125% which considerably healthier than their 625%.

=======================

>>>>> You need to learn macroeconomics before asking these questions.

[KelleyNice]

In the first place it is not owed to me because, I'm not receiving it. I suppose it is owed to medicare and social security recipients, and city, state, and federal retirees. In the second place, the debt to GDP ratio is more than 1,000% because it must include unfunded liabilities which obviously the government wishes to hide. Of course, the Court has ruled that Social Security, etc. doesn't have to be paid and congress can cancel them or reduce them and/or raise taxes to pay for them. And, some combination of that will happen. There is no other option.

[Slingblade1126]

How can China be so successful with 4 times the population but almost 7 trillion less gdp than the U. S?

[abc3643]

I already explained it.

And, this is the US debt:
https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Right now, it is 30.6T$ according to the US Debt Clock.
What's the US GDP?
In 2021, it was 20.3 T$ according to FRED and the BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis).
So, just taking those numbers, the Debt-to-GDP estimate is about 1.5 or 150%.

I don't know where you are getting your wacky numbers.

[abc3643]

Oh, your numbers are for 75 YEARS OF TOTAL DEBT.
LOL... Yeah, that's bullshit. Why? Because a lot happens in 75 years... including debt being paid off.

You really need to start learning macroeconomics... and microeconomics while you are at it.
And some calculus and differential equations and discrete mathematics.

[abc3643]

@Slingblade1126
They aren't, exactly.
China GDP per capita for 2021 was $12,556,
US GDP per capita for 2021 was $69,231.40

Which salary do you want?
$69.23k or $12.55k
I'll take the one that is about 5.5 times higher.

China is "successful" because we decided to establish formal relations with them which then opened the floodgate to US companies buying cheap shit from there because they pay their workers like shit - because they can since it is a totalitarian society.

Make no mistake about it: The rank and file American is likely having a better life than the rank and file Chinese person with one exception: You can get better Chinese food in China. As a New Yorker, these things are important to consider.

[MikeInHawaii]

Here’s another way to look at debt, which credit bureaus are starting to analyze. What are you spending it on?

If I go $400,000 in debt to buy a condominium, and I can afford the payments, that’s probably not as problematic as spending $400 on a credit card at a bar.

In Anchorage, I once voted against a bond issue to buy police cars. I couldn’t see paying for an asset that lasts five years with a 20 year debt.

If this country was truly investing and not just spending, I’d be okay with it. The Hoover Dam has been generating electricity for ninety years. That was an investment. Taking money from me to subsidize breeding by semiliterates is not the same.

[Slingblade1126]

@abc3643 It's called sarcasm. Obviously China's economy is slowly imploding.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 According to Gary North, the $200 trillion is the present value. The total value will be much greater.

In time, I will take calculus but I don't know what differential equations and discrete mathematics are. In time, I may take some economics. However, economics is not a science. It is opinion. There are at least two primary economic theories (guesses), the currently accepted Keynesian's which almost certainly will fail and Austrian which I know very little about it.

[MikeInHawaii]

Present value just involves exponential growth. I think it can be done with basic algebra. As for economists, Warren Buffet said he ignores them and asked “How many economists have gotten rich investing in securities?”

[abc3643]

But it's not real debt, Kelley.
Look at it like this:
You want to go to Hendrix College...
Tuition and Fees is about $50k/year.
Assuming you go there for 4 years (and tuition doesn't go up), that's $200k.
And, if no one has saved any money for that and you get no scholarships or other breaks, somebody is going to have to pay them $200k. Now, if you don't have $200k lying around, you'll have to take a loan and, ultimately, you'll pay more than $200k.

But, right now, this debt is fiction. You don't owe it yet because you're not at Hendrix yet.
It's an expected future debt.
That $200T is 75 years worth of expected future debt.

But is he also computing the expected income of 75 years?
Frankly, it doesn't matter, because 75 years is a lot of time.

Life in 1900 and life in 1975 in the USA are vastly different. By 1975, we had airplanes, satellites, rockets, jets, nuclear weapons, radio, TV, 4 wars, electronics, computers, income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc. - all things non-existent in 1900. Entire new industries have come and gone which means income sources and sinks have all changed radically...
... and they will in your lifetime as well.

Don't bet on anyone's prediction about life 75 years from now except that the Sun will still be burning in the sky.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 Hendrix will not cost that much. Based on the Net Cost Calculator, tuition is $20K and assuming I will qualify for the Tuition Advantage, Hendrix will match the Tuition of UofA ($9656). Of course other expenses, books, room, board, etc. will be about $16,000 making it about $36,000. Regardless, that is not a small cost. As for the $200 Trillion government debt, regardless of how irresponsible congress it, technology may produce so much that it will not matter.

[DWornock]

That will never be paid. The government will default or else, and more likely, they will print enough money to pay social security and Medicare. Of course the social security checks will only buy 10 cents on the dollar, and there will be year long waits for those on Medicare.

[WhitneySnow]

I don’t know what an unfunded liability is. Can you explain it? I don’t feel like reading a bunch of articles.

[abc3643]

In the financial world, a liability is money that is owed.
So, for instance, I have a car loan and still owe $15000 on my car.
That's a $15000 liability.
Now, if I have a job and am paying off that car loan, the liability is "funded" - I have dedicated means to pay if off, so, even though the $15000 is a liability, we can safely say that it will be paid-off. It's a "funded liability".
Suppose I get laid-off and my unemployment insurance runs out. I have no income anymore. I can't pay my debts... I can't "fund my liabilities". My car loan is now an "unfunded liability" and that means I am in trouble because I have that debt, but I can't pay it. I may have to declare bankruptcy to protect myself until I can get back on my feet.

[WhitneySnow]

@abc3643 thanks. So what kind of unfunded liabilities does the US have?

[abc3643]

Ones that don't exist yet.

[KelleyNice]

DEFINITION
Unfunded liabilities are debt obligations typically pensions such as social security that do not have sufficient funds set aside to pay them. Social Security promises to pay present and future retires and others $43 trillion, but the Social Security Trust has no money. The did have $2.9 trillion but congress spend it and gave the trust fund IOU's. Congress made the promises and each year hopes to have the money.

It is like this, if you have a million dollars in gold and put up the gold as collateral in exchange to pay a promissory note of $1 million, your million dollar obligation is fully funded. However, if you borrow $1 million and hope to pay the loan from your salary, your debt is unfunded. It you lose you job, the creator has no way of collecting the unfunded loan.

[KelleyNice]

*creditor

[Adaeva]

It can't be paid. I don't have $600,000.

[Goforit1010]

Yeah, and the Democrats purposely WANT to add more to that total under the "Green New Deal" banner. OMG, the world's gonna end if we don't spend $40 TRILLION this year! This has been their entire direction since Biden took office, and caused all this inflation we're seeing.

The real problem... NOT 1 SINGLE nation in the world is following that stupid garbage except the US. And the biggest polluters are pressing on as if nothing matters. What the US does in response to that contributes roughly 10% improvement in the world pollution - costing ALL Americans untold TRILLIONS of dollars 💵 while the rest of the world laughs at us.

Stupid leftists making our lives especially miserable for nothing.

[abc3643]

Well, it's not stupid garbage because, really, the question isn't "if?" but "when?"

Nature does not give 1 shit about any person or species or planet.
The laws of physics and mathematics are universal and merciless.
We have a choice: Nature cannot be negotiated with, so, we either listen to what Nature is telling us and adhere to those laws or face the consequences.

The consequences of continuing what we are doing are that, ultimately, we cannot continue what we are doing because either 1) we won't be able to or 2) we'll be dead. Nature won't care.

[Goforit1010]

@abc3643 - Global Climate change is a religion set up where wealth is purposely transferred from the US to other nations in the name of "climate change".

Please explain just how we're supposed to come up with the $$$TRILLIONS that AOC and Bernie Sanders decided is "necessary" to stop that from happening? The changes "required" FAR exceed most business' pocketbook. Just how is the average individual supposed to deal with it?

The proposed changes (including the bullshit Biden's doing to the oil industry alone) are unworkable at this point in time. The entire idea behind the Green New Deal plans to put the US back to 1835 (industrial-wise). That means zero cars, zero cell phones, no electric anything because we do NOT have the capability to produce it in quantity through wind or solar.

[abc3643]

Global climate change is a fact of life because the physics is actually relatively simple.
So simple, it was first predicted in a landmark journal paper in April 1896 - that's 1896, not 1996 - by Nobel Prize winner, Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius.

I extremely doubt that, when he wrote the paper, Svante Arrhenius was concerned about establishing a plot to transfer wealth from the US in 100 years. The US wasn't even considered a world power exactly in 1896.

How could Arrhenius predict that? Because any competent college physics undergraduate could predict it from basic thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gasses... the same science that predicts the atmospheres of the other planets accurately as well.

Read the landmark paper here:
=====
www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
...
(Introductory comments not by Arrhenius)
Arrhenius’s paper is the first to quantify the contribution of carbon
dioxide to the greenhouse effect (Sections I-IV) and to speculate about
whether variations in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
have contributed to long-term variations in climate (Section V).
Throughout this paper, Arrhenius refers to carbon dioxide as “carbonic
acid” in accordance with the convention at the time he was writing.
Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly
suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global
warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a
potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does
explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
...
=====

[abc3643]

This may help...
I'm watching it now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le0n4mCRkzY

[Goforit1010]

@abc3643 - There is absolutely ZERO PROOF that this is all man caused.

Additionally, what good does it do if the US goes totally bankrupt? The worst polluters of the world are doing... wait for it... absolutely NOTHING to stop or slow their volume of pollution. In fact, China is on a roll to building MORE coal plants to make their electricity. In the meantime, the US is starving its industries and killing its farmers, and demanding we all convert to battery cars tomorrow! Just what good is it - IF no one else is doing anything anyway? What's the point?

Besides, wasn't the Earth in an ice age a while back? It HAD to warm up at some point! What's going on cannot be thoroughly explained, yet there are people like you shouting that the sky is falling. Gimme a break!

[abc3643]

Actually, it is. Svante Arrhenius predicted that too because he lived in the first century of the Industrial Revolution which was predominantly powered by the burning of coal. By estimating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of burning, you can estimate how much the atmospheric composition changes which result in a modification of Earth's albedo and heat balance which is also computable.

I am not going to get into an argument with you because what you and I believe is irrelevant.
What is not irrelevant is what is happening and Nature does not give a shit about anyone or their beliefs or feelings.

[KelleyNice]

@Goforit1010 Man made global warming is a political fantasy. At 0.035 percent (1 part in 3,000) of the carbon dioxide is a trace gas that has no measurable effect on global temperature; let alone the 4.9% as a result of human activity. 450 million years ago, CO2 levels were about 12 times higher and the global temperature was the same as now.
Based on the chart there is very little relationship between global temperature and CO2. For most of the last 600 million years global temperature was about 7 degrees higher. However, as you can see from the chart, during that time, there were three Ice Ages. In the current and the Ice Age of300 million years ago, CO2 levels were and are very low. However, in during the Ice Age of 450 million years ago, CO2 levels were about 12 times higher.

[Avicenna]

It won't get paid. Do you think the super-wealthy are dumb enough to risk losing their wealth to a sovereign debt default? No way. They diversify away from paper dollar assets and will let the default come (it after all, will be an investment opportunity!).

And that's assuming nothing kills off swathes of older people who are counting on Medicare.

[MikeInHawaii]

COVID-20?

[Avicenna]

@MikeInHawaii: Maybe- it wouldn't surprise me

[MikeInHawaii]

I’m not sure if it will be that subtle or if they will just openly euthanize the elderly, especially people like me who vote the wrong way.

[Avicenna]

@MikeInHawaii; That wouldn't surprise me either, TBH

[Sixgunsound]

The means of euthanizing the elderly already came out and it was stomped down the planets throat by Manchurian candidates in many countries selected by the world economic forum. Remember when you couldn’t leave your home or run your business or buy and sell without your new world order loyalty papers?

[888theGreat]

We won't. US will have a reset and reduce payments on Social Security and people will lose half or most of their pensions. Gold and Bitcoin cryptos will be confiscated and set at a lower price. Newer Businesses will all close and older businesses will be reduced in size and unemployment will be 50% or more.

[Anonymous]

1. how the HELL are you only 13 years old?

2. the government is moving away from a cash society and will push the world to do so as well.

3. when we have a cashless society then no one can ever take their money out of the bank and they will be able to manipulate the public into compliance like: in Cyprus the government took the money out of the savings accounts of private citizens for "the greater good" and Canada froze the accounts of the truckers protesting mandatory vaccinations during the trucker protest last year (2021).

4. when we have a cashless society world-wide then the governments, not any people, will have complete control.

it's coming.

stop having kids or you'll see the government use them to manipulate you.

[MikeInHawaii]

There are actually intelligent kids out there. Government tries really hard to dumb them down, but some escape the plantation.

Kelly, follow me!

[exitseven]

They will most likely do what they always do. Raise taxes and print more money.

[peedy]

I dont. think it's going to get paid a cash and a reset to a new system, if the government can get away with no paying their debt and having wiped clean everyone else should have their debt wiped clean to

[Chazmatazz269]

We never will have to. Anyone who suggests otherwise is welcome to debate me.

[Anonymous]

With inflation, as was explained to you yesterday.

You didn't get it then and you won't get it now but thats still the answer.

[Sixgunsound]

When you were in school, did you ever learn about this little old place in northern Europe called the Weimar Republic? Something tells me there’s a reason why it seems to have disappeared from the curriculum, at least when I was there, and presumably has not resurfaced. The younger crowd has no idea how this movie ends. There is a reason the big alliances are building up for WWIII, and it’s not to expose the most corrupt regime in Europe, it’s to wipe out the national debts of whoever wins. The elites (who never have to fight or die in these wars) have already conscripted us peasants at gunpoint twice after building up in the exact way, when are we as the more numerous group going to tell the elites we aren’t going to bleed or die to save them any more money?

[Opinion Owner]

@Sixgunsound Well, hopefully this time, but i dont have any faith in people.

[Sixgunsound]

Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori

[MikeInHawaii]

We can’t. Da Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.

[collie22]

the national debt is so bad, clearly stupid people like free stuff

[Anonymous]

Tax the rich to cover the cost.

The top 1% own 48% of all global personal wealth. The top 10% own 85%

[KelleyNice]

They don't have that much wealth; not even close.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes they do.
www.bloomberg.com/.../top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class
www.statista.com/.../
www.cnbc.com/.../...9percent-of-all-us-stocks.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aONigLMAk3w

[MikeInHawaii]

40% of Americans have a negative net worth. If the next 10% have enough in assets to bring the sum up to zero, half the people in this country have a sum total net worth of zero. A homeless guy with no debts and a dollar in his pocket has more money than the bottom 50% of Americans.