vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;  Firstly, comparing debt to GDP is comparing a stock to a flow, you're committing a transgression that is warned about in Econ 101.  Perhaps you should learn a bit more.  He's talking bonds not stocks ... and even with stocks you've got a dividend discount model for establishing fair value (sum of discounted dividend flows = fair value of the company), etc..  With regard to the size of debt, you need to consider 3 things:  current interest expense (as a % of both GDP and Income (taxe revenue)), refinance cost ( change in interest expense if total debt is refinanced at current rates), and the first derivative of interest expense w.r.t. current yields.  This helps one understand the probability of a ""death spiral"" such as what was experienced in Greece (et. al.) where it was *impossible* to make debt payments at refinance rates.  The fact is that with US interest expenses on the debt of  $450B/year this is 13.5% of all government revenue.  If you factor in the interest expenses with even slightly higher yields ... one sees that you can quickly get a debt crisis.  If Trump gives as large a tax cut as he has promised, it has a much higher prospect of a debt death spiral.  Do the math."
First of all, that link is nonsense. I recommend you read the actual GAO audit report, which has 16T in *revolving loans* with only (if I recall) about 1.8T in actual loans at any one time. Secondly, every time I check the details of a claim from Bernie Sanders he has stretched the truth far beyond reasonable, mostly to keep his name in the news I expect.  Now, there was nothing that secret about *anything* in that report that was not reported in GAO reports from earlier. This audit was done for political purposes mostly, and the Fed has audits done regularly, as I stated earlier. This too can be checked, and I recommened you do so rather than believe me or that story.  That incident, as you call it, is already exceeding rare. You have to weigh the pros/cons of that incident (which as I pointed out is not really an incident) with the problems that arise when you make more transparent and governmental control of the Fed. If the Fed has a role in stabilizing the economy (which is it's mandate) and if many of the tools do not work as well with more transparency and if there is evidence across many countries that doing such things to the Fed will likely result in certain problems, then one should make that call. However, to want those changes made while being ignorant of the issues is a terrible idea, and it is the least informed that usually yell the loudest for such changes. This would not be a problem except then certain politicians realize they can get votes by pandering to the ignorant masses, which really leads to tanked economies.  Find how many economies have been tanked by an independent central banks versus how many have been tanked by political forces meddling with their respective economies.  Finally, I highly recommend anytime you read a story that sounds outrageous, track down the source material and read it yourself. If you cannot find source material, or they do not  list it, then distrust them.  You'll find 99/100 times the outrageousness is created by selectively pulling information from the actual reports. Then track down report sources, wherever possible. Etc.  Seriously, read the actual report.
"Yes, but the rates at which they're borrowing make all the difference. Japan's central bank is borrowing at about 2 percent on a 30 year bond, and Greece is borrowing at 18 percent. Japan would thus be paying 4.6% of GDP on debt service for government borrowing, while Greece would thus be paying 27% (assuming that all current bonds could be converted to current rates). [Japan](http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan/), [Greece](http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html). Further, as many other commenters have noted, Japan retains the ability to print money and thus inflate their debt away, while Greece relies on the European Central Bank, which would not hyperinflate the entire Eurozone to help out Greece's government. As a comparison, the US is currently paying 1.3% of its GDP on government debt service. (My calculations are amateur. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) As [Dean Baker notes](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-devasting-interest-burden-of-the-debt): ""It is important to remember that most of the people in Washington debates on economic policy do not know much economics. They tend not to be very good at arithmetic either. That is why they were blindsided by the collapse of the $8 trillion housing bubble that wrecked the economy. As we get endless pontification about the crushing debt burden it is worth touching base with reality on occasion. In that spirit, CEPR brings you the latest data and projections on the ratio of the federal government's interest payments to GDP, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). [T]he interest to GDP ratio is currently at a crushing 1.3 percent, near the post World War II low. However this figure overstates the burden somewhat. Last year the Federal Reserve Board refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. This was interest earned on government bonds and other assets it now holds.
"I agree with all that was said here, but I have to add something. Another point I will add is ""stimulus: while you still can."" At some point you can no longer take on more debt even if you wanted to. If global and domestic investors think you are going to be a risky investment then they cut you off. The people who argue that Greece shouldn't be implementing austerity don't seem to understand the situation they are in. Far fewer wanted to lend money to them even before they started their ""haircut"" shanigans. People think the government should spend more, but how are they supposed to do that if no one wants to lend more money? They also criticize Germany and co. for insisting on austerity. What they sometimes seem to forget is that Germany doesn't have an infinite supply of money to bail out Greece. They have their own bills to pay and any politician who was dumping ever larger amounts of money into Greece would be looking at being voted out or even assassinated if they let things get too bad for the German people (I am being a little hyperbole here to make a point, but I honestly feel it is a very real possibility in this kind of economic climate). At this point there is no reason to discuss whether Greece should choose to spend more money, because that choice is no longer even available to them. We are not as bad off as Greece right now. We should spend more money but we need results. We need to identify the structural problems ailing our economy and get them fixed with the money we have. Direct spending isn't always a great idea if it is done in a nonsensical way. People defending the bike paths and other shit argue that all spending is good in a depression. I am not against bike paths and roads, because they can certainly create jobs and generate value to the economy. But every dollar you spend on them is one dollar that can't be spent on the biggest problems (assuming of course that kind of infrastructure isn't one of those). After spending trillions of dollars on spending, our GDP is still growing at only 2%. It was increasing about 3.5% every year from 1947-2012.
I agree and disagree... I would argue that growth-based systems that dont approach/seek steady state are doomed because they are unsustainable.  The financial depression/collapse we are currently facing might have been pushed out a few years into the future, but could not be staved off indefinitely so long as the governing system was/is one based on growth...
The country isn't a business, of course you are correct.  That doesn't mean one can run deficits year after year and expect success.   I blame both GWB and Obama in this regard, neither showed a serious interest in balancing the budget.  But you have to, the money has to come from somewhere to get what you want.
"&gt; A government can run out of gold. It cannot run out of its own free-floating currency. When it comes to borrowing, whether or not you can be unable to service that debt is very relevant to how much interest you pay. &gt; As Japan cannot run out of yen, Japan can borrow yen very cheaply - despite books that don't make a lick of sense if evaluated like a business.  So you don't think two ""lost"" decades going on three and a debt of over 200% isn't a problem for Japan? You want to try that here when it hasn't worked in the most orderly society in the world? And there's more to play out in Japan. No where near ""recovery"" and in a tail spin again."
&gt; An aging population with a massive segment of the population preparing to retire and begin collecting social security for an average of 13 years each (benefits begin at 65, average life expectancy is 78).  Population is growing through immigration, this is a non-issue.   &gt;Staggering levels of national debt that is only growing due to continued budget deficits. As it stands now, the national debt stands at over 100% of annual GDP, and that figure is only growing as the deficit remains huge.  As long as we can make the interest payments with a little more we're fine. Truth be told it wouldn't be that hard, just re-allocate funds from other areas and increase revenue. Military being the most obvious cut, redo the entire tax system to raise revenue, which would only require political will. &lt;Pfft... only&gt;  Infrastructure is just a resource allocation problem.    &gt;A population grown completely accustomed to a resource-intensive, globalized lifestyle relative to that enjoyed by almost any other country on Earth.  This would require a shift in culture. Not as hard as you'd think, but it would take a good long time.   &gt;And finally, the combination of the game of economic dominoes unfolding in Europe and a slowing Chinese economy.  There is a way out for this, again, political will will be required.
govt debt and money printing is nothing to the amount of debt in circulation in the private sector (41 trillion).  it was the private sector that created the inflation and bubbles.     giving students 1 trilion to pay off all student loans isn't inflationary, it would be deflationary.  because the banks created the credit out of thin air to lend to the students for college, if you pay it back, it closes the circuit.   Govt would have 1 trilion in debt, but that's nothing, only a trilion dollars.   it can get paid back in tax revenue from economic recovering by the private sector no longer burdened by debt.
"The term ""stock"" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument.  Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons.  Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like."
"Salut, c'est Vincent. La suite de l'histoire incroyable qui m'arrive. Suffisamment pour que je t'en fasse une vidéo de plus ! En fait c'est la troisième vidéo pour expliquer l'évolution de ce que je croyais être quelque chose de ""récréatif"", et qui s'avère être un véritable Business avec un B majuscule ! L'effet cumulé est incroyable... Cette vidéo c'est pour t'informer... et tu voudras en savoir plus... c'est certain. Alors contacte-moi via vincentmusschoot@gmail.com ou en commentant cette vidéo. C'est une réelle opportunité, internationale, ouverte à toutes nationalités, et pour tout le monde sans aucune exception... Bienvenue dans mon équipe ! http://vincentmusschoot.com"
"The fact is that the annual debt expenses to annual revenue is the key figure at any point in time (as well as a model of how these change dynamically).  Since optimal annual tax revenue is roughly proportional to GDP and since annual debt expenses are proportional (a function of yield and changes over time) to debt level ... the debt/GDP ratio has been used for a long time as a reasonable yardstick.  &gt;  Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem.  Most of those tricks come with increased yields (the ""currency risk"" portion of the yield on sovereign debt) ... and, so, don't actually help in the case of a death spiral.  Ask Brazil or dozens of other countries.  That thinking is also part of why LTCM failed (LTCM assumed Russia would print money to pay off debt instead of defaulting).  [Also note that the only reason Greece short-sightedly increased their debt was because, for once, the ""currency risk"" component was small.  Thus, while their debt expense / income level was reasonable with low yields ... as their debt/GDP increased, their yields increased to reflect the greater sovereign default risk.  It's why debt/GDP would have been a *better* measure for Greece that a flow based measure.]  IMO, the only reason the US isn't already in deep shit ... is because the US dollar is the de facto reserve currency.  This is probably keeping the US yields 50bp-100bp lower than they would otherwise be (... in which case our debt payments would be closer to 20% of government revenue)."
Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets.  Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies.  ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run.  In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse.  When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.
The [parable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable), also known as the __broken window fallacy__ or __glazier's fallacy__, seeks to show how [opportunity costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costs), as well as the [law of unintended consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences), affect economic activity in ways that are ""unseen"" or ignored. &gt; --- ^Interesting: [^Frédéric ^Bastiat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat) ^| [^Opportunity ^cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) ^| [^Broken ^windows ^theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjzyvts) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjzyvts)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less.
When Obama took office, the yearly deficit was $1.16 trillion, when he left office it was only $600 billion.  Yes, the total debt continued to increase because he didn't manage to get us to a surplus like Clinton did, but he made a lot of progress.  Compare this to the last three Republican presidents, W. Bush, Bush, and Regan, each of which increased the yearly deficit when they were in office.  Trump seems poised to continue the GOP's record of fiscal irresponsibility.
&gt;I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were in the midst of a global freaking conflict, man.  What its spent on is a political decision and isn't relevant, except that its even less useful than how it might be spent today.  &gt;I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open  You are the only one saying that. Its a straw man.  &gt;If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have  The government is the issuer of the currency. It doesn't have it or not have it. It creates it. They've issued an ~~crap ton of money~~ amount that hasn't been clawed back through taxation and they can add to it if it suits them.
"There are two things I would like to add. By no means am I an expert on this, so please call me out if you spot a mistake.  &gt; Economic contraction scared people. So instead of continuing making promises, they started paying off the promises they had  Every true.... **expect** this didn't cause the ball to stop rolling so much as it stopped the ball from rolling a little sooner than it otherwise would have.  As pointed out in the comments above, money is debt and with debt (in the system we've chosen to adopt) comes interest. That means that new money **must** be created in order for old money to be repaid. Which leads to a need for perpetual growth. And perpetual growth is unsustainable. Pure and simple, it doesn't exist.  So yeah, people got a fright and that put the brakes on the economy, but it was going to happen eventually.  &gt; People paying off debt is fine so long as there is sill money for services, and people paying for service is fine *so long as they don't rack up more debt than they can pay*.  As explained above, this is a fallacy because our monetary system literally requires that people aren't responsible when it comes to debt. Eventually we'll get to a stage the vast majority of people have taken on as much debt as they can logically support, at which point they would need to take on even more debt in order to service the debt that already exists. It's either that or the money supply contracts and you have a recession.  It always disgusts me when I hear people saying things like ""they should known better"" or ""this is what you get for not handling your finances correctly"" when describing people that get into debt issues. The system literally depends on people acting like idiots and taking on more debt than they can support.  It's also a reason why you can't really blame Wall Street for what happened - even though they did some messed up things, they were just playing by the rules of the game."
As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.
"What this means is this: The authors of the website claim they have calculated the cost that it will take to ""fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions."" They claim that the government will have to spend $114T to do the things it is currently promising to do, and it hasn't set aside the money to do it. That's what is meant by an 'unfunded mandate'. Firstly I would take with a grain of salt the calculations of any website which claims the US is a kleptocracy in its title. You know they are coming to this with an agenda. Secondly this is money that the government has not actually spent. The government doesn't owe this money to anyone, and it is absolutely untrue that ""you are responsible along with everyone else to pay this back"". The worst they can claim is that the government will, one day, have to spend it - assuming that nothing else changes in that time. A government could pass a law that reduced Medicare, or raised taxes, and the 'unfunded mandate' would simply go away. Thirdly the calculation must assume a time period over which the money is spent. But the site carefully doesn't specify it. They can make the amount bigger or smaller as they choose, just by changing the time period over which it is calculated. To give an example, an unfunded mandate is a bit like enrolling in a four year college course without knowing how you are going to pay for it. You've said you are going to spend money on tuition - you may even have promised your mother you will finish the course - but you can in fact drop out if you choose and you don't owe anything for courses you haven't taken yet.  Some unfunded mandates can be legal obligations, but this isn't one. And in neither case are they money you actually owe. That's not to say that unfunded mandates are not a cause for concern - they represent a discrepancy between what a government says it will do, and what it can currently afford to do. As an illustration of how this works, you can look at either Russia ten years ago or Greece right now. All the expenditures in these ares are being cut. People are certainly angry, but there is nothing they can do to force the government to make those payments."
"&gt;So far, politicians in Europe have held 19 high-level emergency meetings in an attempt to solve this crisis.  &gt;All of their efforts have failed.  &gt;Right now, this is the situation in Europe....  &gt;-Most EU governments are drowning in toxic levels of debt  This mess has been caused by the idea of allowing some people to live at the expense of others. All of it - from the millions of cushy, make-work government ""jobs"", to the rest of the welfare state, has been caused by the political left."
"Again with a question that is only tangentially linked to the statement. Perhaps one could ask ""Is it better to unload debt in financial terms or a reproductive debt, like the low birth rates of developed nations and the death of the human race... ?"", but it wouldn't be related."
--- ^Interesting: [^Lee ^Atwater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater) ^| [^Tax ^cut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut) ^| [^Grover ^Norquist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) ^| [^History ^of ^the ^United ^States ^public ^debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjk42oq) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjk42oq)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)"
I disagree. We had significantly less debt during the opening stages of WWII than we have now. I have no doubt that if we had more debt back then it would have factored into our contribution to the war effort, just as our current level of debt is factoring into our contribution to the powder keg sh*t basket that is the middle east right now.  That's my point! You can't create infinite money, so if you've already created a crap ton of money, it will affect your decision to create another crap ton of money!  Idk whether it's a straw man or not but we both think the govt can do more. If you disagree with me that there are limits to how much the government can spend, then I am just at a loss, honestly. I want to know, concretely and in precise terms, what the limits are in real time so that we can adjust our policy response accordingly