vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate.  The one in the title? If yes, here it is restated:  *As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks).*  So I was wondering if this conclusion/summary/understanding is flawed in some way.
I don't understand what the conclusion you came to is, as well as how that differs from the economy.  Positions on Immigration policy, NHS, Public Service, and etc. are normally derived from an opinion of how those factors effect the economy and the individuals bottom line. Minimum wage, unemployment, health care, infrastructure, and etc., all have fiscal correlation.  On top of that, I don't really see any conclusion and how that correlates to David Cameron. Maybe I'm showing an inability, but I don't feel like I gathered any information from the article.
I'm happy you brought this up.   1. Deficits have proven to be far higher during Republican administrations (Reagan/BushI tripled it, Bush II doubled it, etc.).   2. The deficit has been large under Obama, but most of this has been [proven](http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republican-debt-orgy-pictures) to be a result of policies enacted by Bush and the Great Recession.    3. The deficit has shrunk from over $1.6t to a projected $500b during Obama's tenure.
"Well, the one variable you're forgetting is that we didn't have as much debt hanging over our heads as we do now. As I understand it, maintaining that conflict cost so much money, we're still paying for it today, the better part of a century later. Are you sure that the Federal government should undertake that level of spending again as the Fed is poised to raise rates, reversing a decades long trend of cheap borrowing?  Edit: typo, added ""sure"""
Heh, Argentina's inflation numbers these past few years are [basically lies](http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/02/imf-warn-argentina-on-lack-of-progress-in-addressing-inflation-data). The IMF data is based off of this data, so it doesn't prove what you think it proves. Not to say they haven't done okay, but when they've done well it's been purely because of China's demand for natural resources.
Usa is at the point where we either tell all the countries that we aren't paying the debt or keep pretending that one day we will be able too. Our economy relies so much on military and government spending that if we cut it too much at once we risk a shock to the market. If we cut slowly we might be able to turn the country's budget to positive and start paying but so much debt and so much spending it could be a hundred plus years.
"&gt; 10 Filthy-Rich, Tax-Dodging Hypocrites Pushing Disastrous Austerity on America – The Fix the Debt coalition is using the so-called ""fiscal cliff"" to push the same old corporate agenda of more tax breaks while shifting the burden on to the rest of us.  That kind of rhetoric helps no one.  Also, doesn't this belong in /r/politics?"
"Meh. I'm a government apologist. Bend but don't break. The U.S. handles its emergencies quickly and its problems slowly. A lot of ""problems"" could be solved with an authoritarian government. We dont have that. We let people decide. A lot of them. We seek out and are often subjected to input. It takes a while. But our emergencies, they're already taken care of. If the debt was an emergency, a truly real here and now problem, it'd be solved."
Removing ss and Medicaid which is paid for already but borrowed from at the federal level, no there isn't 1tn in social spending. And the deficit is 440b? Pretty sure it's topping 600 right now. And yeah our Fortune 500 make 1tn after taxes.
Every guess you made is incorrect I'm living fairly well for a 25 year old with a kid on the way. Have my own house my own car 0 debt and work my ass off to keep it that way. I grew up in a poor family and know how to work hard for what I want and believe taxation to be theft and don't like the idea of theft. Also a housing bubble popping can and will ruin an economy ie 2008. Please do yourself and the world a favor and stop looking at everything from your statist liberal glass. Go take a look at switzerland and their economy and tell me how well they are doing with the 4th freest market in the world and more personal freedom than any other European country. No I don't think liberal policies are holding me back I think government holds me back, all of it. This country was founded on freedom and had the smallest government in world history that has now become the largest in world history. Lastly I don't know much about the Kansas situation but what I do know from the limited exposure to the situation is that these tax cuts were followed by spending increases (however minimal) every year. You can't cut revenue and increase spending and expect good things to happen because they dont.
We can only print money until we start to see the effect in inflation, true, but we've got quite a way to go before that happens.  Currently, t-bills are paying under .2% interest/year.  Money can be borrowed at a historic low rate.  No one worried about this huge amount of debt when Bush was running it up.  Now that the deficit has actually gotten under control, people are up in arms.    The government has always run a deficit, except once.  Money is a closed loop.  Household savings/spending + business savings/spending + imports/exports + government surplus/deficit = 0.  That's an accounting identity.  Currently, households are spending a bit, businesses are saving like nobodies business, and we export more than we import.  We have to run a deficit to have an economy.
Si vous prévoyez d'acheter un congélateur, il est absolument important de s'asseoir et d'élaborer un plan financier. Ce n'est pas génial mais le congélateur idéal, juste pour découvrir que vous ne pouvez pas gérer le coût de celui-ci. prenez place et réfléchissez si l'efficacité énergétique est vital pour vous. Pour certains individus, l'efficacité énergétique est l'une des plus importantes parmi les variables les plus impératives pour acheter n'importe quel type d'appareil, qu'il s'agisse d'un poêle, d'un micro-ondes ou d'un congélateur.
Not entirely true.  Argentina walks away without the ability to get credit in the normal way, but with other (more expensive) avenues to get credit if needed.  However, they also no longer have to pay the bond debt, which frees up a fair amount of tax income to go to the things they were previously paying with debt.    Singer comes away with... nothing.  He's out the cost of purchasing the debt.  He's out the cost of litigating.  He actually came away with worse than nothing.  He lost bad.
LOL. The DNC is literally bankrupt and in debt. You won't hear such truths uttered in the mainstream media, but suffice to say that a party that can't even manage it's own internal bookkeeping isn't going to fix the economy.  http://observer.com/2017/07/democratic-national-committee-failing-unpopular-debt/  Libs are lost and delusional.
This comment might sound like a circle jerk but I think it's important to say. Indeed innovation is what creates more productivity, which is fueled by debt, but debt is fueled by real savings, which comes from under consuming, which is easier when your productivity is higher. The government can stimulate innovation yes, but only at the expense of someone else.   What's really scary is the federal reserve has been manufacturing all the savings for nearly a decade now. So there's a complete mismatch between credit and savings, and the overall economy. The actual price of money itself is manufactured too, so just about all asset prices are inherently flawed in my view.   I think it's important to piggy back your point about innovation and how productivity can't really go down, because inventions and new methods of producing goods don't disappear(once we come up with the combustible engine or a new drug for example, it's now here forever ideally, it's work that we don't have to do all over again).  What brings on a crash or feeling like we're going backwards in terms of progress comes when we somehow manage to go through a boom bust (like in 2008), but then take on all this debt, normally we can pay off debt but when the government manufactures it, and credit is created out of nothing, that's when you get into problems like not being able to pay it back - because it wasn't truly real or representative of real savings. I feel like I'm ranting now but I think this stuff is super important and I think you understand it.
&gt;Well, the one variable you're forgetting is that we didn't have as much debt hanging over our heads as we do now.   You're right, [they had more.](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/Debt%20Ceiling%20Ratio%20to%20GDP%20History-thumb-570x314-49340.png)   &gt;Are you sure that the Federal government should undertake that level of spending again as the Fed is poised to raise rates, reversing a decades long trend of cheap borrowing?  I'm am suggesting that there is level of government fiscal contribution that could lead to fuller employment.
So, why don't they talk about what happened in 1971 that caused (or enabled) all the deficit spending shown in the charts?    Maybe we should start talking about that....  since neither of the two parties seem to want to.
I had a question about this but it apparently wasn’t formed in the right way as I got no explanations and only downvotes, so let me try again.  Given the massive amount of info you gave, I tried to go through and find the data I was asking for- data behind the projections of such a loss.  Perhaps since I’m not a professional economist, It was not immediately apparent to me how to find the data behind the projections.   Would you mind demonstrating how any of these sources provide the data behind how such projections are made?  Or do you have any other advice as to how I could find an answer?
"&gt;If there's no demand, as the Keynesians claim  While I agree with everything else you said, where does Keynesian economics say that there is no demand?  I mean just because economists argue this, doesn't mean their theory argues this.  This isn't like saying ""republicans believe"" (which is still technically incorrect since it would be difficult to speak for all republicans) because Keynesian economics is an established theory while ""republican"" is not."
&gt; What government is more likely to default:  &gt; A developed, relatively transparent European government with mature industries and an educated populous.  Honestly sometimes I find this really weird. it would seem to me that an educated populace (like iceland?) would realize how large of a dick is being shoved up their ass and how many decades they'll need to be in slavery to pay back their enormous debts...  &gt; Or a developing, relatively opaque SouthEast Asian government with a large amount of its populous uneducated, living in poverty.  While this type of country would have elites ready to fleece the commoner, push the country into debt for their own profit, and keep the uneducated poverty-stricken peasants slaving away for the benefit of said elites, including continuing to pay down the enormous debts incurred in the process.   But maybe I'm wrong and the market is right.
Point being, the problem hasn't been fixed. The deficit went from enormous in 2009 to simply large today.  It's never going to be paid back.  The main issue to consider is that today the United States is the third largest oil producer in the world and the largest natural gas producer, thanks to hydraulic fracturing most of this surge happened during the Obama administration, spurred on by relatively high energy prices.  [Without the fracking boom, the US economy would still be considered in a recession:](http://economics21.org/commentary/oil-and-gas-boom-propels-gdp)  &gt;Without the $300-$400 billion yearly increase in output from oil and gas production, economy growth would still be negative. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills shows the extent these industries have contributed to U.S. growth in his new report, “Where the Jobs are: Small Businesses Unleash Energy Employment Boom.”  The US manufacturing sector also benefits from this indirectly, as low energy costs thanks to suddenly abundant natural gas keeps domestic production affordable. Without the fracking boom, the US economy would be in a European type situation. [In fact, European companies move their manufacturing capacity to the US, citing low American gas prices.](http://www.ibtimes.com/natural-gas-boom-attracting-manufacturing-us-overseas-take-advantage-cheaper-fuel-1582512)  The problem with all of this is that we know that fracking is not sustainable. It depends on very high oil prices, which consumers simply can't afford to continue paying. Without oil prices rising, the industry is forced to enter further and further into debt. Part of the reason oil prices are so high in the first place right now is because of speculative traders, who expect oil prices to rise higher in the future, which is unlikely to happen.  When Obama claimed that there is 100 years worth of natural gas in the US, he was wrong. If he really believes that story himself, it's going to lead him to take bad decisions, by basing an economy on hypothetical cheap energy that won't be there in the future. The GDP contribution by the fracking industry is going to evaporate, at which point you're left with a massive debt you can't pay back.
"The economy is going to stagnate into permanent recession a la Japanese model or it will collapse unless government spending is reduced to equal government revenue.   That means a 40% cut in the Federal budget. That means that we need to ""CUT EVERYTHING!"". To not do so is the decision to avoid substantial pain today and refuse to see the crushing pain that will come later. It is the decision of children"
Apart from who owes the debt you also have to consider how likely it is for the country to pay off its debt. Greece has no major industries, no reliable source of income either. Japan on the other hand is one of the world's biggest manufacturing nations.
Excellent summary. I'm going to steal the analogy as it is related to how I discuss the problems of austerity to people convinced it is fiscally conservative and the right thing to do when in a poor income generating situation. (I usually explain the difference as going into debt to fund better education or skills in well-researched high-demand areas, and thereby improve your earning potential, versus cutting spending until you are living in a box eating cat food thereby making it harder to get back on your feet.)
You're conflating the amount of money the American economy makes with the amount of debt the American *government* accrues. The deficit is not 2.3% of tax receipts.  Really, your story is about somebody who makes $29,000, has their parent's co-signed on a mortgage for $170,000, and spent $38,000 last year. They just put the extra $9 on their parents' credit card and ignored all the times their parents have tried to sit down and talk about their spending habits over the years.  The total *American* debt is $60 trillion, which is 350% of GDP.
&gt; Your preferred answer: It's not debt, it's magic. It never has to be paid back.  It's certainly not magic, but it is both a debt and an asset.     It adds a net amount of 0 to the balance sheet, while providing a little under 100 billion dollars of income to the US Treasury.  You don't seem to know what QE is.
You do realize that the deficit grew as a factor of the GDP faster under the last couple of GOP administration's than it did under the last couple of Dem administration's? Hook, line and sinker. The GOP thinks that they can talk about deficit neutral bills and people won't see all the tax cuts for the wealthy which add to if not accelerate the deficit...  Shoot, just compare the deficit of to states like Kansas and Missouri to see how GOP run states fare...
"In your example, no one has exchanged anything yet: &gt; All we have up to this point are promises, but no one has done any work yet.  When something goes wrong, no exchange has taken place so there is no direct economic impact, because no one is in debt. The farmer needs to get his barrel from somewhere else, but he has not lost anything other than time.  However in otherwiseyep's example, the cobbler has exchanged a pair of shoes for the promissory note: &gt;Tell you what: if you can write me a promise to pay twelve Loddars in October, I can give that to the shoe-maker.""  When something goes wrong, there is a direct economic impact, because the farmer is in debt to the hunter, and the hunter is in debt to the cobbler.  I think otherwiseyep explains it best [in his response to another post](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4ypy2q)."
What i dont understand is that you actually agree with me that the US is the safest debt issuer at this time but go off on a tangent about how you are sick of this argument? which argument? trust me I get this but i dont think you do.
The solution is spending restraint during the growth periods and prudent application of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, especially during the slow periods. The USA embarked on a strange experiment lead be Greenspan of excessively low interest rates for a prolonged period of time. Periods of strong economic growth should feature high interest rates, periods of reduced economic growth can then be countered somewhat through monetary policy. The government should also endeavour to run surplus budgets during the good times and not be afraid of turning those into deficit budgets in the downturns. If you run a deficit budget during a period of strong economic growth, together with low cash rates you have nowhere to move when the cycle reverses.  The solution now? That is difficult. I would say that the solution now would be to raise revenues through corporate taxes and similarly increase government spending on investments aimed at stimulating the economy. Use this time to invest in the much needed infrastructure maintenance and upgrades that the USA needs. These need to be fast-tracked into action and I would therefore consider fixing infrastructure as more important than installing new infrastructure.   There are probably long-term structural adjustments that need to be looked at too, but I am not intimately familiar with the USA as I am Australian. It is clear however that Austerity during economic downturns does not help end the recession (or benign growth). It is clear to me as an observer however that employment appears to be the big issue in the USA right now, so cutting jobs is not a smart move.  Edit: I'll point out that my opinion comes from the Australian experience, our government ran surplus budgets during our period of recent growth and our reserve bank kept interest rates high. When the GFC hit us in 2008 the government almost instantly reversed its fiscal policy, going so far as mailing $900 cheques to every Australian just to get cash flowing in the economy, they then embarked upon infrastructure spending programs. Similarly the reserve bank were able to quickly and dramatically reduce interest rates. The result was that we saw 1 quarter of mildly negative growth, and positive growth ever since (hence no recession). We ran a textbook example of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy which is today lauded by economists over. We now have 5% unemployment, low government debt (relative to the OECD) and high economic growth (relative to the OECD).
It's misleading news. Comparing debt levels in nominal terms is completely pointless over a period of more than a few months.  The article you responded to quite literally quoted extracts from the article you subsequently posted and explained why they were misleading or incorrect.
&gt;By 2037, the debt would be almost twice the size of the economy, the agency said. That would mean **higher interest rates**, slower economic growth and far more painful choices for lawmakers than they face today.  Japan is at 230% right now!  &gt; Japan 208.2 2011 est. **229.77%** 2011 Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt  &gt;Bank of Japan Keeps Monetary Policy Unchanged Published on 5/23/2012 12:57:08 PM  | By TradingEconomics.com, Bank of Japan  &gt;At the Monetary Policy Meeting held on May 23rd, the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan decided, by a unanimous vote, to keep the uncollateralized overnight call rate at around 0 to 0.1 percent.  http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/interest-rate
"This might sound absurd, but Japan has a lot of debt held by itself. In other words, when people say a country is ""just printing money"" it's rarely true. It's often some kind of beyond being issued and sold to the public or to institutions. But in Japan's case they actually did ""print money"" and have done so for 30 years. Yet they've had a deflation almost every year since. This shows that expanding the money supply doesn't always result in inflation, it depends a lot on the country and its people and means of production. I guess Japan's move to cut the debt is a step into unknown territory, and we can't really know what will happen."
The state has been running a deficit for at least 15 years. Many want to blame Rauner (he didn't pass any bills to help, but arguably brought the issue to the forefront.) But at this point it's basically systemic and baked into the structure of the state. There needs to be major changes but no politician (or not enough) want to pursue long term solutions. It's all about immediate political power. There are rumblings of Illinois being the first state to file for bankruptcy.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://theminskys.org/usa-2017-q1-sectoral-balances-update/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The graph setup this way shows how government fiscal deficits make their way towards the rest of the world or into the private sector.  &gt; If you were following the sectoral balances graph closely in 2000-2008, you could see how the private sector was continuously indebted, both households and businesses.  &gt; From a purely sectoral balances perspective, as long as we maintain our government deficit and the rest of the world continues to want US goods and services, the US private sector seems poised to continue muddling along.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/748wua/usa_2017_q1_sectoral_balances_update/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~221925 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **sector**^#1 **deficit**^#2 **way**^#3 **private**^#4 **GDP**^#5"
Regarding the Summer of 2011 Crisis: There is NO reason that the United States cannot continue borrowing like it is just based on a particular ratio:  Debt to GDP. The Debt to GDP ratio right now is around 100%, or 1:1. This means the US GDP is around $14 Trillion and its debt is also around $14 trillion.  Other countries have higher debt:gdp ratios Japan - for instance - has a debt:gdp ratio of 220% Regarding a selloff of stocks, dollars and bonds: you have to realize that selling pressure on the dollar will make THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING increase. So commodities and stocks will skyrocket proportionally. The stockmarket can selloff faster than the dollar though. And both markets have circuit breakers that can attempt to curb quick selloffs. Effectiveness pending.