vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; Point being, the problem hasn't been fixed. The deficit went from enormous in 2009 to simply large today.  Deficit is currently at 2.3% of GDP. The USA is analogous to a person who is making $200,000/year, has $120,000 in debt, and took on an additional $6,000 in debt this year. The $6000 number (the deficit) is not the large number in this equation.   The other piece of course is that this person consistently gets raises that meet or beat inflation.
There are rules but they have made the rules so almost any spending increases the GDP because the government can claim they are helping the economy.  Deficit spending doesn't make us richer, it makes our children poorer.  The idea that deficit spending is a harmless way to pay for this UBI is wrong.   The numbers don't add up.  The cost is more than we can afford unless we just charge it to future generations.  Some people just look at this truth and say I'm not going to live forever and putting this debt on future generations is okay with me.    I say fuck you piece of shit.  Your life is waste and nobody is going to be better off because you existed.
"If you force people to pay into the system more, then you can spend more and still claim the deficit is decreasing.   If you increase government spending without increasing government revenue, then the deficit increases.   If you increase government spending while also increasing government revenue, then the deficit doesn't increase.   But that doesn't mean shit. Government revenue is mainly taxes. And the middle class pays most of them. Hence, ""the middle class carry more"" line above."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Is there really a defensible case for countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, or the United States to pay down the public debt? Two arguments are usually made in support of paying down the debt in countries with ample fiscal space-that is, in countries where there is little real prospect of a fiscal crisis.  &gt; For countries with a strong track record, the benefit of debt reduction, in terms of insurance against a future fiscal crisis, turns out to be remarkably small, even at very high levels of debt to GDP. For example, moving from a debt ratio of 120 percent of GDP to 100 percent of GDP over a few years buys the country very little in terms of reduced crisis risk.  &gt; Faced with a choice between living with the higher debt-allowing the debt ratio to decline organically through growth-or deliberately running budgetary surpluses to reduce the debt, governments with ample fiscal space will do better by living with the debt.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ulozq/imf_on_neoliberal_economics/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~194154 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*: **debt**^#1 **country**^#2 **fiscal**^#3 **growth**^#4 **capital**^#5"
&gt;The other piece of course is that this person consistently gets raises that meet or beat inflation. That's exactly the idea I am disputing. It's the reason the deficit is such a huge problem. Having a budget deficit at 2,3% of GDP would make sense, if you're expecting your economy to continue growing at a high rate. That's the Keynesian argument, the idea that your debt can keep growing, because your total economic productivity is going to continue growing every year. However, it's not something that I expect to see happening. Why is that? If we look at US annual GDP growth, [we find that the trend is downwards.](http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2011/02/us-4th-quarter-2010-gdp.html) In the sixties, annual GDP growth was at 4.5 percent. In the 21st century, annual GDP growth is stuck at around 1.5 percent on a yearly basis. This is a global issue. Part of the issue is that population growth rates are going down. US fertility rate is stuck at a record low 1.86 per woman. More importantly however, is that the typical American has seen no increase in his household income in over more than a decade. [For the typical American, the peak was in 1999, the economy has gone downhill since then.](http://blogs.lclark.edu/hart-landsberg/2011/09/05/one-nation-divisible/) If the typical American sees his income decline, it's a very bad idea to increase government spending at the same time. Why this large divide between the elite 1% whose income is growing, and the rest of the public? Part of the issue is that the typical American spends a far larger portion of his income on resources that are limited. Energy, food, these are products that have grown very expensive and are eating up a larger chunk of a typical American's budget. The high wealth and income of the 1% is effectively an unsustainable illusion created by quantitative easing and other bubble-blowing policies. These people own stock, that have surged up despite a weak economy.
There is not a permanent deficit. The budget was balanced when Reagan took office. He ran up a massive deficit. Clinton balanced the deficit he inherited. W then ran up a deficit again.  Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit and reduced it to 400 billion. Now it is going to go up again. I am seeing a pattern here.
I think the government has no real monetary constraint at all. There's pretend constraints like an arbitrary debt ceiling, but not a real insurmountable constraint.  There's not really a necessity to issue debt, the money could just be spent into the economy and no debt issuance conducted. Just run into negative equity.  There's an inflation constraint in terms of how many real brains / hands / tractors are available, but it isnt 1:1 automatically.  The talk of 'debt' is idealogical in my opinion. If Japan voids debt, it's not a problem. They seem to understand exactly how the financial system works and don't seem constrained politically to pulling the levers that deliver the best outcomes. They don't spend enough IMO, but at least they don't run around crowing about debt in a nonsensical way to score politically.
"The whole premise of the article is that there is not enough ""aggregate demand"" aka spending in the economy, a theory rooted in a Keynesian understanding of economics.  When will we finally realize that this is all completely wrong?  We've tried this for decades and it's only lead to unsustainable public debt.  Americans need to save right now, not spend.    [Keynes' War on Capital Formation](http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2011/11/02/keynes-war-on-capital-formation/)  &gt;No distinction is made between consumptive and productive spending in [the Keynesian] framework.  And this is the all-decisive point: Keynesians have cause and effect backward here, as in so many other places.  Spending, for them, induces demand, which evokes production (and, it is assumed implicitly, the creation of capital).  This is of course tragically and naively backward, for it is production that yields income that permits spending."
&gt; But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand.  They deficit spend.  They increase prosperity and thus demand.  They do it consistently and repeatedly.  Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover.  What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes.  Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better.  The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better.   &gt; Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt.  This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative.   &gt; Most such debt spending is a complete waste.  Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money.   &gt; Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you.  The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes.  Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population.  Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have.  This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good.    Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend.  Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength.  Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms.
"Again, the quote by Politifact:  ""*The numbers check out. And in fact, the total public debt has dropped another $22 billion since the Gateway Pundit article published, according to data from the U.S. Department of Treasury.*""  Anything not clear here?  What's not clear is how ""mostly False"" is true."
"No!   The ""mostly false"", as clearly stated, by Politifact, is because, despite the claim being true, and even with additional 22 Billion Dollars, ""*it’s a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels*"".   Yes, you read it! ""it's a BIT of a stretch"", just a bit, because, oh yes, Trump did not enact any fiscal legislation (he did!) and deficits only get cut if you do ""fiscal legislations"" (they don't)."
So govt deficit spending = gdp.  Which means federal Govt deficit spending is crucial for gdp.  With such high unemployment and underemployment, US govt is not deficit spending enough money into the economy.  Need to do more deficit spending.  Govt trickle down economics works.  Unlike the other form.
"&gt; Kenyes wrote explicitly about deficit spending, and the repayment of those deficits. The denomination of the currency, floating or otherwise, is besides the point.  It's not at all besides the point.  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.  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.  Because the US government cannot run out of USD, the US government can borrow USD very cheaply - even if there isn't any credible plan to ""pay down the debt"". Lenders quite simply don't consider the US's revenue/expenditure before loaning the government USD, for if you're not willing to loan USD to the guys that issue it, what *are* you going to be willing to do with it?"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/12/Public-Investment-Scaling-up-and-Debt-Sustainability-The-Case-of-Energy-Sector-Investments-44943) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.  &gt; This paper proposes a bottom-up approach to assess large public investments that are potentially self-financing and reflect their impact in macro-fiscal projections that underpin the IMF&amp;#039;s Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework.  &gt; Using the case of energy sector investments in Caribbean countries, the paper shows how to avoid biases against good projects that pay off over long horizons and ensure that transformative investments are not sacrificed to myopic assessments of debt sustainability risks.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gydz6/imfpublic_investment_scalingup_and_debt/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~142844 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*: **IMF**^#1 **investment**^#2 **paper**^#3 **debt**^#4 **sustainability**^#5"
"The US national debt isn't the problem. If the Bush-era tax cuts had been allowed to expire then US debt would have been paid off reasonably quickly. The CBO’s “baseline” budget forecast,   which assumes that the cuts do indeed   expire as planned, sees the deficit   falling from 9.1% of GDP in 2010 to   2.5% in 2014. These are just the debts the US has already incurred. The problem is the future entitlements the US is promising to its soon-to-be-retired generation of Baby Boomers.  Medicare, health insurance, and so on are all future costs that can be calculated fairly accurately when considering the size and earnings of the work-force relative to the size, longevity and health of the newly-retired. Governments can ""solve"" the problems of entitlements simply be reneging on their promises. The concern that investors have is that either entitlements will be paid by raising taxes (and so cutting profits and investment returns) or countries will simply default on their existing debts as their tax receipts run out. As Europe has shown (from French workers rioting about having to retire at 62, to British students rioting about paying their tuition fees), breaking promises has consequences for elected politicians too. Europe is already going rather painfully through this process of economic restructuring.  The US will eventually come round as well.  Just don't expect it to be painless. So keep your money and invest it wisely.  No doubt that tax collectors will be round in a while to take their cut so you can make your contribution."
But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. Every time we start getting anywhere near a balanced budget they cut taxes again so that they can continue blaming the deficit on pork barrel spending. Forcing ever more draconian budget cuts that will never ultimately balance the budget. It's called a [starve the beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) strategy. Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. After some point this debt cost exceeds the benefits derived from the debt incurred in any given year. Just because you cab say the debt incurred this year exceeds the cost of the debt incurred this year does not mean that these benefits will remain positive overall as the debt remains on the books indefinitely, not just for the year they were incurred. This is not to claim that all debt is bad, but you can't make broad statements about the benefits of debt in general. Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Because your taxes are not defined by how much they take from your paycheck alone. When debt is used for consumption spending, rather than investment spending that increases productive capacity, this consumption leaves fewer goods and services remaining on the market for the rest of the consumers competing for it. Raising your cost of living. Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. It's determined by how much they spend. That is how much they are taking from the consumer market. Granted, given the [low wages relative to capital returns](http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/12/06/Andrew_Smithers_chart_blog_main_horizontal.JPG), demand (consumption) is overly suppressed. Resulting in an [overproduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction) problems. Which makes debt spending look even more financially appealing, because it's not actually suppressing the already excessive demand constraints. But this is because you wages have been suppressed. So instead of paying taxes you are working for a lower income.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fiscal-contraction-boost-south-america-growth-by-andres-velasco-2017-06) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; SANTIAGO - Europe&amp;#039;s recent experience suggests that a fiscal contraction cannot be expansionary. &gt; Fiscal contraction can be expansionary if markets expect that tightening today will prevent larger and more disruptive budget cuts in the future. &gt; Despite the International Monetary Fund&amp;#039;s mea culpa for underestimating the short-run adverse effects of fiscal austerity on European growth, over the longer term, Fund studies make clear, &amp;quot;Reducing government debt is likely to raise output, as real interest rates decline and the lighter burden of interest payments permits cuts to distortionary taxes.&amp;quot; One does not have to stick to the controversial 90%-of-GDP threshold identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff to believe that a stronger fiscal position can help long-term growth - especially in perennially low-savings, high-interest economies like Brazil. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6erhxk/can_fiscal_contraction_ever_boost_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~134464 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."
&gt;Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending  Really?  I kinda thought it had something to do with [losing 2.6 million jobs in 2008](http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/).  Now that's a lot of revenue gone!  Oh also the bush tax cuts  &gt;How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively?  So almost 10% of our deficit?  I'd say that's a good start.  I do agree we spend way too much on the pentagon, but pretty sure that went up a lot without our two unfunded republican wars.  There's also the unfunded Bush Medicare prescription drug plan.  You can't seriously think putting those people back in charge will lead to good things.
"Op-ed by a guy who just waived off interest on the current debt with ""congress can just make more debt to offset the interest on the other debt"". Having a deficit isn't always bad but we haven't reduced the deficit in 20 years and it's only increasing exponentially."
i disagree. if a country has sovereign currency, then there is no squandering.  where does that money come from in the first place?  govt creates it, and spends it into the economy through deficit spending.  And govt gets a service or product in return from that spending. Govt deficit spending = private sector savings.
No no no.... ok fine, yes... **but** you can't have that and run a national deficit of 150% of GDP. I don't care what Keynes said, you could have as large a demand as you want, if the majority of all cash flows are going into debt repayments your economies not going to be able to grow, ie: enter a recession.
Has any country in their existence, paid their debt in full?  To me it seems that every country is in debt and it will just keep growing.  It's like they know that the debt is impossible to pay and they just play along so that they get their paycheck and pass the debt to the other guy/gal who wins the office.  Do we just want to believe that one day everybody would receive so much money that everybody would pay off their debt?
"Do you expect governments to completely cut spending? Are you a utopian libertarian? I'm struggling to see how I'm ""crossing factoids.""  I was making the point that the private sector has been growing at a faster pace than GDP as a whole over the past two years due to the public sector's shrinking. So, that proves Schiff's ""theory"" incorrect."
"&gt;""Governments should be more honest about the size of their debts and young voters would be wise to get politicians to pay them off as soon as possible""  ""Wise""?  That would mean that they'd have to pay for the perks they get as *well* as for the perks that their parents financed with debt.  Easier to just unload the debt on their kids."
Well, you know - unelected, apart from MEPs and the Council of Ministers.  The Commission is unelected, but they're meant to be the civil servants.   Are the rules made in the interest of Financial Services? Not particularly. You could perhaps make a case for them being made in the interests of French farmers.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.    - [/r/bestof] [/u/78fivealive explains the debt crisis in Argentina as &amp;quot;A Streetcar Named Desire.&amp;quot;](http://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2cb2qi/u78fivealive_explains_the_debt_crisis_in/)   *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)*
"probably never since republicans started ""starving the beast"" and then calling it inefficient when your government cant perform. on the other hand, ive read there are serious inefficiency problems in the process of infrastructure / general public property maintenance in the united states, and they only partly faulted the cut down budgets. sorry i cant back that up with a link right now"
That's a loaded question.  Economists can't even agree on an answer from a purely economic point of view.  I will say this...  I think that many people who are advocating radical cutbacks in spending (Republicans and Tea Partiers) are deluding themselves in two important ways:  1) That it's possible to balance the budget without raising revenues.  I don't think very many economists agree with this premise.  Even Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget, should one take a hard look at the number, clearly show how impossible it is.  There would either have to be tax hikes **OR** we slash the military to a fraction of its size now **AND** leave no money for pretty much anything else (like roads, highways, air traffic control, food safety inspections, education, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.).  2) More importantly, I think there is an implicit and fundamental belief among right-wingers that the world will somehow stop what it's doing while the US balances its budget.  The belief goes that, once we are fiscally healthy, we will remain a superpower and ruling the world like we have for 100 years.  This is fundamentally wrong.  I think most people, even Tea Partiers, fail to appreciate how fundamentally important America's debt has been to our history.  We have essentially borrowed our way into power.  Should the right win the day and put in place radical cuts in spending, America's economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, and military influence around the world will be among to go.  The dollar will nosedive and so will our standards of living.  Our GDP will not be able to support a a political economy that can maintain superpower status.  Now, I do not mean to say that I do not agree with the right.  From a purely economic point of view, they may very well be right.  I'm not even sure there is an option.  In fact, a part of me is ready to accept America becoming what France and the UK are now, still having relatively good standards of living but nowhere near the height of their historical powers.  Maybe the world will be better for it.  I just don't think Tea Partiers appreciate the ultimate result of what they want to see happen.
I don't know where you're coming up with this. The deficit right now is about $440 billion vs the well over 1 trillion is social expenditures. There are bloated budgets and inefficiencies everywhere in government. Cuts could easily be made. Then there's the fact that we have a GDP of 18.57 trillion yet you think that there are 500 companies with 1 trillion in profit?