vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; So you don't think two ""lost"" decades going on three  I do think that's a problem for them. It's been a horrendous waste of potential. However I believe it to be policy mistakes - eg, why raise taxes if your problem is not enough spending? That's what the Japanese-government-owing-too-much-yen crowd will tell you to do, but the [consequences](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/13/japans-gdp-falls-by-6-8-in-the-second-quarter-on-sales-tax-rise/) of doing so should have been obvious to anyone.  If Japan had simply understood that they're not revenue constrained in terms of yen, they could have run sufficient deficits to keep growth high. Instead they chose not to, forever trying to cut their deficits to something more ""sustainable"". Cue 2-3 lost decades.  &gt;a debt of over 200%  The market doesn't believe it to be a problem, and anyone that's ever bet against the Japanese government has lost their money. Why do you believe it to be any different? What do you know that the market doesn't, and are you willing to put [your money where your mouth is](http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2011/06/06/japans-widow-maker-bond-trade-still-looks-lethal/)?"
"I like to challenge my beliefs and was excited to see an article posted to reddit that wasnt so gung ho for obama and kenesian spending.  Unfortunately this article starts with a strawman and then backs it up with a misleading statement like ""the keynesian multiplyer of less than 1 means less public sector growth"".... really? You need to back up a statement like that."
"Yeah, I guess the entire report is probably false because of that. What you're saying is applicable to the renewable industry too. There's all kinds of other investments made on behalf of renewables that aren't calculated into dollar amounts. Most obviously is the money that never even hits the books by subsidizing through consumer/corporate tax breaks.  For example: the company you work for more than likely has a recycling program. It doesn't make money because it's not profitable to recycle anything but aluminum, but if they didn't have the program they would get penalized (not directly necessarily but would lose out on ""green"" initiative funding).   The rest of what you are saying is as intangible as the first thing. If you think solar panels on your roof is going to keep the military out of other countries, you're clinical. And if you can't notice a correlation between the total lack of production coupled with the massive amounts of money being wasted then there's no discussion to be had.   By the by, that article has no citations and the link to any additional sourcing is broken."
&gt;*The budget deficit in the U.S. this year will be wider than predicted four months ago as weaker-than-expected economic growth in the first half hurt tax revenue, the Congressional Budget Office said.*  &gt;*The projected shortfall will be $506 billion in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, compared with an April prediction for $492 billion, the nonpartisan CBO said today in a report. That would be 2.9 percent of gross domestic product, the smallest since 2007 as a share of the economy, compared with a gap of $680 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP, last fiscal year, it said.*  Cross-post from /r/MAConservative
If you cut one, you cut the other. The way our economy is working right now, in order to generate more revenue to pay down the debt, we need to take on more debt. Also, unlike a mortgage, we are at the mercy of the financial markets. When investors decide that we have too much debt, the rates will rise or they stop buying altogether. Then we have to rely on the federal reserve to finance it, which can cause serious inflation. If we lose our reserve status (anyone who thinks this isn't possible is sadly delusional) then we are basically going to end up like Greece because we wouldn't be able to pay off our debts to foreign investors with our printing press. It's also important to note that America has a very big advantage it doesn't really deserve. We have the world reserve currency. People say that we deserve to have that because our economy is stronger. That is circular logic, because so much of our economic strength is due to the fact we had the reserve currency in the first place. Where would we be without it? Would we still be the strongest economy in the world? I think that's an impossible question to answer, because we have had it and given a free pass for so long that we don't know what life would be like. We can sit and chastise Europe for not doing as well as us, but the truth is we have a huge advantage so it's not a valid comparison. Also, we may be doing better for now. But if our sovereign debt bubble bursts (either due to the loss of world reserve currency status or otherwise) we won't be any better off. I don't believe in austerity in a depression, but this unsustainable deficit spending seems equally reckless. I think we need a more strategic plan that rests somewhere in the middle ground. Cutting spending on wasteful projects and redirecting that money into areas that are going to have a high return on investment in the form of GDP growth. Obama's roads don't qualify. Otherwise, if we keep wasting money we will someday reach the point where deficit spending is no longer an option and we have to cut it regardless of how stagnant the economy is.
Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:   * [United Nations of Debt: Visualizing $63 Trillion in Global Debt by Country](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/79o6jh/united_nations_of_debt_visualizing_63_trillion_in/) on /r/Economics with 1 karma (created at 2017-10-30 22:48:32 by /u/InvisibleTextArea)  ----   ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot  ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts)  ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!
"&gt; In 2009, under Obama, the US had a deficit of 1.4 trillion dollar.  Actually, that's Bush's last deficit.  That was the 2008 budget and appropriations from the Bush administration's last year, and it's also the result of the financial crisis, which happened during Bush's time.  It's also TARP (which was passed under Bush with Bush's support) and, to a lesser extent, the stimulus (which was a direct and necessary reaction to the financial crisis).  That 1.4 trillion deficit is Bush.  It's what Obama *started* with, and worked from, not what he caused.  Consider it the handoff deficit from Bush to Obama.  &gt; In 2014, the deficit is now 744 billion dollar.  You're commenting on an article that says the current deficit will be $506 billion, so why are you saying it's ""now"" $744 billion without explaining the contradiction?"
Every year stories like this come out. Every year the US does not default on its debt. We all should know by now that the US, as a financially sovereign nation that issues its own currency, cannot default on its debt. This fearmongering is just a click-baity waste of time, and yes, a waste of money.
If you have an increasing population but a steady supply of wealth then there will be a perceived effect of decline.  As the average person can afford less and less.  If inflation is factored in this effect is accelerated as the value of money is reduced but the availability of that money is as well.  In this model those who have tend to accumulate as they produce. And those who do not have tend to lose wealth as they consume to fill basic needs, at ever increasing prices, with a declining source of income, exacerbating the effect.   If you control your population, prevent inflation and deflation, and maintain a constant production/consumption cycle that is perfectly in balance then you could have that utopian society.  But in practice there is waste.  That waste makes maintaining that balance impractical at best.  People have different desires and motivations.  So while that utopian society that you propose seems possible at the theoretical level when solely looking at the mechanics and economics, in practice it becomes more about managing the people.  Which makes the task virtually impossible. As for the debt issue that is the strategy of many of the western nations.  Most of them experienced growth over the last 50 years that was unprecedented in history.  Many of them simply assumed it would continue indefinitely and failed to plan for a downturn.  In addition they planned for the growth and borrowed based on the assumptions.  When the growth slowed several continued to use the same projections for their budgeting, with the effect of spending money they would not take in.  So in a way, yes the growth is needed to service the continued growth of debt, unless the government issuing that debt is willing to reduce its expenses.
7 trillion dollars over 8 years? Sure, that sounded like a lot before Obama was elected. [Now look.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png)  With an insane spending uptick like that, can you honestly tell yourself that the government wouldn't have spent any extra money lying around available? Like what, they suddenly wouldn't be able to find an excuse for it? Or they would suddenly be all responsible?
Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? It does seem strange that there is a correlation between government debt and the stock market.  But I could see many reasons for the reaction.  The downgrade by S&P may make it more expensive for the government to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates).  This means it becomes more expensive for the government to borrow money and the government will probably need to raise taxes to cover the cost of borrowing.  Rising taxes are not good for business.  Also, many banks in the US hold US government debt.  Rising yields will push down the value of their holdings which in turn will reduce the value of US debt on the businesses' balance sheets.  This weakens the banks' balance sheets.  They may even start to unload US bonds. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? I don't know.  I think they have proven they are practically useless.  That's just my opinion.  Many, though, still think they are a credible ratings agency. What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Theoretically the government has to stop borrowing money once the debt ceiling is reached.  If this occurs and the government does not raise the debt ceiling then the government faces three choices:
&gt;where does Keynesian economics say that there is no demand?  Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, say so.  If the correct application of Keynesian economics says the US has insufficient demand, while the country's balance of payments has a deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year, then the theory is seriously wrong. OTOH, if there is no lack of demand while unemployment is high then the theory is also wrong.  Where is the right interpretation of Keynesian economics that would account for both a sluggish economy and a big balance of payments deficit?  The only explanation I can imagine is that production costs are too high.
Actually, I was listening pretty closely and heard very, very few people speaking about the budget.  They were typically ridiculed (often, by republican cheerleaders).   You make a good point about shills.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of so-called deficit hawks are the shills you are talking about.  Also, lets not redirect the focus.  The article is about the budget. Not Obama, war protesters, or anything else.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4700008/City-London-accuses-France-plot-wreck-Britain.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; France has boasted to City of London chiefs that it will use Brexit to sabotage the British economy, according to a bombshell leaked memo.  &gt; The memo was written after the City of London&amp;#039;s Brexit envoy - former Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne - held talks in Paris earlier this month at the French finance ministry, state-owned Banque de France, the French Senate and the British Embassy.  &gt; He became the City of London Corporation&amp;#039;s Brexit envoy on a six-figure salary after losing his Commons seat in 2015.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nkhic/city_of_london_accuses_france_of_plot_to_wreck/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~167837 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*: **Brexit**^#1 **French**^#2 **City**^#3 **France**^#4 **Britain**^#5"
What I'm saying is the thing to weigh the spending response against is the needs of the real economy. The optimum spending level is the one that sufficient to reach full employment in the present period and no, we're not at it.  It helps to always keep the other side of the ledger in mind. Government debt *is* non-government savings. Government deficits *are* non-government surpluses, [to the penny](http://i.imgur.com/2OpPBuI.png).
"Here is another quote from the same speech:  &gt;“I just got back from Israel, Ireland and France – three countries that deeply recognise the importance of having a business tax scheme for jobs and wage growth. We don’t have that.”  &gt;Dimon lamented US failure to build an airport in the last 10 years and the opiate addiction epidemic.  You don't build airports by cutting taxes, and you don't cite FRANCE's tax scheme to advocate for cutting taxes.  Here is what Wikipedia says about taxes in France:  &gt;""France continues to be among the OECD countries whose tax rate is the highest. Taxes account for 45% of GDP against 37% on average in OECD countries.""  https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Taxation_in_France"
My point was that we have the safest debt for **right now**. I agree that we can still afford to spend money to fix the economy. The problem is that the spending we have been doing so far isn't doing a whole lot considering what we are investing. We have spent trillions and our GDP growth rate is two thirds what it was over the last 70 years. If we were still at the beginning of the recovery that could be acceptable. But it's been three and a half years now. We are going to need to start getting some bang for our buck to turn this around.  If we are still doing the same thing two years from now, investors may not have faith in the safety of the United States anymore. They will realize we have taken on 30 years of deficits and then taken trillions more to save the economy. If we are still stagnant, the world will start to question how great our economy really is and whether we even deserve the world reserve currency.  So yes I agree that we currently have the safest debt in the world and can try to save our economy through deficit spending. I did off on a tangent, but I think it was a necessary point. We need to make sure that the deficit spending we do from here on in actually creates real value for the economy and gets real GDP growth.   The reason I am sick of the argument is that many people seem to have this idea that the U.S. will always have the reserve currency and the world will always consider it to be the safest debt. We can keep going this way for now, but if we don't back up that claim then sooner or later they won't buy it anymore. I agree with the government spending but we need to spend in areas that are going to generate real GDP growth rather than randomly building projects and hoping for the best.  edit:so in other words, I think I agree with you. I just want to make sure people understand how perilous things can get in the future and we don't all buy into a sense of entitlement that we can spend whatever we want forever.
It's amazing that there is this assumption that Government does not contribute to a nation's economy. In the US, so many radical right wingers want to remove government taxation and spending entirely because they honestly believe that it has zero effect on the economy. These were the sort of people who were getting excited during the debt limit debate in the US a few years back.  As for me, I would love to see American politicians decide on principle to cut government spending by 75% (no medicare, no NASA, etc). The resulting economic and social collapse would kill off that ideology for a few generations at least.
"This guy should not be downvoted for this. It is entirely true. Over $1 trillion of our GDP is adjustments, and over $2 trillion are ""financial products"", most of which are actually debts, not net credits to the economy.  EDIT: I should note that when I posted this, the post above me was at -1 and I had just upvoted him back to 0."
"I am not sure why you posted that, I hadn't seen that chart before. I get my facts from doing a search of debt as a factor of GDP from [the cbo.gov website](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51129).  Regardless, your Source backs up what I posted. From your source: ""Debt analyses are most relevant on a debt-to-GDP basis."""
There's nothing wrong with your reasoning except that you expect the tax laws to make perfect sense. More often than not they don't. I suggest getting in touch with a professional tax preparer (preferably with a CPA or EA designation), who will be able to understand the issue, including the relevant portions of the French-US tax treaty, and explain it to you. You will probably also need to do some reporting in France, so get a professional advice from a French tax professional as well. So, in my tax return, can I say that I had no US revenue at all during   this whole year? I doubt it.
"&gt;The offending passage from his New York Times piece (link) reiterates the economic truism that debt is “money that we owe ourselves.”  &gt;This is misdirection through aggregation, conflating corporate and government debt owned by pension funds and charitable organizations with underwater mortgages, student loans and sub-prime auto loans in their economic effects. And within his own economics, disaggregating the “we” renders far different results than he suggests.  I have always felt that anyone quoting that phrase ""debt is [just] money that we owe ourselves"" to be a total ASS or a consummate con-artist. They are either truly ignorant (and just regurgitating an indoctrinated dogma in a rote fashion like a trained dog); OR they are being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.  It is NOT an ""economic truism"", it is an utterly useless, rhetorical, tautological *inanity* (well, useless UNLESS your purpose is to obfuscate, mislead, and misdirect and confuse people)."
&gt; The debt part: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[1] (ie closing in on $18T)  The US government debt is how much USD the government has paid the US non-government in excess of what it's taxed them. Correct?  Do you know another way of putting that? It's the US non-government's *savings*. So that scary US debt clock, with the big red numbers? Consider that from *our* side of the accounting ledger it's actually a non-government savings clock, with big green numbers.  It's just not a bad thing. Every year the government pays us more than it taxes us, our savings go up. And it's not like the US is going to run out of USD - this is a perfectly sustainable way to growth.
"Another great BBC article:  &gt; But he said the UK's recovery was **no longer being led by consumer spending**.  .  &gt; Professor Miles added: ""... So the recovery, very welcome as it is, has been **a bit dependant on consumer spending**.""  Then the rest of the article has a load of suppositions from the BoE who are consistent only in being wrong.  Finishing up with:  &gt; Professor Miles said most members of the MPC believed this because the ""degree of slack"" in the economy was being used up, it was ""quite likely that as we go into next year wage settlements will be a bit higher and wages will start to rise at a rate that outstrips inflation""  Even though they were wrong on this all before. Thanks BBC!"
"Most other countries are worse off. Your perception of what is a resource intensive lifestyle does not take into consideration future innovation or adaptation. Government debt is large but not insurmountable. Much of it is owned by the government itself (social security trust fund and the federal reserve) and by domestic banks. The ""crumbling infrastructure"" claim is often made but is rarely articulated well so it's hard to respond to. Entitlements is a bit more complicated an issue due to political gridlock, but I expect that at least minor changes will be made gradually that will help deal with this problem. If not major reform, small things like pushing back the benefit age a year here and a year there, repealing benefits for the wealthy, reducing the size of cost of living adjustments, reducing the amount that is paid out to higher earning recipients, increasing the amount of yearly income that is subject to FICA... These are piecemeal changes that both sides could agree to even in the current political climate. Medicare is the bigger cost, but how to deal with that is difficult to determine considering what's going on with obamacare. Municipal and state governments will not fail if they go bankrupt. Most municipalities and states are able to balance a budget. It can be done but in some place it isn't because politicians don't have enough backbone to say no. When they go bankrupt and are unable to borrow money, they will have no choice and can blame their cuts on the banks who won't loan them money. That is, unless the people running the federal government also have no backbone and decide to bail them out, in which case we will have an enormous case of moral hazard on our hands. The economic dominoes in Europe and China are not damaging the core of their economies. Unless Europe breaks apart violently and goes to war with itself or China has a civil war, the basic aspects of their economy that make them a valuable part of the global economy will not go away. Their productive capacities will remain intact and we'll still want to buy stuff from each other. The beauty of free market capitalism is that it's so adaptable and the fact that things are changing does not mean that everyone will be worse off.
Hahaha, why are you responding then. You can't disagree with facts. The national debt has gone down while trump had been you're president. That is a fact brought to you. Y the congressional budget office.  Under obama the debt went up 89% or 9 TRILLION DOLLARS. What is there to refute?
/u/BexsM, I think your theory is spot on and you're right about how public and private debt could be correlated.  I just believe that I am older and quite a bit more cynical/jaded so I think how things should work and how they actually do are miles apart.
Section Four of the amendment reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.  In other words, if President Obama wants to, he could unilaterally invoke this provision and go ahead and get the money he needs.  Good articles describing this in some detail can be found here and here.
"I think this quote from the article sums things up really well:  &gt; ""No one who knows anything about budgeting would take a 30-day change to have any meaning at all. There is no credit to take, because it's like noticing that rainfall numbers from one month to the next are not exactly the same or that attendance at baseball games is not a constant number.""  A claim by Trump is not the same as a claim about Trump.  As a reminder, his claim was:  &gt; Trump tweeted, ""The National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion.""  And this is the claim that has been rated Mostly False.  A claim **by** Trump."