vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The government won't, as I understand it, it keeps the debt from spiraling out of control. It also promotes spending which keeps our economy from recession (which is a natural occurrence and is needed to shed dead weight). This boosted economy can only last so long, it will eventually keel over dead, again as I understand it - when is a matter for speculation.
"&gt; but the other countries are just decline stage.  I think you have a typo. Could you please explain what you mean?  If I understand correctly, you are saying that the US produces ""value"" and other countries do not. As the US has tended to run a high deficit since the Reagan era (i.e. it increases its debt every year) this seems a contentious statement."
You are starting from false premises built on politically driven economic theories. The reality does not square with anything that you just wrote.   The Fed is not necessary. It does incredible harm to the average guy. Fiat money and fractional reserve banking guarantee monetary collapse. You cannot continue to add debt at the bottom and cheap money at the top. Asset prices inflate and the average guy's standard of living goes down the tubes.   The idea that economics is hard science is ridiculous. In a smallish closed or partially closed system, formulas and equations can determine probable outcomes, in the infinitely complex economy of the modern world, the very idea that you can predict anything beyond general directions is absurd. And the general directions are not understandable without considering the human motivations that drive each of the billions of sentient actors involved.   But cleave to Samuelson, at least it can make you feel superior to think that you understand the pointless complexity
&gt; It assumes there is a limit on the potential to create wealth.  There is a limit.  [The recent CBO evaluation of President Trump's budget](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52846) drives that point home.  &gt; It also assumes that we equally share in all things regardless of efforts towards the goal.  No, that is just your [straw man argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
There is a severe problem with the economy now because people, banks, and governments have been taking on an unprecedented amount of debt relative to income. This isn't a matter of government debt to GDP, but [total debt to income](http://grandfather-economic-report.com/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif). People are still going to buy stuff, as you've said, but they are not going to be able to buy stuff in the same way as they have in the past. They maxxed out the credit cards while the interest rate was near 0%. Any increase in the prime rate instantly triggers a chain of defaults. So, yeah, the party is over.
By your own logic this may not work. Tax cuts which are matched by government spending cuts will have an immediate negative effect on the economy as government spending contributes a very sizeable chunk of the GDP and employs a not at all insignificant workforce.  Thus for the net total economic growth to compensate at the very least that entire tax cuts has to be spent in the economy preferably in sectors where the income velocity of money is the highest. Income velocity has often been proven to be the highest among the low income sections while the lowest among the high income sections. For example if the corporate tax cuts is just invested as share buybacks the net velocity is tiny even though share prices will increase.  What proof do you really have that this will not be case? Let alone 35 years, even recent data has shown that increasing the monetary supply to corporate America does not really translate to sustained GDP growth as the money velocity remains abysmal. This has been demonstrated both on a state level in Kansas, and in a slightly different way at the federal level through our experience with quantitative easing.
This piece goes some way to explaining why phenomena such as Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn happened. It also shows the underlying reason behind the current public backing for a public pay rise - we don't care about the economy as much as we used to between 2008-2014. Any thoughts welcome!
"116 MILLION people are in poverty in the EU, despite their massive welfare states. All the welfare states are bankrupt. They can't continue supporting their systems. They don't even have the excuse of a military industrial complex. Norway, which is not in the EU, is barely scraping by because of its ""oil fund,"" that is currently falling in value. Half the people in Norway are on welfare, and their tax revenues alone cannot sustain it.  http://www.cnbc.com/id/49564413   If this shit gets passed in the US, we're fucked for sure. Government ruins most things. Why is it so damn hard to just let the private sector run a competitive health care market? Obamacare has now been shown to cost us more for less coverage with health providers. Medicare and medicaid have escalated health care costs beyond control, and are bankrupting us. SS is a ponzi scheme ($30k in for $100k out).  You only have to look to government interventionism in student loans to see how well they manage money (indebted for life, and even after!). Not to mention running GSEs that fuck up the mortgage market. Hell, we can't even trust our government with keeping our liberties safe (NDAA, Patriot Act, secret kill list, INCREASED surveillance, and terrible fiscal and economic policy all under Obama (don't think Bush, Clinton, and many before didn't contribute either)). After knowing all this, why would you trust government to run health care? You honestly think its sustainable in the long run? I've just shown you that it's collapsing as we speak.  www.GaryJohnson2012.com - We can at least try to save the US"
"&gt; As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves.   Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves.  One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt.  &gt; The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system.   I'm not sure what you mean by ""does not exist in the system"". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct.   &gt; 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).  There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself."
Can you cite who funded it? A reddit commenter saying they say a ST commented claim something is a pretty sketchy source. Seattle Times says this is a UW study published by NBER, so I doubt its partisan propaganda as you're implying.
From what I understand, Japan has a great consumer goods industry and a sealed off food industry (they do not import rice and I seriously doubt anyone can supply seafood in their domestic market cheaper than they can) so it could be that they don't even really need to import that much at all. At the end of the day, that stockpiled wealth is still wealth we don't have that the Japanese people can rely upon  I'm not talking about a voluntary financial constraint like the arbitrary 90% debt:gdp policy! I'm saying let's actually figure out a method for determining our constraints scientifically in real time, and adapt our policy accordingly!
Salut, c'est Vincent. Tu recherches un système qui fonctionne et permet des résultats incroyables, à terme, bien sûr, parce que c'est très sérieux et honnête ! 100% transparent, 100% sûr, 100% honnête, comme toi, comme moi. Alors contacte-moi à vincentmusschoot@gmail.com et je t'en dis plus. Tu vas être scotché et cela va te retourner complètement le cerveau, crois-moi ! Tous les avantages du crowdfunding, des achats groupés et du marketing de réseau, sans aucun (aucun, pas un, nada, quéquette) de leurs inconvénients ! Totalement nouveau. A découvrir absolument.
Obligatory comment about debt being to high, eventual hyperinflation and mismanagement by government heralding the end of America.  Obligatory preemptive reply to rational people to say that although this argument could have been made two years ago its different now and you should buy into the fear mongering because its going to happen sooner or later.  Bring on the downvotes!
24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly ""giving some from the haves to the have nots,"" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy. 26:00 Are deflationary methods (say, austerity) needed to balance out the inflationary methods (central bank buying assets and fiscal spending)? Aren't central bank (interest rates, quantitative easing) and the government (fiscal policy) still the main things that move inflation or deflation? I would think that debt reduction and redistribution of wealth are good when needed, but I wouldn't think you would do those things *mainly* for their (supposed, see above for my doubts) deflationary effects. Still, a very interesting video and one of the best presented videos on a difficult subject."
"the economy is, therefore, a gigantic broken window fallacy if you want to go down that path.   if you had technology that made food procurement, shelter, healthcare, and transportation obsolete, everyone in the world could do another productive activity.   the parable discusses the negation of the ""benefit"" that the calamity causes to economic actors (i.e. saying a broken window creates a job for the glass dude ignores the fact that the shop owner is now out one window) by a loss of use of that same capital for the shop owner - risk of loss associated with vehicle usage isn't analagous. It would be more in line with the shop owner consuming a resource which has a replacement cost."
"Yes, I would agree we are arguing two things. One that is reality, and what that is not.   Reality is that while living in modern civilization, there is going to be a ""tax"" that we all have to pay, no matter where we are for the creation and maintenance of that stability."
"I meant ""we"" in terms of the US Treasury, which currently owes over 100% of GDP. And that's cooking the debt numbers down using cash accounting and cooking the GDP up by lying about inflation, among other things.  Plenty of people are doing better than ever, particularly those who have their hands in the cheap money thrown around by the Fed."
"I find it weird that the people screaming about the budget deficit are also screaming about this ""taxmageddon"" starting on January 1st. I for one think the reduction in spending and the increase in taxes is a sensible, smart decision to get the deficit under control."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-15/china-s-zhou-warns-corporate-debt-too-high-urges-fiscal-reform) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; People&amp;#039;s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan warned that Chinese companies have taken on too much debt, and argued for less financial leverage as well as fiscal reforms to constrain local government borrowing.  &gt; &amp;quot;The main problem is that the corporate debt is too high,&amp;quot; Zhou said Sunday during a panel discussion at a Group of 30 seminar in Washington held in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings.  &gt; Opening Up. Zhou&amp;#039;s remarks were the latest in a string of public comments by China&amp;#039;s normally low-profile central bank chief.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76n80v/chinas_central_bank_chief_warns_corporate_debt_is/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~229048 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*: **Zhou**^#1 **financial**^#2 **government**^#3 **debt**^#4 **percent**^#5"
&gt;giving students 1 trilion to pay off all student loans isn't inflationary, it would be deflationary  No. If you have to print money out of thin air and letting it circulate in the economy then you are expanding the money supply (inflation). It would have to contract the money supply to be deflation. Even if the money is being spent on student loan payments it is still circulating in the economy, provided the recipients of the loans (banks or government depending) use it later.  Debt was created out of thin air. Sure. But debt is not money so it has nothing to do with inflation or deflation. It can be paid back over long periods of time (in the case of student loans 35 years). The government could pay students back over the course of 50 years to reduce the debt burden for them, but it would hardly be getting the same amount back in tax revenue. The government gives someone $1,000 and they spend it all, you might generate a couple hundred dollars in taxes over the course of the year if that money keeps changing hands.  This solution is not feasible. Those in Occupy need to come up with something more realistic.
that disposable income, include bill gates, jeff bezo and mark zuckeberg. take those few people away from the pile, The entire country really has no surplus income left. Hence why credit card and household debt are all back up.  The income inequality and wealth disparity in US has reach historical proportion. It's near street riot level.
This is good for the 2008 crisis, but not as good for the sovereign debt crisis. I did see a good one a few months ago where it was a monolog on the audio and the video was a hand drawing on a whiteboard. I've searched for a while now, though and can't find it.
Defense is the only malleable entity in the budget but we all know it's easier for the commercial politicians® to purchase media campaigns and drum up not only a sentiment of war, but conditions for their own interests to secure new business in other countries. Teaching Americans to fear things about the world can be done and it costs about $150m per year in a single direction if you know someone who will take your money (gurgling network executives shitting their pants with good, old-fashioned Incontinence). If anyone was ever serious about turning greater profits from commercialization of military research, they'd improve the goddamned state of education in the country. [What a fucking farce.](http://i.imgur.com/22mZxCr.png) There should be a plan in place to study the rate of the nominal value of domestic technological innovation, as best as can be perceived, and the spending elsewhere in the budget needs to be correlated to that figure directly. We cannot continue assuming innovation is constant in the United States while restricting education funding so heavily. It is such an embarrassment. And we're imperiling ourselves by finding supplementary, service-based revenue solutions by beating the same dead horse with financial policy. The guys at the Fed are tired. Believe me."
Speaking of the deficit, if obama had done literally nothing at all the debt would of still went up by  9 billion anyway, because the deficit was 1.16 B (x 8 = 9.26 billion). Instead he halved the deficit and somehow kept the debt within trend
First of all, my comment has nothing to do with Trump, yet you want to bash as if I am maligning Trump. Whether Trump is behind it or Obama is behind it or Bush is behind it, $12 billion is a minuscule fraction of the national debt. THAT is my point, which was clear from my original posting.  Secondly, unless we are running a positive balance, we are still increasing our national debt. It looks like we are [**still** running a deficit](http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate), which means national debt is continuing to increase, at a rate of $443 billion, or about 37 times this quoted $12 billion.
"I mean, the claim was ""Trump cuts debt"", but since he didn't actually meaningfully influence the number it's false. If I said that I made cookies, but in fact someone else brought them in and just placed them near my desk, my statement would be false, right? If, on the other hand, the claim was ""Trump didn't do anything and the debt fell as a result of other factors"" that might be true.   That is, unless you think he's trying to take credit for not passing any of the legislation he said he would enact in his first 100 days? (""I tried to set the house on fire, but people stopped me, so I saved the house from burning!"")  Not a very interesting story either way."
WOW . . .really WOW!!!  They grew the Fed balance sheet from 800 Billion to 4.5 trillion by buying up every bad debt and funny money contract that the banking sector had fraudulently entered into . . .in spite of the fact that every economist in the world told them that socializing the debt was bullshit . . .they gave their banker buddys trillions of dollars of tax payer money . . .this money never entered the real economy and remain tied up between the Fed and the banks . .the real economy never grew, inflation never picked up and the wage and income gap grew and the Banks got richer and everybody got poorer and now they are going to unwind US 4.5 trillion . .whatever the fuck that means, bcause nobody is buying those toxic assets because they have no value . .not then and not now.  If the banks buy it back they are right back where they started with 4.5 trillion of bad debt.   So all it could mean is they are going to write it off as a loss and that would mean they have been lying to the American public about what great profits and have mean while transferred US 4.5 trillion free money at tax payer expense to the banks.
&gt; But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate.   I'm not sure if there's necessarily any correlation. I'm merely stating the fact that they have so much savings that they must export capital but at the same time, they've ramped up domestic debt to somewhere around 300% of GDP which, I don't know why you say it isn't a lot, but it's probably twice the level of the average developing country.  Wealth is probably very overstated, but the mechanism for why this has happened is confusing to me.
&gt; lol  This univariate model-based inference is a good enough reason for further investigation. I would be interested in knowing how much of the recent returns of the S&amp;P are being driven purely by the Fed bond purchase program, controlling for other macro-economic variables. The bond purchase program is not going to last forever.
When Obama took office, the yearly deficit was $1.6 trillion.  When he left office, it was only $600 billion.  Yes the total debt continued to increase because he never got the deficit down to zero like the last Democratic president, Clinton, did, but he made a lot of progress.  In fact, the only time we've seen the yearly deficit decrease is when a Democrat is in the White House.  Unfortunately, Trump seems determined to reverse that trend.  He wants a tax cut, a wall (which he now demands Congress pay for), a roughly 10% increase in the military budget, and a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure spend-fest.  Odds are the next Democratic president will have to start digging us out of that hole.
&gt;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?  Incorrect.  The US debt/savings is the balance of credit the US government maintains with US banks, and foreign sovereigns/banks.  Why do you need to say it another way?    WTF is 'non-government' savings?  Other than an academically retarded way of saying  'debt' of course?  Its not a bad thing...  unless interest rates rise.  But this time is different, so that'll never happen.  I'm sticking to my initial assessment.  Fairyland.
The government has expenditures, part of which includes interest expense on debt.  The government first pays with your taxes, the remainder, which varies between a few billion to tens of billions to sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars, is called the deficit.  The government takes out loans, called US Treasury Bonds, to pay the deficiet.  The interest payments on this new debt is added to the interest expenditure the government pays every year.
"&gt; I think a the thing with depression and recession is just what he uses to define those economic statuses. He says at the begining that his thinking on the subject is what he uses and might not be conventional.   I see.  But if the severity of economic recessions/depressions can be categorized by, say, what % of debt defaults or is restructured in a certain period of time, that actually would be a convenient way to think about different recession events intuitively (instead of just the degree to which GDP goes up or down).  And I wonder if defaults/debt restructurings are a leading or lagging indicator of a recession.  &gt;  For the different methods of depression recovery I beleive he was trying to say that the path to a ""beautiful devleraging"" requires balance. Certaintly the deflationary tactics have there own merits, and are not solely for the purpose of offsetting the inflationary methods, but a balance of everything is the most crucial factor for an efficient recovery.  Austerity is deflationary (and I'm not sure there are any mainstream/academic economists who support austerity during a recession...) but, again, I have serious doubts whether debt reduction and wealth distribution can be called deflationary.  Especially wealth distribution, which is basically the same thing as fiscal spending (which is included in the ""print money"" inflationary category in the video) combined with regressive taxes.    I would think that monetary easing and fiscal stimulus (both inflationary) help employment recover, and once employment recovers enough, inflation can rise.  Once inflation is expected to rise too much, then you can crank up interest rates/lower fiscal spending.  I don't think you really need to worry about adding in deflation for a ""balance"" when trying to recover an economy.  Hyperinflation happens only in extreme cases and stagflation, as far as I know, is a technical case that is hard to explain in a video like this.  Certainly, austerity is unlikely to help stagflation."