• Lexam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 minutes ago

    If you think Trump will actually pay out on this, I have some beach front property in Kansas you might be interested in.

  • VinegarChunks@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    38 minutes ago

    If I owe the bank $10,000 that’s a big problem for me.

    If I owe the bank $40,000,000,000,000 that’s a big problem for the bank

  • Alexfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    58 minutes ago

    Biden/Dems got blamed for all the inflation from “their checks”* and now this lol?!

    • two checks in 2020 and one in 2021
  • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Trump has to get to be a trillionaire somehow. He’s only managed $10B or so out of the US government in the last 18 months. But there isn’t any reason to worry about him ever paying the bribe. If he wins then he doesn’t need the voters any more and they were just suckers for voting for him. He never pays a bill unless forced to.

  • NewDark@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    58 minutes ago

    Modern Monetary Theory is here to show why this is largely a myth. Let’s lay it out.

    1. The US has the ability to print USD. This is currency sovereignty.
    2. That debt is largely debt to itself (inter government obligations)
    3. If we can always create the money needed for any debts, we can never default on this debt.
    4. Taxes should be seen through the lense of a deflationary mechanism instead of a way to actually acquire USD.

    Thus, the national debt is fairly meaningless and is intentionally used by conservatives as a way to advocate for spending cuts that would help average Americans.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I mean in technical terms, the US can afford another trillion in debt because Warsh can print money forever. It can afford a Universal Basic Income, Medicare 4 All, etc., and in fact may save money in the long run.

    But this is yet another one of the false promises leaving Trump’s sphincters.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I mean, not really. For the first time ever, the interest on our national debt has now exceeded what Medicare costs the U.S.

  • Signtist@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Trump doesn’t ever tell the truth, he just says what would be good if it were true. That’s because he knows his followers will trust his word more than any amount of facts saying otherwise. Nobody else was going to believe him about anything anyway, and it’s not like ethics factor in for him, so there’s no reason for him to do anything else.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Worse is that the majority of media supports him so even if a Trump supporter didn’t hear the lie directly, they will get it uncritically from their news.

  • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago
    1. National debt (in that nations own currency) is not comparable to debt held by a person or a business. People and businesses can run out of money. The US government can not run out of US dollars.

    2. Even if national debt were comparable (and it’s not). It is common for regular people to enter into debt multiple times their yearly income, for example to buy a house or for student loans. This is generally considered much more risky than safe government debt, as reflected in the much lower yields on government bonds. By this comparison, the USA is not particularly deep in debt at all. Again, this is an exercise in futility since the US government can’t run out of its own currency and the comparison is meaningless to begin with.

    To be clear I’m not saying the US economy is working well whatsoever. It’s working just fantastic for a rather small group of people, and working rather awfully for the rest of the entire world. But national debt as a way to measure economic success is even dumber than using GDP, so please leave that metric to the neoliberal dumbasses peddling it.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      You’re sort of right, but with some very big and very serious caveats that kind of break your argument.

      The first is that while 40tn is not a particularly troublesome number in a vacuum - it’s about 125% of GDP, a little higher than France, a little lower than Italy (Japan is at well over 200%) - the issue is not the total number, but the rate of increase. Of that 40 trillion, half of that was accrued in the last 9 years. 10 trillion was added in just the last 3 years. So, much as with climate change, it’s the rate of increase in the rate of increase that has people panicking.

      Especially because this car is accelerating at an ever increasing pace right at the moment when the brakes are in dire need of servicing. US government spending has been cut to the bone, and yet they’re still piling on debt at very rapidly accelerating rates. The only things left to cut are sacred cows. The only other option is raising taxes which no one has any political appetite for. So the people watching this rapidly growing debt pile are increasingly concerned that the US will not have the ability to service this debt. That erodes confidence, which raises borrowing rates, which further reduces the ability to service the debt in a vicious cycle.

      Now, you’re correct when you say that, in theory, the government can simply issue more dollars. But there are a few problems with that. The first is that the reason this debt exists is because the government does generally not pay its bills by issuing dollars. Instead it issues bonds, which private investors, institutions and nations buy. This is the process by which those groups lend the government money (you’re familiar, I’m sure, but I’m laying out the details for anyone else following along). If those groups lose confidence that the US will repay those debts, they won’t buy bonds (eg, won’t lend), which can create a situation like what is happening in Russia right now where the government literally cannot raise money because their bond sales are failing.

      Which leaves the government with its only option being to print money. Now while this is fine in theory (we’ll get to the MMT stuff in a moment), there is an unavoidable risk; if you issue more dollars, you are inherently reducing the value of dollars already in circulation. At a small enough scale, this is fine. But if the US ends up in a position where it’s needing to issue, say, a trillion new dollars every year just to service it’s running costs and its existing debts, that can quickly spiral out of control. Yields spike, bond sales collapse, the government gets effectively shut out of the ability to borrow money and is left servicing its running costs purely on new currency printing.

      Now, here we come to the MMT approach. For those not familiar, the horrifically simplified, absolutely missing a lot of critical nuance version of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is that you can basically look at taxation not as the means by which the government raises money, but rather the means by which it destroys it. This sounds weird but bear with me; every US dollar only exists because the US government prints it (usually via a major bank, but that’s a rabbit hole). There are no other possible sources of US dollars. I can’t just set up a rival press and make my own. So US dollars only exist because they’re printed. When the government takes a dollar in tax, that dollar leaves circulation. It is, in effect, destroyed, because it might as well not exist until the government puts it back into circulation. For a government, the difference between spending a taxed dollar and spending a printed dollar is effectively nothing. Same goes for dollars raised via debt issuance; those dollars leave circulation until the government spends them, putting them back into circulation. Spending and printing are, effectively, analogous.

      So MMT argues that the maximum possible supply of any currency is infinite. The purpose of taxation and debt issuance is just to remove money from the currently circulating supply when there’s too much. That part is sort of easy to grok, but it comes with a really, really important caveat; when you over-supply anything, its perceived value goes down. So just because you can spend infinite dollars, doesn’t mean you should. In practice, you have to balance dollars going into the system with dollars going out. And right now the US government is absolutely not doing that.

      To put that another way, if you adhere to MMT then you can consider US government debt to be a useful proxy for the total supply of US dollars. Whenever the government takes on debt, that represents dollars flowing into the system (since they’re not exactly sitting in government accounts; you take debt to service spending). So whether you are a traditional economist, or you subscribe to the MMT mindset of functionally infinite accounts, the problem being represented by that high debt figure - and moreso by the rate of its growth - is the same: The government is putting too many dollars into circulation, and not removing enough from circulation. This, sooner or later, tends to lead to rapid devaluation of those dollars. In more normal terms, that means inflation, and potentially hyper-inflation.

      • NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Shit yeah, great oversimplified summary. MMT is great as a demonstration of how little economics is an actual “science” and finds it’s foundation in perception of value. All these metrics thrown around as if anyone objectively understands how economic systems and government budgets interact/function is so silly. Like yeah, national budgets are important, but it’s not that rigid and we made it up. Also, yeah, we made it up, but that doesn’t mean we can do whatever. lol, economics.

    • NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yeah, was gonna chime in with this as well. Even the caveats to this I considered bringing up were covered by someone else. Either way, it’s wild to me how even dems are jumping onto the national debt rhetorical train as of late. Like, what’s happening with the hyper-partisanization of the democratic party in America right now? Already weird to treat politics as a team sport, let alone being a fan of any team. Just another step removed from the not-quite-the-point of focus on policy.

    • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They cannot run out of dollars, but interest payments on said debt can wreak havoc on your budget, so there is a limit.

      The only reason that the US specifically claims it cannot run out of money is that it is the global trade currency, something China is successfully attacking and Trump is endangering.