I'm sure most people here already know this, but I thought I share this since it's very well explained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

frankly, it doesn't seem objective to me.

Getting a loan (aka selling a bond) is "stealing prosperity from the future"?  Is that the same for when I get a loan to buy a house?  Am I stealing my own prosperity from the future?

The visuals are both entertaining and informative, but some of the conclusions are way off the mark.  I didn't watch the entire video, but you'd think the way the narrator spins it, nothing has value, or that perhaps we should all be trading our services and paying for everything with something that makes no sense, like gold, or wheat, or some other standard.  Anyway, there's nothing here that a Economics 101 course can't cure.

M57 wrote:

... there's nothing here that a Economics 101 course can't cure.

The Current Outstanding Public Debt of the United States is:

$17,588,757,555,596.18

Every man, woman and child in the United States currently owes $57,891 for their share of the U.S. public debt.

I guess someone messed up and forgot to take the course.

I didn't say that the current national debt isn't a travesty.  But to watch that video, one might think that any kind of debt is a bad idea.  Without debt, I could never afford the house I live in or the car that I use to drive to work ..and I do pay off my debts.  I plan to retire with my house paid in full, etc..

Great points Ozy and M.

Regarding the Debt Teamster, we should always have some concern about it and we should always keep it at a manageable level, regardless of administration. I find a lot of Johny-come-latelies on this topic that really didn't appreciate Clinton's management, so pardon me for questioning the sincerity of people whose agenda seems to be more than what we see on the surface.

I found the utube too anti-government, too anti-banking, too anti-Federal Reserve. I have issues with all three, but they serve a purpose.

Teamster wrote:

The Current Outstanding Public Debt of the United States is:

$17,588,757,555,596.18

Every man, woman and child in the United States currently owes $57,891 for their share of the U.S. public debt.

But is that a problem?  What's the debt to income ratio?  What's the interest rate?  How does that compare to the average home loan that a family has?  I know our family of 3 owes more then $160k to the bank for our house.  And I know our interest rate on that house is a lot higher than the interest the government is getting charged.  So our share of the national debt doesn't seem that outrageous.

I'm not saying the current debt level is great, but it's not the all out disaster it gets painted as.

160K.  Harumph. I can't mortgage a fridge box for that here in Edmonton... 

But then again, I have a job, and stuff.  

We have a system that allows us (the royal us now - the upper and upper middle class) to collect the stuff. The goods and materials, and by extension access to the services, that are abundant on the planet.  This lets us have space, and internet and computers.  The debt system is a way of ensuring that we can keep collecting and stockpiling the stuff...

... you can't argue that we definately have more stuff...

Now here's the danger, the system is not sustainable, it's just good for just us for just right now. Our kids might have some stuff, but their kids, or their kids's kids probably wont. Not without another system change.

So, the debt is big, and if it has to be paid, goodbye stuff... what's the chance that'll actually happen?

There will always be 'stuff.'  The problem is the gulf between the haves and the have nots.   The video speaks to a truth there.  The system has no checks (not the paper kind), and no oversite. 

You hit the nail on the head.

So the real question then becomes, this is a system that lets me have stuff... should I be changing it to ensure everyone can have the stuff? (which I think means I won't have as much anymore)

Like it or not, in all it's complexity, the economic system we live in is good at hoarding stuff, and we get to reap the rewards of that. 

I can agree that it would be better if everyone had enough stuff to live, but am I willing to give up my stuff so others can have it? 

Ozyman wrote:

But is that a problem?  What's the debt to income ratio?  What's the interest rate?  How does that compare to the average home loan that a family has?  I know our family of 3 owes more then $160k to the bank for our house.  And I know our interest rate on that house is a lot higher than the interest the government is getting charged.  So our share of the national debt doesn't seem that outrageous.

I'm not saying the current debt level is great, but it's not the all out disaster it gets painted as.

 

Well, if you think this is a viable and sustainable system, then I guess not.

Thingol wrote: Great points Ozy and M.

  ...pardon me for questioning the sincerity of people whose agenda seems to be more than what we see on the surface.

I found the utube too anti-government, too anti-banking, too anti-Federal Reserve. I have issues with all three, but they serve a purpose.

It’s not about being anti this or that. It’s about letting people know how certain things work.
You may argue that the guy that made this video has a personal agenda, maybe he does, I don’t know. We have to use discernment and informe ourselves but don't just dismiss something before you really analyse it.

Ask yourself this:
Why doesn’t the government create their own money interest-free to pay for public services?
Why do they instead borrow it from the banking system?
 
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, as most people think. It is a private corporation controlled by the bankers. The bankers are obviously out to make money. Nothing wrong with that, you may think. But it is when you introduce 'interest' that the trouble starts, because then you are making money from money. Money that doesn't even exist.
They don’t have the money they are lending (the credit) but they are charging interest on it.

…and the population has to pay it back.

When you accumulate lots of debt, you aren't just working for yourself anymore.  You are also working for those to whom you owe the debts to. We have then become slaves to the system without even realizing it.

I wouldn't doubt that most if not all of us would agree that $60,000/per is too much ..and probably unsustainable, especially when you consider the average income (and include children in your calculations).

Historically (and I'm talking about recent history), the national debt as a percentage of GNP has declined or risen under the auspices of any given administration.  Surprisingly, and with the exception of the Obama administration, the Dems have a better track record in this regard, though it deserves noting Obama inherited a disaster that all but required him to keep the accelerator on the debt.

Austerity is a bitter pill, but unfortunately much too often it's human nature to put off taking life-saving meds until it's too late.  Hey, maybe the "Singularity" will solve it, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on that one.

M57 wrote:

I wouldn't doubt that most if not all of us would agree that $60,000/per is too much ..and probably unsustainable, especially when you consider the average income (and include children in your calculations).

Historically (and I'm talking about recent history), the national debt as a percentage of GNP has declined or risen under the auspices of any given administration.  Surprisingly, and with the exception of the Obama administration, the Dems have a better track record in this regard, though it deserves noting Obama inherited a disaster that all but required him to keep the accelerator on the debt.

Austerity is a bitter pill, but unfortunately much too often it's human nature to put off taking life-saving meds until it's too late.  Hey, maybe the "Singularity" will solve it, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on that one.

+1

The concept of debt itself is important and overly maligned.  Debt has existed for all of human history. Someone helps you by sharing meat, harvest your fields, or build your home you then are in debt to them.  But, instead of a crushing burden that breaks families it generally brings people together.  The fact that we do it with money now does the same thing. The problem is when systems of debt are intentionally rigged for the good of a few at the expense of the many. 

The problem is that we are living in a world were systemically and culturally people are increasingly trapped in  mostly "legal" ways that create overwhelming debt for the majority to benefit a minority.  But, fixing a complex system is tough in the first place just because people will disagree on how to fix it.  Add to that that the system was and is increasingly being made more complex intentionally,  not too mention people generally don't understand basic economics and are easily mislead, and that the people with the most power in the system like it just how it is and you're unlikely to change it for the better. 

Our national debt is a result of cutting taxes while raising spending over time. The problem is that the groups that benefit most from the lack of certain types of taxation and those that own the debt have every incentive and influence to keep it going. Often these are the same groups of people.   

When Warren Buffet was called a socialist/communist for suggesting this I knew the US was F'd.

 But, fixing a complex system is tough in the first place just because people will disagree on how to fix it.

Exhibit A - The CP/GR/Ranking  discussion.

Ozyman wrote:

 But, fixing a complex system is tough in the first place just because people will disagree on how to fix it.

Exhibit A - The CP/GR/Ranking  discussion.

=P

Something to watch while waiting for your turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU