American debt

[ph1l]

I've heard numerous times that the U.S is actually OWED more than what it owes others ie. its Assets exceed it's Liabilities.

Anyone know if that's correct?

It depends on which numbers one looks at.

No: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/government-financial-position-and-condition.html#:~:text=Comparing total FY 2023 government,veteran benefits payable) yields a

Yes: https://www.invesco.com/us/en/insights/us-government-debt-investment-risk.html#:~:text=The US is a good,more assets than many realize.&text=Rather than measuring debt as,a far more solvent picture.

piezoe: The U.S debt is imaginary.

 

[piezoe]

If you read this book and read that book, no no don't read that book - then you to will believe borrowing by gubmints where you gave them money and they pay you back in the future with more money is not ........... borrowing.

Kinda like stolen elections there were not stolen .... still are somehow stolen elections.

You, as an exception to some of the crowd here, are, it seems, actually beginning to catch on. This may help. A fundamental difference between real borrowing and ersatz borrowing is that there is no printing in real borrowing! That's not an explanation of why ersatz borrowing follows printing, virtually to the penny!. (I have explained that elsewhere.) Try to find time to read any of the sources I mentioned, and of course there are many more expert sources. Is this an easy concept to wrap ones head around. No. It's opaque as can be.

 

[piezoe]

It depends on which numbers one looks at.

No: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/government-financial-position-and-condition.html#:~:text=Comparing total FY 2023 government,veteran benefits payable) yields a

Yes: https://www.invesco.com/us/en/insights/us-government-debt-investment-risk.html#:~:text=The US is a good,more assets than many realize.&text=Rather than measuring debt as,a far more solvent picture.

piezoe: The U.S debt is imaginary.

View attachment 342671

What you are calling the the "debt" is not imaginary! It's just not debt. It is a future obligation to expand the money supply (Not the total money, but the "money supply") by an amount not compensated by future revenue increases are spending cuts.

 

[piezoe]

I do not understand why you're so convinced of this drivel.

The product of 15 years of study I suppose.

Let's say I started printing "engineering bucks" and I gave you some. It doesn't mean I can't borrow them back and pay interest. You can argue about what the effects my actions might have on the exchange rate or purchasing power, but saying that it's impossible for me to borrow something I made is just stupid.

It is helpful to look at these transactions not solely from the lenders viewpoint, which you naturally do because you are playing the role of the lender, but from the ersatz borrower's viewpoint as well. "You have to look at the entire Treasury-Fed operation to understand thoroughly the difference between real borrowing which some countries do to a limited extent, they hope, and ersatz borrowing that the U.S. and a few others countries can do at will.

Here are questions you might ask:
a) If the U.S. can engage in real borrowing, why does it, nowadays, always cover its deficits with newly printed money?
b) If the, U.S. always covers its deficits with printing of new money, why does it issue bonds?

I have suggested reading that can answer these questions for you. Or you could read and study my posts in the economics forum.

 

[SunTrader]

You, as an exception to some of the crowd here, are, it seems, actually beginning to catch on. This may help. A fundamental difference between real borrowing and ersatz borrowing is that there is no printing in real borrowing! That's not an explanation of why ersatz borrowing follows printing, virtually to the penny!. (I have explained that elsewhere.) Try to find time to read any of the sources I mentioned, and of course there are many more expert sources. Is this an easy concept to wrap ones head around. No. It's opaque as can be.

I've read many sources that say different.

I'll stick with those. You can't stick with ersatz.

 

[2rosy]

didn't think anyone took mmt seriously.

 

[ph1l]

What you are calling the the "debt" is not imaginary! It's just not debt. It is a future obligation to expand the money supply (Not the total money, but the "money supply") by an amount not compensated by future revenue increases are spending cuts.

I take back my use of "imaginary" to summarize your views (I don't want to have another vocabulary argument).

The U.S. government (and just about everyone else) calls it debt.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/ame...eral income tax,-protected securities (TIPS) .

Can't we just agree it's spelled d-e-b-t but pronounced "a future obligation to expand the money supply by an amount not compensated by future revenue increases are spending cuts" similar to

?

 

[mervyn]

i have no idea you went to school or home educated. voodoo beliefs at best, like this guy, don’t even need money, just face to face handshakes.

 

[piezoe]

I've read many sources that say different.

I'll stick with those. You can't stick with ersatz.

I think you meant to say, I can stick with ersatz until proven wrong.

You are right of course. The majority of writing re the so-called national debt does "say different"!, just as at one time the majority of writing re planetary motion had the sun going around the Earth. However the MMT economists have facts on their side. And facts are a powerful thing.

MMT core tenets go back as far as at least the early 20th Century. Yet MMT concepts were largely unrecognized by the economists of the latter half of the 20th Century. Thankfully MMT it is now getting the attention it well deserves. My posts here are partly to that end. I looked at You Tube to see if I could find some critiques, debates, explanations or contrasts between mainstream economics and MMT. Here is a couple of videos I found. These three guys are all founders of MMT. Mosler is usually credited with having come up with the actual expression Modern Money Theory. (The use of "Money" for "Monetary" is my way of paying homage to plain English.)

 

[piezoe]

I take back my use of "imaginary" to summarize your views (I don't want to have another vocabulary argument).

The U.S. government (and just about everyone else) calls it debt.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/#:~:text=The National Debt Explained&text=money from federal income tax,-protected securities (TIPS) .
View attachment 342683


Can't we just agree it's spelled d-e-b-t but pronounced "a future obligation to expand the money supply by an amount not compensated by future revenue increases are spending cuts" similar to

?

Sorry about the typo in my post you were responding to: "What you are calling the "debt" is not imaginary! It's just not debt. It is a future obligation to expand the money supply (Not the total money, but the "money supply") by an amount not compensated by future revenue increases are spending cuts." This should have read "... not compensated by future revenue increases or spending cuts.

With regard to:

"The U.S. government (and just about everyone else) calls it debt."​

No argument there. Even the MMT economists refer to the Securities sold by the Treasury as "Debt". The expression "Ersatz Debt" is my own.