Debt Ice Berg

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

debt ice berg

 

Go here to read the accompanying article.  What lies ahead for this country is debt repudiation down the road or a new currency with the same face amount, and an actual value of 10% of current value, which is another way of saying debt repudiation.  This is going on in almost all the nations of the world and we are heading for a crash which will make the Great Depression seem like a minor blip in comparison.  The tragic element in this farce is that it is all man made and could have been avoided.

More to explorer

I Was Expecting This

News that I missed courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   SILICON VALLEY, CA— Facebook on Friday issued an apology to PragerU for

PopeWatch: Archbishop Chullikatt

Another scandal:   An archbishop who served as the Holy See’s permanent observer to the United Nations is accused of financial and

8 Comments

  1. “The tragic element in this farce is that it’s all man made and could of been avoided.”

    True.
    Greed is a scourge on society.
    Inflated egos feed inflated markets valuing false profits.

    Enter False Prophet with teleprompter in sight, Hope! Change! Devalue the dollar!
    Opps…..

  2. And yet, there are articles that say America will never default or go broke or suffer a Great Depression no matter how much it prints and spends. Crazy, I know.

  3. it would be more illuminating to depict nominal debt loads as a ratio of nominal gdp. this graph overstates the severity of the burden of service charges and distorts their evolution over time.

  4. Here is the ratio of gross outstanding debt (which includes that held by the Federal Reserve and the Social Security Administration) to gross domestic product.

    1981 : 0.31
    1982 : 0.34
    1983 : 0.37
    1984 : 0.38
    1985 : 0.41
    1986 : 0.46
    1987 : 0.48
    1988 : 0.49
    1989 : 0.50
    1990 : 0.54
    1991 : 0.59
    1992 : 0.62
    1993 : 0.64
    1994 : 0.64
    1995 : 0.64
    1996 : 0.64
    1997 : 0.62
    1998 : 0.60
    1999 : 0.58
    2000 : 0.55
    2001 : 0.54
    2002 : 0.56
    2003 : 0.58
    2004 : 0.60
    2005 : 0.60
    2006 : 0.61
    2007 : 0.62
    2008 : 0.68
    2009 : 0.82
    2010 : 0.90
    2011 : 0.95
    2012 : 0.98

  5. Looking at this, I am surprised the degree to which certain partisan narratives are supported. You can see the plateau in the late Reagan years, the forward advance during the period running from 1990 to 1995 (in spite of two income tax increases), the decline during the period running from 1995 to 2001, and then the increase from 2001 to 2007. About half the increase from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to enhanced military spending. N.B. the raw debt figures from which this was derived were assessed on 30 September of each calendar year. The increase recorded from 2009 to 2010 covers a 12 month period after economic growth had resumed in the 2d quarter of 2009. And, yet, the increase in the debt burden in that one year equalled that over the entire six year period running from 1 Oct. 2001 to 30 Sept. 2007. I think I will remember that when some partisan Democrat motormouth runs on about George W. Bush “fought two wars on the credit card”.

  6. Clinton Cramer, “What is really tragic is how easy it would be to fix this. […] If the federal government would spend what it did in 2006 (you know, while we were fighting a costly war in Iraq), $2.655 trillion a year, combined with the 2013 estimate for receipts (2.712 trillion a year), we would have a balanced budget — actually, a slight surplus. Sure, we have more people out of work today than in 2006, and the government spends more on unemployment and various support programs — but we are not fighting a war in Iraq, either.”

    ‘Cuz post-modern ideologues who masquerade as economists can’t see it.

Comments are closed.