Jump to content

Talk:National debt of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.30.112.165 (talk) at 04:58, 26 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

Archives


Archive 1 Archive 2

quibbles

Hello $9 trillion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.113.25 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that $9tril is what I've read & is shown in a table, mid-way in the article. However, the first paragraph lists a much smaller figure. If that figure is to be used, the discrepancy of public vs intergovernmental transfers (i.e. S.S.) should be explained. 68.180.38.41 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the article, $5t is the debt held by the public. $9T is the $5T figure plus the intragovernment amount of roughly $4T. Prestonp 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Error

The chart for this page shows total debt as a percentage of GDP, not public debt. The public debt as a percentage of GDP is much lower, around 40%. See http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/debt04b.pdf for some accurate data for both total debt and public debt.

China's Nuclear Option

There is no such thing as "China's Nuclear Option" and it has rightfully been deleted from this article. It is an internet rumour found only on fringe chat boards. There is no article citing this as a real option in reputable media sources.--24.15.249.123 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)JasonW[reply]

I have heard of China using the threat of selling of it's bonds from other author's. It's common sense really. They've paid a lot for that particular stick and it continues to lose value through inflation the longer they hold it and do nothing. Prestonp 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. There is no official campaign of threat of selling bonds and it didn't start in August (The article was published in August), the original writer simply posted it because he read it from that article. Also, it is not described as the "Nuclear Option" in the state media, it was described as that by the author of the article. If you wish to put this in, please rewrite it and discuss the possibilities of China using it's reserves against the U.S., but until then please do not continue to revert this secion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP address (talk) date (UTC)

The article provided is a citiation by a reputable source saying that "Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media,". So, unless you can provide some citations to back up your claims, I don't see why any rewrite is necessary. Prestonp 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-08/13/content_6023228.htm

It has been rebuked by Chinese state media. China has not threatened to sell off dollars and bonds and there is no official campaign to threaten the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.9.134 (talk) 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It also strikes me that the difficulty in such a threat is that if China's holdings are significant enough to be a real risk (and here the TIC data and data on daily Treasuries trading volume are useful), that it would be difficult to unwind a position fast enough to beat the collapse in prices. That is, China could sell part of their position, but in so doing, they would wipe out the remaining value of their portfolio that could not be sold in time. If the collapse does not follow the unwinding of their position, then no real nuclear option existed. In fact, nuclear is a good analogy, since fallout is likely to rain back on the initiator of the action.Vajs 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Essentially US Bonds are not a liquid asset for China and I'm sure they probably realize that just as I'm sure they know that the bonds are not in and of themselves a good investment. However by buying US bonds it drives the dollar up in comparison to the yuan which is part of their whole game plan in terms of trade. If we up and decide we're not trading with them anymore, they really have no need for the things. Prestonp 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, talk about fear mongering to the extreme. If the dollar drops, China could lose trillions in foreign reserve! They will never let that happen. The old saying are still true: "if you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, that's the bank's problem". 24.89.245.62 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CItations

I am currently taking courses in Intermediate Micro and Macro Economics and will add the appropriate textbook citations to whatever area people feel are weak. You can just post it here and not delete them wholesale. Prestonp 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need more students contributing from textbooks or from what they learned in class today. If you can't find sources in reputable mainstream media sources, it doesn't belong on Wiki. --24.15.249.123 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)JasonW[reply]

Jason. First off, you're wrong. College textbooks related to the subject are more authoritative than a main stream article in terms of theory. Secondly, you display really bizarre behavior coming in with a flurry of reference free editorializing and then disappearing for a while refusing to discuss it. Prestonp 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College textbooks are a waste of time and written with a political bias based entirely on theory, not reality. In any event, whatever under-educated teengers in school think, opinions are irrelvant. Cite written sources. Personal opinions are of zero value. No sources, and it will be removed. --Jasoncward 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)JasonW[reply]

Jason, you seem to feel that your opinion needs no citation and is somehow free of bias. You are mistaken. I have reverted your edits and issues a warning. Prestonp 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue all the warnings you want. There are NO OPINIONS in my version of the edit. Your [professor's] opinions, your errors, and your sloppiness belong no where in Wikipedia:

- the idea that social security, medicare, and personal debt should be included in the well-established definition of national debt

- an uncited "intragovernmental debt" figure of 9 trillion in the first week of September

- The "China Nuclear Option" is a complete idiocy which cites a dead link - you learned one day from the same source - your college professor. and this is not a mainstream idea, it is not even part of any rational discussion, and worst of all, IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL and an idea REJECTED by the Chinese government itself

- wording like " Replies to arguments against paying down the debt", which indicates poor written English skills, is a double negative, and is better written as "Reasons to pay down the debt"

- US DEBT IS OVERWHELMINGLY OWNED by Americans, and foreign ownership of US debt is DECLINING, as you are so happy to mention with regards to Japan, China, Kuwait, etc... yet you insist on reverting to your politically spinned phrase that it is "increasingly not true" that Americans owe the debt to themselves.

- The discussion of Sweden, Kuwait, etc... is misleading; no country "abandoned" the dollar, they simply VERY SLIGHTLY reduced their dollar holdings, in the case of Sweden the dollar formerly held 90% of their foreign reserves, and now it holds 85%

If you want to propel your political beliefs given to you by your economics class, kindly build a website. Your personal situation is driving this problem: you discovered economics in a class you're in, you think your professor is a genius, and you feel that you are among a tiny minority who have discovered things no one else in the world knows...in actuality you are merely repeating opinions given to you by others to forward their political beliefs.

This subject is almost purely FACTUAL, any opinions or hypotheticals you want to provide can only be included if they are mainstream, documented by multiple sources, and, most of all, PRESENTED WITH THE OPPOSING VIEW POINT AS WELL. Mainly, the opinions, hypotheticals and the re-definition of 'national debt' belong no where in wiki. But, even though I think most of what you written is 100% POV and original research, we can go line by line through the problems in this discussion. --24.15.249.123 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) JasonW[reply]

Dear Jason, the citation for US debt being $9 Trillion is right here. [[1]] Various world government's abandoning pegging their currency to the US Dollar constitues far more than a "slight reduction in dollar holdings." In response to your criticism of various people posting their political beliefs here, all I can say is that that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I do appreciate that you stopped making a flurry of edits all at once. In response to your idea that the amount of US public debt being held by foriengers is going down, I'd invite you to bring a citation of your own. Prestonp 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

What is the source for the graph on this article? Using the GDP numbers from here, I come up with:

2000: $5,674.2 bil Debt / $9817.0 bil GDP = 54.8%

2006: $8,506.9 bil Debt / $11319.4 bil GDP = 75.2%

This should look more like sudden spike, however the graph shows just a small bumb. What source is the graph using? Neitherday 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the graph can't be sourced, I move that it be removed as possibly misleading. Neitherday 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the graph as misleading and POV. If anyone can explain why it is not, they can always readd it to the page. Neitherday 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neitherday, I'm the one who made that graph. I used those same GDP values from EH.net -- and have now added the source data to the image page. (You're right -- I should have included source data in my first version!) But note that the relevant GDP values must be nominal, not real. Federal debt values are given in nominal values, and must be compared with nominal GDP values. So the value for 2000 is $5,674.2 bil Debt / $9817.0 bil GDP = 54.8% while for 2006 it is $8,506.9 bil Debt / $13194.7 bil GDP = 64.5%. This is exactly what the graph shows. Also, if you have problems with a graph, why not contact the person who made the graph? Let me know if you have any other questions. Citynoise 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Debt Clock

Is it too much to ask for to provide more current stats for the national debt. Just a few hours ago I stood in front of the NYC Debt clock and took a picture valueing the national debt at nearly $8.895 Trillion, with the Family Share at $96,782. That's a large disparity compared to the end-of-2006 stats currently stated. Alan 24.184.184.177 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction of GDP

The statistics presented here need to be put in context of what percentage of GDP a given level of debt in a given year represents. -- Beland 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Percentage of Interest Paid by the National Budget

I would think that the more important figure would be what percentage of the yearly budget is paid to the interest of the national debt.--84.154.94.25 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Jahns[reply]


Table in section 'A brief history of the debt' has unverifiable figures

The table in the section 'A brief history of the debt' provides figures for the US national debt (total = public + government held debt) not only in US dollars, but in Euros and 'ounces of gold.' The figures denominating the US debt into euros and 'ounces' of gold are unreliable and invalid.

The euro numbers are unreliable for two reasons. First, the exchange rate used to convert US dollars to euros is not specified either in the wikipedia entry or on the webpage cited as the source of the exchange rate. Second, the date the exchange rate was valid is not specified. Therefore, the figures denominating the US debt into euros are unverifiable since the rate used for the calculation and the date it was valid are not provided.

Moving onto gold: First, there are several different mass units called an ounce: English units, Imperial units, United States customary units, Troy ounce, etc. The specific ounce being used is not specified and should not be assumed to be the customary Troy ounce. Second, the price of gold relative to the dollar fluctuates daily, and the spot price used to convert between dollars and the aforementioned unknown reference ounces of gold is not given. Third, the date on which the spot price was valid is not given. Therefore, the figures denominating the US debt into 'ounces' of gold are unverifiable since the units and prices used are not provided so the calculation cannot be checked.

This is not a personal attack on whoever put those figures up. Personally, I applaud the thoughtfulness and effort that was put into the work, but without explicitly stating the exchange rates, spot prices, dates and system of measurement used for the calculations the figures produced are meaningless and are not verifiable.

I'm deleting the euro and gold figures for the above reasons. Furthermore the calculations of these figures may be viewed as original research.

Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

consequences of foreign countries owning us debt

This section doesn't explain what the consequences are. It only mentions that foreign countries do indeed own a substantial amount of our debt. Either expand, or change heading. ydesai2008 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]