pull down to refresh

Given these realities, the only feasible way to reduce the national debt to sustainable levels would be a combination of: Moderate GDP growth (3-4% annually) Sustained budget surpluses (achieved through both spending cuts and revenue increases) Controlled inflation (around 4-5%)
However, this approach faces severe political hurdles. Policymakers are unlikely to agree on the necessary spending cuts, tax hikes, or monetary policy adjustments needed to make this happen. Additionally, these projections do not account for the over $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities the government is committed to paying in the future—mainly through Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.
The belief that the United States can “grow” its way out of debt, as it did after World War II, does not hold up under scrutiny. The economic conditions today are vastly different, and no single factor—be it growth, spending cuts, or inflation—can resolve the debt issue alone. The only realistic path forward would require a politically unpalatable combination of all three. Without serious fiscal reform, the U.S. debt problem is not going away anytime soon, and kicking the can down the road will only make the eventual reckoning more painful.
Another default, albeit a technical one, as in 1790, 1862, 1933, and 1971, seems inevitable.
I think this author has is right, unfortunately. I think there will be some sort of default, but the big question is to whom this default will be placed. We are already considered chattel by the powers that be and the country has been given up in previous defaults, so what more is there to give up, our souls? Perhaps we should just tell all of the debtors to just go to hell and not cough up the collateral? Wait, wait, don’t we owe all that money to ourselves? Somehow I don’t think so. This next default may just hurt a whole lot.
I don't think at this level of debt it is possible.
reply
I think we have enough drunken sailors in our congress to make sure the debt is at impossible levels!! After all, they are spending your and my money, not theirs, so spending is really easy, a trillion here and a trillion there. Pretty soon it may add up!
reply
This is precisely why Bessent is trying to expand the balance sheet (ie. Gold revaluation, SBR, etc).
There are roughly 3 main ways to manage the debt:
  • Fiscal (Increase taxes + Reduce spending and payoff debt)
  • Monetary (print more money)
  • Balance Sheet (increase collateral so your LTV is not so bad)
If your house is worth $300K and you take out a $325K home equity loan, then you have problems....however if your home is revalued to $1M then the $325K home equity loan is ok.
reply
Yes, but the state has other, extra, routes that the commoner does not. I think that they are going to try to inflate out of a huge hunk of it. Actually, I don’t know if it would work because people are on to it, nowadays, and buying things like BTC to escape inflation.
reply
I think that they are going to try to inflate out of a huge hunk of it
The problem they have, to inflate it away they must create more debt, so its an unworkable solution.
The revaluation of gold idea is basically capturing the inflation that has already occurred. For legal reasons, the gold is held in the Treasury account at $42.2222 / oz (this was nominal value in 1971).
So by marking the gold to market, they are "capturing" the inflation that has already happened.
They want to do this not only with gold but also with all other assets that they can put on the books....there was even talk of putting land and national parks on balance sheet, etc.
reply
Yes, I understand that revaluing gold to a higher price is a way to capture the inflation, but then the problem of what is the price to revalue it to. They certainly are not going to leave it to the markets, are they? After all they are the state. I also foresee another problem; rehypothification and whether the gold is there or not. Is all the gold the state claims is there, there? I think the rehypothification problem will be the worst of the problems because there will be no way to tell who really owns that specific gold bar, the treasury or someone else, or many someone elses.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 25 Feb
They certainly are not going to leave it to the markets, are they?
The benefit of that is then their asset floats as they print more money. If they print another $1T then in theory gold price rises and offsets.
I think the rehypothification problem will be the worst of the problems because there will be no way to tell who really owns that specific gold bar
Yes that is a big deal and is of course behind the question of "is Fort Knox empty?"
But yea, thats probably the biggest stumbling block
reply
The rehypothification problem would be the greatest stumbling block to anything they want to do. Just think of how many things have been rehypothified because there is no self-custody of financial instruments!!! How many times have THEY sold each instrument?
reply