The majority of people who own American debt are Americans who hold bonds. National bonds are a mutually beneficial financial instrument and not at all the same kind of debt that a normal person deals with.
To be 100% clear: even if the U.S. Federal government had a massive surplus of money in their pockets, they would still probably issue bonds because of how good a deal they are. Why wouldn’t they take money at a stupid-low interest rate from Americans? Is it really better for the country if that money’s just sitting around gathering interest in some wealthy person’s bank account?
The vast majority of bonds aren’t owned by the average US citizen, though
What’s your point? The bourgeois investor class isn’t going to foreclose on the very government which facilitates the status quo, but let’s ignore that for the sake of argument. Please enlighten me of a scenario wherein the wealthy elite somehow sabotage the U.S. Federal government by buying more bonds.
Not to mention what the US budget is primarily diverted towards.
You wanted a justification for taking on debt, that’s what I gave. I don’t know what you expect me to do about a statement that basically boils down to “budget not good”. Government budget allocations & spending are inefficient in absolute terms – big surprise – but what’s your thesis?
Most domestic bond ownership is within the hands of the bourgeoisie, though.
I’m not saying “no country should ever take on any debt.” I’m saying the US debt is excessive, and the money is being wasted on furthering the aims of the bourgeoisie, primarily through funneling that money into continuously arming the military and the police.
Surely this money could at least be used to increase funding for necessary services like education and healthcare, but it’s not.
And “inefficient” is a mild way to put it, especially when looking at the DoD
I don’t disagree with any point you make here, but these are all evils which exist independent of whether they are funded by debt, taxes, or some other alchemy, right? The policies wouldn’t be worth it even if the government got to paid to implement them.
Under a strict definition like “money that you’ve explicitly agreed to repay to a lender in the future”, the answer is simple: “take money without agreeing to repay it” (e.g.: taxes, liquidations, nationalization).
To be fair the web site does a terrible job at presenting the information since it only gives you a couple of of datasets at a time, so the screenshot makes it easier to see the difference. Although I agree that having the link in the URL field and the image on the body would have been better, I guess.
What would have been better is … anything honestly. Any kind of interpretation or findings. Or, if that’s asking too much, even a vague thesis statement.
This is definitional low quality and the OP should be embarrassed by it.
It’s world news to people who know that when the US faces financial trouble some countries get carpet bombed and the rest of us get fucked over in other ways.
If you don’t understand how US national debt going up by a trillion in a month is not world news, don’t really know what else to tell you. I just love how you’re sealioning here trying to act like you have a perfectly valid point to make.
I’ve made it perfectly clear what else you should be saying: literally anything. An interview? An article? A study? Is a screenshot truly the limit of what you can offer us in terms of world news?
I also have a perfectly valid point, and I believe I’ve made it, but since it seems to escape you:
Your submission quality is bad. Do better in the future.
Your only point appears to be that you don’t seem to understand why this is significant. The fact that there is a lively discussion happening with people explaining the significance to you shows that the submission quality is just fine.
None of us have just landed here from outer space. This information means more than just the numbers presented because people who read it know varying degrees of the context. You might, for example, although I wouldn’t understand the motivation, use this new data to re-interpret something that Vaush, if they speak about such topics, has said about political economy.
Why not post that, instead of posting screenshots of numbers and claiming it means whatever you want it to?
You’re saying it as though tremendous amounts of debt have the possibility of being interpreted as a positive thing
The majority of people who own American debt are Americans who hold bonds. National bonds are a mutually beneficial financial instrument and not at all the same kind of debt that a normal person deals with.
To be 100% clear: even if the U.S. Federal government had a massive surplus of money in their pockets, they would still probably issue bonds because of how good a deal they are. Why wouldn’t they take money at a stupid-low interest rate from Americans? Is it really better for the country if that money’s just sitting around gathering interest in some wealthy person’s bank account?
The vast majority of bonds aren’t owned by the average US citizen, though.
Not to mention what the US budget is primarily diverted towards.
What’s your point? The bourgeois investor class isn’t going to foreclose on the very government which facilitates the status quo, but let’s ignore that for the sake of argument. Please enlighten me of a scenario wherein the wealthy elite somehow sabotage the U.S. Federal government by buying more bonds.
You wanted a justification for taking on debt, that’s what I gave. I don’t know what you expect me to do about a statement that basically boils down to “budget not good”. Government budget allocations & spending are inefficient in absolute terms – big surprise – but what’s your thesis?
Most domestic bond ownership is within the hands of the bourgeoisie, though.
I’m not saying “no country should ever take on any debt.” I’m saying the US debt is excessive, and the money is being wasted on furthering the aims of the bourgeoisie, primarily through funneling that money into continuously arming the military and the police.
Surely this money could at least be used to increase funding for necessary services like education and healthcare, but it’s not.
And “inefficient” is a mild way to put it, especially when looking at the DoD
I don’t disagree with any point you make here, but these are all evils which exist independent of whether they are funded by debt, taxes, or some other alchemy, right? The policies wouldn’t be worth it even if the government got to paid to implement them.
Is there a way of getting a surplus without having a debt?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Depends on how you define debt, I suppose?
Under a strict definition like “money that you’ve explicitly agreed to repay to a lender in the future”, the answer is simple: “take money without agreeing to repay it” (e.g.: taxes, liquidations, nationalization).
deleted by creator
Because this is a world news community as opposed to historical literacy community.
In what sense is a screenshot with scribbles on it “world news?”
To be fair the web site does a terrible job at presenting the information since it only gives you a couple of of datasets at a time, so the screenshot makes it easier to see the difference. Although I agree that having the link in the URL field and the image on the body would have been better, I guess.
What would have been better is … anything honestly. Any kind of interpretation or findings. Or, if that’s asking too much, even a vague thesis statement.
This is definitional low quality and the OP should be embarrassed by it.
It’s world news to people who know that when the US faces financial trouble some countries get carpet bombed and the rest of us get fucked over in other ways.
If you don’t understand how US national debt going up by a trillion in a month is not world news, don’t really know what else to tell you. I just love how you’re sealioning here trying to act like you have a perfectly valid point to make.
I’ve made it perfectly clear what else you should be saying: literally anything. An interview? An article? A study? Is a screenshot truly the limit of what you can offer us in terms of world news?
I also have a perfectly valid point, and I believe I’ve made it, but since it seems to escape you:
Your submission quality is bad. Do better in the future.
Your only point appears to be that you don’t seem to understand why this is significant. The fact that there is a lively discussion happening with people explaining the significance to you shows that the submission quality is just fine.
Bro you need to look in the mirror and realize you’re not saying anything substantive besides
None of us have just landed here from outer space. This information means more than just the numbers presented because people who read it know varying degrees of the context. You might, for example, although I wouldn’t understand the motivation, use this new data to re-interpret something that Vaush, if they speak about such topics, has said about political economy.