We Added $2.33 In Debt For Every $1.00 In GDP

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. jem


    And Krugman and Obama and the et leftists want to spend more.
    An additional dollar gets no pop.

    Ricter with due respect... you need to take this fact into your concepts of govt spending.

    In Q2 America Added $2.33 In Debt For Every $1.00 In GDP
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/27/2012 - 10:11
    Gross Domestic Product headlines Lehman
    As noted before, courtesy of the GDP revision, all the kneejerk reactions in the past 3 years to various GDP headlines (preliminary, first and final revisions at that), were all for nothing. In fact, today's GDP number will be revised and re-revised in the next two months, then re-re-re-revised at the annual revisions in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In other words, the number after (and likely before) the decimal comma is irrelevant. One thing however stands, and that is the trendline change in actual GDP compared to the change in debt used to "buy" said GDP. Which is why we present our favorite chart showing how much more total federal debt was added per quarter over the GDP. Bottom line: in Q2, the US added $274.3 billion in debt while adding $117.6 billion in GDP (from the revised data: Q1 GDP of $15,478 billion rising to just $15,595 billion in Q2). Probably what is more indicative, is that in Q2 the delta change between debt and GDP rose from 2.28x in Q1. But that too is largely noise and will be revised. What won't be revised is that over the past two years, the US has added 2.42x more debt than it has added GDP.
  2. Ricter


    *shrug* There's this thing called a recession happening. As a result, revenues are down and expenditures are up. And because this is a balance sheet recession, consumers are holding consumption in check while they deleverage. Under those circumstances the debt to GDP ratio trend is exactly what one would expect.
  3. jem


    and deficit spending is pointless at best and disastrous at worst... its pushing on string.
  4. Ricter


    By the way, there are prominent "rightists" who don't want to cut spending right now, either. At least, not on their pet industries.
  5. So even you admit obama fukked the economy eh?

    Plan on letting him pull an fdr, depression for at least a decade (using global war as solution to unemployment) and screwing up the economy for decades to come?
  6. jem


    Anybody who can't cut spending to balance the budget should be thrown out of office. right left middle, sellout, liar, crooks - lets get them all out of office. Its time to fix the system. Lower taxes, much lower spending.

    We need to un stagnate. State and Federal Govt deficit spending is an anchor around our peoples necks.
  7. Ricter


    We'll balance it, but it won't be today (or tomorrow). The main thing for now is, can we service our debt? The world's investor's are saying, "yes".
  8. I see you are on pcp today, analgesic and hallucinogen.
  9. I guess that he'll just overlook the overwhelming influence of the Federal Reserve on these low rates. Between their direct purchases or the broker-dealers who purchase them, flip them right back to the Fed, etc...

    Only a lemming would believe that these historically low rates were due to overwhelming "investor demand". But as we both know, when it comes to lemming's, Ricter is at the front of the line.
  10. Another aspect of this situation that you are probably overlooking is very simple, yet ultimately devestating. By "pinning" rates at artificially low levels, it actually encouraged MORE treasury borrowing (in a roundabout way, you think this is a good thing). Instead of actually making government spending MORE accountable, it does the reverse. Teaser rates to encourage more fiscal mismanagement, more misallocation, etc, etc...

    All the while your complacency is simply astounding. You would make a very good bureaucrat (i.e. head up his ass, while ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room).
    #10     Jul 27, 2012