Is the US GDP an accurate representation of the country's economic health?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Debt
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the accuracy of the US GDP as a representation of the country's economic health, exploring various aspects of national debt, economic theories, and comparisons with other countries. Participants examine the implications of debt, the role of foreign ownership, and the broader economic context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the US national debt is proportionally similar to that of France or Germany and about 50% of Japan's, questioning the negative perception of US debt.
  • Others argue that a mounting deficit with little backing indicates a shift towards a welfare state dominated by wealthy bankers, suggesting a potential economic crash.
  • A participant challenges the credibility of claims regarding economic predictions and the portrayal of the US economy, asking for sources to support various assertions.
  • Some contributions highlight the changing dynamics of global currency standards, mentioning that many nations have shifted their treasury holdings from dollars to euros.
  • Another participant provides statistics comparing the US debt to GDP ratio with other countries, asserting that the original post's claims are correct based on the CIA World Factbook.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of the data being referenced, with some participants questioning the use of outdated figures and the mixing of debt and deficit concepts.
  • There is a mention of the Maastricht norm, which requires EU countries to keep deficits below 3%, with a suggestion that this may not apply consistently to France and Germany.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of US debt, the accuracy of economic data, and the interpretation of economic health. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on the validity of the claims made.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific data sources, which may not be universally accepted or current. There are indications of confusion between debt and deficit figures, and the discussion includes references to various economic theories and perspectives that are not uniformly agreed upon.

  • #31
loseyourname said:
Sure, if the national debt was 230% of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it was 36.5% in 2004.
Our real problem right now is the budget deficit, which has gone (you can see on the same table) from a $128 billion surplus in 2001 to a $412 billion deficit in 2004. A $540 billion swing in three years is an awful lot. Granted, with an $11.5 trillion GDP, that number looks worse than it really is, but government spending clearly needs to be reigned in.

Oh boy, just when I thought I could bluff my way through without attracting any attention...:biggrin: . 230% is a mental note I had of the situation made earlier on. As I have lost track of the supporting evidence now so I went off digging other sources. According to http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm" , the TOTAL US debt stood at 40 TRILLION last year, that's 347% of this year's GDP or annual revenue in my example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
GENIERE said:
Nice start, really bad finish. If your doomsday scenario occurs, will not the economy of other nations be even more negatively affected than that of the US?
What would be the effect on France’s economy, or on the economy of any other nation including China?

We will be all affected to varying degree no doubt, depending on whether we have done enough to offset the effect. If I appeared to suggest that the Chinese arranged the scheme by calculating design, it was not my intention and my applogies. The very smart Japanese was the trailblazers, the Chinese merely followed suit.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Polly said:
Oh boy, just when I thought I could bluff my way through without attracting any attention...:biggrin: . 230% is a mental note I had of the situation made earlier on. As I have lost track of the supporting evidence now so I went off digging other sources. According to http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm" , the TOTAL US debt stood at 40 TRILLION last year, that's 347% of this year's GDP or annual revenue in my example.

Oh come on, Polly, you should know that the total debt doesn't mean a whole lot by itself. The number from the CBO is the public debt, money that the government itself owes, whereas your number (I'm sure know, but to clarify for anyone that does not) is the total debt of all businesses, all households, and the government combined. The problem with using this number as a doomsday prediction is that most of this debt is simply going around in circles. Households owe money to businesses, which in turn owe money to individuals (venture capitalists), other businesses (banks), and the government (fed banks and bonds). The government itself owes a lot of its money to individuals (bonds) and to businesses (private banks). If we're simply going to take the total debt, then we need to distinguish between money the US as whole owes to itself, and money it owes to others (minus what those others owe the US) to get an accurate picture of how much of a problem this actually is.

Just with respect to individual debt, consider the inflation of that number due to people owing mortgage payments. My parents, for instance, still owe well over $100K, which is well in excess of the household income, but that is owed over the course of the next fifteen years, and the number is far less than the income for the household projected over those fifteen years.

You'll notice http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm that, even in the case of the public debt, half of it is simply one government agency being in debt to another.

Unfortunately, I cannot find anything on the total debt of all countries, but I did find this, which indicates Indonesia as being the only country whose external debt was in excess of its GNP, as of 1999. I haven't been able to find a more current version of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
GENIERE said:
Are you offering that as an opinion or as a fact? Why can’t we “keep up the present rate of personel consumption”? What dire consequences await us?

Personel bankruptsy for one.

A great amount of personel consumption is being done on credit. Those little plastic cards have individuals more in debt than ever before in history.

What people consume on credit makes the GDP look better than it actually is.
Another example is the amount Americans spend on medical care. As of 2002 a whopping 14.6 % of our GDP is accredited to what was spent on medical care.

Comparing our GDP to that of many other countries is oranges and apples due to the fact that we spend more on credit and we spend a lot more on medical care. Even the cost of fighting forest fires is added to the GDP.

We ave a lot of "product" that really isn't product.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
8K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K