What can we learn from past economic collapses to prepare for the future?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cronxeh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential consequences of rising national debt in the United States and its implications for economic stability and societal order. Participants explore historical parallels, possible job survivability in a collapse, and differing views on government fiscal policies. The conversation touches on theoretical and speculative aspects of economic collapse, societal responses, and political critiques.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the U.S. is heading towards an economic collapse similar to past events in Russia, citing rising national debt and inflation as critical factors.
  • Others suggest that the increasing debt is manageable and that the U.S. can create surpluses by cutting military spending and other expenditures.
  • There are claims that certain professions, such as teachers, doctors, and lawyers, would survive an economic collapse, while others speculate about the survival of jobs in farming and engineering.
  • Participants debate the historical context of U.S. economic management, referencing past budget surpluses during the Clinton administration and contrasting them with current fiscal policies.
  • Some argue that the political decisions made by recent administrations have exacerbated the national debt and economic instability.
  • Critiques of political figures, particularly George W. Bush, highlight perceived failures in foreign policy and economic management, with some participants attributing significant negative consequences to his administration.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of population growth on economic stability, with some questioning the relevance of demographic changes to the current debt situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of national debt or the likelihood of an economic collapse. Disagreements persist regarding the effectiveness of government policies and the survivability of various professions in a potential crisis.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying assumptions about economic principles, the lack of consensus on the definitions of terms like "surplus," and differing interpretations of historical events and their relevance to current circumstances.

cronxeh
Gold Member
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
11
I wonder who will be the one who survives the collapse of the government and law n order once the Government debt reaches its tipping point? With raising national debt to both domestic and foreign entities, the US Government will start printing more money and the inflation will take place. As it happens to be so, I was born in Russia in 1984 and I've seen this happen before. With India and China today, I know where the US is heading - an economic collapse so severe, it will be almost overnight.

What kind of jobs will survive? Farming? Engineering? I'd like to know, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there will be the guy with the thumb in his &#*.
and...
oh yeah! looting might see a revival.
 
but, then, you know, only the elitist looters would remain, having looted all the "little guys".

and, maybe, the whole thing will start over again and we'll call it capitalism.
 
cronxeh said:
I wonder who will be the one who survives the collapse of the government and law n order once the Government debt reaches its tipping point? With raising national debt to both domestic and foreign entities, the US Government will start printing more money and the inflation will take place. As it happens to be so, I was born in Russia in 1984 and I've seen this happen before. With India and China today, I know where the US is heading - an economic collapse so severe, it will be almost overnight.
What kind of jobs will survive? Farming? Engineering? I'd like to know, thanks.

What a bright outlook for the world. Just to straighten something up before people begin commiting suicide in light of what appears to be the prophecy of economic annihiliation, the increasing debt is no biggie. The US can create massive surpluses incredibly easily, it can dump stupid ass military projects like star wars, it can butt out of the Middle East and remove its listening posts etc from the face of the Earth and can stop bailing out down the dirt companies.

If an economy collapses, teachers/doctors/lawyers survive
 
NewScientist said:
What a bright outlook for the world. Just to straighten something up before people begin commiting suicide in light of what appears to be the prophecy of economic annihiliation, the increasing debt is no biggie. The US can create massive surpluses incredibly easily, it can dump stupid ass military projects like star wars, it can butt out of the Middle East and remove its listening posts etc from the face of the Earth and can stop bailing out down the dirt companies.
If an economy collapses, teachers/doctors/lawyers survive

Excuse me, Sir/Madam, but you seem to be unaware about a few things:

1. only 50 years ago there were 4 billion people less than today.

2. there is no surplus in the government - each day the United States borrows $3 BILLION just to pay off the interest - not the debt itself.

Edit: I should probably clarify: The US can not create surplus.
 
Last edited:
I'd LOVE you to read what I wrote! I said America CAN create massive surpluses, not that they currently exist.

And why does 4 billion people more make a difference?! Or indeed 50 years?
 
It's remarkable the state of the U.S. national debt which now stands at $8,117,426,006,184. When Clinton was leaving office the budget surpluses he was accumulating had the U.S. on track to eliminate the national debt entirely by the year 2010. This would have saved, due to the reduction of debt servicing, 12 cents in each tax dollar to further reduce taxes or increase services.

He handed over the economy and U.S. society in it's best shape ever. Record surpluses, lowest unemployment in many years with 22 million new jobs created in his 8 year term, education and health improving in leaps and bounds, highest per capita income ever, tremendous respect around the world and all despite the best efforts of the republican congress to sabotage everything he did.

Before leaving office he warned the electorate the neocon republicans would cut the legs off the poor and hand out all the anticipated surpluses plus more in tax cuts to themselves and he was right.

Apart from the top elite 3-5% of the electorate that the republicans actually represents it is beyond me why anybody would vote republican. :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And what has Bush done differently...exactly!
 
reality is a problem for dreamers.

"if i can't have the American Dream, then I'll be damned if Reality doesn't suffer because of it... Vote Republican." :)
 
  • #10
Aside from CIA selling crack cocaine to fund their activities back in the day, and US corporations selling billions of dollars of assault weapons to the Saudi's after the Desert Storm, the Bush dynasty has increased military budget - from 2001 to 2005 the budget rose by 100 Billion dollars annually, among other things.
 
  • #11
Sameandnot - Stop quoting everywhere! It doesn't make you right! Some dumb ass made a game called something like "the road to baghdad" where you rolled dice and got given cards along ther lines of "suicide bombers kills 50 of your men", and you win if you get to the capital with the most men. He defended this atrocious game by saying it was the American Dream.

(I am only remembering something that was broadcast on the BBC1 show 'Have I Got News For You' I do not promise to be exact in my wording but the gist is correct and thus hope I cannot be sued! I also hope somebody will come along with exact references!)

and
cronxeh said:
Aside from CIA selling crack cocaine to fund their activities back in the day, and US corporations selling billions of dollars of assault weapons to the Saudi's after the Desert Storm, the Bush dynasty has increased military budget - from 2001 to 2005 the budget rose by 100 Billion dollars annually, among other things.
Exactly - and the rest !
 
  • #12
plus, he is a dumb-ass. i can't even watch the guy without feeling sorry for him... and the world.
 
  • #13
rrreaow!
 
  • #14
Some achievements of Bush that spring to mind are;

He declared a war on terror and succeeded in changing a small terrorist network with supporters numbered in the 1000s into a formidable international fighting force with supporters now in the millions and all for the paltry sum of several hundred billion dollars of U.S. tax payers money. Way to go! :rolleyes:

He's managed to undo 40 years of hard work the U.S. spent in building an excellent relationship with europe and all in just a few years. Quite an accomplishment.

He has alienated just about every muslim on the planet.

He's now turning his 'charm' on the Chinese with similar effects.

He has managed to eliminate the Clinton budget supluses and run up a record deficit by handing out trillions of dollars in tax cuts mainly to his already extremely rich friends.

He has increased american debt even further by borrowing every cent used to fight his personal crusade in Iraq for which he lied to the american people to gain their support. (This is in addition to the budget deficit as he hasn't funded this through the budget)

He has introduced torture as a 'repectable' means to glean information.

The list just goes on and on... of Bush's 'achievements'
 
  • #15
Art said:
When Clinton was leaving office the budget surpluses he was accumulating had the U.S. on track to eliminate the national debt entirely by the year 2010. This would have saved, due to the reduction of debt servicing, 12 cents in each tax dollar to further reduce taxes or increase services.
He handed over the economy and U.S. society in it's best shape ever.
Well, almost it's best shape ever - it peaked around 6 months before he left office and was in a full-fledged death spiral by the time he actually left. Anyway...

cronxeh, yes, they US has a lot of debt - but have you checked recently the debt to income ratio of most other developed countries? The US's is relatively low. After France collapses into anarchy (full-fledged, not that little riot they just had) and the US comes near where France is economically today, then I'll start worrying.
 
  • #16
Getting slightly off topic but in response to Russ - the French are in political turmoil - they hate Chirac but will not elect Le Penn - the quote from the last election was "elect the crook not the Facist". :P

One must note, thought, that the US and France exist in very different geopolitical spheres and as such they are not comparable. Although the interdependancy of nations and a major dependancy on the US means any slump in America will send major ripples nearly all the way around the world.
 
  • #17
Well about 23 percent is owed to foreign entities, but most of the national debt is to federal reserve and government accounts - about 40 percent, and private pension funds- about 7 percent, and other institutions.
It is interesting to see how the Republicans managed to fund their activities supposedly throughout the years:



And France with their meager 60 million population and $35 billion military budget/year is not really a good example. I'd say whatever bad can happen to them will happen 5 fold to the US if we come anywhere near that economic crunching point
 
  • #18
Interesting chart cronxeh. It highlights the difference in fiscal policy magnificently.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
Well, almost it's best shape ever - it peaked around 6 months before he left office and was in a full-fledged death spiral by the time he actually left. Anyway...
The ecomomy began to slip as Clinton's presidency ended because business people in general and foreign investors in particular were worried about the prospect of a republican president given their previous dire record on controlling spending. The same used to happen in Britain when it appeared a labour gov't was in the offing for the same reasons.
 
  • #20
cronxeh said:
Aside from CIA selling crack cocaine to fund their activities back in the day, and US corporations selling billions of dollars of assault weapons to the Saudi's after the Desert Storm, the Bush dynasty has increased military budget - from 2001 to 2005 the budget rose by 100 Billion dollars annually, among other things.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
I'd just like to point out that the U.S. is not Soviet Russia.
 
  • #22
Futobingoro said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Which page particularly you'd like me to read? If you have something that proves me wrong, make sure you quote it correctly rather than make a troll out of yourself
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
cronxeh said:
Which page particularly you'd like me to read? If you have something that proves me wrong, make sure you quote it correctly rather than make a troll out of yourself
I think he's inadvertantly agreeing with you. Instead of clearing the national debt by 2010 as planned by Clinton according to his document the current gov'ts budget projections says debt will total $11,137,297,000,000 by that date. :rolleyes:
 
  • #24
cronxeh said:
Which page particularly you'd like me to read?
So you haven't studied the US budget.

Apparently one does not need to know anything about the budget to be critical of George Bush's budget policy.
cronxeh said:
the Bush dynasty has increased military budget - from 2001 to 2005 the budget rose by 100 Billion dollars annually, among other things.
Let's take a look at the defense budget from 2001-2005:

2001 - $290 billion (up $9 billion from the year prior)
2002 - $332 billion (up $42 billion)
2003 - $389 billion (up $57 billion)
2004 - $437 billion (up $48 billion)
2005 - $444 billion (up $7 billion)

And for 2006 (projected):

2006 - $426 billion (down $18 billion)

The defense budget increases are not even close to $100 billion annually.
Art said:
I think he's inadvertantly agreeing with you. Instead of clearing the national debt by 2010 as planned by Clinton according to his document the current gov'ts budget projections says debt will total $11,137,297,000,000 by that date.
If the Democrats want a reduction in the deficit, they must agree to cuts in Health and Human Services and Social Security. Trends in HHS and Social Security suggest that these two will become unsustainable. The two departments, according to projections, will account for over $1,500,000,000,000 in 2010.
 
  • #25
I don't think you can throw a deficit sized ball into the hole of a welfare state - citing UK and other nations as examples - a welfare state with a National Health Service and Pensions can work without creating a major deficit.

-NS
 
  • #26
cronxeh said:
And France with their meager 60 million population and $35 billion military budget/year is not really a good example. I'd say whatever bad can happen to them will happen 5 fold to the US if we come anywhere near that economic crunching point
Certainly it would be worse for us (and the rest of the world), but my point was to get you to look up how near we are to that crunching point in relation to another country like France. Ie:

France's debt-to-gdp ratio is 68%.
The US's debt-to-gdp ratio is 24%.

Yes, that's right - the US's national debt would have to more than double for us to be in the same economic predicament France is in.
Art said:
The ecomomy began to slip as Clinton's presidency ended because business people in general and foreign investors in particular were worried about the prospect of a republican president given their previous dire record on controlling spending. The same used to happen in Britain when it appeared a labour gov't was in the offing for the same reasons.
Yes, I've heard that argument before - extrordinary prescience, that the business community knew 6 months before the election that Gore would lose, yet Gore didn't even know until 3 weeks after the election! :rolleyes:

The real truth is that Clinton rode the wave of an internet boom he had little to do with. He rode it up and when the bottom fell out (as it was destined to - the market was overvalued), he rode it down part-way, then handed it to Bush to try to pull it out of the death-spiral.

In addition, the Clintons were lucky that they were a mediocre President: they attempted, and failed, to pass the largest increase in government spending since Social Security. But since he failed, he gets to claim success! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Certainly it would be worse for us (and the rest of the world), but my point was to get you to look up how near we are to that crunching point in relation to another country like France. Ie:
France's debt-to-gdp ratio is 68%.
The US's debt-to-gdp ratio is 24%.
Yes, that's right - the US's national debt would have to more than double for us to be in the same economic predicament France is in. Yes, I've heard that argument before - extrordinary prescience, that the business community knew 6 months before the election that Gore would lose, yet Gore didn't even know until 3 weeks after the election! :rolleyes:
The real truth is that Clinton rode the wave of an internet boom he had little to do with. He rode it up and when the bottom fell out (as it was destined to - the market was overvalued), he rode it down part-way, then handed it to Bush to try to pull it out of the death-spiral.
In addition, the Clintons were lucky that they were a mediocre President: they attempted, and failed, to pass the largest increase in government spending since Social Security. But since he failed, he gets to claim success! :rolleyes:

What you say here is pretty much correct. Clinton can not really be given credit for the boom, or blame for the bust. It is an example of how little effect the president actually has on the economy. Unless, of course, they do something completely stupid, like start an unnecessary war. Bush can and should take full blame for the current situation. In a worst case scenario, the Bushes and their good buddy Ronny Raygun will be seen as the beginning of the end of the American civilization.

We need to keep in mind that at least 3 generations must pass before the true place in history is know for any event or president. The true effect of Reagan and the Bushes will not be know until the adulthood of our grandchildren. All we can do now is express biased opinions.
 
  • #28
That last post was not really much on topic of this thread. I apologize.

I wonder what level of natural disaster will be required to precipitate the decline and fall of the American economy. Perhaps the possible Richter 9 earthquake in the Pacific Northwest could be the trigger. Just imagine Seattle and San Francisco suddenly below sea level, the entire population of the pacific from San Francisco to The Olympic peninsula homeless. All bridges across the Columbia, gone; the Columbia dams, gone; Portland, gone.

Sorry no time to continue, but how could the nation recover from this disaster?
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Yes, I've heard that argument before - extrordinary prescience, that the business community knew 6 months before the election that Gore would lose, yet Gore didn't even know until 3 weeks after the election! :rolleyes:
:confused: Not exactly prescient, just prudent. It's not unusual for people to move out of the market until they see how an event plays out. If you followed the markets even remotely you'd know that.
russ_watters said:
The real truth is that Clinton rode the wave of an internet boom he had little to do with. He rode it up and when the bottom fell out (as it was destined to - the market was overvalued), he rode it down part-way, then handed it to Bush to try to pull it out of the death-spiral.
That's funny I remember you arguing on another thread that the internet boom was only a tiny part of America's economy but now that that no longer fits your argument it has suddenly become the lynch pin of the economy. At least make an effort to be consistent. :rolleyes:
BTW isn't it an amazing coincidence that the economy boomed only throughout his term in office.
russ_watters said:
In addition, the Clintons were lucky that they were a mediocre President: they attempted, and failed, to pass the largest increase in government spending since Social Security. But since he failed, he gets to claim success! :rolleyes:
:smile: :smile: :smile: Sorry but this is just nonsense. Clinton stated from the start he was going to balance the budget, the republicans first tried to stop him by pushing through huge tax decreases for the wealthy which he vetoed (you might remember it closed the gov't down as they tagged them onto the main budget bill). When plan 'A' didn't work they then had the gall to try to make it look like balanced budgets were their idea by trying to push through the balanced budget act. :smile: They really have no shame. BTW I wonder what happened to that policy after they got their republican president in?? :biggrin:

The current deficit is entirely due to the neocons warmongering and the enormous tax decreases for the wealthy. Bush even boasts about his tax reductions being the largest for over 20 years!
 
  • #30
I don't care what anyone's position is on whether Clinton just rode the dot-com bubble or not. (Having said that, I do agree with Integral: the president has very little effect on the economy unless he changes something large, like implementing large tax cuts or going to war.) The truth that cannot be denied is that a) there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office that was going to level our debt, and b) that there is now a sizable budget deficit, mostly due to Bush's tax cuts and war. Instead of tax and spend, we have tax and borrow. Really conservative.

Furthermore, our GDP-to-debt ratio in comparison with France's is completely irrelevant. Our economy is magnitudes larger than theirs, and as such, works completely differently. For one thing, the strength of many smaller nations' currencies depends on the strength of our dollar, which means that if confidence is lost in it, it could have a resounding effect throughout the world, multiplying the effect by several fold. At the same time, France has a much lesser effect on the strength of the Euro.
 

Similar threads

News Is the Ballooning US Debt a Threat to Our Future Economic Situation?
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
13K
News What Happens If the US Hits the Debt Ceiling?
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
News Will a failure to raise the US debt ceiling force a default?
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
News Is The Global Economic Crisis Worse Than Expected?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
News What steps are needed for global economic recovery?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
News Economic/Market Reform: What Should the Rules Be?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News The Future of the US dollar and it's effect on the US economy
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Will China's and India's Economic Growth Transform the Global Economy by 2020?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
News Did the 2008 Financial Crisis Mark the End of Free-Market Economics?
  • · Replies 222 ·
8
Replies
222
Views
36K
News Freedom of speech under attack in SK?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K