Why is America in debt and how can we fix it?

[mr166]

Yes I am sure of that. You can't have bigger government and less government spending both at the same time. Yes you could increase the tax base to make up the difference but that will only slow down the economy even more resulting in less money into government coffers.

 

[phinds]

Yes I am sure of that. You can't have bigger government and less government spending both at the same time. Yes you could increase the tax base to make up the difference but that will only slow down the economy even more resulting in less money into government coffers.

Yes, I agree on that side of your statement, but the other side of your statement expresses a degree of confidence in the states that not every one shares.

 

[mr166]

Well the more local the control the more responsive a governing body can be to local needs. The US was founded on the idea of strong local control and weak central government. The more we have strayed from this the more it has become impossible for an individual to support themselves. Don't get me wrong we need federal laws like pollution control and equal rights but sometimes less is more if you get my drift.

 

[mr166]

A prime example of the is the US Department of Education. Never have we spent so much on primary education and received so little in return.

 

[wvphysicist]

Did you not read post #26 or did you not believe it?

It sounds accurate but when have serious consequences ever been a problem for politicians?

 

[Drakkith]

A number of low-quality, off-the-wall replies have been deleted. I remind all members that normal PF rules still apply here. If you don't know anything about how the economy and national debt works, don't bother posting your 'solution'.

 

[MisterX]

Government debt is incurred as pivotal part of the normal functioning of the U.S. Economy. Material assets are generally increasing (for reasons such as population growth), and if the supply of money is not increased in turn, then eventually deflation related problems are bound to occur.

A pivotal process by which money creation happens is Federal Reserve lends new money to either the US Government or the private member banks. The money is further multiplied greatly using fractional reserve banking. Either way, the functioning of the economy is seemingly dependent on these major institutions incurring forever increasing amounts of debt. The debts will only increase; interests owed back to the Fed really can only be payed by continuing to take out more and more loans*. I believe this is by design. It could continue for many, many years in theory. Foreign governments complicate the picture, but it has been remarked by some that debt owned by other countries is not as big a problem as it might seem, due to the limited options of what to do with their dollars.

It's important to remember that these institutions (the Treasury and the primary banks) have access to "cheap money" at special interest rates well below that which normal person may access. Their debt is not like that of a typical person. There is more to say about this issue, but I thought it was worth chiming in with my understanding present understanding of financial reality in this country increasing US Gov't/member bank debt is almost a mandatory part of or present financial system.

*there are more extraordinary forms perhaps, but I think this is the usual process.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I believe the US will always have debt problems as long as it continues to try to act as the world's policeman. Our defense budget is over $600 billion with China second, estimated to be about 220 billion. I admit to being a bit of a Rand Paul, but from the left side. I'm a veteran and have held these beliefs since the time of my service. While our infrastructure is collapsing, we are waging war in the mideast and facing down two nuclear powers; Russia and China. Once you get into a situation like this, it's hard to get out. I get it. If you look weak, you encourage bad behavior by other powers. If we get out of this without a war, I think we must insist that US's primary interest is to protect its own people The world vilified us for our attempt to stop "communist" expansion in SE Asia. Now we are making nice with Hanoi and they are still "communist". Meanwhile nearly 60,000 soldiers, airman and sailors were killed and several times number that maimed in the Vietnam fiasco. Our deficit will improve when we start spending more money on ourselves, and less on policing the world.

We can reduce our defense expenses by reducing manpower and increasing the development of drones and robots. I think a really effective missile defense is possible. I won't go into detail because the thread is about the US deficit. Right now we spend 3.5% of our GDP on defense. Germany spends 1.1% as Europe's leading economic power. Europe, more than the US, is facing an increasingly aggressive Russia, but the attitude is that it's our problem. The Poles don't trust western Europe to defend them and have recently greatly increased their military spending. Good for them. I've been to Europe many times. They generally regard Americans as uncultured fools if not the real threat to world peace. So let's be be less threatening and less foolish by leaving NATO and telling them to solve their own problems with Russia. Afaik, so far at least, Russia has not laid claim to North Carolina. We don't have to be in NATO to have normal relations with Europe.

Even with reduced defense spending by focusing on the next war, not the last one, we will still have debt. The goal should be, not to eliminate the national debt, but to limit it about 50% of GDP. Even that will take some time. We've run annual surpluses before and can do it again, but not if we insist on being the world's policeman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[Czcibor]

We can reduce our defense expenses by reducing manpower and increasing the development of drones and robots. I think a really effective missile defense is possible.

But you said you wanted to reduce the spending? I mean such shields don't come cheaply...

I won't go into detail because the thread is about the US deficit. Right now we spend 3.5% of our GDP on defense. Germany spends 1.1% as Europe's leading economic power.

I thought that US aim after WW2 was to install as pacifist as possible gov in conquered Axis countries. I consider as a bit funny that you are unhappy that your policy... worked.

Europe, more than the US, is facing an increasingly aggressive Russia, but the attitude is that it's our problem. The Poles don't trust western Europe to defend them and have recently greatly increased their military spending. Good for them. I've been to Europe many times. They generally regard Americans as uncultured fools if not the real threat to world peace. So let's be be less threatening and less foolish by leaving NATO and telling them to solve their own problems with Russia. Afaik, so far at least, Russia has not laid claim to North Carolina. We don't have to be in NATO to have normal relations with Europe.

As Polish - I'd like to mention that we militarily supported USA in Afghanistan, Iraq and let you broke a few human rights concerning interrogating terrorist on our soil (for which my gov was fined by European Court of Justice) for implicit US guaranties.
Are you politely telling us that we're suckers?

 

[PeroK]

Meanwhile nearly 60,000 soldiers, airman and sailors were killed and several times number that maimed in the Vietnam fiasco. Our deficit will improve when we start spending more money on ourselves, and less on policing the world.

That would be US casualties. Not counting the estimated 1.1 million deaths the North Vietnamese suffered.

That's robust policing to say the least.

 

[Czcibor]

That would be US casualties. Not counting the estimated 1.1 million deaths the North Vietnamese suffered.

That's robust policing to say the least.

Such calculation is a bit tricky. How to calculate for example Korea, where similar policy worked, and those from Southern live in 1st world country, while the North live in effectively one big Gulag.

Or should we count only when policy failed, while ignore cases where the same policy worked just fine?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That would be US casualties. Not counting the estimated 1.1 million deaths the North Vietnamese suffered.

That's robust policing to say the least.

Look up your facts before you post!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

47,424 combat deaths, 10,785 non combat deaths, total killed: 58,209; wounded: 153,303; total casualties: 211,454

 

[PeroK]

Look up your facts before you post!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

47,424 combat deaths, 10,785 non combat deaths, total killed: 58,209; wounded: 153,303; total casualties: 211,454

You're still forgetting the casualties on the Vietnamese side. But, I guess, they really don't matter to you, do they?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Keep discussion civil please and on topic to "Why is America in debt and how can we fix it?"

 

[PeterDonis]

A sovereign government has more options: issue more money, and/or devalue the currency.

It's worth noting that this is how the US government has historically dealt with most of its debt, at least since the Federal Reserve was created: it simply inflates it away.

someday you HAVE to pay it back

Not if you inflate it away instead.

 

[Evo]

Keep discussion civil please and on topic to "Why is America in debt and how can we fix it?"

Please everyone stay on topic. Off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[PeterDonis]

Yes, they have this option. However, it acts like a tax on wealth, and so has the same consequences.

The "wealth tax" effect is there, yes, but the actual consequences depend on how you print the money and who you give it to. Right now the Fed's main method of printing money is "quantitative easing", which means allowing banks to lend money (mainly for loans on real estate--not just residential but commercial) that the banks don't actually have--it gets printed on the spot when the loan is created. Technically, the bank does have a reserve requirement, i.e., it has to put up some of its own money before the Fed will print the rest; but for banks in the "upper reserve tranche" (I believe that's the term), which is basically any bank you've ever heard of, the reserve requirement is 3%--i.e., for a $500,000 mortgage, the bank puts up $15,000 and the Fed prints the other $485,000. That's not significantly different from no reserve requirement at all.

So the main beneficiaries of the Fed printing money are: (1) lending banks, who make money through fees on loan origination; (2) investment banks, who make money on the various creative derivatives built on top of the loans; (3) construction companies, who benefit from the increased demand for real estate; (4) realtors, same; (5) owners of real estate who happened to buy in at the right time. The combination of these is probably more than enough to offset the "wealth tax" effect of inflation.

 

[Dotini]

We are in debt, nationally and globally, because we have borrowed more than we can hope to ever pay back. Devaluation of the currency is the obvious fix, though it will be painful for many, and likely be the cause of unintended consequences.

Proposition: If we democratically choose to inflate, then suffer the most terrible of consequences, our actions will have been justified by their well-intentioned motives. Otherwise, progress is impossible.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well the more local the control the more responsive a governing body can be to local needs. ...

Are you familiar with the City of Bell scandal? It seems to contradict your assertion.

In the end, seven Bell city officials, ... were convicted on graft and corruption charges and given sentences ranging from probation to twelve years in prison.​

I suppose, since you used the phrase "can be", your assertion isn't totally wrong.

But to me, the answer as to why we are in debt, is simple: We've elected officials who put us there.
As to why we keep electing these boobs, is somewhat complicated.
And I'm sure we've discussed it before, so I won't go there.

 

[aquitaine]

But to me, the answer as to why we are in debt, is simple: We've elected officials who put us there.
As to why we keep electing these boobs, is somewhat complicated.
And I'm sure we've discussed it before, so I won't go there.

We kind of have ourselves to blame for that one. There are too many who wanted something for nothing, which can last for quite a while until we start running out of other people's money. But now that it's starting to happen it's a question of which promises are we going to keep and break.

 

[OmCheeto]

This combination of following articles reminded me of this thread:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washington-farmers-dumping-unprofitable-apples-061144538.html
Record crop and ports dispute prompt Washington farmers to dump $100 million worth of apples
[May 29, 2015]
...

Today I saw that one of my Facebook friends shared the following:

U.S. Will Start Importing Fresh Apples From China
May 18th, 2015

Now, in the national big picture, $100,000,000 isn't really that big a deal. It's only 31⊄ per American.

But let's say you work all year, save up all your money, through all your money away at the end of the year, and buy everything you need from someone else, on credit.
Sounds like a recipe for debt to me.

Of course, the "discussed before" comment I made on Wednesday, was referring to a grand old thread: "What is wrong with the US economy? Parts 1 & 2"
It's fun to go back:

Post #1, Sept 3, 2006; "Nothing!"
Post #2, Sept 17, 2006; "[Think again]"
Posts #3 through #2254; "Blah blah blah blah blah..."
Post # 2255, Apr 3, 2009; "hmmmm..." {end of discussion}​

And of course, much of the problem can be blamed on inattentive idiots:

Om
Page 41, Sept 8, 2008
I wasn't aware that there was something wrong with the US economy.
Perhaps it is the world economies catching up with ours that makes it look so bad?

 

[SteamKing]

The Apple story is pretty much the same as the Immigration story.

There are a record number of people who are no longer in the work force, because of layoffs, plants moving offshore, whatever.

At the same time, there are some who say we should let as many immigrants as possible into the U.S. because there are all these jobs that "Americans won't do."

Somebody's lying, big time.

 

[gleem]

They won't take some jobs because they are not desirable, they are too hard, or they don't pay enough and are often seasonal. I live in an area that requires a lot of lawn care. We have a large Hispanic (Mexico and Central American) workforce. It hits the high mark in summer when it is very warm (here) . This is not a job most Americans would accept. American in fact never liked agriculturally related jobs that is why we had a migrant work force for decades. I also see crafts persons from central america and china. I have heard that Honduran women where sought after for domestic jobs because they were good workers.

Although companies say that their greatest resource is their workforce it is also their greatest expense. Obviously it is the greatest target for cutting costs. (moving production offshore, automation, using only part-time help or simply selling foreign products.). Even though some manufacturers try to keep jobs in the States they find it difficult to compete with those who use foreign goods. One struggling US furniture company was contacted by a Chinese company who said sell our product and you will make more money. But doing so would put his craftsmen out of a job.

Are we as citizens supporting our own infrastructure? I think not too much. US consumers want cheap products. What is left for US citizen to do? Service jobs: waiting tables, bar tending, domestic services, private trainers, personal shoppers, private tutors, security services, Yacht crew ( David Geffen's 450 ft Yacht "Rising Sun" has a crew of 50- Greed is good), pick your dream job. Health care may be one that will continue to grow and be desirable as we slowly eat and drink ourselves to poor health. Checking the classified in my small local newspaper I estimated that there are at least 40 jobs many in health care and many others requiring experience or specific skills (HVAC, pumbling ...).

Finally how many professionals do we need. computer analysts?, accountants, MBA's, physicists. Well I guess the job market will tell us.

We are producing new products so fast that they hardly hit the market before they are unfashionable or obsolete. To me this is maddening. I hate shopping and therefore I am a poor consumer. It is an economic Bolero and like Bolero the tempo won't (can't) continue forever. When the music stops will there be enough "chair" for everybody?

Sorry about rambling on so.

 

[Vanadium 50]

because there are all these jobs that "Americans won't do."

Anyone who visits Academic/Career Guidance knows that there are jobs that Americans won't do. "I have a bachelor's in physics! I will not sully my hands working in..in...commerce! How dare you even suggest such a vile thing!"

More seriously, the U6 is 10.8%, down from a peak of 17% in 2010. It was that high in 1994, and almost that high in 2004. The U3 rate is 5.5%, which it llast was in 2004, 1988, 1996, 1974 and more. (Of course because the population is increasing, the total number of unemployed is also increasing, but I'm sure that's not what you need) What is new is that white collar workers are starting to show the same job market volatility as blue collar workers did in the past. There are lots of reasons for this. There are jobs, like travel agent, which practically don't exist any more. The are jobs, like insurance appraisers, where technology has dramatically reduced the numbers needed. College degrees, once the ticket into a cushy white collar job, are not as demanding as they were, and employers have responded accordingly. Communications improvements now let many white collar jobs be outsourced. And, as I alluded to above, recent grads are generally fussier about what jobs they won't do - although obviously not to that degree.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, the "discussed before" comment I made on Wednesday, was referring to a grand old thread: "What is wrong with the US economy? Parts 1 & 2"
It's fun to go back:

Post #1, Sept 3, 2006; "Nothing!"
Post #2, Sept 17, 2006; "[Think again]"
Posts #3 through #2254; "Blah blah blah blah blah..."
Post # 2255, Apr 3, 2009; "hmmmm..." {end of discussion}​

The irony of those threads, that when there wasn't much (outwardly, anyway) wrong they are active and when there was much wrong, they died.

 

[OmCheeto]

The irony of those threads, that when there wasn't much (outwardly, anyway) wrong they are active and when there was much wrong, they died.

For the most part, I enjoyed all of those threads, as I was always learning something new, and usually peculiar.

From the "Economic Recovery" thread
June 2009 thru July 2012:

...
Economist = Phrenologist, still stands in my mind.
...

Looking back again, I find it amusing that any of us thought we could predict how it would all shake out, when the Economists didn't seem to have a clue.
It was pure luck, IMHO, as to who was correct back then.

hmmm... I appear to be having a senior moment of nostalgia. Perhaps I should get back to the present.

There are a record number of people who are no longer in the work force, because of layoffs, plants moving offshore, whatever.

Oh. Gleem answered that.

Are we as citizens supporting our own infrastructure? I think not too much. US consumers want cheap products. What is left for US citizen to do? Service jobs: waiting tables, bar tending, domestic services, private trainers, personal shoppers, private tutors, security services,

I guess I have nothing to add, except, whatever happened to the OP? He hasn't been around in over a month.

 

[JonDE]

It's worth noting that this is how the US government has historically dealt with most of its debt, at least since the Federal Reserve was created: it simply inflates it away.

Not if you inflate it away instead.

Doesn't increasing inflation generally lead to an increase in interest rates on government bonds though? For example, if inflation was 6% buying a bond that pays 2% would seem to be a terrible investment, it would seem to be a better investment to buy almost anything else.

As for SS, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that it is even a source of debt or deficit at the moment. From the way I understand that how it works, when SS runs a deficit, intra-governmental bonds (those that are held for SS) are sold to pay for it, since the government would then run a larger deficit, more extra-governmental bonds (not sure that's a term, but I think its obvious what I meant) are sold. Since both are counted towards the total debt, there is no increase in total debt. Its just transferring debt from between the government to outside the government. Of the 16 or so trillion we are in debt, none of it is from social security and can't be until the SS trust fund runs out of bonds, which last estimate I saw, won't be until the 30's. So I don't see it as a viable short term problem or answer.

 

[PeterDonis]

Doesn't increasing inflation generally lead to an increase in interest rates on government bonds though?

Yes, but not nearly enough to compensate for the inflation. In other words, the US government can reduce its debt in real terms by printing more money, even after you allow for the effect that printing the money will have on the interest rate on the debt.

Since both are counted towards the total debt, there is no increase in total debt. Its just transferring debt from between the government to outside the government.

But that makes a big difference. Debt that the US government owes to itself can be handwaved away by politicians--which is, of course, exactly what they have been doing for decades about the fact that the SS trust fund's surplus has been used to finance other government activities. Debt that the US government owes to outside entities has to be taken more seriously--for example, it can cause the US government to want to print more money in order to inflate the debt away, which doesn't happen with debt owed from one part of the US government to another.

 

[JonDE]

Yes, but not nearly enough to compensate for the inflation. In other words, the US government can reduce its debt in real terms by printing more money, even after you allow for the effect that printing the money will have on the interest rate on the debt.

Is there evidence of this though? Looking at it from an investor's perspective, if the interest rate didn't keep up with interest, then it would be less appealing, driving down demand, and driving price up. That and the treasury sells some Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) that are adjusted for inflation, which wpuld completely negate any attempt to inflate away debt, they don't normally sell well because they are considered a bad investment.

But that makes a big difference. Debt that the US government owes to itself can be handwaved away by politicians--which is, of course, exactly what they have been doing for decades about the fact that the SS trust fund's surplus has been used to finance other government activities. Debt that the US government owes to outside entities has to be taken more seriously--for example, it can cause the US government to want to print more money in order to inflate the debt away, which doesn't happen with debt owed from one part of the US government to another.

But I don't hear politicians hand wave this away, in fact the only numbers I ever hear are the total debt number and the total deficit number. Most of us have heard at one point what the deficit is, but can you honestly say you have ever heard of what the deficit is minus the portion owed intragovernmentally?

 

[SteamKing]

Is there evidence of this though? Looking at it from an investor's perspective, if the interest rate didn't keep up with interest, then it would be less appealing, driving down demand, and driving price up. That and the treasury sells some Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) that are adjusted for inflation, which wpuld completely negate any attempt to inflate away debt, they don't normally sell well because they are considered a bad investment.

Some investors look at other things besides interest rates. Investors, above all, want to make sure that if they buy a government bond, the government is going to be there when this bond matures, so they can get their money back, and maybe some interest. You can't say that about Greek government bonds, or the bonds of many other countries around the globe. Even at the abysmally low interest rates which U.S. Treasury bonds are currently fetching, there aren't a lot of investors who would touch a Greek bond, no matter what interest rate is being offered.

It all depends on the amount of TIPS securities sold versus the amount of other types of debt instruments sold by the Treasury. If there is only a small fraction of outstanding debt in TIPS, it doesn't really matter that these bonds are "inflation protected", 'cuz the government just sells that much additional debt down the road, when the bonds are redeemed, to make the bondholder protected against inflation, by the way, which is a number conjured up by the same government selling the TIPS in the first place. IMO, to make the process fair, someone else should decide how much the rate of inflation is than the seller of the bond.

But I don't hear politicians hand wave this away, in fact the only numbers I ever hear are the total debt number and the total deficit number. Most of us have heard at one point what the deficit is, but can you honestly say you have ever heard of what the deficit is minus the portion owed intragovernmentally?

Since when do you expect politicians to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Just because you limit yourself to keeping track of only two numbers, this does not mean that these numbers are the only critical information to be considered. Much additional information can be gleaned from reading all sorts of government reports and white papers prepared by think tanks.

It's in the interest of incumbent politicians not to talk about possible insolvency in government programs like Social Security. If they did that, even low-information voters might get scared and vote for the other guy come the next election.

 

[JonDE]

Some investors look at other things besides interest rates. Investors, above all, want to make sure that if they buy a government bond, the government is going to be there when this bond matures, so they can get their money back, and maybe some interest. You can't say that about Greek government bonds, or the bonds of many other countries around the globe. Even at the abysmally low interest rates which U.S. Treasury bonds are currently fetching, there aren't a lot of investors who would touch a Greek bond, no matter what interest rate is being offered.

But, we are only talking about US treasury bonds here, so in the example the ability of that government to repay is going to be static. The only difference we are talking about here is changing inflation numbers for the same entity. My argument is simply this, rates must increase parallel with inflation, or demand for those bonds will go down, which in turn will drive those same rates back up.

It all depends on the amount of TIPS securities sold versus the amount of other types of debt instruments sold by the Treasury. If there is only a small fraction of outstanding debt in TIPS, it doesn't really matter that these bonds are "inflation protected", 'cuz the government just sells that much additional debt down the road, when the bonds are redeemed, to make the bondholder protected against inflation, by the way, which is a number conjured up by the same government selling the TIPS in the first place. IMO, to make the process fair, someone else should decide how much the rate of inflation is than the seller of the bond.

The rate is for TIPS is just the standard CPI which is used for virtually all government processes and budgets. The point of that part was it being considered a bad investment, which means that the government is not inflating away its debt, otherwise these securities would be better then normal securities.

Since when do you expect politicians to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Just because you limit yourself to keeping track of only two numbers, this does not mean that these numbers are the only critical information to be considered. Much additional information can be gleaned from reading all sorts of government reports and white papers prepared by think tanks.

It's in the interest of incumbent politicians not to talk about possible insolvency in government programs like Social Security. If they did that, even low-information voters might get scared and vote for the other guy come the next election.

Maybe I should have made my point clearer on this part. I was not arguing which is more important, I was simply arguing against PeterDonis`s point that these numbers were being used by politicians to handwave part of the debt away. I was just stating that I don't think they are doing that.

 

[al m]

I've been researching and I am somewhat intrigued by the reasons that I have found. But in all honesty I have little to no idea as to why we are in such a debt. I mean most people would say "Cut the spending" but from what many people tell me, you keep your economy stable by continuing with deficit spending... I don't full grasp the concept but I was wondering if anyone could give me insight on why it's hard to get out of our deficit. What type of actions can our government take to improve our economy? Is deficit spending truly a way to keep a stable economy for the most part?

have not heard anybody mention the rich, the corporations ? their interest and the interest of the nation may not coincide but thru lobbying they get their way

 

[SteamKing]

But, we are only talking about US treasury bonds here, so in the example the ability of that government to repay is going to be static. The only difference we are talking about here is changing inflation numbers for the same entity. My argument is simply this, rates must increase parallel with inflation, or demand for those bonds will go down, which in turn will drive those same rates back up.

But the market for U.S. government bonds is international. Investors the world over keep a keen eye on what policies come gushing forth from Washington. Just ask the Chinese or Japanese about this. Since the Chinese and the Japanese each hold a sizable amount of U.S. debt in their portfolios, if the Chinese or Japanese should indirectly signal that they may not desire to continue purchasing so much U.S. debt in the future, that would send a strong signal to the rest of the financial world that major changes are coming. One way to keep the Chinese, the Japanese, or whoever else might be interested, in continuing to purchase your debt is to increase the interest rate on the bonds being offered, above what only the inflation rate might indicate.

 

[JonDE]

But the market for U.S. government bonds is international. Investors the world over keep a keen eye on what policies come gushing forth from Washington. Just ask the Chinese or Japanese about this. Since the Chinese and the Japanese each hold a sizable amount of U.S. debt in their portfolios, if the Chinese or Japanese should indirectly signal that they may not desire to continue purchasing so much U.S. debt in the future, that would send a strong signal to the rest of the financial world that major changes are coming. One way to keep the Chinese, the Japanese, or whoever else might be interested, in continuing to purchase your debt is to increase the interest rate on the bonds being offered, above what only the inflation rate might indicate.

That only seems to reinforce my point that if inflation goes up, bond rates must go up equally, otherwise the Chinese and Japanese would lose interest. That is to say, if inflation one year is 2% and bonds rates are 4%, then the next year inflation goes up to 4%, then the bond rates must also go up 2% to 6%, otherwise its a worse buy for everyone, including the Chinese and Japanese, as the dollar would be weaker and would buy less of their own currency, in fact it may have to go up even more to account for this, but I'm not sure.

Anyways rather then just argue about it, I've decided to look up the numbers. From this article http://www.crestmontresearch.com/interest-rates/

The fundamental relationship that is widely accepted today–that interest rates, particularly long-term rates, are directly affected by the rate of inflation–was not apparent during the first two-thirds of the past century. This historical reality creates significant implications for the use of historical interest rates prior to the 1960s…or casts doubts as to the relationship between interest rates and inflation.

The graph can be found here http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/i-rate-relationship.pdf
As you can see form the graph, since the 1960s the bond rate has followed the interest rate very closely, I'm going to assume that the reason is had trouble following it in the first part of the century, was due to wildly fluctuating inflation, as you can see from the graph inflation one year went from 15% to -10% the following year. Once inflation because less volatile, the bond rate began to track the interest rate very closely.

 

[OmCheeto]

have not heard anybody mention the rich, the corporations ? their interest and the interest of the nation may not coincide but thru lobbying they get their way

Please don't bother pointing out the elephants in the room. It's been tried before.

 

[SteamKing]

That only seems to reinforce my point that if inflation goes up, bond rates must go up equally, otherwise the Chinese and Japanese would lose interest. That is to say, if inflation one year is 2% and bonds rates are 4%, then the next year inflation goes up to 4%, then the bond rates must also go up 2% to 6%, otherwise its a worse buy for everyone, including the Chinese and Japanese, as the dollar would be weaker and would buy less of their own currency, in fact it may have to go up even more to account for this, but I'm not sure.

Anyways rather then just argue about it, I've decided to look up the numbers. From this article http://www.crestmontresearch.com/interest-rates/

The graph can be found here http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/i-rate-relationship.pdf
As you can see form the graph, since the 1960s the bond rate has followed the interest rate very closely, I'm going to assume that the reason is had trouble following it in the first part of the century, was due to wildly fluctuating inflation, as you can see from the graph inflation one year went from 15% to -10% the following year. Once inflation because less volatile, the bond rate began to track the interest rate very closely.

Which gives current politicians much more incentive to "cook the books" with regard to inflation.

In the 1960s, programs like Social Security were quite solvent, in the fact that the payroll taxes which supported the program were low and there were many more workers paying into the program than people drawing out benefits. The baby boom generation was starting to enter the labor force, generating plenty of taxes, and government spending was relatively well managed. Heck, in 1969, the budget showed a small surplus, something which would not occur again for almost 30 years.

In recent years, government spending has not been well managed at all. For the current decade to date, out of every $3 spend by the government, $1 was borrowed, and this is a severe problem when budgets are running at about $3.5 trillion annually. The cumulative debt curve starts to turn upward quite noticeably, and even the dimmest politician knows that if something isn't done, then more of the budget must be devoted to debt service and less will be available for spending on various other programs. Up to now, surpluses amassed by Social Security have lessened the impact of huge annual deficits, but eventually, theses accumulated surpluses will be exhausted, and the difference between payroll taxes collected and benefits going out will hit the budget with a resounding thud. The government will either have to sell more debt to service current and future beneficiaries or cut benefits, the politicians having shown no great desire to implement any reforms to the system. It's not just SS, but with people living longer, Medicare will also become a huge line item in the annual budget, as the number of people working and paying taxes will not be sufficient to sustain the program.

In the past decade or so, we have been assured by Washington that inflation is not a problem, and, of course, a handy set of numbers with an official stamp was provided which supported this claim. However, the increase in food prices and fuel prices, some of which is due to various policy positions instigated in Washington, are not included in the calculation of the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation which is reported is what the government tells everyone it is, but your wallet gets much lighter because you cannot ignore paying more for food and energy. The government has a huge incentive to minimize the rate of inflation, not least because it would increase the cost of borrowing to cover the huge accumulated debt.

Things may not unwind as quickly and as dramatically in the U.S. as they have in Greece in recent months, but the current course is not sustainable. In the next 15 years or so, the last of the baby boomers will have retired, but the young people coming into the work force today may not be able to make up for the loss of the boomers, seeing that many young people are drowning in massive debt incurred by taking out student loans. That little drama hasn't fully played out yet.

 

[JonDE]

Which gives current politicians much more incentive to "cook the books" with regard to inflation.

In the 1960s, programs like Social Security were quite solvent, in the fact that the payroll taxes which supported the program were low and there were many more workers paying into the program than people drawing out benefits. The baby boom generation was starting to enter the labor force, generating plenty of taxes, and government spending was relatively well managed. Heck, in 1969, the budget showed a small surplus, something which would not occur again for almost 30 years.

In recent years, government spending has not been well managed at all. For the current decade to date, out of every $3 spend by the government, $1 was borrowed, and this is a severe problem when budgets are running at about $3.5 trillion annually. The cumulative debt curve starts to turn upward quite noticeably, and even the dimmest politician knows that if something isn't done, then more of the budget must be devoted to debt service and less will be available for spending on various other programs. Up to now, surpluses amassed by Social Security have lessened the impact of huge annual deficits, but eventually, theses accumulated surpluses will be exhausted, and the difference between payroll taxes collected and benefits going out will hit the budget with a resounding thud. The government will either have to sell more debt to service current and future beneficiaries or cut benefits, the politicians having shown no great desire to implement any reforms to the system. It's not just SS, but with people living longer, Medicare will also become a huge line item in the annual budget, as the number of people working and paying taxes will not be sufficient to sustain the program.

I don't disagree with any of this.

In the past decade or so, we have been assured by Washington that inflation is not a problem, and, of course, a handy set of numbers with an official stamp was provided which supported this claim. However, the increase in food prices and fuel prices, some of which is due to various policy positions instigated in Washington, are not included in the calculation of the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation which is reported is what the government tells everyone it is, but your wallet gets much lighter because you cannot ignore paying more for food and energy. The government has a huge incentive to minimize the rate of inflation, not least because it would increase the cost of borrowing to cover the huge accumulated debt.

This is both correct and incorrect. Core inflation does not include food and fuel prices, CPI does. I'm also not sure how they are "cooking the books", since as far as I can tell CPI calculations have not changed since 1983.

Things may not unwind as quickly and as dramatically in the U.S. as they have in Greece in recent months, but the current course is not sustainable. In the next 15 years or so, the last of the baby boomers will have retired, but the young people coming into the work force today may not be able to make up for the loss of the boomers, seeing that many young people are drowning in massive debt incurred by taking out student loans. That little drama hasn't fully played out yet.

While I'm not arguing that SS needs to be fixed/adjusted in some way long term, I'm simply stating that it is not a short term problem. SS is projected to run a surplus through 2021, which is 6 years in the future, and won't exhaust its trust fund until 2033 (these numbers are from Wikipedia, so they may not be 100% accurate, or up to date).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
I just don't understand why, in a conversation about how to reduce the debt, the one area a lot of people are focusing on, is the one area of the government that is running a surplus at the moment. That seems backwards. Yes SS needs to be adjusted in the future, but really not before 2021, but definitely before 2033. To be on the safe side and because I don't really want to look up the numbers, I'll agree that changes should be instituted for fiscal year 2022.
To get back on topic, I don't think we can or should put off making changes until 2022. Something should be done before that time, which is what my point is, SS is not the pressing issue, with regards to the debt.

 

[Czcibor]

In the past decade or so, we have been assured by Washington that inflation is not a problem, and, of course, a handy set of numbers with an official stamp was provided which supported this claim. However, the increase in food prices and fuel prices, some of which is due to various policy positions instigated in Washington, are not included in the calculation of the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation which is reported is what the government tells everyone it is, but your wallet gets much lighter because you cannot ignore paying more for food and energy. The government has a huge incentive to minimize the rate of inflation, not least because it would increase the cost of borrowing to cover the huge accumulated debt.

Reality check: you wrote it when the oil was actually cheaper than usual, so all good rant was unfortunately wasted.

In my country the central bank publishes both inflation rate and inflation rate after excluding food and energy prices. The logic behind is that such prices swing (in case of food also seasonally) so may make mask any long term trends.

 

[russ_watters]

While I'm not arguing that SS needs to be fixed/adjusted in some way long term, I'm simply stating that it is not a short term problem. SS is projected to run a surplus through 2021, which is 6 years in the future, and won't exhaust its trust fund until 2033 (these numbers are from Wikipedia, so they may not be 100% accurate, or up to date).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
I just don't understand why, in a conversation about how to reduce the debt, the one area a lot of people are focusing on, is the one area of the government that is running a surplus at the moment. That seems backwards. Yes SS needs to be adjusted in the future, but really not before 2021, but definitely before 2033.

First a clarification which I'm only 75% certain of, so please correct me if I'm wrong: Currently, the running "surplus" is based on interest on the Trust Fund's "investments", which are in government bonds. So the "surplus" is still adding to government debt.

Anway:
I don't understand this mentality at all. Even if you don't recognize that SS is an ongoing economic disaster (more on that later), when is it ever better to let a known problem get much, much worse before fixing it? It just makes it tougher/more painful to fix. Brakes are squealing? Tire pressure low? Meh - let's wait until we get into an accident before fixing it!

But more to my main point, it seems to me like people are getting distracted by the insolvency date into not dealing with the reality that it's a terrible program to begin with. As it stands today (if we assume a magically stable status quo even after 2033), SS will return people a sum roughly equal to what they paid into it. That's not just a bad deal, that's a disaster. People talked about how bad it was when they lost half their life savings in the 2000 stock market crash: this is both twice as deep* and unlike the crashes it is actually real and not just a temporary paper loss (if you include the preceding decade of gains, people came out ahead from the tech bubble, not behind).

Even worse, unlike the crash of 2000, this disaster happens bi-weekly. Every two weeks, you get a paycheck that has 12% taken out, with the "promise" that it acts like only 3% was taken out. The other 9% is effectively lost. For someone who makes $48,000 a year, that's $170 per paycheck that gets wasted. This lost 9% (9%!) has a crusing effect on our economy.

*The 75% loss is based on a reasonably returning retirement investment fund that should provide you back in retirement at least 4x what you put into it, after inflation.

 

[JonDE]

First a clarification which I'm only 75% certain of, so please correct me if I'm wrong: Currently, the running "surplus" is based on interest on the Trust Fund's "investments", which are in government bonds. So the "surplus" is still adding to government debt.

From what I understand, you are correct, but it runs contrary to intuition. The only way to decrease what is paid into interest in the trust fund, is to decrease how many bonds the trust fund owns. To do this, SS must run a deficit. I think a lot of people are confusing this, because there is a natural intuition to tie what SS owes in future payments, to the trust fund, but they are not connected. Its better if the bonds are thought of as an accounting effort. If SS runs a surplus, the treasury owns more bonds, an interest paid on those bonds goes up. But this cannot effect the total debt because the same amount that the trust fund receives in bonds, is the same amount that the general fund gets in cash, so its a wash.

Anway:
I don't understand this mentality at all. Even if you don't recognize that SS is an ongoing economic disaster (more on that later), when is it ever better to let a known problem get much, much worse before fixing it? It just makes it tougher/more painful to fix. Brakes are squealing? Tire pressure low? Meh - let's wait until we get into an accident before fixing it!

I guess this is where we differ on opinion. I don't see the brakes squealing yet. I see the brakes squealing when it stops running a surplus, and completely failing sometime in 2033.

But more to my main point, it seems to me like people are getting distracted by the insolvency date into not dealing with the reality that it's a terrible program to begin with. As it stands today (if we assume a magically stable status quo even after 2033), SS will return people a sum roughly equal to what they paid into it. That's not just a bad deal, that's a disaster. People talked about how bad it was when they lost half their life savings in the 2000 stock market crash: this is both twice as deep* and unlike the crashes it is actually real and not just a temporary paper loss (if you include the preceding decade of gains, people came out ahead from the tech bubble, not behind).

Even worse, unlike the crash of 2000, this disaster happens bi-weekly. Every two weeks, you get a paycheck that has 12% taken out, with the "promise" that it acts like only 3% was taken out. The other 9% is effectively lost. For someone who makes $48,000 a year, that's $170 per paycheck that gets wasted. This lost 9% (9%!) has a crusing effect on our economy.

*The 75% loss is based on a reasonably returning retirement investment fund that should provide you back in retirement at least 4x what you put into it, after inflation.

It seems like here that you are pushing for privatized SS accounts. Personally I am not against them, I think it would be a great idea, and I can't even argue that they would/should pay out more to retirees. But, that is not what this thread is about, what this thread is about is way to lower the debt. Privatizing SS would have the opposite effect here that we are looking for, in that regard.

And that doesn't even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-01-23/social-security

The main problem with transitioning, is the same reason many people don't like it. It acts similarly to a pyramid scheme, in that it requires more people paying in, then there are collecting. This is not a problem with the bonds alone, it is a problem of SS not running a true surplus. That is to say that the surplus of what has been paid in minus what has been paid out is less then what current workers have paid in. I'm still not sure I'm being 100% clear, so I will further simplify, that is to say that not 100% of what you have paid in has gone into the trust fund, some of it has gone to older generations, to the tune of 1-2 trillion dollars.

So to implement privatized SS they would first have to sell the $2.7 trillion held by the trust fund to the general public, then they would have to sell an additional $1-2 trillion. I have doubts that they would even be able to sell that many securities short term. Even if they were able to, it runs the risk of raising interest rates on bonds, further increasing the federal debt.

Once again, I'm not saying privatized SS is a bad idea, I'm simply saying, its a bad idea with regards to this thread, which is about minimizing debt.

 

[Czcibor]

But more to my main point, it seems to me like people are getting distracted by the insolvency date into not dealing with the reality that it's a terrible program to begin with. As it stands today (if we assume a magically stable status quo even after 2033), SS will return people a sum roughly equal to what they paid into it. That's not just a bad deal, that's a disaster. People talked about how bad it was when they lost half their life savings in the 2000 stock market crash: this is both twice as deep* and unlike the crashes it is actually real and not just a temporary paper loss (if you include the preceding decade of gains, people came out ahead from the tech bubble, not behind).

Even worse, unlike the crash of 2000, this disaster happens bi-weekly. Every two weeks, you get a paycheck that has 12% taken out, with the "promise" that it acts like only 3% was taken out. The other 9% is effectively lost. For someone who makes $48,000 a year, that's $170 per paycheck that gets wasted. This lost 9% (9%!) has a crusing effect on our economy.

*The 75% loss is based on a reasonably returning retirement investment fund that should provide you back in retirement at least 4x what you put into it, after inflation.

I consider your statement here as a bit misleading. For example like assessing social security program in comparison to retirement investment through investment funds. Like claiming that a car don't fly well. (which is actually correct...)
-As far as I remember the program was intended as fully funded, then somewhere around the Great Depression, it was drained to provide some money to old people right away and turned into more flow through program. (good idea at that time? ;) )
-such programs are intended to have moderately redistributive function (if someone puts a lot into it, that's the point that he gets poor return on investment, the unfortunates are intended to have a very good one)

And the best part - nowadays there is not much choice. There are small assets, big liabilities and implicit assumption that system would be financed by next generations. The "good" program, presumably, except from redistributive function would invest something into stock exchange. But to get to such program you'd have to somehow pay this implicit debt (I don't know what are guesses for USA, for my country somewhere around 3 times annual GDP). From an extra tax? ;) Or maybe you'd start a 100 year plan to pay off such debt? You'd just spread the pain among generations through depressing investment return on social security contributions. If I would think about going to a "good" program that would be the only idea, that I would consider as not doomed... but you expressed your outrage at low returns.

 

[russ_watters]

From what I understand, you are correct, but it runs contrary to intuition. The only way to decrease what is paid into interest in the trust fund, is to decrease how many bonds the trust fund owns. To do this, SS must run a deficit. I think a lot of people are confusing this, because there is a natural intuition to tie what SS owes in future payments, to the trust fund, but they are not connected. Its better if the bonds are thought of as an accounting effort. If SS runs a surplus, the treasury owns more bonds, an interest paid on those bonds goes up. But this cannot effect the total debt because the same amount that the trust fund receives in bonds, is the same amount that the general fund gets in cash, so its a wash.

I think we're in agreement there (though later, you seem to contradict it...), so my point in that first part was - in response to your confusion as to why people would focus on Social Security - that the current trust fund's interest-only surplus and the national budget debt are in fact linked. When you combine them, the net is not a surplus, it is a deficit. That's why when you said:

I just don't understand why, in a conversation about how to reduce the debt, the the one area a lot of people are focusing on, is the one area of the covernment that is running a surplus at the moment...
[and]
I see the brakes squealing when it stops running a surplus...

...that implies the SS "surplus" it is helping close the budget deficit when in fact it is worsening the decifit. Because the "surplus" is below the interest rate, the "surplus" is increasing the net government debt.

So at the very worst, we're talking about exactly the same problem, but looking at fixing at least some of it from different sides.

Then:

But, that is not what this thread is about [privatizing SS], what this thread is about is way to lower the debt.

Since SS is today a part of the debt problem and will in the future become a much larger part of the debt problem, any discussion of any changes to SS for any reason are a relevant part of that discussion. Frankly, it is disturbing to me that people want to compartmentalize and ignore the SS issue for what seems to me like very weak reasons.

And, of course, once on the table, it is best to talk about what fixes would be best both for the debt and for the citizens' retirement well-being.

It seems like here that you are pushing for privatized SS accounts.

Just like trust fund vs general fund is a totally meaningless distinction, so too is "private" vs "public" for what to call the accounts. What matters is what happens in the accounts. IE:

Privatizing SS would have the opposite effect here that we are looking for, in that regard.

Whether any plan of any type would increase or decrease the debt depends entirely on the details of the plan. I would, of course, only support a plan that caused a long-term reduction in federal budget debt and increase in retirement savings ROI for Americans.

And that doesn't even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-01-23/social-security

The rest of that paragraph:

Are private accounts really a good idea? The short answer is, they could be -- but only if Americans are willing to wait several generations for the higher returns to make up for Social Security's expected shortfall. The gap is so large -- $3.7 trillion in today's dollars -- that even if the stock market matched its historical average, private accounts wouldn't fill the gap for something like 90 to 100 years.

So that would be painful, right? So does that make private accounts a bad deal? No. What people need to recognize/accept is that we are already in pain and it is going to get much, much worse. Yes, there is going to be even more short term pain. Surgery hurts, but we need to remove the bullet to stop the problem from continuing to get worse and worse. We're going to have to make up those trillions in shortfalls one way or another and it would be better to do it with a program that can actually work instead of just making the problem worse and worse and worse until it consumes all of the money in the economy and destroys us all (at least those of us who are still alive when it collapses).

Remember: SS currently outlays $750 billion a year. If we lose 25% because we did nothing (the current plan), that's a loss of $187 billion a year (at today's outlay rate). That means the $1-$2 trillion transition cost is recovered in 5-10 years by fixing the program. Frankly, I don't see a 10 year transition period before pain turns to gain to be a huge hurdle.

Note also: those numbers are specific to Bush's program and would not necessarily be the same for other proposals. In particular, the percentage is only 1/3 of the 12%, up to $1000 per year. That's a tiny fraction of the money flowing into the program. Even a median income earner pays-in $6,000 per year, so that's only 1/6th of their current pay-in and less than 1/12th for someone at the max. In short, that's way too small of an effort.

The main problem with transitioning, is the same reason many people don't like it. It acts similarly to a pyramid scheme, in that it requires more people paying in, then there are collecting.

That's only during the transition itself and only insofar as the transition doesn't instantly fix that flaw. The way you say it, the transition creates the flaw, but no, the flaw is already there. By definition, a "transition" is the time it takes to eliminate the flaw: After the transition, that flaw in the program would go away. That would be the primary point of doing the transition - to eliminate the current pyramid-scheme structure. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. What you are suggesting sounds like saying you wouldn't get surgery because the pain won't go away instantly and it will hurt to pull the band-aid off the incision after it heals!

 

[russ_watters]

I consider your statement here as a bit misleading. For example like assessing social security program in comparison to retirement investment through investment funds. Like claiming that a car don't fly well. (which is actually correct...)

That's actually a great analogy, but for both I think you are viewing the issue to narrowly: why limit the discussion to driving characteristics when flying might be better? In other words, why does it matter that SS is functioning as originally intended if the way it was intended/functioning is bad? Why drive when you can fly?

-As far as I remember the program was intended as fully funded, then somewhere around the Great Depression, it was drained to provide some money to old people right away and turned into more flow through program. (good idea at that time? ;) )

SS was always intened as a flow-through program (a pyramid scheme). But regardless of when it happened, it happened and the economics have been getting progressively worse and worse over time as the pyramid has narrowed. It actually was a good deal for people who died 50 years ago: all pyramid schemes are good for early adopters and screw-over people coming later. The impossibly great returns for early adopters are a key selling point and helped FDR immensely in getting it passed. And hey, as long as the only people who suffer were their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, everyone relevant was happy.

-such programs are intended to have moderately redistributive function (if someone puts a lot into it, that's the point that he gets poor return on investment, the unfortunates are intended to have a very good one)

Re-distributive effects (not to mention funding other currently included programs) would certainly still be included in any replacement program.

And the best part - nowadays there is not much choice.

On the contrary: right now, there are only two choices:
1. Do nothing and the benefits get cut by 25% in the early 2030s (it is required by law that the program not be in debt, so the benefits will adjust automatically).
2. Do something to fix it.

Keeping the status quo of the program simply is not an option. Just like that crashing plane, you can't keep riding it after it hits the ground. The situation will change one way or the other.

The "good" program, presumably, except from redistributive function would invest something into stock exchange. But to get to such program you'd have to somehow pay this implicit debt (I don't know what are guesses for USA, for my country somewhere around 3 times annual GDP). From an extra tax? ;) Or maybe you'd start a 100 year plan to pay off such debt? You'd just spread the pain among generations through depressing investment return on social security contributions. If I would think about going to a "good" program that would be the only idea, that I would consider as not doomed... but you expressed your outrage at low returns.

Yes, that is what I'd like to see happen. And yes, that would mean - like a heavily loaded mutual fund - the returns would be limited until the program phases-itself out (essentially, when everyone currently paying-into it is dead, in about 80 years). But at least the program as a whole, would switch from a negative return "investment" to a high return "investment", instantly -- even if I only got to keep part of that return.

Let me say that another way: pretty much any such plan change would provide a benefit to everyone, vs the status quo, which is currently guaranteed to get even 25% worse than it is today.

 

[Czcibor]

SS was always intened as a flow-through program (a pyramid scheme). But regardless of when it happened, it happened and the economics have been getting progressively worse and worse over time as the pyramid has narrowed. It actually was a good deal for people who died 50 years ago: all pyramid schemes are good for early adopters and screw-over people coming later. The impossibly great returns for early adopters are a key selling point and helped FDR immensely in getting it passed. And hey, as long as the only people who suffer were their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, everyone relevant was happy.

I'd rather see it in line of system that

Re-distributive effects (not to mention funding other currently included programs) would certainly still be included in any replacement program.

OK, but if you cut a chunk to finance ex. spouse benefit, then the return from the remaining part would have problems to match any portfolio which started uncut.

On the contrary: right now, there are only two choices:
1. Do nothing and the benefits get cut by 25% in the early 2030s (it is required by law that the program not be in debt, so the benefits will adjust automatically).
2. Do something to fix it.

Keeping the status quo of the program simply is not an option. Just like that crashing plane, you can't keep riding it after it hits the ground. The situation will change one way or the other.

Yes, that is what I'd like to see happen. And yes, that would mean - like a heavily loaded mutual fund - the returns would be limited until the program phases-itself out (essentially, when everyone currently paying-into it is dead, in about 80 years). But at least the program as a whole, would switch from a negative return "investment" to a high return "investment", instantly -- even if I only got to keep part of that return.

Let me say that another way: pretty much any such plan change would provide a benefit to everyone, vs the status quo, which is currently guaranteed to get even 25% worse than it is today.

I do not get you.

If I was asked to phase out such program, I'd guess that it would mean ex. benefits cut of 33% right now (guess number, insert any ultra painful slash, much bigger than 25% you mentioned). Then indeed the program would not only finance itself but give a chance to pay back whole pyramid. But your idea involves creating a sovereign wealth fund?

Benefit to everyone? Not specially. You can either:
a) make a big slashing right now (which would s**** contemporary retires and those who would retire soon)
b) do nothing and s**** those retiring around 2030 or at that time drastically raise taxes thus s**** those being taxpayers at that time
c) spread the moderate pain all over a few generations to have this system more or less balanced (more or less reasonable idea, but you'd have to fight fierce resistance of baby boomers, who can try to delay any painful reforms until they are dead)
d) spread high pain all over a few generations to have the system paid back around ex. 2100. Sounds good, but it would benefit everyone... born in next century... hopefully... if such reforms are not reversed somewhere on the way by a wave of populism in ex. 2050

 

[JonDE]

I think we're in agreement there (though later, you seem to contradict it...), so my point in that first part was - in response to your confusion as to why people would focus on Social Security - that the current trust fund's interest-only surplus and the national budget debt are in fact linked. When you combine them, the net is not a surplus, it is a deficit. That's why when you said:

...that implies the SS "surplus" it is helping close the budget deficit when in fact it is worsening the decifit. Because the "surplus" is below the interest rate, the "surplus" is increasing the net government debt.

No this is wrong because the total debt of the country would be exactly the same whether or not SS had ever been created. Instead of that debt being paid to SS in the form of securities, it would have been borrowed from the public, with at least the same amount of interest, if not higher. The only way I can really explain this is to think of SS as a separate entity completely. In this scenario the federal government (without SS) has run a cumulative debt of almost 18 trillion. This federal government then found a great buyer for its debt in the name of the bank of SS, who agreed to buy 2.7 trillion worth of its debt. Either way, the federal government is paying interest on nearly 18 trillion, whether it is paying it to SS or to the public doesn't really matter. The only difference is, that SS is a guaranteed buyer, which should push interest rates lower, decreasing the federal debt.

Then:

Since SS is today a part of the debt problem and will in the future become a much larger part of the debt problem, any discussion of any changes to SS for any reason are a relevant part of that discussion. Frankly, it is disturbing to me that people want to compartmentalize and ignore the SS issue for what seems to me like very weak reasons.

And, of course, once on the table, it is best to talk about what fixes would be best both for the debt and for the citizens' retirement well-being.

Just like trust fund vs general fund is a totally meaningless distinction, so too is "private" vs "public" for what to call the accounts. What matters is what happens in the accounts. IE:

Whether any plan of any type would increase or decrease the debt depends entirely on the details of the plan. I would, of course, only support a plan that caused a long-term reduction in federal budget debt and increase in retirement savings ROI for Americans.

The rest of that paragraph:

So that would be painful, right? So does that make private accounts a bad deal? No. What people need to recognize/accept is that we are already in pain and it is going to get much, much worse. Yes, there is going to be even more short term pain. Surgery hurts, but we need to remove the bullet to stop the problem from continuing to get worse and worse. We're going to have to make up those trillions in shortfalls one way or another and it would be better to do it with a program that can actually work instead of just making the problem worse and worse and worse until it consumes all of the money in the economy and destroys us all (at least those of us who are still alive when it collapses).

From more of the article

It also slashes the future growth of Social Security benefits to wipe out the shortfall -- relying on the accounts to make up what amounts to only a portion of the difference. Indeed, today's 20-year-olds would see their promised benefit cut nearly in half, leaving them a check equal to just 15% of their annual income when they retire.

So it will be debt neutral in 100 years, and in the meantime, everyone gets screwed, with the young people today getting only half of what they would otherwise get? Even with the problems SS has, its gap is only 25% which is not "nearly half".

Remember: SS currently outlays $750 billion a year. If we lose 25% because we did nothing (the current plan), that's a loss of $187 billion a year (at today's outlay rate). That means the $1-$2 trillion transition cost is recovered in 5-10 years by fixing the program. Frankly, I don't see a 10 year transition period before pain turns to gain to be a huge hurdle.

The numbers don't seem to be adding up. I think its partly because I misread the article originally. The shortfall is apparently 3.7 trillion, and the 1-2 trillion is the transition costs. That still doesn't explain the discrepancy though. Maybe because the article is 10 years old might explain part of it, so these numbers need to be adjusted for inflation. The author was saying 90-100 years not including transition costs, which is much different then the 5-10 years you are talking about.

 

[AgentSmith]

A sovereign government has more options: issue more money, and/or devalue the currency.

Both of those options are just ways to borrow money.
There is nothing arcane about the answer to the question. You live within your means. Some years a government may spend a little more, others a little less, than income.
Cases in point is Greece, and Puerto Rico.

 

[mheslep]

When a government (or a person) has a deficit, they have three ways to get out of it - increase revenues (i.e. taxes), decrease spending, or borrow to make up the difference. In recent years, the most politically acceptable of the three has been to borrow. This works until lenders no longer want to loan you any more money.

Or, inflate the currency which devalues the debt. Also destroys individual savings.

 

[PeterDonis]

Both of those options are just ways to borrow money.

In the sense that they take away purchasing power from present holders of money, and transfer it to someone else, yes, they are like borrowing money. But actual borrowing of money creates explicit debt which has to be paid back. Printing new money or devaluing the currency does not; the people whose purchasing power gets taken by these means have no way of getting it paid back.

 

[BWV]

It is not possible to pay off the US debt and trying to do so is folly. Just get the deficit comfortably below nominal GDP growth, preferable with small surpluses during good years.​

 

[Hornbein]

People like free money more than they dislike devaluation of the currency.

Money is created by the government going into debt. It isn't practical to pay off the debt completely. Andrew Jackson's administration did it. It caused a financial crisis because there wasn't enough money.

North Korea is the only country with almost no national debt.

BUT 20 trillion in debt does seem excessive. What are they going to do if interest rates go back up to 10%?