Just How Large Is America's Public Debt?

By James Kostohryz Feb 24, 2010 9:15 am
The answer may shock you.
  • Share this article:


Drama sells. And when it comes to the merchants of doom who make a living off of selling alarmist tales about the American apocalypse, the bigger the number cited for the US public debt, the better.

How else can you sell the idea of a “debt bomb” to scare people into participating in schemes to “invest” in gold (GLD), gold stocks (GDX), or some other commodities or to participate in some machination to short the US Dollar (UUP)?

I recently wrote a fairly detailed article on the US’s overall debt dynamics entitled How Big a Deal Is America’s Debt Problem? I've decided to follow the article up with one that focuses entirely on the issue of US public debt given that this is an area in which there's a great deal of misinformation circulating.

Facts About US Public Debt

It's common these days for analysts to cite figures for US public debt at around 80% to 95% of GDP. Some analysts cite even larger figures. I've even seen some writers cite US public debt figures at 60 trillion to 80 trillion dollars. All of this is misinformation.

I'd like to cite a few facts, just for the record.

1. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, US debt held by the public (public debt) was $7.54 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2009 and is projected to be $8.80 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010.

2. Just in case you're curious, according to the US Treasury, as of February 22, 2010, US debt held by the public was precisely $7,893,549,784,639.46

3. According to the Congressional Budget Office, US public debt was the equivalent of 53.0% of GDP for fiscal year 2009 and is projected to reach 60.3% of GDP in fiscal year 2010.

The US is currently paying a blended average interest rate of around 3.5% on the totality of US public debt held by the public -- note that this excludes interest payments on intergovernmental debt (see iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treas Bond (TLT) for long-term yields and iShares Barclays Short Treasury Bond (SHV) for short-term yields on US debt). On this basis, interest payments (not total debt service, which includes payment of principal) as a percent of GDP are equivalent to about 1.4% of GDP. Let me repeat: US government interest payments are only equivalent to roughly 1.4% of national income.

Furthermore, if we factor in long-term inflation of about 2.5%, the US is essentially paying a real interest rate of about 1.00% on its debt. This translates into a real interest burden of about 0.4% of real GDP. This is almost an insignificant figure.

How About the Debt "Off the Balance Sheet"?

The merchants of doom and gloom are fond of talking about “off balance sheet debt.” They will often use estimates of these debts to inflate the total public debt figure.

Intergovernmental debt.
This is one trick some analysts use to get the US public debt/GDP ratio up to 90%+. As of February 22, 2010, intergovernmental debt was $4.51 trillion. This is debt that various government agencies owe each other. It's clearly nonsense to include debt that the federal government owes itself as part of the total public debt.

Unfunded liabilities.
Many analysts love to cite the unfunded liabilities of the US Social Security system as well as the projected deficits of the Medicare/Medicaid systems as part of the public debt (this figure partially enters into the intergovernmental debt cited above). However, this is incorrect. These are merely theoretical contingencies according to current actuarial projections. The US isn't paying interest on these obligations. Furthermore, if the Social Security system and the health-care systems are reformed, which they almost certainly will be sooner or later, most of these contingent liabilities will probably disappear.

GSE liabilities. Some analysts like to “tack on” Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddy Mac (FRE) debt to total public debt. This is quite absurd. Even in a worst-case scenario in which all GSE capital is wiped out in a bankruptcy and their assets and liabilities are taken over by the government, the mismatch between the value of the assets and liabilities of the GSEs would only be a small fraction of their total assets.

US states and local governments. US states and local governments have debts roughly equaling around 19% of GDP. However, states and local governments have completely separate accounts -- with their own revenue bases and assets to back their debts up. Furthermore, state and local governments can, and do, default and this doesn't affect the US’s credit rating.

To refer to the above sources of debt as being “off balance sheet” is a bit disingenuous. These debts are very clearly disclosed by the government. These liabilities are no secret nor are they hidden in any way. And due to their nature and magnitude, they aren't a major problem for the US economy.

US Public Debt From a Global Perspective

Debt held by the public is the standard by which public debt is measured around the world. Analysts that cite debt figures of 90% for the US and say that the figure is close to Greece’s figure of around 113% are comparing apples to oranges. The comparable figures are 60.3% versus 113%.

Comparable figures are 60.3% for the US versus and average EU figure of 80%+ and 200%+ for Japan.

While figures vary from country to country, on a comparative basis, the US generally looks even better compared to Europe, Japan, and other developed nations when factoring in the debt of state and local governments.

The US also looks quite good on a global comparative basis when analyzing the problem of unfunded retirement and health-care liabilities. Because the US has relatively favorable demographics, US problems in these areas are imminently solvable with the implementation of relatively minor adjustments. The unfavorable demographics of most other developed nations in Europe and Asia means that their retirement system and health-care system problems make US challenges seem tiny by comparison.

Another critical factor in the analysis of debt dynamics is understanding what portion of the debt is foreign-held and what portion is denominated in a foreign currency. This is critical to understand because virtually all sovereign debt crises around the world in the past 50 years have centered on problems related to repayment of foreign denominated debt.

Foreign governments hold roughly 30% of all US debt held by the public. Other foreign nationals hold another 16% of total US public debt. This level of foreign indebtedness is moderate by international standards.

Furthermore, the US has virtually no liabilities in foreign currencies. This basic fact distinguishes the US from most countries in the world. And it distinguishes the US from virtually any country that has experienced a sovereign debt crisis in the past 50 years. Because virtually all US debt is denominated in US dollars the risk of default is minimal.

Conclusion


The fact of the matter is that the current level of US public indebtedness is simply not a big deal. As I stated in How Likely Is the US to Default?, the US and the rest of the world have got a great many things to worry very intensely about. US public debt is not one of them.

This isn't to say that I “like” US public debt, nor that I advocate deficits and/or debt. Quite to the contrary. I favor long-term fiscal balance (with scope for contra-cyclical fiscal policy) and I believe in the bedrock principle of a nation maintaining zero long-term public debt.

However, when discussing problems, I simply like to deal with facts and cold hard realities; not promulgate urban legends and dramatic fantasies.

I know that this will sound like sacrilege to folks that have been brainwashed into believing that the US’s public debt problems are completely out of control, untenable, and unmanageable.

But facts are facts. Unfortunately, facts don’t sell. Drama sells.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2010 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(30)
2010-02-24 09:32:23
Good article
This is one of the cases for the dollar rally. People are so concerned with us spending out of control (which we are) but our dollar only falls in relation to other currencies. What other currency do you want to be in at the moment? The Euro? The Yen?

There is still a long way to go rally for the dollar.

Thanks for putting this into perspective. Other countries are farther down the Keynesian claptrap hole than we are. We just need to make sure we avoid the same fate!

James
2010-02-24 09:49:33
no enough dollars?
James - thanks for the analysis. Is this statement accurate? (also expressed by a Chinese official-and does it matter?)
I have read
"It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off The U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt."
what am i missing?
thanks,
Will
2010-02-24 10:00:10
RE: no enough dollars?
It doesn't matter at all. Just more drama. Currency in circulation has absolutely nothing to do with wealth or the ability to pay back debt. Currency in circulation is just a small fraction of one year's GDP and a tiny fraction of wealth.

Ultimately what matters is debt service capacity and as I point out in the article, interest payments on US debt are an insignificant percentage of national income.
2010-02-24 10:16:54
RE: no enough dollars?
Will,

Perhaps I should mention for comparative purposes that currency in circulation (M1) is only a small fraction of GDP in every single developed nation -- and even a smaller proportion of total wealth. Indeed, this is a hallmark of economic development.

If what this Chinese official said was relevant in any way, then the US and every single developed country in the world would have been insolvent for the past 50 years.

Unfortunately many Chinese officials are renowned for their penchant for the dramatic, and for saying ridiculously irrelevant things.
2010-02-24 10:37:13
ok thanks!
Thanks James!

I will think about this some more.

Still having trouble with the concepts.

thanks again for responding.
will



2010-02-24 11:55:17
Apples and oranges
James,

For a long time we've heard different numbers and I'm trying to understand the difference between what you refer to and what we hear almost daily. In your article you say "as of February 22, 2010, US debt held by the public was precisely $7,893,549,784,639.46".

Congress just raised the debt ceiling. In a MarketWatch article from Dec 16 I found this statement mentioning numbers we are more used to hearing... "With the government fast approaching its $12.1 trillion debt limit..."

Does that mean there's a difference between term you use "public debt" and the number we are more used to hearing? And I assume the "public debt" is a figure of much more importance?

Thanks
2010-02-24 12:21:43
Rate of growth?
The percentages might seem small (60% of GDP, comapred to 80% of GDP on average for the Euro-zone), but are yuu not concerned with the rapid rate of growth? The US took a long time to get it's debt level to 40% of GDP, but it has ratcheted it up to 60% in the blink of an eye.
2010-02-24 12:24:06
RE: Apples and oranges
Steve,

The figure you cite includes intragovernmental debt (currently at 4.51 trillion) €" that is debt that various federal agencies owe each other. However, for reasons I cite in the article, the relevant figure is €debt held by the public.€ Most economist with knowledge in this area are in agreement that this is the more relevant figure. It is also the internationally comparable figure.


2010-02-24 12:24:59
In relation to a mortgage
Will,

My mortgage commitment is also more than my current dollars on hand. That doesn't make me bankrupt. It just means I have chosen to pay back the acquisition of an asset over time.

James F
2010-02-24 12:40:41
Apples and oranges
Thanks, James. I always appreciate your insight.

Steve
2010-02-24 12:41:14
RE: Rate of growth?
Good point Ian. But the rapid rate of growth in the last three years is driven mainly by temporary factors, namely the collapse in tax reciepts due to recession and the stimulus spending.

There is no question that the US needs to take steps to move towards a balanced budget, and preferably a surplus once growth resumes. Infinite deficits that in terms of GDP are above the growth rate of the economy are clearly untenable in the long run.

Please note that although I do not favor this, infinite deficits are entirely tenable -- as long as they are, as a percent of GDP, equal to or less than average long term rate of nominal GDP growth. As long as the rate of nominal GDP growth is on average greater than the average of infinite annual deficits as a percent of GDP, the debt to GDP ratio (which is a measure of debt service capacity) will actually decline over time. In other words, it is possible for the US to run deficits from now until every year into eternity and the creditworthiness of the nation will consistently improve.

Finally, there is no reason to extrapolate the current rate of debt growth into the future. First, even if there are no changes to Federal spending patterns as set out by Obama, the CBO is predicting more normal (and manageable) deficits in the out years. Second, problems are there to be solved. It's not smart to assume that people will not fix evident problems, sooner or later. The US has a fiscal problem. We should be fearful if the problem were not resolvable without recourse to default or hyperinflation. My point is that it is imminently solvable and that a major debt or inflation crisis is not a necessary event. The idea that the US is doomed is simply false. The problem can be fixed. And we even have a fair amount of time to fix it.
2010-02-24 12:41:49
Selling drama
Drama sells. Yes.
But who exactly are, "the merchants of doom who make a living off selling alarmist tales about the American apocalypse?" Is there a bunch of money in that? Are they not the polar opposite of the, "buy now before the train leaves you behind crowd?" And don't those hawkers make a living off selling best case scenarios?
Scam? Scheme? Gold is not AIG. What is it with you and gold? It is an investment like any other. And a good one. I made more off gold in the last year than any of my subscription equity or option services.
Please no gold bug labels. I was in. I am out. I may go back in. I may not.
If you are strictly following facts, then a good investment is a good investment.
If you are not following the dollar's direction and respecting the forces on either side you are not doing your homework.
I just don't understand the need for your first two paragraphs in an otherwise first rate article.
Unless; drama sells.

Thanks
Jim

2010-02-24 13:10:21
Faith in Congress
I agree it is within the realm of possibility Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be reformed. However, the likelyhood is remote b/c the political will doesn't exist. Determining an investment thesis with the government doing a good job as premise seems like an act of lunacy.

When I was in school, an econ professor gave the following advice tongue in cheek: borrow as much when you graduate from college to level out consumption/your standard of living - you can pay it off with your higher future income. A lot of Americans did this along w/ their government. In aggregate and assuming we didn't borrow too much, we have to level off our standard of living until death. The implications of this leveling off will be negative to employment, GDP, and government revenue. Assuming government spending grows and government runs a deficit (it's been at least 100 years since government spent less than revenue), the treasury will have to issue more debt. The time will come when no one buys.
2010-02-24 13:26:08
RE: Selling drama
Jim,

You are correct that the references to gold per se are not necessary to the article. However, I am trying to make an important point that debt alarmism is used as a sales tool and that people need to be aware of this. In that regard, I did not single gold out but I also mentioned commodities and the US Dollar.

People that are not Gold Bugs need not feel alluded to. I have often been an investor in gold €" as recently as late 2008 and early 2009. Please note that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to buy gold that have nothing to do with a debt meltdown. My most recent article on gold pointed some of them out.

You are correct that gold can be an investment, just like any other asset. But prodding folks to buy gold or any other asset based on alarmist and essentially misleading information is what I refer to as a €scheme.€ Perhaps this word choice is a bit €dramatic€ and to that extent I will grant your point. However, perhaps you might grant me the point that the €drama€ in this case does not affect the factual accuracy of the information presented.

You are correct that there are salesmen that use €dramatic€ distortion of facts to sell tech and oil and other stuff. But this article is about debt and so I refer to the folks that dramatize the debt situation. If you have read my articles, you know I often go after other instances of €dramatic€ overstatement and/or misinformation. An example were my articles last week on demographics.

In all events, I appreciate your observation.

James
2010-02-24 13:32:57
RE: Faith in Congress
M,

I would point you to my response to Ian above. It touches on virtually all of your points which are important.

When push comes to shove, it is not a good bet to assume that people will extrapolate past errors until they self-destruct. Human beings are made to identify and solve problems. And they often do it.

While history is littered with examples in which people and societies self-destruct rather that take obviously needed actions, history is even more full of examples of the contrary. Otherwise, civilization could not exist.
2010-02-24 13:48:26
To Big Jim
Thanks Jim,
I was actually thinking about my mortgage, when you wrote your comment.

I WISH my debt was only 1.4% of my gross income as noted by James.

So if our debt interest is so miniscule, why are we not prospering?

why the alarm ringing,

why has the stock market been flat for ten years?

shoot- our debt interest could double to 3% and we should be a-ok.

what am i missing?
2010-02-24 16:12:21
Debt
James,

This is an interesting viewpoint on a subject that I have been reading, which takes the opposite side. Without going into detail regarding the numbers, I wonder if POINT OF VIEW plays a significant role in determining viewpoint.

Regardless of which view is accurate, it is comforting to read your discussion, because I am of the opinion that the economic world is not about to crash tomorrow. Perhaps it is possible to say that, although there are many difficult problems facing the global economy, given your viewpoint, I believe that it is important to keep the issue in perspective.

This is my first day on this community, which I find very enlightening and educating.

Thank you for your well written discussion, which shows me the other side of an otherwise very disheartening economic scenario.

Shirley
2010-02-24 23:04:19
RE: Selling drama
Bravo.
2010-02-24 23:05:32
RE: RE: Selling drama
i meant to say Bravo to Jim Donovan.
2010-02-25 11:04:58
RE: Faith in Congress
James,

I do appreciate you providing the other side but still disagree with your conclusions. Toddo linked a CBO projection of US debt to approach $20 trillion by 2020. I will take the over on that projection b/c US politics doesn't foster an environment where government manages for the future. Government manages for what is politically expedient - the short term. Consider the "solutions" to the economic problems in the US. Your faith in lawmakers considering the implications of legislation they enact 10 - 20 years down the line just doesn't happen. The unintended consequences will be someone else's problem.

I'm optimistic that things can get better but my faith is in people and not congress doing a good job. Individuals adapt and make changes that allows civilization to solve problems. Congress really just gets in the way. I can't think of one instance where congress pulled society from the jaws of ruin. I used to think my biggest nondiscretionary expense was housing as shelter like food and water is necessary for survival. But as it turns out, I spend 4 times as much on government - I don't think I come close to getting my money's worth.

2010-02-25 11:55:15
Fecks comments
Someone posted this article to ask Fleck today seeking his comments. Flecks reply - € This is truly nonsense...please don't send stuff like this, I mean what can I really say? It's gibberish.

Here is one of Flecks pieces on MV. This is the best article I have ever read on MV -

http://tinyurl.com/yl2hzrn

I like to read what James writes as it is usually thought provoking, but sometimes I am at a loss, this is one of those times.
2010-02-25 16:23:57
RE: RE: Fecks comments
Fleck an extreme ideologue and merchant of doom? That puts you over the top for me. You are clueless! Fleck's Rap is a whopping $10/month. He has told his readers for the past 10 years the dangers of bubbles and advised them to own some gold/silver. He covered his shorts in March and closed his short only hedge fund. He has been renting for many years as he warned of the housing bubble and did not wish to be a casualty. Please tell us where we can find some more profiting preachers of doom as they seem to be very helpful in keeping folks solvent!
2010-02-25 17:45:31
Bull vs Bear
James, Your analysis of market anatomy and physiology in general is educational and excellent. John Bollinger, to day posted on Money Show.com that the correction is over. On 02/22/10, Lawrence McMillan posted on the same blog,The Rally doesn't have legs. Both gave their reasons.It would be interesting to see your take on both of these postings, if you can. Thanks.Moola Reddy
2010-02-25 18:12:06
RE: RE: RE: Fecks comments
Stephen,

I have enjoyed reading Mr. Fleckenstein for at least 15 years or so which is why I know his writing so well. His articles are often enlightening and entertaining.

In response to your €defense€ of him:

1. I think that it is undeniable that he is an extreme ideologue. He is a self-proclaimed disciple and proselytizer of the Austrian School of Economics. By their own admission this is one of the most ideological and completely unempirical systems of thought in existence. Indeed, to be unempirical is a point of pride for Austrians who reject the scientific method of empirical observation in favor praxeology, an abstract system of logical deduction. Nobody in the financial world has identified with and exemplified this ideology more closely than Mr. Fleckenstein. Virtually all of his opinions are framed in terms of logical deductions from relatively simple axioms. He is very sparing in the use of empirical evidence in his writings to support his claims. Indeed, his response to my article is quite representative of the ideological mindset in general and of many Austrians in particular If Fleckenstein is not an ideologue, then nobody is.

2. I think it is undeniable that he is a merchant of doom. Mr. Fleckenstein has build his whole reputation over the course of a couple of decades on the basis of permanent predictions of doom and gloom. Sure, those who follow him might have gotten lucky if they sold at the top of the tech bubble in 2000. They might have got lucky if they sold at the top of the housing bubble in 2007. But this had nothing to do with Mr. Fleckenstein's skills in timing markets. Many of his followers were completely ruined by shorting US equities, and tech stocks in particular which Mr. Fleckenstein railed against, all throughout the late 90s. And they were completely ruined once again as they shorted the stock market recovery that reached new highs between 2003 and 2007 €" a historic rally which Mr. Fleckenstein not only completely missed, but stridently railed against in his regular columns at MSN.

So, while I enjoy Mr. Fleckenstein's writing, I stand by my words about him being an ideologue. Ideologues are often very smart people and they often have very interesting things to say. However, ideologues cannot be bothered by empirical evidence as clearly exemplified by his response to my article.

I also stand by the facts and logic that underlie my article on US public debt. Mr. Fleckenstein may have a completely opposing view. However, he cannot change the empirical facts nor the conclusions that flow from those facts.
2010-02-25 20:53:01
Fecks Comments
As a result of this exchange with Mr. Kostohryz I decided to do some research on Mr. Fleckenstein. Previous to this research, I was completely unaware of Mr. Fleckenstein's track record.

For anybody interested in some facts about Bill Fleckenstein's track record as stock market forecaster I strongly advise that they visit the website of CXO Advisory Group. This company objectively tracks the forecasting track records of 51 stock market €guru's€ based on their published remarks.

Bill Fleckenstein ranks 50 out of 51 out of all of the major gurus tracked by the company. In other words, he is the second least accurate of all of the major guru's followed.

CXO researchers have tracked Fleckenstein for about a decade and the conclusion is that as a market forecaster, you simply cannot get much worse than Bill Fleckenstein is. His 37% accuracy record is almost twice as bad as flipping a coin! An analysis of the date provided leads on to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult to be a worse market forecaster than Bill Fleckenstein is even if you tried really hard. In fact, Bill Fleckenstein is so terrible as a market forecaster that he is statistically better at being bad (inaccurate) than the best forecaster in the sample is at being good (accurate)!

I strongly advise readers to peruse the individual guru analysis for Bill Fleckenstein on the CXO Advisory Group site. It is incredibly painful to see how inaccurate this Mr. Fleckenstein's predictions have been. In particular, Fleckenstein fought the 2003-2007 rally all the way up, predicting new lows and recommending short positions all along the way. And contrary to what Mr. Schlader has stated above, Bill Fleckenstein completely missed the 2009 rally. He painfully fought the rally every step of the way, continually predicting that new lows would be made. Please look at the CXO Advisory Group site for the gory details.

After examining the record, it struck me that the very fact that this individual has employment in the financial services industry and that his columns are still published is testament to the lack of accountability that plagues this industry and the depressing ignorance of the general public.

And one last point: Regarding Mr. Kostohryz point regarding Mr. Fleckenstein being a €Merchant of Doom€ this is what the CXO Advisory Group has to say:

· Bill Fleckenstein has been consistently and confidently very pessimistic about the U.S. economy€.

· He has been mostly a short-seller of stocks in recent years, based on his belief that the stock market is grossly overvalued and therefore doomed to fall significantly in a continuing bear market. His pronouncements sometimes tend toward the apocalyptic.

· Mr. Fleckenstein has been especially negative toward the technology sector.

· With respect to market timing, Mr. Fleckenstein's long-term view is as described above. His forecasts of short-term and intermediate-term stock market behavior are more circumspect, focusing on deception, delusion and momentum as drivers of doomed market rallies.

It seems that Mr. Kostohryz's description of Bill Fleckenstein as a merchant of doom is incredibly accurate. If I can fault Mr. Kostohryz's remarks for anything it is that he was far too generous in his assessment of Mr. Fleckenstein's stock market forecasting abilities.
2010-02-26 14:15:23
RE: RE: RE: Fecks comments
I will humbly, respectfully and vigorously defend the name and word of Bill Fleckenstein. For starters, his negative bent proved prescient€"the stock market just endured the worst decade in the history of financial markets. If that makes him a €merchant of doom,€ so be it but I would buy that over the raging bulls that dominated financial media over the same span.

I will also note two important facts. First, he shut down his short-only hedge fund in March 2009€"March 2009!€"after being one of the most vocal bears around. Two, he rode gold and the precious metals up their astonishing ascent without once deviating from his view. €Often wrong, never in doubt€ is how I believe he says it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I consider Bill a friend. Those who know me, however, understand I would never put €my€ name and word on anything or anyone that I didn't believe would reflect well.

We're all about €the friction between opinions€ in the €Ville, sans acrimony, and we welcome variant views as long as they're shared in a Minyanesque manner. With that said, I would be remiss if I didn't toss my hat into this particular ring.
Have a great weekend,
Toddo
2010-02-26 20:52:42
I Disagree w/ You Jim, with all due respect...
Re: Intergovernmental debt. Why doesn't debt that various government agencies owe each other count? For example, if Fannie Mae borrows $76 billion from the Treasury with no chance of paying it back I feel like that is governemnt debt. Intergovernmental debt shell games remind me of California's recent budget games.

Re: Entitlement promises. If we have promised Social Security and Medicare to people, and those promises are not funded why is that not effectively a debt obligation?

And who cares if we are no worse than Japan and Europe. They are marching towards insolvency as well.

Thanks for listening.
2010-02-27 01:06:00
RE: I Disagree w/ You Jim, with all due respect...
Hi Reese,

Thanks for your comment.

1. Fannie Mae is not included in intragovernmental debt.

2. Entitlement promises are contingent liabilities. And unlike US Treasury obligations (which are not contingent but certain), those theoretical liabilities can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen by raising the retirement age, for example. Or the maximum taxable base on the payroll tax can be extended. The point is, that it is inappropriate to lump in this sort of problem (which is solvable, by the way) with debt held by the public.
2010-02-27 14:04:54
Todd Harrison on Flecks comments
Mr. Harrison:
I am a new subscriber to your forum but it is evident that you expect the highest standards of civility. I congratulate you for these efforts. I apologize to you and your readership if my own contribution to the discussion between Mr. Kostohryz and Mr. Schlader offended anyone.
I can truly understand your desire to stand up for a friend, but not at the expense of people like me and also Mr. Schlader. We are typical of readers that depend upon sound analysis based upon sound theoretical and empirical evidence regardless of friendship. We are seeking sound information. I, for one, feel that the article by Mr.Kostohryz was an excellent attempt to offer just that. Our livelihoods depend upon this type of information.
I assume that this quote of Mr. Schlader is truthful:

Someone posted this article to ask Fleck today seeking his comments. Flecks reply - This is truly nonsense...please don't send stuff like this, I mean what can I really say? It's gibberish.

With his unsupported and unmerited comment, I feel that Mr. Fleckenstein opened himself up to my revelation of the existence of a fairly objective analysis of his own qualifications. If he is not willing to offer evidence to support his own opinions, friend or not, he should not be making such comments.
I hope that you will accept my comments that are made here with the best of intentions for the continued success of your discussion groups.

Respectfully yours,
Charles Fucatch
2010-05-11 16:45:15
RE: RE: no enough dollars?
dude. what are you talking about? the majority of every state in the union is broke. if it werent for market manipulation from the fed the stock market would have already hit zero.
Subject:
Comment:
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options.  Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.





Minyanville Marketplace