Category Archives: Debt

UPDATED: The GDP Gambit

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank

Official GDP numbers are deceptive because they chart—and include—the growth of government debt. In order to come to grips with America’s real economic prognosis, you must tease apart modest economic growth from the monstrous accretion of public debt.

In his latest book, “The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country,” financier Peter Schiff does just that, noting that, “From 2008 to 2009 our national GDP (of around $14 trillion) contracted by $212 billion. To prevent any further dips, the government aggressively spent, borrowing heavily to do so. To the relief of just about everyone, these moves did stop the nominal contraction. From 2010 to 2011 the U.S. GDP expanded by $502 billion, and from 2011 to 2012 it added an additional $508 billion. All told, from the end of 2008 the U.S. economy added a cumulative $798 billion in GDP. But those gains came at a very high price.”

The combined federal deficits for the same time frame come in at a staggering $4.2 trillion! In 2009 alone the feds chalked up a chart breaking $1.4 trillion in debt (the deficit was a mere $161 billion in 2007). In other words, we borrowed five times more than we grew. This ‘strategy’ for growth is no different from an individual who loses half his income, but continues to spend by running up credit card debt.”

Could this be described as economic growth? But that’s just how we are describing our current economy, and for the large part, expert economists, politicians, investors, and academics all agree..”

UPDATE (May 30): Writes Nixter Jeelvy on Facebook : “GDP = Aggregate Demand = all the money SPENT within a year, within the nation. It’s no measure of wealth, Lord Keynes and his pipe dreams be damned.”

The President’s Proboscis Problem

Barack Obama, Bush, Debt, Democrats, Economy

If, like Pinocchio, a politician’s proboscis grew each time he lied, the world would be overtaken by noses flopping about everywhere.

Congressional Budget Office figures, cited by the Wall Street Journal, are finessed. US debt problem is worse than CBO projections.

Still the amount of lying Obama manages is quite impressive:

Obama’s claim that “federal spending since [he] took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years,” is audacious. (And yes, Bush set the example.) It’s “like an alcoholic claiming that his rate of drinking has slowed because he had only 22 beers today and 25 beers yesterday. (WSJ)

Notwithstanding that GDP measures include the Brownian Motion of debt growth, “Prior to Mr. Obama, the U.S. had not spent more than 23.5% of GDP—that was in 1983, amid the Reagan defense buildup—since the end of World War II. Yet Mr. Obama has managed to exceed that four years in a row: 25.2% in 2009, 24.1% in 2010 and 2011, and an estimated 24.3% in 2012, up from a range between 18%-21% from 1994-2008.”

Mr. Obama can fairly blame $1 trillion or so of the $5 trillion debt increase of the last four years on Mr. Bush. But what about the other $4 trillion? Debt held by the public now stands at 74.2% of the economy, up from 40.5% at the end of 2008—and rising rapidly.

UPDATE II: Bush Babies ‘Debunk’ Obama ‘Smirk Fests on MSNBC’ (Liars All)

Barack Obama, Bush, Debt, Democrats, Economy

To put it in the most charitable terms, the claim made by the emissaries of the liberal media—“MSNBC , liberal blogs, newspapers and even the Wall Street Journal”—that “Federal spending under Obama [is] at historic lows” is counterintuitive. Surprise, surprise: In charting the evidence for their claims, these sources are lying:

“It turns out,” writes Ann Coulter, in “Figures don’t lie – Democrats do,” that “Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That’s not a joke.”

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even the New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending. And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush. …”
On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending? Hey – we just found out that Obamacare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!
But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Of course, Ann Coulter is still a Bush baby. The factual information she offers in “Figures don’t lie – Democrats do” notwithstanding, Coulter is making the standard excuses for Genghis B., who set the pace for Obama.

She ignores that the two presidents, Bush and Obama, coexist on “a continuum of criminality.”

The correct, cynical tone about Obama-Bush comparisons was taken in, dare I say, “Obama And Bush: Partners In Government Giganticism“?

Moocher Obama has pulled ahead of Looter Bush with respect to deficits and debt. The Bush budget for 2009 was a trivial $3 trillion, while Obama’s 2010 budget was a respectable $3.5 trillion. According to “Bankrupting America,” “Bush doubled the debt to almost $6 trillion and Obama’s plans would leave us with an IOU of an additional $8.5 trillion by 2020.”
C’mon. Six trillion; 8 trillion: the act of racking up such financial liabilities exists on a continuum of criminality ? it does not constitute a difference in kind (or in “core values”).

UPDATE I: LIARS ALL. There is structural lying in all government accounting (via Lou Dobbs).

UPDATE II: TORTURED DATA. “Federal spending has risen at its lowest pace” under his administration, claims BHO. “Torture data enough and it’ll confess,” quipped Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, to Fox Business’ Gerri Willis.

The US Vs. The EU

Debt, Economy, EU, Europe, Labor

When broadcaster Lou Dobbs took to the blackboard, I got a bit of a fright. Flashbacks of Glenn Beck’s not-so-wonderful-mind moments, I suppose. But no. Mr. Dobbs drives home the severity of the situation stateside, by juxtaposing the American economy to certain Eurozone countries.

Take into account, however, that GDP measures the Brownian Motion of debt growth. The unreliability of the indices (unemployment, etc.) used, in general, means that matters are far worse.

Debt as a percentage of GDP:

France: 86%
Italy: 120% (“In a hot mess”)
Greece: 165% (“In a world of its own”)
US: 101%

Economic Growth (take into account, however, that GDP measures the Brownian Motion of debt growth):

France & the US: 1.7% growth
Greece: 7% contraction
Italy & Spain: 1/2% growth

Average age at retirement:

US: 65 years
France: 59
Italy: 60
Greece & Germany: 61
Spain: 62

Labor-Force Participation (this ought to shake you up):

US: 63.6% (“A thirty year low.”)
Greece: 71%
France: 72%
Italy: 75%
Spain & Germany: 76%

I would hazard a guess that the Europeans best us in workforce participation because they have more onerous labor regulations. This is cold comfort, of course.