U.S.National debt clock

[D_Raay]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 May 2005 at 03:46:22 PM GMT is:
$ 7 , 8 0 7 , 7 1 5 , 1 6 7 , 2 9 8 . 9 6

The estimated population of the United States is 296,009,585
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,376.56.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.00 billion per day since September 30, 2004!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!

----------
This is only the acknowledged public debt, and does not include "unfunded liabilities", which almost double the amount. In addition, the Federal Government has been sending less money back to the state than it takes out, plus saddling them with unfunded mandates, all of which forces the states to borrow to meet their shortfalls. This device transfers debt from the Federal Government to the states, to conceal the true scale of the problem. All together, the total governmental debt for the US is nearing 20 trillion dollars.

[Qdrop]

The estimated population of the United States is 296,009,585
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,376.56.


oh hell...i got that under my mattress....

i'll just write uncle sam a check....and i can wash MY hands of it.












it remains to be seen how meaningful our debt truly is...
it really depends on the mentality of the foriegn investors....

[johntoefoot]

we just need to print more money. that will solve the problem.

[ScarySquirrel]

My clock is moving all the time. I think this one is broken, dude.

[Ace42]

it really depends on the mentality of the foriegn investors....

Well, as long as it is based on something as substantial as "what some strangers feel at the time"

[Qdrop]

Well, as long as it is based on something as substantial as "what some strangers feel at the time"

i didn't say it was comforting....

[Ace42]

It reiterates what I have been saying all the time - economies do not work of assets, transactions, an invisible hand, or any other such mechanism. They work solely on trust. Money is merely a way of "legislating trust" - and in this day and age, of immense greed and cynicism, it is not so much "trust" anymore, now it is the passive acceptance, apathy if you will, of the masses.

Just as people merely accept that politicians will lie and cheat, and thus allow them to do so, people accept the inherant value of money (even though it has none) and allow it to control their lives.

The question is, is this the product of the system, or has this system been cultivated?

[D_Raay]

The question is, is this the product of the system, or has this system been cultivated?
My "money" would be on cultivated...

[EN[i]GMA]

It reiterates what I have been saying all the time - economies do not work of assets, transactions, an invisible hand, or any other such mechanism. They work solely on trust. Money is merely a way of "legislating trust" - and in this day and age, of immense greed and cynicism, it is not so much "trust" anymore, now it is the passive acceptance, apathy if you will, of the masses.

Just as people merely accept that politicians will lie and cheat, and thus allow them to do so, people accept the inherant value of money (even though it has none) and allow it to control their lives.

The question is, is this the product of the system, or has this system been cultivated?

Economies work on trust? Economies can and have functioned without trust but no economies have existed without assets, transactions, or a metaphorical invisible hand.

I'm not denying that the modern economy is based on a lot of trust, just you're point is somewhat errant.

And money has no intrinsic value, as you've stated, it is a representation of real wealth.

There was no malavealance in it's creation or perpetuation, only logic.

Tell me Ace, how much does a chair cost? Now tell me how many apples and or donkeys you would be willing to trade me for said chair?

Money is just a way of making trade easier and more equitable.

Money is money, but a commodity such as an apple can very greatly. What type of apple is it? Is it ripe? Rotting? Premature? Big? Small? Juicy? Good tasting?

You would almost have to be an expert on every single commodity likely to be traded for a barter system to work in such a way that benefits all involved.

Or we could just say, "Let's trade bottlecaps instead of apples and chairs", and that would simplify the process.

Sure, an economy could exist without money, but it really wouldn't function any differently and really wouldn't be better in any way.

[EN[i]GMA]

My "money" would be on cultivated...

By whom, might I ask?

[EN[i]GMA]

And it should be noted that a national debt is effectivly just a tax on the future.

It has to be repaid at some point, and guess who gets the foot the bill?

[Ace42]

GMA']Economies work on trust? Economies can and have functioned without trust

Yeah, like the US economy during the great depression, when there was still plenty of mineral / material assets and SHITLOADS of cheap labour, but zero trust.

And money has no intrinsic value, as you've stated, it is a representation of real wealth.

A representation that has no relevance to what it represents.

There was no malavealance in it's creation or perpetuation, only logic.

It is logical that someone would prefer to be paid in squares of paper rather than tangible assets? Funny, I remember a thread where you said the exact opposite.

Hypocrit.

Tell me Ace, how much does a chair cost?

Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. What that cost is measured in is thus irrelevant. "Logic" should tell you that.

Money is just a way of making trade easier and more equitable.

I'd say that is the most insipid shit you've ever churned out, but hell, you have a record.

Easier, certainly. More equitable? BS. Accounting fraud sure has gone down since the introduction of accountants made necessary by the introduction of a fiscal currency...

Money is money, but a commodity such as an apple can very greatly. What type of apple is it? Is it ripe? Rotting? Premature? Big? Small? Juicy? Good tasting?

And currency markets never vary, right?

You would almost have to be an expert on every single commodity likely to be traded for a barter system to work in such a way that benefits all involved.

Because the invisible hand don't care about no stinkin' grapes, right? There is NO reason why the same free-market factors cannot be present in a non-currency based system.

Or we could just say, "Let's trade bottlecaps instead of apples and chairs", and that would simplify the process.

And cause inflation. If the bottlecaps were rarer, then certainly.

Sure, an economy could exist without money, but it really wouldn't function any differently and really wouldn't be better in any way.

First sensible thing you've said.

However, money requires bureaucracy. Great for the bureaucrats, but not exactly inline with your "Libertarian" belief structure.

[Ace42]

GMA']By whom, might I ask?

Whoever could make a profit from it. Whichever traders had the most to make from it at the time, whoever had the power (money) to perpetrate it.

It is no different now - investors can actually effect the market. If you have suitable purchasing power, you can invest in a shit company, that causes market confidence in them, and then you instantly dump your shares after everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. Easy profit, and it was made SOLELY out of manipulating human nature.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, like the US economy during the great depression, when there was still plenty of mineral / material assets and SHITLOADS of cheap labour, but zero trust.

But on the contrary, I don't believe most white men and indians particularly trusted each other during colonial times, yet they traded, generally when they were sufficiently armed.

There was almost zero trust in the other party, only the assurances of your weaponry.

Trust is very helpful as it makes guns less necessary, but it is not always requisite.


A representation that has no relevance to what it represents.

Call it a simulicrum.


It is logical that someone would prefer to be paid in squares of paper rather than tangible assets? Funny, I remember a thread where you said the exact opposite.

Hypocrit.

I believe I said 'gold', moinre particulary gold that could be traded in for said pieces of paper, roughly amounting to the same thg.

But it's a moot point.


Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. What that cost is measured in is thus irrelevant. "Logic" should tell you that.

So you say something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it?

Therefore it has no underlying value and is fully subject to the whims and inclinations of man?


I'd say that is the most insipid shit you've ever churned out, but hell, you have a record.

Easier, certainly. More equitable? BS. Accounting fraud sure has gone down since the introduction of accountants made necessary by the introduction of a fiscal currency...

Can you honestly show fraud has gone up or down since the inception of money? Do any such statistics even exist? I mean, comprehensive trade records from hundreds or thousands of years ago can be difficult to come by, can't they?

Of course accounting fraud is a problem, but is it a greater problem than the trading of fraudulent goods in past times?

I honestly don't know, and I suspect that you don't either.


And currency markets never vary, right?

Some don't.

But more importantly, it's 'value' is always totally arbitrary meaning it's always worth a certain amount, though that ammount may change.

With the correct numbers, I can tell you, objectively, what any currency in the world is currently worth.

Tell me what an apple is worth.


Because the invisible hand don't care about no stinkin' grapes, right? There is NO reason why the same free-market factors cannot be present in a non-currency based system.

No logical reason, but many pragmatic ones. Trading goods can be obtuse, unwieldy and arcane, to the point of absurdity.

How many camels for a glass of water?


And cause inflation. If the bottlecaps were rarer, then certainly.

That's the same principle that applies to money.


First sensible thing you've said.

However, money requires bureaucracy. Great for the bureaucrats, but not exactly inline with your "Libertarian" belief structure.

I have no problem reconciling it.

The Constitution rather clearly spells it out, so much so that I see no real reason to forfeit the power to any other group.

Though private currency/barter systems could certainly exist as well.

Some already do.

And does money require more bureaucracy than a competing system would?

Would a barter/trade system require less bureaucracy or more?

I would say it would depend on the particular system and cannot be sufficiently answered.

[EN[i]GMA]

Whoever could make a profit from it. Whichever traders had the most to make from it at the time, whoever had the power (money) to perpetrate it.

It is no different now - investors can actually effect the market. If you have suitable purchasing power, you can invest in a shit company, that causes market confidence in them, and then you instantly dump your shares after everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. Easy profit, and it was made SOLELY out of manipulating human nature.

What if it was society as a whole that could make a profit off the existance of money?

I would say that the worldwide monetary system has been integral to worldwide growth.

Imagine running a world economy based on the barter system.

And I'm not certain what you're trying to demonstrate with your speculation anecdote there.

Surely you would want to investigate a company before investing in it. You wouldn't put money is a shit company just because it was highly speculated, at least if you want to keep your money for very long.

And it's this system of investment that has spurred economic growth in the western world, so your villification of it falls on deaf ears.

[Qdrop]

here we go again.


i'm not sure what's worse: ace and enigma arguing over free markets and capitalismfor 5 pages....or me and my global warming skepticism wars going on for 5 pages....

we all certainly love to type... ;)

[ASsman]

I'm gonna go love capitalism.. brb.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm gonna go love capitalism.. brb.

You'd better be careful.

I heard capitalism is known to drug you up, steal your kidneys, sell them and leave you lying in a bathtub full of ice when you wake up.