Hmmmm:
TIME ran a piece this week by economist Jim Grant titled “Make America Solvent Again.” The cover exclaimed that in order to pay off our $13.9 trillion national debt, every American needs to chip in $42,998.12. The alarmist headline likely accomplished its goal of selling magazines in grocery store checkout lines, but the underlying premise of the article is inane.
Let’s start with the definition of insolvency. An entity is insolvent when debts exceed assets. First off, the U.S. government owns hundreds of trillions worth of assets. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) estimated in 2013 that fossil fuel-related assets owned by the federal government are worth more than $150 trillion, more than ten times the national debt. Add in things like land, real estate and military equipment, and the government’s assets are likely well in excess of $200 trillion. In addition, current U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is around $18 trillion, on which the government has taxation authority.
A bit weak (I detect a slight foul odor of libertarianism present...) but not too shabby. Scaramucci seems unaware of the US federal government's use of Modified Accrual accounting which does not allow Accrual Accounting methods to be used on the left hand side of the accounting, so under present accounting methods, they can't accrue the value of future taxation or hypothetical asset sales...
So unless the Trump people attack the Federal government's inane accounting methodology, the inane assertions about Federal government "debt!" will continue...
No, the national debt does not make the United States insolvent | Anthony Scaramucci | Pulse | LinkedIn https://t.co/oyJyQMZLTk— Deficit Moron (@i_deficit_moron) July 21, 2017
9 comments:
So has Trump hired this guy so he can get his tax cuts through ?? Since he couldn't get healthcare through.
Is Scaramucci going to stand up there and challenge the deficit hawks head on ?
Doubt it foot...
I would love to see it.
Trump needs to start fighting back instead of surrending to them all the time.
There is nobody there who is competent..... seems like his personnel selection criteria has a cutoff below $1B net worth....
Positive yields/interest on inherently risk-free sovereign debt implies the need to borrow by the monetary sovereign.
So those who support said welfare proportional to sovereign debt balance are part of the problem, not the solution.
It implies compensation for deferred consumption to savers...
It implies compensation for deferred consumption to savers... Franko
It implies deferred INVESTMENT* when saving is beyond legitimate capital formation and liquidity needs and is thus contrary to Scripture (cf. Proverbs 31:16, Matthew 25:14-30, Proverbs 11:25, etc.)
Nor is deferred consumption, beyond avoiding greed/idolatry and waste a Biblical precept either. Rather we are to consume with Thanksgiving our fill.
You read more like an Austrian Economist than a Bible believer.
*Biblical investment, both for this world and the next, includes generosity and graciousness to the needy.
I'm not an Israelite...
AA,
Look at this simulation here:
http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2017/06/19/counterintuitive-problem-everyone-room-keeps-giving-dollars-random-others-youll-never-guess-happens-next/
Then go back and read Mat 25 again...
We dont all start with the same amounts, we are not "created equal" ... If you start the simulation with an unequal distribution in the first place the person who gets the smallest amount in the first place will be quickly down to zero and out of the trade... so not trading and instead saving is the smart play if you dont want to quickly go to zero...
Post a Comment