Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 2 of 2 1 2
Thread Options
#1973018 - 10/30/14 02:27 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
DoS Offline
Gold Star
DoS
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 264
one state over
inconceivable!
_________________________
CRCM

"Strip the Flesh, Salt the Wound" - Krieg

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#1973052 - 10/30/14 03:18 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster
Sound Tactic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
Since we seem to be on a topic in which a poster preaches that other people fail to understand something I will “teach” that person why a business taking on debt and a country taking on debt have significant similarities.

First I will start with a business. A business has a few options when it comes to obtaining assets to start a company. They can incur two forms of liabilities. The first liability is indirect and it is capital. It is basically asking people for money in which you promise to earn those persons a return on their money worthy of their investment. The second form is a direct liability. It is a promise to pay a an amount either to a lender or to a person holding preferred stock.

A government works differently but in many ways extremely similarly. First let’s start with the basics. Annually, a government incurs expenditures and takes in revenues. This is similar to how a company operates, as shown on the company’s income statement. However, the government does not need to start with a capital investment. Just so that a certain insect understands this, this difference is not relevant to government spending.

So we have a government incurring expenses and taking in revenues. Where do revenues come from? The bulk (99.9%) of a country’s revenues come in from the source of taxation. The taxes are paid by the government’s citizens and corporate entities paying taxes. But what about services the government offers? The government sometimes charges fees for services it offers but only to offset the costs of the expenses needed to operate the service requirement. Why don’t they charge far more to bring in more money? Sometimes they do. The problem is that when the government tries to guarantee a profit, the private sector tends to find a better solution and go with that instead. But what about when the government forces the business to pay their fees? This does happen. Unfortunately this is an indirect form of socialism and results in the government agency recklessly spending money when the free market would have a better solution. These arrangements tend to be short term and not a significant source of revenues because the government agency just ends up spending the money or the businesses complain enough to the point where another solution is found. This is a discussion for another time but I am not going to spend much time on this because, it is a red herring. This type of transactions represents less than 1% of the revenues a Federal Government takes in.

So we are back to where does the government obtain their revenues. After taxation, there is another source. Just like a business, a government can obtain money necessary for spending via debt. For the purpose of not trying to confuse people, I am not going to talk about intergovernmental holdings (IGH). IGH is a type of debt, but it is a smoke screen. The revenues came from somewhere else and are just reapplied to a given expenditure. So where does the government incur debt? It asks people or other governments to purchase debt instruments, just like loans. It says, we (government) promise to pay you so much interest in return for some money now. How is this different from debt from a company? It isn’t! Except for the fact that most businesses pay off part of a principle but governments tend to just keep pay interest into infinity.

OK, so if they can keep paying interest into infinity why not just incur more debt? The more debt a government incurs the higher the interest rate it must pay. This is supply and demand and Econ 202. The more you need the more you must pay. This is what makes too much debt a problem.

OK but then a country can just keep raising taxes? It can. Up to a point. You cannot tax more than your citizens actually make. There are a few reasons for this. 1) If you tax more than your people make, they could not actually pay the tax and you are left back at square 1. 2) If your tax rate is unattractive, the people will move elsewhere. Don’t believe me? http://www.redstate.com/diary/alanjoelny/2014/10/12/even-french-fleeing-high-taxes/

http://rt.com/usa/190456-foreign-banks-taxes-americans/

3) The third drawback is the Laffer curve. This is another discussion but I will give you a link to read up on the basics. In essence, there becomes a point in which raising taxes decreases revenues.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

OK but when a government takes money from its citizens and spends the money, this drives the economy right? False! This is what the Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman called the greatest economic fallacy of all time. People buying the goods and services they need drive the economy. The government does not actually produce anything, which is why it does not increase the GDP based on the government’s activity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc

So how is a government incurring more debt a problem? How is it similar to a business incurring debt? It is the exact same thing. From the above discussion you can see that a government’s revenues (their resources to pay for things) is finite. When the interest on debt takes a larger and larger share of revenues, the government can either incur more debt at a higher rate (of which we have already established in this scenario that the interest % is taking up too much of the revenues). The government can reduce their spending and cut other programs in order to help prevent the bleeding. Or lastly the government can enter default.

Let’s look at all 3. In scenario 1, if the government is having a hard time paying their interest, taking on more debt is really not an option. The problem is the cost of this new debt would be very high because no one wants to take the unnecessary risk of buying this new debt and not being rewarded. If a government cannot even pay the interest off on the old debt, the new debt is too burdensome.

Scenario 2: The government can reduce their spending? Well we have already seen how hard liberals try to fight this. You take away one program that does nothing and then they start to blame immigration and Ebola on the Republicans. This is really the only viable option. The government has to give less to it’s citizens once it cannot pay the interest or even comes close.

Scenario 3: Default. Default causes all new debt to skyrocket in price. Right now the US pays a low interest rate on their debt. But by 2020 the CBO estimates that interest on debt will be:

“In CBO's most recent projections, which assume that current laws remain the same, annual deficits decline from the $1.3 trillion recorded in 2010, but the cumulative deficit from 2011 through 2020 exceeds $6.2 trillion. Borrowing to finance that deficit--in combination with an expected rise in interest rates--would lead to a fourfold increase in net interest payments over the next 10 years, from $197 billion in 2010 to $778 billion in 2020. As a percentage of GDP, net interest outlays would more than double during that period, rising from 1.4 percent to 3.4 percent.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21960
What you might be missing here is what are the current revenues of the country? The current revenues of the US are 2.77T. That means that as a percent of our expenditures the interest alone on debt we owe will skyrocket. This is disastrous.

In conclusion: before trying to make delineation about the differences between government debt and a business debt you really have to understand the components. It is essentially the same thing. Just saying it isn’t, really does not make any claim different.

Final note: please excuse any grammar mistakes. I really did not proof this.
Last edited by Sound Tactic; 10/30/14 03:28 PM. Reason: Added spaces to remove the wall of text
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Return to Top
#1973092 - 10/30/14 04:04 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
HappyGilmore Offline
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,844
Pulling people out of the ditc...
Originally Posted By: buggs
And you (who are bankers of all people) should be better informed.


it must be hard, always being the smartest person in the room...such a burden you carry
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time

Return to Top
#1973136 - 10/30/14 05:15 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
YosemiteSamIAm Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,795
Guess
Originally Posted By: buggs
...or does he have something up his sleeve?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/28/news/economy/russia-oil-price-100-dollars-budget/

"Vladimir Putin's math is looking fuzzy. Russia's budget is based on oil trading for $100 a barrel, government documents reveal."
I thought he rarely wears his shirt, so he doesn't have a sleeve to put anything up... laugh
_________________________
Sorry, did I just use my outside voice?

Return to Top
#1973137 - 10/30/14 05:18 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
YosemiteSamIAm Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,795
Guess
Originally Posted By: buggs
And you (who are bankers of all people) should be better informed.
Isn't everyone authorized to post on this forum technically a "banker"? Are you the one exception?
_________________________
Sorry, did I just use my outside voice?

Return to Top
#1973212 - 10/30/14 08:03 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster
Sound Tactic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
There is a second part of the discussion that I did not mention. Both companies and governments enter into agreements to pay for things in the future. A good example is a pension. A company records the debt expectation on their balance sheet as a liability. So what does the government do? The government does not record items like this on their balance sheet. These future payments are often referred to as unfunded liabilities. Because these numbers are not recorded they are very difficult to measure.

It is also important to note that, that since they will occur in the future they are often estimated at a future date.

There are varying estimates of what the US unfunded liabilities are, but I have seen anywhere from $100 trillion dollars to $238 trillion dollars. These are usually measured up to the year 2050 or a future date. Yes you read that right, trillion. So UFLs exceed our current listed debt by about 20 times.

Our current GDP has been growing at about 3.5% over the last ten years (which is a very low growth rate). That puts the doubling time of GDP at 16 years. So this means that if we actually pay our UFL we go bankrupt in 30 years. Meaning that the US federal gov't will need to default on their UFL.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Return to Top
#1973215 - 10/30/14 08:06 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
I think rabbits are nocturnal.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1973217 - 10/30/14 08:06 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster
Sound Tactic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
..... that or the water our here for this discussion is too deep for those who don't know how to swim..... but claim they do.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Return to Top
#1973256 - 10/30/14 09:01 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
YosemiteSamIAm Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,795
Guess
I think rabbits are evil...based solely on my viewing of Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail...so be very careful if you are out at night!
_________________________
Sorry, did I just use my outside voice?

Return to Top
#1973266 - 10/30/14 09:18 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
noelekal Offline
100 Club
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 116
Texas
Where's bugg's rebuttal to this debate?
_________________________
"The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."
--George Orwell

Return to Top
#1973274 - 10/30/14 09:29 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
He'll be here after we're all in bed.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1973296 - 10/30/14 10:41 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... noelekal
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster
Sound Tactic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
Originally Posted By: noelekal
Where's bugg's rebuttal to this debate?


There was a day and time where Buggs posted something to me and expected a response within 30 minutes. I guess since it has been half a day we can conclude that he simply..... should be better informed about such things.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Return to Top
#1973453 - 10/31/14 05:33 PM Re: Is Putin a gambler... buggs
YosemiteSamIAm Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,795
Guess
YSIA...looks in on this thread...sees a squashed "cricket"...heads back out...
_________________________
Sorry, did I just use my outside voice?

Return to Top
Page 2 of 2 1 2