61–70 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert but I often fear that the whole S&P500 success is tied to govt spending.
It's tied to GPUs. Nvidia accounts for ~8% of the S&P 500 as of this comment. AI is propping up the US economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44802916 - August 2025 (439 comments)
Once that ends, well... =(
I'm sure there were a lot of naive people who voted for the Republican party for their first time because something from Trump's word salad resonated with them, and they are now finding out what that Party is actually about. Surprise! All that whining about the debt was total kayfabe. Don't say we didn't try to warn you.
How do you guys see this ending? I don't see this ending well but I can't imagine what happens. Seems unsustainable but nobody wants to deal with it.
At some point there will be a need for austerity measures and rising taxes, and whoever will do that will be very unpopular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like it was under control for a while following World War II, but then from the early 1980s, it's hard for me not correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph with presidential party.
What do you specifically see? I see two big increases in debt, both due to shocks (the 08 financial crisis, and the pandemic; one under Obama, and one under Trump.). Pre 2008, it does look like moderate increases under Reagan/Bush1 and Bush 2, and flat to decrease under Clinton, is that what you mean?
1942-1945: Big increase to pay for fighting/winning a World War
1946-2007: More or less fiscally responsible
2008-present: War-like level of debt increase to counteract a down business cycle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you specifically see? I see two big increases in debt, both due to shocks (the 08 financial crisis, and the pandemic; one under Obama, and one under Trump.). Pre 2008, it does look like moderate increases under Reagan/Bush1 and Bush 2, and flat to decrease under Clinton, is that what you mean?
The 2008 crisis happened under Bush, not Obama. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, 2009.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling. I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years. 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get something akin to 2008 again. Including healthcare…
> Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen nurses in many third world countries working hard, because the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output. People doing nothing in America are much more productive than people doing a lot…
Man the debt was actually going DOWN after 2020?
Bill Clinton was probably the last fiscally conservative president we've had or will have for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinv...
How do you guys see this ending? I don't see this ending well but I can't imagine what happens. Seems unsustainable but nobody wants to deal with it.
if the debt ever causes actual problems, e.g. we can't sell our treasury bonds, then our politicians will suddenly remember how to tax rich people. In the mean time the impossible, unsustainable, terrifying national debt will be used to justify benefit cuts (like the upcoming privatization/cut of social security when the trust fund runs out in 7 years)
If we genuinely can't sell treasury bonds, even at elevated payouts, we're probably at a point where we will either have to default in the near future. Or maybe intentionally inflating our currency until the debt is serviceable; no idea which is preferable, but would be curious to hear which and why.