Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

[jamil]

Genuine question here, "how did that $2-3T hurt us?" Please show your work.

We haven't had to pay it back, we still borrow money with seemingly reckless abandonment, so did it hurt? And what did we gain economically by crushing the USSR? I think one could argue that a big upfront expenditure potentially saved a portion of that in the long run.

Good reasoning.

How does that $31T hurt us now? BTW, that 3T is more like 9T in today's money. But, I guess it doesn't matter. How will pissing away any amount of money possibly hurt us?

I'm not in disagreement that breaking the USSR was a good thing. It obviously was. And I do think that outspending them did contribute. But Reaganites are eager to stop there and just claim it was all Reagan and his spending strategy. Thatcher contributed a **** ton towards ending the cold war too, and it wasn't by outspending them.

But my main disagreement with your post is the irresponsible attitude towards debt. Increasing debt was bad. To the extent outspending Soviets led to the end of the cold war, we got a peace dividend out of that. So the net total is important to consider. But we did not put that dividend towards the debt. We spent the **** out of that too. Because people stopped giving a **** about debt. That's a contribution of chamber-o-commerce Republicans.

 

[BugI02]

The sad bit is when people acknowledge the USSR was broken by forcing them to overspend but then somehow thinking we can't be broken on the same wheel

 

[nra4ever]

 

[jamil]

The sad bit is when people acknowledge the USSR was broken by forcing them to overspend but then somehow thinking we can't be broken on the same wheel

I've been thinking about that being a strategy of China/Russia this whole conversation. Especially given their actions towards ending the Dollar is the fiat currency.

 

[jamil]

Well. Probably more like in retaliation for Norway and the US blowing up their pipeline.

 

[BugI02]

Well, global thermonuclear war will certainly enable those predictions that our $31 trillion in debt won't matter to come true

 

[JettaKnight]

Good reasoning.

How does that $31T hurt us now? BTW, that 3T is more like 9T in today's money. But, I guess it doesn't matter. How will pissing away any amount of money possibly hurt us?

Dude, I asked an honest question, lose the snark.

I'm not in disagreement that breaking the USSR was a good thing. It obviously was. And I do think that outspending them did contribute. But Reaganites are eager to stop there and just claim it was all Reagan and his spending strategy. Thatcher contributed a **** ton towards ending the cold war too, and it wasn't by outspending them.

But my main disagreement with your post is the irresponsible attitude towards debt. Increasing debt was bad. To the extent outspending Soviets led to the end of the cold war, we got a peace dividend out of that. So the net total is important to consider. But we did not put that dividend towards the debt. We spent the **** out of that too. Because people stopped giving a **** about debt. That's a contribution of chamber-o-commerce Republicans.

OK, so you've nothing but, "Debt is bad, Mkay."

Great. I already knew that.

 

[BigRed]

$9B
Physical gold only.
Day's rate Monex v Petro

 

[BigRed]

Genuine question here, "how did that $2-3T hurt us?" Please show your work.

We haven't had to pay it back, we still borrow money with seemingly reckless abandonment, so did it hurt? And what did we gain economically by crushing the USSR? I think one could argue that a big upfront expenditure potentially saved a portion of that in the long run.

Sure.
Tell your kids and grandkids.

I am curious.
What will you say to your children and grandchildren whom are working off the debts for which you took on?

 

[jamil]

Dude, I asked an honest question, lose the snark.


OK, so you've nothing but, "Debt is bad, Mkay."

Great. I already knew that.

If you already knew that then why did you ask the question you asked?

Oh. And my post was sarcasm, taking your question to the logical conclusion. If you have to ask how the $3T hurt us in 1980’s dollars, why not ask how the $31T hurts us now? It sounds like you’re invoking the Keynesian/establishment /neocon debt is inconsequential schtick.

 

[bobzilla]

Sure.
Tell your kids and grandkids.

I am curious.
What will you say to your children and grandchildren whom are working off the debts for which you took on?

I didn’t have any so there! I’ll spend what I want.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Genuine question here, "how did that $2-3T hurt us?" Please show your work.

We haven't had to pay it back, we still borrow money with seemingly reckless abandonment, so did it hurt? And what did we gain economically by crushing the USSR? I think one could argue that a big upfront expenditure potentially saved a portion of that in the long run.

You know, I honestly don't know the answers to any of that.

I seems to me that it's always been a conservative value to balance the budget and reduce national debt. But have we actually been wrong in that all along? Can we really just keep borrowing endlessly with no repercussions? So far the answer seems to have been yes, I have to admit.

Who did we actually borrow the money from under Reagan? I don't know if that specific $2-3T we borrowed under Reagan hurt us so much per se as the precedent of racking up ungodly amounts of debt that we'd never be able to pay off in a single generation. That's led us to the current situation, where we owe primarily to one of our biggest rivals; China. If China, tomorrow, said "okay, no more borrowing, and pay back what you owe us," would the USA just say "lol, no" and business would continue as usual with no consequences? I have to imagine not. If our creditors aren't gaining some kind of power over us by loaning us money, than why are they lending to us? Does the USA really just project that much economic power that other countries are willing to make free donations to us in the form of "debt" that everyone knows they'll never get back, all for the sake of hoping to benefit by playing nice with us? Or is it just a delicate game of balance, where we don't think China would actually stop lending because they don't want to lose us as the primary customer for all their manufactured stuff?

I genuinely don't know. Maybe we should start another thread about this; I'd love to hear more answers.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Sure.
Tell your kids and grandkids.

I am curious.
What will you say to your children and grandchildren whom are working off the debts for which you took on?

If you already knew that then why did you ask the question you asked?

Oh. And my post was sarcasm, taking your question to the logical conclusion. If you have to ask how the $3T hurt us in 1980’s dollars, why not ask how the $31T hurts us now? It sounds like you’re invoking the Keynesian/establishment /neocon debt is inconsequential schtick.

I have to admit this is something I've taken so much for granted, that I've never even had to spell it out, so now I really have to ask, "Why does the debt matter?" It's pretty obvious at this point that the USA can't pay back it's debt in any foreseeable amount of time, so aren't people just donating to us by "lending" us more money at this point? What are the actual consequences if our creditors decide they want their money back? If we just say "no" what are they going to do about it?

I did go ahead and start a new thread on this, just to hopefully not threadjack too much:

Why is National Debt Bad?

So, I do sort of have my own thoughts on the answer to this question, but I've kind of just realized that when pressed, I can't really give a solid answer and "show my work" as @JettaKnight put it. So the question is, given that the USA has already borrowed ridiculous amounts that we'll never...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[DragonGunner]

Seen where China may send weapons for Russia to use against Ukraine. Say they won’t be bullied by the US. I got a bad feeling on this. Russia and China vs the World. It’s for their own survival and future. Who would have thought WWIII would start in Ukraine. Guess about like the others.

 

[SEIndSAM]

Japan....

 

[KG1]

What did you bring me daddy?

 

[SEIndSAM]

 

[Ark]

The US blew up Russia's pipelines to keep Europe in the war. We made civilian pipeline infrastructure a military target. If this does happen, which I don't think it will, it's only because the US broke the seal first.

 

[BugI02]

I seems to me that it's always been a conservative value to balance the budget and reduce national debt. But have we actually been wrong in that all along? Can we really just keep borrowing endlessly with no repercussions? So far the answer seems to have been yes, I have to admit.

Debt service is 14%/$261 billion currently, with 10 year treasuries running at about 3.85%

Total debt is over $31 trillion. To pay off even 5% of that would require repurposing 85.5% of the current federal budget to ONLY that

That would in turn only save us $13 billion, which would be offset in a mere 0.0414% rise in interest rates that we have to pay. Recall that when Greece's ability to repay its debt was doubted the interest it had to pay to roll over loans nearly doubled

If that happened to us, debt service would exceed all other segments of the budget and crowd out a lot of other spending, some of which might actually be needed.
It would take a 10% cut in the budget, devoted only to debt retirement, to pay off slightly less than 0.6% of the debt in any given year. The numbers are stacked against any realistic repayment strategy

The debt is so high that very little of it can be repaid in any FY and that only through cuts and pain in other areas of spending. Few if any politicians want to make that type of trade off because they want to get re-elected, so they will continue to make bank personally while Rome burns

 

[bobzilla]

The US blew up Russia's pipelines to keep Europe in the war. We made civilian pipeline infrastructure a military target. If this does happen, which I don't think it will, it's only because the US broke the seal first.

and your proof is? Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it any more true.