What's new

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff

Markus

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
4,425
Reaction score
-1
U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff

Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

(Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and author of “Jimmy Stewart Is Dead: Ending the World’s Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Laurence Kotlikoff at kotlikoff@bu.edu

Source: U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff - Bloomberg
 
. .
because the US kills anyone that doesn't play by its rules if it can and demonizes them if it can't.

no one knows about the corruption in the US though, since their media only reports on the tip of the iceberg to give people the impression that their politics is clean. but to see the truth, compare their blacks and mexicans in the slums to the rich white people with private planes.
 
.
What a disgrace, a Professor of Economics who repeats the nutjob claim that social security is a ponzi scheme. Anyone who calls social security a ponzi has an axe to grind because you might as well call the state itself a ponzi if you use such a loose definition.

Here's an idea. When the 78 million "boomers" come to collect their social security cheques, say no. Start a culture war, young vs old. Or, raise the age by 5 years to 70. Both are actually politically and economically possible, instead of his insane idea of doubling tax. Run the numbers on 70 instead of 65 and the problem is cut in half. Then understand that US citizens born after 1990 have it at 67 and then you know how full of it people like this guy are. McCain was right, solving social security is easy. And it certainly won't bankrupt the US.

P.S. To those wondering a true ponzi scheme always needs new clients and collapses under its own weight no matter what as the old clients begin demanding their money back. Mathematically you need ever increasing numbers of new clients to pay for the old. Social security could go on forever and has for decades, the only problem being demographics. It would not collapse under its own weight if it wasn't for demographic changes. It is not a ponzi scheme because mathematically it is a pay as you go program and would not need ever increasing numbers of new clients, if it wasn't for the population boom in the 60's and subsequent decline in population growth. Social security and other pay as you go programs need a steady supply of new clients yes, but not ever increasing amounts of new clients so it is not a ponzi scheme no matter how many Internet nutjobs or fringe professors say it is.
 
Last edited:
.
because the US kills anyone that doesn't play by its rules if it can and demonizes them if it can't.

no one knows about the corruption in the US though, since their media only reports on the tip of the iceberg to give people the impression that their politics is clean. but to see the truth, compare their blacks and mexicans in the slums to the rich white people with private planes.

Compared to the 193 million Chinese slum dwellers? Playing the communist class card doesn't work. Most industrialized countries have slums, And China is no exception. U.S. slum dwellers have chances to lift themselves out of poverty that would be the envy of other countries. But the problem is many in the U.S. have become dependent on state welfare and don't feel the need to get jobs. There are generation after generation that grow up feeling the state owes them. They collect their monthly checks, free food, and housing subsidies never intending to get a job.

china-slum_1121216i.jpg


image
 
.
... i don't think that the 1st picture was too bad, i lived in a similar apartment for most of my life. the 2nd picture actually has million USD historical homes... small houses like that that haven't been demolished are all million dollar ones.
 
.
What a disgrace, a Professor of Economics who repeats the nutjob claim that social security is a ponzi scheme. Anyone who calls social security a ponzi has an axe to grind because you might as well call the state itself a ponzi if you use such a loose definition.

Here's an idea. When the 78 million "boomers" come to collect their social security cheques, say no. Start a culture war, young vs old. Or, raise the age by 5 years to 70. Both are actually politically and economically possible, instead of his insane idea of doubling tax. Run the numbers on 70 instead of 65 and the problem is cut in half. Then understand that US citizens born after 1990 have it at 67 and then you know how full of it people like this guy are. McCain was right, solving social security is easy. And it certainly won't bankrupt the US.

P.S. To those wondering a true ponzi scheme always needs new clients and collapses under its own weight no matter what as the old clients begin demanding their money back. Mathematically you need ever increasing numbers of new clients to pay for the old. Social security could go on forever and has for decades, the only problem being demographics. It would not collapse under its own weight if it wasn't for demographic changes. It is not a ponzi scheme because mathematically it is a pay as you go program and would not need ever increasing numbers of new clients, if it wasn't for the population boom in the 60's and subsequent decline in population growth. Social security and other pay as you go programs need a steady supply of new clients yes, but not ever increasing amounts of new clients so it is not a ponzi scheme no matter how many Internet nutjobs or fringe professors say it is.

Social Security IS A PONZI SCHEME

The government takes 1/3rd of your earnings and puts it in a social security account. When you hit 65 they start giving you back your money from your social security account.

When the government overspends they dip into the social security funds to pay for it.

The problem is that each and every president has been taking a little from the social security fund hoping that the president after would have a surplus and return some money back.

Most of the people who put money into social security will only get around 1/10th of it back
 
.
Social Security IS A PONZI SCHEME

The government takes 1/3rd of your earnings and puts it in a social security account. When you hit 65 they start giving you back your money from your social security account.

When the government overspends they dip into the social security funds to pay for it.

The problem is that each and every president has been taking a little from the social security fund hoping that the president after would have a surplus and return some money back.

Most of the people who put money into social security will only get around 1/10th of it back

Lack of Cash flows to compensate for quick operations by taking away from social security, other securities or underlying assets doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme just not enough capital to compensate for rising costs and various financing opportunity's that might arise. The concept of Social security is still sound but it doesn't fall under Ponzi scheme which is something based completely on fraud, deceit, unethical and an illegal behavior or operation.
 
.
Lack of Cash flows to compensate for quick operations by taking away from social security, other securities or underlying assets doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme just not enough capital to compensate for rising costs and various financing opportunity's that might arise. The concept of Social security is still sound but it doesn't fall under Ponzi scheme which is something based completely on fraud, deceit, unethical and an illegal behavior or operation.


Ponzi Scheme = When somebody opens up an investment firm, lies about earnings and pays out dividends using money given for investment.

So if 10 people invest $1,000 dollars in a ponzi scheme, the guy running the scheme will pay out $5 a year to the 10 people who invested in him.

The ponzi scheme runs on new investments so that the firm can continue paying out interest.

Social security is not much different, because if everybody demanded their money back it would collapse overnight, or if a lot of people live a LONG time social security would collapse.

If you die before you hit 80 most of your money is lost.
 
.
They collect their monthly checks, free food, and housing subsidies never intending to get a job.

It all goes around in a circle doesn't it? The money the government gives them come is part of a parcel of debt which is or was sold off as a bond to some foreign government.

Ultimately the US government should still do a better job of restructuring its debt, the fact that the US dollar is still the world reserve currency is preventing any major hyper inflation from taking place.

But I disagree with the article saying the US is bankrupt, its probably something just to grab attention.
 
.
Social Security IS A PONZI SCHEME

The government takes 1/3rd of your earnings and puts it in a social security account. When you hit 65 they start giving you back your money from your social security account.

When the government overspends they dip into the social security funds to pay for it.

The problem is that each and every president has been taking a little from the social security fund hoping that the president after would have a surplus and return some money back.

Most of the people who put money into social security will only get around 1/10th of it back

They don't take 1/3rd of your paycheck and they don't put it into any account. They use your money to pay seniors under the premise that one day when you get old..the current youngsters will pay for you.

The problem is the seniors today live longer than the people they paid for,the health care is more expensive and there are not enough young people to pay for all the old people living till 85 years.

Plus the fact that even though you may put in X+Y more than the guy who put in X amount..you will not not get Y more when you retire makes it a scam.If people cannot look after their money then they can crawl up and die somewhere. The govt job is not to be a nanny state by using other people's money.
 
.
Ponzi Scheme = When somebody opens up an investment firm, lies about earnings and pays out dividends using money given for investment.

So if 10 people invest $1,000 dollars in a ponzi scheme, the guy running the scheme will pay out $5 a year to the 10 people who invested in him.

The ponzi scheme runs on new investments so that the firm can continue paying out interest.

Social security is not much different, because if everybody demanded their money back it would collapse overnight, or if a lot of people live a LONG time social security would collapse.

If you die before you hit 80 most of your money is lost.

Heh heh maybe you and this professor are friends?:bunny:

You have absolutely no idea what ponzi means by the way. Ponzi means a mathematically unsustainable multi-level scheme, not what you said. If it was what you said, half of business would be ponzi and so would government itself because it relies on new people being born! The definition of ponzi has nothing to do with living a long time, or lying about earnings or even running an investment firm no matter how much you want it.

Ras already covered it, but in case you need it again, your money is not put into an account and it is pay as you go. The difference is vast, and if you don't understand that perhaps you and this professor should share a room and discuss the downfall of America together.
 
.
Compared to the 193 million Chinese slum dwellers? Playing the communist class card doesn't work. Most industrialized countries have slums, And China is no exception. U.S. slum dwellers have chances to lift themselves out of poverty that would be the envy of other countries.

US slum dwellers have chances but not as good as you think.

Choice one is army.

Choice two is an education at an elite university, with a useful major. I have talked to many Americans and the problem is most degrees are considered worthless by the private sector. For example, you could go into debt and get a degree in English but what good is that? Not only that but you need a brand name school.

Consider that both choices are extremely difficult unless you make the decision early in your life and/or have no family.

So if you are a slum dweller who can't make it in the army and can't make an A average at an elite university in computer science or engineering, it is much harder to get out of the slums than you think. And if you are over 30 and still in the slums, you are probably stuck there for life unless you have 5 years to spare to go back to college.

And if you think this is all bullshit, consider this fact: in order to get a rent subsidy, you need a job. As far as I'm concerned anyone who is working deserves a roof over their head, and anyone who plays the "elitist" card and thinks some jobs aren't real jobs don't understand capitalism. Not everyone can be a chief, there has to be indians.
 
.
Heh heh maybe you and this professor are friends?:bunny:

You have absolutely no idea what ponzi means by the way. Ponzi means a mathematically unsustainable multi-level scheme, not what you said. If it was what you said, half of business would be ponzi and so would government itself because it relies on new people being born! The definition of ponzi has nothing to do with living a long time, or lying about earnings or even running an investment firm no matter how much you want it.

Ras already covered it, but in case you need it again, your money is not put into an account and it is pay as you go. The difference is vast, and if you don't understand that perhaps you and this professor should share a room and discuss the downfall of America together.

Social security is unsustainable..that part I agree with our Chinese friend. Will it cause America's downfall absolutely not..but I have the nasty feeling that I am not going to see a penny of the money I put in every 2 weeks.
 
.
Social security is unsustainable..that part I agree with our Chinese friend. Will it cause America's downfall absolutely not..but I have the nasty feeling that I am not going to see a penny of the money I put in every 2 weeks.

I agree, The money was there for social security. the problem is the Government was allowed to borrow from it and issue I.O.U.'s. The same has happened with Medicare. Their demise won't bring about the U.S. downfall economically but there are going to be some pretty upset retirees.

China has a similar problem with it's retiring population. A very large portion of the Chinese population are going to be coming of retirement age. China has still not worked out how it is going to pay for them. And the old policy of one child only has created a problem of who is going to take care of the parents when the lone child has to work.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom