Ask HN: Are you worried about the US dollar collapse?
48 comments
Given the enormous US government debt conservatively estimated at $37T and annual revenues of $1.86T, it seems like we are on the precipice of a debt spiral.
I've been hearing that my entire life, and I'm about ready to retire. I'm not going to argue it here, but I'd even say there are plenty of apologetics to say that some national debt is a good thing (and plenty of smarter folk than I have already written those arguments, I seriously recommend a search for them).
So to answer your question: no, I'm not worried, for several reasons. First, see the paragraph above. Second, there's not a damned thing I can do to keep it from all tumbling down, and if it does, I can't do anything about that, either. I could go all prepper, but that won't save you, either (not arguing that here, either).
And finally, at the risk of starting pointless arguments, the Republican party tends to start banging the "national debt" drum during election years, whereas any other year they don't give a shit (as evidenced by Congressional budget proposals). So to some extent I would argue that you're being sold a party line to make you worry enough to start posting such questions online, and hopefully vote the way "they" want you to.
I've been hearing that my entire life, and I'm about ready to retire. I'm not going to argue it here, but I'd even say there are plenty of apologetics to say that some national debt is a good thing (and plenty of smarter folk than I have already written those arguments, I seriously recommend a search for them).
So to answer your question: no, I'm not worried, for several reasons. First, see the paragraph above. Second, there's not a damned thing I can do to keep it from all tumbling down, and if it does, I can't do anything about that, either. I could go all prepper, but that won't save you, either (not arguing that here, either).
And finally, at the risk of starting pointless arguments, the Republican party tends to start banging the "national debt" drum during election years, whereas any other year they don't give a shit (as evidenced by Congressional budget proposals). So to some extent I would argue that you're being sold a party line to make you worry enough to start posting such questions online, and hopefully vote the way "they" want you to.
> 've been hearing that my entire life, and I'm about ready to retire.
Yes, and over the course of your lifetime the value of your savings and your buying power has been systematically devalued. You might not be worried, but clearly the sociopolitical system is feeling the strain.
Perhaps there's not much we can do about it now, but being in denial about how we got here doesn't make any sense either.
Yes, and over the course of your lifetime the value of your savings and your buying power has been systematically devalued. You might not be worried, but clearly the sociopolitical system is feeling the strain.
Perhaps there's not much we can do about it now, but being in denial about how we got here doesn't make any sense either.
This is very well put, especially the point about certain people only start caring about federal debt right before elections.
If Trump becomes president, yes. Otherwise, no.
Prioritizing loyalty and ideology over competence will cause problems. We know Trump prizes loyalty over every other quality.
Prioritizing loyalty and ideology over competence will cause problems. We know Trump prizes loyalty over every other quality.
The president hardly affects anything, that's just the big sell to voters to make them feel like they have some representation in government. Both Trump and Biden nominated Jerome Powell.
I think that's true in the general sense but a lot of that hasn't been really tested simply because of the power of tradition. Part of what [may] be dangerous about Trump is that he is perceived as willing to run roughshod through political convention. Declarations of martial law (in particular if the military can be convinced to go along with it) or other more extraordinary actions would have a powerful effect on the country.
During his presidency Trump showed that a president CAN have profound effects on the economic system. He ordered changes to trading policy with China that had effects that were obvious and felt (regardless of the merit of the actions).
A lot of times presidents are simply unwilling to risk rocking the boat, preferring stability and the status quo. There is a lot of risk of ruining ones re-election chances and damaging the electability of congresspersons of ones party and thus the party itself losing political power (and thus the sweet teet of special interest lobbying money and such that comes along with wielding enough power to represent those interests).
Trump--and I agree with this sentiment myself--is more willing to do something radical. That doesn't mean anything radical he does will be intrinsically bad or have bad effects, it's possible that he could affect positive radical change too.
So, while it's true our president doesn't normally affect too much, it isn't purely because the office lacks the power to affect the economy.
During his presidency Trump showed that a president CAN have profound effects on the economic system. He ordered changes to trading policy with China that had effects that were obvious and felt (regardless of the merit of the actions).
A lot of times presidents are simply unwilling to risk rocking the boat, preferring stability and the status quo. There is a lot of risk of ruining ones re-election chances and damaging the electability of congresspersons of ones party and thus the party itself losing political power (and thus the sweet teet of special interest lobbying money and such that comes along with wielding enough power to represent those interests).
Trump--and I agree with this sentiment myself--is more willing to do something radical. That doesn't mean anything radical he does will be intrinsically bad or have bad effects, it's possible that he could affect positive radical change too.
So, while it's true our president doesn't normally affect too much, it isn't purely because the office lacks the power to affect the economy.
The Federal gov keeps running a deficit and keeps expanding it.
The Federal Reserve plays along and keeps financing that bad behavior.
Together they're compromising the dollar and the associated economy but... we're going to blame a random third-party when the shit hits the fan?
Is this an April Fools' joke?
The Federal Reserve plays along and keeps financing that bad behavior.
Together they're compromising the dollar and the associated economy but... we're going to blame a random third-party when the shit hits the fan?
Is this an April Fools' joke?
Pull up a chart of what the federal defecit has been under each party control over the past half century and it's pretty clear that one major party is a lot more culpable than the other. Spoiler alert, it's not the party that spends more time on vapid fiscal responsibilty messaging.
The members of both parties take an oath to serve the American people. Both are failing. The faux finger pointed and other associated theater doesn't change the fact that the voters / taxpayers are getting screwed.
This party? That party?? That's pointless minutia at this point.
This party? That party?? That's pointless minutia at this point.
So your reaction to learning that one party is measurably worse in regards to a certain criteria is to immediately pivot to the argument that both sides are equally bad?
Yes, in the long term, the sun is going to burn out and leave the earth a cold lifeless rock, but I can certainly do things right now to improve the "short term", like voting for a party that doesn't constantly overinflate the debt.
Yes, in the long term, the sun is going to burn out and leave the earth a cold lifeless rock, but I can certainly do things right now to improve the "short term", like voting for a party that doesn't constantly overinflate the debt.
So your answer is to put all the responsible in the hands of a single party? And that doesn't make you get a case of "be careful what you wish for"?
> Is this an April Fools' joke?
No more or less than any other self-sabotaging economic policy. Brexit, etc.
No more or less than any other self-sabotaging economic policy. Brexit, etc.
Trump being the problem, that was the question about it being a joke.
Trump and the party he now leads are famously bad about over spending and raising the debt. If there's a joke, it's on the citizens.
That's naive. There's plenty of excess in the budget added by both parties. And both parties are happy to sign-off on an ever expanding DoD budget. Yes, the GOP loves to cut taxes. But again, both are adding to the excessive spending. It's not a one-party problem.
looks like alternative universe (will mark it as unresolved mystery), "if" you are average household or family with same behavior you will be bankrupted long time ago or in prison
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
for sake of common sense - simplified:
You are indebted $37000 and you annual revenue is $1860, how much money will bank borrow you or your uncle borrow you ?
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
for sake of common sense - simplified:
You are indebted $37000 and you annual revenue is $1860, how much money will bank borrow you or your uncle borrow you ?
It's a different story when you also print the money!
Or exist far longer than human life expectancy.
What if I lived in a house worth millions of dollars and there were lots of valuable minerals in my back yard and I had 340,000,000 relatives living with me many of whom were quite clever? Would it turn out that this metaphor of yours is and always has been defective?
Fortunately a superpower country is quite different from a random household in a number of ways. Being able to borrow trillions at the rate the treasury pays, having a massive military, controlling the money supply, and being the world reserve currency are some of the notable differences.
Well, you can legally print as much money as you want stealing the value from people who own dollars to pay people who you owe dollars.
I'm not sure what I can tangibly do, so I don't really worry. Of course, it's of great concern, but the extent of my planning is "This is what I think I will do after a potential collapse".
My planning involves relocating to a family-owned rural property and drastically downsizing and conserving my resources, and plying my diverse skills for cash and prizes.
My planning involves relocating to a family-owned rural property and drastically downsizing and conserving my resources, and plying my diverse skills for cash and prizes.
I'm basically worried about everything; I'm told this is known as generalized anxiety disorder, but often I think it's called paying attention. I'm a lot more worried about ecosystem collapse. At the end of the day, dollars are more of a (very important) collective belief of US society while the environment is an empirical reality that we rely upon to eat and breathe.
I’m definitely in agreement that GAD results from awareness but in the case of doomerism (maybe a bit reductionist), I’d like to also argue it stems from a lack of awareness. Why be afraid of a future you cannot control just because you and everyone you know dies in it? This has been the hand dealt to many groups of people in human history, and they all lived it. This time might be the worst but for us as individuals it’s all the same.
Unless we want to genuinely enact change then just breathe. Enjoy your life and don’t be afraid of the things you’re aware of. Take strength in the billions of humans that have gone through the same thing, having their lives cut so short. It’ll happen, and then it’ll be over (:
Unless we want to genuinely enact change then just breathe. Enjoy your life and don’t be afraid of the things you’re aware of. Take strength in the billions of humans that have gone through the same thing, having their lives cut so short. It’ll happen, and then it’ll be over (:
Debt to GDP Ratio is the key - combined with the amount of revenues collected to pay said debts over time - that ratio is key too.
The debt isn't as significant considering there is revenues that could pay it.
Tax rates in the 50s vs tax rates today. The lack of higher income brackets in the tax code, etc.
We've got plenty of money.
The debt isn't as significant considering there is revenues that could pay it.
Tax rates in the 50s vs tax rates today. The lack of higher income brackets in the tax code, etc.
We've got plenty of money.
[deleted]
> Tax rates in the 50s vs tax rates today. The lack of higher income brackets in the tax code, etc.
The US has had a wide-range of tax rates and tax policy.
Despite that, FedGov has never collected more than 22% of GDP for longer than two years.
One explanation is that the tax code affects people's behavior wrt taxes.
The US has had a wide-range of tax rates and tax policy.
Despite that, FedGov has never collected more than 22% of GDP for longer than two years.
One explanation is that the tax code affects people's behavior wrt taxes.
The tax rate in the 50s was never paid; the current tax burden is extremely high.
In theory, maybe. The reality is very different. The debt keeps increasing because:
1) We don't have the political will to increase revenues (read: taxes)
2) We don't have the political will to cut spending. That is, politicians keep buying votes with new programs, and we keep smiling as we sell our votes to the highest bidder.
In short, you're over-simplifying the base financial system (i.e., The Fed), the broader financial system (i.e., banks and the fractional banking system), as well as the sociopolitical system.
There's more to this than debt in some amount and GDP in some amount, and saying the ratio of those two is all we need to understand and not worry.
btw, for bonus points, read the first three or four chapters from Lyn Alden's "Broken Money".
https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/
1) We don't have the political will to increase revenues (read: taxes)
2) We don't have the political will to cut spending. That is, politicians keep buying votes with new programs, and we keep smiling as we sell our votes to the highest bidder.
In short, you're over-simplifying the base financial system (i.e., The Fed), the broader financial system (i.e., banks and the fractional banking system), as well as the sociopolitical system.
There's more to this than debt in some amount and GDP in some amount, and saying the ratio of those two is all we need to understand and not worry.
btw, for bonus points, read the first three or four chapters from Lyn Alden's "Broken Money".
https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/
[deleted]
I'm not worried. I think the US does need to reduce deficit spending by a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending. Maybe it will do this sooner, maybe later, not much I can do about it. Looking at debt-to-GDP ratios the U.S. could do better, but it isn't crazy compared to others. Financially, I own stocks and a house. Why? Those companies make products and sell them to the world and the house has a fixed 2.625% interest rate, why not.
Collapse-to-zero, vs. a period of high inflation which lets the US reduce the current value of the debt by a large factor?
A huge global financial/commerce system needs a "standard" currency. The lack of a good replacement for the dollar (in that capacity) means there are a load of A List players in the game...who have vested interests in pretending that US govt. debt doesn't matter.
A huge global financial/commerce system needs a "standard" currency. The lack of a good replacement for the dollar (in that capacity) means there are a load of A List players in the game...who have vested interests in pretending that US govt. debt doesn't matter.
This game gets played every time republicans want to get back in power. It’s a hoax meant to scare you into the false fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party. There’s even a playbook for it in their strategy manuals. Don’t be the useful idiot.
Interesting, could anyone drop a link to the playbook?
It is business as usual, is it not? I remember my dad talking about the same problem when I was quite young. Somehow, though the numbers keep growing, the wheels continue not to fall off: presumably there are people whose job it is to keep those wheels attached, who have thus far performed their duties with competence. One can hope that they will continue to do so. In any case, there is nothing meaningful I can do about any of it, so I worry about this problem in approximately the same way that I worry about meteor strikes or nuclear war.
I get that. And at the end of the day the problem is a relative one. If the US Dollar isn’t the reserve currency for the world, then what will take its place? There aren’t any particularly good alternatives… Bitcoin is volatile with slow transaction speed and high transaction cost. Yen is controlled by an untrustworthy government…
I suppose we don’t have control over the outcome, but we do have some control over how we hedge against it or not…
I suppose we don’t have control over the outcome, but we do have some control over how we hedge against it or not…
re: "the wheels continue not to fall off"
Then what was the 2007 / 2008 bail out?
And the Covid "bail outs" (on the part of the Fed)?
But yes, a Ponzi Scheme looks perfectly fine... until it doesn't.
Keep in mind, this financial vehicle isn't standing still. Once the wheels come off, there will be plenty of sparks, with plenty of flammable liquid nearby.
Then what was the 2007 / 2008 bail out?
And the Covid "bail outs" (on the part of the Fed)?
But yes, a Ponzi Scheme looks perfectly fine... until it doesn't.
Keep in mind, this financial vehicle isn't standing still. Once the wheels come off, there will be plenty of sparks, with plenty of flammable liquid nearby.
I heard somewhere that the US (and developed countries in general) go into debt because... there's demand for it!
A state with a decent credit rating is going to keep paying interest and that's what investors are interested in.
A state with a decent credit rating is going to keep paying interest and that's what investors are interested in.
Looks like real inflation from 2018 to 2024 was 25% over that time frame, so I think that was the collapse.
I don't think we are going to see things get worse from now, maybe they will even stabilize. But generally, we just went through a massive inflationary period that will be felt for a while.
I don't think we are going to see things get worse from now, maybe they will even stabilize. But generally, we just went through a massive inflationary period that will be felt for a while.
25% in six years is a collapse? 4% a year?
Easy to see you weren't around in 1979. That looked like things could collapse into a runaway inflation.
Look, we still could mess this up and wind up there. But 4% a year for six years isn't evidence that we're there.
Easy to see you weren't around in 1979. That looked like things could collapse into a runaway inflation.
Look, we still could mess this up and wind up there. But 4% a year for six years isn't evidence that we're there.
No.
I’d be worried the day someone makes a credible case for another reserve currency.
Been waiting 50 years for that…
Been waiting 50 years for that…
The problem is a culture of spending more than you have/make, which is pervading deeper into individual American lifestyles and their collective social fabric. As that trend persists, efforts to bring expenditures in line with revenues become increasingly politically unviable.
I use the analogy that the US drives its economy at the redline, leveraging a lot of debt to produce growth. It works great when times are good, as you reap a multiplication factor on return. But hurts when the car hits a speed bump (economic shock) or burns out.
Either the country will have a "come-to-senses" moment and correct course, or will slowly degrade to reduced global relevance/influence as servicing that debt eats an ever larger portion of the budget (putting a handicap on what else it can get done), dollars become less valuable, and other economies (like China) with more disciplined long-term planning overtake. The speed it happens will be affected by how much of that annual deficit goes back into productive activity vs. lining pockets / luxuries for those holding it. There's a ton of momentum so it's not surprising to see a lot of lag (decades) before the effects become obvious.
Keep in mind not long ago the US was a country of pioneers and entrepreneurs. It still is, but over time the mix naturally changes (some older people argue second or third generation citizens don't have the same work ethic, but that's a broader stroke than I feel fair to paint). As the demographics mature and change, you get more social programs, more entitlements, etc. From another perspective that can be viewed as societal progress. As long as it's sustainable (which I don't think it presently is).
Britain is a great example to look at for lessons from the past (before the pound Stirling lost its status as global reserve currency).
Here in Canada I keep saying it would be nice to see some politicians with conservative ideas on spending, but liberal policies on other fronts.
All of this is just my own uninformed opinion, take it with a big grain of salt and feel free to disagree!
I use the analogy that the US drives its economy at the redline, leveraging a lot of debt to produce growth. It works great when times are good, as you reap a multiplication factor on return. But hurts when the car hits a speed bump (economic shock) or burns out.
Either the country will have a "come-to-senses" moment and correct course, or will slowly degrade to reduced global relevance/influence as servicing that debt eats an ever larger portion of the budget (putting a handicap on what else it can get done), dollars become less valuable, and other economies (like China) with more disciplined long-term planning overtake. The speed it happens will be affected by how much of that annual deficit goes back into productive activity vs. lining pockets / luxuries for those holding it. There's a ton of momentum so it's not surprising to see a lot of lag (decades) before the effects become obvious.
Keep in mind not long ago the US was a country of pioneers and entrepreneurs. It still is, but over time the mix naturally changes (some older people argue second or third generation citizens don't have the same work ethic, but that's a broader stroke than I feel fair to paint). As the demographics mature and change, you get more social programs, more entitlements, etc. From another perspective that can be viewed as societal progress. As long as it's sustainable (which I don't think it presently is).
Britain is a great example to look at for lessons from the past (before the pound Stirling lost its status as global reserve currency).
Here in Canada I keep saying it would be nice to see some politicians with conservative ideas on spending, but liberal policies on other fronts.
All of this is just my own uninformed opinion, take it with a big grain of salt and feel free to disagree!
"At every stage in the growth of that debt the nation has set up the same cry of anguish and despair. At every stage in the growth of that debt it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt went on growing; and still bankruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever. When the great contest with Louis XIV was finally terminated by the Peace of Utrecht, the nation owed about fifty millions; and that debt was considered, not merely by the rude multitude, not merely by foxhunting squires and coffeehouse orators, but by acute and profound thinkers, as an incumbrance which would permanently cripple the body politic. Nevertheless trade flourished; wealth increased; the nation became richer and richer.
Then came the war of the Austrian Succession; and the debt rose to eighty millions. Pamphleteers, historians and orators pronounced that now, at all events, our case was desperate. Yet the signs of increasing prosperity, signs which could neither be counterfeited nor concealed, ought to have satisfied observant and reflecting men that a debt of eighty millions was less to the England which was governed by Pelham than a debt of fifty millions had been to the England which was governed by Oxford.
Soon war again broke forth; and, under the energetic and prodigal administration of the first William Pitt, the debt rapidly swelled to a hundred and forty millions. As soon as the first intoxication of victory was over, men of theory and men of business almost unanimously pronounced that the fatal day had now really arrived. [...] Not less gloomy was the view which George Grenville, a minister eminently diligent and practical, took of our financial situation. The nation must, he conceived, sink under a debt of a hundred and forty millions, unless a portion of the load were borne by the American colonies.
The attempt to lay a portion of the load on the American colonies produced another war. That war left us with an additional hundred millions of debt, and without the colonies whose help had been represented as indispensable. Again England was given over; and again the strange patient persisted in becoming stronger and more blooming in spite of all the diagnostics and prognostics of State physicians. As she had been visibly more prosperous with a debt of a hundred and forty millions than with a debt of fifty millions, so she, as visibly more prosperous with a debt of two hundred and forty millions than with a debt of a hundred and forty millions.
Soon however the wars which sprang from the French Revolution, and which far exceeded in cost any that the world had ever seen, tasked the powers of public credit to the utmost. When the world was again at rest the funded debt of England amounted to eight hundred millions. [...] It was in truth a gigantic, a fabulous debt; and we can hardly wonder that the cry of despair should have been louder than ever. But again that cry was found to have been as unreasonable as ever. After a few years of exhaustion, England recovered herself. [...] Meanwhile taxation was almost constantly becoming lighter and lighter; yet still the Exchequer was full. It may be now affirmed without fear of contradiction that we find it as easy to pay the interest of eight hundred millions as our ancestors found it, a century ago, to pay the interest of eighty millions. [...]
A long experience justifies us in believing that England may, in the twentieth century, be better able to bear a debt of sixteen hundred millions than she is at the present time to bear her present load. But be this as it may, those who so confidently predicted that she must sink, first under a debt of fifty millions, then under a debt of eighty millions then under a debt of a hundred and forty millions, then under a debt of two hundred and forty millions, and lastly under a debt of eight hundred millions, were beyond all doubt under a twofold mistake. They greatly overrated the pressure of the burden; they greatly underrated the strength by which the burden was to be borne."
Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 4 (1848)
Then came the war of the Austrian Succession; and the debt rose to eighty millions. Pamphleteers, historians and orators pronounced that now, at all events, our case was desperate. Yet the signs of increasing prosperity, signs which could neither be counterfeited nor concealed, ought to have satisfied observant and reflecting men that a debt of eighty millions was less to the England which was governed by Pelham than a debt of fifty millions had been to the England which was governed by Oxford.
Soon war again broke forth; and, under the energetic and prodigal administration of the first William Pitt, the debt rapidly swelled to a hundred and forty millions. As soon as the first intoxication of victory was over, men of theory and men of business almost unanimously pronounced that the fatal day had now really arrived. [...] Not less gloomy was the view which George Grenville, a minister eminently diligent and practical, took of our financial situation. The nation must, he conceived, sink under a debt of a hundred and forty millions, unless a portion of the load were borne by the American colonies.
The attempt to lay a portion of the load on the American colonies produced another war. That war left us with an additional hundred millions of debt, and without the colonies whose help had been represented as indispensable. Again England was given over; and again the strange patient persisted in becoming stronger and more blooming in spite of all the diagnostics and prognostics of State physicians. As she had been visibly more prosperous with a debt of a hundred and forty millions than with a debt of fifty millions, so she, as visibly more prosperous with a debt of two hundred and forty millions than with a debt of a hundred and forty millions.
Soon however the wars which sprang from the French Revolution, and which far exceeded in cost any that the world had ever seen, tasked the powers of public credit to the utmost. When the world was again at rest the funded debt of England amounted to eight hundred millions. [...] It was in truth a gigantic, a fabulous debt; and we can hardly wonder that the cry of despair should have been louder than ever. But again that cry was found to have been as unreasonable as ever. After a few years of exhaustion, England recovered herself. [...] Meanwhile taxation was almost constantly becoming lighter and lighter; yet still the Exchequer was full. It may be now affirmed without fear of contradiction that we find it as easy to pay the interest of eight hundred millions as our ancestors found it, a century ago, to pay the interest of eighty millions. [...]
A long experience justifies us in believing that England may, in the twentieth century, be better able to bear a debt of sixteen hundred millions than she is at the present time to bear her present load. But be this as it may, those who so confidently predicted that she must sink, first under a debt of fifty millions, then under a debt of eighty millions then under a debt of a hundred and forty millions, then under a debt of two hundred and forty millions, and lastly under a debt of eight hundred millions, were beyond all doubt under a twofold mistake. They greatly overrated the pressure of the burden; they greatly underrated the strength by which the burden was to be borne."
Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 4 (1848)
I like this historical example, but it doesn’t not present a way to think about government debt. What is a reasonable amount of debt? Is there a limit? Seems like the conclusion of this excerpt is just “shrug, didn’t happen”
It's hard to find credible reading to learn about all of this and how the situation is expected to reconcile.
Are you worried? What do you think it doing to happen? Is there any reading you can recommend? What are you doing to financially protect yourself?