Search


Subscribe to AFM


Subscribe to AllFinancialMatters
by Email

All Financial Matters

Promote Your Page Too

The American's Creed

Site Sponsors

Books I Recommend


AFM in the Media


Money Magazine May 2008

Real Simple March 2008

Blogroll (Daily Reads)

« | Main | »

John Steele Gordon’s Primer on the National Debt

By JLP | August 29, 2011

Pretty good op-ed piece in this morning’s WSJ by John Steele Gordon.

He opens the piece with some definitions (bold mine)…

So, a few definitions. The total national debt of the United States is the sum of all federal bills, notes and bonds that have been issued by the Treasury and not yet redeemed. The publicly held debt is the sum of the Treasury securities held by individuals, financial institutions and foreign governments. (That’s not just the Chinese, by the way. Both Great Britain and Japan are also major holders of U.S. debt, as are many other countries in lesser amounts.)

The intra-governmental debt is the sum of Treasury bonds held by agencies of the federal government, principally the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. The liabilities equal the future pensions, health care, Social Security payments, etc., that are promised under current legislation.

Then he makes the point that failure to pay Treasury securities would be a default but changing some laws (like adusting social security cost-of-living adjustments and retirement age) would shrink future liabilities significantly.

Gordon believes the debt focus should be on the debt-to-GDP ratio instead of on the exact amount of the debt. His recipe for handling our debt is to keep spending from increasing and grow the GDP.

Topics: Economics, Politics | 1 Comment »


One Response to “John Steele Gordon’s Primer on the National Debt”

  1. John Says:
    September 3rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    The cost of living adjustment given to Social Security recipients is already too low since it doesn’t take into account heath insurance premiums, health care costs or real estate taxes which are three items which greatly affect the standard of living for many seniors. How about raising the income limit on social security taxes, currently $106,800, to lower the future liabilties? Why are the people who can least afford it always expected to give back, while the high income people are exempt from any additional sacrifice?

Comments