Slashdot Mirror
National Debt Clock Overflowed, Extended By a Digit
hackingbear writes "The National Debt Counter, erected in 1989 when the US debt was 'merely' a tiny $2.7 trillion, has been moving so much that it recently ran out of digits to display the ballooning figure: $10,150,603,734,720, or roughly $10.2 trillion, as of Saturday afternoon. To accommodate the extra '1,' the clock was hacked: the '1' from "$10.2" has been moved left to the LCD square once occupied solely by the digital dollar sign. A non-digital, improvised dollar sign has been pasted next to the '1.' It will be replaced in 2009 with a new clock able to track debt up to a quadrillion dollars, which is a '1' followed by 15 zeros. That should be good enough for a few more months at least, I believe." Adds reader MarkusQ, "I know Dick Cheney has assured us that 'Deficits don't matter' but I can't help wondering if we should be fixing the problem rather than the sign."
Deficits don't matter. All that matters is that your dogs are bigger and meaner than the debt collectors'.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The largest bit became a one? It overflowed?
So now it's negative?
We're rich! So that's how we were going to pay for the bail-out, SS, medicare, medicaid...
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Why don't they just make it an analog clock? The hands could simply spin around faster and faster as the situation worsens, which would be much more amusing. The numbers are fairly meaningless anyway.
This is the second debt clock. The first version could only count upward, and when the budget had a surplus back in the Clinton years, and the debt began to decrease, the debt clock was shut down. After a year or so, it was then replaced with the current version, which has the ability to count both upward and downward. The downward capability has not been used during the Bush years.
Perhaps they can get a new model that displays the debt in scientific notation -- it could be named the "Cheney Memorial Clock".
First of all, 2.7 in 1989 are worth more than the same amount in 2007. Inflation calculator says 2.7 trillion in 1989 equal 4.6 trillion in 2008.
Secondly, what's really important is the debt-per-capita ratio, and the US population has increased. In 1989 the US population was 246 million; in 2008, it's 305 million.
That means, that in 2008 dollars equivalent, the per-capita debt in 1989 was $18,000, while in 2008, the per capita debt is $32,000.
Yes, we do owe more. But we "only", per capita and in equivalent monetary value, owe about 80% more, as opposed to 370% more, as the original numbers would make you believe.
Adds reader MarkusQ, "I know Dick Cheney has assured us that 'Deficits don't matter' [CC] but I can't help wondering if we should be fixing the problem rather than the sign."
Why does this guy hate America so much?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Now is the perfect time to convert to the decimal system!
National debt goes from $10.2 trillion to only $10.2 billion (10^6) without paying a single cent of it!
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
Consider repaying $1000/month on your credit card. For many people that might be hardship. For most people, repaying $2000/month is not 2 times as hard, butmuch harder.
Similarly, repaying $18k per person is a lot easier than repaying $32k, by much more than a factor of 2.
Of course that's all academic since nobody seems to be planning on repaying this debt.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
OMG the dollar sign is static... it's the end of the world!!!!
You're right. After the upcoming total economic collapse, we'll need the clock to be able to display the debt in terms of Chinese yuan or Euros. The current design does not allow for that.
The debt clock gives a per family portion. ~$86k. Compare that with the median income. Whoo!
What "fiscal conservatives"!
But wait, the debt has grown insanely under every single Republican president in the last 40 years.
How could that be?
The Republicans aren't fiscally conservative at all. Every single republican president has spent like a drunken sailor and GWB is the worst of the lot.
The only thing more stupid than Tax and Spend is Spend and Spend.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
If you spend a lot on your administration, to win over voters or do whatever it is you want, then when the Democrat gets into office, he or she will be forced to cut spending so as to create a surplus while keeping the Republican's low taxes, lest they get "tax hike" backlash. At the same time, whenever "starve the beast" fails, deficits don't matter, or deficits are the grease that keeps the gears of the economy going.
Republican politicians like McCain say we're supposed to reduce spending, (in order to reduce national debt, though this step on the flowchart may be skipped depending on the audience), and we also should reduce taxes further, but then how will we get rid of the national debt?
Furthermore, if the Republicans are to perpetually starve the beast and fail, clearly their strategy needs to change. They need to raise deficits so much that the interest itself is as burdensome as the current deficit levels by themselves. That, and if the Republicans are perpetually starving the beast, maybe they should at least be doing so with programs like national healthc----oh, wait.
The preferred method of starving the beast is through increases in the national defense budget, it would seem. John McCain has expressed need for a spending freeze in all areas but that, which would cut off funding for new NASA projects (which aren't entitlements, including Orion, which was approved in a separate bill), while his close colleague Lindsey Graham wants to cut the budget by 5% in all areas but national defense.
Just convert to hex
Better yet, convert to base 36, so we can use the entire alphabet. Every once in a while, the value displayed would spell out something interesting like HOLYSHITWEAREFUCKED.
If I owe you a hundred dollars, I have a problem.
If I owe you a hundred billion dollars, you have a problem.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Sort of a Moore's Law for debt, eh?
Every 2 terms of republican presidency, the national debt increases by a factor of 10. :D
Incidentally, anyone know what 1989's $2.7 Trillion is in today's dollars?
Actually the debt realtive to the GDP went down which is all that matters.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
And when that (inevitably) threatens to overflow, do it in scientific notation. The Neocons and their supports won't understand it, and hopefully leave economic policy to people who don't think you can fix the economy by praying in public for lower gasoline prices.
It's not that simple.
1. For a start, it would work that way if the USA were the only market in the world. I do believe that China can also sell to Europe, or to its own damn citizens. I don't think the Chinese would revolt if they could buy good computers instead of exporting them.
The USA survived pretty well by selling its best stuff locally instead of exporting it all, didn't it?
Anyway, the USA has, what, 5% of the world's population? There's a whole other 95% who could buy that stuff.
2. Whatever advantage there may be in selling to the USA, would disappear overnight if the USA decided not to pay, which is (I believe) what the GP was getting at. The whole deficit scheme is, basically, borrowing money from those countries in exchange for their products. If the USA decided to just pocket some trillions of dollars overnight, on the justification that, basically, "our dogs are bigger than the tax collectors'", it would find itself a much less attractive market. Equally overnight.
3. The whole lopsided market situation exists because countries are made to export their raw materials for cents and have to buy high-tech stuff for thousands of dollars. Or, ridiculously enough, lately manufacture that high-tech stuff themselves in their own sweatshops, sell it to themselves, and send the profits to some overseas corporation.
Basically think: you want new shoes. So I send you my permit to raise your own pig, slaughter it yourself, tan its skin, and make your own gloves. Only now you have to pay me for the gloves. I'll even pay you back a few cents for the leather, 'cause that's raw materials and dirt cheap, and charge you lots for the gloves.
And you can't just say "fuck you, buddy" because there are some international treaties and that forbid you from using my patented design and my "Le Moraelin Haute Couture" label. Oh, and to add insult to injury, you designed that design for me too, but I patented it, 'cause I'm the big international corporation with teh moneyz.
And while for gloves that's just a matter of being a fashion victim, for a lot of other stuff it's less black and white.
That's the shit end of the imperialism stick, that those countries get. Mostly because we, the western world, promise to give them a black eye one way or another, if they don't abide by that kind of an arrangement.
Far from being some kind of great help that China would be foolish to cut off, it's a very disadvantageous system for China and a lot of other countries. If they threw it off, their economy wouldn't implode, and their standard of living would go up overnight. Again, they have a billion of their own people to sell that stuff to, instead of selling it to 300 million foreigners. Other than an artifficial financial and trade system imposed on them saying that it's better to sell to an American than to 4 Chinese, there is no real reason why that is so.
_If_ the western world decided to just plunder the existing debts, that might just be the excuse they're waiting for, to get out of that system.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If your money is created from nothing at the point of a loan and you want to inflate the money supply then you also have to increase the (exponentially growing) debt at the same time.
Now, if you want the "economy" to grow then clearly you have to increase the supply of money faster than the interest on the debt which is consuming credit, or you get a recession.
Whether the debt is public debt, private debt or corporate debt, is irrelevant. The debt must be created. Or at least, it will be until you run out of people willing or able to take on and service the debt, then the system collapses. Doesn't this requirement for perpetual growth sound like something else?
It is a predictable exponential function and therefore has a doubling time, so yes, you could create a "law" about it.
The national debt, the credit crunch, the stockmarket crisis are all the inevitable result of the way your money is created... Long may it continue.
Deleted
Is anyone else, like me, making plans to move out of the US? Frankly I didn't get us into this mess and I'm not willing to do my part to bail out all those who did. I'm a liberal, not a libertarian, so I don't think taxes are always bad, but when I hear about what they're going to be going to, well I'd rather be paying taxes someplace where they're going to do some good. I hear european countries have high taxes, but they're not sending it all to Wall street, Iraq, and the world's largest military. I'd rather pay twice the taxes I am now if I knew it was going to more worthwhile things, like studying bear DNA.
I have no skill when it comes to convincing people of anything, especially not the average voter. I come across as arrogant, elitist, and condescending, because I am arrogant, elitist, and condescending, and that doesn't convince them of anything other than they don't like me. I give money to different causes to do that, but I myself am not helping my fellow citizen make the right choices.
While I like the place and the people, we've really painted ourselves into a corner. Every other country on earth makes stupid moves, because every person on earth is occasionally stupid, but the US keeps making such BIG mistakes. I feel selfish, or rather, I realize I'm selfish, but I'm not doing any good here, country is going to hell in a handbasket no matter what I do. I'm here for several more years in any event, so I guess there is time for us to shape up, but I'm making new plans anyway. Anyone else?
HOLYSHITWEAREFUCKED = $182,396,328,105,409,846,882,664,606,244.00
You certainly would be.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It's this type of stupid story that the media JUST LOVE to splatter about. They don't understand that they are CAUSING the mess. Guess what? NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN ICELAND. The farmer still grows his stuff. The geothermal energy is still coming from the ground. The snow is still white and cold. Nothing is different except the assumed value of a few sheets of paper.
The problem is that those sheets of paper are extremely important nowadays. If you have a mortgage, the ownership of your house is regulated by those sheets of paper. If something goes wrong, you suddenly find yourself without a home.
Lots of consumption and production is not local anymore. We import lots of stuff, and depend on exports to pay for it. And we need sheets of paper to figure out who gets what.
Without the global economy this crisis wouldn't have been nearly as big a problem, but we fucked up our global economy to the point that sheets of paper are more important than actual production.
But we produce everything we need to exist, food, housing, medicine.
The US doesn't produce all the oil it currently uses. Without the sheets of paper, most people won't be able to drive cars, and it's back to horse and carriage again.
So, again, I ask, what's the problem? If I'm hungry, can I get food? Yes.
Unless you don't have money to pay for it. Not everybody works on a farm.
If I need a place to stay, is there one? Yes.
Unless you just lost your home because you can't afford your mortgage anymore.
Buy local
Buying locally is a very good idea, but it's not how our global economy is organised at the moment.
Anyway, these are not bad times if you are smart and not stupid and buy into their stupid panic stories.
These are very good times if you are smart and have sufficient means to take advantage of the situation. Average Joe who can't afford his mortgage because his employer can't afford to pay him because the bank won't lend them any money, could be in serious trouble.
I'm not saying there's trouble for everybody (personally I'm not worried at all), but some people are in very real problems.
Better dead than red!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That analogy is absolutely ridiculous. The rich man is not a goose who poops golden eggs and shares them out of kindness. The rich man's wealth is where everyone else's is: In the bar.
When ten men go to a bar, the first five clock in and start working. The next four buy their own drinks. And the tenth gets a free beer because he owns the place. If ANY of them stop going to the bar, the musical chairs just shuffle around, until there are too few people left to operate a bar. And then it closes. And no more rich man.
You talk as though the rich are the lynchpin of capitalism. They're not; they're a byproduct, and in many cases a sign of inefficiency or poor regulation. The middle class are the lynchpin of capitalism. And they have been slowly disappearing into WalMart, CostCo, and the military industrial complex for the last 25 years. Have you noticed that the steps are getting a bit narrow on your ivory tower?
What's the problem? The *average* American spends $1.30 for every $1.00 they earn. The average house has a loan on it for 60% of its market value, while the market value is falling fast. And everyone is still hoping and praying for a quick fix wonder cure that will wipe all the trouble away and allow the fairy tale to continue.
And now everyone is turning to their governments to bail out this mess. This will only result in bankrupt governments as well.
There's only one way to fix this. Widespread bankruptcy.
All the people who have gambled with or spent their future earnings and thrown them away need to be cleaned out of the economy. It's going to hurt and there's nothing we can do about it. We might have been able to fix this 15 years ago during the last recession, but it's too late now.
I thought with the panic last week, the bubble would finally burst and we can start the healing and re-building process. But it seems there is still far too much optimism.
Oh, and that job you have? Once we stop borrowing more money, 30% of the economy (and therefore 30% of the jobs) disappear overnight. I hope for your sake you don't become redundant.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
No, it can't. The result of the efforts to make home ownership more widespread was a set of anti-discrimination laws placed in the CRA. However, CRA regulated loans had virtually nothing to do with the current crisis. Despite CRA-regulated banks doing the bulk of regular loans, 50% of sub-prime loans - which make up the bulk the "toxic mortgages" - were issued by banks entirely free of CRA regulation, and a further 20-25% were issued by departments of CRA-regulated banks that were free of CRA regulations. The remaining 25-30%, while performed by regulated banks, were almost certainly illegal given the strict nature of the CRA and the requirements for collateral it imposes.
The problem here are not mortgages given to people on low incomes, but sub-prime mortgages given to everyone. People were using the sub-prime market to make excessive gambles that fell apart when the housing market collapsed. These varied from overly stretched ARM HELOCs to people buying multiple houses with the intent of either flipping them or renting them out. You can probably imagine that the largest gambles were not taken by the poor, but by those on median or higher than average incomes.
BTW, thanks for being one of the few people making this argument that didn't directly blame ethnic minorities for this mess, but remember that the key laws Democrats are being blamed for are not laws directed at low incomes, but at ending discrimination against ethnic minorities. Those that are promoting this meme are treading on very dangerous ground. The CRA didn't force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them (quite the opposite in fact), and CRA regulated loans had little or nothing to do with this crisis, which affects sub-prime loans of the type the CRA prevents. It did require banks end discrimination, but a person from an ethnic minority who entered a branch of Wachovia and asked for a 110% mortgage to help them buy a $500,000 home which they expected to pay back using their Burger King salary would have been rejected just as a white person in the same circumstances would have been. The CRA wouldn't have forced them to give the loan anyway, the CRA would have done the opposite.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.