• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s because the dollar is declining as the world reserve currency as a result of the US declining as the hegemon .

        The debt will only become relevant after the petrodollar is dead and after countries stop pegging their own currency to the dollar and after SWIFT becomes irrelevant and all the other things that prop up the dollar, and we’ve already long passed the point where the debt could be reduced enough to save the dollar after it loses its status. The high global demand for dollars meant the debt was irrelevant, but now that demand is on the decline the dollar is fucked and it can not be saved.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, US has been able to finance its debt at the expense of the rest of the world up to now, and those days are quickly coming to an end.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d add that this debt is relevant in one important way already.

          The state borrows from the bourgeoisie. Partly to pay the interest on previous loans given by the same bourgeoisie. Partly to pay for contracts with that same bourgeoisie. Partly to pay to everyone else in general, who then use this money to pay for things at the stores, etc, owned, again, by the same bourgeoisie.

          So the same people who lend the government money end up either taking, being given, or otherwise receiving that very same money. But now the government owes them, rather than being owed. No wonder the bourgeoisie has the cash on hand to lend it to the government.

          In the meantime, the bourgeoisie uses that money to buy assets, inflating prices. Inequality gets greater, and the life of the ordinary person is made that much harder, more oppressive.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        In what sense does that follow from what you posted? Did you mean to post a different article?

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do; do you?

            But of course what I’m actually doing is showing that posting pure statistical data, and then using it to make strong unsourced unattributed assertions, is very silly. If you have something to say, say it and post proof for it. A screenshot of number going up is meaningless.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except it’s not numbers going up, it’s statistical data about the US debt, such as the titled implied. In neoliberal right wing governments such as the one in the US, the way they fight this kind of scenarios is austerity policies such as not raising wages as inflation goes up, the lowering of the living standards of the working class, and so on, instead of making the actual culprits pay the price.

              This and the current trend of dedolarisation, plus the recent failure of China buying US debt, and a lot of other factors could indicate some bad times for the US economy.

              I think it would have been more useful if you would have asked about the consequences of unsustainable debt or some other thing related to economy, since none of us are experts probably, were we could have created a meaningful debate, rather than acting arrogantly. The title says what the body shows, what you can get from that data depends on your field of study, but statistical data is not useless numbers going up, even in something like Cookie Clicker mean things that can be interpreted.

              • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                None of what you said is supported by either the screenshot itself or anything else that’s been cited by the OP (or anyone else in this thread). Even calling it “statistical data about the US debt” is overselling it since it’s literally just a screenshot and a link to a paper that (presumably?) the screenshot came from.

                Anything you mentioned would be interesting to talk about, perhaps with sources? Interviews? Anything? But no; instead we’re being told that the screenshot is sufficient context to ground any assertion we care to make.

                My point is the post is vacuous and any discussion around it unmoored from anything objective or of interest.

                • Fiona (she/her)🏳️‍⚧️@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Even calling it “statistical data about the US debt” is overselling it since it’s literally just a screenshot and a link to a paper that (presumably?) the screenshot came from.

                  This is a statistics website of the US treasury

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only silly thing here is claiming that the huge amount of debt increase is not indicative of anything. I recommend reading up on what this has meant historically to understand what to expect going forward.

              • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why not post that, instead of posting screenshots of numbers and claiming it means whatever you want it to?

                  • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The majority of people who own American debt are Americans who hold bonds. National bonds are a mutually beneficial financial instrument and not at all the same kind of debt that a normal person deals with.

                    To be 100% clear: even if the U.S. Federal government had a massive surplus of money in their pockets, they would still probably issue bonds because of how good a deal they are. Why wouldn’t they take money at a stupid-low interest rate from Americans? Is it really better for the country if that money’s just sitting around gathering interest in some wealthy person’s bank account?

                  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In what sense is a screenshot with scribbles on it “world news?”