Comments (22)

• Giant_Joe

  That's one way to boost GDP! :D

  Published: October 26, 2009 10:07 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  http://economicnumbskulls.blogspot.com/
  Monday, October 26, 2009

  Lies of the Dumb, Dumber, And Dumbest (Yeah Like Krugman!)

  What did the Keynesian say to the hapless generations?
  We're all dead in the long-run!

  What did the empirical economist proclaim from his (or her) pulpit?
  We owe it to ourselves!

  What do the ego-driven interventionists (politicians) say to those dumb enough to listen?
  The government is here to serve!

  Published: October 26, 2009 10:10 PM

• Andrew T

  Let's just pretend there is no future and that the US will follow the USSR's footsteps to economic implosion....
  

  Published: October 27, 2009 12:39 AM

• Jake

  Is it more useful to analyze a graph of the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP? Such as: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

  If so, then it appears as if we've been in worse situations in the past than we are right now. Thoughts?

  Published: October 27, 2009 2:02 AM

• danny

  Jake -- "If so, then it appears as if we've been in worse situations in the past than we are right now."

  The US actually made things that others found worth buying in the times previous. There was no Germany, no Japan to compete with these products. Today the US can export military equipment (after the government gives the "buyer" some money with which to buy), and any high tech gadgets we sell are made in China. I cannot think of much more -- we even have to buy swine flu vacine from foreign sources.

  The unfunded liabilities were a drop in the bucket compared to today's overhang. My guess is that personal debt as a percent of household net worth or income was smaller compared to today.

  Just a few observations.

  Published: October 27, 2009 2:30 AM

• João Paulo Magalhães

  Since it uses debt in absolute terms, the graph is strongly biased to the present debt. Until the 1940s, the graph is pancake flat, which is certainly not informative.

  The graph should use debt in %GDP, or as danny suggests, personal debt as a percent of household net worth or income.

  Published: October 27, 2009 6:08 AM

• Justin

  Jeffery,

  Do you have more pictures of Salamanca? I'm trying to convince my wife to take a trip there.

  Published: October 27, 2009 7:13 AM

• jeffrey

  We didn't take a photographer with us. We are hoping for some images at some point. however, search flickr and you will find amazing things.

  Published: October 27, 2009 7:30 AM

• Mr Eko

  This is a clear indication that we need to spend more, to prop up aggregate demand, and stimulate future economic growth.

  Published: October 27, 2009 7:48 AM

• Igor Panarin

  The predictions of Igor Panarin are becoming more and more true each and every day.

  Published: October 27, 2009 9:45 AM

• Lee

  I like how the WWII dip compares to this one.

  Published: October 27, 2009 10:10 AM

• bob

  Here's a blog I assembled a while ago on this. This looks at gov't deficits in terms of GDP, money supply, and consumer prices.

  http://meambobbo.blogspot.com/2009/03/deficits.html

  Published: October 27, 2009 10:46 AM

• George

  "Lee

  I like how the WWII dip compares to this one"

  That's because this graph does not adjust for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. Granted, the situation today is not the best, but if you assume your readers are intelligent then you shouldn't present the data in such a skewed manner.

  Published: October 27, 2009 11:03 AM

• Wayan

  This is why economics is not considered science.

  Published: October 27, 2009 11:17 AM

• Ben Ranson

  Wayan is right. There is no scientific way of adjusting the value of dollars to account for an increase in the supply of dollars.

  Published: October 27, 2009 11:57 AM

• Lee

  "That's because this graph does not adjust for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar."

  Really? I can't buy a cigar for a dime anymore? I have to tell my milkman about THIS.

  Published: October 27, 2009 12:50 PM

• Lee

  "That's because this graph does not adjust for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar."

  Really? I can't buy a cigar for a dime anymore? I have to tell my milkman about THIS.

  Published: October 27, 2009 12:50 PM

• mr_gorbachov_rebuild_this_wall

  I propose we Audi the fed. Make all officials lay in down in the street, then run over them with this stout
  German made auto.

  Published: October 27, 2009 1:38 PM

• George

  Looking at the US treasury debt on http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

  The pages for 1950-1999 and 2000-2008 only show an increasing debt year after year. There aren't any decreases, only increases in debt.

  So the budget "surplus" in the chart in this article isn't real...

  Published: October 27, 2009 2:37 PM

• Christopher Chantrill

  I'd suggest this helpful chart of Federal Debt as Percent of GDP from 1792 to present.

  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

  Published: October 27, 2009 8:50 PM

• George

  Christopher, that's an interesting page and the charts are very flexible. I find, however, that selecting "federal deficit" that it shows a period of "surplus" around 2000. However the debt never decreased during that period as can be seen on the same page by selecting "federal debt". So there is some "fancy" accounting going on (If there was a real surplus the total debt should go down, however it never did).

  Published: October 27, 2009 9:38 PM

• Matt

  I don't see any reason we can't achieve a GDP of $15 quadrillion within a few years!
  'Til then, let this be our theme song:
  Everything You Know is Wrong, by Weird Al
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGC09B810Yk

  Published: October 28, 2009 1:29 AM