You flunked math? Try this one,

1+(a*)+(a^2*)+(a^3*)+…

where 0 < a < 1. Guess what, that converges to an actual finite number. Shocking I know. Here is how you get the answer:

S = 1+(a*1)+(a2*1)+(a3*1)+…
a*S = (a*1)+(a2*1)+(a3*1)+…

Now, S – a*S = 1 thus, S = 1/(1-a).

Since we can replace the 1 in the above sum with any arbitrary number, i.e.,

S = x+(a*x)+(a2*x)+(a3*x)+…

The new sum is x/(1-a).

See you forgot to factor in the discount rate–i.e. the interest rate.

You flunked economics too.

We currently have no obligations that will be due past 2128 or so, because there are no people alive now that will be alive then, according to the actuarial tables.

And Jerry, talk about revisionist history … are you actually arguing for the merits of the New Deal on a libertarian site?

@xxx, the commet refers to unfunded Medicare, SS, etc. liability, not actual debt. It’s unconstutional to eliminate medicare? Who’s the idiot?

Huh?

All time = infinity

Infinity x Y = infinity, not $59 trillion

QED

Obviously there is a time frame. I think it is until 2040 or something to do with baby-boomer retirement or covering every American alive today.

But Lee, who pointed out that “credit” can be obtained at the point of a gun, is very astute. And Marshall is quite correct that laws can be changed very easily to suit the preferences of the ruling class, Constitution or no.

Remember, the Constitution is just a “goddamn piece of paper.”

It’s guns and the willingness to use them that is reality.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Lee, read your sentence again. You’ve said that my error is in failing to articulate that government is the people (ie. the two are one and the same) and then go on to point out that the government have overburdened the people without their consent.

That doesn’t really make sense. If government were really the people then it wouldn’t be able to do anything without the consent of the people (it’s like claiming that you did something without your own consent).

The real problem is that whatever the textbook idea of government in practice it really isn’t the people which is why when ‘we’ talk about ‘the government’ and push for less government intervention we’re making a point about them and not about ourselves.

If you read my point with that in mind, you’ll find I say exactly the same thing you do.

@Marshall: what are you smoking? Your comment is so idiotic I don’t even know where to start… First, such law would be unconstitutional even in US. Second, the money often comes from aboard, so international treaties matter, not some US-local law [that would be illegal under international law too]. Third, if the government screwed its creditors over this much, who the hell do you think would lend it the *next* time it needs to borrow money to fund its control freak dreams?

It seems to me that somewhere along the line John McCain was implicated with the Keating 5 for subverting said financial sector regulations. In the ’00′s the Oil Barons were handed the keys to the entire government and proceeded to drive the f*cker into the ground with their secret little meetings with their corporate masters and their overt agenda to take the world’s oil supply by force if necessary. The Oligarchs running the country let every Tom, Dick and Sheckey hand out ridiculously bad loans, bundle them up into securities and trade ‘em like rubes at a roulette wheel.
“C’mon baby, Daddy needs a new pair of LearJets!” Everybody seemed reasonably content with the situation until the bastids on Wall Street started to suffer from their extraordinarily bad choices, and they say, “somebody ought to do something to protect us from ourselves!” So back we go to re-learn the lessons of the Great Depression. Bring the regulation on. I’ve only got 10 years to 55!-liberal friend

I’m not sure the true answer, but I think there is enough blame to go around to everyone.

Young people have been extremely strained to buy a home for a long time because of the astronomical prices.

That is not exactly true. The young couple COULD buy a home, it would just be a sub-prime rates.

Now with tighter lending rules, it will still be hard for the young couple to purchase a home without the required X% down (which to some means if they do not the X%, means they shouldn’t be purchasing the home in the first place).

While the media freaks out about the economy because it hurts me-first baby boomers, they overlook who it helps. Young people have been extremely strained to buy a home for a long time because of the astronomical prices. Now they are coming down. Stocks are looking more affordable and someone is getting rich by buying them now and waiting for a rebound.

What productive work, exactly, did all the employees of Lehman and Merrill Lynch do? Generating new “investment products”? Who needs ‘em.

Just wait until the government finally become insolvent. What will the excuse be then? “Sorry, we were to busy trying to balance everyone else’s check book we never got around to ours.”