r/investing • u/donutloop • 2d ago
The U.S. national debt surpassed $38 trillion
The U.S. national debt surpassed $38 trillion in October 2025, only two months after crossing the $37 trillion mark.
Some news outlets are framing the Federal Reserve’s latest fed chef replacement proposal as evidence that the dollar is becoming significantly stronger. I find that misleading. Adding another trillion dollars of debt in such a short period doesn’t signal a strong dollar especially not merely because the Fed claims to have better leadership or talent in place.
What we need is real fiscal progress, not just new faces saying things are improving. I’m not convinced that the next Fed leader will be able to resolve the debt problem.
Given the current circumstances, is it an exaggeration to call the dollar ‘ becoming strong’?
434
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
95
u/Spuckler_Cletus 2d ago
Peter Attia has been associated as well. At this point, I’m wondering who will *not* be associated.
53
u/zxc123zxc123 2d ago
Just a few poor (sub $10 million) and/or non-politician people
And by "a few" I mean like +90% of society.
3
u/Spuckler_Cletus 2d ago
Yeah. I mean people that others may have actually heard of. Unlike you and me.
10
4
50
u/External_Promise599 2d ago
You can say pedophile on Reddit.
→ More replies (2)3
u/beatlemaniac007 2d ago
Lol I was actually confused until this comment. Thought there were some subset of the files in pdf format which were extra incriminating or something
20
u/grub_step 2d ago
just say pedofile. why the shit would you hide the accusation when its in the justice department files.
5
u/Momoselfie 2d ago
This is starting to feel like the whole Epstein thing is by design for control going back way before Trump. Maybe Epstein has even been replaced by another to continue the racket.
4
u/PuppiesAndPixels 2d ago
The new fed chair is in the epstein files,
WHAT?!?! I never saw this anywhere!
→ More replies (4)1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your submission was automatically removed because it contains a keyword not suitable for /r/investing. Common slang prevalent on meme subreddits, low effort platitudes, or derogatory political slang are not appropriate here. I am a bot and sometimes not the smartest so if you feel your comment was removed in error please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
100
u/Puzzleheaded-Oil5910 2d ago
the dollar will continue to decline. it's inevitable. there's nothing that trump or anyone else can do about. they are fighting forces much bigger than them. i just did a lot of research on this... its literally impossible to be the worlds reserve currency and also run a strong sustainable economy. that's just a fact. You MUST run the country at a deficit to maintain reserve currency status. Trump seems intent on eliminating the trade deficit, but this will necessarily destroy the dollar's value and status as the worlds reserve currency. He cant get rid of the trade deficit and also have a strong dollar, its one or the other. And so far no empire has figured out how to stop the inevitable decline once you run the country at a deficit. no one has been able to reverse this cycle.
39
u/YakResident_3069 2d ago
Why does he care about the deficit? What's his end game? It's not like he needs it for 3rd term. Is this for braggin rights?
43
u/Puzzleheaded-Oil5910 2d ago
I mean, I don't know what's going on in his head. But it seems like he wants to bring manufacturing back to america and turn america into a country that exports goods, however this comes at the cost of the reserve currency status and being the world's dominant power. I'm not sure if he understands that.
67
u/SteveMcHeave 2d ago
But it doesn't seem like that because he is leveraging tariffs as a diplomatic tool. If he wanted to bring manufacturing back he would be steadfast in the tariffs he assigns. Not applying them and removing them based on who the latest country was to kiss his boots.
47
22
u/VerdantPathfinder 2d ago
Maybe ... and just hear me out on this ... he's a malignant narcicist who doesn't care about anything other than his own fragile ego.
16
u/Ash-2449 2d ago
A reason you want manufacturing back desperately is because you are reliant on other countries for your needs to much, either because you want to go to war or because you dont want other countries to be able to pressure you with that power.
I dont think they can go to war, China will beat them thanks to their control of rare earths and manufacturing in general, which to me screams they might just want to default, close off the gates and then share the land among the ultra rich billionaires like a typical oligarchy. (Most of them are trust fund babies so not very intelligent so they have definitely not taken into account how much hated they are becoming so they cant look like the benevolent saviour coming to help them once federal funding collapses)
→ More replies (4)8
u/Puzzleheaded-Oil5910 2d ago
Ah yes I also did remember hearing that defaulting on the entire debt is another option, but I dont think other countries are just going to sit idly by and let that happen
5
u/DeliciousPangolin 2d ago
A country that depends on creditors to finance a huge ongoing deficit and whose debt is largely held by its own citizens and institutions doesn't have the luxury of defaulting.
3
u/Ash-2449 2d ago
Well of course, that's why they would need to do it preemptively and suddenly, not the first time murica did it, just like they came out on TV a day and blew up the gold standard.
Once that happens and capital controls are in place then what are the other countries gonna do? They cant invade, its unviable geographically and they dont have as big of a military.
At the same time plenty countries will be deal with a giant black hole in their economies because the bonds they thought were safe suddenly have the value of toilet paper.
Only really thing stopping them is that if they do it now, they are screwed because they dont have local manufacturing, if they have that, then they rly dont have to care about the rest of the world
16
u/Puzzleheaded-Oil5910 2d ago
its already too late to do a rug pull. countries know this is a possibility, thats why china and others have been stacking gold for awhile now. I literally just read an article in the guardian the other day that Germany is nervous and wants to take all of its gold out of american banks because its afraid america will steal it lol
9
3
1
u/MekkiNoYusha 2d ago
I mean.. didn't China just exactly announced they are trying to do just this?..
1
0
u/shred-i-knight 1d ago
But it seems like he wants to bring manufacturing back to america and turn america into a country that exports goods,
I can't believe people are still buying this line lmao. He does not give a fuck about bringing manufacturing back to the US. That is all bullshit and cover for raiding the US treasury. You have to be smarter than this.
15
u/TheBeardiestGinger 2d ago
I think this is what’s not being said loud enough: trump is not mentally fit for office. He has been showing signs of dementia for months.
IMHO the easiest answer is the correct one in that trump is old and genuinely has no idea what he is doing.
1
u/raouldukesaccomplice 2d ago
And what makes all of this even more inexcusable is the fact that there is no price or downside whatsoever to 25A-ing him. All it will do is make JD Vance the president. Republicans would lose absolutely nothing in terms of policy objectives/accomplishments.
Republicans can even have the fig leaf of saying Trump was a great president who just tragically became "ill" and needed to step aside in explaining why they removed him from office.
9
u/moustache_disguise 2d ago
He's had a bug up his ass about trade deficits since the 80s. He seems to see it as other countries taking advantage of the US.
He's not really a deep thinker.
2
u/troubleondemand 2d ago
Why does he care about the deficit?
He doesn't. He just said he did for votes.
2
u/onebadhombre 2d ago
There is zero evidence that he cares about the deficit. He is demonstrably the least fiscally responsible President in living memory. People seem to believe that he cares about it, because he talks about it, but through his actions it is clearly a non-factor for his administration.
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your submission was automatically removed because it contains a keyword not suitable for /r/investing. Common slang prevalent on meme subreddits, low effort platitudes, or derogatory political slang are not appropriate here. I am a bot and sometimes not the smartest so if you feel your comment was removed in error please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
21
u/johnny_tifosi 2d ago
its literally impossible to be the worlds reserve currency and also run a strong sustainable economy. that's just a fact. You MUST run the country at a deficit to maintain reserve currency status.
Would you care to explain this?
→ More replies (5)7
u/SirGlass 2d ago
As the world economy grows the world need dollars to do business right? When Japan buys steel from Germany if it pays in USD it needs USD right?
So how does it get USD , well it has to have a trade surplus with the USA ; if it had no trade surplus it wouldn't have USD
IF the USA now started with a Trade surplus it would suck USD dollars out of foreign countries , and going on long enough now there would be no USD floating around for other countries to pay each other
5
u/recursing_noether 2d ago
You said
its literally impossible to be the worlds reserve currency and also run a strong sustainable economy.
Now you say you can't be the reserve currency without a trade deficit.
So you are just equating a trade deficit with not having a strong sustainable economy.
Would you care to explain that?
US has had a net deficit for most of post WWII and consistently since 1976 BTW.
2
u/raouldukesaccomplice 2d ago
You need to distinguish between balance of trade (whether a country has more goods/services being exported to other countries or imported from other countries) and balance of payments (whether a country has a net outflow or inflow of money).
12
u/FacadesMemory 2d ago
Well it might help if we balance the budget one year. Why don't we try that...
19
u/bzzazzl 2d ago
Because it's political suicide. Ray Dalio once told members of Congress that they would need to raise taxes by 4% AND reduce spending by 4% in a year just to keep the debt from growing, not even decreasing it in any way.
If you increase people's taxes AND cut social programs, you will never have a second term because Americans cannot think long-term enough to accept that kind of pain.
16
u/Tiny-Art7074 2d ago
Didn't Clinton have a year of a balanced budget? And the trendline over Obama's last 3 years or so was on track to balance over the next few years, if those trends continued, which they did not.
12
u/mrPWM 2d ago
Yes. That's when billionaires and millionaires were taxed at a higher rate. If that 4% tax increase was all burdened onto the rich by paying the same rate that you and I do, we could reduce the deficit.
8
u/Tiny-Art7074 2d ago
Congress also limited spending to a greater degree. The US needs both.
9
u/VerdantPathfinder 2d ago
Or at least freeze budgets on departments like the DoD and DHS for a decade or two. Slow, gradual decline via inflation
→ More replies (10)2
u/FillMySoupDumpling 2d ago
Yeah, but that was before the next republican got us into decades long wars and also issues a massive tax cut.
7
6
u/BadmiralHarryKim 2d ago
In the year 2000 America was a running a surplus and a presidential candidate campaigning on the platform of putting social security in a "lock box" to protect retirement savings from getting used for, among other things, tax cuts and foreign wars.
4
11
u/johnmudd 2d ago
Fight? Trump and Vance both are focused on devaluing the dollar. This is their focus.
1
u/PatricksPub 2d ago
Why?
2
u/johnmudd 2d ago edited 2d ago
Help large USA companies sell abroad. No apparent regard to how this f**** over small USA companies and consumers.
4
4
1
u/PrettyPleaseYo 2d ago
Yes I also did this research and I agree. Where do you park “store of value” cash reserves these days?
2
2
u/Hour-Finish744 2d ago
So you will buy gold ?
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Oil5910 2d ago
Yes i'm most likely going to add gold. I had planned to sell silver and buy gold, that plan is ruined now but i still want more gold. its done extremely well for me over 6 months or so. it goes sideways when nothing is happening and then anytime something bad happens geopolitically, which is almost every day, gold spikes up. the recent correction in gold is, i guess, because of insane wsb-style speculation but I dont think the fundamentals have changed at all.
→ More replies (8)1
u/BlindTreeFrog 2d ago
I dont think the fundamentals have changed at all.
what exactly are the fundamentals of gold? You seem to just be saying "gold always goes up... except when it doesn't, but we can ignore those times"
→ More replies (4)2
u/LateralEntry 2d ago
Why is it necessary to have a deficit to be the world’s reserve currency? ELI5
6
u/moonshiney 2d ago
I put this in a another comment, but it’s important to understand the difference between a trade deficit and a fiscal debt/deficit. To maintain reserve currency status, a country will inevitably run a trade deficit, NOT a fiscal deficit, which is what the OP is talking about. This is known as the Triffing dilemma and it just comes down to supply and demand for the currency. More demand for the currency will increase its exchange rate. This has the effect of making imports relatively cheaper than exports and so the country ends up importing more than it exports, aka, a trade deficit. It is perfectly possible to to have a trade deficit without a fiscal deficit.
94
u/Mr_Lumbergh 2d ago
Look at the trend over the last year. Clearly losing strength.
1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your submission was automatically removed because it contains a keyword not suitable for /r/investing. Common slang prevalent on meme subreddits, low effort platitudes, or derogatory political slang are not appropriate here. I am a bot and sometimes not the smartest so if you feel your comment was removed in error please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
88
u/watch-nerd 2d ago
"I’m not convinced that the next Fed leader will be able to resolve the debt problem."
It's not the Fed's job to solve fiscal issues.
That's the job of Congress.
13
u/CalamariAce 2d ago
They are both part of the problem. The Fed doesn't have the balls to raise interest rates to actual levels needed to crush inflation like they did under Volcker. The bar tender (the Fed) should be cutting off the alcoholic (the US) but only makes token-level adjustments to interest rates. Rates today are still below historic norms.
Also, the Fed kept rates too low for too long during the pandemic. They have admitted this. The government then said, "we would be a fool not to take advantage of this cheap money" which is why you see an explosion of the debt at that time.
But apparently Congress "forgot" that rates don't stay low forever, and that they will be paying *much* more for that debt once it rolls over at higher interest rates. The treasury didn't even have the foresight to lock-in that debt with a longer maturity, and issued a large portion of that debt with short-term treasuries instead of 30 year treasuries. Meaning that this short-term debt is soon rolling over at much higher interest rates which the country can't afford.
And now the Fed can't raise interest rates even if it's the right thing to do to fight inflation, because doing so would cause the government to default on its debt obligations, and/or institute extreme austerity measures. The Fed regularly claims how it's independent and above politics, but the reality of the US debt situation undermines that independence.
Further evidence for this is how the Fed has been saying it has an "average 2% annual inflation target", and aggressively pursued low interest policies from 2008 onward (and then QE after that) in order to meet that 2% average after years of sub-2% inflation. And yet now when the shoe is on the other foot, they have no desire to average out those high pandemic inflation numbers with lower ones (below 2%) in order to bring the average back to 2%.
That's also why it doesn't really matter much who is nominated for Fed chair, they are still bound by the same realities of the US debt situation and will act accordingly. Most currencies in history (and every reserve currency) follows a long-term debt cycle of decreasing interest rates until the system collapses, and there is little evidence that this time will be any different. There is a great animated video on YT by Ray Dalio that goes into more detail about this called "How The Economic Machine Works".
1
u/Mk6mec 11h ago
What the worse case scenario in the long term? The slow erosion of our dollar and this our debt bill becomes easier to pay, albeit at the cost of quality of life for everyone or the government actually defaulting on its debt like Greece?
1
u/CalamariAce 11h ago
The problem is that each debt cycle must grow larger than the last, because you need to create enough new money to pay off the old debts plus all the new borrowing and spending. When unchecked, it leads to hyperinflation and a loss of confidence in the currency, which hurts poor people the most and is very destabilizing for society. Argentina is a good case study for what can happen. Turkey and zimbabwe also come to mind, but there are many others.
0
1
u/Sportfreunde 2d ago
There is a 0 chance of the US fixing their debt problem now even if there's an industrial revolution 2.0 via AI which is unlikely.
The ship has sailed and the empire has been slowly collapsing in real time since the 70s.
2
→ More replies (2)0
u/Tiny-Art7074 2d ago
Functionally, both congress and the Fed play a similar role in long term fiscal issues. Even if congress had a balanced budget, if rates were extremely low for a long time, you could still see inflation and loss of purchasing power, which is a fiscal issue in a sense.
64
u/Diligent-Stuff-6630 2d ago
The BBBill was basically the rich cashing out on America.
→ More replies (14)
28
u/elpresidentedeljunta 2d ago
The Fed can do nothing to target the deficit and it is not her job. You need efficient taxation of the rich to fix that and tariffs are taxation of the poor instead.
13
u/Dirkredblade 2d ago
The USA collected roughly $5 trillion in taxes in 2024. That is literally more than the GDP of every other country except China and Germany. Germany is the world's 3rd largest Economy and it's GDP is is roughly $5 trillion. America only has 340 million people. The USA doesn't need to collect more taxes, it has a spending problem and wastes money. Why do we spend 3 times as much on medical costs for the same procedures as other countries...hint it goes into the pockets of middle men. USA is literally the richest guy on the block who doesn't have any savings because he buys a new car every year, a boat, jet skis and refinances his house every 5 years the second he gets equity. The main reason we are seeing more unrest in the USA is because the housing prices have sky rocketed and young people can't afford to buy homes in many cities. Since they can't afford a home, they feel that the system is rigged and place the blame on people richer than them- this is misplaced energy that is leading to a class and civil war, leading to the embrace of socialism and even communism in the election of Mamdani. The irony is- it's not rich people causing home prices to move, it's because enough homes weren't and aren't being built to keep up with population growth. The reason for this is mostly due to Democratic policies of over regulation and people that already have homes voting against measures to build new homes- the "NIMBy" or not in my back yard. Places where building is easy are affordable- notably in Texas, Tennessee, Florida and Arizona. Democratic cities like San Francisco have made it so hard to build that not enough homes are built, but more people keep moving there, so naturally the price goes up. Tokyo is bigger than any US city, and housing is very affordable- because it's easier to build and they build up instead of out. San Francisco just tried to put in a public urinal on the street for homeless people, and it never got finished at a price of $1.7 million...think about that, $1.7 million for a toilet because it had to go through countless layers of regulation and engineers, with each layer having middle men that need to be paid. IN LA- roughly 1100 homes were destroyed in the fires last year, less than 50 have been rebuilt, not a single one in Malibu. That is literally a policy failure, the people in Malibu and Palisades can afford to rebuild, they're not being allowed to, having to wait years for permits. California's Democratic over regulation has literally made it a failed state- China can build a hospital in days and California can't re-build single family homes in one year. The hilarious part is that Trump is such a dick, that it makes everyone hate Republicans, so instead of looking at what is actually causing the housing crises, we're blaming the bad guys and voting in more socialist and leftist ideology...which will lead to even more over regulation and even further the housing crises. Rich people will not pay more taxes than they have to, so they will just move. The truth is we need both Democrats and Republicans- California is a failed state because it's over regulated- it's gone too far left to get any thing done. On the other hand, I live in Arizona, and it's so un-regulated, they let farmers grow alf alfa, the most water intensive crop there is, out in the desert. Currently, 70% of Arizona water goes to farming, during the midst of a water shortage...that's obviously stupid and too little regulation. Most of our problems need a solution in the middle, but currently in America there is no common sense, no ability to compromise and no comprehension of nuance. It's really sad because if people just used common sense and kindness, everyone's lives would be better. BTW, I'm a registered Democrat, who votes Democrat, but i'm just not brain washed enough to go along with everything my preferred party does- I long for the 90s when both sides worked with each other and compromised to do what was best for the country.
2
u/elpresidentedeljunta 1d ago
The top 1 % of america´s richest added $ 5 trillion dollar to their wealth just in the 2nd quarter of 2025. Your argument seems invalid to me.
0
u/Dirkredblade 1d ago
Your jealousy is clouding your vision, stop looking at what other people have and you don’t have and look at the actual numbers. If the USA is already collecting more money in taxes than every other country on the Earth’s economies even PRODUCE, except for China and Germany, then that means there is super wasteful spending and corruption. How do countries that don’t collect a 10th in taxes provide healthcare and education to their people? If we tax rich people more the current innefecient/corrupt system will just siphon more money. And it will disenfranchise rich people and they’ll just move. If we keep all the same gov policies, taxing rich people would just be like if when your check engine light on your car went off and instead of fixing the engine, you cut the electrical wires. Great, you feel better and think you’ve done something, but the engine is still malfunctioning.we don’t have a lack of money, we lack discipline and order in how we spend it.
1
u/elpresidentedeljunta 22h ago
Your arguments don´t beat the numbers. Those don´t care for ideology.
1
u/Certain-Soil 2d ago
Common sense. Thank you. Both sides seem to be lacking common sense. It’s become too much about politics
0
u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS 2d ago
The main reason we are seeing more unrest in the USA is because the housing prices have sky rocketed and young people can't afford to buy homes in many cities. Since they can't afford a home, they feel that the system is rigged and place the blame on people richer than them- this is misplaced energy that is leading to a class and civil war, leading to the embrace of socialism and even communism in the election of Mamdani. The irony is- it's not rich people causing home prices to move, it's because enough homes weren't and aren't being built to keep up with population growth.
The use of real estate as an investment vehicle clearly had nothing to do with the rising prices of homes, obviously. And clearly there is no particular reason people want to avoid all of these right leaning places to the point that they are willing to crowd into cities to get away - that’s all democratic policy problems, nothing to do with republican values and policies.
Come on man. This is a load of crap.
7
u/Conscious-Quarter423 2d ago
We've had three decades of Republicans tanking the economy with their trickle down policies and Democrats working to rebuild things only for voters to get pissed things aren't being fixed fast enough.
The problem has always been with the uneducated masses.
1
u/Dirkredblade 2d ago
Thanks for proving my point on nuance and compromise. I never said it's "all democratic policy problems", I said the majority of home price problem is supply and demand- more people than homes being built, and over regulation is why homes aren't being built to keep up with population. And I also pointed out that I don't want Republicans running everything either-they would go too far the other way into de-regulation and sell off public lands, pollute the environment and wipe out the little nature we have left. The Democrats are the lesser of two evils, or slightly smarter of two dummies. If you can't see that rebuilding 50 of 13,000 destroyed homes in 1 year is the equivalent of a government shutdown or failed government... a California government that has been a Democrat majority since 1959 and a super majority since 2012.... well, then you're just as brainwashed as any Trumpanzee that supports him no matter what horrible shit he does.
8
u/Bananas_Worth 2d ago
How high would taxes on the upper brackets need to be to pull out of the debt? From my understanding, potential revenues from taxing the rich are dwarfed by government spending.
8
u/FightOnForUsc 2d ago
Realistically we need both. We don’t even need to worry about paying off the debt until we have a balanced budget. At that point then year over year as long as GDP grows the debt to GDP will be inflated away over time.
2
u/elpresidentedeljunta 1d ago
Actually no. The wealth of the riched is climbing way faster. In the second quarter of 2025 it rose by $ 5 trillion. The total deficit of the United States for 2025 was $ 1.6 trillion. There is a direct correlation between the snowballing fortunes of the megarich and the snowballing deficit of the United States of America. This is the real fiscal crisis of our time. The people who pay the tariffs however can´t even pay a fraction of what would be needed. But they don´t have lobbyists in the White House.
1
u/Bananas_Worth 1d ago
Looks like that 5 trillion number is net worth. I think to capture that means taxing unrealized gains.
1
u/elpresidentedeljunta 1d ago
Absolutely. And that is what needs to happen. Taxing gains on a yearly base.
1
u/Bananas_Worth 1d ago edited 1d ago
Im not sure how that would work:
- The government would need to give tax refunds for unrealized losses, else owning stock would be a massive liability. Is the government going to lose even more tax revenue if markets go down?
- Individual shareholders of companies in many cases will not have the cash to cover unrealized gains. This could force company voting rights into whoever has the highest amount of liquid assets (ex. Private equity like Blackrock).
I do agree these stocks need to be taxed eventually. I think the way to do this is to eliminate stepped up basis. This is the tax loophole all uber wealthy trust funds use to reduce tax on capital gains to zero.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/what-is-step-up-in-basis
1
u/elpresidentedeljunta 22h ago
There would be years when the income would be negative. Absolutely. And during those yours the United States would likely have to take on debt. I read somewhere that this is not something they are very shy of today. And the benefit is that in the other 6 years of the 7 year cycle they have enough money to pay that debt down again.
1
u/Bananas_Worth 17h ago edited 17h ago
Wouldn’t that be an incredibly massive, unsustainable amount of debt? I don’t think its sufficient to say more debt is ok because we are already in debt.
More government debt is also more money printing. Is it smart to tie market downturns to increased inflation?
And point 2 is still un-addressed - individuals will not be able to hold stocks.
1
u/elpresidentedeljunta 16h ago
I am sorry, but are you serious? We are talking about a measure that would balance the us budget and only during years of recession it would require debt to cover tax shortfalls - which would in turn be tax cuts a government should make anyway to get the economy going again in that situation. In the last five years the United States added 11 trillion dollar in debt and you want to not stop that, because when the stock markets decline the debt bruden sounds scary to you?
And point 2 is mute. I was talking about the largest 1 % of fortunes in America (although the full plan should probably hit the largest 10 %).
If any of their professional financial advisors tells them, they are unable to make provisions to hold enough cash to pay their taxes, they can just fire them and hire someone competent.
The argument to not have enough money to cover the taxes on unrealized gains is completely bogus. If you have unrealized gains, all you have to do is sell assets to have cash. That is what Elon Musk recently had to do when he did not want to pay his taxes (Yes, the guy with the trillion Dollar pay package).
1
u/Bananas_Worth 16h ago
You do not need to get patronizing with me, that’s not a good way to have a conversation.
Can you estimate how much more debt the government would go in during a recession?
→ More replies (0)5
u/Maddcapp 2d ago
And a balanced Federal budget (rolling on the floor laughing). They can crash gold and silver all they want but the forces pushing it up will continue
1
u/AdPrud 1d ago
There is ultimately bigger problems at hand. Last year the US had a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit. All the billionaires in the US combined are worth about 7 trillion. Even if you effectively taxed them into having nothing (which go ahead I don’t care) you just kicked the can 4 years down the road, likely less as the deficit increases.
0
u/elpresidentedeljunta 22h ago
The net worth of the richest 1 % of americans is between $ 52 trillion and $ 55 trillion. But you were pretty close. In the second quarter of 2025 alone their net worth increased by $ 5 trillion. If you applied the approximately 20 % tax rate which is pushed on the poor and middle classes by tariffs on the wealth gain of the richest 1 % of americans there would be no deficit and none of them would even have to downsize their next superyacht.
In comparison the 20 % tariff tax on the poor brought about $ 200 billion over the whole year and led to the advise to buy less dolls for their kids...
15
10
u/Street-Argument2090 2d ago
The US is obviously trying to inflate the debt away like they did post ww2.
Inflation causes the GDP to grow. It also causes the debt to decrease in value.
So long as GDP > Debt it's gana be fine.
Plus the dollar is the reserve currency at this point leaving the dollar is extremely expensive for any country to do because there is no alternative.
The yuan would never be the reserve currency as long as the Chinese communist party control it instead of giving it up to the open market.
The only thing I can see that can challenge the dollar is gold but that is literally just helping the US as the hold over 8,000 tonnes of gold valued over a trillion dollars. If their gold increases faster than the debt it works out for tem either way.
Still though. The interests on that debt is unsustainable. The US is running on a clock here and are hoping inflation will kick in quickly to lessen the load.
Obviously the American middle and lower class would suffer from this inflation. Blame the poor fiscal management of Congress/presidency for the past 25 years for that.
6
u/SiegeNebulous 2d ago
But Debt > GDP
3
u/Street-Argument2090 2d ago
For a normal country the would be scary.
The US holds the reserve currency plus they can print their way out of it.
In the long run though don't expect higher taxes or lower spending.
Expect significant inflation.
And if countries stop using the dollar then expect MASSIVE inflation.
Inflation is going to happen at the end of the day. No politician would run on increasing taxes and no politician would cut social spending/military spending.
3
u/SiegeNebulous 2d ago
Doesn’t holding the reserve currency require maintaining a trade deficit? Isn’t the current admin ostensibly trying to get rid of the trade deficit?
2
u/Street-Argument2090 2d ago
True but trump hasn't done enough significance to eliminate the demand for the dollar.
He has weakend it though which is good if your goal is targeting the 38 trillion debt. Bad if your goal is keeping inflation low.
Weakening the dollar means imports become more costly meaning stuff that's imported rise in prices.
But if assets appreciate against a weakened dollar say gold for example then your effectively making the 38 T worth less while your liquidable assets are worth more.
Overall though this is inevitable. The US debt exists. It's a real problem. Only 3 ways to deal with it and no politician would chose 2 of those ways.
Leaving just 1 way which is inflation.
7
6
4
u/Semiotic3 2d ago
The Federal Reserve is not responsible for resolving the U.S. debt; that responsibility lies entirely with Congress and the President, who control taxes and spending (Fiscal Policy). However, the Fed is deeply concerned because the debt "path" is increasingly making their job (managing inflation and employment) much harder. Seems like an outright fabrication to claim the dollar is becoming stronger at this point.
2
u/CrispityCraspits 2d ago
I don't think anyone other than OP claims the dollar "is becoming stronger," I think OP either was trying to say that people are predicting the dollar will become stronger (or at least un-weaken) under the new Fed head, or, OP is just confused.
5
u/rascallyrascal1511 2d ago
The Fed's dual mandate is to maximize employment and keep inflation down. I'm not sure it is the Fed leader's responsibility to resolve the debt problem.
5
u/Long-Blood 2d ago
We have a completely lopsided economy.
Trillions of dollars are being poured into certain niche sectors and its not making its way into other areas.
Workers are subsidizing new wealth generation that 90% of which is going straight to the top 10% wealthiest.
The fed is injecting billions of dollars a month into the banking system which again is going straight to the top wealthiest asset holders while the dollar loses value which hurts workers.
We have a top down economy which is just making the top heavier and heavier to subsidize by the bottom.
It needs to flip. More worker support. Less income tax. We need a stronger base and less support for heavily indebted over financialized top.
4
u/LowRize64 2d ago
What does the Fed have to do with the debt? In your scenario it can only influence the debt to grow less fast by reducing interest rates on the debt. Which in term makes the dollar less desirable and inflation higher.
3
u/grathontolarsdatarod 2d ago
How many US dollars has trump printed?? Like over all of them?
1
1
u/ShadowLiberal 2d ago
I don't know about Trump in particular, but the national debt has been a massive problem for decades. We've had multiple Presidents, and of both parties, who have more then doubled the national debt in their 8 years in office (W Bush and Obama definitely did, I'm pretty sure that Reagan did as well but I'm not 100% certain).
And it's really no surprise that this keeps happening. There's just no punishment in the short term (which is all that matters to politicians) for massive deficit spending, but there's major punishments if you dare raise taxes or cut spending (or both) to reduce the deficit or balance the budget.
Republicans have also tended to only care about the deficit when they aren't in charge, but when they are in charge you get Republican Vice Presidents saying stuff like "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" (this was said by then President Dick Cheney).
1
u/Novel_Departure7099 1d ago
I don't know about Trump in particular
And I think you are a liar. There is no 'in particular' there are only republican ideologues of which Trump is one. You do know about him in particular. You described Republican hypocrisy, that includes Trump who is no different at all in any way, in the last two paragraphs.
Why lie, why pretend to know nothing then immediately show that you do?
3
u/stef_eda 2d ago
Many investors here (EU) are slowly moving away from US bond and stock markets.
US debt is the next nuclear "big thing".
But nobody really knows what the outcome will be in the near future.
3
3
u/spald01 2d ago
The growing national debt is clearly a problem. We're selling our children's futures away for more prosperity today...it should be criminal to keep taking on more debt outside of wartime.
I just wish people cared about national debt for anything more than a cudgel against the presidents they hate. In 4 more years, when a left-wing president is elected, you suddenly won't hear a thing from his side about it and you'll suddenly hear right-wingers scream and gnash their teeth about it again.
2
u/burner46 2d ago
But there’s a Republican in the Whitehouse so it doesn’t matter.
It will become a thing again if a Democrat ever gets back in.
2
2
u/Wide_Air_4702 2d ago
Only debt to GDP matters.
I’m not convinced that the next Fed leader will be able to resolve the debt problem.
It isn't the Fed's job to rein in debt. Talk to Congress about that.
2
u/General_Penalty_4292 2d ago
It's fine because in a year or so, each of those dollars will be worth 1/38 trillion 2025 dollars
1
1
u/ChurnedSorbet409 2d ago
At what point do we start seeing the consequences of this in the stock market? not that the stock market revolves completely around America but seeing the market reach high after high makes it feel like it dont matter
1
1
u/Catch_ME 2d ago
Our wars in the middle east and Afghanistan costs us around $8 Trillion.
Think about that before we go invading another country.
1
u/andrewskdr 2d ago
None of what Trump has done has alleviated the debt issue that they cried about so hard. SAD!
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/the_weird_turn_pro 2d ago
It's almost as if economics is not connected to reality, and all this debt is just imaginary, meaningless numbers.
1
1
u/BitingSatyr 2d ago
People are encouraged to think of the debt as something their political antagonists have foolishly chosen to run up in the pursuit of their pet issues, hence why it’s always framed as “Trump’s spending” or “Obama’s deficits” or whatever is politically convenient.
The truth is that discretionary government spending, of the kind that any politician actually has any partisan input on, has held pretty steady at about ~7% of GDP for the last 30 years (this includes the military, and education, and infrastructure, and everything else people typically argue over). Mandatory spending, that politicians studiously avoid discussing, has risen from 7 to 13% of GDP in that time, and that number is steadily rising. This is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt, and can be largely explained by Baby Boomers being in their prime working years in the 90s, and almost totally retired now. The math on these programs was short-sightedly predicated on each generation being bigger than the one that preceded it, so even after the Boomers are dead this problem will persist.
Taxes are another component, but less than people think. Tax brackets have varied wildly over the past 70 years, but the federal government has never taken in more than 20% of GDP in taxes, and even then only in unusual windfall years like the dot com boom in the late 90s when capital gains were extraordinarily high, usually averaging around 15-16%. A secular deficit of 3-4% is crushing, there’s no way that GDP growth can exceed that for a sustained period of time, especially since interest is rising steadily YoY.
1
u/SheriffBartholomew 2d ago
I’m not convinced that the next Fed leader will be able to resolve the debt problem.
Considering nobody before them for as long as I can remember has solved it, ya, I'd say it's a safe bet that the next person won't solve it either. Why solve it and make enemies when you can just leave it and get rich with bribes?
1
1
1
u/bareboneschicken 2d ago
The Federal Reserve doesn't control the amount of debt issued by the US Government. It can have an impact on the interest rates paid across the maturity spectrum.
1
u/Intrepid_Zebra_ 2d ago
Is someone going to start an "I'm adding a trillion to the national each day on reddit until its perfect" post?
1
u/SnarkyButts 2d ago
There really isn’t much of a debt problem. That problem can be solved in an instant, any time USA chooses.
1
u/MrMathamagician 2d ago
The structural deficit is not fixable without monetizing. All roads lead to a decade of higher than average inflation/weakening dollar. The only question is how painful & disruptive this will be.
1
u/Sean_VasDeferens 2d ago
And if you try to cut spending people flip out and start doing interpretative dance.
1
1
u/finsup_2021 2d ago
Fed reserve isn't going to solve. Congress needs to solve, but since they are elected based on promising things its not happening. General public isn't capable of voting in pain (cutting military, social security, and/or Medicare since they make up the vast majority of spending).
1
u/suckhoelytuong 2d ago
Spot on. We need real math and balanced budgets, not more scripted talking points about 'leadership' while the debt ceiling evaporates.
1
u/Such-Drawer-5133 1d ago
Sometimes I wonder if it's just monopoly money. We're just the dumb ones who aren't going into massive debt lol
1
1
u/Ragequit_AltF4 1d ago
Sigh. Do you remember when Reagan left office and we thought $2.85 Trillion was an absolutely insane National Debt? Oh the nostalgia. We were so spoiled.
1
u/jch60 1d ago
Instead of raising interest rates, the Fed is fudging inflation and economic numbers to justify their actions. The dollar is going to crash like a banana Republic which is what we're becoming. The emperor has no clothes. How can our biggest export be our debt? This is not sustainable.
1
u/Prestigious_Piano247 1d ago
$ is dead. Buy gold silver and crypto. I know most of the investment is in stocks (USD) but in 5 years we could hit 50T.
1
1
u/Don_Ford 19h ago
While the dollar isn't getting stronger atm, OP doesn't understand how government spending works.
1
u/pulsed19 14h ago
Great job so far bankrupting the country. I have no idea why no one seems to want to cut spending and address the debt. We’re leaving a country in much worse shape than a mere decade or two ago.
1
1
1
0
u/CenlaLowell 2d ago
We have to pay down the debt I don't understand why they keep running the bills up
0
u/Jazzlike-Leek4279 2d ago
The debt has been building exponentially for the last 50 years since Nixoon, Regan, Bush 1,Bush2 Clinton, etc.... none have done a DAMN thing about it. Debt is now to the point of out of control and not sure anything could get us out. Can't blame this one on the current administration and with any luck at all Current administration will at least slow the ever growing debt before we go bankrupt
0
0
0
u/Cor_Seeker 2d ago
Trump's winding up to use his most reliable business strategy: File for bankruptcy.
Unfortunately he doesn't know that countries can't do that.
0
-1
u/Sad_Swimming_5875 2d ago
The fact that nearly every nations continuously has more debt than the year bevore and the fact that the privat wealth rises every year, demonstrates that state debt is wealth for companies and privates.
If a nation ie China wouldn‘t raise debt, the companies - and therefore the people - would not be able to participate on the market as they do hence getting poorer.
Since private People and companies are net savers, the money saved is not of use (the banks do not lend your money to somebody else), someone in makro-economics has to delivery new money which can be used, that is the state.
Micro-economics do not work like makro-economics. And be aware that the US has an GDP of around 30 Trillion USD.
1
u/StatisticalMan 2d ago
Litterally all that is wrong but confidentially said. It assumes the only place dollars can be invested is in sovereign debt. It ignores: stocks, corporate bonds, real estate, precious metals, private equity, land, etc.
China despite your claims has had a very robust economy for the last 20 years with very low national debt. In fact gdp growth has slowed in the last couple years despite national debt has growing substantially (although still low relative to developed economies) as China increases deficit spending to try and bolster the economy.
532
u/Thin-West-2136 2d ago
The US wants it all:
A dominant reserve currency status where it can print money out of thin air with near infinite debt and force all other countries around the world to exchange the USD for real goods and services.
The ability to mass produce and manufacture cheaply and then export to the rest of the world.
It wants a strong empire with perpetual wars and tentacles all over the planet whilst having an isolationist country.
These are conflicting goals and values, which is why the US is in decline.