Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Federalist Radio Hour
Not Dead Yet
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The Learning Curve
The American Idea
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Hillsdale Dialogues
Madison’s Notes
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
There has been much alarm in the media about the prospect of the US national debt-to-annual-GDP ratio surpassing the 100% threshold. The implication is that “100%” is not just an arbitrarily chosen number, but rather that it has some special significance in this case.
But is that true? Would there be any economic effects on Americans that are qualitatively different from the value of this ratio surpassing any arbitrarily chosen constant? Like 99%? Or 101%?
I have never seen any of these writers even hint at a rational reason for their belief. They treat it as if it were obvious. I think the reason they don’t bring it up is that they have never given it a moment’s thought, and that the proposition is absurd.
Our federal government’s finances have long been recklessly managed—excessive expenditures in relation to the citizens’ ability to pay for them—and that fact has already been causing us increasing harm and exposing us to greater risk. The danger and harm increase smoothly and continuously with every incremental change. We are not suddenly approaching a magical value for the ratio.
Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (23)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The effect would be re-election for whoever increased spending to that level.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If an individual takes out a loan greater than his annual income, is it a financial disaster? It depends upon a number of things. I'm no economist, but Mark's last sentence seem reasonable when you look at it this way.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Income and wealth are two different things. Collateral is more important than income, provided you have enough income to service the debt.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is a principle of banking that has been significantly discarded apparently because it requires too much work within a competitive business environment. In today's market this problem is overcome by consolidation to monopoly levels so pricing of services or products can cover performance deficiencies.
You're seeing five of 23 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.