While our nation hasn't been the victim of a natural disaster the magnitude of which struck Haiti last year and Japan earlier this year, our economy, if you ask the average citizen, is a disaster. Other countries are buying T-bills, securities and other types of US Government bonds. Even us regular Joes buy US Savings Bonds. When a nation or an individual buys a bond, it increases the debt our nation owes, since bonds must be repaid with interest. When you look at it this way, the national debt is not just a matter of spending more than the government takes in. The national debt is a loan that eventually needs to be repaid.
Because the United States is a non-profit organization, individuals can make contributions to reduce the national debt. You can find out how by visiting
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance. Now, before you laugh at the prospect, consider that the US pledges funds to help other nations when disaster strikes them. We don't "loan" the money to nations that have been hit with disasters...at least the media doesn't report it that way. Most of the time, if natural disasters strike our nation, we all pitch in what we can since we try to take care of such things ourselves...or, hope that our governments designate them as disaster areas.
So, if we're expected to take care of our economic problems ourselves, and the US has about 312,000,000 people, let's consider the 80/20 rule. If 80% of the people can be asked to pay 20% of the debt, and 20% of the people can pay 80% of the debt, this would mean that every "very well off" person (20% of the population) could pay about $180,000 to the government, and the majority of the people would only have to pay about $11,300 per person to retire the debt. If we opt for a balanced budget today, over the next 10 years, $18,000 per year would come from every "well-off" person, while everyone else would have to come up with $1,130 per year. A family of four, then, would be responsible for $4,250 more going to the federal government every year in order to pay off the national debt. Sounds hardly possible.
Interestingly, in recent weeks, the mounting debt crisis in Europe has been one of the driving factors in the decline of the American stock market. This proves that our economic problems are not just domestic ones, and therefore, we are not alone in this difficult time. The problem is systemic, and every action that occurs has the ability to generate unintended consequences.
Take unemployment, for example. Is news of layoffs good news or bad today? Today, most of us would agree that it's bad news. A company says that they're going to lay off 20,000 workers, and the stock market tanks. However, in times of economic prosperity, such news would be good news for the stock market. A layoff of workers in good economic times means that the company won't be spending as much money in overhead, will show a profit increase, and that can lead to more revenue for its stockholders. Therefore, the price of the stock increases, and even though people are losing their jobs, investors are making more money than they did before.
But if the stock market declines, individuals take money out of stocks and buy bonds. Bonds are issued by governments, so buying bonds increases government debt. Once again, you can see the systemic effects of a downward spiral in action. What should happen is counter-intuitive, and that's why investing in the stock market shoud be left to those who know what they're doing, rather than all the folks that are trying to make a quick buck on itrade, nationaltrade or letsseeificanmakeatrade, or manage their 401Ks themselves. Investment professionals buy stocks when they're low, and sell when they're high. If stock prices are low, it means there's been a sell-off somewhere. I'd love to be able to see if those sell-offs are made by brokerage firms or individuals that "dabble" in the market on their laptops. Keeping in mind a systems thinking (ST) framework, a million "dabblers" could have catastrophic unintended consequences.
So what can be done to reverse the downward spiral? As an interesting consideration, let's take a look at the world, which has about 6.9 billion people. If each person in the world would give $2 to the US government (and not just loan it to them), it would eliminate our debt. We could start fresh and move forward, once again driving the world's economy, helping other countries to reverse their debt crises. Remember, that's an average of $2 per person. Certainly, millions of people in the world cannot give anything; some can give much more than that. See the link above about giving to reduce the national debt.
Of course, there are other systems that must be addressed. Governments, both national and local, have been "caring for" people who are in need or cannot care for themselves. Churches used to do that. It's why there needs to be a separation of Church and State, but both need to exist, and both need to know which roles they need to play. When one tries to usurp the role of the other, or eliminate each other's roles, everyone suffers.
But I think there's another reason why congressional leaders and governmental administrators can't come up with a plan to more forward with economic recovery.
When I was majoring in communications, a friend of mine had a journalism professor that would say, "And where did you get your degree in journalism from?" when his methods were questioned by a student. Similarly, when I was in education, I had heard that there were teachers who would have liked to ask the same type of question when a student's parent was upset about the amount of homework the child was receiving.
I thought about that after hearing a local radio talkshow yesterday. The caller said that Congress can't come up with a plan, and all they want to do is throw more money at the problem and hope it works. That resonated with me - because many of our elected officials have political science degrees and advanced law degrees...and isn't that how many lawyers work? Let's settle out of court for an undisclosed sum of money. In other words, let's put some money on the table and see if the claim can be settled. I wonder how many of our lawmakers have MBAs? That question was posed on a Web site in 2008, and no one has offered an answer. The New York Times has an interesting artilce from 2009 regarding the number of lawmakers that have college degrees (
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/congress/), but without personal economic experience, the leap from lawmaker to economy fixer is certainly a huge one.
I think everyone needs to watch the movie, "Dave." It shows what happens when politics takes a back seat to hard economic decisions. Everyone may not like it, but there is joy regarding the end result.