Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: DE ... Re: MTG Files Motion to Strip Gavel from Mike Johnson

By: monkeytrots in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 25 Mar 24 2:30 AM | 20 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 51483 of 58580
(This msg. is a reply to 51482 by De_Composed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Thank you very much, DE. Your numerical results are proof enough for me.

Point being that: The federal debt double (give or take a small margin) EVERY EIGHT YEARS has done so for the past 70-80 year, consistently, no matter WHO has been in office.

That should give all of us a bitter bit to digest.

Graphs aren't mandatory for 'proving' anything - but for some (maybe many) they do give folks a visual confirmation of what the numbers are 'saying', and of how well the 'data' conform to our conclusions about what the 'numbers' are showing.

Again, appreciate you taking the time to actually crunch the numbers fur us. *s*





Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: DE ... Re: MTG Files Motion to Strip Gavel from Mike Johnson
By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 25 Mar 24 1:59 AM 		Msg. 51482 of 58580

mt:

Re: “DE - Good fit. How about trying a logarithmic curve based on the 'compound interest' equation with a rate of 9%. Should also yield aprox the same shape and fit, with a 'real world' feel for the curve.”I don't understand what would be gained by comparing a logarithmic curve to a non-logarithmic debt graph.

My graph started in 1965 when the debt was $317 billion. To get it to $34.5 trillion today, you'd use 8.3% annual compounding. But although it eventually catches up to the $34.5 trillion, such a graph doesn't produce as good of a fit for most of the 59 years as what I already posted, usually hanging well below the actual debt.

But that's nitpicking. EITHER approach will yield the same conclusion: That the country's production-growth is severely lagging its debt-growth, to the extent that it will survive only a short while more. If you want to estimate how long that while is, an ellipse remains the best approach I've seen, with the added benefit that those of us with Windows have a tool (MSPAINT) right on our computer that can display the debt and model various ellipses upon it.

I don't have a professional modeling tool. There is, no doubt, a true curve-of-best fit that would precisely pin-down what our average debt growth looks like and how many months we have left before it approaches the vertical.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next