
US debt visualized - nuromancer
http://www.wtfnoway.com/
======
tmorton
This is exactly the wrong sort of visualization. It provides no information
other than "big number is big, lol."

The US debt is a big number. So big that people have a hard time wrapping
their head around it. They need a point of comparison. So what's a good point
of comparison for the US debt? Hmm... we could use the federal budget, or GDP,
or the world GDP, or the debt of other large nations. Or we could break it
down per capita, and compare it to other per-capita things, like income or tax
burden. Or... I know! We can convert the thing to hundred dollar bills, and
put it next to the statue of liberty! That's a meaningful comparison!

~~~
temphn
People have physically handled $100 bills and visited the WTC and Statue of
Liberty.

You want to explain abstractions in terms of concrete things like this, rather
than in terms of other abstractions. And "GDP" is as abstract as it gets.

~~~
archgoon
I don't think that really works. I've personally have handled a 1 million byte
hard drive. So, if I want to understand how big a 1 trillion byte hard drive
is, should I picture 1 million 1 megabyte hard drives? I've also got some RAM
chips that are about 1 gigabyte in size, should I visualize the terabyte hard
drive in terms of them?

~~~
temphn
Sure. That's one of the best ways to visualize what Moore's law actually means
in concrete terms. What used to take a room is now in the palm of your hand.

<http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr>

------
scarmig
Not a particularly useful exercise. Imagine 100 years from now we've
maintained the same debt level. This graph will show just as much information
(big numbers are big!) as it does now, but the analytical value of it (if it
exists now) will obviously be totally dissipated, as we'll be an order of
magnitude richer.

A better comparison would be to take a single person, and put the per capita
amount of debt in $100 bills next to them. If you want to get really
histrionic, do it with a baby. Still, it won't come up past the ankles (around
$15,000).

This isn't a small amount, but at the same time it's not the end of the world.
My college loans come out to that amount, and I barely notice paying them
monthly.

It's equivalent to having a mortgage-sized to around five times your annual
income. An annual income that typically grows 2.5% a year and comes with a
machine that prints out money whenever you need it.

Edit: typo in Google search, it's more like $50k than $15k. So a bit worse
than that analysis would suggest.

~~~
malbs
"An annual income that typically grows 2.5%"

If you're lucky enough to work at a company that does actually have a policy
of CPI pay increases every year.

Of all the companies I've worked for (7), only 1 did.

~~~
Timothee
As I can't be the only one: CPI is the Consumer Price Index. Basically how
much what you pay for something will change over time. (if I understood
correctly)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Price_Index>

~~~
nhaehnle
The CPI (or variants thereof) is also the only way to reasonably define an
objective-measure-based "inflation" in a fiat currency system.

~~~
eru
Or any type of currency.

------
nl
For that graphic to be any use at all, it needs to show the size of the US
economy in comparison.

A $400,000 home loan looks pretty big if you visualize it in 1 cent pieces,
but if you put it next to a $100,000 salary it looks pretty reasonable.

"US Unfunded Liabilities" is a _stupid_ thing to measure anyway. That's like
putting all your household expenses for the next 30 years on mortgage graph.
Yes, you will need to pay them, but they aren't a debt at all.

Personally, I prefer seeing debt as a percentage of GDP:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Measu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Measuring_debt_relative_to_gross_domestic_product_.28GDP.29)

~~~
ctdonath
The point is they're unfunded: we don't know where the money is coming from,
short of raising taxes or printing more. It's like putting the kids' college
educations on a graph and realizing there's no current or future
income/savings to cover it.

------
JonnieCache
Here's another fun one:
[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-
bil...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-
dollar-gram/)

~~~
nuromancer
I would love to see a subsequent visualization illustrating where all this
capital goes.

~~~
ck2
Most of debt is from war because you don't have to have it funded to start one
and once it's rolling well "gotta support the troops". Then the interest
starts adding up fast.

Since the WTC demo is reduced to "half trillion floors", that means half of
the first floor would be the entire lifetime cost of the NASA shuttle program.

Iraq War(s) would be the next five floors. Doesn't include Afghanistan or
Libya or Yemen. Or our troop presence around the world like in Japan for some
reason.

Next two floors would be the cost for heath care and benefits for
injured/killed troops through 2050.

~~~
potatolicious
I'm against the wars - but IMO there's a good reason the US has a presence
around the world in places like Japan. The _entire_ point of being a
superpower is being able to project this power in any corner of the globe.

China is investing heavily in its navy right now since it distinctly feels the
_lack_ of ability to do the same. When Chinese shipments came under pirate
attack off the coast of Somalia, it took forever and a day for any forces to
be dispatched, compared to the US whose naval and air presence is available
within hours around the world by virtue of having bases in foreign countries.

------
ljf
The sites creator should watch themselves suggesting people click on the
adverts... Good chance they won't end up with the payments, as this breaks
nearly all PPC companies ad rules...

------
nkassis
It would have made sense to compare that to total GDP or something other than
a building, I find it kind of useless as it is. It's big but seriously you're
talking about the largest economy in the world. I don't get all the irrational
fear this is supposed to engender in the mind of people.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Visualizations are never meant to be rational. What they can do, if effective,
is over rule other irrational judgments. For instance, I'd contend your view
(that the debt is no big deal) is irrational. Had this worked on you it would
have at least gotten you to admit it is a big deal.

Just so I don't get accused of making ad hominems let me explain my contention
above. You seem to think the size of the debt isn't a big deal because it is
small compared to GDP. That would be an effective argument if the question was
"will the U.S. go bankrupt"

But when people are assessing how big a problem the debt is the question they
are asking is how much it will impact our overall standard of living when we
inevitably have to start paying it off. So how big it is in comparison to GDP
isn't all that relevant. The question is how much of an impact it will make.

To give an example 10% of your income isn't that big in comparison to your
whole income. But if someone were to take that 10% away every month it would
have a sizable impact on your overall life.

~~~
nkassis
"But when people are assessing how big a problem the debt is the question they
are asking is how much it will impact our overall standard of living when we
inevitably have to start paying it off"

Fair point but will we have to pay it back? That's the funny thing about
Government debt, while it's definitively a drag on the economy, the larger it
is the larger the economy has to grow but as long as you stay ahead of the
interest and roll it over (when bonds expire replace with other bonds...).
There is no payoff date or whatever. The gov has infinite life (theoretically)
and get take forever to pay it back. The debt can exist (and has existed)
forever. Slowly grow forever as long as it's not growing faster than the
economy can bare. (this is why I think comparing to GDP is valuable)

Having a deficit every year isn't the problem, it's the size that matters.
Surplus are definitively better, not arguing that but paying off the debt is
never going to happen, making it smaller is also probably not going to happen
significantly for a long time. Until better time show up.

And with the economy right now, you won't manage to get a surplus without
completely destroying the standard of living you speak of by eliminating a
huge number of gov programs.

You do cuts in good times not bad. The government needs to be able to borrow
during the bad economic times. (Unless my understanding of Keynesian economics
is completely faulty or you disagree with him completely.

"Just so I don't get accused of making ad hominems let me explain my
contention above." I wasn't seeing anything personal in there but thanks for
explaining your view. I hope you will see my post the same way.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Keep in mind when you say the Debt has lasted forever that doesn't take into
account the rapid growth in the last 30 years. From 1946 to 1980 the debt
growth was essentially flat (which means it went down when you consider
inflation). Then from 1980 to 2011 we went from $2 Trillion to $14.5 (and
according to usdebtclock.org we'll be at $22.8 in 3 years at our current
rate).

As far as infinite debt I don't think anyone argues that anymore. There was an
argument to be made for that back when the great majority of our debt was owed
to people in the U.S. Because then you could say the interst stimulates the
U.S. economy. But now that foreign owners hold 47% of the debt held by the
public that argument makes a lot less sense.

As far as Keynes is concerned he didn't really address debt all that much.
Keep in mind when you hear people talk about Keynes they generally are
referring to the Obama Administration but the truth is the Obama
Administration isn't practicing Keynesian Economics.

Read Keynes and the phrase that comes up over and over again is "Full
Employment". Keynes believed in spending as much money as was needed to create
full employment and then increasing taxes to pay off what you spent. If I
recall he actually used the phrase "Retire the debt" which I take to mean
paying it off completely.

Keynes theories have never fully been tested because no politician has been
brave enough to ask for that much money. But if they worked they would create
the mother of all booms so increasing taxes to pay off the debt wouldn't be as
big an issue (again we're talking full employment)

~~~
nkassis
But the retirement should be gradual right? When the economy slopes back down
I was under the impression that Keyne's theory would suggest deficit spending
again. Hence you'll always be yoyoing but never fully paying. You're right
that his full theory has never been tested. I haven't seen many politicians
really advocate increase taxes during booms.

~~~
nl
Tax (rate) increases during booms aren't required.

The idea is that the increased economic activity leads to additional tax
revenue, which leads to surplus budgets. It is often possible to _reduce_ tax
rates during a boom and still keep a budget in surplus (eg, Australia managed
that between 2005 & 2008)

------
grepittech
I would love for him to visualize how much we pay towards our debt each year
in comparison to the actual debt.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Last I heard we were estimated to be spending $533 billion per year in 2015
and that estimate was from 2009 (we've spent a lot more since then). So
assuming that's brought us a little closer you can assume we'll be paying $500
billion in the next year or so. Meaning you can look at the One Trillion
Visualization and cut it in half.

Only source I could find for this:
[http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/i...](http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm)

~~~
sigil
Total Federal spending is around $3.5 trillion a year these days. This and
lots of other useful information can be found here:

<http://usgovernmentspending.com/>

------
maguay
Wait, wait: "Unless the U.S. government fixes the budget, nation's CREDIT CARD
debt will topple 15 trillion by Christmas 2011."

Is this meaning US _consumer_ credit card debt? If so, that's hardly the US
government budget's fault. That one is odd at best.

~~~
roel_v
I understood that as a style figure meaning 'the US government is using
borrowed money, like a credit card'. I think it's quite disingenuous.

(maybe I'm wrong - I'd do a first-order validation of the idea by dividing 15
trillion by the amount of us citizens, but I don't quite know now many zeroes
there are in 15 trillion and if it's effected by false friends like 'billion'
(meaning: 'billion' in English has a different amount of zeroes as the
homophones in other languages)).

~~~
eru
And British English used to use different conventions from American English,
too.

------
csomar
What's wrong with debt? With loans I was able to speed up my progress. I took
loans two times and ready to take it the next time. You'll need just to be
certain that you'll pay off. There is risk, but risk is everywhere you do
business.

~~~
jodrellblank
What's wrong is someone else getting into debt on my behalf, promising to pay
it back with money they will take from me by threat of force as taxes, for
purposes I wasn't consulted on, to further an unsustainable goal of perpetual
growth which is hurrying the arrival of global problems.

~~~
rbranson
Debt isn't the problem, it's that it's not paid down when there is a surplus.
We chose to cut taxes or create new entitlements instead of paying down the
debt.

Postscript: The "take from me by threat of force as taxes" makes you sound
like a tea party nutbag or at best an angsty teen that despises parental
authority. Perhaps you should have been born in a remote jungle to fend for
yourself when you were a child instead of forced to live in a society which
protected and educated you? At least you would have been free.

~~~
jquery
Your ad hominem was really unnecessary. If he said he liked government
welfare, would you have said he should still be sucking his mother's teat?

------
winternett
Where is this stack of money located? I'd like to visit it and take a
souvenir.

~~~
cpeterso
The money is near the Statue of Liberty.

------
th0ma5
Some other physical comparisons that could have been included are actually the
size of stacking 400 million people on top of each other, how big that would
be, and also how much food they would eat in their lifetime, and how much oil
and/or plastic goods they would consume. Other than that, I agree with a lot
of the other comments here, big numbers are big. "I mean, you may think it's a
long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space,
listen..." - HHGTTG

------
username3
We need 11.45 billion volunteers to work for 92 years.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Or (one hopes) agree to give up their social security benefits. I wish my
generation could negotiate as a block and say something equivalent to, "We'll
surrender any possibility of SS benefits--- _and still pay payroll tax_ \---in
exchange for an assurance that the new paper leeway won't be used as an excuse
to spend more."

------
chrismealy
Public debt = net private sector savings. Nobody gets worked up over the
private sector saving too much.

~~~
walkon
It absolutely does not. Have you heard of the QE* programs from the Fed?

~~~
chrismealy
If the Fed buys bonds it's paying cash for them. Net savings doesn't change.
It's just changing the duration of the savings.

------
brimpa
I know this wasn't the point but I definitely didn't know a 747 was _that_
big.

------
draggnar
al jazeera did a very good video showing the greek debt also using pallets
([http://www.wesoscrewed.com/2011/07/19/pallets-upon-
pallets-o...](http://www.wesoscrewed.com/2011/07/19/pallets-upon-pallets-of-
cash-the-greek-debt-visualized/)). there is just something about seeing that
amount of money in cash on pallets that makes me sick to my stomach. Talk
about a huge hole to climb out of...

------
Vivtek
Man. Those graphics are beautifully rendered. What would be the best tool to
do something like that?

~~~
ulisesroche
I've always liked (and would have used) Blender for stuff like this.

------
astrofinch
So what country should I flee to?

~~~
eru
Norway. They have a net debt of around -150% of GDP, i.e. they _owe_ money.

------
known
between 1944 to 1963 US personal income tax rate was 92%

~~~
gopi
No self respecting rich guy paid that much...You have to talk about the
effective tax rate (both personal and capital gain). This was always around
30% in the last 70-80 years!

So the best thing to do is to abolish all deductions for the rich and reduce
the top tax rate to something like 28% (which the new debt commission
recommended)

------
known
America is safe as long as dollar is world reserve currency

