Noah denkt™ - The Power of Balanced Reasoning
The Psychology of an Erupting Massive Fear
Dialogue with the Alter Ego on Lawrence Kotlikoff and the US debt, first drafted on April 3, published on April 4,

    Russ Roberts: “Now, you've been writing for some time about America's fiscal problems. A lot of people disagree about
    how serious those problems are. You argue that they are serious. How bad is it?”
    Lawrence Kotlikoff:  “I think it's terrible. I think we are probably in worse fiscal shape than any developed country. The
    reason, Russ, is we've been piling up debts for over 6 decades; and when I say 'we' I'm referring to Republican and
    Democratic administrations and Congresses. And we've been hiding them. We've been keeping them off the books and
    using economic labels, words, to pretend that they are not real liabilities of the government. ( … ) The accounting here is
    much worse, far worse than anything that Bernie Madoff, who ran that big pension Ponzi scheme engaged in, and
    anything that Enron engaged in. It's really horrendous because the true debts of the country total about $205 trillion. The
    official debt that's being reported is only about $12 trillion …. (…)  So at some point the entire bond market will flip and we
    will have interest rates go up and we'll have inflation take off. The United States cannot indefinitely print, pay for these
    obligations with money creation."

    Excerpt from “EconTalk with Russ Roberts” and Lawrence Kotlikoff, January 13, 2014

Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt ™ (AE): It is high time that we talk about the systematic risk which the
skyrocketing US debt is posing to financial markets. Boston University professor Lawrence Kotlikoff is arguing
for quite some time now that the US is dramatically broke and that it is only a question until society and financial
markets will react to this matter in a similar devastating fashion as they have done in the cause of the Greek
and Argentinean debt crisis. What is Noah denkt™'s view on this issue?

Answer by Noah denkt (Nd). We have no doubt that professor Kotlikoff's analysis of a 207 trillion US$ public
( - which contrary to the official statistics also includes health care and entitlement obligations by the US government - ) is
correct. Furthermore, we also believe that he is right in pointing out that this level of debt is a ticking time bomb
that it will wreak havoc of biblical proportions to the world economy if it eventually goes off.  In deed, we share
Mr. Kotlikoff's view that it is mistaken to believe that the US will be able to spend its way out of the economic
crisis. And we would also concur with him that current Wall Street evaluations aren't an adequate indicator as to
the level of the threat that is inherent in this public debt. Having said all that, we are not so sure, however,
whether a sudden switch in Wall Street attitude towards that debt is as imminent as Mr. Kotlikoff has us believe.

AE: Why do you say that?
Nd: Because history tells us that the sudden eruption of massive fear which would in fact precede the radical
change of Wall Street perceptions tends to happen in an environment where an apparent exuberance in
valuations has already led way to a subconscious unease or even fear about the unprecedented level of
confidence and optimism that is reigning in those financial markets. At this time, however there is still a lot of
open and manifest unease (if not fear) about the solidity of the recovery baked into the valuations. So, in our
mind, the conditions aren't right for such a radical shift in perception to happen now.

AE: Can you point to a specific historic situation that validates your argument?
Nd: Well, look at the French Revolution. It did not happen when the exercise of feudal rights was the most
excruciating and immediate. Instead, it happened when the pertaining feudal reality had already lost
considerable weight due to the centralization of the absolutist administration. In other words, the eruption of
massive public emotions did not come when the issue they were fighting was as at its hottest but when its
severity had already cooled down somewhat.
(See: Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the Revolution). A similar
pattern can be discerned with respect to the breaking point of the 2007/8 financial crisis. There had been quite
some talk about an imminent recession well before the sub-prime crisis actually broke. Those fears, however,
had already died down somewhat by the time the BearStearns and Lehman disaster happened. At the time it
appeared to quite a few observers as if the market would in deed be more resilient than they had originally
anticipated. The development of the BearStearns share price speaks to that observation. On May 21, 2007,
rumors are already spreading that BearStearns might be overly exposed to the sub-prime market. The share
price closes that day at US$ 50,49. Until March 14, 2008, it falls to US$ 32,50, only to pick up again until it
reaches US$ 42,60 on the day the last and final shareholder meeting of BearStearns takes place.

AE: So it does seem in deed that the conditions for a radical shift must be overly ripe before that shift can
actually happen.
Nd. Correct

AE: And we aren't there yet, are we, - even though the general environment in which we are operating at this
time shows a lot of signs of exhaustion, mission creep and overreaching? Just look at the ever deteriorating
quality of public education, the disorientation of kids, the drug problem,
the chaos in politics and so on. Doesn't
that make you think that a correcting reset might be more imminent than you believe?
Nd: Obviously, the need for a reset cannot be denied. But we also have to ask ourselves whether we truly
deserve to be punished at this moment in time. And this project happens to be believe that we do not derive
that punishment as yet. After all, it cannot be denied that governments all over the world (with a few exceptions
notably) are trying their best, to do what they think is right. Obviously,
the money printing that is going on in the
US and elsewhere isn't being done for personal gains or out of recklessness. Much rather is it being pursued
because those responsible shy away from submitting their people to the severe hardship that an honest
correction would entail. That may be a big analytical mistake, but it certainly isn't a morale failure of Biblical

AE: Professor Kotlikoff doesn't seem to agree with you?
Nd. We are not so sure about that. After all, he too believes that with the right approach the worst can still be
(See his reform suggestions at:
© Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved.

Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all
rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt
brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV.

The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not
intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to
buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV
encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is
appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended

systemic risk of US debt, Lawrence Kotlikoff and the US debt level, US debt level poses a threat to world
economy,when will the Us bond market flip, systemic risk in the US bond market, false reporting of the US debt
level, false accounting of the US debt  
About Noah denkt™       │Über Noah denkt™       │SUCCESS STORIES          │  Legal Notice       │ Disclaimer / Impressum