The US National Debt in January 2013

Source of info complied below

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

18

National Debt, D [$ Trillions]

16 14 12 10 8

Obama start

Bush-II start
6

Clinton start
4

Reagan, $1T
2

WWII
0 1800 1840 1880 1920 1960 2000 2040

Time, t [Year]
Figure 1: The growth in the US National Debt since Jan 1835 when the debt was actually $0, when Andrew Jackson (see $20 bill) was President. The table below gives the values obtained from the Bureau of Public Debt.

Page | 1

Table of Contents
No.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Topic
Summary The historical growth of the US national debt The Laffer Curve Rate of growth of the national debt, dD/dt Monthly debt data for Jan 1, 2009-Jan 24, 2013 My Facebook post on January 29, 2013 Jindals response to Obamas liberalism Difference between a politician and a scientist Call for a Third Party My Facebook Posts on January 27, 2013 Old Economics versus New Economics Alternative view of the debt growth rate 2001-2012

Page No.
2 3 6 9 12 17 22 25 27 30 35 38

Summary
A careful analysis of all the debt growth data, especially in the 21st century, reveals that the rate of growth of the US national debt (as measured by the derivative dD/dt, where D is the debt and t is time) has been decreasing, especially over the last two years (during the first term of the Obama presidency). It was also decreasing, after reaching a peak value, during the second term of the (younger) George Bush presidency but accelerated suddenly in 2008, due to the financial crisis. It should be noted that most of the discussion of the astronomical increase (or growth) of the national debt in recent years, especially since President Obama took office, even by leading economists, has been focused on the absolute debt levels D (now $16.433 T, on January 24, 2013), while overlooking the rate of growth dD/dt.
Page | 2

 1. Historical growth of national debt (1835-2013)

Table 1: The Growth of the US National Debt
Year 1835 1863 1943 1982 1992 2001 2009 2013 National Debt, $ Trillions 0 0.001 0.1 1.142 4.064 5.807 10.627 16.433

On Jan 22, 2013, $16,432,571,159,411.57 = $16.433T (Obama's 2nd term begins) On Jan 20, 2009, $10,626,877,048,913.08 = $10.627 T (Obama's takes office) On Jan 22, 2001 $5,728,195,796,181.57 George Bush Presidency starts

Historical Debt Growth Data

On Jan 01, 1835, $33,733.05 (became $0 during this week and started rising) On July 01, 1863 $1,119,772,138.63 Crosses $1 billion mark (Civil War era) On Jun, 30, 1943 $136,696,090,329.90 Crosses $100 B (WWII era) On Sep 30, 1982, $1,142,034,000,000.00 Crosses $ 1T (Reagan Presidency) On Sep 30, 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 Crosses $4T (Senior Bush Presidency) On Sep 30, 2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 Bush-II 1st term started on Jan 20, 01

Page | 3

The national debt crossed the $1T mark in 1982 during Reagan's first term, quadrupled and crossed $4T in 1992, during the Senior Bush presidency and then quadrupled again and crossed $16T in Sep 2012 during the Obama first term. You can see here the national debt quadrupled from $1T to $4T (with Republican Presidents in office) and was $10.63 T when the junior George Bush left office. Thus, we have added nearly $6T (now at $16.43T) during the Obama first term. Just think about it. The debt climbed to $10.63T, between 1835 and 2009, i.e., in 174 years. It took only 4 more years to add $6T to the debt, or an average of about $1.5T per year. At this rate, when Obama leaves office in 2016 the debt will be greater than $22T. While this is surely alarming, let us also remember that the sky has not fallen. The US is still solvent, although in severe crisis mode. But, did it ever occur to anyone that, perhaps, this crisis is NOT half as bad as the Republicans want us to believe it is? How did the US manage to finance $1.5 T per year since Obama took office? This was done by "borrowing". From whom? Study carefully who is holding the US national debt. Your bank holds your personal debt. When the bank asks you to pay up, you have to pay. As long as monthly payments are made, banks usually will NOT call the debt. The same goes with the US National Debt. Until the creditors ask the US to pay up, all we have to do is keep paying the interest on the debt (which is several billions per month). But, no creditor is going to risk asking the US to pay up. Why? The risk is outright war with the US. The US can default. The consequences will be felt globally. So, this will NEVER happen. It is just an empty threat held by racist and extremist elements of the Republican Party. It is time to IGNORE them and move forward with a unified vision to restore the country's prosperity. President Obama is to be commended for his brilliant (second) inaugural address, although now already being critiqued by the Republican extremists (hey, afterall even Eric Cantor and Newt Gingrich found nothing wrong with the Presidents vision) and extra-governmental shrills like the NRA, as being too partisan.

Page | 4

So, let us get past all this "fake" crisis and concentrate on how to grow the economy and spend the money approved wisely to create jobs. Once people are employed, they will pay taxes and government receipts will automatically increase. Businesses will boom, since jobs equals spending power for millions of individuals. Let us make sure that our tax laws ensure that businesses (especially large businesses) pay their fair share of taxes and eliminate all the loopholes. Let us also make sure that the rich pay their fair share, like it was done during World War I (President Wilson, top marginal tax rate was 77%, today it is 39.6%, what it was under Clinton) and during World War II (President FDR, top marginal tax rate was 94%). Both Democrats and Republicans agreed to raise the top tax rate to these astronomical levels to finance these earlier wars. The US ran huge deficits during those years; see link below for the tax rates data. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf The top tax rate was 91% when President Kennedy took office and was reduced to 77% by 1964 (after his assassination). It was 69.13% when President Reagan took office. It was President Reagan who famously said during his first inauguration, "Government is the problem." Later, he said, "We do not have a trillion dollar debt because we are not taxed enough. We have a trillion dollar debt because we are spending too much." (This is not an exact quote, but the gist of it.) This mantra of government spending gone out of control took hold and the top marginal tax rate was reduced to 28% using misleading pseudo-theoretical arguments of a maximum point on the graph of government receipts versus the tax rate (the Laffer curve). The argument was deceptively simple: if the tax rate is 0%, government receipts will obviously go to zero. If the tax rate is 100%, again government receipts will go to zero since it takes away all the incentive to be productive and create wealth or earn money. Hence, there must be a maximum point on the graph with increasing tax rate, may be at tax rate of 50%, if we assume that the graph is a simple, symmetric parabolic curve (see Figure 2). So, if we assume that we are past the maximum point, reducing the tax rate will actually increase government receipts (see arrow in the photo), the deficits will go down and the economy will boom since all the rich folks who got their tax cuts will invest their money and create jobs.
Page | 5

 2. The Laffer Curve

Government Receipts, R

Laffer curve

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tax rate, T
Figure 2a: Schematic illustration of the Laffer curve, often depicted as a symmetric parabola, as shown here with a maximum point at a tax rate of 50%. This hypothetical curve (supposedly sketched on a restaurant napkin by Professor Arthur Laffer during a dinner conversation some time in 1974 with his admiring Republican colleagues, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, both advisors to President Ford at that time, and Jude Wanniski, then associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, see http://www.laffercenter.com/arthur-laffer/the-laffer-curve/ ) provided the theoretical underpinnings for Reaganomics and supply side economics of the 1980s, the disastrous effects of which endure to this day with out of control budget deficits and a national debt that has mushroomed to $16.433 T at the start of the Obama second term. The argument was that if (a BIG if) the economy is operating at some point like point A, on the falling side of the curve (the so-called prohibited region), then (BIG then) reducing the tax rates would actually start bringing more government revenues. All the disclaimers noted in the above article (see link above) were, of
Page | 6

course, overlooked conveniently and the Republicans of the 1980s, and their modern day heirs, have promoted (and still promote) this disastrous supply-side economics. The national debt crossed the $1T mark in 1982 when Reagan was President and the supply side experiment of increasing government receipts by cutting the tax rate began. Although the hypothesized maximum revenue occurs at a top tax rate of 50%, top tax rate was cut from 69.13% all the way down to 28% before President Reagans second term ended. Now Republicans seem to believe that there is no maximum point and that the curve just keeps rising (with a negative slope) indefinitely, all the way to a ZERO top tax rate! Or, that the curve must be nonsymmetric with a maximum point at some very low tax rate.

Government Receipts, y

Non-symmetric revenues-tax rate curve, y = mxne-ax + c

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tax rate, x
Figure 2b: A non-symmetric curve of increasing government receipts with decreasing tax rate, all the way down to a very low tax rate (take your pick!). Well, it all seemed like a good idea at that time, especially after the dismal Carter years. Now we have "REAL DATA" regarding the effects of this Reaganomics, or supply side economics, as it was called. The fake argument about booming government receipts with reduced top tax rates defies the historical evidence of what
Page | 7

happened in the USA during the two world wars. Amazingly, no economist worth his salt even dared to speak up and point out the historical effects of increasing the top tax rate to nearly 100%. Under President Bush (junior), the US entered into two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, without increasing the top tax rates to finance the wars and reduce the deficit. Instead, junior President Bush pushed for a tax cut and the Democrats simply caved in. Now, we have REAL DATA regarding the effects of Reaganism and supply side economics. The US economy simply tanked in 2008, before the Presidential election. We do NOT need to know all the reasons the high and mighty academic reasons - as to why this happened. Just look the BIG picture above and the decisions made by Republican Presidents who got us from $1T to $10.63T of debt. We need a FRESH START now. But, it cannot be based on the fake premises of the Reagan-Bush I-Bush II eras. I say, let the debt rise to $22T or even $25T. But, let us demand that both Republicans and Democrats co-operate and work with the President and pass the annual budgets without the divisiveness and political brinksmanship. There are many wise ways to spend $3.5T or even $5T each year by investing in programs what will grow the economy in the long run. The urgent need of the WAS and IS ---- JOBS. Let us get the millions who are now unemployed and eager to return to the workforce back to work. Let us work towards a comprehensive tax reform, a fair and simple tax code that will, and cannot, be "tinkered" with on an annual basis. Let us take the power spending away from the legislative branch, at least temporarily, and let the President define the budget and his/her (the next President might just be a woman) vision for the country and set the priorities. The House and Senate should simply approve the budget submitted with minimal debate (and constructive suggestions for improvement). We will all be better off in the long run. God Bless America. Very sincerely V. Laxmanan Jan 23, 2013
Page | 8

 3. The Rate of Growth of US National Debt

Table 2: The Recent Growth of the US National Debt
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Date 1/22/2001 1/22/2002 1/22/2003 1/22/2004 1/24/2005 1/23/2006 1/22/2007 1/22/2008 1/22/2009 1/22/2010 1/24/2011 1/23/2012 1/22/2013 Time, t years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Debt, D Trillions 5.728 5.925 6.390 7.009 7.617 8.174 8.677 9.191 10.619 12.302 14.062 15.236 16.433 Debt growth rate, dD/dt, Trillions/yr 0.197 0.465 0.619 0.608 0.557 0.503 0.514 1.428 1.683 1.760 1.174 1.197

Taking the start of the Bush II (junior George Bush) as year zero, Table 2 above summarizes the US national debt at annual intervals with the data for each year on the date closest to the inauguration date. The rate of growth of the debt, dD/dt, is obtained from the change in the debt (D) between consecutive years and the time elapsed (t, which is taken here as always being one year). This is the given in the last column and has units of $T/year.

Page | 9

Debt growth rate, dD/dt [$T/yr]

2.000 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Obama 1st term starts Bush 2nd term ends

Time, t [Year, since Jan 20, 2001]

Figure 3: The rate of growth of the US national debt, dD/dt, during the (junior) Bush presidency and the Obama first term. At the end of the Bush presidency, the debt growth rate had accelerated to a high rate of $1.428T/yr. This continued during the first year of the Obama presidency and has since actually slowed down, although the debt D itself has grown from $10.62 T to $16.43 T or total of $5.8 T. Notice also the slowing down of the debt growth rate during the Bush-II second term, prior to the financial meltdown of 2008.

As we see here, at the start of the Bush-II presidency, the national debt was growing at the rate of $0.197 T/yr. In the final year of the Bush-II presidency (in year 8), it was growing at the rate $1.428T/yr. Hence also, during the first year of the Obama presidency, we find that the debt growth rate dD/dt had accelerated to $1.760 T/yr. However, since then, the rate of growth of the debt has actually decreased and is now at $1.197 T/yr.
Page | 10

It is also of interest to note that the debt growth rate also shows a small peak during the Bush-II years and was actually decreasing during the second term prior to the sudden dramatic jump in the final year. This is due to the total financial meltdown of 2008, just prior to the Presidential election of 2008. The residual effect of this jump is still being experienced. The debt growth rate dD/dt is still higher than it was prior to the huge (one-time) quantum jump. The debt growth rate, mathematically dD/dt, is just like the speed (or what physicists call the velocity v) of a moving vehicle. The velocity v = dx/dt, where x is distance and t is time. The acceleration in the debt growth rate, due to the financial crisis, is like the effects of a sudden acceleration of a car. A car moving at high speeds takes longer to slow down. This is known as inertia in physics. The same applies for the economy as well. We need to look at these things without our partisan hats. (When Einstein presented his famous equation E = mc2, in 1905, he refers to m in this equation as the inertia of a body. Here E is energy and c is the speed of light. Inertia is also emphasized in the title of this famous paper which goes as, Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?. The word mass is never used by Einstein to describe what is now, ironically, referred to widely as the massenergy equivalence. The point here is that, the economy also exhibits energy, in the form of money, and therefore also the property similar to the inertia, m, in Einsteins famous equation. Indeed, as discussed in another recent article, money in economics behaves just like energy in physics, click here or go to http://www.scribd.com/doc/120324960/Money-in-Economics-is-Just-like-Energyin-Physics-Extending-Planck-s-law-beyond-Physics ) In other words, steps are already being taken to heal the economy and we have let things run their natural course without the sky-is-falling mentality. These are simple facts of how the US economy, with its trillion dollar deficits functions. The conclusions here are based entirely on data published by the Bureau of Public Debt and have been analyzed without any partisan bias. Americans need to start looking at these things dispassionately without all the hatred and venom that I see being spitted out each day at the President (based on various blatantly racist and

Page | 11

partisan comments posted on the Internet each day). Together, we can make a FRESH START and support the President in his endeavors to rebuild this country.

Very sincerely V. Laxmanan January 24, 2013

****************************************************

4. The monthly US Debt Growth Rate

Although the national debt D is increasing, the rate at which the debt is increasing is actually decreasing. Mathematically speaking, this is given by the values of the derivative, dD/dt, the change in debt D divided by the time t over which the change occurs. This can be computed over daily, monthly, weekly, or yearly intervals, or any other convenient time frame, as desired. This slowing down in the debt growth rate dD/dt, as just noted, is also obvious if we consider the monthly data for the period January 1, 2009 to January 24, 2013 (the last date for which data is available as of this writing). The monthly data was obtained from the Bureau of Public Debt (click here http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway) from the daily history data. The debt values at the beginning of each month (or the first date for which data is available for that month) have been compiled in Table 3. We take time zero (month zero) to be January 1, 2009. Thus, time t = 0.645 months on Jan 20, 2009, when President Obamas first term began. The national debt was $10.627 T where T = trillions. On January 4, 2010, the debt had increased to $12.290T. The change in debt D = $1.663T and the time elapsed t = 11.355 months, or a little under one year since the Presidential term of office begins on January 20.
Page | 12

Table 3: Monthly US National Debt data for the period Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 24, 2013
Date Time, t (months) Debt, D $, Trillions

Debt growth rate, dD/dt

Date

Time, t (months)

Debt, D $, Trillions

Debt growth rate, dD/dt

1/1/2009 1/20/2009 2/2/2009 3/2/2009 4/1/2009 5/1/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 8/3/2009 9/1/2009 10/1/2009 11/2/2009 12/1/2009 1/4/2010 2/1/2010 3/1/2010 4/1/2010 5/3/2010 6/1/2010 7/1/2010 8/2/2010 9/1/2010 10/1/2010 11/1/2010 12/1/2010 1/3/2011

0 0.645 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

10.628 10.627 10.668 10.942 11.111 11.208 11.3799 11.518 11.649 11.793 11.921 11.975 12.089 12.290 12.349 12.508 12.765 12.927 13.051 13.178 13.297 13.427 13.611 13.713 13.835 13.998

0.1465

0.1423

2/1/2011 3/1/2011 4/1/2011 5/2/2011 6/1/2011 7/1/2011 8/1/2011 9/1/2011 10/3/2011 11/1/2011 12/1/2011 1/3/2012 2/1/2012 3/1/2012 4/2/2012 5/1/2012 6/1/2012 7/2/2012 8/1/2012 9/4/2012 10/1/2012 11/1/2012 12/3/2012 1/2/2013 1/24/2013

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 48.8

14.110 14.173 14.251 14.321 14.345 14.343 14.342 14.697 14.837 14.972 15.088 15.266 15.331 15.501 15.62 15.673 15.725 15.889 15.907 16.008 16.159 16.222 16.338 16.4327 16.4326

0.1057

0.0972

The debt growth rate, dD/dt, $T/month, is obtained from the change in the debt values between the months 0.645 (start of Obama term), 12, 24, 36, and 48. It is clear that the debt growth rate has decreased when we consider the data at 12 month intervals (except the first period which is 11.355 months).

Page | 13

Hence, the overall or the average rate of growth of the debt, dD/dt = D/t = 1.663/11.355 = $0.146T/month for 2009, for the year 2009, since the Obama Presidency began. This is the rate of growth at the start of Jan 2010. The straight line labeled A, superimposed on the graph in Figure 4, has a slope h = dD/dt = 0.146 and passes through these two points (0.645, 10.627) and (12, 12.290). Notice that the monthly debt data follows this straight line A quite closely for the first 24 months. Subsequently, the monthly debt values begin to deviate from this straight line and fall consistently below the line. This means the US national debt is now growing at a much slower rate than during the first year of the Obama presidency.

National Debt, D [$ Trillions]

18.00

A
16.00

D = ht + c D = 0.146t + 10.532

14.00

12.00

Obama first term

10.00

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

Figure 4: The growth of the national debt for the period January 1, 2009 to January 24, 2013 (the last date for which data is available as of this writing). The straight line labeled A, with the equation D = ht + c = 0.146t + 10.532, passes through the points (0.645, 10.627) and (12, 12.290) which correspond to the dates Jan 20, 2009 (Obama first term begins) and Jan 4, 2010 (first date for which data is available for 2010. Time t = 0 months is taken as Jan 1, 2009. The slope of the line h = $0.146
Page | 14

Time, t [months, since Jan 2009] 2002002009]2001]

T/month is the rate of growth of the debt during 2009, since the start of the Obama presidency. Notice that the monthly data follows this line closely (with data points falling slightly above and below this line) for about 24 months after which the data consistently falls below this line. This means the rate of growth of the national debt has been decreasing during the last two years, which agrees with the conclusion drawn from Figure 3, where we consider only the data at annual intervals. The numerical values of the debt growth rate, dD/dt, at yearly intervals, see Table 3, also indicates that the debt growth rate has slowed down, see also Figures 5 and 6.

Debt growth rate, dD/dt [$T/mo]

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08

0.06
0.04

Obama first term

0.02 0.00 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Time, t [Year]
Figure 5: The debt growth rate dD/dt since President Obama took office. The growth dD/dt is determined for the first date in January of each year for which the debt data is available (see Table 3). These are the overall or average debt growth rate values obtained by considering the previous 12 months. The debt growth rate was $0.1465T/month in Jan 2010 and has since decreased to $0.0972T/month in Jan 2013.

Page | 15

Debt growth rate, dD/dt [$T/mo]

0.400 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000

Obama first term

-0.050
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 6: The month to month fluctuations in the debt growth rate dD/dt since President Obama took office. Time zero (t = 0), or month zero, is January 2009. The national debt decreased slightly between Jan 1, 2009 and inauguration day Jan 20, 2009. Hence, the very first data point here is a small negative value. Likewise, between Jan 1, 2013 and inauguration day Jan 20, 2013, the debt change, expressed in trillions of dollars, was in the fourth decimal place and above. Hence the debt growth dD/dt was nearly zero. In between, we see the debt growth rate fluctuating up and down (kind of like monthly values of the stock price of a company, or the stock market indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the S & P 500). The highest debt growth rate was between months 31 and 32 (Aug 1, 2011 to Sep 1, 2011) when it reached the peak value of $0.355T/month. Ignoring the month-tomonth values and taking the overall values for a whole year, lead to the conclusions presented earlier. The averaged values, taken over longer periods of time (such as a year in Figure 5), are more meaningful than these monthly fluctuations.

Time, t [months, since Jan 2009] 2001]

Page | 16

 5. Facebook post on January 29, 2013

Dear All: For the car buffs here, do take a look at the acceleration data here for the 2013 Corvette ZR1 which I analyzed recently to explain how the national debt is growing. The first graph below plots all of the available speed (or velocity) data. The times t (in seconds) to achieve various speeds (in mph, or kmph, which is converted to meters per second, or m/s) is reported in these road tests. As we see here, the graph is a rising curve which means the acceleration, a, the slope of the graph, is decreasing as the velocity (speed) increases. This is due to increased frictional resistance experienced by the vehicle (aerodynamic resistance, resulting from the vehicle shape, and the frictional resistance between the tires and the road).

80.0

Speed, or velocity, v [m/s]

70.0

60.0
50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Data Source: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

2013 Corvette ZR1 90 mph = 144 kmph = 40 m/s

Time, t [sec]

Page | 17

Interestingly, however, if we consider the data at the lowest speeds, we see that the graph is very nearly a perfect straight line. In other words, the acceleration a, given by the slope of the graph is a constant. For the 2013 Corvette ZR1, mathematical analysis (linear regression) yields an acceleration of 8.96 meters per second squared (m/s2 where s2 means seconds squared). This is interesting, since the acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared.
35.0

Speed, or velocity, v [m/s]

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

2013 Corvette ZR1 90 mph = 144 kmph = 40 m/s

v = 8.962 t 2.968 a = dv/dt = 8.96 m/s2

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Time, t [sec]
When a body falls to the ground from a height, its velocity v (or speed) increases at a fixed rate of 9.8 m/s for each second of flight. This constancy of acceleration of a falling body was discovered by Galileo, in the 16th century, and is called the law of falling bodies. He discovered this law from laboratory experiments with bodies of various masses (made from a variety of materials like lead, copper, wood, and so on) rolling down an inclined plane. An interesting account of Galileos original experiments may be found in Great Experiments in Physics, Edited by Morris H. Shamos (Dover Publications, 1959, Toronto, Ontario). The idea of acceleration, which we now take for granted, was first conceived and given a mathematical form,
Page | 18

by Galileo. The acceleration a is the rate of change of the velocity, whereas velocity v, or speed, is the rate of change of distance (or position) of the moving body. Galileo found that the acceleration was independent of the mass of the falling body. In other words, heavier bodies do NOT fall faster than lighter bodies, as Aristotle had taught centuries ago. To demonstrate this dramatically, he went to the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped two spherical balls from the top of the tower. They both landed at the same time, at the bottom of the tower, providing a dramatic demonstration of the erroneous nature of the age-old Aristotelian adage. We see the same here with the Corvette performance data. The acceleration a is a constant and is quite close to the acceleration a = g for a falling body (which is commonly denoted by the symbol g). However, at higher speeds, the graph deviates from the straight line and the acceleration decreases. If we analyze all of the data, we can compute the instantaneous acceleration, the acceleration for small changes in the velocity (speed) for shorter time intervals. The maximum value is 9.259 m/s2 for the Corvette ZR1. The value of 8.96 m/s2 can be viewed as average acceleration when we consider greater time intervals. Note: The reason for the nonzero intercept made by the straight line is now readily understood. The point (0, 0) must be included in our analysis since at time t = 0, the speed v = 0, obviously. This was neglected to deduce the above regression equation. Including (0, 0) would mean that the velocity v increased to 8.33 m/s (first data point, 30 kmph) in 1.2 second, yielding an initial acceleration of 6.84 m/s 2. Subsequent accelerations were higher yielding the average of 8.96 m/s2. The force of gravity is thus very unique. It provides a constant acceleration for all bodies falling near the surface of the earth. Effects such as air resistance (frictional forces due to the viscosity of the air) do not seem to be important when we consider large bodies such as those studied by Galileo(see later *).

Page | 19

Instantaneous acceleration, a [ m/s2 ]

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Data Source: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php

2013 Corvette ZR1 The times to achieve various speeds in mph and kmph were merged here to determine the instantaneous accelerations

0.0

5.0

10.0 15.0 Time, t [sec]

20.0

25.0

Now, the same considerations apply when we analyze the national debt (D) data, or the financial data for a company. The debt D (or revenues R of a company, or its profits P) can be compared to the position of a moving body, like a car. The debt growth rate, dD/dt, which can be computed using the debt D values as a function of time t, is like the speed (or velocity v) of a moving body. The acceleration in the debt growth rate (due to change in fiscal policies, such as the frequent "tinkering" with the tax rates) can thus be attributed to the change in the slope of the D-t graph. * It should be noted that, in the 20th century, the American physicist Robert Millikan, found that microscopically small bodies, such as an oil drop (a few microns in diameter), fall with a fixed velocity, under the combined influence of gravity and the viscous resistance of the surrounding air. The latter force becomes important when we consider microscopically small bodies but were not important in Galileos experiments.

Page | 20

Millikan was able to deduce the absolute magnitude of the electrical charge of a single electron from such experiments with falling oil drops, still considered one of the most elegant experiments in physics. Millikan received the Nobel Prize for this work (and also for determining the Planck constant and thus confirming Einsteins view of the particle nature of light.) An account of Millikans oil drop experiments can also be found in the treatise by Shamos, cited above. In his experiments, Millikan isolated a single drop and observed its motion (using a telescope) for long periods of time. He charged the drops electrically by exposing them to ionizing radiation from a radioactive source. The velocity of the drop was measured very accurately by applying an electric field to counter the gravity field. The electron charge was deduced from the sudden changes in velocity of the falling drop (when it picks up an electron, or sometimes even a positive charge) from the surrounding ionized air. If an apple and a feather are released at the same time, the apple would, no doubt fall faster than the feather, because of the resistance offered by the air molecules and the force exerted by air which might even lead to the feather rising instead of falling. Perhaps, Aristotles teachings were based on such extreme observations.
Vj Laxmanan (posted on FB ~ 6:35 PM) First it was Bobby Jindal. Now, even Matthew Yglesias says forget about repaying the national debt. And I said so too ... in my article on the National Debt here (and before they did! . ) No one who is holding the US national debt is ever going to ask the US to repay it (the principal). They would be happy just to receive the interest payments. That is how the system works. Jindal said it best, "excessive obsession with government bookkeeping", and "hideous mess" called the federal budget. Now, tell me why no one here is paying attention to any of this? :) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/perpetual_bonds_a_clever_way_to_manage_the_nati onal_debt_in_a_time_of_low.html

Page | 21

 6. Louisiana Gov. Jindals response to Obamas liberalism

Vj Laxmanan Posted on Facebook (January 25, 2013) ~ 9:20 AM

Finally, Jindal says what I have been saying for a long long time Profits = Revenues - Costs .... as applied to a business Surplus = Receipts - Outlays ... as applied to the government

(The reader can find several articles that I have published over the last year or so, which discuss the implications of these two equations in this website.) Profits can be increased by cutting costs, which is what businesses like GM focused on and ruined their long term prospects. As we know GM went bankrupt. While cutting costs means cutting ALL operational costs, in practice it has come to mean massive layoffs, cutting employee benefits (health insurance, retirement, etc.) and outsourcing jobs to suppliers or even outsourcing to low wage countries (not necessarily India and China, Canada and Europeans were also being used early in this outsourcing game). The phrase used was lean and mean, and it turned out to be mostly mean and not so lean on their operational costs. We are now seeing the effects in terms of the highest ever long term unemployment rates. Likewise, budget deficits can be reduced (which means surplus can be increased) by cutting outlays, or government spending. This is what Republicans have been championing and their budget cut mantra has pretty much ruined the country and is mainly hurting the poor and the middle class and the elderly. They have taken to calling Social Security an entitlement (which it is not; the elderly, like me, have paid taxes when we were working to EARN our SS checks) and Medicare (this was, I will grant, a government program, but again was mainly designed to get private insurance off the hook of carrying their aging insured). Cuts to the bloated military expenditures always seem to be off the table. Budget cuts seem to always be aimed at cutting social spending (the New Deal of FDR and the Great Society programs of
Page | 22

LBJ) that have made this country what it is. If the safety net is gone, we will nothing more than other (so-called) Third World countries. This is exactly what President Obama has forcefully defended in his second inaugural address. It remains to be seen if he and the Democrats have the courage to stand their ground against the foolish and mindless assault of the GOP on this fundamental social fabric of this country. Now, finally, here comes Jindal to infuse some pragmatism! Thanks! We can increase profits by focusing on increasing revenues (which is a lot harder, since cutting costs is so easy if it means cutting salaries, or cutting jobs altogether). Deficits can be reduced, or surpluses increased, by increasing government receipts (which means reducing unemployment to increase the total number of people paying taxes, not just raising taxes on the rich, which is the "stupid" GOP argument). The following is taken verbatim from the source cited. This is what Jindal said at the recent Republican National Committee meeting.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jindal-takes-obama-challenges-republicansredefine-party-020802357--election.html Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, sees a chance to make an early impression on the party faithful, and boldly calls for change. "We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults," he said. "We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that."

His address, audaciously sent to the press under a banner reading "Gov. Jindal to Refute President Obamas Liberal Vision for America," lived up to its name, but it was as much a rebuttal of Republican tactics as a tirade against Obama.

Page | 23

"Todays conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs even as we invent new entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping," Jindal said. "This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play." He added: "We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching even conservative number crunchingis not the answer to our nations problems. ... Balancing our governments books is not what matters most. Government is not the end all and be all." Jindal went on to prescribe a message for the GOP that prioritizes economic growth over cutting federal spending. "Instead of worrying about managing government, its time for us to address how we can lead America to a place where she can once again become the land of opportunity, where she can once again become a place of growth and opportunity," he said. "We should put all of our eggs in that basket as conservatives and Republicans." Vj Laxmanan However, Jindal must also remember that racism is now too deeply rooted in America, mainly among the (long term) unemployed white folks who increasingly see Indian immigrants as the problem (I see too many posters ranting about Indians now) and the reason for their loss of jobs. So, it is doubtful if he will get the party nod in this climate, especially immediately after Obama (and after Michael Steele failed the party after being elevated to RNC Chairman position after Obama was first elected President in 2008). P. S. Notice that in the article they are also once again complaining about Jindals delivery which has more to do with his Indian heritage. Many Indians tend to mumble and also speak too fast and have not quite mastered the American accent. (But, then Americans love the German accent, or the Norwegian and Swedish and French accents! It is just the Indian accent they loathe. Wonder why!) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jindal-takes-obama-challenges-republicansredefine-party-020802357--election.html
Page | 24

 7. Difference between a Politician and a Scientist

Surplus = Receipts Outlays Or, S = R - O To explain the national debt (or budget deficit which is a negative surplus), I use the above equation. When Receipts exceed the Outlays, we have a surplus. If the opposite, we have a negative surplus, or a deficit. Add up all the annual deficits and the cumulative sum is the national debt. Then I start taking about dD/dt, the rate of growth of the debt, where D is debt and t is time. This is my "hangup" as one trained in the methods of science and engineering. How does a shrewd politician tackle the same? Like, Gov. Bobby Jindal did. I love his use of phrases like hideous mess, government bookkeeping, government number crunching - even conservative number crunching. Pure political mastery! So glad to see that a politician has finally come to recognize the "phoniness" of what I have been calling debt mongering (for years now) and also has the courage to say it. It is just like "war mongering", another favorite GOP obsession, like that Benghazi thingie. As I have send earlier above, no US creditor will EVER call the US to pay up the debt. All we have to do is to keep paying the monthly interests on the debt, avoid default, and focus instead on growing the economy. Yes, it is just a rigged game. We have to get our priorities right. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!!! That is the No. 1 priority today for the US economy. It always WAS and IS, at least since the financial crisis began and millions got laid off. Now, I would like to see the Democrats reclaim this message and (have the courage to) lay the foundations for prosperity for the next generation and the present generation -- all those who graduated from college since the disastrous Bush years and the Obama first term -- who still cannot find a job.
Page | 25

Jindal's exact words are reproduced below (in bold italics and red). I am going to have to memorize this and start using these phrases in future articles on the national debt, budget deficits, etc. Cheers!

His address, audaciously sent to the press under a banner reading "Gov. Jindal to Refute President Obamas Liberal Vision for America," lived up to its name, but it was as much a rebuttal of Republican tactics as a tirade against Obama. "Todays conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs even as we invent new entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping," Jindal said. "This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play." He added: "We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunchingeven conservative number crunchingis not the answer to our nations problems. ... Balancing our governments books is not what matters most. Government is not the end all and be all."

Page | 26

 8. Call for a Third Party

Vj Laxmanan

2 minutes ago From my Facebook Page (Jan 25, 2013, 3:10 PM)

Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jon Huntsman (who ran for President and dropped out) and other like-minded (Republicans of today) should just bolt out of the Republican party and form a third party. After hearing Jindal now (got to really hand it to him, he can be the "brain" behind a new type of conservatism, or progressive, thinking, he has understood that "deficits" do NOT matter!) and Christie (both before and after the election), I think the time is really ripe for this. They would all be doing the country a BIG favor if they formed the third party NOW. I even saw Ross Perot's name pop up today in one of the comments to the article covering Jindal's speech. The time is NOW. The Republicans have destroyed the US economy with their ultra pro-business and unalloyed anti-labor stance which has led to the mentality of cost cutting and shafting the ordinary employee at the expense of upper management. There is no innovation to speak of in the manufacturing industry. It was all cost cutting and union bashing. It was this mentality that led to (the old) GM's bankruptcy. If one is working and has a job, it is because they need the money to pay for the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care, and eventually retirement. Today, laws have been enacted that allow businesses to get away with denying literally ALL benefits to employees and not even provide a living wage. This cannot be sustained and we are seeing the social havoc it has caused already. Why do you think so many young white males (most of them living in reasonably
Page | 27

affluent or middle class neighborhoods) are out there on a killing rampage? They do NOT have a job and no hope in life. Like someone said, it is the young women who are now in college and increasingly rejecting these non-college material males. In days gone by, these non-college material males could get a job, work hard, get married, and start a family and integrate into society. Now, they are depressed, feel like rejects (cannot even get a girlfriend, that is true, folks, nothing to joke about!) and grab readily available assault weapons and go on a shooting spree! (The NRA morons, please hold your peace and disappear!) These unhealthy trends, which took root since President Reagan was elected in 1980, MUST be LEGALLY reversed. It has only been 32 years since the Laffer curve (see here http://www.scribd.com/doc/121955182/US-National-Debt-in-January-2013-AFresh-Start ) was used to push the illogical agenda of reducing tax rates to increase government revenues (using "phony" and unproven arguments) and creating prosperity for all since the rich (who got their tax cuts) would start investing their money and create jobs. Instead, in just 28 years the tax cut mentality, and other probusiness policies (deregulation of all sorts) led to the financial crisis of 2008. Did it occur to anyone that, perhaps, the astronomical growth in the number of millionaires and billionaires in recent years is rooted in this "windfall" of tax cuts for the highest income-earners. Ever since income taxes became the source of government revenues, the top tax rates have always been raised to keep budget deficits under control. The top tax rate was as high as 77% during World War I (President Wilson), 94% during World War II (President FDR) and was as high as 69.13% when President Reagan took office. When he left office, the top tax rate had been reduced to 28%. Now, that is a "windfall" for the rich, if there ever was any. And, the Republicans have the gall to talk about Obama wanting to redistribute wealth! LOL! I don't want to deny the rich their riches. I just don't want the crazy Republican extremists to deny the poor their food stamps and the elderly their Social Security checks and the middle class the ability to raise their families and send their kids to college.

Page | 28

It is so easy to start a business in this country -- because the employer has to provide zero benefits to employees and not even a living wage! Literally hundreds of thousands of businesses are started each year, based on this GREED, and the majority of them fail, within two years, all the while thinking that they will become the next Walmart or McDonalds. IMHO, the pro-business laws have actually made it easier for businesses to grow like mushrooms and dandelions in you lawns and then FAIL and be exterminated and disappear just like those annoying mushrooms and dandelions. This is NOT what the business world should be. And, ultimately, this is also NOT good for the economy. All business costs are simply being passed on to the government, in the name of free enterprise and capitalism. This is CORPORATE WELFARE! The Democratic party and the third party (the Progressive Republican Party and damn these stupid "conservatives and extremists" - let them keep their guns and bibles and their rape apologists) can lead the way to new and competing visions for the country. Let today's Republican party, with its Tea Party extremists and intolerant conservatives, SELF DESTRUCT. I say, Jindal, Christie, BOLT OUT NOW from your party. And say loudly, "The Party left me!" That should be the slogan to found the new Progressive Republican Party. Conservative (but NOT stupid) on fiscal matters and progressive on social matters. We need a FRESH START. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Page | 29

 9. My Facebook Posts on January 27, 2013

Cheers! The Sky is Not Falling The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average are approaching their peak values in nearly five years. Although the national debt (D) has grown by nearly $6T (sic trillion dollar, 6 followed by 12 zeros, or 6 million millions), the rate of growth of the national debt, dD/dt where t is time, has slowed down as we see in the photos here, see also http://www.scribd.com/doc/121955182/US-National-Debt-in-January2013-A-Fresh-Start . So, I fully applaud Louisian Gov. Bobby Jindal's assertions (made in the classical language of a politician) at the recent meeting of the Republican National Committee, which I quote, "Todays conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs even as we invent new entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping," Jindal said. "This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play." He added: "We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching even conservative number crunchingis not the answer to our nations problems. ... Balancing our governments books is not what matters most. Government is not the end all and be all." He also told Republicans, "We must stop being the STUPID party". I hope he takes this message and has the courage to found a THIRD party, by rallying other like minded Republicans (Gov. Chris Christie, former ambassador Jon Huntsman, who was seeking the Republican presidential nomination). In a related post, I am providing two new summary graphs prepared from the updated document discussing this important topic of the national debt.
Page | 30

Dear All: The national debt has increased from $10.627T to $16.433T, or by nearly $6T, during President Obama's first term. Here T = trillions, or a million millions, or 1 followed by 12 zeros. But, look carefully at the monthly debt data plotted in the first graph. The debt has been growing at a lower rate over the last two years (after month 24 of Obama's first term). The second graph shows the values of the rate of growth dD/dt calculated from the raw monthly data of the first graph. The debt growth rate plotted here is the "overall" or "averaged" value for the previous 12 months, and the value on the first day of January (or first date for which debt data is available) each year. Cheers! Now, like Gov. Jindal has emphasized, we have stop worrying about this hideous mess called the federal budget, the massive debt, the rocketing deficits and this obsession with government bookkeeping and stop playing this "rigged game" and instead focus on growing the economy and making free enterprise work for all. What does that mean? One it means JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Without creating jobs and bringing down unemployment rate we cannot restore American prosperity. The middle class has been devastated since the Great Recession began and turned into JOBLESS Recovery, and millions of families are still suffering and have felt, and are still feeling, the crushing effects of long term unemployment that is now the reality for millions of Americans. So, we have to focus on bringing jobs back to the country, especially good paying jobs that allowed even a high school graduate, with no college education, to work hard, earn a good wage and start a family. This was the America I came to and the America of the 20th century. In the America of the 21st century, a high school graduate, with no college education, can no longer earn a living wage, or afford even the basic necessities of
Page | 31

life, hope to get married and start a family. (Hence it is that we find that it is mostly young white males who are going on killing rampages over the last two years; this is the devastating social effect of no "hope" in the future for these young males, and not even being able to find a girl friend. Yes, true!). Two, it means we need "tax" reform, a simple and fair tax code, aimed at reducing the massive federal debt of $16.433T, as of this writing. Previous Presidents (during the Civil War era, WWI and WWII) did this by raising the top marginal tax rates, to keep the budget deficits in controls. During each of these eras, the national debt soared to astronomical levels (if we use ratios, or normalized values, of before and after debt values). Three, it means we have go back and re-examine and, perhaps, even reverse, many of the ultra pro-business laws that were passed since President Reagan took office. The pendulum now has swung too far in favor of the employer, so far that now companies can legally deny employees even a chance to earn a living wage. All of us as Americans must STOP buying goods made overseas. TVs, cameras, cellphones, computers, cars, appliances, garments, shoes, etc. must once again be made in the USA. A tariff must be imposed on goods that are imported to this country. Yes, a tariff! Is this unAmerican, or anti-free enterprise? Just study the history of our tax laws. Income tax became a source of government revenue only after President Wilson took office. There was no income tax. Tarrifs on imported luxury goods were the only source of government revenues. In fact, Wilson, the first (and only), Ph.D. to hold the office of the Presidency, championed cuts in tarrifs. President Obama has defended liberalism in his second inaugural address. Many Republican pundits reacted to it. The Senate minority leader Mitch McConell said, "Liberalism is back". Other leading Republicans like Eric Cantor and Newt Gingrich even agreed with the President. Gov. Jindal has now presented a real challenge. The most important part of the Jindal message is "obsession with government bookkeeping". This is an important message. No economist will ever dare to say this. Only a politician can.

Page | 32

So, I say, let us grow this economy. Let us focus on bringing back jobs so that even someone with minimal high school education can live a life of dignity and have a family. That is what America Was. That is what American Means. That is the America I came to when I was young, seeking higher education. I have been here ever since. But, sadly, the country I came to is GONE. Instead all I see and all that is left for the next generation is the bleak face for poverty staring in the face -- since JOBS have disappeared. The American standard of living is going down and income inequality is rising. When fear grips, it turns into anger, and some go around shooting! Please share this message, if you agree. Gov. Jindal, enough talk, do something and be bold. I have already suggested a path in my earlier posts - the path of the THIRD party. President Obama, show us what your vision is in real terms. Where are the jobs that you promised to create? Where is the laser focus on the economy? Enough talk. GOD BLESS AMERICA. ******************************************************************

Who is in Denial? President Obama or (defeated VP candidate) Paul Ryan?

Mr. Paul Ryan still seems to be stuck in his views about the deficits and the debt and still wants to cut social spending programs and so-called entitlements like Social security and Medicare. He thinks it is President Obama who is living an alternate universe and in denial about the fiscal crisis facing the nation. Also, it looks like Mr. Ryan still did NOT get the memo from Gov. Jindal. Also Mr. Ryan seems to have forgotten that we just had an election and he and his running mate Mitt Romney LOST!
Page | 33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGpPjyGZ6o4&feature=youtube_gdata http://www.mediaite.com/online/paul-ryan-resents-obamas-makers-vs-takers-linefrom-inaugural-address/
But less than 24 hours after the inauguration, the knives were back out. This morning, Raymond Arroyo, who was filling in as host of The Laura Ingraham Show, interviewed the former vice presidential candidate about yesterdays inauguration, saying the president implicitly referenced you I think. At this moment during the inauguration, he was talking about Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and how he means to continue spending on these things and strengthening them. Arroyo played a clip of the president speech, in which he said of those programs, They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. Calling the presidents rhetoric a switcheroo, Ryan responded, No one is suggesting that what we call our earned entitlements entitlements you pay for, like payroll takes for Medicare and Social Security are putting you in a taker category. While Ryan did not deny that President Obama referencing his own campaign talking points in the speech, he did express frustration at being willfully misunderstood. When the president does a switcheroo like that, what hes trying to say is that we are maligning these programs that people have earned throughout their working lives. And so its kind of a convenient twist of terms to try and shadowbox a straw man in order to win an argument by default. President Obama made his strong belief in preserving entitlements known in his inaugural speech, and by using Ryans words against him he set up what is expected to be a bitter battle with the Republican-led House over the future of these programs.

Page | 34

 10. Old Economics versus New Economics

Vijay Nurani http://www.economist.com/science-technology Science & technology www.economist.com The latest news and analysis around Science & technology. Like Share about an hour ago near Troy Vj Laxmanan This is all OLD Economics. Trust me, if Jindal persists, with his message of "obsession with government bookkeeping" and "hideous mess" of a federal budget, he would have created new economics -- in the face of the current staggering debt of $16.433 T. Only a politician can dare to make such statement. No economist would ever dare to. Only a politician can say, "Let's forget about this mess of a deficit and budget."

After the above comment, I posted the following on my Facebook page on January 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM (EST).

The "old" economics worries about the astronomical increase in the national debt (or the growth of the debt, D) like we see in the first graph (Figure 1 of this document) which plots debt growth from $0 (in January 1835, when Andrew Jackson, see your $20 bill, was President) to $16.433 T on Jan 24, 2013 (the last date for which data is available as I post is). The new economics take the same information and computes the derivative, dD/dt, the rate of growth of the debt, as you see in the second graph (Figure 3 of this document). The conclusion: the rate of growth is now declining.

Page | 35

The "old" economics worries about the phenomenal increase in the debt D since Obama took office, from $10.627T to $16.433 T today, as in the third graph (Figure 4 of this document). The new economics again takes the same information and computes the derivative dD/dt, as in the fourth graph (Figure 5 of this document) and concludes that the rate of growth is actually decreasing although the debt itself is increasing.

In the 16th to 18th centuries, the laws of motion were discovered by paying attention to what is known, mathematically, as the rate of change. Newton had to invent an entirely new field of mathematics, called calculus, to integrate the laws of motion (the law of falling bodies discovered by Galileo, deduced from empirical
Page | 36

observations without benefit of any theory, and the laws of planetary motion, discovered by Kepler, Galileos contemporary, also deduced from purely empirical observations, applying merely the power of mathematical reasoning) into what we now call the theory of gravitation. (Copernicus also developed a new theory, heliocentric motion as opposed to earlier ideas about the motion of planets in the heavens, with the earth as the center of the Universe.) Likewise, IMHO, a "new" economics is indeed now evolving (see also Figure 8 which follows here) with the recent BOLD message by Gov. Bobby Jindal. The declining rate of growth of the debt, thus far ignored even by the world's leading economists (shown here in the second and fourth graphs) actually supports Jindal's message that we should stop this "obsession with government bookkeeping" and the "hideous mess called the federal budget" and focus instead on programs that harness the power of a free market economy. Please share this message if you agree. ****************************************************************** ABOUT GALILEO http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/galileofallingbodies.html http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node49.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_accn96.htm ABOUT KEPLER http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4a.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion ABOUT COPERNICUS, GALILEO, KEPLER, AND NEWTON http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/suncentr.htm
Page | 37

 11. Alternative View of the Debt Growth During the Period 2001-2012
The US national debt D is the cumulative total of all the budget deficits incurred each year. This debt level D has been increasing, or growing, since the first week of January 1835, when it was officially $0 under President Andrew Jackson. It is now $16.433 T as President Obama begins his second term in office. Here T stands a trillion, or 1 followed by 12 zeros, a million millions, or a thousand billions. While the growth of the debt D (the absolute increase in the value of the debt) is important, we must also take into account the rate of growth of the debt, which is determined by the derivative dD/dt. This has been largely overlooked to date. The debt growth rate dD/dt is actually decreasing, although the debt D is increasing. It should also be obvious from the discussion here that the shorter the time interval considered (the shortest being a day), the greater the noise or fluctuations that we see in the calculated debt growth rates (dD/dt). This is similar to the noise observed when we considered for example the daily, hourly, or even the five minute, if not minute-by-minute, variations in the price of a stock, or the popular stock market indices such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) or the S&P 500, both of which are in the news are approaching the highest values that they had once reached, nearly five years ago. The graph of DJIA or S&P 500, considering only the values at the end of the day, or the end of the month, or the end of the year (each representing a large fundamental time interval of interest) are all very different, with more fluctuations being observed when we consider shorter time intervals. The same applies when we consider the rate of growth of the debt, dD/dt, which is of interest here. The shorter the time interval, the greater the fluctuations in the growth rate, dD/dt, values. This is obvious if we consider the graphs in Figure 3 (dD/dt calculated from year end or start of year values of D) and Figure 5 (dD/dt calculated from month end or start of month values of D). Accordingly, we will now reconsider the debt growth data compiled in Table 2. Only the graph of dD/dt (last column of Table 2) was presented earlier in Figure 3, while overlooking the debt-time (D-t) graph. The debt D can be compared to the
Page | 38

position of a moving body, such as a modern automobile. The D-t graph is analogous to the distance-time graph in an experiment designed to study the motion of a moving body, such as the road-tests routinely conducted with modern automobiles or the historical falling body experiments of Galileo. The dD/dt graph on the other hand is like the velocity-time v-t (or speed versus time) graph. In the performance tests of automobiles, the times taken to achieve various speeds are usually quoted, see the Car & Driver magazines road test with the 2013 Chevrolet Corvette, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-chevrolet-corvette427-convertible-instrumented-test-review which provides the times taken to achieve the 0-60 mph (3.9 sec), 0-100 mph (8.7 sec), and 0-150 mph (20.4 sec), or the road test data for the 2012 Honda Civic HF (see Table 4)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1204_2012_honda_civic_hf_first_test/viewall.html

Table 4: 2012 Honda Civic HF road test data

Time, t Speed Speed or Velocity, v Acceleration, a = (sec) mph Meters/second (m/s) v/t (m/s2)
0 3 4.3 6.3 8.4 10.9 14.3 18.1 22.5 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 13.33 17.78 22.22 26.67 31.11 35.56 40 44.44 4.44 3.42 2.22 2.12 1.78 1.31 1.17 1.01

The acceleration a in the last column equals the change in velocity divided by the time taken for the change in the velocity. For 30 mph to 40 mph, the change in time t = 1.3 s and the change in velocity v = 4.44 m/s. Hence a = 4.44/1.3 = 3.42 m/s2. This acceleration is seen to be decreasing continuously. The v-t graph suggests an alternative viewpoint of a nearly constant acceleration for a period of time (for 30-70 mph). http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1204_2012_honda_civic_hf_first_test/viewall.html http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1011_2011_chevrolet_corvette_zr1_2010_porsche_9 11_turbo_comparison/viewall.html Similar road test data comparing the 2010 Corvette ZR1 and the 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo
Page | 39

We will digress briefly to discuss the 2012 Honda Civic HF road test result since it is easy to understand, even for those with little or no background in science and engineering, and also because it illustrates how we should study the D-t and the dD/dt data. The speed (or velocity v) is converted from miles per hour (mph) to meters per second (m/s) using the conversion factor of 1.6 to get kmph (60 mph = 96 kmph) and then (1000/3600) to get m/s (60 mph = 26.67 m/s). Although the data point (0, 0) is not explicitly mentioned, it is obvious that at time t = 0 in such a test the vehicle speed v was exactly zero. Hence, we must also include this in our analysis. Such data can be used to assess the acceleration characteristics of the vehicle (which have been studied in detail by the present author, for many vehicles, for more than a decade now). It is sufficient to note here that most vehicles do NOT reveal a CONSTANT acceleration (straight line v-t graph, where v is the speed or velocity). Instead, in the most general case, a nonlinear curve, with the general equation v = ktne-bt, seems to provide a good fit to the data. For the special case of n = 1 and b = 0, v = kt and the graph is a straight passing through the origin. ONLY for this special case, the constant k = a = dv/dt = v/t, the acceleration of the vehicle. In general, as seen in Figure 7, the acceleration is NOT constant and the acceleration a = dv/dt = (n - bt)(v/t). This expression for the acceleration, the derivative of the v-t function, can be easily derived using rules of elementary calculus. In the case of the 2012 Honda Civic, it appears that we can approximate its v-t performance by a straight line with the data then deviating from this straight line at the higher speeds (velocities), indicating a non-constant acceleration. There are many reasons, the chief among being the increasing aerodynamic drag (or frictional resistance) at higher speeds for the non-constant acceleration characteristics of the vehicle.

Page | 40

60

Speed, or velocity, v [m/s]

A
50

40
30 20

v = 2.25t + 6.58
10

v = 4.44t
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, t [sec]
Figure 7: The 2012 Honda Civic HF road test data plotted here as a v-t graph where v is the speed (or velocity) of the vehicle and t is the time taken to achieve this speed. Since, it is obvious that v = 0 at t = 0, we must include this point (the data point at the origin of the graph). Hence, the dashed straight line, labeled A. with a rather high slope (or acceleration a = dv/dt = change in speed/time take for the change) represents the initial high acceleration of the vehicle. This highest acceleration is observed in the 0-30 mph test. The time taken to achieve 30 mph was 3 sec. Subsequently it takes longer to achieve the same increase in speed, as we see from the times taken to achieve 60 mph (8.4 sec instead of doubling of 3 sec) and 90 mph (18.1 sec instead of 9 sec, or three times 3 sec). This means the acceleration is NOT a constant. However, it appears that we can take the acceleration to be approximately constant between 30 mph and 70 mph, as shown by the sold line labeled B. The vehicle then starts deviating even from this approximately constant acceleration at the higher speeds.

Page | 41

Table 5: Porsche and Corvette road test data

mph Time (sec) 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo Time (sec) 2010 Corvette ZR1 Meters per second (m/s)

0 0 30 1.0 1.6 13.33 40 1.5 2.2 17.78 50 2.4 2.8 22.22 60 3.0 3.5 26.67 70 3.8 4.4 31.11 80 5.0 5.3 35.56 90 6.1 6.2 40 100 7.1 7.6 44.44 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1011_2011_chevrolet_corvette_zr1_2 010_porsche_911_turbo_comparison/viewall.html Similar conclusions can be drawn from the above test data, comparing the performance of the 2010 Corvette ZR1 with the 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo. The only difference being the significantly higher acceleration values in the 30-70 mph range. For both vehicles the acceleration is a = v/t = 6.35 m/s2 since t is equal to 2.8 secs = (3.8 1) = (4.4 1.6) for a change in speed from 30 mph to 70 mph. The difference lies in the 0-30 mph acceleration values. There is a deviation from this constant acceleration at higher speeds, as with the Honda Civic. For the Honda Civic the acceleration a = 2.25 m/s2 in the speed range 30-70 mph. Exactly similar considerations apply to the national debt data, if we take the debt D to be analogous to the position x of a moving vehicle. The speed, or velocity, v = dx/dt and the acceleration a = dv/dt. The D-t graph, prepared using the data from Table 3, is illustrated in Figure 8 and reveals two regions of roughly constant rate of increase of the debt, which corresponds to a constant velocity (dD/dt = constant, or fixed slope of the graph). The change in the slope, or the acceleration in the debt growth rate (a higher slope, or velocity), seems to coincide with the financial crisis in 2008, the last year of the (junior) Bush-II presidency, i.e., in year 7 according to the time scale used here, with time t = 0 denoting the start of the Bush-II presidency in 2009. This same rate of growth of the debt, or constant dD/dt, has continued into the Obama first term, to date.
Page | 42

In other words, it appears that as with the simple law of falling bodies (constant acceleration or constant slope of v-t graph), which is also approximately observed in modern tests on various automobiles, we can conceive of a simple law of constant growth rate for the debt (dD/dt = constant). The changes in the debt growth rate seem to coincide with extreme financial events, and/or a change in the policies initiated during various presidencies. Of course, at this point, this is merely a hypothesis, albeit an educated one, based on sound mathematical analysis of the available public debt data. One should, no doubt continue this analysis to test this observation of a constant rate of growth (dD/dt = constant) during the term of a single President. Interesting test cases would the transition from Reagan to the senior Bush and from the Clinton to the junior Bush presidencies. This will be presented in later updates to this document (see Figure 10 for the Clinton-Bush II transition).

National Debt, D [$ Trillions]

25

20

D = 1.511t - 1.388

15

D = 0.544t + 5.381
10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Time, t [years, since 2001]

Figure 8: The national debt data since the junior George Bush took office in January 2001 (time t = 0). A nearly constant increase in the rate of growth of the debt (constant slope, or dD/dt = constant, red line), if we consider the multi-year
Page | 43

data being plotted here. A significant deviation from this constant rate is observed between the years 7 and 8, which coincides with the financial crisis in 2008, in the last year of the Bush-II presidency. The new rate (blue line) that was established seems to have continued through the Obama first term. It remains to be seen if this rate will continue, or increase, or decrease in the Obama second term. Finally, for the sake of completeness, the power law curve, v = ktn (which is a special case of the more general power-exponential law, v = ktne-bt with b = 0) is fitted to the Honda Civic road test data; see Figure 9. From elementary calculus, we now that if the power law applies, the acceleration dv/dt = a = k(ntn-1) = n(ktn/t) = n(v/t) is not constant and varies with both speed (or velocity v) and the time t. The deviation of the data, at the higher speeds from the power-law curve means that the more general law is the power-exponential law (nonzero b and n 1).

Speed, or velocity, v [m/s]

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

v = ktn = 6.3t0.67

Time, t [sec]
Figure 9: The 2012 Honda Civic HF road test data is re-analyzed here using the nonlinear power-law model v = ktn instead of the linear model (with change of slopes). The nonlinear implies that the acceleration of the vehicle is changing continuously with increasing speed (at time t) and is never a constant. As seen here,
Page | 44

the v-t data begins to deviate even from this power-law model at the higher speeds. The more general power-exponential law v = ktne-bt (not shown), can be used to model this deviation. A nonlinear law could also, perhaps, be used to model the debt growth data. This requires more detailed analysis, which is outside the scope of the present discussion, which is mainly aimed at demonstrating the reduction in the debt growth rate in the last two years.

Transition from the Clinton to the (younger) Bush presidency

Table 6: The Recent Growth of the US National Debt Year Date Time Debt Debt growth rate T D dD/dt Years Trillions Trillions/yr
1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 1/4/1993 1/20/1993 1/3/1994 1/3/1995 1/2/1996 1/2/1997 1/5/1998 1/4/1999 1/3/2000 1/2/2001 1/22/2001 1/2/2002 1/2/2003 1/2/2004 1/3/2005 1/20/2005 1/3/2006 0 0.055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8.060 9 10 11 12 12.055 13 4.168 4.188 4.512 4.798 4.988 5.317 5.482 5.607 5.752 5.729 5.728 5.933 6.389 6.981 7.591 7.613 8.514 0.365 0.343 0.286 0.190 0.329 0.165 0.125 0.145 -0.023 -0.017 0.218 0.456 0.592 0.610 0.402 0.953

The US national debt data for the Clinton (1993-2001) and Bush-II (2001-2006) years has been complied in Table 6. The debt growth rate, considering the change in
Page | 45

the debt values for consecutive years, is given in the last column. During the Clinton years, the debt growth dD/dt was decreasing and became negative in 2001, just before the inauguration of President George W. Bush on Jan 20, 2001. It then started rising again during the first term of the Bush-II presidency and at an even higher rate in the second term., see Figure 10.

Debt growth rate, dD/dt [$T/yr]

1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400

Bush-II 1st term starts Clinton 2nd term ends

0.200
0.000 -0.200 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time, t [Year, since Jan 1, 1993]

Figure 10: The debt growth rate, determined by considering the debt levels for consecutive years, reveals a continuously decreasing trend during the Clinton presidency followed by a rapid reversal to much higher growth rates during the first term of the (younger) Bush-II presidency. This is similar to the trends observed earlier in Figure 3, during the transition from one President to another. The debt-time (D-t) graph, on the other hand, see Figure 11, suggests a nearly constant growth rate during the Clinton first term (constant velocity dD/dt). The data then begins to deviate from this straight line, during the second term. A new and higher constant rate is established during the first term of the Bush presidency.
Page | 46

This confirms the earlier speculation of a simple debt growth rate law essentially a constant rate of growth during a Presidential term, unless policies are enacted to change this growth rate. The transition from one President to another, and attendant changes in the political philosophy (tax cuts, tax rate changes, willingness to pile budget deficits, etc.) result in a change in the growth rate (as during the transition from the Clinton second term to the Bush-II first term).

National Debt, D [$ Trillions]

9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00

D = 0.261t + 4.174 Clinton 1st term D = 0.553t + 0.959 Bush-II 1st term

5.00
4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 2 4 6 8

10

12

14

16

Time, t [years, since Jan 1993] 2002002009]2001]

Figure 11: The growth of the US national debt during the Clinton years and the first term of the younger George Bush (Bush-II) presidencies. A constant rate of growth rate is suggested for the Clinton first term, see solid blue line. The data then deviates from this straight line and is actually decreasing to lower levels (due to the budget surpluses during the Clinton second term). A new and higher constant rate of growth is then re-established during the first term of the Bush-II presidency. A deviation from this constant rate to a higher level is again evident in the 13th year (start of second term of Bush-II).

Page | 47