Rate of Growth of the National Debt The Obama versus Bush years Rate of Debt Growth is Slowing Down!

Summary
The rate of growth the national debt, measured by the slope h = dD/dt of the graph of debt D versus time t, is just as important as the absolute debt level D. The debt D can be compared to the position x of a moving vehicle, such as a car moving unimpeded on an open highway. The rate of growth of the debt, h = dD/dt, is like the instantaneous speed (or velocity) v = dx/dt of the vehicle. The future position of the vehicle depends on its instantaneous speed, or velocity, v. Likewise, the future debt level D will depend on the rate of growth of the debt. This rate was quite low, h = $1096 million per day, at the start of the (younger) Bush presidency and had increased significantly, reaching a much higher rate of h = $4585 million per day, towards the end of the Bush second term. This matches with the rate of growth of the debt in the initial months of the Obama presidency, which was $4291 million per day (between Mar 31, 2009 and Dec 31, 2009). Since then, the rate of growth of the national debt has slowed down and is currently about $3350 million per day, as discussed in more detail in the companion article.
Page 1 of 21

Summary of the Historical National Debt Figures President

George Washington James Madison Andrew Jackson Abraham Lincoln Franklin D. Roosevelt Ronald Reagan Barrack H. Obama Barrack H. Obama

Date
Jan 1, 1791 Circa 1816 January 8, 1835 Circa 1863 Circa 1942 Circa 1981 January 2009 August 30, 2012

National Debt
$75,463,476.51 Cross $100 million level $0, briefly Crosses $1 billion level Crosses $100 billion Crosses $1 trillion mark $10.626 trillion, on 1st day $15.999 trillion, 1319th day

The main purpose of this article is to continue the discussion initiated in the companion article (click here) which considers how the national debt has grown since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. Although the absolute debt level D has grown tremendously, and will cross the $16 trillion mark this week (of Sep 3, 2012), the rate of growth of the debt, measured by the slope h of the graph of debt D versus time t, has decreased significantly. In this article we will compare the growth rate h = dD/dt with the rate for the Bush years. On January 1, 1791, when George Washington was President, the US National Debt was $75,463,465.51 (about $75.5 million). This is the first recorded national debt figure and reflected the debts associated with the Revolutionary War. The first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, championed the creation (and succeeded in his efforts) of a national bank which would also assume all of these debts. Tariffs on imported goods and tax on liquor would provide for government revenues! Yes, tariffs on imports! The revenues collected were used to pay off the debt. As of August 30, 2012, the most recent date for which the national debt figure is available (as of this writing); the US National debt is about $16 trillion, see also the companion article which discusses how the debt has grown since President Obama took office. See more discussion here (US National Debt Retirement Program) and also here (US National Debt and the Long term). Compiled by V. Laxmanan, Sep 3, 2012.

Page 2 of 21

Related articles by the author available at this website.

1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104659108/The-US-National-Debt-and-the-LongTerm, first published on June 17, 2011, and republished Sep 2, 2012. 2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104659448/The-US-National-Debt-RetirementProgram, first published on June 23, 2011, before the debt default crisis which led to lowering of the US rating, republished Sep 2, 2012. 3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104662291/A-Radical-Proposal-to-PermanentlyReduce-the-Unemployment-Rate, first published on October 13, 2011, republished Sep 2, 2012. 4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104661297/Is-Taxing-the-Rich-an-Option-forBudget-Deficit-Reduction, first published on July 3, 2011, republished Sep 2, 2012. 5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104677653/The-US-National-Debt-Brief-HistoryGood-News-The-Rate-of-Growth-of-the-Debt-is-Slowing-Down Growth of the national debt in the Obama years, Published Sep 2, 2012.

Page 3 of 21

Table 1: US National Debt during the two full Bush terms

Date 1/19/2001 3/30/2001 6/29/2001 9/28/2001 12/31/2001 3/29/2002 6/28/2002 9/30/2002 12/31/2002 3/31/2003 6/30/2003 9/30/2003 12/31/2003 3/31/2004 6/30/2004 9/30/2004 12/31/2004 3/31/2005 6/30/2005 9/30/2005 12/31/2005 3/31/2006 6/30/2006 9/29/2006 12/29/2006 3/30/2007 6/29/2007 9/28/2007 12/31/2007 3/31/2008 6/30/2008 9/30/2008 12/31/2008 1/20/2009 Time t (days in office) 0 70 161 252 346 434 525 619 711 801 892 984 1076 1167 1258 1350 1442 1532 1623 1715 1807 1897 1988 2079 2170 2261 2352 2443 2537 2628 2719 2811 2903 2923 Debt level, D, $ trillions 5.728 5.774 5.727 5.807 5.943 6.006 6.126 6.228 6.406 6.461 6.670 6.783 6.998 7.131 7.274 7.379 7.596 7.777 7.836 7.933 8.170 8.371 8.420 8.507 8.680 8.850 8.868 9.008 9.229 9.438 9.492 10.025 10.699 10.627

Source: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ Click on Treasury Direct, then click on Find information on the public debt, and then on Debt to the Penny to get the debt values for any date range of interest.
Page 4 of 21

The Growth of the National Debt since Bush took office

13.00

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

12/31/2009
12.00

1/20/2009
11.00

6/30/2008
10.00

A
9.00 8.00 7.00

6.00

D = 0.001096 t + 5.550
5.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 1: The growth in the US national debt during the two Bush terms, starting January 20, 2001 which is taken as day 1 in this graph. Bush was in office until Jan 20, 2009 (day 2923 of this reckoning). The debt grew from $5.550 trillion on Jan 19, 2001 to $10.627 trillion on Jan 20, 2009, President Bushs last day in office. The five red squares are the debt figures for the first year of the Obama term (Jan 20, 2009 to Dec 31, 2009). However, the rate of growth of the debt, given by the slope of the graph, is not constant and increased significantly during the two full Bush terms. The absolute debt D and the rate of growth of the debt h = dD/dt The absolute debt level D (the values on the vertical axis) is like the position x of a moving vehicle. The graph of position x, or the distance traveled, versus time t tells us how a vehicle is moving. The slope of the distance-time graph is the speed of
Page 5 of 21

the moving vehicle. In physics, we use the term velocity, instead of the commonly used term speed. Thus, velocity v = dx/dt = x/t, where dx or x is the additional distance traveled in the additional time dt or t. (The notations dx dt, etc. are used in calculus to denote extremely small, or infinitesimal, changes, in order to determine the rate of change very accurately.) Likewise, we must distinguish between the absolute levels of debt D and the rate of growth of the debt, dD/dt, the slope of the D-t graph. To date, I have not yet come across any studies that emphasize the rate of growth of the debt, in the proper scientific sense, as just described. The higher the speed of a vehicle, the greater the distance it will cover in a given time. If a vehicle is moving at 60 mph it will cover a distance of 1 mile in 1 minute, but if it is moving at 30 mph, it will only cover a distance of 0.5 miles in 1 minute. The same goes with the debt. The higher the rate at which the debt is growing, i.e., the higher the numerical value of the slope dD/dt, the higher will be the additional debt D accumulated in a given (additional) time period. This is also the key understanding what is now going on with the national debt, as will become clear here as we pursue our discussion of how the debt has changed in the Bush and the Obama years. For example, in a recent article, Mark Knoller, the CBS White House correspondent, has pointed out (as have others) that the national debt has increased more under Obama (less than one term) than under the two full Bush terms. The debt increased by $4.899 trillion during the two full terms of the Bush presidency (Jan 2001-Jan 2009). And, it has now already increased by $4.939 trillion since Obama took office. The reason is very simple. This is exactly similar to the situation with a moving vehicle. The higher the speed of the vehicle, the higher will be the distance traveled in a given time. The reason the debt has increased to such a high level during the Obama years, although a much smaller time has elapsed, is entirely due to the much higher rate of growth of the debt, i.e., the higher slope dD/dt of the D-t graph as the Bush presidency ended. The initial rate of growth of the debt, during the Bush years, was much lower.

Page 6 of 21

This can be appreciated by examining the graph in Figure 1. Notice how the five red squares, the initial debt data for the Obama term (Jan 20, 2009 to Dec 31, 2009) falls on essentially an extension of the same straight line as the last four data points for the Bush second term (June 30, 2008 to Jan 20, 2009). The initial rate of growth of the debt, the slope of the straight line labeled A in Figure 1, was significantly lower. The same data has been re-plotted in Figure 2, using a greatly expanded scale, to show the transition between the Bush and Obama presidencies. The initial slope for the Obama term can be seen to match the slope as the Bush second term ended.
13.00

B
12.50

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

12.00 11.50

12/31/2008
11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50

D = 0.004585 t 2.613

3/31/2008

8.00 2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 2: The growth in the national debt during the transition between the Bush second terms and the Obama term. There is a near perfect match in the growth

Page 7 of 21

rate h = dD/dt, as revealed by the slope of the dashed straight line which connects the data points during this transition. The rate of growth of the debt, as the Bush second term ended, is computed using the data for March 31, 2008 ($9.438 trillion, day 2628) and Dec 31, 2008 ($10.699 trillion, day 2903). On inaugural day Jan 20, 2009, when President Obama assumed office, the national debt was actually slightly lower, only $10.626 trillion. The slope h = dD/dt = (10.699 9.438)/(2903 -2628) = 0.004585 trillion per day or $4585 million per day as the Bush presidency ended. This matches the slope h = 0.004291 trillion per day ($4291 million per day) computed for the time period March 31, 2009 to Sep 30, 2009, which is a good measure of the initial slope for the Obama presidency. The data points therefore lie on or close to the dashed line labeled B in Figure 2. The much lower initial rate of growth for the Bush years is illustrated by the graph prepared in Figure 3, for Jan 20, 2001 to Dec 31, 2003.

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

7.00

6/30/2003

A
6.50

12/31/2002

6.00

5.50

D = 0.001096 t + 5.544 r2 = 0.9912

5.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 3: The initial rate of growth of the debt during the Bush presidency, Jan 20, 2001 to Dec 31, 2003. The straight line D = 0.001096t + 5.544 is the best-fit line
Page 8 of 21

based on five quarterly data points obtained from the Bureau of Public Debt, for the period June 29, 2001 to June 28, 2002. The national debt increased slightly between inaugural day Jan 2001 and March 31, 2001 and then dropped slightly before re-establishing the upward trend starting June 29, 2001. Quite coincidentally, the slope h = 0.001096, of the straight line joining just two data points (June 29, 2001 and June 28, 2002) is also exactly equal to the slope of the best-fit line through the five data points that cover the same period with the linear regression coefficient r2 = 0.9912 (if all points lie on a PERFECT straight line, r2 = + 1.0000). The intercept c = 5.544 is slightly different because the best-fit line must through the average point (Dm , tm) = (5.922, 344.6) of the data set. The average debt Dm = $5.922 trillion for this period and tm = 344.6 is the average of the number of days in office up to that point. Thus, we can take h = 0.001096 trillion per day or $1096 million per day as a good measure of the initial rate of debt growth during the Bush years. As shown here, the rate of growth as the Bush presidency ended had increased to $4585 million per day. This matches the initial rate of growth, $4291 million per day as the Obama term began. It should also be noted that the separation of the data from the initial slower growth line, which seems to have started on Dec 31, 2002, became more pronounced and permanent after June 30, 2003. This separation, and the increased rate of growth of the debt, coincides with the start of the Iraq war, which began on March 20, 2003. Finally, the acceleration in the growth of the debt during the Bush years can be modeled using a smooth nonlinear curve, the power-law with the general equation y = mxn + c with an exponent n > 1. Here the independent variable x is time t (days in office) and the dependent variable y is the national debt D. The nonzero intercept c = D0 = debt on day zero, Jan 19, 2001 which is equal to $5.728 trillion. The choice of n = 1.24 and m = 0.0021 gives the best-fit to the data, as indicated in Figure 4. From elementary calculus, we know that the derivative of the function y = xn equals dy/dx = nxn-1 = n(y/x). With n > 1, this means that the slope increases as x and y increase. With the nonzero c, the slope dy/dx = n(y c)/x. Hence, when x = 2628 days (on March 31, 2008) and y = D = $9.438 trillion, the rate of debt growth, given by the slope dy/dx = 1.24 (9.438 5.728)/2628 = 0.001751 trillion
Page 9 of 21

per day, or $1751 million per day (compared to $1096 million per day, the initial growth rate). However, as the Bush term ended, the debt was increasing at an even faster rate (due to the hasty steps taken to curb the financial meltdown) as indicated by the slope of the two dashed lines imposed on to the graph of Figure 4. The blue dashed line A has the slope h = 0.004585 ($4585 million per day) deduced earlier and joins the data for March 31, 2008 and Dec 31, 2008. The red dashed line B with the higher slope of h = 0.00656 ($6560 million per day) joins the data for June 30, 2008 and Dec 31, 2008. Perhaps, this higher slope reflects the initial efforts made to curb the near total financial meltdown experienced in late summer and fall of 2008 as the second Bush term ended and the Obama presidency began.

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

D = 0.0021t1.24 + 5.728

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 4: The acceleration in the growth of the national debt during the Bush years is modeled here using the nonlinear power-law y = mxn + c, with an exponent n = 1.24 and a nonzero c = 5.728, the debt on day 0 (Jan 19, 2001) before the Bush presidency began. Curves with various values of the exponent n, for a fixed value of the constant m (and likewise, various value of the constant m,
Page 10 of 21

for a fixed n) were fitted to the data (using Microsoft Excel graphics program) to arrive at the best-fit revealed here. Alternatively, a double logarithmic plot can be used log (y c) = log m + n log x to deduce the values of m and n from the slope and intercept of the double logarithmic plot. The deviation from the nonlinear power-law curve and the rather high slope established towards the end of the Bush second term also suggests that the US was well on its way to the $16 trillion debt level that we have now arrived at as of August 30, 2012 ($15.991 trillion). Extrapolations based on the two dashed line with slopes h = 0.004585 indicates that the $16 trillion level was destined on day 4060 after Bush presidency started, which is equivalent to day 1137 after the Obama presidency started. Instead, because of the slowing down in the rate of growth of the debt, the same $16 trillion level has been reached on day 1319 or day 1320, i.e., delayed by 183 days. Alternatively, if the higher rate of h = 0.00656 trillion per day had continued, the national debt on August 30, 2012 (day 4242 after Bush presidency began) was destined to reach $19.48 trillion, see Figure 5. In other words, in spite of the total collapse of any kind of bipartisanship in Washington and the lack of even the most elementary concern for the greater good of the nation, as felt by all ordinary citizens, such as myself, the US is now actually better off by at least about $3.5 trillion at least because the growth rate of the debt did not accelerate even more under President Obama. The analysis here is being offered in that spirit, without any partisan posturing. Indeed, more than a year ago, the present author had already called upon President Obama to step aside and NOT seek the nomination of his party (following the example of President Lyndon B Johnson). So, this is not a shill for Obama or the Democrats. The reasons for the slowing down in the growth rate of the national debt must be studied more carefully by professional economists and other academics. What has been uncovered here is nothing more than a simple mathematical curve that seems to fit the data. In summary, the rate of growth the national debt, measured by the slope h = dD/dt of the graph of debt D versus time t, is just as important as the debt level D. The absolute debt level D can be compared to the position x of a moving vehicle, such
Page 11 of 21

as a car moving an open highway. The rate of growth of the debt, h = dD/dt, is like the speed (or velocity) v = dx/dt of the vehicle. The future position of a vehicle depends on its speed, or velocity, v. Likewise, the future debt D will depend on the rate of growth of the debt. This rate was quite low, h = $1096 million per day, at the start of the Bush presidency and had increased significantly reaching a much higher rate of h = $4585 million per day during the end of the Bush second term. This matches with the rate of growth in the initial months of the Obama presidency, which was $4291 million per day (between Mar 31, 2009 and Dec 31, 2009). Since then, the rate of growth of the national debt has slowed down and is currently about $3350 million per day, as discussed in more detail in the companion article. The key results are included here, for convenience, as Appendix I.

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

22.00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

D = 0.00656t 8.344 Between 6/30/08 and 12/31/08

Time t [Days since George Bush Presidency]

Figure 5: Time t, in days, is plotted on the horizontal axis, with day 1 being Jan 20, 2001, when President George W Bush took the oath of office. The blue diamonds represent data for the Bush second term (starting 9/28/2007). The red squares are for the Obama presidency through August 30, 2012. (The Obama term starts on
Page 12 of 21

day 2923.) Towards the end of the Bush term, the debt was increasing at a high rate h = 0.00656 trillion per day, or $6560 million per day. It has since slowed down. The solid blue dots are the projections based on the final year of the Bush presidency. The slowing down of the rate meant that an additional 529 days were required for the debt to reach the $16 trillion level. (The 183 days mentioned earlier was based on a final rate of $4585 million per day.)

Appendix I
The Growth of the National Debt during the Obama years
The following is taken from the companion article referenced above. The figures numbers have been retained without any change.

Table 1: The Growth in the US National Debt Since President Obama took the oath of office
Time t, Days elapsed 1 1/20/2009 71 3/31/2009 162 6/30/2009 254 9/30/2009 346 12/31/2009 436 3/31/2010 527 6/30/2010 619 9/30/2010 711 12/31/2010 801 3/31/2011 892 6/30/2011 984 9/30/2011 1076 12/31/2011 1167 3/31/2012 1257 6/29/2012 1319 8/30/2012 Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway Date US National Debt, D $ trillions 10.63 11.13 11.55 11.91 12.31 12.76 13.20 13.56 14.03 14.27 14.34 14.79 15.22 15.58 15.86 15.99

Page 13 of 21

The debt values, at quarterly intervals, were obtained from the website of the Bureau of Public Debt, Treasury Direct, click here, see also the link given. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway. The debt for every single day, since Obama took office can be obtained from this source. These values are compiled in Table 1, with the actual dates and the days elapsed. (With a couple of exceptions, all the values are at the end of each quarter.) Figure 1 below is a graphical representation of the growth in the US National Debt since President Obama took office. The US National Debt was $10.626 trillion on Jan 20, 2009, the last day in office for President George W. Bush. This is taken as day 1 in preparing this graph. Considering the recorded values for Jan 20, 2009 and June 30, 2010, when a little over 500 days (527 days exactly) had elapsed, the straight line joining these two data points has the following equation: D = = ht + c = 0.0048866 t + 10.625 (1)

The slope h = 0.0048866 is the rate of increase of the debt (in trillions of dollars) per day and the intercept c = 10.625 is the debt on day 0, the day before Obama took office. The rate equals $4.8866 billion per day, or $4,886.6 million per day. This linear relation describes the data for the first 500+ days very nicely. Most of the data points for the first six quarters (Jan 20, 2009 to June 30, 2010) and slightly beyond (almost through Dec 31, 2010) lie on or very close to this line. A linear regression equation could be developed, see Figure 2, but this does not change the conclusions in any significant manner.

Page 14 of 21

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

20.00

18.00

16.00

D = 0.0048866 t + 10.625
8/30/2012

14.00

12.00

6/30/2010
10.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 1: Growth in the US National Debt since President Obama took office. The straight line joining Jan 20, 2009 and June 30, 2010, is taken as the basis to compare with the most recent rate of growth in the debt. It is also of interest to note that the national debt is now actually lower than the projections based on this initial trend line. Also, the slope h, which is a measure of the rate of increase of the debt, may actually have decreased if we consider the two most recent data points, for June 30, 2012 and August 30, 2012. The rate of increase (in $ trillions per day) is given below. Between June 30, 2012 and August 30, 2012: Slope h = 0.002097 Between March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012: Slope h = 0.003111 Between Dec 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012: Slope h = 0.003956

Page 15 of 21

16.00

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

15.00

D = 0.004698 t + 10.721
14.00

13.00

6/30/2010
12.00

11.00

9/30/2009 0 1/20/2009 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000

10.00

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 2: The initial growth in the US National Debt after President Obama took office. The best-fit line through the data from Jan 20, 2009 to June 30, 2010 has the equation D = 0.004698t + 10.721, with a linear regression coefficient of r2= 0.9958. (r2 = +1.00 if all the points lie PERFECTLY on a straight line.) The linear regression slope h = 0.0047 is actually slightly lower than the slope h = 0.00489 in equation 1 of the text, determined using the two end points of interest, Jan 20, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Notice that the best-fit line also lies close to the data through Dec 31, 2010. Only the March 31, 2011 falls off the line. This more recent slowing down of the rate of increase of the US national debt is illustrated graphically in Figure 3. The reduced slope of the line segments joining consecutive time series data points is a measure of the rate of slowing down. It should also be noted that the national debt increased by $4.899 trillion during the two full terms of the George W. Bush Presidency (Jan 2001- Jan 2009). It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office; see also the report by Mark Knoller, CBS White House correspondent, here.
Page 16 of 21

16.10

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

16.00 15.90 15.80 15.70 15.60 15.50 15.40 15.30 15.20 15.10 1000 1050

8/30/2012

6/30/2012

3/31/2012

12/31/2011

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 3: The recent slowing down in the rate of growth of the US national debt: from Dec 31, 2011 to August 30, 2012. Except the data for Aug 30, 2012, all the other data were obtained at quarterly intervals, from the Bureau of Public Debt. The slowing down in the rate of the growth of the national debt revealed above can be also be modeled, using two linear relations with different slopes, see Figure 4, or using a smooth nonlinear curve, such as the power-law curve with the general equation, y = mxn + c, see Figure 5. The constants m and n in the power law relation can be deduced by preparing a double logarithmic plot, since log (y c) = n log x + log m The graph of log (y c) versus log x is a straight line. The slope of this plot yields the constant n and the intercept log m yields the numerical value of the constant m. However, for the purpose of the present analysis (general qualitative trends are of interest), the constants m, n, and c were deduced by merely graphing the data (using Microsoft Excel) and matching the values until a good fit was obtained. The procedure described above was used since even the double logarithmic plot
Page 17 of 21

reveals a non-linearity. This is quite pronounced with the Bush data compared to the Obama data. Hence, the exponent n 0.667 = 2/3 was fixed and the value of m then matched to fit the data. Even the power-law is really an approximation to the actual trends observed in the debt data. Caution must be exercised in making projections based on the power law since extrapolations based on the nonlinear law will usually tend to yield a lower and, therefore, a more conservative value for the debt (since the exponent n < 1). The linear law (Line B of Figure 4) is probably a much better predictor of the longer term trend. These observations can certainly be tested and confirmed as more data becomes available in the coming weeks and months.

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

20.00

A
18.00

16.00

14.00

D = 0.00335 t + 11.647
12.00

D = 0.00489 t + 10.625
10.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 4: The slowing down in the rate of growth of the US national debt, revealed in Figures 1 and 2 can be modeled using two linear relations, as indicated here,
Page 18 of 21

which are valid for the two time periods; Line A for Jan 20, 2009 to Dec 31, 2010 and Line B (dashed) for Dec 31, 2010 to August 30, 2012. Line B, joining the Dec 31, 2010 and June 29, 2012 data points, has a slope h = 0.00335 and an intercept c = 11.647. Notice that the slope of the dashed Line B, h = 0.0335, is higher than the average value of the three slopes deduced from Figure 2, for the three most recent data.

US National Debt, D [$, trillions]

17.0

16.0

D = 0.04835 t0.667 + 10.15

15.0 14.0 13.0

12.0
11.0 10.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time t [Days in office]

Figure 5: The slowing down in the rate of growth of the US national debt, revealed in Figures 1 and 2 is modeled here using a smooth nonlinear, power law curve, with the general equation D = mtn + c = 0.04835 t0.667 + 10.15. The constants m, n, and c were chosen to yield agreement with the more recent data, rather than the early days of the Obama Presidency. The power law exponent n = 0.667 = 2/3, a choice made based on other generally observed power-law relations in other problems. A graph is easily prepared using a modern program such as Microsoft Excel which permits rapid assessment of the best values of the constants. This yields the constant m = 0.04835 as the best choice with c = 10.15 matching closely the initial value of the debt at the start of the Obama Presidency.
Page 19 of 21

About the author V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

Email: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author obtained his Bachelors degree (B. E.) in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Poona and his Masters degree (M. E.), also in Mechanical Engineering, from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, followed by a Masters (S. M.) and Doctoral (Sc. D.) degrees in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. He then spent his entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT, Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, NASA, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), and General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, MI). He holds four patents in materials processing, has co-authored two books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed international journals. His expertise includes developing simple mathematical models to explain the behavior of complex systems. While at NASA and CWRU, he was responsible for developing material processing experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree, or snowflake, like structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase transformations (e.g., freezing of all commercial metals and alloys, freezing of water, and, yes, production of snowflakes!). This led to a simple model to explain the growth of dendritic structures in both the ground-based experiments and in the space shuttle experiments. More recently, he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the Quantum Business Model (QBM). This extends (to financial and economic systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum physics using the analogy Energy = Money, i.e., energy in physics is like money in economics. Einstein applied Plancks ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by treating light as being composed of particles called photons, each with the fixed quantum of energy conceived by Planck). The mathematical law deduced by
Page 20 of 21

Planck, referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law, might actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. Einsteins photoelectric law is a simple linear law, as we see here, and was deduced from Plancks non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach. Finance, business, economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton.

Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual

Page 21 of 21