https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
-- Richard Feynman
I guess it’s is in the spirit of the original article though…
You can point to a star or a tree. Or even a coin or a banknote. But you can’t point to an abstract amount such as a national debt.
So the USA couldn't pay back its debt now even if it had all gold in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday
> The brothers were estimated to hold one-third of the entire world supply of silver not held by governments.
It did not go well for them in the end, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act?wprov=sfti1#
On the other hands, if a group of humans want to declare that there is no tree or no star in the universe, the only trick they can leverage on to shrink the count is to change the definition of these words (ta-da, good bye Pluto).
Let's not lose track of what this tread is about, shall we? It's "what is larger, the number of stars in the milky way or the national debt?" One of those values is countable. How many stars? The other one isn't. How many debts? That question doesn't make sense. You need to introduce a unit, and the choice of that unit is arbitrary.