4 ms·

I think we have the potential to have the best period of structural reform in the postwar period. The Speaker of the House is one reason why: https://www.youtub

by malchow 11y ago

I think we have the potential to have the best period of structural reform in the postwar period. The Speaker of the House is one reason why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE

fweespeech 11y ago
His "reforms" are the exact opposite of a solution. Improving GDP is largely about removing barriers to trade, improving infrastructure, and improving human capital. Paul Ryan is in favor of 0 of those things.
- lintiness 11y ago
  long-term viability of the enterprise is about DEBT. representative democracy is off the rails as electability is determined by promises to spend on things (look at the above list). when are we going to start electing people who can do basic financial math?
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Care to elaborate?
  - ch4s3 11y ago
    That's not at all how national economies work, especially when debt is denominated in the nation's own currency. You simply can not compare a national economy to a single household's finances. At present, the US is incentivised to borrow, because the cost of borrowing in nearly zero. When you compare paying down debt with an interest rate of nearly 0%, to almost any other investment, paying down debt loses. Or put another way, any expenditure that has a return greater than the cost of borrowing is a better investment than paying down debt.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - badsock 11y ago
    The cost to the US to service its debt in 2015 was $220 billion, its GDP in the same year was 16 trillion. I have a hard time believing that what accounts for only 1.3% of the productive output of the US is the number one determanent of its economic well-being, especially when 65% of that money goes right back into the US economy (i.e. interest on domestic debt). Perhaps more than basic financial math is required to understand the economy?
    - lintiness 11y ago
      with interest rates at zero, it's pretty easy to see why debt service doesn't currently amount to much. how great do obama's deficits look if he's dealing with the same interest rates as reagan, bush, clinton, bush jr? the difference is trillions.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        Why would you evaluate policy outcomes by what they would be in different conditions than the ones that they actually exist in? Certainly, the current cost of borrowing ought to be a factor in making fiscal policy decisions. I mean, would any business make decisions about financing based on what the costs would be in of those decisions in past decades rather than what the costs are reasonably expected to be in the conditions that actually exist?
    - cylinder 11y ago
      Why compare that actual cost to GDP? Compare it to federal tax revenue. It's about 8% of federal tax revenue. There is not a lot of room for the federal government to increase revenue as total taxes (incl state and local, sales, payroll, property, etc) are not low by any means in the US
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Why compare that actual cost to GDP? Compare it to federal tax revenue. Because we are talking about determinants of the health of the economy, not determinants of the health of government finance. > There is not a lot of room for the federal government to increase revenue as total taxes (incl state and local, sales, payroll, property, etc) are not low by any means in the US That's not particularly true; the US is pretty close to the bottom of total tax revenue to GDP ratio among OECD countries; there is plenty of room to increase tax revenue. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-ratio-change-latest-years.htm http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-ratio-...

by malchow 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

His "reforms" are the exact opposite of a solution. Improving GDP is largely about removing barriers to trade, improving infrastructure, and improving human capital. Paul Ryan is in favor of 0 of those things.

lintiness 11y ago
long-term viability of the enterprise is about DEBT. representative democracy is off the rails as electability is determined by promises to spend on things (look at the above list). when are we going to start electing people who can do basic financial math?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Care to elaborate?
- ch4s3 11y ago
  That's not at all how national economies work, especially when debt is denominated in the nation's own currency. You simply can not compare a national economy to a single household's finances. At present, the US is incentivised to borrow, because the cost of borrowing in nearly zero. When you compare paying down debt with an interest rate of nearly 0%, to almost any other investment, paying down debt loses. Or put another way, any expenditure that has a return greater than the cost of borrowing is a better investment than paying down debt.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- badsock 11y ago
  The cost to the US to service its debt in 2015 was $220 billion, its GDP in the same year was 16 trillion. I have a hard time believing that what accounts for only 1.3% of the productive output of the US is the number one determanent of its economic well-being, especially when 65% of that money goes right back into the US economy (i.e. interest on domestic debt). Perhaps more than basic financial math is required to understand the economy?
  - lintiness 11y ago
    with interest rates at zero, it's pretty easy to see why debt service doesn't currently amount to much. how great do obama's deficits look if he's dealing with the same interest rates as reagan, bush, clinton, bush jr? the difference is trillions.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Why would you evaluate policy outcomes by what they would be in different conditions than the ones that they actually exist in? Certainly, the current cost of borrowing ought to be a factor in making fiscal policy decisions. I mean, would any business make decisions about financing based on what the costs would be in of those decisions in past decades rather than what the costs are reasonably expected to be in the conditions that actually exist?
  - cylinder 11y ago
    Why compare that actual cost to GDP? Compare it to federal tax revenue. It's about 8% of federal tax revenue. There is not a lot of room for the federal government to increase revenue as total taxes (incl state and local, sales, payroll, property, etc) are not low by any means in the US
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Why compare that actual cost to GDP? Compare it to federal tax revenue. Because we are talking about determinants of the health of the economy, not determinants of the health of government finance. > There is not a lot of room for the federal government to increase revenue as total taxes (incl state and local, sales, payroll, property, etc) are not low by any means in the US That's not particularly true; the US is pretty close to the bottom of total tax revenue to GDP ratio among OECD countries; there is plenty of room to increase tax revenue. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-ratio-change-latest-years.htm http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-ratio-...