4 ms·

My point is that default, or any other sort of fuck-the-system type of approach (e.g. let the largest banks become insolvent) is not a serious option. First, th

My point is that default, or any other sort of fuck-the-system type of approach (e.g. let the largest banks become insolvent) is not a serious option. First, the time for such a thing has passed; second, even if it were now the time for it, give me expensive stimulus and bailout every day of the week. Sovereign debt and deficit spending are not what's killing us -- 70% of GDP is half what Argentina's debt was and it's well within acceptable limits. I believe that calls for austerity are foolishly, and derived from free market dogma. crag suggested that the mere fact that Argentina recovered from such a staggering blow to its economy was indicative of something -- the implication, it seems, is that the fact of recovery is enough to warrant severe measures such as default. That's stupid, for the reasons I laid out above. You, however, seem to be supporting the original reasoning by employing an appeal to authority and suggesting that certain credible thinkers agree with crag's premise. However the one example you provided did not bear evidence of that. I don't know what else your point is -- I don't care to debate Argentina except that you seem to be using it as an example of something. I don't know about "what if" and the hypothetical situation in which Argentina did not default. I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. It's only when people got behind so-called "big government" measures that they actually started to see real recovery.

ez77 15y ago
I can't believe you don't look for a long-trend indicators, let alone (again) when you feel entitled to throw around terms like "stupid". Default didn't yield social chaos; rather, it was seen by most political factions as the only way to end it. You see, Argentina's unemployment [1] and poverty [2] rates soared during Menem's worship-the-system 90's. These rates happened to peak, respectively, in 2001 and 2002, basically around the time Argentina defaulted, among many other measures. Now, with a discipline as complex as economics, given all the variables floating around, it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend, but it sure is harder to claim the opposite! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+... [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+...
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Without agreeing with your interpretation of the facts, how do I tell you that I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation? Not only that, you've conceded the only point I had about it: it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend You're having a conversation with yourself at this point. Please follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in.
  - ez77 15y ago
    A brief recap of your enriching comments: What a stupid thing to say. Have you ever read about the currency crisis? This is from a Wikipedia article you could have found in 30 seconds [...] I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation [...] [...] follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in. Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds on a topic (and give a fuck about it) before giving in to your compulsion to chime in. In particular if you feel like being arrogant and isulting at the same time, calling others' ideas "stupid". Well done... Edit: For the record, you have conceded in the points of substance, particularly considering the minutiae you are addressing and all that you are surprisingly leaving out. You stated earlier: I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. And yet poverty went down right after default and devaluation ("currency crisis"), as shown clearly in the two plots given above. Do you get that? If the rate in question (i.e., poverty) goes down after your chosen event (i.e., default), it's plain nonsense to claim said event pushes the rate up! Talk about the complexity of the "mixed yield" of simultaneous default and devaluation if you will, but just don't bring up stats because they will destroy your point, counselor. This is what you have been in this thread: an arrogant, cocky lawyer who gets his most vital piece of evidence hilariously backwards.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      Have you ever read about the Argentine crisis, or is your knowledge limited to Wolfram Alpha's graphs and Googleable factoids? The fact is that this was a thread about how Argentina's crisis provides evidence supporting the positive benefits of allowing economic collapse. The initial post was intensely stupid in that it reduced the complex effects of economic collapse to a simple if-this-then-that causation. The only relevant point is causation, which I argued was not the case, and which you conceded -- despite you neither having made the original point, nor any attempt whatsoever to defend it. You don't seem to be arguing the initial point, or the counter point. You only want to talk about Argentina, without taking a moment to understand the context in which it was mentioned. So congratulations on nailing me for reversing the order of the austerity program and the default -- great job, I feel really dumb for failing to correctly order a sequence of events related to a tangential point. Here's what you have been: Two guys are arguing on the street, and during that argument one of the guys mentions the name of a sports team. A drunk, walking by, happens to be a fan of that team. Despite not knowing in what context that team was mentioned, or whether it was mentioned positively or negatively, the drunk gets in a fight with one of the men. And not necessarily the one who uttered the team's name. You're the drunk.

ez77 15y ago

I can't believe you don't look for a long-trend indicators, let alone (again) when you feel entitled to throw around terms like "stupid". Default didn't yield social chaos; rather, it was seen by most political factions as the only way to end it. You see, Argentina's unemployment [1] and poverty [2] rates soared during Menem's worship-the-system 90's. These rates happened to peak, respectively, in 2001 and 2002, basically around the time Argentina defaulted, among many other measures. Now, with a discipline as complex as economics, given all the variables floating around, it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend, but it sure is harder to claim the opposite! [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+unemployment+... [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+1980-2011 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+poverty+rate+...

jessedhillon 15y ago
Without agreeing with your interpretation of the facts, how do I tell you that I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation? Not only that, you've conceded the only point I had about it: it is hard to conclude rigorously that defaulting contributed to reversing this trend You're having a conversation with yourself at this point. Please follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in.
- ez77 15y ago
  A brief recap of your enriching comments: What a stupid thing to say. Have you ever read about the currency crisis? This is from a Wikipedia article you could have found in 30 seconds [...] I don't give a fuck about Argentina for the purposes of this conversation [...] [...] follow more closely the points being made before following any compulsion to chime in. Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds on a topic (and give a fuck about it) before giving in to your compulsion to chime in. In particular if you feel like being arrogant and isulting at the same time, calling others' ideas "stupid". Well done... Edit: For the record, you have conceded in the points of substance, particularly considering the minutiae you are addressing and all that you are surprisingly leaving out. You stated earlier: I know what did happen --default, followed by an IMF-imposed austerity program, led to 50% poverty. And yet poverty went down right after default and devaluation ("currency crisis"), as shown clearly in the two plots given above. Do you get that? If the rate in question (i.e., poverty) goes down after your chosen event (i.e., default), it's plain nonsense to claim said event pushes the rate up! Talk about the complexity of the "mixed yield" of simultaneous default and devaluation if you will, but just don't bring up stats because they will destroy your point, counselor. This is what you have been in this thread: an arrogant, cocky lawyer who gets his most vital piece of evidence hilariously backwards.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    Have you ever read about the Argentine crisis, or is your knowledge limited to Wolfram Alpha's graphs and Googleable factoids? The fact is that this was a thread about how Argentina's crisis provides evidence supporting the positive benefits of allowing economic collapse. The initial post was intensely stupid in that it reduced the complex effects of economic collapse to a simple if-this-then-that causation. The only relevant point is causation, which I argued was not the case, and which you conceded -- despite you neither having made the original point, nor any attempt whatsoever to defend it. You don't seem to be arguing the initial point, or the counter point. You only want to talk about Argentina, without taking a moment to understand the context in which it was mentioned. So congratulations on nailing me for reversing the order of the austerity program and the default -- great job, I feel really dumb for failing to correctly order a sequence of events related to a tangential point. Here's what you have been: Two guys are arguing on the street, and during that argument one of the guys mentions the name of a sports team. A drunk, walking by, happens to be a fan of that team. Despite not knowing in what context that team was mentioned, or whether it was mentioned positively or negatively, the drunk gets in a fight with one of the men. And not necessarily the one who uttered the team's name. You're the drunk.