3 ms·

It did change the overall result. The claim was that there was a tipping point when government debt went higher than annual GDP that would cause growth to sudde

It did change the overall result. The claim was that there was a tipping point when government debt went higher than annual GDP that would cause growth to suddenly plunge. Turned out here was no discontinuity, it was almost entirely an artifact of motivated reasoning and their failure to use Excel. The pretend claim the debt police went with later is that the paper somehow proves debt is inversely related to growth in some way. This is not an interesting claim, and certainly not proved by showing that low-growth countries are often also high-debt countries. edit: there is absolutely no reason to think that government debt is related to GDP. That's why they resort to making statistical, associative arguments. The balance of payments is the important number, and it's an accounting identity that if holding the balance of trade steady, when government debt goes down, private debt must go up. The only thing you can be sure of when government spending goes down is that systemic investments by governments are being neglected, in favor of individuals borrowing money for personal consumption. Hello Temu.

econ 1y ago
Spending is important, GDP is a nothing burger and national debt means the country was captured by bankers. I like how Richard Wolff put it: There is a reason business school and economics aren't in the same building. But people are deeply invested in these ideas and would rather die than correct the mistakes. The only thing I admire in Trump is his ability to change his mind. Maybe he can beach the ship before it sinks. I hope there is something to eat on the island. That would at least make the infighting worth it.
- spwa4 1y ago
  You're giving Richard Wolff as an example of someone who'll fix the problem? Listen to him for 5 minutes, he is very much a person that "would rather die than correct the mistakes". He is just on the other side of the argument. His position can be summarized in that he is an extremist advocate of Marxism and the fact that that puts one person in control (ie. dictatorship) he describes as a positive. And he won't discuss ... see point 3. Of course, that is not what he generally discusses, that part of his beliefs (but I'll credit him with at least not lying about it, or "failing to understand" that part). He is an expert economist and will point out every historical moral flaw in international relations in all of history AND blame it on capitalism. First, the criticism "sure, this was abuse, exploitation, but at the end of the exploitation everyone was much better off than at the beginning of it" is a point you can make about nearly every argument he makes (because he only complains about western influences which got us to our current world). Second, he's selectively outraged. For example the Soviets, Chinese and especially Ottomans are, to put it mildly, a LOT worse than the states he complains about. In reality, exploitation is the norm in history, not the exception, but listening to Richard Wolff you will get the opposite impression. Third, the Western societies that he complains did the exploitation are not exactly capitalist societies. They were dictatorships, in the best case mercantile societies. Capitalism had influence in these societies, but the case he makes, that capitalism controlled these societies is ridiculous. And, of course, that the solution he advocates would take us back to authoritarian dictatorships, and it seems there is a lot of historical proof that this, to put it mildly, that won't end exploitation, is never discussed. AND he's dishonest. There's no other word. He's making "American empire has fallen" announcements since the 90s. Add to that that you can't listen to him for 1 minute without cringing. But hey, he's a professor, so I guess that's par for the course.
  - econ 1y ago
    I like listening to other perspectives. Seems you did a great job at that too. The general pattern i see everywhere is that in a society with layers of hierarchy each layer is amazingly ignorant about the things the ones above and below know very well. Not knowing the abstraction vs abstracting away important things. No, I'm not sold on Wolff's new js framework.

econ 1y ago

Spending is important, GDP is a nothing burger and national debt means the country was captured by bankers. I like how Richard Wolff put it: There is a reason business school and economics aren't in the same building. But people are deeply invested in these ideas and would rather die than correct the mistakes. The only thing I admire in Trump is his ability to change his mind. Maybe he can beach the ship before it sinks. I hope there is something to eat on the island. That would at least make the infighting worth it.

spwa4 1y ago
You're giving Richard Wolff as an example of someone who'll fix the problem? Listen to him for 5 minutes, he is very much a person that "would rather die than correct the mistakes". He is just on the other side of the argument. His position can be summarized in that he is an extremist advocate of Marxism and the fact that that puts one person in control (ie. dictatorship) he describes as a positive. And he won't discuss ... see point 3. Of course, that is not what he generally discusses, that part of his beliefs (but I'll credit him with at least not lying about it, or "failing to understand" that part). He is an expert economist and will point out every historical moral flaw in international relations in all of history AND blame it on capitalism. First, the criticism "sure, this was abuse, exploitation, but at the end of the exploitation everyone was much better off than at the beginning of it" is a point you can make about nearly every argument he makes (because he only complains about western influences which got us to our current world). Second, he's selectively outraged. For example the Soviets, Chinese and especially Ottomans are, to put it mildly, a LOT worse than the states he complains about. In reality, exploitation is the norm in history, not the exception, but listening to Richard Wolff you will get the opposite impression. Third, the Western societies that he complains did the exploitation are not exactly capitalist societies. They were dictatorships, in the best case mercantile societies. Capitalism had influence in these societies, but the case he makes, that capitalism controlled these societies is ridiculous. And, of course, that the solution he advocates would take us back to authoritarian dictatorships, and it seems there is a lot of historical proof that this, to put it mildly, that won't end exploitation, is never discussed. AND he's dishonest. There's no other word. He's making "American empire has fallen" announcements since the 90s. Add to that that you can't listen to him for 1 minute without cringing. But hey, he's a professor, so I guess that's par for the course.
- econ 1y ago
  I like listening to other perspectives. Seems you did a great job at that too. The general pattern i see everywhere is that in a society with layers of hierarchy each layer is amazingly ignorant about the things the ones above and below know very well. Not knowing the abstraction vs abstracting away important things. No, I'm not sold on Wolff's new js framework.