7 ms·

I don't think most people are arguing against the negative side effects of massive amounts of debt. The point this really drives home is that the budget theate

I don't think most people are arguing against the negative side effects of massive amounts of debt. The point this really drives home is that the budget theater that has been going on for the past few years is entirely unnecessary. The reality of the budget drama in Congress is that it's almost entirely about the house majority stymieing any forward momentum by the current administration at just about any cost. This is why Congress has such a low approval rating.

sageikosa 13y ago
> The point this really drives home is that the budget theater that has been going on for the past few years is entirely unnecessary. Translation(?): the econometric models used to measure the length of the road were off by a little bit, we have more time to kick the can. Econometric models are descriptive in any case (they are measuring quantities that are based on the human actions causing those metrics, those metrics are not controlling those behaviors), past performance is no guarantee of future behavior.
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's not just 'more time to kick the can', which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible. If you trim debt by a little and hurt GDP growth by a little, you wind up with the same ratio you had before. If you trim debt in a way that really hurts GDP, you'll likely increase the debt:GDP ratio. The original paper implied that we'd wind up in a spiral of shrinking GDP, increasing that ratio, shrinking the GDP more, and so on. But it turns out it was complete bullshit.
  - crusso 13y ago
    which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible I don't get it. I was in sync with the Left when they decried George W. Bush's no-veto policy and ballooning of the debt. Now that "their guy" is in the WhiteHouse, they no longer agree that it's irresponsible to set the deficit meter on 11 and walk away like we have been. Can't we all agree that this guy was totally correct? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q I guess I wouldn't be so against some amount of debt if it looked like we had it under control. It's funny that we're dissecting the results of a study on what 90% debt:GDP would do. Well that was back in 2010, we've blown way past 90%. We're at 107% as of 2012 and climbing. It's not just about the debt's exact impact at a certain percentage. If it were just that, we could debate it and fine tune it. It's about our Government's complete inability to get it under control. Maybe 90% Debt:GDP won't hurt too badly, but sooner or later as it rises, it will crater even our economy.
    - tdg 13y ago
      A lot of Keynesian economists are arguing that now is not the time for austerity. The government's current mission should be to lower employment even if it means higher deficits (and debt) _for now_. Once we are out of this slump, the argument is that most of the deficit will take care of itself (since some of the deficit is lower tax revenue because of unemployment + cost of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefits). We still need to fix the rest of the deficit/debt problem after the crisis, though. The second important argument is that (again, right now), this emphasis on austerity is actively making things worse.
      - crusso 13y ago
        government's current mission should be to lower employment Well since we've exploded our debt to supposedly lower unemployment and the meter has barely moved, maybe we're doing it wrong? We've indulged the Keynesians quite enough over the last $6+ TRILLION dollars, tyvm. I see people in this thread demanding evidence that more debt is bad for the country. Well where the hell is the evidence that shows that staggering debt is good for the country? Maybe we should fall back on common sense "household" or "business" models until that evidence appears, huh? this emphasis on austerity is actively making things worse. What austerity? I've heard some talking about it, but we're not practicing it anywhere. Don't you dare use the word "sequester", because that was a joke.
        scott_s 13y ago
        The sequester is not a joke. A friend of mine knows postdocs whose NIH funded projects were cut 20%, immediately, when the sequester went into effect. Another friend of mine will be in next class to start with the FBI, but they've been put off until 2014. To be clear, the FBI is not training new agents right now. The sequester is real, but it may take more time for the effects to reverberate throughout the country.
        crusso 13y ago
        The sequestration has only been painful because the Administration wants to make an example of any efforts to reduce the size of the government. Funny how NIH projects could have a 20% cut when the $44 Billion reduction this year as a result of sequestration is 1% of the actual budget. Where did that other 19% come from? Further, the sequestration only reduced the increase on the baseline budget. We're still going to be spending more this year than we did last year. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/27/sequestration_just_the_beginning_of_whats_necessary_117182.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/27/sequest...

sageikosa 13y ago

> The point this really drives home is that the budget theater that has been going on for the past few years is entirely unnecessary. Translation(?): the econometric models used to measure the length of the road were off by a little bit, we have more time to kick the can. Econometric models are descriptive in any case (they are measuring quantities that are based on the human actions causing those metrics, those metrics are not controlling those behaviors), past performance is no guarantee of future behavior.

jbooth 13y ago
It's not just 'more time to kick the can', which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible. If you trim debt by a little and hurt GDP growth by a little, you wind up with the same ratio you had before. If you trim debt in a way that really hurts GDP, you'll likely increase the debt:GDP ratio. The original paper implied that we'd wind up in a spiral of shrinking GDP, increasing that ratio, shrinking the GDP more, and so on. But it turns out it was complete bullshit.
- crusso 13y ago
  which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible I don't get it. I was in sync with the Left when they decried George W. Bush's no-veto policy and ballooning of the debt. Now that "their guy" is in the WhiteHouse, they no longer agree that it's irresponsible to set the deficit meter on 11 and walk away like we have been. Can't we all agree that this guy was totally correct? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q I guess I wouldn't be so against some amount of debt if it looked like we had it under control. It's funny that we're dissecting the results of a study on what 90% debt:GDP would do. Well that was back in 2010, we've blown way past 90%. We're at 107% as of 2012 and climbing. It's not just about the debt's exact impact at a certain percentage. If it were just that, we could debate it and fine tune it. It's about our Government's complete inability to get it under control. Maybe 90% Debt:GDP won't hurt too badly, but sooner or later as it rises, it will crater even our economy.
  - tdg 13y ago
    A lot of Keynesian economists are arguing that now is not the time for austerity. The government's current mission should be to lower employment even if it means higher deficits (and debt) _for now_. Once we are out of this slump, the argument is that most of the deficit will take care of itself (since some of the deficit is lower tax revenue because of unemployment + cost of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefits). We still need to fix the rest of the deficit/debt problem after the crisis, though. The second important argument is that (again, right now), this emphasis on austerity is actively making things worse.
    - crusso 13y ago
      government's current mission should be to lower employment Well since we've exploded our debt to supposedly lower unemployment and the meter has barely moved, maybe we're doing it wrong? We've indulged the Keynesians quite enough over the last $6+ TRILLION dollars, tyvm. I see people in this thread demanding evidence that more debt is bad for the country. Well where the hell is the evidence that shows that staggering debt is good for the country? Maybe we should fall back on common sense "household" or "business" models until that evidence appears, huh? this emphasis on austerity is actively making things worse. What austerity? I've heard some talking about it, but we're not practicing it anywhere. Don't you dare use the word "sequester", because that was a joke.
      - scott_s 13y ago
        The sequester is not a joke. A friend of mine knows postdocs whose NIH funded projects were cut 20%, immediately, when the sequester went into effect. Another friend of mine will be in next class to start with the FBI, but they've been put off until 2014. To be clear, the FBI is not training new agents right now. The sequester is real, but it may take more time for the effects to reverberate throughout the country.
        crusso 13y ago
        The sequestration has only been painful because the Administration wants to make an example of any efforts to reduce the size of the government. Funny how NIH projects could have a 20% cut when the $44 Billion reduction this year as a result of sequestration is 1% of the actual budget. Where did that other 19% come from? Further, the sequestration only reduced the increase on the baseline budget. We're still going to be spending more this year than we did last year. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/27/sequestration_just_the_beginning_of_whats_necessary_117182.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/27/sequest...