5 ms·

You have a strong political opinion, and an inflated sense of authority. That smells like youth, so I forgive you for it. I promise when you're older you'll loo

by NoPiece 13y ago

You have a strong political opinion, and an inflated sense of authority. That smells like youth, so I forgive you for it. I promise when you're older you'll look back and be embarrassed at claiming to be entitled to make authoritative economic claims. Regardless, there are certainly economists with more than an undergraduate degree in economics who have held out Detroit as a warning for the US debt problem. Do you have more authority than Rachel Greszler who has a masters in Economics from Georgetown? I know, you'll disregard her because she works for an conservative group. Just be honest and acknowledge that this is about a political difference, not an authoritative truth. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/05/morning-bell-learning-from-detroits-mistakes/ http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/05/morning-bell-learning-fr...

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Do you have more authority than Rachel Greszler who has a masters in Economics from Georgetown? No, but Paul Krugman does. He's a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Oh, he also won the Nobel Prize in Economics back in 2008. Suffice it to say, he has more than a simple Master's degree from Georgetown. Here's what he has to say on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und... In light of your high-horse comment, I found this part especially funny. "Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!"
- NoPiece 13y ago
  Here is a Harvard economist drawing lessons from Detroit: http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_entrepreneurs.html http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_entrepreneurs.html
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote. >>Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Ah, yes. The Manhattan Institute. Why am I not surprised? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_... It's kind of funny how both economists you have cited so far can have their ideologies traced to some economically ultra-conservative think-tank. These are people who believe strongly in small government (in other words, are strongly political) and write countless articles that are anti-government spending so that they can "starve the beast."
    - sien 13y ago
      So, in just a few comments the discussion has gone from looking at a problem to supporting teams. Other posters say Krugman is largely an opinion writer now and you reject the economists others mention as they hold political beliefs you don't like. This is pretty much why most political and economic discussions are a waste of time, particularly on the internet.
    - cpleppert 13y ago
      >>Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote. I have to disagree. It was meandering and had little to offer in terms of evidence, facts or actual policy prescriptions and was instead filled with anecdotes that somehow ended up supporting policy positions already supported by the Manhattan Institute. The author jumps from charter schools to federally funded highways in a span of a sentence right at the end. Not a lot of evidence is offered that local regulation is somehow strangling entrepreneurship nor is his idea of denying federally supported bonds to over regulated entities ever elucidated in any fashion. (Maybe because sticking local communities with higher taxes is rather counterproductive in the first place). So basically he spends most of piece talking about the 'entrepreneur' as a mythical entity that deserves to be supported by a verifiable buffet of policies that aren't really explained. So the Think of the Children!! argument rehashed. The article reads exactly like a lot of cookie cutter political writing these days that say absolutely nothing about anything of concrete importance but are just couched to ideological compatriots that enjoy light reading from authors who will appeal to their political vanity while safely holding all the 'bad' ideas at arms length by appealing to the most simplistic possible explanations of problems; while you the reader are serenaded for easily understanding what your political 'enemies' cannot.
- greedo 13y ago
  One, that's an appeal to authority. And two, if you think Krugman is the least bit unbiased in his column, you're mistaken. For someone as smart as Krugman, he's a master at manipulating facts to suit his political beliefs.
- rickjames28 13y ago
  Paul Krugman is a leftist operative - nothing more.
onebaddude 13y ago
>You have a strong political opinion, and an inflated sense of authority." But he's correct. It's one of the most ridiculous arguments perpetuated. Comparing a city (or a household) with an entity with the capacity to print the currency in which its debts are denominated is nonsensical. Solvency and bankruptcy are a not an issue for the United States. The constraint is inflation. The whole country can't stop spending at once. The sooner people realize that public deficits create private financial assets, and hence are necessary during recessions, the better we'll all be. As far as your article, anyone who considers "unfunded obligations" to be debt is not worth listening to.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  You are arguing that the US has seatbelts and can survive a car crash, while Detroit gets ejected through the windshield. I'm saying, stop recklessly speeding down the highway like Detroit, because we're better off avoiding the car crash. The goal is to avoid a debt crisis entirely. Detroit and the US are both spending themselves into a debt crisis. That different solutions apply once the crisis is reached is true, but the analogy holds when you are looking at the cause and hopefully avoiding the crisis.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >"Detroit and the US are both spending themselves into a debt crisis." Do you have any data that the US is on its way to a debt crisis? It sounds to me you're just repeatedly and wrongly assuming that we're somewhere near a point where paying our bills is an issue. Like Detroit. Except Detroit is bankrupt, and the US is growing. There is no similarity between "debt issues" of Detroit and the US. None.
    - NoPiece 13y ago
      Ya I have data, here is the current debt: $16,744,814,606,837.32 Or how about a quotations from our president: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
wwweston 13y ago
Perhaps if you won't take credentials from someone whose conclusions you don't like, you'll take an argument that needs no credentials to follow: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/what-if-a-typical-family-spent-like-the-federal-government-itd-be-a-very-weird-family/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/w... Many of the points distinguishing a household from the federal government also apply to the task of evaluating how much the later is like a municipality.

by NoPiece 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>Do you have more authority than Rachel Greszler who has a masters in Economics from Georgetown? No, but Paul Krugman does. He's a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Oh, he also won the Nobel Prize in Economics back in 2008. Suffice it to say, he has more than a simple Master's degree from Georgetown. Here's what he has to say on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und... In light of your high-horse comment, I found this part especially funny. "Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!"

NoPiece 13y ago
Here is a Harvard economist drawing lessons from Detroit: http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_entrepreneurs.html http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_entrepreneurs.html
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote. >>Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Ah, yes. The Manhattan Institute. Why am I not surprised? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_... It's kind of funny how both economists you have cited so far can have their ideologies traced to some economically ultra-conservative think-tank. These are people who believe strongly in small government (in other words, are strongly political) and write countless articles that are anti-government spending so that they can "starve the beast."
  - sien 13y ago
    So, in just a few comments the discussion has gone from looking at a problem to supporting teams. Other posters say Krugman is largely an opinion writer now and you reject the economists others mention as they hold political beliefs you don't like. This is pretty much why most political and economic discussions are a waste of time, particularly on the internet.
  - cpleppert 13y ago
    >>Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote. I have to disagree. It was meandering and had little to offer in terms of evidence, facts or actual policy prescriptions and was instead filled with anecdotes that somehow ended up supporting policy positions already supported by the Manhattan Institute. The author jumps from charter schools to federally funded highways in a span of a sentence right at the end. Not a lot of evidence is offered that local regulation is somehow strangling entrepreneurship nor is his idea of denying federally supported bonds to over regulated entities ever elucidated in any fashion. (Maybe because sticking local communities with higher taxes is rather counterproductive in the first place). So basically he spends most of piece talking about the 'entrepreneur' as a mythical entity that deserves to be supported by a verifiable buffet of policies that aren't really explained. So the Think of the Children!! argument rehashed. The article reads exactly like a lot of cookie cutter political writing these days that say absolutely nothing about anything of concrete importance but are just couched to ideological compatriots that enjoy light reading from authors who will appeal to their political vanity while safely holding all the 'bad' ideas at arms length by appealing to the most simplistic possible explanations of problems; while you the reader are serenaded for easily understanding what your political 'enemies' cannot.
greedo 13y ago
One, that's an appeal to authority. And two, if you think Krugman is the least bit unbiased in his column, you're mistaken. For someone as smart as Krugman, he's a master at manipulating facts to suit his political beliefs.
rickjames28 13y ago
Paul Krugman is a leftist operative - nothing more.

onebaddude 13y ago

>You have a strong political opinion, and an inflated sense of authority." But he's correct. It's one of the most ridiculous arguments perpetuated. Comparing a city (or a household) with an entity with the capacity to print the currency in which its debts are denominated is nonsensical. Solvency and bankruptcy are a not an issue for the United States. The constraint is inflation. The whole country can't stop spending at once. The sooner people realize that public deficits create private financial assets, and hence are necessary during recessions, the better we'll all be. As far as your article, anyone who considers "unfunded obligations" to be debt is not worth listening to.

NoPiece 13y ago
You are arguing that the US has seatbelts and can survive a car crash, while Detroit gets ejected through the windshield. I'm saying, stop recklessly speeding down the highway like Detroit, because we're better off avoiding the car crash. The goal is to avoid a debt crisis entirely. Detroit and the US are both spending themselves into a debt crisis. That different solutions apply once the crisis is reached is true, but the analogy holds when you are looking at the cause and hopefully avoiding the crisis.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >"Detroit and the US are both spending themselves into a debt crisis." Do you have any data that the US is on its way to a debt crisis? It sounds to me you're just repeatedly and wrongly assuming that we're somewhere near a point where paying our bills is an issue. Like Detroit. Except Detroit is bankrupt, and the US is growing. There is no similarity between "debt issues" of Detroit and the US. None.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    Ya I have data, here is the current debt: $16,744,814,606,837.32 Or how about a quotations from our president: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

wwweston 13y ago

Perhaps if you won't take credentials from someone whose conclusions you don't like, you'll take an argument that needs no credentials to follow: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/what-if-a-typical-family-spent-like-the-federal-government-itd-be-a-very-weird-family/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/w... Many of the points distinguishing a household from the federal government also apply to the task of evaluating how much the later is like a municipality.