4 ms·

We've let the politicians mortgage our future for our present. It was bound to catch up with us eventually. Perhaps this will encourage those in Washington to

We've let the politicians mortgage our future for our present. It was bound to catch up with us eventually. Perhaps this will encourage those in Washington to figure out how to save money lest they all find themselves out of work.

nbaman_23 12y ago
Interesting way to put it. However, I doubt it. As long as the printers don't run out of ink, this will continue...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> It was bound to catch up with us eventually. "Catch up" and lead to a situation where even the higher of the estimates has interest payments at a level that "Most economists and budget experts would agree [...] are manageable for an economy"? Not seeing the problem.
- msandford 12y ago
  If you believe economists and budget experts then you're absolutely right, there is no problem. But economists as a whole do no (or a tiny margin) better than chance at predicting a lot of things. So I'm not sure that their confidence that everything will be OK is terribly reassuring. http://www.automaticfinances.com/monkey-stock-picking/ http://www.automaticfinances.com/monkey-stock-picking/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/08/this-much-i-know-daniel-kahneman http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/08/this-much-i-k... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-e... If I build bridge after bridge and they all fall down at some point you're going to have to wonder if my engineering degree is worth even the paper it's printed on. An expert whose expertise is little better than chance can't really be called an expert, no matter how impeccable their credentials or how long their career.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If you believe economists and budget experts then you're absolutely right, there is no problem. But economists as a whole do no (or a tiny margin) better than chance at predicting a lot of things. You do realize that the whole thing you are trying to get us scared about is, itself, a prediction of future levels of debt service costs relative to other government expenditures by CBO and OMB economists and budget experts. So, if you believe economists and budget experts, then (a) you have a basis for believing the situation you are trying to raise concerns about will occur, but (b) you likewise have the same basis for believing that the situation won't be a problem. Conversely, if you don't believe economists and budget experts, (a) you don't necessarily have a reason to believe that the situation you are concerned about would not be a problem, but (b) for the same reason, you also don't have a reason to believe that the situation you are concerned about will actually occur. If you want to make the claim that the situation predicted by CBO and budget experts will occur and that if it occurs, it wwill be a problem, you need more of an argument than "economists and budget experts are sometimes not better than chance at predicting some things".
    - msandford 12y ago
      In this case their predictions are of the "look at the trend and extrapolate over a few years" kind which I am familiar with, and have a reason to believe. There's a HUGE difference between extrapolating a trend which shows no signs of slowing, and "predicting" that it will in fact be no problem whatsoever. Extrapolating a trend requires no particular expertise. But judging the impact of a particular cashflow on an economy as a whole, well, that's a much bigger deal. How do they "know" that it won't be a problem? Can they assure us we won't enter yet another war and have to print money even faster? Are they confident that inflation will never get away from us? Have we already dodged and will we continue to dodge the liquidity trap? What happens if deflation takes over in the US -- like it has in Japan -- despite heroic levels of QE? Given that economists are unable to answer those questions plausibly (i.e. they can't accurately predict the future) it stands to reason that their assumption (which is what it really is) that the level of debt service is OK is a bit questionable in my mind. Remember, extending a trendline on a single metric (US debt or interest payments) and doing the same on a million metrics (everything that makes up the US economy) are two WILDLY different things.

nbaman_23 12y ago

Interesting way to put it. However, I doubt it. As long as the printers don't run out of ink, this will continue...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> It was bound to catch up with us eventually. "Catch up" and lead to a situation where even the higher of the estimates has interest payments at a level that "Most economists and budget experts would agree [...] are manageable for an economy"? Not seeing the problem.

msandford 12y ago
If you believe economists and budget experts then you're absolutely right, there is no problem. But economists as a whole do no (or a tiny margin) better than chance at predicting a lot of things. So I'm not sure that their confidence that everything will be OK is terribly reassuring. http://www.automaticfinances.com/monkey-stock-picking/ http://www.automaticfinances.com/monkey-stock-picking/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/08/this-much-i-know-daniel-kahneman http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/08/this-much-i-k... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-e... If I build bridge after bridge and they all fall down at some point you're going to have to wonder if my engineering degree is worth even the paper it's printed on. An expert whose expertise is little better than chance can't really be called an expert, no matter how impeccable their credentials or how long their career.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If you believe economists and budget experts then you're absolutely right, there is no problem. But economists as a whole do no (or a tiny margin) better than chance at predicting a lot of things. You do realize that the whole thing you are trying to get us scared about is, itself, a prediction of future levels of debt service costs relative to other government expenditures by CBO and OMB economists and budget experts. So, if you believe economists and budget experts, then (a) you have a basis for believing the situation you are trying to raise concerns about will occur, but (b) you likewise have the same basis for believing that the situation won't be a problem. Conversely, if you don't believe economists and budget experts, (a) you don't necessarily have a reason to believe that the situation you are concerned about would not be a problem, but (b) for the same reason, you also don't have a reason to believe that the situation you are concerned about will actually occur. If you want to make the claim that the situation predicted by CBO and budget experts will occur and that if it occurs, it wwill be a problem, you need more of an argument than "economists and budget experts are sometimes not better than chance at predicting some things".
  - msandford 12y ago
    In this case their predictions are of the "look at the trend and extrapolate over a few years" kind which I am familiar with, and have a reason to believe. There's a HUGE difference between extrapolating a trend which shows no signs of slowing, and "predicting" that it will in fact be no problem whatsoever. Extrapolating a trend requires no particular expertise. But judging the impact of a particular cashflow on an economy as a whole, well, that's a much bigger deal. How do they "know" that it won't be a problem? Can they assure us we won't enter yet another war and have to print money even faster? Are they confident that inflation will never get away from us? Have we already dodged and will we continue to dodge the liquidity trap? What happens if deflation takes over in the US -- like it has in Japan -- despite heroic levels of QE? Given that economists are unable to answer those questions plausibly (i.e. they can't accurately predict the future) it stands to reason that their assumption (which is what it really is) that the level of debt service is OK is a bit questionable in my mind. Remember, extending a trendline on a single metric (US debt or interest payments) and doing the same on a million metrics (everything that makes up the US economy) are two WILDLY different things.