3 ms·

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

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.
  - dragonwriter 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. Those predictions necessarily involve predictions of revenue levels (and thus, general economic performance, and thus, the impact of debt service levels on general economic performance) for all the intervening years. Which means accepting them means accepting that the "experts" involved can predict the impact of debt service levels on general economic performance, which is exactly the thing you have to assume they cannot do to dismiss the relevance of economists and budget experts opinion on the final condition. > 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. Debt service costs are a product of: 1) Starting debt levels, 2) Government revenue vs. expenditures in the intervening period, and 3) Cost of borrowing for the government in the intervening time. Note that #2 is dependent on performance of the overall economy, including all factors which influence the overall economy (and not just the aggregate performance, but how that performance is distributed relative to what government taxes.)

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.
- dragonwriter 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. Those predictions necessarily involve predictions of revenue levels (and thus, general economic performance, and thus, the impact of debt service levels on general economic performance) for all the intervening years. Which means accepting them means accepting that the "experts" involved can predict the impact of debt service levels on general economic performance, which is exactly the thing you have to assume they cannot do to dismiss the relevance of economists and budget experts opinion on the final condition. > 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. Debt service costs are a product of: 1) Starting debt levels, 2) Government revenue vs. expenditures in the intervening period, and 3) Cost of borrowing for the government in the intervening time. Note that #2 is dependent on performance of the overall economy, including all factors which influence the overall economy (and not just the aggregate performance, but how that performance is distributed relative to what government taxes.)