National Debt And Stuff

[Lumpenproletariat]

J'accuse!

Prove me wrong. Just say something simple, like
"Higher and higher deficits are probably bad for the economy."
or "The deficits should decrease .1 or .2 or .3 trillion."

(or words to that effect) No? Can't even say that? Why?

Whatever the arithmetic and convoluted rationale, the debt has consistently increased percentagewise ....

The debt/GDP ratio has not consistently increased since the 1930s.

Yes it has -- Cut it out! you know better.

I said "with ups and downs" -- yes it's a consistent pattern -- you can easily see it in the graphs of it from the earliest times ( https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/ ). The only real point where this might not be the pattern is back to 1800 or so. But the pattern is much stronger from the 1930s. Of course there was the WW2 interruption in it, and also the 2 earlier war interruptions, but otherwise the long-term trend is consistently upward over any period except the short balanced-budget period (late 1990s boom). To deny this pattern shows dishonesty due to an Absolute Belief in the magic power of ever-higher public debt no matter what.

And as my previous response pointed out, the focus on the debt/GDP ignores other salient measures that private sector creditors and the financially literate use (I.e. the value of assets for example).

The "value of assets" is obviously taken into account in calculating the debt/GDP ratio. Nothing "ignores" it. Debt/GDP is a reliable measure of the % of debt, and it has consistently increased as the normal pattern outside the major war periods of the sharp up and down.

Your entire response is simply a rather boring ignorant wall of text.

This is the only fact you can offer. Further proving my point.

I will point out that the idea that the inability to put a dollar value on a non-cash flow benefit somehow makes that borrowing an example of "instant gratification" is simply moronic.

There's no evidence of any such "benefit" -- you've never identified what the benefit is, outside the spending of the deficit dollars at the point of the borrowing.

WWII is the perfect example.

No it's not. What's it an "example" of? That's the extreme conspicuous exception, for which there is no other example. The long-term trend is still there despite this major interruption -- sharp up and back down. Similar less obvious WW1 and Civil War exceptions. This is not about the disruptive war emergencies. This is about unprecedented peacetime deficits. And these have now surpassed the record-high level of WW2.

Why do you have to deny the facts to make your point? To say WW2 is an "example" means there are other cases of the same, which there are not.

I strongly suspect that given what Nazi Germany and Japan were doing, that most people agree that the borrowing incurred to fight and defeat them was worthwhile even if we cannot prove that it had a positive net present value. And that they would disagree that borrowing to finance the fight in WWII was an example of satisfying instant gratification.

That was a SACRIFICE for long-term gain, because it was an emergency, not the norm.

So why don't you confirm that this is the only time when such high deficit is justified, and in normal peacetime there is not such a need, and that therefore these peacetime deficits have been too high, because there is not any such emergency? Why are you unable to recognize this obvious truth?

Finally, I point out to your implicit argument that counter factual arguments can be made to fight an ideological position is monumentally ironic.

Yeah I'll work on that -- thanks for bringing it to my attention.


Would someone please respond to my accusation:

I'm "accusing" not only laughing dog but most others here of being sympathetic toward increasing the annual federal deficit to 2.0 trillion, 3.0 trillion, or possibly even higher. All the arguments posted here are saying implicitly that it would be fine to increase the deficits, not decrease them. I've now made the straightforward "accusation" -- and yet no one ever denies it. Not l dog above. That no one denies it suggests that they really have this basic absolute FAITH in ever-higher (public) debt as an infallible solution which can't ever fail.

This seems to be the sentiment:

Increase the annual deficit higher, to maybe 4.0 trillion, if not this year, then as soon as it's politically feasible (as soon as you can get the votes). Maybe go slow ONLY because of some political backlash, not for any economic practical reason. Only because the popular public sentiment is superstitious against deficits, based on fear only, whereas the facts are that higher and higher public debt can only produce good results and has always made the economy better -- at least for the U.S., because the U.S. has some God-given magic power to increase the debt without limit.

"We have nothing to fear [no reason to worry about higher and higher debt] but fear itself."

Everyone seems to agree: Just go with the urge for the instant gratification higher debt offers us.

Isn't this a very serious ACCUSATION to make against someone? Yet no one here has said otherwise, that it would be economically harmful to increase the deficit -- another 1 or 2 trillion (or 3 or 4?). Nor implied it or cautioned against going that direction, or suggesting there has to be a limit. There really appears no sentiment against increasing the deficit higher -- probably as much higher as is politically feasible (the votes), and that's actually the only real obstacle to it.

Why doesn't someone say anything to show that this is not what they believe? So far no one here has said anything to indicate otherwise than what I'm "accusing" here -- belief that higher (public) debt has to always make the economy better for everyone, and cannot ever lead to net bad results. And also, to not run up higher debt always leads to recessions, like clockwork, and so to not always run up the deficits ever higher (as a percent of the economy) always inflicts suffering onto everyone except the super rich.

Please -- can't anyone here deny this and say it would be bad to increase the deficits to still higher -- record-high -- levels.

i.e., percentagewise higher levels (as a % of the economy)
(as shown by the graphs, data, charts)​

the facts? No? facts don't matter?

 

[jonatha]

The "value of assets" is obviously taken into account in calculating the debt/GDP ratio.

No it's not.

GDP is the income statement. "Value of assets" is balance sheet (as is debt, of course)...

 

[bilby]

Prove me wrong.

What, again? So you can ignore it, again?

What is the point?

Just say something simple, like
"Higher and higher deficits are probably bad for the economy."
or "The deficits should decrease .1 or .2 or .3 trillion."

(or words to that effect) No? Can't even say that? Why?

Because that:
a) Wouldn't be "proving you wrong" so much as "capitulating to your nonsense", and
b) Wouldn't be true. In many ways, wouldn't even be coherent.

Higher and higher deficits are probably an indication of a strong economy.

The absolute size that the deficit should have is indeterminate; What matters is that it shouldn't constrain effective investment in infrastructure, nor should it constrain effective redistribution of wealth to counterbalance the concentrative tendencies of a free market economy.

Your demands are based on the ridiculous false propositions that:
a) The economy is simple, and
b) Your fantasies about it have some bearing on reality.

Neither is anywhere close to being true, so your demands are insane and your questions incoherent.

 

[bilby]

Everyone seems to agree: Just go with the urge for the instant gratification higher debt offers us.

Isn't this a very serious ACCUSATION to make against someone? Yet no one here has said otherwise

Nor have they said that.

You are arguing against a made up opposition from nonexistent opponents, presumably because the actual opposition from your actual opponents is either impossible for you to refute, impossible for you to understand, or both.

Literally nobody in this thread (except you, in your rhetorical outbursts) thinks that "higher debt" is synonymous with, or in any way implies "instant gratification".

Because it isn't, and it doesn't.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Higher deficits happen because of massive tax cuts and the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes for any reason. Like that bad Bill Clinton who raised taxes and balanced the budget. Apparently the fact that big tax cuts never pay for themselves as right winged economists claim can't be understood by these idiots despite 40 years of failure for supply side economics to work magic.. For example Larry Kudlow, Trump's totally incompetent economic adviser. Now add in big disasters like the Covid 19 pandemic and the sub-prime disaster under Bush. I think I see our problem.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should the debt ceiling be raised? because
IT NEVER MATTERS how high the debt goes.

The total debt should keep increasing, regardless what the GDP is.

Got it.

The "value of assets" is obviously taken into account in calculating the debt/GDP ratio.

No it's not.

GDP is the income statement. "Value of assets" is balance sheet (as is debt, of course)...

This is jargon only.

GDP and debt are about the value of everything. Assets are bought and sold, and produced, and the prices go up and down, all of which GDP and debt are about.

Your technical jargon about "value of assets" according to some accounting terminology is not pertinent to the topic of whether the public debt is too much. Debt/GDP doesn't IGNORE anything important. It's about the whole economy compared to the degree of debt. GDP represents more than only what is paid/produced -- it reflects the whole economy also. You could get more technical about separating "the economy" into smaller pieces:

If you add the accumulated wealth (AcW) to the GDP, as something also important, then the same reality would be shown -- so the technical jargonese might be

debt/GDP+AcW or some such term
​

No significant change in the issue we're discussing here. The debt/GDP+AcW would be at a similar all-time record high. So, what's the point? What is the necessity to get bogged down in the jargon? Do we need to create hundreds of new terms like this before anything can be said?

The debt/GDP does matter.

But if you say it does not, OK. Then the reason we must raise the debt ceiling again is that --


debt/GDP does not matter.

And so this fact is why we need to raise the debt ceiling again. This then is another main reason we must raise the debt ceiling: It never matters how high the debt goes as a percent of the whole economy -- that's why Congress should vote to raise the debt ceiling. Got it.

Why can't anyone give a reason to increase the debt other than this kind of reason?

Why is everyone demanding that the debt be increased, but the only kind of reason given is that debt/GDP doesn't matter? because economists are wrong to think this is a good measure of how much debt there is?

Why not instead just be straightforward and say simply that ever-higher (public) debt is always good for us -- an Absolute Imperative -- no matter how high it goes? because there is no proper limit?

instead of quibbling over the jargon?

 

[laughing dog]

J'accuse!........

FFS, this is ridiculous. First, anyone has the capability of saying anything - your word salads are proof of that, so your challenge is pointless.

More importantly, your challenge is simply silly. Whether a given deficit reduction is appropriate or not depends on the economic and social situation at the time.

Whatever the arithmetic and convoluted rationale, the debt has consistently increased percentagewise ....

The debt/GDP ratio has not consistently increased since the 1930s.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it has -- Cut it out! you know better.

I said "with ups and downs" -- yes it's a consistent pattern -- you can easily see it in the graphs of it from the earliest times ( https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/ ). The only real point where this might not be the pattern is back to 1800 or so. But the pattern is much stronger from the 1930s. Of course there was the WW2 interruption in it, and also the 2 earlier war interruptions, but otherwise the long-term trend is consistently upward over any period except the short balanced-budget period (late 1990s boom). To deny this pattern shows dishonesty due to an Absolute Belief in the magic power of ever-higher public debt no matter what. [/quote] Sigh, the debt/GDP consistently declined from WWII until the 1980s. Really, your grasp of economic facts is tenuous at best.

The "value of assets" is obviously taken into account in calculating the debt/GDP ratio. Nothing "ignores" it. Debt/GDP is a reliable measure of the % of debt, and it has consistently increased as the normal pattern outside the major war periods of the sharp up and down.

Previously in this thread, you provided some evidence of your financial ignorance by denying that failure to repay a debt is a default. Now you provide even more evidence of that ignorance. As jonatha affirms, debt/GDP has nothing to do with the value of assets. Anyone familiar with creditors knows that when they evaluate a potential loan, they look at income and collateral (i.e. assets).

Your entire response is simply a rather boring ignorant wall of text.

This is the only fact you can offer. Further proving my point.

If you agree it is a fact that your responses are boring ignorant walls of test, why do you persist in them?

I will point out that the idea that the inability to put a dollar value on a non-cash flow benefit somehow makes that borrowing an example of "instant gratification" is simply moronic.

There's no evidence of any such "benefit" -- you've never identified what the benefit is, outside the spending of the deficit dollars at the point of the borrowing... [/quote] WWII is an example. WWII did not require the USA to do anything. We could have not responded to any provocation. Fortunately, we did even though it was clear that any borrowing would not generate a sufficient future positive cash flow to pay off the debt. We did it for non-cash benefits.

Why do you have to deny the facts to make your point?

That one broke every irony meter extant.

Finally, I point out to your implicit argument that counter factual arguments can be made to fight an ideological position is monumentally ironic.

Yeah I'll work on that -- thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Please don't.

Contained throughout the your response is a blatant straw man. I have never advocated an every higher level of deficit spending or debt. Observing that I do not think we are at the danger level now does not logically mean that I do not think there is no limit to gov't borrowing. In fact, one would think that even a simpleton would notice that the qualifier "yet" indicates that I do think there are limits to gov't borrowing.

The remainder of your response is a rather incoherent set of straw men and ranting that merits no response because history indicates any response is pointless. In fact, my response to date is an indication that I am a hopeless optimist.

Finally, rather than engage in these inane walls of text, I have a couple of simple questions for you to answer. First, what is the appropriate level of debt/GDP in your view right now? Second, in your view, how much should the deficit be reduced to satisfy your need for instant gratification? Third, how should that reduction be accomplished?

 

[jonatha]

GDP and debt are about the value of everything

GDP has nothing to do with the value of anything that was produced prior to the year in which the GDP figure in question is measured.

You're essentially saying you think you include the equity you have in your house in your income when you file your taxes...

 

[laughing dog]

Let's look at two different borrowers. Debtor A and Debtor both have a debt of $1.3 trillion and income of $1.0 trillion dollars, so the debt to GDP for both is 1.30 (i.e. debt is 130% of income). Debtor A has assets of $100 trillion dollars while Debtor B has assets of $2 trillion.

It is not clear at all that either debtor's debt is "too high".

The point is that assets do matter when making such assessments.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Higher debt is not a problem? OK, but

NO on raising the debt ceiling also is not a problem!


1st -- fact check: The debt has consistently increased

Whatever the arithmetic and convoluted rationale, the debt has consistently increased percentagewise ....

The debt/GDP ratio has not consistently increased since the 1930s.

This is false, and it matters, because this is fundamentally what the topic is about. Our topic is "The National Debt" -- and this obviously includes the question whether the Debt has become too large.

So getting the facts correct on this point is essential. Here's the graph again:

US Debt to GDP - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends

The Debt-to-GDP ratio is the ratio between a country's debt and its gross domestic product. These charts show the government-, corporate-, and household-debt to gdp.

www.longtermtrends.net

There was a significant decline in the debt/GDP only 3 times since the early 1800s. Each was directly following a major war. Also a small short decline in the late 1990s, and very tiny one at the end of the 1930s. Obviously we had virtually no debt increases, before the 1930s, other than to pay for war cost.

The longest decline was the one after WW2, which was arguably the highest debt/GDP ever in history, so it's to be expected that after such a huge debt explosion we'd have a long decline period. But you have to be blind not to see that peacetime deficit was virtually absent (i.e. zero deficit in peacetime was the norm), until the 1930s, after which we then had peacetime increases in the debt other than the one long period after WW2, paying down some of the war debt.

So this is "consistent" increase of debt during peacetime -- so much that in recent times the debt/GDP reached the record-high WW2 level (for any period longer than one year), even before the pandemic. This recent record high extended over at least 3 years -- longer than the one WW2 record high of only one year. And now we've had the all-time high even for only one year - 129.00 percent of GDP in 2022 (https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...HXjWA50Q1QJ6BAhBEAE&biw=1113&bih=590&dpr=1.56 )

The recent record-high could be blamed mostly on the Pandemic. But there's no way this crisis can be compared to the WW2 crisis, for which there was only one year of such a high debt/GDP. Obviously the debt level has been increased way above that period.

This obviously is a steady upward pattern of peacetime higher debt. You can say there was the one short interruption during the late 1990s boom, which is unique and probably will not be repeated. So there's no way you can honestly deny that this overall increased debt pattern exists and is still continuing, even though there's now a possibility of a small decline if the pandemic is over.

Everyone should agree now that it's time for the debt/GDP to decline steadily. No one has given any reason why we need to drive the debt level up higher, unless they believe that ever-increasing debt, even in peacetime, should be the norm. Percentagewise increase. The graph shows that peacetime deficits maybe became the new norm in the 1930s, and this is now the norm since then.

If so, we should be getting some reasons to explain why this SHOULD be the new norm. Where is the evidence that this ought to be the norm rather than the previous notion that higher debt is only for war time, or similar crisis (possibly the pandemic, e.g.)?

What we should not be getting are falsehoods claiming there is no pattern of higher deficits. Denial of the facts ought not be the excuse you offer for why the debt ceiling has to be increased. You want to raise the debt limit again? and again? then give us some facts why, rather than giving us falsehoods such as claiming that there is no pattern of higher deficits overall from the 1930s to the present.


GDP vs. "Assets"
What's the difference?

And as my previous response pointed out, the focus on the debt/GDP ignores other salient measures that private sector creditors and the financially literate use (I.e. the value of assets for example).

I acknowledge that I gave a bad response to this earlier -- ignoring the "value of assets" as a technical ---- or --- I'll just acknowledge that you are exactly correct on that terminology. So you win the jargon debate on that point. The important question for the topic is whether the debt limit should be increased.


Debt? No problem.
Vote NO on the debt ceiling? Also no problem!

And on this point, the "value of assets" is relevant, not only GDP. And here's how it matters to the topic of the debt, or whether higher debt is desirable:

laughing dog #159 : Financially, when one analyzes the credit-worthiness of a borrower, one usually looks at their income and their wealth. In most discussions about the US national debt, the wealth of the US gov't is completely ignored.

I.e., that's the "assets" -- right? OK, let's not ignore it. "Assets" is not the same as GDP -- you straightened me out on that. You score one point. But then how is this important to our topic of the DEBT and whether the debt should increase or not? Here's the importance of assets in the debt debate:

laughing dog #159 : The US gov't has trillions of dollars in assets. The US gov't owns thousands of acres of land, and multitudes of physical assets such as dams, bridges, buildings, planes etc... that conceptually could be sold to pay off debt.

This is what we need to look at, rather than dismissing the "assets" as I did earlier. And here's your reason they're important:

Those assets could be sold to pay off debt.​

unquote

And so therefore it's OK to raise the debt ceiling even higher, and higher and higher again, without end, because ---

Hey, no problem. What's 30 trillion $$$$, or 130 trillion? Look at all those buildings and real estate and planes and ships and national parks and -- and -- the sky's the limit!

How about all those statues, the Lincoln Monument, the Statue of Liberty! the Library of Congress, look at all the goodies we could sell off to pay the national debt!

Just have a national Garage Sale of all these assets, and -- What debt?!

$30 trillion paid off instantly! poof! all gone! What a genius you are to come up with these instant solutions to a problem we thought was difficult to solve!


But maybe you're solving more than you intended. Because you're also solving the problem of the so-called "DEFAULT" if the debt ceiling is not raised. This would NOT be a "default" on any debt, as I've pointed out before.

The way the above assets could be sold off, as you propose, is not that Congress would make any such decision. No, it would have to be the President, by Executive Order, who could make that decision,

and he could make that decision -- this is not fantasy!

Not only could he unilaterally choose to sell such assets to repay bondholders, if the debt should get too high, but also to repay them if the Congress votes NO on raising the debt ceiling. He could take those drastic measure to pay for govt programs that otherwise would be cut. He could sell those assets in order to pay SS benefits, or other critical programs threatened with cuts (caused by the NO VOTE on raising the debt ceiling), to find the revenue to pay those recipients what was promised to them.

(Incidentally, you might prefer that this President be Joe Biden rather than a Republican who might be elected in '24 ---- something to consider before you insist that you want to postpone the debt ceiling crisis until next time, in '25 or '26 etc. Do you want President Biden to issue these Executive Orders, or President DeSantis?)

Through Executive Order, the President has power to solve such problems, and by many other means also than only selling off national assets. And no one could stop him. Not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, not the U.S. Marines, not the Pope, not even Yahweh Himself would reach down from the sky to interfere with the President's power to fix it one way or another. The worst that could happen is that the House would impeach him -- big deal! another impeached President, to join Clinton and Trump. Yawn.

So be careful what you propose as the way to pay off the high debt. That same solution would enable the Congress to reject the higher debt ceiling without causing any threat to the sacred programs which cannot be cut.

And so once again, there is

no reason why the debt ceiling has to be raised.

The sky will not fall. There will be no need to cut SS or any other vital program.

Write it on the Blackboard 100 times -- It's a fact, which you have proved in your much more efficient and brief Wall of Text. And eventually, seriously, some solution like this is very likely to happen. If not this time around, soon in a future Congress the debt ceiling will finally be rejected, and the sky will not fall because the President will do some kind of Executive Order, even selling off the White House (who knows?) -- we don't need to determine the exact details -- but some Executive action will be take to save necessary programs, prevent any real disaster, even if the higher debt ceiling is rejected.

This is a fact, and you know it, and you're lying if you deny it.

 

[bilby]

you have to be blind not to see that peacetime deficit was virtually absent (i.e. zero deficit in peacetime was the norm), until the 1930s, after which we then had peacetime increases in the debt other than that one long period after WW2, paying down some of the war debt.

Gosh, it's almost as if the economy has changed slightly since the 1930s. It's almost as though there was an abandonment of commodities as the basis for money, and a massive change from agriculture as the basis of economic activity, to technology as its basis. But that's anathema to conservative thinking; The past was perfect, and any and all deviations from it are to be loudly and clearly ranted about.

Clearly we both can and should manage a highly technological society that has services and intellectual property as its major drivers, in the exact same way that we managed an agricultural economy. Because the idea that the world has changed since 1930 is crazy.

When your entire vacuous rant is predicated on the idea that the modern US economy is basically unchanged since before WWII, it's not surprising that you come across as woefully uninformed and out of date.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

you have to be blind not to see that peacetime deficit was virtually absent (i.e. zero deficit in peacetime was the norm), until the 1930s, after which we then had peacetime increases in the debt other than that one long period after WW2, paying down some of the war debt.

Gosh, it's almost as if the economy has changed slightly since the 1930s. It's almost as though there was an abandonment of commodities as the basis for money, and a massive change from agriculture as the basis of economic activity, to technology as its basis. But that's anathema to conservative thinking; The past was perfect, and any and all deviations from it are to be loudly and clearly ranted about.

Clearly we both can and should manage a highly technological society that has services and intellectual property as its major drivers, in the exact same way that we managed an agricultural economy. Because the idea that the world has changed since 1930 is crazy.

When your entire vacuous rant is predicated on the idea that the modern US economy is basically unchanged since before WWII, it's not surprising that you come across as woefully uninformed and out of date.

translation: Any change from earlier is right, just because of the passage of that time. We never need a reason for doing a change. The change just happens, because it's history, and whatever happens must be good. So we can argue in favor of ANY change that ever happened by just saying it happened, and so that makes it right. The debt change which began in the 1930s is automatically right for the country (even though the evidence is that the higher debt in 1931-33 made the country worse off in 1933-1940), and we don't need to give any reason why it was right or good for this change to take place.

Got it.

 

[bilby]

you have to be blind not to see that peacetime deficit was virtually absent (i.e. zero deficit in peacetime was the norm), until the 1930s, after which we then had peacetime increases in the debt other than that one long period after WW2, paying down some of the war debt.

Gosh, it's almost as if the economy has changed slightly since the 1930s. It's almost as though there was an abandonment of commodities as the basis for money, and a massive change from agriculture as the basis of economic activity, to technology as its basis. But that's anathema to conservative thinking; The past was perfect, and any and all deviations from it are to be loudly and clearly ranted about.

Clearly we both can and should manage a highly technological society that has services and intellectual property as its major drivers, in the exact same way that we managed an agricultural economy. Because the idea that the world has changed since 1930 is crazy.

When your entire vacuous rant is predicated on the idea that the modern US economy is basically unchanged since before WWII, it's not surprising that you come across as woefully uninformed and out of date.

translation: Any change from earlier is right, just because of the passage of that time. We never need a reason for doing a change. The change just happens, because it's history, and whatever happens must be good. So we can argue in favor of ANY change that ever happened by just saying it happened, and so that makes it right. The debt change which began in the 1930s is automatically right for the country and we don't need to give any reason why it was right or good for this change to take place.

Got it.

That's an impressive effort at deliberate misunderstanding there. That's not a "translation"; It's what you wish I had said instead, because it's far easier to argue against than what I actually did say.

I'm not suggesting that change is "right"; I'm pointing out that it HAS HAPPENED.

The only alternative to responding to changes that have happened, is to become increasingly irrelevant and stupid as changes overtake your understanding of reality.

It's completely irrelevant whether change is good; If it's real, then it must be dealt with.

Whether or not change is good can be determined only by looking at its results. If you want to live a 1930s lifestyle, that's entirely your choice, but your use of computers and the Internet strongly suggests that you really don't. The Amish, and other anti-progress cults, choose to live as their ancestors did. Almost every single other person in the world prefers to have modern technology.

It requires a serious detachment from reality to believe that the past was better than the present. Soft toilet paper wasn't introduced until the 1940s; Spend a month without it and then tell me how very little has changed since the 1930s.

The difference between the 1930s and the present, in terms of technology, is FAR greater than the difference between the 1830s and the 1930s. And the technological difference between the 1730s and 1730BCE is minuscule by comparison.

Money has changed, perforce, to accommodate the complete transformation of economic activity.

You can hate it, or you can love it. But you can't ignore it. (Well, apparently you can ignore it. But nobody who doesn't want to be laughed at can ignore it).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Higher and higher public debt = good or bad change?

you have to be blind not to see that peacetime deficit was virtually absent (i.e. zero deficit in peacetime was the norm), until the 1930s, after which we then had peacetime increases in the debt other than that one long period after WW2, paying down some of the war debt.

Gosh, it's almost as if the economy has changed slightly since the 1930s. It's almost as though there was an abandonment of commodities as the basis for money, and a massive change from agriculture as the basis of economic activity, to technology as its basis. But that's anathema to conservative thinking; The past was perfect, and any and all deviations from it are to be loudly and clearly ranted about.

Clearly we both can and should manage a highly technological society that has services and intellectual property as its major drivers, in the exact same way that we managed an agricultural economy. Because the idea that the world has changed since 1930 is crazy.

When your entire vacuous rant is predicated on the idea that the modern US economy is basically unchanged since before WWII, it's not surprising that you come across as woefully uninformed and out of date.

translation: Any change from earlier is right, just because of the passage of that time. We never need a reason for doing a change. The change just happens, because it's history, and whatever happens must be good. So we can argue in favor of ANY change that ever happened by just saying it happened, and so that makes it right. The debt change which began in the 1930s is automatically right for the country and we don't need to give any reason why it was right or good for this change to take place.

Got it.

That's an impressive effort at deliberate misunderstanding there. That's not a "translation"; It's what you wish I had said instead, because it's far easier to argue against than what I actually did say.

I'm not suggesting that change is "right"; I'm pointing out that it HAS HAPPENED.

The only alternative to responding to changes that have happened, is to become increasingly irrelevant and stupid as changes overtake your understanding of reality.

It's completely irrelevant whether change is good; If it's real, then it must be dealt with.

Whether or not change is good can be determined only by looking at its results.

Finally! something of substance! (The earlier rhetoric we can just flush down the toilet).

The results, yes: You have given no examples how higher public debt has produced good results. The 1931-33 higher debt was followed by the worst and most prolonged Depression in history, and there's good reason to see a causal connection there.

Even though some debt is beneficial, as a future investment (science research, technology), you've not shown evidence that the "economic stimulus" deficits have led to any beneficial results.

If you want to live a 1930s lifestyle, that's entirely your choice, but your use of computers and the Internet strongly suggests that you really don't. The Amish, and other anti-progress cults, choose to live as their ancestors did. Almost every single other person in the world prefers to have modern technology.

So you're claiming that higher public debt is what causes modern technology? There was no advance in science and technology prior to the 1930s?

It requires a serious detachment from reality to believe that the past was better than the present.

Great argument in favor of the Reagan tax cuts. How many more wonderful changes by Reagan are you crusading for? And of course you're praising President Bush for making places like Iraq and Afghanistan better today than they were in the past.

Soft toilet paper wasn't introduced until the 1940s; Spend a month without it and then tell me how very little has changed since the 1930s.

Where is your evidence that the Hoover/FDR higher deficits made possible the invention of soft toilet paper? Do you also believe they invented the Dust Bowl of the 1930s? Do you give them credit for Rock-n-roll music?

The difference between the 1930s and the present, in terms of technology, is FAR greater than the difference between the 1830s and the 1930s. And the technological difference between the 1730s and 1730 BCE is minuscule by comparison.

But the technological difference is even greater beginning in the 1950s-60s during the long period of decreasing debt/GDP. This is the period when the new computer technologies originate, proving that decreasing debt/GDP is what really inspires more science & technology advance.

Money has changed, perforce, to accommodate the complete transformation of economic activity.

Yes, as the lower debt/GDP period of the 50s-60s proves, stimulating more technology and science than ever before. This is the period when the Internet began, and then the Reagan & Thatcher tax cuts of the 80s resulted in the tech boom, spurring the world economy into the modern hi-tech Information Age.

You can hate it, or you can love it.

OK got it, you really love those Reagan tax cuts and resulting "transformation of economic activity" in the 1980s and 90s. Didn't know you were such a Reagan-Thatcher fan.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[bilby]

The results, yes: You have given no examples how higher public debt has produced good results.

Are you kidding?

The entire period of higher public debt against which you are railing (between the 1930s and the present) has produced the highest standard of living in human history.

Your desperate and counterfactual cherry-picking doesn't change that.

The 1950s were shit compared to the '60s, and the 1980s were drivel compared to today.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

correction in earlier post:

And so once again, there is

no reason why the debt ceiling has to be raised.

The sky will not fall. There will be no need to cut SS or any other vital program.

Write it on the Blackboard 100 times -- It's a fact, which you have proved in your much more efficient and brief Wall of Text. And eventually, seriously, some solution like this is very likely to happen. If not this time around, soon in a future Congress the debt ceiling will finally be rejected, and the sky will not fall because . . .

correction to the above:

And eventually, seriously, some solution like this is very likely to happen. If not this time around, soon in a future Congress the debt ceiling will finally NOT BE RAISED, and the sky will not fall because the President will do some kind of Executive Order, even selling off the White House (who knows?) -- we don't need to determine the exact details -- but some Executive action will be taken to save necessary programs, prevent any real disaster, even if the higher debt ceiling is rejected.

This is a fact, and you know it, and you're lying if you deny it.

just so it's clear, the prediction is: A raise-the-debt-ceiling vote will come up and it will be rejected. Or, maybe it won't come up at all and so the deadline will be passed without a debt-ceiling raise.

Eventually this will happen, and the sky will not fall, because the President will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the bondholders are all paid, so there will be no default. And by Executive Order the steps will be taken to cut spending or increase (tax) revenue one way or another, so that vital programs will continue, though some small cuts may happen.

So all the hysteria about "DEFAULT" is babble nonsense -- there will be no default. And small cuts to cherished programs are not default, but might be part of what's necessary to get the budget down enough to not require another deficit.

 

[bilby]

correction in earlier post:

And so once again, there is

no reason why the debt ceiling has to be raised.

The sky will not fall. There will be no need to cut SS or any other vital program.

Write it on the Blackboard 100 times -- It's a fact, which you have proved in your much more efficient and brief Wall of Text. And eventually, seriously, some solution like this is very likely to happen. If not this time around, soon in a future Congress the debt ceiling will finally be rejected, and the sky will not fall because . . .

correction to the above:

And eventually, seriously, some solution like this is very likely to happen. If not this time around, soon in a future Congress the debt ceiling will finally NOT BE RAISED, and the sky will not fall because the President will do some kind of Executive Order, even selling off the White House (who knows?) -- we don't need to determine the exact details -- but some Executive action will be taken to save necessary programs, prevent any real disaster, even if the higher debt ceiling is rejected.

This is a fact, and you know it, and you're lying if you deny it.

just so it's clear, the prediction is: A raise-the-debt-ceiling vote will come up and it will be rejected. Or, maybe it won't come up at all and so the deadline will be passed without a debt-ceiling raise.

Eventually this will happen, and the sky will not fall, because the President will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the bondholders are all paid, so there will be no default. And by Executive Order the steps will be taken to cut spending or increase (tax) revenue one way or another, so that vital programs will continue, though some small cuts may happen.

So all the hysteria about "DEFAULT" is babble nonsense -- there will be no default. And small cuts to cherished programs are not default, but might be part of what's necessary to get the budget down enough to not require another deficit.

Seriously mate, and with the greatest of respect, but you are out of your fucking mind.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The origin of today's higher living standard

The results, yes: You have given no examples how higher public debt has produced good results.

Are you kidding?

The entire period of higher public debt against which you are railing (between the 1930s and the present) has produced the highest standard of living in human history.

Your desperate and counterfactual cherry-picking doesn't change that.

The 1950s were shit compared to the '60s, and the 1980s were drivel compared to today.

translation: President Hoover is the great Hero who has given us the highest standard of living, having originated the new policy of peacetime public debt, even though condemned by FDR for it. All our modern science & technology we owe to President Hoover who saved us from the Depression (with the help of his successor and disciple/convert FDR who continued the new higher-debt policy begun by Hoover) and can be credited with all our modern higher standard of living today, all beginning with the wonderful "economic transformations" he instituted in 1931-32.

So according to you, everything before President Hoover was shit compared to everything after him, and it's Herbert Hoover you praise as the one who gave us the Internet and other technology and highest standard of living in history, and thus the HERO you worship as your economics role model.

Got it.

 

[bilby]

The origin of today's higher living standard

The results, yes: You have given no examples how higher public debt has produced good results.

Are you kidding?

The entire period of higher public debt against which you are railing (between the 1930s and the present) has produced the highest standard of living in human history.

Your desperate and counterfactual cherry-picking doesn't change that.

The 1950s were shit compared to the '60s, and the 1980s were drivel compared to today.

translation: President Hoover is the great Hero who has given us the highest standard of living, having originated the new policy of peacetime public debt, even though condemned by FDR for it. All our modern science & technology we owe to President Hoover who saved us from the Depression (with the help of his successor and disciple/convert FDR who continued the new higher-debt policy begun by Hoover) and can be credited with all our modern higher standard of living today, all beginning with the wonderful "economic transformations" he instituted in 1931-32.

So according to you, everything before President Hoover was shit compared to everything after him, and it's Herbert Hoover you praise as the one who gave us the Internet and other technology and highest standard of living in history, and thus the HERO you worship as your economics role model.

Got it.

That's not a "translation"; It's what you wish I had said instead, because it's far easier to argue against than what I actually did say.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The MAGIC of higher and higher public debt

The origin of today's higher living standard

. . . You have given no examples how higher public debt has produced good results.

Are you kidding?

The entire period of higher public debt against which you are railing (between the 1930s and the present) has produced the highest standard of living in human history.

Your desperate and counterfactual cherry-picking doesn't change that.

The 1950s were shit compared to the '60s, and the 1980s were drivel compared to today.

translation: President Hoover is the great Hero who has given us the highest standard of living, having originated the new policy of peacetime public debt, even though condemned by FDR for it. All our modern science & technology we owe to President Hoover who saved us from the Depression (with the help of his successor and disciple/convert FDR who continued the new higher-debt policy begun by Hoover) and can be credited with all our modern higher standard of living today, all beginning with the wonderful "economic transformations" he instituted in 1931-32.

So according to you, everything before President Hoover was shit compared to everything after him, and it's Herbert Hoover you praise as the one who gave us the Internet and other technology and highest standard of living in history, and thus the HERO you worship as your economics role model.

Got it.

That's not a "translation"; It's what you wish I had said instead, because it's far easier to argue against than what I actually did say.

You're crediting the higher public debt practice which began with Hoover in 1931-32. You said:

The entire period of higher public debt against which you are railing (between the 1930s and the present) has produced the highest standard of living in human history.

This period was launched by President Hoover in 31-32. How do you think this "period of higher public debt" got started?

If this higher public debt "has produced the highest standard of living" ever, how can you not give Hoover the credit for it? who else? Laurel & Hardy?

If not Hoover, you have to credit whichever Party dominated Congress, don't you? That was the Republicans, both House and Senate. They enacted those increased federal deficits, the highest-ever peacetime deficits (as percent of the economy). How can you say this new high-debt public policy gets credit for producing the highest-ever living standard but not give credit to the President and his Party which enacted this new public policy?