"....debt ......it doesn't necessarily matter..."

[CrusaderFrank]

Countries that collapse under a load of government debt are not broke, they're swooning from all the money people have saved from switching to GovCo.

Kimura is as wrong as Krugman

 

[Kimura]

"I'm going to keep this going."

Great!!!


I obey this motto: when your opponent is digging himself into a hole, get out of the way and don't interfere.



Once again: your thesis is that debt is great, it's just some kind of saving!

OK, monkey-man.....back to digging.

The government deficits are our savings. Their red is our black.

People have an innate understanding of savings. And this understanding is correct when it comes to households, individuals, and firms.

But this understanding gets murky when discussing surpluses. The problem with this premise is that the federal government doesn’t save when it runs a budget surplus.

Why is this the case? Households will save to have an increased capacity to spend down the road. However, they put off today’s consumption to increase their consumption in the future so to speak. This is done by getting some interest on savings and praying that inflation doesn’t degrade purchasing power of their $$$$.

Like I said, as the monopoly currency issuer, the government can meet any desire to save or greatly reduce unemployment. This is done through net spending, what well call running deficits.

'As I said,' not 'Like I said."

Your understanding of syntax is as poor as your understanding of economics.


So.....is more debt even better?

Speak up, monkey-man!

It depends. Deficits can be too large or too small, the goal is for the government to get them just right as to employ any and all productive capacity. Deficits are inherently residual, you'll see if the budget deficit was big enough by counting how many bodies are on the unemployment line.

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it comes down to policy. What resources do we want to shift from the private sector to the public sector. Some people on here think we need less government, and some believe we need more government. Once we make these policy decisions, there's an appropriate level of taxes which allows us to have the right sized deficits. These deficits then permit us to have an adequate amount of net savings to offset any pension requirements and reach full employment. This all boils down to political decisions in the end. The path to growth and prosperity in this country is between our ears. We no have no shortage of any real resources in the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The government deficits are our savings. Their red is our black.

People have an innate understanding of savings. And this understanding is correct when it comes to households, individuals, and firms.

But this understanding gets murky when discussing surpluses. The problem with this premise is that the federal government doesn’t save when it runs a budget surplus.

Why is this the case? Households will save to have an increased capacity to spend down the road. However, they put off today’s consumption to increase their consumption in the future so to speak. This is done by getting some interest on savings and praying that inflation doesn’t degrade purchasing power of their $$$$.

Like I said, as the monopoly currency issuer, the government can meet any desire to save or greatly reduce unemployment. This is done through net spending, what well call running deficits.

'As I said,' not 'Like I said."

Your understanding of syntax is as poor as your understanding of economics.


So.....is more debt even better?

Speak up, monkey-man!

It depends. Deficits can be too large or too small, the goal is for the government to get them just right as to employ any and all productive capacity. Deficits are inherently residual, you'll see if the budget deficit was big enough by counting how many bodies are on the unemployment line.

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it comes down to policy. What resources do we want to shift from the private sector to the public sector. Some people on here think we need less government, and some believe we need more government. Once we make these policy decisions, there's an appropriate level of taxes which allows us to have the right sized deficits. These deficits then permit us to have an adequate amount of net savings to offset any pension requirements and reach full employment. This all boils down to political decisions in the end. The path to growth and prosperity in this country is between our ears. We no have no shortage of any real resources in the United States.

Here is your advice for today:

Never make eye-contact when eating a banana.

 

[zeke]

It is SO cool to use gasoline prices as an indicator of how bad a job Obama has done. Of course, for the low point of prices you are using for your benchmark the collapse of the world economy and how that collapse DROVE oil prices down.

But why should you be honest about anything? Honesty just doesn't serve your purpose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is SO cool to use gasoline prices as an indicator of how bad a job Obama has done. Of course, for the low point of prices you are using for your benchmark the collapse of the world economy and how that collapse DROVE oil prices down.

But why should you be honest about anything? Honesty just doesn't serve your purpose.

I believe you are referring to the data in post #11, gas prices up 82%....


But you have ignored 10 other metrics that I provided.


Honesty just doesn't serve your purpose.

 

[Kimura]

'As I said,' not 'Like I said."

Your understanding of syntax is as poor as your understanding of economics.


So.....is more debt even better?

Speak up, monkey-man!

It depends. Deficits can be too large or too small, the goal is for the government to get them just right as to employ any and all productive capacity. Deficits are inherently residual, you'll see if the budget deficit was big enough by counting how many bodies are on the unemployment line.

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it comes down to policy. What resources do we want to shift from the private sector to the public sector. Some people on here think we need less government, and some believe we need more government. Once we make these policy decisions, there's an appropriate level of taxes which allows us to have the right sized deficits. These deficits then permit us to have an adequate amount of net savings to offset any pension requirements and reach full employment. This all boils down to political decisions in the end. The path to growth and prosperity in this country is between our ears. We no have no shortage of any real resources in the United States.

Here is your advice for today:

Never make eye-contact when eating a banana.

Here's some advice for the rest of your life: don't engage in discussions about subject matter where your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see. You haven't demonstrated any knowledge about basic monetary operations, labor markets, or macroeconomics. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but you should at least pretend to have some cursory knowledge about economics, finance, and accounting. I don't care if you cut/paste some garbage from CATO, the WSJ, FOX, etc. At least give me a challenge...

For example, I've had disagreements with Toro, JimmieD, Oldfart, and Norman, but at least they have extensive knowledge about the subject matter at hand. They don't cut/paste nonsense, hurl insults as a primary mode of debate, and then pretend that they're above answering questions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It depends. Deficits can be too large or too small, the goal is for the government to get them just right as to employ any and all productive capacity. Deficits are inherently residual, you'll see if the budget deficit was big enough by counting how many bodies are on the unemployment line.

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it comes down to policy. What resources do we want to shift from the private sector to the public sector. Some people on here think we need less government, and some believe we need more government. Once we make these policy decisions, there's an appropriate level of taxes which allows us to have the right sized deficits. These deficits then permit us to have an adequate amount of net savings to offset any pension requirements and reach full employment. This all boils down to political decisions in the end. The path to growth and prosperity in this country is between our ears. We no have no shortage of any real resources in the United States.

Here is your advice for today:

Never make eye-contact when eating a banana.

Here's some advice for the rest of your life: don't engage in discussions about subject matter where your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see. You haven't demonstrated any knowledge about basic monetary operations, labor markets, or macroeconomics. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but you should at least pretend to have some cursory knowledge about economics, finance, and accounting. I don't care if you cut/paste some garbage from CATO, the WSJ, FOX, etc. At least give me a challenge...

For example, I've had disagreements with Toro, JimmieD, Oldfart, and Norman, but at least they have extensive knowledge about the subject matter at hand. They don't cut/paste nonsense, hurl insults as a primary mode of debate, and then pretend that they're above answering questions.

So....you claim that debt is not a problem?


..... your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see.

 

[Kimura]

Here is your advice for today:

Never make eye-contact when eating a banana.

Here's some advice for the rest of your life: don't engage in discussions about subject matter where your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see. You haven't demonstrated any knowledge about basic monetary operations, labor markets, or macroeconomics. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but you should at least pretend to have some cursory knowledge about economics, finance, and accounting. I don't care if you cut/paste some garbage from CATO, the WSJ, FOX, etc. At least give me a challenge...

For example, I've had disagreements with Toro, JimmieD, Oldfart, and Norman, but at least they have extensive knowledge about the subject matter at hand. They don't cut/paste nonsense, hurl insults as a primary mode of debate, and then pretend that they're above answering questions.

So....you claim that debt is not a problem?


..... your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see.

How is public debt a problem for the US? Explain to me, operationally, how servicing debt can be a problem. The floor is yours....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's some advice for the rest of your life: don't engage in discussions about subject matter where your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see. You haven't demonstrated any knowledge about basic monetary operations, labor markets, or macroeconomics. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but you should at least pretend to have some cursory knowledge about economics, finance, and accounting. I don't care if you cut/paste some garbage from CATO, the WSJ, FOX, etc. At least give me a challenge...

For example, I've had disagreements with Toro, JimmieD, Oldfart, and Norman, but at least they have extensive knowledge about the subject matter at hand. They don't cut/paste nonsense, hurl insults as a primary mode of debate, and then pretend that they're above answering questions.

So....you claim that debt is not a problem?


..... your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see.

How is public debt a problem for the US? Explain to me, operationally, how servicing debt can be a problem. The floor is yours....

Explained in the OP.



Are you still claiming that debt doesn't matter....or have I caused you to retreat from the absurdity?

 

[Kimura]

So....you claim that debt is not a problem?


..... your ignorance is glaringly obvious for all to see.

How is public debt a problem for the US? Explain to me, operationally, how servicing debt can be a problem. The floor is yours....

Explained in the OP.





Are you still claiming that debt doesn't matter....or have I caused you to retreat from the absurdity?

LOL, so you can't answer the question. Nice attempt to dodge the question.

Again, I'll reiterate, the US will always be able to service its debt. We can't run out of fiat, since the government has the constitutional authority create $$$$ without limit. Obviously, Congress controls the purse strings and controls this ability, but this is the reality of the situation.

The only problem would be inflation, but that shouldn't even be a concern at this point. The FED has been trying to inflate for YEARS and they failed miserably for obvious reasons. At this point in the game, there should be increased spending to increase aggregate demand, which will increase national income. And unlike Obama, the $$$$ shouldn't go finance capital. It should go to infrastructure, health care, R&D, nuclear power, other energy initiatives, rail, education, vocational training programs, etc.

Fiscal policy shouldn't concern itself with decreasing deficits, but rather it's overall effect on public purpose, which is why we provision government in the first place. If we ignore this obvious fact, this is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Any fiscal policy based on deficits/debts (the whole balanced budget cult) ignores real outcomes as they pertain to economic growth, price stability, and employment.

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, deficits don't matter. At All. Period.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How is public debt a problem for the US? Explain to me, operationally, how servicing debt can be a problem. The floor is yours....

Explained in the OP.





Are you still claiming that debt doesn't matter....or have I caused you to retreat from the absurdity?

LOL, so you can't answer the question. Nice attempt to dodge the question.

Again, I'll reiterate, the US will always be able to service its debt. We can't run out of fiat, since the government has the constitutional authority create $$$$ without limit. Obviously, Congress controls the purse strings and controls this ability, but this is the reality of the situation.

The only problem would be inflation, but that shouldn't even be a concern at this point. The FED has been trying to inflate for YEARS and they failed miserably for obvious reasons. At this point in the game, there should be increased spending to increase aggregate demand, which will increase national income. And unlike Obama, the $$$$ shouldn't go finance capital. It should go to infrastructure, health care, R&D, nuclear power, other energy initiatives, rail, education, vocational training programs, etc.

Fiscal policy shouldn't concern itself with decreasing deficits, but rather it's overall effect on public purpose, which is why we provision government in the first place. If we ignore this obvious fact, this is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Any fiscal policy based on deficits/debts (the whole balanced budget cult) ignores real outcomes as they pertain to economic growth, price stability, and employment.

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, deficits don't matter. At All. Period.

Yes or no: does the amount of debt matter?


C'mon....stick to your original claim.




Yes......or no.

 

[Kimura]

Explained in the OP.





Are you still claiming that debt doesn't matter....or have I caused you to retreat from the absurdity?

LOL, so you can't answer the question. Nice attempt to dodge the question.

Again, I'll reiterate, the US will always be able to service its debt. We can't run out of fiat, since the government has the constitutional authority create $$$$ without limit. Obviously, Congress controls the purse strings and controls this ability, but this is the reality of the situation.

The only problem would be inflation, but that shouldn't even be a concern at this point. The FED has been trying to inflate for YEARS and they failed miserably for obvious reasons. At this point in the game, there should be increased spending to increase aggregate demand, which will increase national income. And unlike Obama, the $$$$ shouldn't go finance capital. It should go to infrastructure, health care, R&D, nuclear power, other energy initiatives, rail, education, vocational training programs, etc.

Fiscal policy shouldn't concern itself with decreasing deficits, but rather it's overall effect on public purpose, which is why we provision government in the first place. If we ignore this obvious fact, this is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Any fiscal policy based on deficits/debts (the whole balanced budget cult) ignores real outcomes as they pertain to economic growth, price stability, and employment.

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, deficits don't matter. At All. Period.

Yes or no: does the amount of debt matter?


C'mon....stick to your original claim.




Yes......or no.

Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do.

The only risk of budget deficits isn't default or bankruptcy but inflation. However, inflation is a risk with any type of overspending, such as government spending, investments, exports, consumption, etc. It’s not only government.

Again, for the umpteenth time, budget deficits can be too large or too small, but our goal as a country should be to get them just right to employ any and all productive capacity. This is key. Look at our unemployment numbers, this should tell you our current deficit is currently too small. Our goal should be full employment or we’re simply spinning our wheels going forward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL, so you can't answer the question. Nice attempt to dodge the question.

Again, I'll reiterate, the US will always be able to service its debt. We can't run out of fiat, since the government has the constitutional authority create $$$$ without limit. Obviously, Congress controls the purse strings and controls this ability, but this is the reality of the situation.

The only problem would be inflation, but that shouldn't even be a concern at this point. The FED has been trying to inflate for YEARS and they failed miserably for obvious reasons. At this point in the game, there should be increased spending to increase aggregate demand, which will increase national income. And unlike Obama, the $$$$ shouldn't go finance capital. It should go to infrastructure, health care, R&D, nuclear power, other energy initiatives, rail, education, vocational training programs, etc.

Fiscal policy shouldn't concern itself with decreasing deficits, but rather it's overall effect on public purpose, which is why we provision government in the first place. If we ignore this obvious fact, this is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Any fiscal policy based on deficits/debts (the whole balanced budget cult) ignores real outcomes as they pertain to economic growth, price stability, and employment.

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, deficits don't matter. At All. Period.

Yes or no: does the amount of debt matter?


C'mon....stick to your original claim.




Yes......or no.

Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do.

The only risk of budget deficits isn't default or bankruptcy but inflation. However, inflation is a risk with any type of overspending, such as government spending, investments, exports, consumption, etc. It’s not only government.

Again, for the umpteenth time, budget deficits can be too large or too small, but our goal as a country should be to get them just right to employ any and all productive capacity. This is key. Look at our unemployment numbers, this should tell you our current deficit is currently too small. Our goal should be full employment or we’re simply spinning our wheels going forward.

"Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do."


Why....you little weasel!!!!

You're retreating because you saw how much fun I was having dragging you around by your nose ring?????


Despicable!!!



What happened to " ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."



I demand a recount!!







Well, OK then.....I see you changed your mind…

......what did you do with the diaper?

 

[Kimura]

"Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do."


Why....you little weasel!!!!

You're retreating because you saw how much fun I was having dragging you around by your nose ring?????


Despicable!!!

Not really, I'm trying to articulate to you why deficits aren't some evil, but rather a normal part of monetary operations under a fiat system. Money creation should be viewed as nothing more than a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.

What happened to " ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I demand a recount!!

Right. They don't matter in terms of insolvency or other such nonsense. This is what some of the reactionaries go on and on about. It's nutty and has zero basis in reality. But yeah, as I said, replacing 'public debt' with 'national equity' or 'national savings' would be the right thing to do. Those US Treasuries are nothing more than savings accounts at the FED which consist of dollars. They're basically dollar deposits - assets to the non-government and liabilities of the federal government.

Well, OK then.....I see you changed your mind…

......what did you do with the diaper?

I haven't changed my mind. Sometimes you need a jackhammer to swat a fly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do."


Why....you little weasel!!!!

You're retreating because you saw how much fun I was having dragging you around by your nose ring?????


Despicable!!!

Not really, I'm trying to articulate to you why deficits aren't some evil, but rather a normal part of monetary operations under a fiat system. Money creation should be viewed as nothing more than a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.

What happened to " ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I demand a recount!!

Right. They don't matter in terms of insolvency or other such nonsense. This is what some of the reactionaries go on and on about. It's nutty and has zero basis in reality. But yeah, as I said, replacing 'public debt' with 'national equity' or 'national savings' would be the right thing to do. Those US Treasuries are nothing more than savings accounts at the FED which consist of dollars. They're basically dollar deposits - assets to the non-government and liabilities of the federal government.

Well, OK then.....I see you changed your mind…

......what did you do with the diaper?

I haven't changed my mind. Sometimes you need a jackhammer to swat a fly.

"Budget deficits matter .......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I bet that sometimes even you question your sanity....and I bet, sometimes it replies.

 

[Kimura]

"Budget deficits matter but not in the way you believe they do."


Why....you little weasel!!!!

You're retreating because you saw how much fun I was having dragging you around by your nose ring?????


Despicable!!!

Not really, I'm trying to articulate to you why deficits aren't some evil, but rather a normal part of monetary operations under a fiat system. Money creation should be viewed as nothing more than a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.





Right. They don't matter in terms of insolvency or other such nonsense. This is what some of the reactionaries go on and on about. It's nutty and has zero basis in reality. But yeah, as I said, replacing 'public debt' with 'national equity' or 'national savings' would be the right thing to do. Those US Treasuries are nothing more than savings accounts at the FED which consist of dollars. They're basically dollar deposits - assets to the non-government and liabilities of the federal government.

Well, OK then.....I see you changed your mind…

......what did you do with the diaper?

I haven't changed my mind. Sometimes you need a jackhammer to swat a fly.

"Budget deficits matter .......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I bet that sometimes even you question your sanity....and I bet, sometimes it replies.

I just answered your questions. Of course they matter, just not how you think they do, but my goal is to remedy your misunderstanding about the subject matter at hand.

My initial response was a little aggressive, mostly due to the fact that right wing pundits (and even the we-need-more-taxes-on-the-rich progressives) are so grossly misinformed and ignorant, one has to meet fire with fire. What I'm telling you is widely accepted by FED staffers, Treasury staffers, and bond desks around the globe. There's simply a disconnect between reality and our actual policy makers in government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not really, I'm trying to articulate to you why deficits aren't some evil, but rather a normal part of monetary operations under a fiat system. Money creation should be viewed as nothing more than a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.





Right. They don't matter in terms of insolvency or other such nonsense. This is what some of the reactionaries go on and on about. It's nutty and has zero basis in reality. But yeah, as I said, replacing 'public debt' with 'national equity' or 'national savings' would be the right thing to do. Those US Treasuries are nothing more than savings accounts at the FED which consist of dollars. They're basically dollar deposits - assets to the non-government and liabilities of the federal government.



I haven't changed my mind. Sometimes you need a jackhammer to swat a fly.

"Budget deficits matter .......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I bet that sometimes even you question your sanity....and I bet, sometimes it replies.

I just answered your questions. Of course they matter, just not how you think they do, but my goal is to remedy your misunderstanding about the subject matter at hand.

My initial response was a little aggressive, mostly due to the fact that right wing pundits (and even the we-need-more-taxes-on-the-rich progressives) are so grossly misinformed and ignorant, one has to meet fire with fire. What I'm telling you is widely accepted by FED staffers, Treasury staffers, and bond desks around the globe. There's simply a disconnect between reality and our actual policy makers in government.

"Of course they matter,..."



I accept your attempt at recovery.


Never has there been a more salutary closure.




....but this doesn't mean I won't find a way to set you off again in the future.....I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

 

[Kimura]

"Budget deficits matter .......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save."


I bet that sometimes even you question your sanity....and I bet, sometimes it replies.

I just answered your questions. Of course they matter, just not how you think they do, but my goal is to remedy your misunderstanding about the subject matter at hand.

My initial response was a little aggressive, mostly due to the fact that right wing pundits (and even the we-need-more-taxes-on-the-rich progressives) are so grossly misinformed and ignorant, one has to meet fire with fire. What I'm telling you is widely accepted by FED staffers, Treasury staffers, and bond desks around the globe. There's simply a disconnect between reality and our actual policy makers in government.

"Of course they matter,..."



I accept your attempt at recovery.


Never has there been a more salutary closure.




....but this doesn't mean I won't find a way to set you off again in the future.....I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

Yeah, they matter in terms of inflation, that's about it. Private debt expansion is a major problem, not public debt for obvious reasons. Even through the federal government isn't constrained from an operational standpoint, it will issue debt to control overall liquidity effects on the private sector.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just answered your questions. Of course they matter, just not how you think they do, but my goal is to remedy your misunderstanding about the subject matter at hand.

My initial response was a little aggressive, mostly due to the fact that right wing pundits (and even the we-need-more-taxes-on-the-rich progressives) are so grossly misinformed and ignorant, one has to meet fire with fire. What I'm telling you is widely accepted by FED staffers, Treasury staffers, and bond desks around the globe. There's simply a disconnect between reality and our actual policy makers in government.

"Of course they matter,..."



I accept your attempt at recovery.


Never has there been a more salutary closure.




....but this doesn't mean I won't find a way to set you off again in the future.....I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

Yeah, they matter in terms of inflation, that's about it. Private debt expansion is a major problem, not public debt for obvious reasons. Even through the federal government isn't constrained from an operational standpoint, it will issue debt to control overall liquidity effects on the private sector.

Please.....I don't seek agreement from you.

In fact, if we were to agree, I'd feel obliged to review my conclusions.



No....my fun was skewing you, and forcing you to continue espousing what is clearly an insane position.

Cruel....I admit....but it was like 'pay a penny to see the loonies.'

Once you tacked toward reality it was no longer enjoyable....I'll have to find another victi...er, individual.

 

[Kimura]

By the way, unemployment is a direct consequence of net government spending being insufficient. In terms of accounting, for example, in order for aggregate output to get sold, total spending must be the same as total income (even if income that is generated through production is spent or sits on the sidelines). Unemployment is labor being idle and not being able to source a buyer at the prevailing wage. If there isn’t sufficient government spending, unemployment will increase in the private sector (in the aggregate) as the private sector spends less money than it earns so to speak. Any decreases in nominal or real wages simply will not act as a clearing mechanism in the labor market, barring they somehow remove the private sector’s desire to net save and spend more $$$$. Unemployment is a manifestation of net government spending being too small to meet the requirements to net save and pay taxes.