Does the size of the national debt really matter?

[freedombecki]

please cut the liberal evasion BS and tell us exactly why it doesn't matter if the debt is $16 or $32 trillion or admit you lack the IQ to do so.

You're an arrogant asshole and ill deserving of a civil response.

For others let me state what I wrote above. I would rather see the government spent its fiscal resources on needed services and projects, then to service the debt. I didn't write it doesn't matter if the debt is $16 or $32 trillion dollars, that comment is simply a lie.

We cannot satisfy the debt in a year or a decade. What we need to do is reduce the deficit but do so in a way which does not Rob Peter (state and local government) to pay the Koch Brothers.

I don't know. Public employee's make far more than folks do in similar positions in the private sector. What was that Alameda City manager pulling down 400K...for life? Battalion chiefs pulling down 300K, hell the kiosk workers at the toll booths make over 60 when you take into account their benefits. All without a college education. Bart employees start at around 100K and most of their work can be done by computers.

I think public employees for the most part are being grossly overpaid in the Bay area.

It's how Democrats grow government and get re-elected to grow some more. When this generation retires, the next generation not only has a $16 trillion debt to repay, they're going to have their hands full with 20% of the population employed and 80% on government payouts. They're turning us into fricken EU. It's a Ponzi scheme government "for the people" that actually will fall like parasites do when the host dies. The quick and easy meal becomes its tomb.

 

[oldfart]

although the most dramatic version of the RR stylised fact has not survived, even HAP confirm that the RR cross-country database does show that higher public debt ratios are usually associated with lower GDP growth rates. This is a standard result from macro-economics, which has been established over long periods in many other studies. No surprise there.

How much of Reinhart/Rogoff has survived? | Gavyn Davies

So, even though the 90% threshold has probably been discredited - the level at which R&R contend growth drops significantly once it is reached - it still holds that higher amounts of debt lead to lower growth.

Actually just about everything R--R wrote has been discredited, including the direction of causality. Their latest defense is that they never said that large debt-to-GDP ratios CAUSED slower growth, which is pretty rich, because that was the entire purpose of the exercise! The one study to date to test this indicates that low growth causes debt to rise, which comports much more with economic theory, historical records. and common sense.

Pray tell, exactly what economic proposition do you see as surviving out of this intellectually dishonest train wreck? And here I thought WMD was the apex of lying hubris.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There are times I think he had a stroke. He used to make thought provoking posts, even if I disagreed with him, now all I see is drooling behind the screen.

Unlike Obama I realized long ago the right wing isn't rational or informed. I post what I believe and people like you respond with personal attacks. There are sound arguments for fiscal discipline but you and those on the right take the dogmatic approach - all spending and taxes are evil (that's a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit).

Well, conservatives love military spending, and wasting treasure on illegal wars.

And they don’t have a problem with taxes, either, provided the rich aren’t paying them.

Well, liberals love wasteful spending, and wasting treasure on illegal wars.

And they don’t have a problem with taxes, either, provided the half their voting base aren’t paying them



damn, Two easy

 

[Toro]

although the most dramatic version of the RR stylised fact has not survived, even HAP confirm that the RR cross-country database does show that higher public debt ratios are usually associated with lower GDP growth rates. This is a standard result from macro-economics, which has been established over long periods in many other studies. No surprise there.

How much of Reinhart/Rogoff has survived? | Gavyn Davies

So, even though the 90% threshold has probably been discredited - the level at which R&R contend growth drops significantly once it is reached - it still holds that higher amounts of debt lead to lower growth.

Actually just about everything R--R wrote has been discredited, including the direction of causality. Their latest defense is that they never said that large debt-to-GDP ratios CAUSED slower growth, which is pretty rich, because that was the entire purpose of the exercise! The one study to date to test this indicates that low growth causes debt to rise, which comports much more with economic theory, historical records. and common sense.

Pray tell, exactly what economic proposition do you see as surviving out of this intellectually dishonest train wreck? And here I thought WMD was the apex of lying hubris.

Actually, everything RR have written have most definitely NOT been discredited. If you've read their work on what happens after an asset bubble collapses - which most of these bozo economists and their general equilibrium models were blithely unaware was about to happen - they've pretty much nailed the course of the US economy post 2007.

 

[jasonnfree]

It is commonly thought that the huge debt is a drag on the economy, Paul Ryan and the GOP have adopted this putative as a basis to attack Obama, toss Bush II under the bus and impede efforts to create jobs, stimulate the economy and repair, replace and renovate our aging infrastructure.

What if Ryan and the GOP are wrong?

See:

How a student took on eminent economists on debt issue - and won

The debt certainly seems to matter to republicans when a democrat is president. When their guy is in like bush or that other half wit reagan? Full steam ahead and spend spend spend even if you have to murder hundreds of thousands of muslims. Don't matter to these right to lifers when their guy is in the white house.

 

[jasonnfree]

Unlike Obama I realized long ago the right wing isn't rational or informed. I post what I believe and people like you respond with personal attacks. There are sound arguments for fiscal discipline but you and those on the right take the dogmatic approach - all spending and taxes are evil (that's a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit).

Well, conservatives love military spending, and wasting treasure on illegal wars.

And they don’t have a problem with taxes, either, provided the rich aren’t paying them.

Well, liberals love wasteful spending, and wasting treasure on illegal wars.

And they don’t have a problem with taxes, either, provided the half their voting base aren’t paying them



damn, Two easy

Who's talking about illegal wars after Iraq?

 

[oldfart]

Actually, everything RR have written have most definitely NOT been discredited. If you've read their work on what happens after an asset bubble collapses - which most of these bozo economists and their general equilibrium models were blithely unaware was about to happen - they've pretty much nailed the course of the US economy post 2007.

Actually I haven't read anything by Reinhart or Rogoff (except for one paper by Rogoff) prior to the 2010 paper. I understand the book was better regarded. Lots of folks got the post 2007 period correct, most of whom are now appalled by R--R's methodology, initial unwillingness to answer questions about their database construction, and ridiculous attempts to deny responsibility.

Your adhominems about "bozo economists" do not reflect well on your character or knowledge. And Walras would be ashamed of you. Don't bother looking the name up; I'm sure from the way you throw around technical terms you don't have clue.

Of course, you never bothered to answer my challenge. Apparently you cannot think of a single idea put forth in the 2010 article which is now supportable. Try again when you grow up. Next?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. What we need to do is reduce the deficit but do so in a way which does not Rob Peter (state and local government) to pay the Koch Brothers.

Well then you must be a libertarian Republican since Obama is projecting $500 billion deficits for the next 10 years which is very much in keeping with his liberal/communist philosophy!

Always remember, the more soviet Solyndra liberal bureaucrats spend the slower our economy will be!! Why? Because bureaucrats don't invent new products that grow the economy they merely waste our money!!

Over your head??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The debt certainly seems to matter to republicans when a democrat is president. When their guy is in like bush or that other half wit reagan? Full steam ahead and spend spend spend even if you have to murder hundreds of thousands of muslims. Don't matter to these right to lifers when their guy is in the white house.

Bush is not a libertarian Republican like Rand Paul or Ron Paul. Their philosophy compels them to cut the budget if there is enough support to do it, which usually there is not.

Democrats have a philosophy to increase spending and usually they can do it because there is enough support.

Is a liberal too slow to know which party is for cuts and which party would impliment cuts if there was enough support!!

also, to get really over your head, Republicans are generally not for military cuts becuase the military is necessary to protect the limited government utopia conservative libertarians want to create.

NOw you're really lost- right. I'm afraid it is a liberals only fate.

 

[Toro]

Actually, everything RR have written have most definitely NOT been discredited. If you've read their work on what happens after an asset bubble collapses - which most of these bozo economists and their general equilibrium models were blithely unaware was about to happen - they've pretty much nailed the course of the US economy post 2007.

Actually I haven't read anything by Reinhart or Rogoff (except for one paper by Rogoff) prior to the 2010 paper. I understand the book was better regarded. Lots of folks got the post 2007 period correct, most of whom are now appalled by R--R's methodology, initial unwillingness to answer questions about their database construction, and ridiculous attempts to deny responsibility.

Your adhominems about "bozo economists" do not reflect well on your character or knowledge. And Walras would be ashamed of you. Don't bother looking the name up; I'm sure from the way you throw around technical terms you don't have clue.

Of course, you never bothered to answer my challenge. Apparently you cannot think of a single idea put forth in the 2010 article which is now supportable. Try again when you grow up. Next?

"Lots of folks got the post 2007 period correct?" Who exactly? Greenspan has said in defense of the Fed totally missing the build up to the Financial Crisis that nobody came into the Fed to present the argument that the financial system was in trouble. The Bernank said high home prices reflected strong housing fundamentals at Humphrey-Hawkins. There were very few economists who had any idea what was coming, or that the financial system was even on a precipice. There were a few, but not many. The problem with the economic profession - particularly the academics - is that they make assumptions about human behavior in models that don't often hold in the tails. In many if not most general equilibrium models, asset prices don't matter much, and the composition of the balance sheet is pretty much irrelevant - i.e. the assumption that assets and liabilities balance out and trend towards equilibrium, which is true most of the time, but is patently false in the tails. In fairness, neither did most investors. I was at Berkshire Hathaway's AGM in 2007 when Buffett said he thought losses would be contained to the subprime market. We got pitched a lot on buying equity swaps backed by shit "AAA" subprime CDOs, and turned down every one. But everyone who pitched us said the same thing - home prices don't go down, but even if they do - like maybe 5% - the structures were sound. What crap. Most people bought that hook, line and sinker, including the "bozo economists." I do this for a living, and I rarely have ever made money listening to economists, except for a few, including RR.

As for the RR paper, I'm not defending it. That high debt is a function of slow growth and not the other way around is perfectly valid. But the idea that at some point, high debt never effects growth is asinine. That's true for an individual, a business and a country. There is no magic number - New Zealand hit a wall with 75% debt - but if you truly don't believe that debt doesn't effect growth, walk the talk and write long-dated puts on 30 year JGBs. I'll take the other side of that trade.

And for Walras, I studied him some time ago when I took a class in the History of Economic Thought. Forgot most of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Apparently you cannot think of a single idea put forth in the 2010 article which is now supportable. Try again when you grow up. Next?

In any case the corrected data show that growth is half what it might be (4.2 % versus 2.1%) be if debt goes from 30% of GDP to 90%!!

Simeon Djankov: "The evidence is to the contrary. The European Union economies that have experienced the highest growth in the past three years—Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden—all take austerity seriously. The European Commission's Winter 2013 forecast shows a similar trend. The five fastest-growing economies in Europe are projected to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania—all fiscal hawks."

 

[007]

I bet WC's personal balance sheet is horrifying...50 maxed out credit cards because Debt Doesn't Matter.

You'd lose that bet. Suffice it to say both my wife and I have credit scores in the 800's.

Of course we have no way to verify that claim, and you have no way to prove it, aside from actually divulging personal information.

But even if you did have credit scores in the 800's, why bother if you don't believe debt matters? Just run up your debt and the hell with your credit score. obama got our nations downgraded. Who cares, right, doesn't matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I bet WC's personal balance sheet is horrifying...50 maxed out credit cards because Debt Doesn't Matter.

You'd lose that bet. Suffice it to say both my wife and I have credit scores in the 800's.

Of course we have no way to verify that claim, and you have no way to prove it, aside from actually divulging personal information.

But even if you did have credit scores in the 800's, why bother if you don't believe debt matters? Just run up your debt and the hell with your credit score. obama got our nations downgraded. Who cares, right, doesn't matter.

yes !! we had Barry's idiotic $789 billion stimulus, the huge housing bubble stimulus, and 20 consecutive years of deficit stimulus to get into the world's worst recession and liberals want more stimulus????

How could that possible help?????

Can anyone say what the theory is or do all liberals lack the IQ to state the theory they support that doesn't exist???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is commonly thought that the huge debt is a drag on the economy, Paul Ryan and the GOP have adopted this putative as a basis to attack Obama, toss Bush II under the bus and impede efforts to create jobs, stimulate the economy and repair, replace and renovate our aging infrastructure.

What if Ryan and the GOP are wrong?

See:

How a student took on eminent economists on debt issue - and won

The debt certainly seems to matter to republicans when a democrat is president. When their guy is in like bush or that other half wit reagan? Full steam ahead and spend spend spend even if you have to murder hundreds of thousands of muslims. Don't matter to these right to lifers when their guy is in the white house.

No, it matters all the time. Bush spent way too much.
Obama makes Bush look like a skin flint.
Please continue with your whining.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Full steam ahead and spend spend spend

Jason is only person on earth who doesn't know that Republicans sign the pledge, not Democrats.

 

[oldfart]

"Lots of folks got the post 2007 period correct?" Who exactly?

I assume you are being cute. Just admit that you do not keep up with the economics literature and we'll let it rest at that.

I do this for a living, and I rarely have ever made money listening to economists, except for a few, including RR.

That's right, you don't do economics for a living; neither do I anymore. I try to keep current but I understand that your field is financial and you have no interest beyond that.

As for the RR paper, I'm not defending it.

Excuse me? Then why the **** are you arguing with me about it?

And for Walras, I studied him some time ago when I took a class in the History of Economic Thought. Forgot most of it.

That is painfully obvious. Don't slam entire branches of economics which you are unfamiliar with.
You do realize you have lost an argument when you abandon your original positions and claim ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I try to keep current

too stupid!! If so then try to tell us how a liberal stimulus helps the economy rather than hurts it or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[oldfart]

I try to keep current

too stupid!! If so then try to tell us how a liberal stimulus helps the economy rather than hurts it or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, if you really don't have anything to say, crawl back under your rock.

 

[Toro]

Just admit that you do not keep up with the economics literature and we'll let it rest at that.

Actually just about everything R--R wrote has been discredited,

Actually, everything RR have written have most definitely NOT been discredited. If you've read their work on what happens after an asset bubble collapses - which most of these bozo economists and their general equilibrium models were blithely unaware was about to happen - they've pretty much nailed the course of the US economy post 2007.

Actually I haven't read anything by Reinhart or Rogoff (except for one paper by Rogoff) prior to the 2010 paper.

Outstanding.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I try to keep current

too stupid!! If so then try to tell us how a liberal stimulus helps the economy rather than hurts it or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, if you really don't have anything to say, crawl back under your rock.

Gee, Krugman has plenty to say about it; I wonder why you are so afraid to talk about it?? What does that tell us about the liberals character and IQ? It's so much easier to stick to trivia isn't it?