undefined | Better HN

0 pointscantankerous12y ago0 comments

I don't think most people are arguing against the negative side effects of massive amounts of debt. The point this really drives home is that the budget theater that has been going on for the past few years is entirely unnecessary.

The reality of the budget drama in Congress is that it's almost entirely about the house majority stymieing any forward momentum by the current administration at just about any cost. This is why Congress has such a low approval rating.

0 comments

sageikosa12y ago

> The point this really drives home is that the budget theater that has been going on for the past few years is entirely unnecessary.

Translation(?): the econometric models used to measure the length of the road were off by a little bit, we have more time to kick the can.

Econometric models are descriptive in any case (they are measuring quantities that are based on the human actions causing those metrics, those metrics are not controlling those behaviors), past performance is no guarantee of future behavior.

jbooth12y ago

It's not just 'more time to kick the can', which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible.

If you trim debt by a little and hurt GDP growth by a little, you wind up with the same ratio you had before. If you trim debt in a way that really hurts GDP, you'll likely increase the debt:GDP ratio.

The original paper implied that we'd wind up in a spiral of shrinking GDP, increasing that ratio, shrinking the GDP more, and so on. But it turns out it was complete bullshit.

crusso12y ago

which still implies that not trimming debt immediately is irresponsible

I don't get it. I was in sync with the Left when they decried George W. Bush's no-veto policy and ballooning of the debt. Now that "their guy" is in the WhiteHouse, they no longer agree that it's irresponsible to set the deficit meter on 11 and walk away like we have been.

Can't we all agree that this guy was totally correct? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

I guess I wouldn't be so against some amount of debt if it looked like we had it under control. It's funny that we're dissecting the results of a study on what 90% debt:GDP would do. Well that was back in 2010, we've blown way past 90%. We're at 107% as of 2012 and climbing.

It's not just about the debt's exact impact at a certain percentage. If it were just that, we could debate it and fine tune it. It's about our Government's complete inability to get it under control.

Maybe 90% Debt:GDP won't hurt too badly, but sooner or later as it rises, it will crater even our economy.

9 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse