Support NeoGAF

[Veezy]

I agree we should take care of each other. I think everyone agrees. Do you feel like you are more compassionate and a better person than the person next to you? Probably no more than that person thinks of his/herself over you.

I think Ron Paul agrees with you also. That's the main source of RP's belief system. The idea that we can and will take care of each other, without the need for government force. Mankind by nature resists tyranny, force, etc. whatever you want to call it. People naturally don't want to be told "give this person $5, or else." It creates a disconnect between the giver and the receiver.

However if that same person said, "please give me $5, I can't feed myself or my family otherwise", the giver would be far more likely to give that $5 and feel better about himself for doing so. Likewise, the receiver would be more appreciative knowing that that person gave it for no other reason than compassion or sympathy.

That's what bothers me most about people hating on RP and/or libertarians is this main misunderstanding. It's not 'every man for himself'. It's the complete opposite.

No, it's not exactly the completely opposite. It is quite close to 'every man for himself,' as a matter of fact.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, they say. While I will be the first to agree that government programs can cause issues, we can control those issues. Being a Republic, we can elect officials in place that can adjust and tweak programs for the poor/disabled/etc. to make them more efficient and sustainable.

Ron Paul, well Libertarians in general, believe that the government has no role in compassion. No responsibility in taking care of the less fortunate. Seriously, health care for all isn't on the agenda. Let him die, they screamed with little rebuttal from the ever wise Dr. Paul. These people live in a fantasy world where non profit organizations will have the tools and ability to take care of the poor and if the government would just get out of the way, they could do there job. A world were, if there was no program in place, everybody would just up and find a job! Pluck it right out of the job tree down on the job tree farm where an infinite amount of jobs grow!

However, that's just not true. The super rich are richer than they have ever been in the history of our country, yet there's no sign that the increase of wealth for the few and the reduction of programs for the less fortunate has fixed anything. So, yes, I believe that I'm a more compassionate and caring person because I believe that everybody should chip in to help everybody because, that way, everybody does a little bit better and making it a government program establishes a guarantee and oversight you couldn't get in a non profit. Maybe not a better person, I shouldn't say that, but a more realistic one.

While Libertarians may not believe that every man is an island, they sure as hell don't have a contingency plan when society can't address a problem on their own besides "the free market with fix it." And that's just not true.

 

[KHarvey16]

The US dollar is seen as the world currency. That's the currency arbitragers retreat to when there's turbulence in financial markets. It is a huge problem to the US if the rest of the world stops seeing the US dollar as the safest currency in the world. This might be because there are concerns they can’t pay back the debt or might default. It’s not realistic to assume that this will be the case at the moment but it could very well be an issue going forward if you keep piling on debt at a staggering rate.

Secondly there is an issue that servicing the interest on those debt obligations might have to come from future generations. Not a huge concern because interest rates are negligible at current but they will be required to stay low for the duration of this massive debt burden. Low interest rates have their own set of problems such as disincentivising foreign investment and thrift.

Investors' thoughts on the safety of the currency and those interest rates are related. Interest rates are miniscule because everyone thinks the dollar is the safest investment around. If interests rates rise to the point servicing the debt would be a problem, that would mean the economy has been recovered for a good amount of time and paying the debt is trivial.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

We can't be Greece, Ireland or any other EU country because the US owns its own debt and are the makers of the dollar.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think the debt to GDP ratio is trending in a dangerous direction. Its now over 100%
I think if that ratio keeps rising to Greece/Japan levels we could be in for similar debt crisis situations

Is that alarmist? I don't think it is.
I'd love to see that ratio drop back down to sustainable levels.

We can never be in a debt crisis similar to Greece or Japan. That is not merely my opinion. The fact you think we can speaks to the horrendous quality of the information you're receiving.

 

[Poker360]

You listed the national debt and made an unsupported assertion about an organization you no doubt understand little. Why does the first paragraph support the second? What does the debt matter? Explain. Don't give me the "oh it's obvious and if you don't get it I won't explain..." nonsense. Go over why the debt needs to be addressed right now or why, if not, we'll all suffer.

From the founding of the nation until Sep 7, 2008, National debt was 10.2 trillion.

In the 4 years of the Obama presidency, the deficit has exceed over a trillion each year. Debt is now over 16 trillion.

Politician's are too focused on being re elected, instead of being responsible. We need to go off this fiscal cliff they are talking about, raise taxes and reduce spending. This is the only way we will pay off our debt. Yeah, we will go into a recession again.... But someone has to be responsible and do what is good for the long term.

The continuous rise of the national debt will eventually destroy the economy. It will drive up interest rates, reduce investment, and harm future growth.

What happens when the countries we borrow from fear that we will default on our loans and borrowing?
Our nation's wealth is put on a credit card.... it is based on something we DO NOT have.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

We can never be in a debt crisis similar to Greece or Japan. That is not merely my opinion. The fact you think we can speaks to the horrendous quality of the information you're receiving.

Thank you, fact man.
Your way of thinking is the only right way.

The US can print and spend money forever with no ill effects. Got it.

16 trillion in debt?
MAKE IT 160 TRILLION!

102% Debt to GDP?
MAKE IT 500%

I think you're wrong. It's okay that I think that.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

From the founding of the nation until Sep 7, 2008, National debt was 10.2 trillion.

In the 4 years of the Obama presidency, the deficit has exceed over a trillion each year. Debt is now over 16 trillion.

Politician's are too focused on being re elected, instead of being responsible. We need to go off this fiscal cliff they are talking about, raise taxes and reduce spending. This is the only way we will pay off our debt.

The continuous rise of the national debt will eventually destroy the economy. It will drive up interest rates, reduce investment, and harm future growth.

What happens when the countries we borrow from fear that we will default on our loans and borrowing?
Our nation's wealth is put on a credit card.... it is based on something we DO NOT have.

That's not how deficit spending works. We borrow on the promise to pay ourselves and because of the Fed it can eliminate the debt at will. It doesn;t because it's economically beneficial to be in debt.
Deficit explained.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Can you procure the inflation data for me to see? How effective has quantitative easing been? There must be data for that as well. If you have let me see it, if not I will do some research myself. Regardless, I don't think its a stretch to believe a 16 trillion dollar debt deficit is frightening and deserves discussion.

Edit: And quantitative easy is an instrument for controlling inflation, so I don't understand your point of stagflation in the 70s. In other words, how are we any safer controlling inflation with quantitative easing today, than we were with different methods of inflation control that led to stagflation in the 70s?

If you want to discuss it then discuss it. WHY is 16 billion dollars in debt worrisome? You have to give us reasons why in order to explain it. And why is a strong dollar desirable in your mind with a weak economy? You keep talking about a weak dollar but you want a strong dollar that makes our goods much less competitive when sales are sluggish? How is this beneficial to you?

From the founding of the nation until Sep 7, 2008, National debt was 10.2 trillion.

In the 4 years of the Obama presidency, the deficit has exceed over a trillion each year. Debt is now over 16 trillion.

Politician's are too focused on being re elected, instead of being responsible. We need to go off this fiscal cliff they are talking about, raise taxes and reduce spending. This is the only way we will pay off our debt. Yeah, we will go into a recession again.... But someone has to be responsible and do what is good for the long term.

The continuous rise of the national debt will eventually destroy the economy. It will drive up interest rates, reduce investment, and harm future growth.

What happens when the countries we borrow from fear that we will default on our loans and borrowing?
Our nation's wealth is put on a credit card.... it is based on something we DO NOT have.

LOL, you have no clue about anything if you think spending by the government is like putting charges on a credit card. It really can't be any further from the truth than that. And what interest rates going up, reducing investment, etc., where are the signs that this is even close to happening? Investment in US bonds INCREASED when they were downgraded by the rating agencies. This shows a lack confidence to you?

 

[KHarvey16]

The continuous rise of the national debt will eventually destroy the economy. It will drive up interest rates, reduce investment, and harm future growth.

No it won't.

What happens when the countries we borrow from fear that we will default on our loans and borrowing?

When? What about if? And second of all the largest holder of debt in the US is the US.

Our nation's wealth is put on a credit card.... it is based on something we DO NOT have.

Also wrong.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Schiff and Paul are both economics morons

That's a bit much. Paul certainly overtalks his actual understanding of economics, and Schiff is just an asshole. But the microeconomic principals of self-interest and praxeology are obviously pretty well-established and almost universally accepted (as far as I can tell), and I would assume that is what most "casual" economics observers latch onto.

Now when you get into the Fed, fiat money, macro stuff like that, it gets a little muddier.

 

[Veezy]

Thank you, fact man.
Your way of thinking is the only right way.

The US can print and spend money forever with no ill effects. Got it.

Well not forever. That's hyperbolic and not how the government functions.

Factually, we cannot end up the same way as Japan or Greece. This isn't up for debate. Now, the reality of a financial melt down is up for debate, but it will not happen the same way Greece did.

 

[KHarvey16]

Thank you, fact man.
Your way of thinking is the only right way.

The US can print and spend money forever with no ill effects. Got it.

16 trillion in debt?
MAKE IT 160 TRILLION!

102% Debt to GDP?
MAKE IT 500%

I think you're wrong. It's okay that I think that.

Why? Why is it wrong? Explain how having debt payable in the currency we control suddenly becomes a huge problem.

 

[RustyNails]

Ron Paul is such a kooky guy. And I'll always love him. He asks one of the most important questions in modern US politics 'why is criticizing AIPAC a political suicide', and in the same breath asks 'Why is drinking raw milk prohibited by the federal government'.

C'mon, even if you're a stone cold apathetic political cynic, you must admit that is funny.

 

[seanoff]

I won't get into domestic fiscal policy since the GAFMIND disagrees. It would be pointless.
I respectfully disagree having been persuaded by Schiff and Paul.

Well you should do your own research on economics and not pander to your own preconceptions.

much of what they preach is so inherently incorrect as to be dangerous.

take the use of gold since he brought it up. Gold is a internationally tradable commodity and as such it's value is constantly subject to change and those changes can be manipulated by bigger players in the market.

so for people selling, the value of the what they get in gold may or may not be the value of the item they are selling. and that value is constantly fluctuating. the uncertainty will add to the price as people price in the risk.

for people buying, same thing. go to bank take out 3 bars of gold to buy house, gold price falls overnight, house is now worth 4 bars. too much risk.

the US doesn't operate in a vacuum where it can just set a price on gold and have that as THE price giving the market certainty. Markets really really really hate uncertainty, they do not operate well with uncertainty and they'd really operate badly if that uncertainty was extended to the value of the instruments being traded.

so currency. it's really the only way.

 

[Poker360]

No it won't.



When? What about if? And second of all the largest holder of debt in the US is the US.



Also wrong.

Have you studied economics?

 

[Arksy]

Thank you. Most of the time the argument just seems to boil down to "the debt is bad because the debt is bad, m'kay"

Debt isn't bad in and of itself. I haven't read much from serious Austrian economists or libertarian thinkers that espouses arguments like that but I do see it expressed fairly often in modern media. Debt is fine as long as the government is able to service the payments on that debt including the interest. In the case of most countries it is bad because they're simply not the economic powerhouse that the U.S is and therefore has been known to spiral out of control requiring bailouts severe cuts in order to try to manage it. (See: Europe) - I'd like to say again that the U.S and Europe are worlds apart because the US is the financial centre of the world and is seen to have the safest currency. Losing that would be a huge blow.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Thank you, fact man.
Your way of thinking is the only right way.

The US can print and spend money forever with no ill effects. Got it.

16 trillion in debt?
MAKE IT 160 TRILLION!

102% Debt to GDP?
MAKE IT 500%

I think you're wrong. It's okay that I think that.

So you admit you have no argument and are incapable of making an actual point so you post nonsense like your post because that's even in the same ballpark to what he's been saying? I'm glad you admit you don't have a point.

Have you studied economics?

Have you? Your credit card comment shows you're pretty ignorant about economics yourself.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

Why? Why is it wrong? Explain how having debt payable in the currency we control suddenly becomes a huge problem.

The "You are wrong I am right" responses with no information are obnoxious.
This is why I didn't want to talk anymore in this thread.
Enjoy your social disorder.

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

Yay!! Hopefully this moronic libertarian fad will kindly piss off too.

 

[RustyNails]

From the founding of the nation until Sep 7, 2008, National debt was 10.2 trillion.

In the 4 years of the Obama presidency, the deficit has exceed over a trillion each year. Debt is now over 16 trillion.

Politician's are too focused on being re elected, instead of being responsible. We need to go off this fiscal cliff they are talking about, raise taxes and reduce spending. This is the only way we will pay off our debt. Yeah, we will go into a recession again.... But someone has to be responsible and do what is good for the long term.

The continuous rise of the national debt will eventually destroy the economy. It will drive up interest rates, reduce investment, and harm future growth.

What happens when the countries we borrow from fear that we will default on our loans and borrowing?
Our nation's wealth is put on a credit card.... it is based on something we DO NOT have.

83% of the debt under Obama was created by George W Bush. Only 14% of the debt now is the result of Obama's policies. And what do you mean by our debt is based on something we do not have?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

That's a bit much. Paul certainly overtalks his actual understanding of economics, and Schiff is just an asshole. But the microeconomic principals of self-interest and praxeology are obviously pretty well-established and almost universally accepted (as far as I can tell), and I would assume that is what most "casual" economics observers latch onto.

Now when you get into the Fed, fiat money, macro stuff like that, it gets a little muddier.

Praxeology is babble.
It's nonsense. It's not based on evidence or uses any scientific method or rigor.
No economic school except Austrians use it and Austrians are the Creationists of economics.
Bring that up at any economics university department and you'll be laughed at.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm

In other words, Austrians get to critique the real world, but the real world is prevented from informing their theories. Even their predictions are "qualitative," not "quantitative" -- meaning they are free to call the government "bad," without being held down to the statistics that would verify this claim.

The Austrian approach to philosophy is a very old one: Rationalism. You have to go back to the 17th and 18th centuries to find when it was last considered a serious philosophical movement. It was widely abandoned after its inadequacies were laid bare by other schools of philosophy: Empiricism, Positivism, and most famously by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Philosophy has progressed tremendously since Rationalism; the Austrian approach is a relic of history.

 

[Poker360]

So you admit you have no argument and are incapable of making an actual point so you post nonsense like your post because that's even in the same ballpark to what he's been saying? I'm glad you admit you don't have a point.



Have you? Your credit card comment shows you're pretty ignorant about economics yourself.

Oh, so we are funding all of these government programs with money we have, or money we're borrowing from China?

 

[Arksy]

Investors' thoughts on the safety of the currency and those interest rates are related. Interest rates are miniscule because everyone thinks the dollar is the safest investment around. If interests rates rise to the point servicing the debt would be a problem, that would mean the economy has been recovered for a good amount of time and paying the debt is trivial.

I agree. Having a low interest rate is ok in the case of the US because their status as the world currency means they can get away with it but I would disagree that it hasn't negatively impacted on the worth of the dollar. The Australian currency has grown very strongly due to our high interest rates despite our low purchasing power parity, to the detriment of the USD value.

Just to give a sense of how investors minds work, every time there's a crisis in Europe, the value of the Aussie dollar drops as investors flee back to the USD. This is despite the fact that the Australian economy barely relies on the European economy at all and is unaffected.

 

[KHarvey16]

Have you studied economics?

Not formally. Thankfully a formal economics education is not required to recognize the glaring flaws in your understanding.

The "You are wrong I am right" responses with no information are obnoxious.
This is why I didn't want to talk anymore in this thread.
Enjoy your social disorder.

I just asked you to explain your position. Why is debt bad? Why is this difficult for you?

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

Oh, so we are funding all of these government programs with money we have, or money we're borrowing from China?

Bit of both, plus money we are borrowing from other countries, but mostly ourselves.

PS: We also funded a 10+ year war in a similar manner. It was not just 'government programs' which I imagine is euphemism for social programs such as not allowing people to starve or die.

 

[Poker360]

Not formally. Thankfully a formal economics education is not required to recognize the glaring flaws in your understanding.



I just asked you to explain your position. Why is debt bad? Why is this difficult for you?

So, why is debt good then?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Oh, so we are funding all of these government programs with money we have, or money we're borrowing from China?

LOL, please, explain how this is like a credit card. Don't change the topic to something else. And do you realize what percentage China owns? You really think ALL of the money is coming from china? What about the huge percentage Japan has that's almost as big as China's? Or do you just hate the chinese? It shows the level of ignorance you have if you think we're just borrowing money from china.

So, why is debt good then?

Again, so you have no argument so you ask a question instead of answering. When has debt been a bad thing?

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Praxeology is babble.
It's nonsense. It's not based on evidence or uses any scientific method.
No economic school except Austrians use it. Austrians are the Creationists of economics.

I suppose I should have said something along the lines of "utility maximization". It's assumed players in a market will make the choices that most directly benefit them. Which is for all intents and purposes, at least in the context of this conversation, identical to praxeological thought. No need to whip out your false comparisons so quickly.

 

[Poker360]

LOL, please, explain how this is like a credit card. Don't change the topic to something else. And do you realize what percentage China owns? You really think ALL of the money is coming from china? What about the huge percentage Japan has that's almost as big as China's? Or do you just hate the chinese? It shows the level of ignorance you have if you think we're just borrowing money from china.

I'm sorry I didn't list every country for you. The credit card comment... I was tempting to make a comparison that came out wrong.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

Not formally. Thankfully a formal economics education is not required to recognize the glaring flaws in your understanding.



I just asked you to explain your position. Why is debt bad? Why is this difficult for you?

You haven't provided any information beyond "You're wrong".

Explain why I am wrong. Explain why a rising debt to GDP ratio is sustainable.
Explain at what point that ratio becomes a problem and why.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I'm sorry I didn't list every country for you.

But why only china? What is so scary about china or selling our bonds to others? Why can't you answer questions and have a discuss you keep claiming you want?

You haven't provided any information beyond "You're wrong".

Explain why I am wrong. Explain why a rising debt to GDP ratio is sustainable.
Explain at what point that ratio becomes a problem and why.

You never studied nor know ANYTHING about economics if you don't even know that there is never an exact number when something becomes a problem. Such an ignorant statement.

 

[Arksy]

Praxeology is babble.
It's nonsense. It's not based on evidence or uses any scientific method or rigor.
No economic school except Austrians use it and Austrians are the Creationists of economics.
Bring that up at any economics university department and you'll be laughed at.

The idea of scientific rigor in economics is somewhat laughable. You can not have an economy without thousands of inputs and any attempt to try to reduce an economy into a scientifically testable form is going to be nigh on impossible as there are simply a staggering amount of confounding variables.

 

[Valnen]

Of all the bizarre and under-formulated attacks I hear, this is probably the dumbest. I hate the disabled because I value personal liberty? The two are completely unrelated. You have no way of knowing if/how much I give to charity, or how much time I may spend directly helping the underprivileged. You have no idea what I do for a living, or what my life situation is, how many of my personal friends/relatives may be disabled. You know nothing about me. To make such a large and quite frankly offending personal statement betrays your lack of actual, rational, non-emotionally charged thoughts.

Your vitriol is getting less and less precise.

Charity isn't good enough to take care of a country. If you support dismantling social programs as most libertarians do, you support forcing people to suffer unnecessarily.

 

[Poker360]

But why only china? What is so scary about china or selling our bonds to others? Why can't you answer questions and have a discuss you keep claiming you want?

Cuz they're communists duh

 

[KHarvey16]

So, why is debt good then?

What?

You haven't provided any information beyond "You're wrong".

Explain why I am wrong. Explain why a rising debt to GDP ratio is sustainable.
Explain at what point that ratio becomes a problem and why.

You're wrong because your understanding of debt and how economies work is flawed. Debt to GDP ratio is fun for measuring things but it doesn't mean we're headed for ruin. You are making claims about what's going to happen. I've asked you to address the burden of proof this position places on you and you've refused to do it.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Cuz they're communists duh

Cool, so you're a troll. Nice discussion, thanks, you really opened up my eyes. After all you're complaining you still refuse to make any points.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

The idea of scientific rigor in economics is somewhat laughable. You can not have an economy without thousands of inputs and any attempt to try to reduce an economy into a scientifically testable form is going to be nigh on impossible as there are simply a staggering amount of confounding variables.

It's a social science, not an exact science. And if you fail to see the importance of the scientific method in social science then well, good luck to ya.

In fact, if we accepted all the tenets of the Austrian School, we would have a second reason why it fails to qualify as science. To be a science, a school must produce theories that are falsifiable -- that is, verifiable. If a theory's correctness or falseness cannot be verified, then it is not science. Perhaps it's religion, or metaphysics, or an unsupported claim. Austrian economists make claims about the market (such as markets know better than governments), but then deny us the tools for verifying those claims (such as statistics). One might ask: how do they know?

Austrians claim to know these things by logic. But although their literature frequently evokes "a priori" knowledge, this term appears to be misused. Humans are not born knowing that "two plus two equals four." It is something they must learn from their environment, namely, school. Forging this learned knowledge into axioms comes later, and then through a process of trial and error. So in this sense, "a priori" knowledge doesn't even exist, unless one refers to a very basic level of knowledge capability, such as the physical construction of the human brain or animal instincts.

Austrians may be using the term "a priori" to mean logical proofs or axioms, such as "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C." But if Austrians were creating economic axioms that were true by logical force, then the Austrian School would become world famous overnight, whether mainstream economists liked it or not. In truth, Austrian journals are not filled with these kinds of axioms. Their arguments are really no more than theories that are guided or tested by logical proofs. Again, that's no different from what religions do. The fact that we have thousands of different religions in the world is remarkable evidence of the fallibility of this method.

Source

 

[Ermc_G6]

I voted for and support ron paul.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

But why only china? What is so scary about china or selling our bonds to others? Why can't you answer questions and have a discuss you keep claiming you want?



You never studied nor know ANYTHING about economics if you don't even know that there is never an exact number when something becomes a problem. Such an ignorant statement.

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

Maybe provide some information instead of "NUH UH! NUH UH! YOU DONT GET IT!".
Jesus fuck, you guys are horrible and social situations.

 

[Poker360]

What?



You're wrong because your understanding of debt and how economies work is flawed. Debt to GDP ratio is fun for measuring things but it doesn't mean we're headed for ruin. You are making claims about what's going to happen. I've asked you to address the burden of proof this position places on you and you've refused to do it.

You kept asking why debt is bad... Why is such a large amount of debt an ok thing?

 

[Veezy]

So, why is debt good then?

Debt is a good thing because it means our government is spending it's currency. Being an import based economy, we need to have the American dollar out in the world. The less American's consume, the less our dollar goes out in the world. The less our dollar is out in the world, the less it's used as an international currency. The less it's used as an international currency the less it's held to back other currencies. The less it's held in other countries means that it's purchasing power around the world decrees, which causes all sorts of other problems.

Basically, America makes money by buying shit, which sounds weird but that's the deal. Somebody from our nation needs to be buying stuff. If we're not buying stuff, it's bad. So, our country runs debt so somebody is buying stuff. Then, when we, the citizens, make more money, we can get taxed more thus removing some of the created dollars out of the system while still allowing our dollar to flow out into the world.

You kept asking why debt is bad... Why is such a large amount of debt an ok thing?

It's not a problem, for now. It could get this way, but that's not going to happen so long as we keep recovering as a nation and keep our dollar out in the world.

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

Maybe provide some information instead of "NUH UH! NUH UH! YOU DONT GET IT!".
Jesus fuck, you guys are horrible and social situations.

Eventually, it could be. It's not, factually, at the moment. And, as a matter of fact, if we do nothing but let all the bush tax cuts go away and get out of Afghanistan we'll have fixed a huge bit of the "problem" if you really care about deficit spending.

Honestly, and this isn't shit talking here, it's not a big deal.

 

[rodvik]

snipped

 

[RDreamer]

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

They won't. Debt and the debt ratio are nothing but scorecards. What matters is inflation, not debt.

It's like the NFL being afraid of the amount of points they've handed out over the years. Like they'll run out or something...

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

So no other country has a ratio over 100%? Why is 100% problematic? How is it different from 99%?

 

[Chumly]

You kept asking why debt is bad... Why is such a large amount of debt an ok thing?

Frankly I think its scary how little you understand of economics. Try not to get too offended but I know there is a lot of other people out there like you which is the scariest part of all.

 

[Arksy]

Just so we're clear. The US government would sooner nuke France than willingly default on its debt obligations.

 

[Technosteve]

The idea of scientific rigor in economics is somewhat laughable. You can not have an economy without thousands of inputs and any attempt to try to reduce an economy into a scientifically testable form is going to be nigh on impossible as there are simply a staggering amount of confounding variables.

...... That's exactly what economists do to model economies, it's true that big things like Keynes stimulus you got to do it to see the effect agrees with the theory, why does the size of the problem become unscientific?

 

[pigeon]

You kept asking why debt is bad... Why is such a large amount of debt an ok thing?

No, that's not how it works. The assumption is not that everything is bad unless we show it's good -- if you think debt is bad you must point to negative consequences caused by it.

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

And a pretty easy one. When we start seeing negative consequences (or even just the run-up to negative consequences) caused by debt, then it'll be an issue. Until then, it won't be. Is it possible for rain to be an issue? Sure, but that doesn't mean every time it rains we should panic. There are metrics to consult to show when we're getting too much rain.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

But I keep hearing that the current debt or ratio isn't a problem.
If 16 trillion in debt and a ratio over 100% aren't an issue, will those things EVER be an issue?

That's an honest question.

If we had a commodity based monetary system, those would be worrying. If inflation and interest rates were high, like if we were to adopt a commodity based currency. If unemployment was high and the government failed to meet the demand for labor because we'd be restricted to a commodity based currency system, it would be worrying.

 

[FroJay]

He raises a few good points though

Correct, but those will be written off because everyone says he is crazy. He does have valid points, it doesn't matter if you agree with all of his points or not. There is validity in plenty of the questions he poses.