Tea Partiers are death on debt, which is why I never pay any attention to them. Life is way too short to listen to ignorant fools.
Economic history, regrettably, is not part of any American school curriculum, and while it is easy -- though time-consuming -- to learn about it on your own, hardly anybody does. So I was pleased to read Paul Krugman's column called "Debt is good" -- with links. Even Krugman, who is a mathematical economist not an economic historian, seems a bit surprised. Nut graf:
In other words, the great debt panic that warped the U.S. political scene from 2010 to 2012, and still dominates economic discussion in Britain and the eurozone, was even more wrongheaded than those of us in the anti-austerity camp realized.And you know what? Trade deficits are good, too. Can be anyway.
It is largely a function of what you do with the imports. Again, Britain is our teacher. Even centuries before the creation of the Bank of England, Britain ran a big trade deficit with the eastern Baltic.
It exported woolen cloth, ironmongery etc. and imported hemp, flex, timber and resin. These were used to build its merchant navy and warships. This deficit was out of balance in one direction -- in favor of the Baltic provinces -- for 500 years.
And after all those deficits, which side was rich and which was poor?
Caveat: For this to work well, you need a popular government that recognizes social responsibilities.
Once again, something the TP gets all wrong.
Tea Partiers are death on debt, which is why I never pay any attention to them. Life is way too short to listen to ignorant fools.
ReplyDeleteJust what is the TP's policy on the national debt? Direct quotes from TP documents would be a good place to start.
That it's -- omg -- $17 trillion and t'sa crisis? We have to slash the debt! omg! omg!
ReplyDeleteThat's a fair summary.
No, it isn't. Although in progworld, maybe the combination of ignorant and and mendacious does constitute fair.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could prove me wrong by doing the obvious, which I suggested in case the obvious wasn't already obvious enough, and provide direct quotes from the TP's policy on the national debt that amount to We have to slash the debt! omg! omg!
Here's my prediction: cricket abuse and supersonic goal posts.
Or dead silence, which is all you could muster in Stiglitz's contribution to progressive ignorance and mendacity.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/Tea-Party-And-Economy.htm
ReplyDeleteThe relevant part says 'eliminate the national debt'
We have to slash the debt! omg! omg! is what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteHere is what they say Eliminate the national debt which creates a burden for the next generation of Americans ...
Your characterization is, to put it very charitably, unfair. And is yet another example of why you, in particular, should directly quote others.
Progressives have put the US on a path to insolvency. I don't know at what multiple of GDP the debt gets unsustainable; I'll bet no one does. Until it happens, that is.
I do think it a very wise goal to get the national debt down to about 30% of GDP. To do that requires a structural surplus and decades.
Since you are such an economic genius, at what point does our debt become unsustainable? Is it easier to avoid that now, or later? How much like Greece do you want to become? Which Krugman do you listen to, the one who caviled about debt, or the one who cavils about austerity?
Debt is only an issue when the Republicans crash the financial system, like in 1929 and 2008. If you have an enormous income you can service an enormous debt.
ReplyDeleteRaise taxes and generate an enormous income. (Just be sure to spend it on useful projects like your own citizens and not pointless wars.) Simple, ain't it?
Debt is only an issue when the Republicans crash the financial system, like in 1929 and 2008 ...
ReplyDeleteYou just keep blowing that Marxist narrative out your hat, don't you? The CRA created mass no-down mortgage loans. Certainly even a Marxist can suss that had to create a huge secondary market, and that, in order to reach CRA goals, high-risk loans had to be mixed with low risk loans. And also that the CRA had to, create a real estate bubble (just like government has created the higher education bubble).
So debt indeed mattered, as did the quality of that debt.
While you are at it, why don't you stop by Illinois and tell them debt doesn't matter? And while you are in the area, pass the word to Detroit.
Raise taxes and generate an enormous income.
You mean like this?
You are revealing your inner Marxist: a looter to the core.
Just be sure to spend it on useful projects ...
You mean like this?
... and not pointless wars.
Remember, null wasn't an alternative. (Although there is apparently no explaining that to a progressive.)
Simple, ain't it?
So simple only a 2 year old could believe it.
For three year olds, and particularly sharp Golden Retrievers: another epic socialism fail.
ReplyDeleteI read your screed about how the war was necessary, but I forget what the point was. Whatever it was -- I don't think there was one tat referred to policy -- it wasn't achieved, because our incompetent leadership lost it, so all the expenditure was a dead loss. Worse than a dead loss, really, since we haven't finished getting all the bills.
ReplyDeleteWe have been over the CRA before. It could not possibly have been a factor, since
it was a uniform national law, yet the real estate crash was not uniform within the US and extended to many places where the law had no effect. Furthermore, the issuers of the majority of the worst loans were not subject to the CRA.
I read your screed about how the war was necessary, but I forget what the point was.
ReplyDeleteThe point was simple: nothing was not an alternative.
Progressives, exemplified the Bill Keller, who wrote the NYT editorial I used as a starting point, are quite fluent at criticizing the war, and absolutely silent about alternative courses of action.
That may be personally satsifying, but it is childish. The alternatives you offerred were few and pathetic.
We have been over the CRA before. ... Furthermore, the issuers of the majority of the worst loans were not subject to the CRA.
And your response this time is as simplistic and evasive as before. You have never addressed the fact that the CRA required a huge secondary market in bundled mortgages. Nor have you addressed the fact that in order for the CRA to work in the first place, high risk loans had to be bundled with low risk loans; otherwise, the CRA would be a complete non-starter.
It is also apparently a mystery to you that the CRA was strengthened over the years, and, oddly for a business reporter, that shoving that much liquidity at the residential real estate was bound to create a bubble.
Finally, there were plenty of people who saw the crash coming, and exactly how it was going to happen.
So, yes, we have been over it before, and every time your response is evasive, off point, ignores the CRA's knock-on effects, all en route to citing irrelevancies.
Explain to me again how CRA worked in Spain.
ReplyDeleteWe were not 'doing nothing' before the pointless war, so no one was advocating that.
By the way, among the people who saw the crash coming was RtO. You can go back and read the first 100 or so posts. They are still on line.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I don't think you will find any clearer published warnings about the crash than RtO.
We were not 'doing nothing' before the pointless war, so no one was advocating that
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point completely, which was that the status quo ante, for a number of reasons, had become untenable. Nothing was not an option, and neither was the status quo.
You can go back and read the first 100 or so posts.
If you don't care enough to provide a link, nor have enough sense to understand how difficult that is to do, then I sure as heck don't care enough to try.
Oh, and the first, clear and direct warnings about the CRA came long before you wrote whatever it might have been.
Explain to me again how CRA worked in Spain.
Why? I'm not talking about Spain, or Iceland, or any of the other irrelevancies you keep trotting out.
What I am talking about, among other things, is that there were certain consequences of the CRA: a huge secondary market in bundled mortgages, the hiding of risk in those bundled mortgages, and a residential real-estate market.
Those, and other things like them, are what matter.
Oh, and for the record, you did grossly mis-represent the TP on the national debt.
Two Former Enron Advisers in One:
ReplyDelete“With war looming, it’s time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits. From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.”—Paul Krugman, New York Times, March 11, 2003
“Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt. I know that may sound crazy. After all, we’ve spent much of the past five or six years in a state of fiscal panic, with all the Very Serious People declaring that we must slash deficits and reduce debt now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you. But the power of the deficit scolds was always a triumph of ideology over evidence.”—Krugman, New York Times, Aug. 21, 2015
'Oh, and for the record, you did grossly mis-represent the TP on the national debt.'
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Tea_Party_Budget_+_Economy.htm
'Oh, and for the record, you did grossly mis-represent the TP on the national debt.'
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Tea_Party_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Oh, but you did.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, that document says nothing substantially different than Former Enron Advisor Krugman has said about the national debt.
Of course, as always, if you can find something that says we have to eliminate the debt immediately (as opposed to deficit spending), or anything that is particularly outrageous, then by all means quote it.
However, all I see is common sense: at some point spending and revenue are going to have to meet, and, all things considered, the sooner the better.
Debt matters. Ask Greece.
Income matters. Debt doesn't.
ReplyDeleteJust to reiterate: [that Tea Party] document says nothing substantially different than Former Enron Advisor Krugman has said about the national debt.
ReplyDeleteIncome matters. Debt doesn't.
Another Harry ThoughStopper.
You assume, without stating, the very unproven fact that debt cannot affect income, and that more government spending will produce more income than the same amount of private spending.
Further, you wish away the oft-proven certainty of socialism: it sooner, rather than later, runs out of other people's money to spend.
[Harry:] You can go back and read the first 100 or so posts.
[Hey Skipper:] If you don't care enough to provide a link, nor have enough sense to understand how difficult that is to do, then I sure as heck don't care enough to try.
Can I take it from the absence of any links that you, in fact, said nothing?