Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
profound. You think that debt is the problem? How about unemployment? Do you have any examples, ever, of the national debt improving while unemployment is high?? Want to lower taxes? (of course you do) Can you show an example of when during times of high unemployment lowering income tax rates helped the economy?? Or, are you simply posting con dogma??Jeremy Grantham agrees with Paul Krugman on Debt and so do many other smart people if you phrase things correctly. After all 'debt' is only an accounting term.
The economy is extremely difficult. The debt, in the long run, is not as significant as people think. How you manage debt is an art form. Whether you do it this year or next year, whether you spread these things out, how high is too high – I have not spent my career on those areas.
I feel – I guess – that it's substantially too high. I guess that you shouldn't try to make it low in a hurry, but you should have a 20-year plan to chip away.
We've gotten ourselves into a bit of a rathole, and we should be careful getting out of it, but it is not the overwhelming thing that will dominate our future.
What it does is it distracts us from the real world. Debt is an accounting world. It's paper. The real world is the quantity and quality of your people and the quantity and quality of your capital spending.
Are you building new machines? Are you being inventive? Are you training your people? Is your high school system delivering the same education that it used to relative to the South Koreans and relative to the Norwegians?
No, it's not.
We should worry more about the real world and less about the paper world. And somehow we're in this death grip that only paper things matter. And so there's much too little attention spent on education, training, capital spending – finding a way to beef it up.
And also, I'd rather stimulate the economy directly through government spending than I would like to play games with the monetary system and games with the interest rate, inflicting great wounds on retirees and so on, and transferring wealth to people who won't spend it.
We're transferring wealth from the poor to the rich by keeping interest rates low. I'm not even sure the economy gains at all by a low interest rate, and furthermore, no one has established convincingly that it's a good idea.
It's a tradition that it's a good idea. And that's not the same. We've had lots of traditions, like that the market would look after itself – that people wouldn't be crooks because economic theory assumes that they're not.
But they often were crooks, and greedy, and short-term oriented, and willing to dance until the music stopped – although, as Soros said, the music had actually stopped long before.
Jeremy Grantham's Charlie Rose Preview - Business Insider
Personally I love it when people make useless rhetorical statments like "Debt is just an accounting item".
"Sun is just a bulb of gas".
"Water is just molecules."
After the author explains how debt is just an accounting item he conrinuwa to imply how desperately there needs to be more of it... Makes sense. That article is absolute trash, it makes no sense at all. For the record all these monetary things are spent on REAL THINGS. Not imagination. Shocker.
1) Try telling that to Apple after buying a $1,500 iMac.
2) When you receive a good or a service from another entity (who used time and resource to provide you with that good or service), it's my opinion that ethically you are obligated to repay that entity under the agreement that was originally outlined.
3) Debt is REAL and someone always will lose out when you fail to repay. I personally don't like to play the part of the scumbag, and do not want to contribute to the idea that our great nation is nothing more than a bunch of cheapskates.
1) We can do dueling examples, but it would be boring
2) Ethics are good. They are not and never have been the foundation of most transactions in modern society.
3) Debt can be and often is written off. Debt as we are discussing it is real on paper. "The debt, in the long run, is not as significant as people think. How you manage debt is an art form" - "What it does is it distracts us from the real world. Debt is an accounting world. It's paper. The real world is the quantity and quality of your people and the quantity and quality of your capital spending." - see post #1 Jeremy Grantham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point is simply that we need to do what we can to pay off our obligations, and that we shouldn't promote the idea that debt isn't real and that it only exists in this imaginary accounting paper world (and can be written off, ect).
You mentioned that debt "distracts us from the real world", but were the things we received in exchange for the debt imaginary?
And, do the folks who exist on the loosing end of the deal (ie China) reside in the real world?
Jeremy Grantham agrees with Paul Krugman on Debt and so do many other smart people if you phrase things correctly. After all 'debt' is only an accounting term.
The economy is extremely difficult. The debt, in the long run, is not as significant as people think. How you manage debt is an art form. Whether you do it this year or next year, whether you spread these things out, how high is too high – I have not spent my career on those areas.
I feel – I guess – that it's substantially too high. I guess that you shouldn't try to make it low in a hurry, but you should have a 20-year plan to chip away.
We've gotten ourselves into a bit of a rathole, and we should be careful getting out of it, but it is not the overwhelming thing that will dominate our future.
What it does is it distracts us from the real world. Debt is an accounting world. It's paper. The real world is the quantity and quality of your people and the quantity and quality of your capital spending.
Are you building new machines? Are you being inventive? Are you training your people? Is your high school system delivering the same education that it used to relative to the South Koreans and relative to the Norwegians?
No, it's not.
We should worry more about the real world and less about the paper world. And somehow we're in this death grip that only paper things matter. And so there's much too little attention spent on education, training, capital spending – finding a way to beef it up.
And also, I'd rather stimulate the economy directly through government spending than I would like to play games with the monetary system and games with the interest rate, inflicting great wounds on retirees and so on, and transferring wealth to people who won't spend it.
We're transferring wealth from the poor to the rich by keeping interest rates low. I'm not even sure the economy gains at all by a low interest rate, and furthermore, no one has established convincingly that it's a good idea.
It's a tradition that it's a good idea. And that's not the same. We've had lots of traditions, like that the market would look after itself – that people wouldn't be crooks because economic theory assumes that they're not.
But they often were crooks, and greedy, and short-term oriented, and willing to dance until the music stopped – although, as Soros said, the music had actually stopped long before.
Jeremy Grantham's Charlie Rose Preview - Business Insider
Think about it for a moment. Paying back people for something they lent you is a matter of integrity. Not sure what you're trying to promote exactly with this statement...
Promote? Reality. All debts carry risk. Assumed risks. Sometimes a bet turns out badly.
dear, not paying a debt is permitted like murder is permitted but with huge huge consequences. The easiest things are over your head!
We want to avoid the consequences of debt!! Got it now????
Jeremy Grantham agrees with Paul Krugman on Debt and so do many other smart people if you phrase things correctly. After all 'debt' is only an accounting term.
The economy is extremely difficult. The debt, in the long run, is not as significant as people think. How you manage debt is an art form. Whether you do it this year or next year, whether you spread these things out, how high is too high I have not spent my career on those areas.
I feel I guess that it's substantially too high. I guess that you shouldn't try to make it low in a hurry, but you should have a 20-year plan to chip away.
We've gotten ourselves into a bit of a rathole, and we should be careful getting out of it, but it is not the overwhelming thing that will dominate our future.
What it does is it distracts us from the real world. Debt is an accounting world. It's paper. The real world is the quantity and quality of your people and the quantity and quality of your capital spending.
Are you building new machines? Are you being inventive? Are you training your people? Is your high school system delivering the same education that it used to relative to the South Koreans and relative to the Norwegians?
No, it's not.
We should worry more about the real world and less about the paper world. And somehow we're in this death grip that only paper things matter. And so there's much too little attention spent on education, training, capital spending finding a way to beef it up.
And also, I'd rather stimulate the economy directly through government spending than I would like to play games with the monetary system and games with the interest rate, inflicting great wounds on retirees and so on, and transferring wealth to people who won't spend it.
We're transferring wealth from the poor to the rich by keeping interest rates low. I'm not even sure the economy gains at all by a low interest rate, and furthermore, no one has established convincingly that it's a good idea.
It's a tradition that it's a good idea. And that's not the same. We've had lots of traditions, like that the market would look after itself that people wouldn't be crooks because economic theory assumes that they're not.
But they often were crooks, and greedy, and short-term oriented, and willing to dance until the music stopped although, as Soros said, the music had actually stopped long before.
Jeremy Grantham's Charlie Rose Preview - Business Insider
what world do you live in? Of course not paying debt is permitted. It happens all the time.
Think about it for a moment. Paying back people for something they lent you is a matter of integrity. Not sure what you're trying to promote exactly with this statement...
This is the point, though. The federal "debt" represents a process whereby the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve system and the Treasury, issues new money in response to economic growth. The ONLY WAY WE CREATE NEW MONEY IS THROUGH DEBT ISSUANCE.
So, no, it isn't at all necessary to repay it. It is only "debt" in the sense that it money we must pay to ourselves at an indeterminant point in the future--if it is convenient, and if we have nothing better to do.
I didn't say debt "distracts us from the real world" Jeremy Grantham did and I agreed with him. You have missed the point of and the full context of the argument made.
Nowhere does anyone say debt should be promoted as unreal as a justification for not paying off what is owed. The context is about how to manage the debt and to not allow the focus on debt to take us away from more demanding issues.
I didn't say debt "distracts us from the real world" Jeremy Grantham did and I agreed with him. You have missed the point of and the full context of the argument made.
Nowhere does anyone say debt should be promoted as unreal as a justification for not paying off what is owed. The context is about how to manage the debt and to not allow the focus on debt to take us away from more demanding issues.
Sorry, I misspoke, he said that an not you. However you agreed with him, so really it's immaterial.
I don't think I missed the point; I think Jeremy Grantham downplays the debt just a bit too much, and do not like how he refers to debt as something other than the "real world".
When you don't get control on your debt, it grows, and eventually very bad things happen. We currently do not have a handle on our debt, so when this guy basically says "ah, we can deal with that later, we can manage it in the future, let's focus on other things", I think that he's setting us up for failure.
$16 Trillion and growing...
I didn't say debt "distracts us from the real world" Jeremy Grantham did and I agreed with him. You have missed the point of and the full context of the argument made.
Nowhere does anyone say debt should be promoted as unreal as a justification for not paying off what is owed. The context is about how to manage the debt and to not allow the focus on debt to take us away from more demanding issues.
Sorry, I misspoke, he said that an not you. However you agreed with him, so really it's immaterial.
I don't think I missed the point; I think Jeremy Grantham downplays the debt just a bit too much, and do not like how he refers to debt as something other than the "real world".
When you don't get control on your debt, it grows, and eventually very bad things happen. We currently do not have a handle on our debt, so when this guy basically says "ah, we can deal with that later, we can manage it in the future, let's focus on other things", I think that he's setting us up for failure.
$16 Trillion and growing...
I didn't say debt "distracts us from the real world" Jeremy Grantham did and I agreed with him. You have missed the point of and the full context of the argument made.
Nowhere does anyone say debt should be promoted as unreal as a justification for not paying off what is owed. The context is about how to manage the debt and to not allow the focus on debt to take us away from more demanding issues.
Sorry, I misspoke, he said that an not you. However you agreed with him, so really it's immaterial.
I don't think I missed the point; I think Jeremy Grantham downplays the debt just a bit too much, and do not like how he refers to debt as something other than the "real world".
When you don't get control on your debt, it grows, and eventually very bad things happen. We currently do not have a handle on our debt, so when this guy basically says "ah, we can deal with that later, we can manage it in the future, let's focus on other things", I think that he's setting us up for failure.
$16 Trillion and growing...
yes its $150K per family. Its exactly like having another mortgage for the average American family. If the average family got a bill every month they would shoot every Democrat on sight! But, the bill is so hidden they don't realize it is being stolen from.
why are you so fucking crazy?We have a handle on our debt.
Ed is actually not crazy. Mentally ill, yes. But it is not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And then, he gets paid to post libertarian dogma. Just what he does. Otherwise he would need an actual job.Sorry, I misspoke, he said that an not you. However you agreed with him, so really it's immaterial.
I don't think I missed the point; I think Jeremy Grantham downplays the debt just a bit too much, and do not like how he refers to debt as something other than the "real world".
When you don't get control on your debt, it grows, and eventually very bad things happen. We currently do not have a handle on our debt, so when this guy basically says "ah, we can deal with that later, we can manage it in the future, let's focus on other things", I think that he's setting us up for failure.
$16 Trillion and growing...
yes its $150K per family. Its exactly like having another mortgage for the average American family. If the average family got a bill every month they would shoot every Democrat on sight! But, the bill is so hidden they don't realize it is being stolen from.
Ed is actually not crazy. Mentally ill, yes. But it is not his fault. Just plain bad luck. And then, he gets paid to post libertarian dogma. Just what he does. Otherwise he would need an actual job.yes its $150K per family. Its exactly like having another mortgage for the average American family. If the average family got a bill every month they would shoot every Democrat on sight! But, the bill is so hidden they don't realize it is being stolen from.
