Would you raise the interest rate on your own mortgage or credit card?

[itfitzme]

Wait a second here, you asked me what the magical mechanism is that makes debt unsustainable, and then berate me for pointing out that math is n't magic?

I was wrong, you make the OP look like Einstein.

Uh, what is the mechanism, Einstein? Cuz your opinion that it isn't just magical thinking in your own mind is meaningless. You have yet to present a) objective evidence b) accounting or c) economic deductive reasoning.

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between some vague feeling you have followed by a vague statement and an actual description of physical reality? Really? Because I am honestly in disbelief if you really don't get the difference.

Like I said, feel free to post an argument that the debt load is not a problem despite the fact that the OMB, the CBO, Obama, the Treasury Department, and every economist not named Krugman, says it is. Asking me to explain the mechanism of that is like asking me to explain the mechanism behind Oxygen.

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Oh, and I can demonstrate Oxygen and Hydrogen production from electrolysis of water. It is part of a larger body of evidence of what oxygen is. In the air, it is O2. O2 is used to oxides other materials, like we see rust. You can see the powerful effect of oxygen and hydrogen combining in the launch of space vessels. I can demonstrate it by that electrolysis experiment. So, basically, you don't know shit.

 

[boedicca]

Really, I honestly am in utter disbelief at the mind-numbing and meaningless opinions lacking in any substance.

Considering that you are spewing most of them, your lack of self-awareness is quite pitiable.

 

[boedicca]

Uh, what is the mechanism, Einstein? Cuz your opinion that it isn't just magical thinking in your own mind is meaningless. You have yet to present a) objective evidence b) accounting or c) economic deductive reasoning.

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between some vague feeling you have followed by a vague statement and an actual description of physical reality? Really? Because I am honestly in disbelief if you really don't get the difference.

Like I said, feel free to post an argument that the debt load is not a problem despite the fact that the OMB, the CBO, Obama, the Treasury Department, and every economist not named Krugman, says it is. Asking me to explain the mechanism of that is like asking me to explain the mechanism behind Oxygen.

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Really? No country has ever been harmed by a sovereign debt crisis?

You are a loon.

 

[itfitzme]

Like I said, feel free to post an argument that the debt load is not a problem despite the fact that the OMB, the CBO, Obama, the Treasury Department, and every economist not named Krugman, says it is. Asking me to explain the mechanism of that is like asking me to explain the mechanism behind Oxygen.

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Really? No country has ever been harmed by a sovereign debt crisis?

You are a loon.

No dude, you have no specifics to demonstrate, either point by point comparison to the US in historical terms, or theoretical deduction.

You are great at using words like "Loon", big fucking deal.

What is the mechanism? Argentina? Germany? What is the mechanism? Printing money to pay the debt? Inflation?

You still can't present anything except some vague bs.

There is not US mechanism except that eventually, we can't borrow more. That sucks. But it is the same as not borrowing more now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one said that the markets won't buy the bonds. They remain the least risky and best long term in-spite of the downgrade. But that doesn't change the point of the increase in perceived risk, increase in rate, and effects on the market.

All you have is your unqualified opinion.

Why should I give a shit about your opinion? Go talk to your mommy.

The interest rate on bonds is going to go up no, the only question is when.

Until you get that fundamental fact through your partisan stupidity, there is no sense even trying to adress your points because you are assuming that the cause is actually the result.

Dude, pointing out that the interest rates fluctuate eventually isn't meaningful. Guess what, they go up and down for multiple causes. So? It doesn't prove anything.

I've been expecting you to post data on the interest rates and the last downgrade and debt limit crisis, showing that they didn't go up. Better yet, went down.

I can tell you that, due to the last debt limit crisis. Somewhere, buried in photobucket, I have a graph that shows the effect of the last debt limit crisis on the stock market. It did have an effect.

So, why should we believe that interest rates won't?

Why would I post data to feed into your delusion that you know what you are talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh, what is the mechanism, Einstein? Cuz your opinion that it isn't just magical thinking in your own mind is meaningless. You have yet to present a) objective evidence b) accounting or c) economic deductive reasoning.

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between some vague feeling you have followed by a vague statement and an actual description of physical reality? Really? Because I am honestly in disbelief if you really don't get the difference.

Like I said, feel free to post an argument that the debt load is not a problem despite the fact that the OMB, the CBO, Obama, the Treasury Department, and every economist not named Krugman, says it is. Asking me to explain the mechanism of that is like asking me to explain the mechanism behind Oxygen.

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Oh, and I can demonstrate Oxygen and Hydrogen production from electrolysis of water. It is part of a larger body of evidence of what oxygen is. In the air, it is O2. O2 is used to oxides other materials, like we see rust. You can see the powerful effect of oxygen and hydrogen combining in the launch of space vessels. I can demonstrate it by that electrolysis experiment. So, basically, you don't know shit.

No history? None at all?

 

[itfitzme]

Really, I honestly am in utter disbelief at the mind-numbing and meaningless opinions lacking in any substance.

Considering that you are spewing most of them, your lack of self-awareness is quite pitiable.

You can make all the claims you want. But you haven't presented shit. The US had never had a problem with the economy collapsing because of the debt and deficit.

So your unstated imaginary scenarios doesn't mean shit. Nor does your unqualified opinion.

What you simply don't seem to get is that all you have is your opinion, "oh, it must" but nothing presented to back it up except your other opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really, I honestly am in utter disbelief at the mind-numbing and meaningless opinions lacking in any substance.

Considering that you are spewing most of them, your lack of self-awareness is quite pitiable.

Be gentle, I enjoyed him dismissing math and economics as magic.

 

[itfitzme]

Like I said, feel free to post an argument that the debt load is not a problem despite the fact that the OMB, the CBO, Obama, the Treasury Department, and every economist not named Krugman, says it is. Asking me to explain the mechanism of that is like asking me to explain the mechanism behind Oxygen.

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Oh, and I can demonstrate Oxygen and Hydrogen production from electrolysis of water. It is part of a larger body of evidence of what oxygen is. In the air, it is O2. O2 is used to oxides other materials, like we see rust. You can see the powerful effect of oxygen and hydrogen combining in the launch of space vessels. I can demonstrate it by that electrolysis experiment. So, basically, you don't know shit.

No history? None at all?

Nothing you have presented.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The debt load is not a problem, period. There is no mechanism that makes it so. There is no history that demonstrates it is so.

There is no mechanism. The government sells t-bills. Individuals, the government agencies, other governments, and companies purchase t-bills. The government pays interest on it. That is the mechanism. So, where is the "bad" that you claim?

I could ask you to prove that Unicorns are not real.... That won't make unicorns real, just because you can't prove it.

Oh, and I can demonstrate Oxygen and Hydrogen production from electrolysis of water. It is part of a larger body of evidence of what oxygen is. In the air, it is O2. O2 is used to oxides other materials, like we see rust. You can see the powerful effect of oxygen and hydrogen combining in the launch of space vessels. I can demonstrate it by that electrolysis experiment. So, basically, you don't know shit.

No history? None at all?

Nothing you have presented.

That wasn't the question. Your claim was that there is no history that says the debt load is a problem. I want to be sure that is your position before I slap you silly, I don't want you moving the goal posts after I prove you wrong.

 

[itfitzme]

The interest rate on bonds is going to go up no, the only question is when.

Until you get that fundamental fact through your partisan stupidity, there is no sense even trying to adress your points because you are assuming that the cause is actually the result.

Dude, pointing out that the interest rates fluctuate eventually isn't meaningful. Guess what, they go up and down for multiple causes. So? It doesn't prove anything.

I've been expecting you to post data on the interest rates and the last downgrade and debt limit crisis, showing that they didn't go up. Better yet, went down.

I can tell you that, due to the last debt limit crisis. Somewhere, buried in photobucket, I have a graph that shows the effect of the last debt limit crisis on the stock market. It did have an effect.

So, why should we believe that interest rates won't?

Why would I post data to feed into your delusion that you know what you are talking about?

In other words, you have nothing except your unqualified opinion. Like they say, opinions are like assholes.

 

[itfitzme]

Really, I honestly am in utter disbelief at the mind-numbing and meaningless opinions lacking in any substance.

Considering that you are spewing most of them, your lack of self-awareness is quite pitiable.

Be gentle, I enjoyed him dismissing math and economics as magic.

I have an MBA, an BSEEE, a cert in applied stats and have taken grad econ.

The only math and econ you have presented is posting the words "math" and "economics".

You want to discuss the supply and demand curves in micro economics? Want to do differential equations? Like, what is the integral of e^x? How about the function for a hyperbolic saddle surface?

 

[itfitzme]

No history? None at all?

Nothing you have presented.

That wasn't the question. Your claim was that there is no history that says the debt load is a problem. I want to be sure that is your position before I slap you silly, I don't want you moving the goal posts after I prove you wrong.

Yeah, there is no history that the debt load is an issue. The United States, except that Congress fails to see that it is paid, has no problem. In the 200+ years of the US, it has never been a problem. It isn't a problem now. If it were a problem, someond would present evidence of it being a problem. At what point do you imagine it will suddenly become a problem? All at once it goes from no effect to suddenly a problem? What point?

If you want to amke claims, then you might want to consider presenting some facts.

 

[itfitzme]

It's amazing. I'm open to any facts, any deductive reasoning, anything. I've been asking this same question for years. No manner of proding seems to get these guys to present something real.

If they are so damn sure, you'de think they'de have something.

 

[itfitzme]

And the reality is, if you study econ and the money supply, the only problem is that of it just looks bad in the accounting.

They are just numbers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Considering that you are spewing most of them, your lack of self-awareness is quite pitiable.

Be gentle, I enjoyed him dismissing math and economics as magic.

I have an MBA, an BSEEE, a cert in applied stats and have taken grad econ.

The only math and econ you have presented is posting the words "math" and "economics".

You want to discuss the supply and demand curves in micro economics? Want to do differential equations? Like, what is the integral of e^x? How about the function for a hyperbolic saddle surface?

A fake engineer that thinks he understands complex subjects. Rdean, is that you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing you have presented.

That wasn't the question. Your claim was that there is no history that says the debt load is a problem. I want to be sure that is your position before I slap you silly, I don't want you moving the goal posts after I prove you wrong.

Yeah, there is no history that the debt load is an issue. The United States, except that Congress fails to see that it is paid, has no problem. In the 200+ years of the US, it has never been a problem. It isn't a problem now. If it were a problem, someond would present evidence of it being a problem. At what point do you imagine it will suddenly become a problem? All at once it goes from no effect to suddenly a problem? What point?

If you want to amke claims, then you might want to consider presenting some facts.

You moved the goal posts, what a surprise.

 

[Toro]

It had to do with the political disfunction that increased the odds an interest payment would not be made on time. Ergo, it had more to do with debt ceiling.

That isn't what S&P said. Or, if it is, they are blaming the lack of will power to implement the type of policies recommended by Simpson-Bowles and the long term debt a lot more than they are the debt ceiling.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

"It had more do with the debt ceiling" means "It had more to do with the political dysfunction than it does with spending." The statement says that political dysfunction is making it difficult to cut spending and raise taxes. It doesn't just say "cut spending." S&P doesn't care if the deficit is closed 100% by spending cuts or 100% by tax increases.

 

[Toro]

It's true. We can't afford a dime of new debt, regardless of how fast the economy grows.

"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system."

Of course we can afford more debt regardless of how fast the economy grows.

What matters is not the absolute debt but the debt relative to output. If the debt is growing at 4% and nominal GDP is increasing at 6%, then the financial condition of the country is improving. An increase in the debt may not be the optimal outcome but we can certainly afford it if its growing less fast than the nominal output of the economy.

The one thing everyone who is not named Krugman agrees upon is that our current debt is unsustainable, even Krugman agreed with it when Bush was president. We might be able to pretend we can handle the debt, but we cannot, and we need to start making plans based on the reality that we cannot, even if those plans mean increasing the debt now.

Of course the current debt is sustainable. What is questionable is whether the future debt is sustainable. If nominal GDP grows faster than future debt, then it is sustainable. If future debt grows faster than nominal GDP, then its questionable whether its sustainable.

 

[itfitzme]

Be gentle, I enjoyed him dismissing math and economics as magic.

I have an MBA, an BSEEE, a cert in applied stats and have taken grad econ.

The only math and econ you have presented is posting the words "math" and "economics".

You want to discuss the supply and demand curves in micro economics? Want to do differential equations? Like, what is the integral of e^x? How about the function for a hyperbolic saddle surface?

A fake engineer that thinks he understands complex subjects. Rdean, is that you?

By all means, let's discuss engineering. You know you won't because it would mean actually facimg reality instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretending everyone else is lying. Funny how convenient that excuse is for you. You can believe anything then