Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies? Seems we can live without a little spending   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line 268
    More: Obvious, Concord Coalition  
•       •       •

1728 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 10:49 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 02:30:55 PM  

Corvus: That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.


Sure, bossman.  It's in no way relevant to the discussion about how a safety net is productive or not, the CBO estimates you posted, or why borrowing money for a safety net is a wise decision.
 
2013-07-02 02:31:03 PM  

palelizard: In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.


Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.
 
2013-07-02 02:32:59 PM  

MattStafford: austerity101: If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

We're rapidly running out of friends.


The credit markets say otherwise.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:13 PM  
All I know is that I had a big grant not funded because of sequestration. NIH, NSF, and other federal agencies are having problems keeping the funding of current projects.

Hindering our technology research is not something that will show now, it will harm us later.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:25 PM  

palelizard: Corvus: That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.

Sure, bossman.  It's in no way relevant to the discussion about how a safety net is productive or not, the CBO estimates you posted, or why borrowing money for a safety net is a wise decision.


No that discussion was about can you compare investing in safety net for sub-Shara Africa with the doing so in the US. You are confusing which topic you were discussing.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:39 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


Shut the Fark up already.
You're a terrible troll.
Try to bring some game.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:42 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Really?  Then accept that the farkers at the top of our economy are the ones not paying what they should.  Those are the ones that need to be properly taxed (and by that, meaning they can't just offshore their money or hide it so they show no actual 'income').  Unless you think it's better to demand higher taxes on those at the bottom.  You know the old saw of trying to get blood from a stone?


No, I totally agree that we should tax the higher earners.  Corporations and the higher ups have been making a ton of money via outsourcing/automation.  Basically, they've replaced the average American with cheaper alternatives and pocketed the difference.  We need to spread those gains around.
 
2013-07-02 02:34:01 PM  

sxacho: RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.


Corvus: RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.



I love it when two posts come together.
 
2013-07-02 02:35:34 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: austerity101: If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

We're rapidly running out of friends.

The credit markets say otherwise.


Well according to him (I think by mistake) he wants the Central Bank to buy up our debt. I actually think he was confused and thinks the Central bank originates (not resells) the sell of Treasury bonds but he wouldn't respond to my follow up questions, which to me implies he has no idea what he was talking about.
 
2013-07-02 02:36:46 PM  

RsquaredW: sxacho: RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.

Corvus: RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.


I love it when two posts come together.


Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.
 
2013-07-02 02:37:36 PM  

MattStafford: Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.


Depends, honestly, on what's done with the safety net money.  If it's being used to merely keep food in mouths, sure, it's only going to last for a while. However, if it's enough of a bump to buy time for re-training or relocation to town B (where there's more work), it makes sense to take it.  In that case, borrowing just enough to get by is a bad idea, but borrowing a lot more to institute change can actually fix the problem.

It's one of those things that's bad to half-ass. If you do nothing, then at least the extra resources aren't spent (though that has it's own set of problems).   And in that case of going full out, "safety net" may be a poorly defined term in the context of the discussion.
 
2013-07-02 02:40:02 PM  

Corvus: I love it when two posts come together.

Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.


Food --->  toilet

/poop joke, nevermind, carry on
 
2013-07-02 02:40:57 PM  

dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.


Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.
 
2013-07-02 02:44:45 PM  

palelizard: If it's being used to merely keep food in mouths, sure, it's only going to last for a while.


You will find many people who think keeping food in people's mouths with borrowed money actually makes our economy stronger, and that a program based on that can last indefinitely.

palelizard: However, if it's enough of a bump to buy time for re-training or relocation to town B (where there's more work), it makes sense to take it.


Are you suggesting we ship our unemployed to China?  Which, if you missed it, was town B in that example.  I agree that retraining is possible, but it is difficult in our current situation.

palelizard: In that case, borrowing just enough to get by is a bad idea, but borrowing a lot more to institute change can actually fix the problem.


Only if you are actually fixing the problem.  If we're borrowing money to train the next wave of high tech workers, it might be beneficial.  If we're borrowing money to create a generation of philosophy majors, it may not be as helpful.
 
2013-07-02 02:47:55 PM  
Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?
 
2013-07-02 02:48:27 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x292]

We've had debt for over 200 years. When does this "unsustainable " actually happen?


The minute the US defaults on a debt payment, like the Republitards almost made us do in 2011. That is when the debt will suddenly be unsustainable. As long as US debt is backed up by the full faith and credit of the US, i.e. the US does not do something stupid like not fail to raise the debt ceiling, it can continue effectively forever. Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.
 
2013-07-02 02:49:08 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?


So, do they still vote Republican?
 
2013-07-02 02:49:51 PM  
Wade_Wilson: .... but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?

This.

Asshats, the lot of them..
 
2013-07-02 02:51:06 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?

So, do they still vote Republican?


Sadly, yes, a lot of them do. I said I respect them, not that I agree with them.
 
2013-07-02 02:51:28 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.


Reserve currencies don't last forever, and it would be foolish to think that the dollar will.
 
2013-07-02 02:56:42 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?


I was a contractor at a base in MS - same thing.  I got a new offer, moved away.  The four guys that were left were supposed to work through to the end of this FY.  Found out in March that they were being cut loose for the sequester a/o 30 April.  I was soooo thankful to be out of there already.
 
2013-07-02 02:58:46 PM  

MattStafford: If we're borrowing money to create a generation of philosophy majors, it may not be as helpful.


But how else will I get my fancy coffee slowly and with a free side of sneering disdain?
 
2013-07-02 02:59:35 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.


When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.
 
2013-07-02 03:01:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.


No--at that point we're arguing whether the things we are cutting are things we can afford to cut.  In that case, neither analogy is better, because they're both predicated on a pre-conceived notion of what is necessary.
 
2013-07-02 03:04:13 PM  

dartben: When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.


I'm aware that we aren't rolling over all of our debt at once, but the difference in rolling 16.9 trillion at 1.7% and 2.46% is in the neighborhood of 128 billion dollars, which is more than the sequester this thread is about.  We're extremely susceptible to yield spikes, so I wouldn't be so cavalier about them.
 
2013-07-02 03:04:59 PM  

FooDog: Dr Dreidel: With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.

Less than 2% is pretty shiatty. Might not be seppuku knife cut  to the bowels, but it's stab in the gut nevertheless. Besides, some of the sequester-related spend was going to be staggered to end of fiscal year (3rd calendar quarter) so the full effect may not have been felt yet.


Sure, it ain't nothing, but it's also looking like it's not the nut-kick we were all bracing for.

When the Fed's suggestion that bond-buys won't last forever (even through the end of calendar 2013) sends the markets into a greater panic than sequester fears could, it makes me think the market (warts and all) is more scared of that ending than the sequester continuing.

// also, the market only shows us how the middle-class and better are doing
// all the cuts to social services get absorbed into half a percentage point of GDP or less (not based on facts)
// sadly - economic marginalization can't be a good thing
 
2013-07-02 03:11:25 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.

I'm aware that we aren't rolling over all of our debt at once, but the difference in rolling 16.9 trillion at 1.7% and 2.46% is in the neighborhood of 128 billion dollars, which is more than the sequester this thread is about.  We're extremely susceptible to yield spikes, so I wouldn't be so cavalier about them.


Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."
 
2013-07-02 03:13:06 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.

When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.


If rates go back to a "normal" 4-6% range in a short period of time, it'll be real bad. If the world decides that some other currency is a better safe haven, we're farked.
 
2013-07-02 03:16:46 PM  

BMFPitt: dartben: MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.

When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.

If rates go back to a "normal" 4-6% range in a short period of time, it'll be real bad. If the world decides that some other currency is a better safe haven, we're farked.


And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
 
2013-07-02 03:20:36 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Debeo Summa Credo: mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: 
70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.

And everyone who relies on safety net programs are worthless moochers and parasites.  This is what FarkIndependents  actually believe.

See, I can play the same game.


Except I didn't say that in the post you quoted.

You can't just make shiat up and say its what others believe. You really suck at this game.
 
2013-07-02 03:24:59 PM  

sxacho: Corvus: I love it when two posts come together.

Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.

Food --->  toilet

/poop joke, nevermind, carry on


Oh sorry. Yep that was funny.
 
2013-07-02 03:26:06 PM  

dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.


In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."


They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.
 
2013-07-02 03:27:01 PM  

MattStafford: Slaves2Darkness: Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.

Reserve currencies don't last forever, and it would be foolish to think that the dollar will.


Nothing lasts forever. So we should never base anything on any current situations because they will change at some point?

That arguments is stupid.
 
2013-07-02 03:29:05 PM  
I see the economics laureates skipped lindau to keep us all infromed in this thread. Thanks guys.
 
2013-07-02 03:30:21 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


Like I keep telling you (and you keep putting your finger in you ears and ignoring) debt really doesn't matter (except for part that adds to the continued deficit).

What matters is ABILITY TO PAY BACK DEBT holders (or borrow money to pay back debt holders) in the future.

This is DEFICIT/GDP - NOT Debt, and not deficit by itself.
 
2013-07-02 03:31:10 PM  

dartben: And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.


If you aunt had an adam's apple, a low voice, and a five oclock shadow, maybe you should start to wonder.

China is internationalizing its currency.  We have very few buyers for our debt, and there are few on the horizon.  Federal Reserve has bought tons of US debt with freshly printed currency.

Signs are pointing to troubling times ahead.
 
2013-07-02 03:32:58 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.
 
2013-07-02 03:38:03 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.


Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)
 
2013-07-02 03:39:00 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


It costs us 2.46% when the fed, a non-price sensitive buyer, is buying half the treasuries. If and when the fed turns off the printing presses, or reduces the size of their balance sheet, that number is going up materially.
 
2013-07-02 03:39:50 PM  

MattStafford: Federal Reserve has bought tons of US debt with freshly printed currency.


The Treasury prints currency. But that's OK because you think the Central Bank ordinates the sell of Treasury bonds so I guess it makes sense to you.
 
2013-07-02 03:41:13 PM  
HOW WE SPOSED TO GET OUR FREE shiat?
 
2013-07-02 03:41:53 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)


Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?
 
2013-07-02 03:44:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


I don't know why you care sense you have nothing to do with this conversation.

Do you believe the economy of the US and Sub-Saharan Africa are similar?
 
2013-07-02 03:45:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/
 
2013-07-02 03:46:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


And the part I was using:

Much of the recent issuances reflects the growing demand for higher yields offered in developed markets and the rapidly improving perception of Sub-Saharan African countries and markets. Average yields on Sub-Saharan African debt sits around 4.28 percent for the past 12 months (ending May), compared to 3.43 percent for Asian debt and 1.75 percent for 10-year Treasuries.
 
2013-07-02 03:48:29 PM  

dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.


And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.
 
2013-07-02 03:50:26 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


OH now GDP matters (before only spending mattered). Funny it didn't matter before, at least you are learning by moving the goal posts.
 
2013-07-02 03:52:22 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


But our deficit isn't which is actually what matters.

www.npr.org
 
2013-07-02 03:54:08 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?
 
2013-07-02 03:54:56 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


Here is a more update one based on CBO stats

www.numbernomics.com
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report