From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 24 Jan 1993 05:55:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:

>Then put your money where your mouth is and make a fortune investing in

       
       Well, thanks for the advice, but I already have. 


>put options for T-bills.  Mass delusions of investors do happen, but I
>think there's a difference between investors willing to invest in T-bills
>and investors that pay thousands of dollars for Dutch tulips.  The risk

    
       And *I* think there isn't .


>of this default is already calculated ex ante in the interest rate for
>the treasury bills, and the low interest rates indicate that investors
>as a whole don't believe there's a risk.
>
>Of course they are.  What are they supposed to do, leave the money in a
>vault?  Why not invest it in T-bills, which is what it comes out to
>this way.

    
       Hmmm. Maybe "invest" it in low-risk companies, rather than 
       welfare programs?  Nayyyy.


>>>which made revenues go down as the economy shrank, which led to more cuts,
>>>which ...

      Oh, now *this* is pure bullshit.  In all previous recessions,
      governments had followed the EXACT same policies.

 

>You got cause and effect mixed up.  *Because* of government stimulus, there
>is no comparison between now and the Great Depression.  The various
>safety nets prevent a complete collapse of the economy if there's some
>shrinkage. 


        Oh, man.  This guy is from the 1930s.  Sad.

        What governments, world-wide, have done, is to re-direct
    the collapse.  Sorry, but I'm not buying the "safety-net" crap
    at ALL.  For one thing, this is the first time it's been tested.

    All the government is doing is redirecting bad consumer debts into
    bad government debts.  Until there is a change in cultural values,
    consumer and government debt will continue to build.

      As, INDEED, they ARE.  Check your home equity loans.

>
>If the economy shrinks, (1) tax revenues go down and (2) unemployment,
>and therefore unemployment benefits paid out by government, go up.  
>Presumably, poverty also increases, so those welfare payments increase.
>Decreased revenues and increased spending equals more deficit.  By
>definition.  If there were a balanced budget amendment, every time
>there was a recession, there would have to be increased cuts in government
>spending and increased taxes, which would worsen the recession, which
>would lead to increased taxes and spending cuts, which would ad
>infinitum...


      Hmmm.   How odd that this never happened in previous recessions,
      Interesting, but bogus.


>>>I think it's even more dangerous to exaggerate the problem of the debt,...


       Yes, yes, ignore it.  Look, you BUILD a case against yourself.
       If it's so fragile it can't be talked about, then there is 
       a problem.

>>
>Others have called for a balanced budget come hell or high water.  I'd
>prefer a look at the underlying economic issues rather than a simpleminded
>approach of "balance the budget because deficit is bad".


      Well, then, CHUM, you better get out there and start educating
      our foreign holders of debt, institutions, etc, hadnt' you?


       Building an economic tower of babylon, depending on arcane and
       possibly incorrect theories, dependent on ALL users to 
       have full in-depth technical knowledge is pure folly.

      Even as user-friendliness, ease of use, etc are being taught
      to new generations, we have an economic cadre of black-magic,
      determined to collapse.

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.feminism