vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; At the end of the day, that stockpiled wealth is still wealth we don't have that the Japanese people can rely upon  At the end of the day, the pile of real goods they worked to send us is real wealth we have that they don't. Bearing in mind that their stockpile of dollars isn't a constraint on the *issuer* of the dollar.  &gt;I'm saying let's actually figure out a method for determining our constraints scientifically in real time, and adapt our policy accordingly!  Sounds good. Going back a ways in the thread, the indicators you want to look at are employment, output and inflation. Slack employment &amp; output with low inflation indicate not enough spending, full employment with little to no output gap and stable prices tells you you have it right and rising inflation tells you it's too high.  To a great degree, finding the mark takes care of itself when fiscal policy is built around strong automatic stabilizers, spending that is counter-cyclical by design.
"Is there more on where Dalio gets his definitions for the short-term debt cycle (5-8 years or so) and ""deleveraging"" and the long-term debt cycle (75-100 years)? (or his evidence that separates the two)? At one point 18:10, he says the difference is that in a deleveraging, interest rates hit 0 and can no longer go lower, but I don't know if that works as a definition per se. There are other things that central banks do when interest rates hit 0, like buy up assets (which he does mention and include in the ""print money"" category of things that can be done during a deleveraging). And one of the deleveragings he cites, England in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia was due to difficulty in transitioning out from war production, and according to [this excel file](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/rates/baserate.xls) from the Bank of England on historical rates, it doesn't say interest rates went to 0 at that time (unless Dalio is referring to another point in history when he cites 1950s England). 20:30 His definition of a depression is when debt restructuring or defaults happen. Interesting. What I learned was that there isn't really a hard and fast definition for recessions and depressions (e.g. a recession is two quarters of negative growth in a row and a depression is just a reeeaallly bad/long recession). And I don't think I recall encountering in the past an attempt to define what a ""deleveraging"" event of an economy is. 24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly ""giving some from the haves to the have nots,"" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy.
&gt;In addition, US debt is the safest debt.  I am really sick of this argument. The U.S. is believed to be the safest debt at this point in time, but that won't necessarily always be the case. We have been taking on debt for 30 fucking years and at some point investors are going to see us as a risky investment and stop lending. At some point we are going to have abused our global reserve status to the point the world doesn't want to extend it to us anymore. How do people not get this?
It's probably worth distinguishing that I am talking specifically about revenues and speaking to the beliefs *about* revenue of people who make the cuts-for-growth claim.  I am tempted to say that *nominal rate* does not mean *money paid* is common knowledge. The challenge here is disentangling how common that knowledge really is from a cynical ploy for political gain.
"... so you don't want to know about a gas leak in a building if that leak hasn't caused the building to explode for the last 6 years?   And when he is talking ""explosion"" he's not talking the once every 10 year recession.  He's talking 1929, 1937, 1945 ... and specifically says bigger than, say, 1974 or 2008.  Where are you getting the ""10 year"" crap?  Seriously ... is that what you're saying?  Or are you saying that you just don't believe there is a gas leak?  I'm addressing the former.  The ""ignition source"" will probably not be within the US (unless long term bond yields increase substantially).  The ""ignition source"" will be from a recession in China or from Japanese yields increasing (from ""currency risk"" or ""default risk"")  -- the Japanese crisis has been 20 years in the making ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/11/olivier-blanchard-eyes-ugly-end-game-for-japan-on-debt-spiral/  ).  However, with the current Debt/GDP of Japan and the structure of Chinese total debt (govt + corporate + personal) ... and the recognition that these are the top two GDP's in the world ... the dangers for the world are undeniably larger than ever."
&gt; The level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.   1) You don’t pay taxes when you buy, you pay them when you sell (capital gains). Gains imply that on net assets were bought rather than sold.  2) The determining factor for paying down debts is the government’s decision not stock market performance. There is no causal relationship.
If you are actually referring to all the political rhetoric and posturing over the debt ceiling issue.  That's a long ways from the US actually defaulting on paying debts.  A lot of government offices might shut down, but I expect anyone holding US debt to be paid off. (they have the printing presses after all)  If that's what you are referring to, based on the LAST time that the governement had to shut down because they didn't raise the debt ceiling, it won't be a big deal.  Last time, no debt was defaulted on, a bunch of the less essential government offices shut down for a few days, and the stock market did a collective 'meh' over the whole thing.  It was basically a non event.  I've no reason to expect it will be different this time.  (btw, where were all these republican budget cutters hiding when 10 years ago they started with a nearly balanced budget, and ended up blowing up the national debt by about 80% in 8 years time? (from roughly $6B to $11B)  I wish they'd been screaming about the debt as much then as they are now. Not that there isn't ample blame to go around, and both sides have not been spending in ways that make a drunken sailor look like the paragon of a fiscal conservative, but to hear nearly any of them tell it, their party had nothing to do with taking us from a balanced budget to the highest burn rate ever while they were in control (with a giant financial crisis through in as pure 'bonus')
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.france24.com/en/20170728-imf-countries-must-avoid-protectionism-all-costs) reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; About a third of the total are considered undesirably large imbalances, and countries should put in place policies to reduce these, whether they are surpluses or deficits, the External Sector Report urged.  &gt; It is the deficit countries most at risk of a &amp;quot;Backlash&amp;quot; that could lead to anti-trade policies, IMF research chief Luis Cubeddu told reporters.  &gt; Even if there is a short-term impact on a country&amp;#039;s trade deficit when a barrier is erected to imports, IMF research shows &amp;quot;Global GDP losses increase with the duration of protectionist policies, while the impact on global imbalances lessens&amp;quot; and currencies adjust to compensate.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6q918w/imf_countries_must_avoid_protectionism_at_all/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~178299 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **policies**^#1 **imbalances**^#2 **IMF**^#3 **global**^#4 **report**^#5"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/as-voodoo-economics-fails-in-kansas-trump-takes-it-national.html) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; &amp;quot;Kansas is the model.&amp;quot; Kansas was the state where Sam Brownback, the former congressman who mentored a young staffer named Paul Ryan, implemented supply-side tax cuts that, Brownback promised, would usher in prosperity and fiscal stability.  &gt; Insist the tax cuts only failed because weak-minded legislators did not do their part to cut spending as required.  &gt; Weren&amp;#039;t the tax cuts supposed to prevent &amp;quot;Unchecked spending&amp;quot;? Wasn&amp;#039;t this the very reason their supporters gave to discount the predictions that the tax cuts would create deficits?   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ggg4p/as_alecs_voodoo_economics_collapses_in_kansas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~141077 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **cut**^#2 **Kansas**^#3 **effects**^#4 **spending**^#5"
&gt; Then at what ratio of debt to gdp   There is nothing particularly special about that ratio. No point where it becomes a problem per se. Try a different version of the *same* question: at what ratio of your savings to your income...  Same concept.  &gt;will we have to pay all our interest bills with monopoly money   For the government, it's *all* monopoly money and always has been. This isn't a bad thing, it's just a description of the system. The government is the monopoly issuer of the currency, spending it into existence and extinguishing it with taxation.  &gt;(assuming that bank reserves from the fed have less intrinsic psychological value than cash circulating in the private sector, and that if we start paying our interest bills with monopoly money it will drive massive speculation against the dollar)  You can only win speculating against an entity that can *run out* of money. That risk doesn't apply to countries spending in their own sovereign, floating rate currency.
I do not quite understand your point..  Say you repeal a tax, without reducing public spending. Then if you analyze the economic impact, that does not fairly represent the impact of the tax, now does it?  Just think of it this way:  Increasing the wealth tax and increasing government spending =- Reducing the wealth tax and -reducing government spending-  What do you think?
&gt; seems determined to blow up the deficit, just has the last Republican president did. And the Republican before that.  It's the only sensible thing the Republicans do.    Deficit spending is stimulus, and that increases the prosperity of the public.    They do it to try and provide cover for allowing the wealthy to gut our economy.  What we need is to embrace stimulus wholeheartedly and then shift the entirety of the tax burden onto the wealthy.
&gt;Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet.  Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements.  &gt;but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper  Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.).  That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://realinvestmentadvice.com/how-big-of-a-deleveraging-are-we-talking-about/) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; With economic growth rates now at the lowest levels on record, the growth in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.  &gt; The problem is that eventually, the debt reaches a level where the level of debt service erodes the ability to consume at levels great enough to foster stronger economic growth.  &gt; With the economy currently requiring roughly $3 of debt to create $1 of real, inflation-adjusted, economic growth, a reversion to a structurally manageable level of debt would involve a nearly $35 Trillion reduction of total credit market debt from current levels.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pilkb/how_big_of_a_deleveraging_are_we_talking_about/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~175389 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **growth**^#2 **economic**^#3 **level**^#4 **economy**^#5"
It seems human nature would be the opposite:  Hey, I have some loddars right now, I probably won't have some in the future, I should spend them on the things I *want* and *need* because in a few months *nobody* will be able to pay their debts, not just *me*.  Sort of confirmation bias theory.  No?
But paying people to count flies on roadkill is not helpful at all. And if it results in a net positive it's because the economy is in a bad state of mismanagement, with wages (as an aggregate ratio of returns) too suppressed for a healthy economy. It's like cutting people and saying it benefits the economy by increasing the sale of band-aids and driving demand for doctors. Of course the band-aids help, but it doesn't mean the policies that makes it a benefit anything but a cost. Once wages, as an aggregate ratio of returns, exceeds an optimal ratio, [like in the 1970s](http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/12/06/Andrew_Smithers_chart_blog_main_horizontal.JPG), then every new increase in demand results in a new deficit in supply that cannot be met due to constraints on capital returns. I call this a supply constrained economy, as opposed to the demand constrained economy we now live in. In this kind of economic environment there would even be any short term benefits to funding consumption with debt. So basically you have two choices. Make everybody wealthy enough to match supply, while trying not to exceed it to avoid triggering too much inflation and encouraging investment in new productive capacity. Or suppressing wage returns too much relative to total returns inducing excessively low, and potentially negative, inflation. Making almost everybody much poorer than necessary. Then trying to fix the imbalance between supply and demand through debt spending. I would call the second choice a fools choice. But none of this means that funding for teachers, social workers, etc., should go away. These things need their funding, and we should be paying the taxes to fund them. Not pretending that debt spending will let of have our cake and eat it to. It's like a pot luck dinner in which people bring IOUs in place of dishes until people are leaving dinner hungry because there's not enough to go around. &gt;Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. That is in fact true in our present economic circumstances.
"I don't know what angle you're trying to push or why, but are you also saying that Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz are similarly lacking the understanding of financial concepts when they published a [paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf) ""Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions""?  Are you suggesting a similar ""entire shaker of salt"" when they ""estimate[d] the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus""?  Should we really be so skeptical when they conclude:  &gt;Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries. Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength.  I ask because this article is founded on that study - linked to by Bloomberg which is then linked to in OP's Huffpo article.  While you can certainly claim that Mark Gongloff ""shows a basic lack of understanding"" of whatever, why don't you put some skin in the game and demonstrate how he somehow misses the entire point of that study, or better yet really wow us by de-bunking that study."
In the scenario where interest rates rise to anything like normal, interest payments on the debt will quickly explode to be a huge portion of the budget, forcing deep cuts in other areas.  Holding interest rates near zero forever just isn't sustainable.
All you personal virtue folks need to realize that as students are crushed under every greater debt loads, in the context of flat wages and a mediocre economy BEFORE the next crash, it will harm the greater economy and you.   No matter how awesome YOU are, students carrying trillions in debt will be folks who can't buy homes and spend a lot less on other things.  Unless you work for a student loan lender, that can hit you too down the road.  A bad economy is bad for all.  The cost of University has spiraled out of control and to absurdly expensive levels, student debt is a society wide problem that will affect the virtuous and the repulsive alike.  Get over yourselves.
As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?
Absolutely.... False. The united states throws away more food than any other country in the world and yet other countries have healthier food. Just try to put yourself in the shoes of the wealthiest. Imagine the power and temptation behind paying off the regulators and having your own wallet fueled by billions of people. Its absurd to think it's not happening. I love how even Stephen Hawking says the end of humanity is not some cosmic explosion or the sun dying out. It's the immorality of capitalism.   Don't get me wrong, I believe capitalism has amazing benefits like resiliency to economic collapse and how competition drives progress, but we absolutely need a baseline to protect natural human rights like health, food, poverty and birth control.   Do you really think that immigration in politics has to do with race or stifling stem cell research is due to religion? Its All. About. The. Money.
I read the entire thread.  Verdict: It is easier to grasp the theory of relativity than understand how the planet is 50 trillion dollars in debt. Who is lending all this money? Is it people from Mars? BUT kudos to otherwiseyep. I enjoyed each and ever passionate response. :-)
&gt; (Wouldn't renewable investment be) A positive even if climate change is not REAL?!?!  No, have a look at [the broken window fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).  Regardless, there is no reason to stoop to this level.  Global warming exists and the evidence is unequivocal.  Anyone who disagrees are profiting from maintaining the status quo or are victims of the propaganda from the former.
"You've cited nothing but your own outlandish claims. Aside from the original USAToday article, you've not provided one link to substantiate any of the many, many assertions that you have made.    &gt; none of the people doing any of these things are ""true economists"".  **unsubstantiated**  &gt;It's a subconscious bias thing... they all inherently belive that an ""inflationary currency"" is a good &amp; necessary thing... ergo they do not really TRY to disprove that dogmatic assumption. **unsubstantiated**  &gt;... and that ""confirmation"" was the entire goal of the project. **unsubstantiated**  **Not one link**.   End of discussion. This is a waste of my time."
Don't give them too much credit.  They aren't actually Keynesian views.  Keynes believed in paying down debts during periods of growth.  These jokers live in a neo-Keynesian fairyland where all lunches are free, and debts can be modeled away via aggregate demand.
People will take actions in a boundary of possibility. That boundary is much higher for somebody whose wealth puts them at 99.9% of the scale rather than being at 20%. And taking the point further, the wants/needs are also very different for somebody at different social stratums. Given that, there is no evidence (and rather there is a wealth of contradictory evidence) that giving a tax cut to the highest income earners would boost the economy. Your assumptions and axioms are wrong, and a simple introductory economics course ([MITX](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-02-principles-of-macroeconomics-spring-2014/), [edX](https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-economics-macroeconomics-snux-snu044-088-2x)) will solve your misconceptions. Beyond mathematical mastery, the true mark of a rational, scientific person is a willingness to accept mistakes and be humble about it. I see neither in you. On the contrary when presented with evidence, you raise straw man arguments (eg: the validity of epistemological vs empirical observations), obfuscate facts and changing of goalposts. When presented with economic reason, I see pride in not knowing modern economic advancements. You see that as a mark of intelligence, but that is idiocy that belongs on /r/iamverysmart
"&gt;more foreign capital would flow in   More capital flowing in to a country that defaults on its payments? Hah, that's a good one!  Brazil defaulted in the 1980s, the result was a lost decade of high unemployment and hyperinflation reaching upwards of 80% **per month**. Same with Argentina, only their hyperinflation was above 200% per month.  There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts.  I'm Brazilian and had to go through that situation just as I was starting to work.  Ironically, the labour party is now in power here and Brazil is now a net creditor internationally. AFTER the ""evil capitalists"" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve, and the labour party finally managed to be elected and now are reaping the fruits of all that they fought so hard against.  I remember their slogans in the 1989 election campaign: ""the external debt is immoral and unpayable"", ""no to privatization""."