vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; Never said that.  Huh?  Did you NOT say:  * Governments **taxing** people people too much that's causing deflation.  I mean, there are some out there who claim that it's *inflation* that is fiscal. While I also think that's an interesting and particular theory, the theory that *deflation* is fiscal is a view that one just doesn't encounter often. Which is why I'm interested in seeing what sort of sources and/or evidence this theory flows from.   &gt; You don't **believe** taxes are deflationary?  You're asking me what I believe in? I believe in the old-school, neoclassical view on the matter.
Thanks again for this enlighting reply.  It really opened my mind to read about this FTP'ing thing, I wonder if some    factories forceclosure, quite a lot lately in France,  weren't directly tied to this kind of boggus bad results from this kind of financial scheme...
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/jul/17/stock-markets-record-highs-chinese-growth-figures-gdp-business-live) reduced by 58%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The government&amp;#039;s ambitious reform program could go a long way in addressing France&amp;#039;s longstanding economic challenges-persistent fiscal imbalances, high unemployment, and weak external competitiveness.  &gt; To make the strategy credible, deep reforms are needed at all levels of government, with major spending efforts from the start.  &gt; The planned corporate, capital, and labor tax reforms should boost investment and job growth.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nvh2d/stock_markets_hit_record_highs_as_chinese_gdp/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~169029 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*: **reform**^#1 **tax**^#2 **government**^#3 **unemployment**^#4 **fiscal**^#5"
While there certainly are many specific predictions that have proven completely wrong, the fundamental complaint is that the structure of our economy is unsustainable, with the prediction that this will eventually be revealed in a terrible way.  Simply pointing out that the day of reckoning has been staved off for the immediate future does nothing to address or rebut the actual complaint.  For example, we've been some 40 years now without a catastrophe attributable to global warming; should that be taken as indicative that the fundamental logic that predicts an eventual catastrophe is a load of bunk?  Should the reasonable advance prediction requirement be harder for economics than for a hard science?
"ok so now I am not sure which defecit we are talking about.  I was talking about the budget defecit.  In reference to that, check out Koo's ""the holy grail of macroeconomics"".  He details during the Japanese recession exactly the effects of stimulus and austerity (they tried both) and how they affected tax revenues and the national debt.  Long story short, stimulus increased revenues which as a net closed the budget defecit, while austerity was so devastating to the economy that it increased the budget defecit (the cuts in spending were smaller than the loss in tax revenue which resulted).   When you say ""years prior of stimilus"" I think you are referring to tax cuts?  I do not think that tax cuts count as ""stimulus"".  Right now I think increasing taxes would force businesses to hire and would be more stimulative than tax cuts.   The current account defecit is a result of free trade and cheap labor overseas."
"Long answer: [Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722986)  Short(er) answer: The issuer of the currency isn't revenue-constrained in its own currency. So the ""debt situation"" isn't bad at all, it's just a record of net issuance. On interest payments, two considerations. First is that when the interest rate is less than the growth rate, debt:GDP levels off. Second is that the interest rate is a price set by the issuer. So interest payments aren't a problem either.  Does that mean the government can just spend without limit or consequence? No. A thousand times, no. What it does mean though is that those limits and consequences are properly described in terms of what the economy needs and not in terms of budget constraints. Or to put it another way, they're balancing an economy, not a budget."
With trillion dollar plus deficits, it's not like we're running an austerity program here.  When you say sacrifice, compared to what?  Two trillion dollar deficits?   Your observation of constant predictions of imminent doom is valid. The timeline has been extended by a series of bubbles- market, housing, fiscal deficits...  The shortcoming of doom prognosticators is that they underestimate the willingness of those in power to do whatever it takes to prolong the status quo, regardless of the long term consequences.   The game is perpetuated by ever increasing debt, and government became the borrower of last resort once the rest of the economy was tapped out.  The govt's ability to continue along this course in the open market is questionable as the Fed appears to be monetizing a large portion of newly issued debt.  The end game is a currency crisis.  It's nice to have a timeline accompanying a prediction, and critical for investing, but it is often very difficult to do, and in this case, it has been extremely difficult because the policy decisions have been rational from the perspective of elites maintaining their status, but not optimal from the standpoint of solving the problem.  That doesn't mean the predictions are useless though.  You could live in a flood zone and not be able to predict with accuracy when the next flood will occur, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare.  Given the uncertainty with timing this, it seems to me the best course of action is not to try to time it, especially with respect to investing based on market timing, but to prepare the best you can for what will inevitably eventually occur.
"&gt; It produces billions of deficit every single year and is responsible for unimaginable sums of money going down the drain somewhere in the administration  [At 17.1 percent of GDP, the U.S. devotes at least 50 percent more of its economy to health care than do other countries. Even public spending on health care, on a per capita basis, is higher in the U.S. than in most other countries with universal public coverage.](http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective)  Even with the ""unimaginable sums of money"" going down the drain as you claim - other countries with UH still manage to spend less of their national wealth on taking care of their citizens. Furthermore - any of those countries absolutely *smoke* the US in positive health outcomes with the US coming in [dead last](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#4cdb43f4576f) in terms of both quality and cost.   &gt;pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to pay for your stuff   Welcome to society. I don't agree with my taxes paying for police to defend your home (not my stuff, right?) but I do it because collectively we're both better off."
"None taken. Good thoughts: it would be making the same mistake to blindly accept my criticism as many will make blindly accepting this journalist's graphs. Let's see if I can address your concerns. The reason the scale is problematic to me is exactly what you said &gt; I hope people would be looking at more than just a convex line And I don't think that they do. The scales were adjusted so that the lines were nearly identical on someone's computer screen, but that implies a false equivalency between the debts of households, corporations, state and local gov, and the fed. I think the author has left leaning sympathies (read the accompanied article that outlines ""who you will vote for"", link on the last slide). Not necessarily a bad thing, but he frames all of this from the idea that his *statistics cannot be skewed, and he is therefore presenting fact*. Central to the left's argument is that the Federal Government's size is not of the biggest concern, and if you got the average American thinking that 15 trillion is no big deal because households have a huge debt too, or corporations do too, or states do too, I believe that to be dangerous. I think I identified his bias, and that his graphs are slightly manipulated to coerce less discerning individuals to his side. Happens all the time, but all of those facts are dead on in regards to the data. Again, trying to keep my politics out of this, simply criticizing the graphs and the subtle message they are sending under the guise of being neutral. I would agree with your point *normally*: since contractors are temporary and often, as you pointed out, cost efficient from a benefits standpoint. They also tend to be more efficient, but this is not central to our point. The problem is that the government has the longest war in our history going, but we aren't really fighting anyone for the scale of our spending. Trillions of dollars have gone into this effort, and one of the results has been *the development of a quasi-economy in Iraq, and now Afghanistan*. The numbers are staggering of how many of these people are employed, or make a living, off of this war effort.
"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed.  The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust).  The real question that people should be asking is not ""Where did all the money go?"", but ""Why is money issued by private banks?""  Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue.  Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class.  If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this."
&gt;“Growing debt . . .  would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates.”  I suppose it's too much to ask that the CBO understands how our monetary system works.  Do they honestly believe that we rely on investors to loan us a currency we can make in unlimited quantities?  The only way the U.S. could default is if congress decides to stop paying off our debts.
&gt;France is the epitome of bureaucratic sclerosis  This is ironic considering France is one of the few countries in the world well known for the very high quality of it's bureaucracy. When a project gets decided in France, it gets done. Infrastructure is excellent. French highways and french roads are very modern. All french major cities are now connected with fiber optic cable.    Just look at the state of american infrastructure, the very slow and expensive internet, the roads full of potholes,  the collapsing bridges. It's a complete shame. You talk about bureaucracy. Don't even get me started on the american healthcare system and the billing process.  You should travel more before having judgements like that.
"I agree that cutting spending is generally a bad idea in a bad economy. However, we cannot sustain deficit spending forever. Our government has been spending money it doesn't have for decades. Now that we need spending to boost the economy, we've started to run out of ammunition. Years of stupid spending have caught up with us in the midst of a major depression. It's bad, but reality. So many people (including many people here on Reddit) have ideas that our debt-GDP ratio isn't a problem. Many people have pointed out that other countries have survived with much higher GDP ratios than ours. That is true, but we can't make that comparison based on that one variable. Those countries seemed to be on the brink of a major economic expansion as they conquered market shares in the global economy or developed new industries. As their economies started booming, they were able to pay down their debts. People argue that when our economy improves we can do the same. The problem is that after spending $5 trillion, we are still in a terribly stagnant economy after three years of recovery. How long do they think it is going to take before the recovery kicks in? It's inevitable that sooner or later we need to cut debts. Even if we do see a sudden economic rebound, the amount of debt it would take to get there would be extreme at this rate. That would require major cuts in spending which would send us right back where we started. Some people say that paying the debt is similar to paying down a mortgage. By those standards we are doing fine and it is more than affordable. That is a bad argument. For one thing, the revenue we generate in taxes is coming from economic growth developed by that spending. If you cut one, you cut the other. The way our economy is working right now, in order to generate more revenue to pay down the debt, we need to take on more debt. Also, unlike a mortgage, we are at the mercy of the financial markets. When investors decide that we have too much debt, the rates will rise or they stop buying altogether. Then we have to rely on the federal reserve to finance it, which can cause serious inflation.
Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:   * [IMF:Debt Sustainability Analyses for Low-Income Countries: An Assessment of Projection Performance(PDF)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/79qemw/imfdebt_sustainability_analyses_for_lowincome/) on /r/Economics with 7 karma (created at 2017-10-31 04:16:16 by /u/mberre)  ----   ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot  ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts)  ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!
"&gt; They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. But what I'm saying is that there are more efficient ways of accomplishing this that doesn't involve any debt whatsoever. If the the debt money being spent is coming from your paycheck in the form of an increased cost of living then merely increasing the ratio of wages to capital returns would provide the same benefit without debt. In fact, this means of driving demand is so efficient that if you take it too far it'll drive stagflation when the cost to capital returns exceeds an optimal ratio. &gt;The interesting side effect is, that they are making the economy do better Yes, it certainly does over a limited number of years following the debt incurred. But it is ONLY an economic benefit because that same demand has already been taken from the economy in the form of wage suppression. As a ratio of returns and not absolute values. If those wage returns were too high relative to returns, like in the 1970s in the US, then driving more demand through debt spending would be the opposite of a benefit. It's ONLY a short term benefit because that demand has already been taken from your wages. &gt;The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. This is true in more ways than one, and I'm not absolutely certain in which sense you mean it. In terms of say the earned income tax credit, it's nowhere near enough to cover the losses incurred through wage suppression. In terms of teachers, infrastructure up to a point, etc., these things have a productive return on investment. &gt;Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. No. Not that the spending cuts being done are anything but harmful and costing the economy. 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.
You mean that period of time when government spending has grown consistently regardless of which party is in office?   No, the historical data over that period is insufficient to disprove free market theories due to the fact that Republicans are fiscally conservative in rhetoric only.   They spend just as much as Democrats do.
&gt;In the simple equation of debt-to-GDP you want GDP to grow much quicker than debt.  This is similar to having your income growing quicker than your actual debt.  The answer of course is to adopt a growth-oriented fiscal stance. The opposite of austerity. Open season on deficit hawks.
Eh I look back now and realize the difference you are speaking of has to do with the state level rather than the federal level.  I was think the federal budget still continues to grow.  The issue is state budgets did shrink at least by about 200 billion.    He's not really using a theory.  He's using data on how government spending increased this current GDP forecast.  It is written in the statistics of the second paragraph.
Yes thats true but I think the point is you have to look at it in context - reduced spending will hurt the economy but you also can't just spend endlessly on credit cards and bank loans either. The point here is it seems like the whole system has hit a wall in terms of further increasing debt levels. I think that while their analysis is overly simplistic, there is a point here in that we do need to cut the debt down.
"I listened to about 15 minutes of the video, but then I read your other link, which gives a much better summary. This guy is an idiot. Just consider this statement: ""If everyone was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget."" This is true to some extent. It wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget in one year. Experts often cite things like debt to GDP to show that a country's debt is ballooning, but they don't mention this obvious fact: We don't have to pay off our debts in a single year. Nobody does. Debt to GDP is a ratio and not the end all be all. Reinhart & Rogoff wrote a paper about how countries with high debt to GDP tend to have slower economic growth, but they don't mention that this occurs at every stage of debt growth. See Debt & Delusion by Dr. Robert Shiller for a great article on this subject. The daily kos article goes over most of the points I would make, but let me generalize a little: Always be wary of doomsday-predictors and free advice. This guy talks about correctly calling Fannie and Freddie. Even if he's right, why is he mentioning it? If he's such a good accountant and financial expert, surely he could've seen the tech bubble before the housing bubble right? It took a lot of analysis to figure out that CDO's were junk - anybody with the ability to read a balance sheet could see that many tech companies were overvalued. Every now and then, you get one hit wonders. They might never be right again, but they have the ""credentials."" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with ""secret, genius"" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions.
So much spin with you.  Kenyes wrote explicitly about deficit spending, and the repayment of those deficits.  The denomination of the currency, floating or otherwise, is besides the point.  Again, you just want to model away the burden and risk of debt.  It's never worked, and it never will.
"#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; [**Parable of the broken window**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable%20of%20the%20broken%20window): [](#sfw) --- &gt;The __parable of the broken window__ was introduced by [Frédéric Bastiat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat) in his 1850 essay *Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas* (*[That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen)*) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society. The [parable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable), also known as the __broken window fallacy__ or __glazier's fallacy__, seeks to show how [opportunity costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costs), as well as the [law of unintended consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences), affect economic activity in ways that are ""unseen"" or ignored.
" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates. At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known."