vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; 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?  You are right but my issue is that you are accounting for changes that are not happening.  If you are comparing a country's tax structure before and after a wealth tax then I would agree; however, in this case all the subjects are separate economies and have (presumably) found some sort of equilibrium.  The wealth tax policy is not changing for them so there is no surplus or deficit of public spending to adjust for.
What is it with people commenting on this post? One guy says we should emulate Europe, and force people to take vacations. Now this guy says we shouldn't be worried about our debt, because JAPAN is doing fine? What world do you people live on?
"&gt; In 2008 under Bush, the US had a deficit of 454.8 billion dollar  Certain ""minor"" items were left out of that budget.  Like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  If you check the 'debt to penny' site, you'll see that [**1.4 trillion**](http://i.imgur.com/qslFndc.png) was added to the national debt during Bush's last 12 months."
Folks, they aren't making the ESM just for shits and giggles.  Of course it will be used.  The real question is how far this goes.  If growth doesn't come back then not only Italy will need a bailout but so will France.  And not even the ESM is big enough for France.  But Spain and Italy are already pretty much baked into their planning.  All of this stuff is already laid out but you can still bet the breathless media will report every single step like no one ever before contemplated it.
To whom is all this debt owed? I would imagine the US gov't, meaning we're really saying that the Federal government and US taxpayer are slowly easing into the role of subsidising post-secondary education, just as state governments fund primary and secondary (though without legislative or judicial action to make the added debt support explicit).  I thought most professors were supposed to be socialist anyway...you'd think they'd take on the needier students for free.
I understand what you're saying, but to me the circumstances are different. No scientist was or is predicting overnight calamity due to climate change. Predictions are for long-term change.   Various economics 'experts' on reddit, however, have been predicting imminent collapse for a long time. Krugman is also not saying to run a deficit forever; he follow Keynes, who said spend when times are tough and save when times are good.
&gt;Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich.   Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left.  How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH!  &gt;Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy  Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars.   Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will.   The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could.   I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand.   What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary.
&gt; Greece is the homeless, one-armed drug addict with no prospects that struggles to find a few bucks to spend a night in a hostel. The size of the debt is more or less irrelevant. It's the ability to pay it that really matters.  But we're talking about the debt-to-GDP ratio, not the debt as an absolute value.  Which means we're quite literally structuring our comparison in terms of the nation's ability to pay it off.
keep in mind there is no such thing as unlimited debt or debt unlimited. don't be fooled. qe will going to keep you in good sleep - but will wake you up bankrupt. qe is not an answer - it is the culprit. qe is universal - it was copied all over the world (worldwide). qe is an absolute solutions (yes!!! for all dumb economists) - a 100percent “hopeless, desperate, solutions”. qe to be specific is going back again to the 1930's depression or the great depression part 2 – yes!!! precisely but with a ""big bang"". qe before is only a staggering risk. today it is now “debt impregnating” - simple as, it keeps on giving birth (by the hour, the minutes, the seconds) and after eight long years the final, the end result is massive “pure debt”. very sorry to say, not growth (and) or definitely not recovery. qe is a dying move - no one, not one ever dared to affirm, to attest, to certify, that this is a “correct solutions”. qe is mad - it will make you crazy because of ""debt"". qe is the only options - yes!!! absolutely, when your big brains is ""not working"". qe is easing the pain - correct!!! for a very short period of time, but will going to ""destroy"" the economy in the long (or short) run. qe is history - it will haunt you forever and ever. qe - what more can i say? fb: thegreatdepression.part2@yahoo.com"
Unfortunately I don't know if the experiments can really get to the heart of the economic complexities to really prove how the model could work. There are only so many programs that could be cut to provide funding and that doesn't begin to pay for the programs. The only thing I can find that would begin to cover costs is to start taxing wealth instead of income. And even there you'd have to get SO MANY countries to agree in principle on taxation in order to get started that it would be extremely difficult to get started.
&gt;I just wish people who hate on keynesian policies (which while not perfect, are not as terrible as people point them out to be) would at least acknowledge that Keynes advocated maintaining budget surpluses when the economy is doing fine/alright.  I do acknowledge that. However, the powers that be that implement Keynesian policies these days don't see that. Nor do they recognize that Keynes advocated strategic spending to stimulate the economy. I support what he called for, but he would probably be rolling in his grave if he saw the shit our politicians were doing in his name.  I assume we agree with each other on this? We are in a major depression but after years of massive deficit spending we are almost powerless to use any real keynesian policies that could really help us.
"&gt; So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, Yes we should decrease military spending and stop policing the world. The biggest future expenditure will be unfunded obligations which are between $20 to $60 trillion USD. Without reform the US will go bankrupt. The dollar could be hyper-inflated which destroys the value and people's savings. The dollar will lose world reserve currency status. &gt; We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses. Let other countries defend themselves unless they absolutely need help. People and businesses can be taxed, but high taxes and regulations are counter-productive. It hurts small business, innovation, job growth and pushes companies to move abroad and outsource. There's alarming record high unemployment in the US: &gt;**[One in Five Families Are on Food Stamps](http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/25/one-in-five-families-are-on-food-stamps)** The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that **a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.** &gt; The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of **the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 - an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.** As John F. Kennedy said:. &gt;**“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
The author notes how high the current US Debt is, about $15.7 trillion dollars. (That's 15,700,000,000,000). In 2011, the entire US GDP was just over $15T.  You can research and find that many feel this ratio i.e. debt to GDP is a significant factor in a country's ability to pay its debt. We are still running a deficit this year, and the author points out that given these factors, he'd expect investors in US bonds to demand a higher return for their risk. On a lighter note, we've been watching our debt for decades. I am near 50, and remember seeing the debt clock when I was a teen. It's on a building in Manhattan on 44th street just west of 6th avenue. It's wasn't until the early 80's that our debt went over $1Trillion for the first time, and the clock itself needed to have more digits added to its structure. $999 billion was its limit.
"You really don't think 7 trillion dollars is huge?    BTW, There was no "" insane spending uptick"".  The budget deficit numbers for the Bush years are meaningless, because the wars were ""off budget"".  Use [Debt to the penny](http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) to run the numbers.   Bush added 1,438,236,760,982.61 to the debt in his last 12 months.  Call it 1.43 trillion."
Well, this is the relevant portion of the 14th amendment:  &gt; The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
&gt; The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not.  That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen.  &gt;And what about South and Central American Pesos?   Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of.  Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it.  &gt;What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three  What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits.  I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.
Schiff is a goon. Most growth has come from the private sector over the last two years and GDP growth has actually been reduced due to cutbacks at the state &amp; local government levels.   So, Schiff, who is always and forever claiming the sky is falling, failed to realize the largest burden on GDP growth in recent times has been the public sector.
The US Gov't spends $0.9T on the military, they borrow $1.9T (on top of the $2.3-$2.4T they raise in taxes each year)... so, no.  Should we cut military spending? Yes, absolutely. But it won't come close to closing the deficit.
Question:  So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam,  it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash.  So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is.    And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary?   But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?  You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.
"But it's true. 12 billion is one third of one percent of the national debt. Saying it's an accounting error is too harsh, but it's such a miniscule amount of money tied to no formal Trump initiative that explains it. When you have a tiny effect and no theory for the cause of it, it's probably a random occurrence. That's how it's handled in science. You note it and still investigate it, but you generally can't tell the cause and effect without further study.  Now, if there _was_ a formal initiative with strong theoretically underpinning, that could explain what the US is seeing.  It's the same concept as playing pool: any schmuck can put a ball in a pocket by luck. But skilled people can say, ""I'll put this ball in that pocket, and here's how it's going to happen."" It's the difference between, ""Uh ... Yeah. I totally meant to do that?"" and, ""Nailed it."""
Because destruction is what will happen for the balance to remain. Because so much of our productive capacity has been in productivity gains since the 1990s, and wages and demand have as yet not matched these productivity gains, we have a huge latent wealth capacity that continues to grow as we fail to take advantage of it. So far our supply side policies haven't so much destroyed wealth and productivity. Rather it has prevented us from seeing the potential gains from the latent productivity growth from technologies over the few decades. --- The last part you mention about wealth/capital needing to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. You are absolute 100% entirely correct. Perhaps even more than you know. Ever heard of planned obsolescence, or [The Light Bulb Conspiracy](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/)? That link is a documentary on the issue that will make you mad. We could almost certainly pay a flat 90% tax rate on everything and still not come close to what this issue cost us. That's not the only means this issue imposes cost, but it is extreme. Of course just because an appliance still works doesn't mean people will not replace it with newer better models. But the trash pile insures there is a much more limited secondary market for poorer people. Consumption debt cost is also a far bigger issue than people recognize. Debt to finance capital goods for production is fine, as this feeds productivity and wealth in a manner that sustains itself even as the debt is paid. Consumption debt is an entirely different beast. Creating a significant section of the population that feeds on peoples income without producing a thing. Only to let allow people to consume income they haven't earned yet. This generally falls under the category of rent seeking behavior. Yeah, the lack real value creation turns my stomach. That people will knowingly spend money on temporary non-essential novelties and such is all fine and dandy, but underhandedly renting our base appliances for a certain number of uses is outrageous in my book.
"&gt;However, the caveat I will add is that if you go into DEBT for your education, you should certainly be thinking about the economic value your education can provide you. I agree, but we're not going to have that discussion when many parents don't understand debt accurately and the ones that do are the ones whose kids aren't as likely to need big loans. &gt;At the end of the day though, these findings are all moot unless we can have a conversation about the hyperinflation in college costs directly related to 'free' aka subsidized education. The hyperinflation isn't because college costs are subsidized - federal loans still have caps. It's because student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy in the vast majority of cases. That means that private loans are available, which means the federal loan caps are effectively useless. ""Free"" college would have its challenges, and we'd need to make private loans dischargable in bankruptcy (which would in turn make banks lend to only credit-worthy students/co-signers using appropriate risk models) but then we'd also be able to make other adjustments. There are some things that we could probably be doing now, but others might be too easily corruptible without the market correction of private loans only to those who are credit-qualified. We could put more stringent requirements on grade point averages, for example. If you don't hit that, you don't get your free college. You can continue going, if you go get private loans. Not able to qualify? Time to do something else then. Work and save for college, trade school, enter the workforce permanently, etc. (This wouldn't work as well if private loans were still easily obtainable and non-dischargable, because there could be shady dealings to make more people not eligible for the ""free"" assistance with some type of crazy obstacles, etc.) We could do things like cap the costs for particular programs. If you want to study mechanical engineering, you can get up to X amount, but if you're studying early French poetry, you can only get up to Y amount.
It just occured to me that the larger the debt the easier it is for the Fed to strangle the economy, concentrate wealth even more, and choke off government spending on things other than debt service.  It is a huge problem that the US government appears to be in a permanent structural deficit that gets bigger both during expansions AND contractions.
Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.  Biological populations do this when their growth is not checked, a virus in an epidemic situation comes to mind. It grows exponentially until it meets its natural limit - the capacity of its host population to sustain it, which crashes due to the virus' effects. So I'd say debt rots only when it pushes the economy to such extremes that a political revolution encompasses both debtor and creditor and the slate is wiped clean.
"They may have planned on spending more money, but they haven't actually done so (just as I may plan to buy a new TV, but up until I've bought it I can change my mind).  The ever increasing spending, and related debt, is just a symptom of our ""leaders"" failing to make choices and lead. If A is more important than B, then spend the money on A and forego B--don't buy both. And, if both are essential then raise the taxes to pay for them. All we've seen for the last 40 years is congress buying A, and B, and then throwing in C for good measure but never figuring out how to pay for them. They simply pass the debts on to future generations and that's what has to stop. If we need something now, we should pay for it now. We should not be signing away our children's futures expecting them to pay for things because we want them now."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/10/20/The-Macroeconomic-and-Distributional-Effects-of-Public-Investment-in-Developing-Economies-45222) reduced by 48%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; This paper provides new empirical evidence of the macroeconomic effects of public investment in developing economies.  &gt; Using public investment forecast errors to identify unanticipated changes in public investment, the paper finds that increased public investment raises output in the short and medium term, with an average short-term fiscal multiplier of about 0.2.  &gt; We find some evidence that the effects are larger: during periods of slack; in economies operating with fixed exchange rate regimes; in more closed economies; in countries with lower public debt; and in countries with higher investment efficiency.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77ql6o/imfthe_macroeconomic_and_distributional_effects/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~232230 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*: **public**^#1 **investment**^#2 **IMF**^#3 **paper**^#4 **view**^#5"
I do admire your ability to maintain your debate without defaulting to something like yelling and screaming, ad hominems, etc. Edit: I don't know why I didn't immediately think of this, I remember reading all of the articles about it. There are a lot of examples like the f-35 fighter jet that cost American Taxpayers nearly $1.5 trillion. http://time.com/money/4310099/f-35-budget-pay-free-college-student-loans/ I'll need to find some links to it. But I also remember seeing that the Pentagon misappropriated I think somewhere in the range of $6.5 trillion on their balance sheet. Just gone, the value of 8x Apple Corporation, just ""disappeared"". To put just those two issues in perspective, that is almost 25,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country"
I notice you turn to ad hominem instead of providing evidence.  &gt;Go for it, name an empire that purchased its own debt historically and survived.  All current countries with a central bank purchase their own debt and all are surviving. The US is an empire. So there is one example. The Soviet Union was an empire until it failed, and it had a state controlled central bank.  There, I named two.  Now, please name a **single empire** that did not purchase its own debt, since you brought this up. I'll take it you cannot provide this since you are talking out of your ass and know nothing about it. It's sad that you make such absolute claims out of your ass and cannot provide evidence.
u just dont understand how econoics work.  private debt was over 41 trillion dollars while public debt was a mere 8 trillion in 2008.   giving pple money to spend will stimulate the private sector of the ecnomy to recover, and m2 will grow and generate much more lasting revenue for govt.    you pple just dont understand anything.