While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[erez87]

a nail it is

 

[Nuka-sama]

Way to be closed minded about the potential future of Nesing :/

 

[erez87]

I'm open minded. I mean I accepted playing characters. But playing sports men in a game trying to be as cursy as possible?

Sports are one big bah. Enjoy ruining my heart with that immoral NES.

 

[JohannaK]

That's not an IOT for sure. If you asked me where it belongs, if IOT or NES, it's NES. But it's not a game I'd play anyway.

 

[Nuka-sama]

You're a European, the game doesn't want you to play :/

Basketball I mean, not the nes

 

[TheLizardKing]

That's not an IOT for sure. If you asked me where it belongs, if IOT or NES, it's NES.

That's far more insulting than I think you meant it to be.

 

[JohannaK]

I didn't meant it to be insulting. in fact I have just skimmed the first posts, but its enough to get the general idea, and its further away from IOTs than NESes. At least for now.

 

[~Darkening~]

Despite that fact that I really doesn't matter anymore, I believe I can sum up, in just three words, what should be the wide-spread opinion of the 'LeboshWade' 'NES':

Burn this abomination.

 

[Arrow Gamer]

I don't understand the NukeNES. What you do has no bearing on anything that happens.

 

[Grandkhan]

Hah. Silly Americans with your basketball NESes.

Someday I shall start a cricketNES. It will go for six years and in that time it will have three updates. Mostly one person will just run back and forth while everybody else on their team watches. That'll be 90% of everybody's turns.

 

[JohannaK]

Despite that fact that I really doesn't matter anymore, I believe I can sum up, in just three words, what should be the wide-spread opinion of the 'LeboshWade' 'NES':

Burn this abomination.

After reading the thread with more attention, I fully coincide with Darkening's opinion on the matter.

 

[Masada]

tl;dr

video 1

• 0.08-0.22: Net debt to revenue is a dumb measure as it captures a government's willingness to pay now; most economists prefer net debt to GDP because it shows a government's capacity to pay. This means that if a government can pay its debts out of current revenue, it can simply increase taxes to cover the gap.
  
• 0.25-0.51: Claims that the US government has unsustainable debts are true if we assume that it can't change its revenue levels or adjust the rate/quantum its pay. Both assumptions are false: the US government can adjust its revenue by increasing taxes and can also adjust the rate/quantum it pays on its bonds.
  
• 0.56-1.15: $14 trillion? Well gosh, that sounds like a lot! It isn't. The US economy is worth $15 trillion, giving us a net debt to revenue ratio of <1. To put this into perspective the average homeowner on the street has a net debt to revenue ratio of about 7. (The global average house price is about 7 times average income). Another point: government's are not at all like people and run under totally different rules (see: counter-cyclical spending).
  
• 1.23-1.56: I think the "taxes vs. spending: 1940 - 2011" chart is using nominal figures. I can't check because there isn't a source. Also, what idiot uses dollar figures in this context? Here's the reason: The budget deficit in the 1940s on a percentage basis would be comparable to the budget deficit now. As it is, you literally cannot see the massive deficit spending of the Second World War. And that children is the danger of nominal, non-sourced data used inappropriately!
  
• 2.00-2.40: "I don't understand monetary policy/inflation therefore it must be evil." Also, what the hell does inflation have to do with commodity prices? The price of commodities over time is a function of demand and supply issues and not moderate (<3%) inflation. You can prove this by looking at the nominal price of gold over time. The nominal price of gold in the early 80s was higher than the nominal price of gold until 2007. Furthermore, if we adjust gold prices for inflation, the value of gold is still below what it was in the 80s.
  
• 2.40-2.45: "Nefarious foreign governments own America's debts!" Actually, no. Foreign governments (and foreigners in general) only own about half publicly owned US debt. If I use the $14 trillion cited in the video (which includes all holdings of US debt) foreign ownership of US debt decreases to about 30% of the total.
  
• 2.45-3.10: ... printing money causes appreciation ceteris parabis. Also what do wages have to do with America borrowing money? I'm having trouble following the logic and I know it doesn't follow empirically. Sufficed to say that wage differentials between countries have far more factors acting on them than US borrowings.
  
• 3:10-3.20: Apparently outsourcing, which peaked before the Global Financial Crisis, caused the Global Financial Crisis.
  
• 3.20-3.40: Automatic stabilizers? Counter-cyclical spending? What is this I don't even.
  
• 3.40-3.50: Stagflation with 3% inflation? Seriously? That's not even above the target band for christsakes.
  
• 3.50-4.00 : "He can't make the Federal Reserve create more money without making inflation worse"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where's the inflation mang?
  
• 4.00-4.20: "Inevitable bankruptcy"? Evidence for assertion please.
  
• 4:20-5.15 : So America defaults... the world collapses because reasons.

In short, utter nonsense which doesn't even hold up to the most basic (eco101) level of scrutiny. Point in case, the author cannot seem to decide what inflation is and changes his angle on it at least three times that I counted. All in the same 5 minute video!

 

[Angst]

Why the circlejerking guys? I don't see an issue with the LeBoshWade thing. If you don't like it, don't play it. This supposed "death" of nesing is endeared by most of us anyways; we should care more about lack of activity than our preconceived notions of what's good or bad activity.

I will personally not play it though. I do not care for either sports or basketball. If I joined, I'd get bored and pretend to be a vampire or something.

Why do random people randomly get allergy to my cat, with no/little previous experience of cat allergy, at the worst moments.

Bad date?

 

[Lord of Elves]

This hysteria that dirty foreigners are going to take advantage of American decadence and largesse to bend us over the table with our awful, groaning debt is about as intellectually-stimulating as mud.

"A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

 

[talonschild]

I return to a basic maxim: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." Captain Obvious, I know. America cannot continually keep increasing its debt. Therefore it will stop. I cannot make predictions about what that will look like, but it will happen.

 

[Daftpanzer]

we should care more about lack of activity than our preconceived notions of what's good or bad activity.

I agree with Lord Joakim, even if I am inactive myself right now.

tl;dr

video 1

• 0.08-0.22: Net debt to revenue is a dumb measure as it captures a government's willingness to pay now; most economists prefer net debt to GDP because it shows a government's capacity to pay. This means that if a government can pay its debts out of current revenue, it can simply increase taxes to cover the gap.
  
• 0.25-0.51: Claims that the US government has unsustainable debts are true if we assume that it can't change its revenue levels or adjust the rate/quantum its pay. Both assumptions are false: the US government can adjust its revenue by increasing taxes and can also adjust the rate/quantum it pays on its bonds.
  
• 0.56-1.15: $14 trillion? Well gosh, that sounds like a lot! It isn't. The US economy is worth $15 trillion, giving us a net debt to revenue ratio of <1. To put this into perspective the average homeowner on the street has a net debt to revenue ratio of about 7. (The global average house price is about 7 times average income). Another point: government's are not at all like people and run under totally different rules (see: counter-cyclical spending).
  
• 1.23-1.56: I think the "taxes vs. spending: 1940 - 2011" chart is using nominal figures. I can't check because there isn't a source. Also, what idiot uses dollar figures in this context? Here's the reason: The budget deficit in the 1940s on a percentage basis would be comparable to the budget deficit now. As it is, you literally cannot see the massive deficit spending of the Second World War. And that children is the danger of nominal, non-sourced data used inappropriately!
  
• 2.00-2.40: "I don't understand monetary policy/inflation therefore it must be evil." Also, what the hell does inflation have to do with commodity prices? The price of commodities over time is a function of demand and supply issues and not moderate (<3%) inflation. You can prove this by looking at the nominal price of gold over time. The nominal price of gold in the early 80s was higher than the nominal price of gold until 2007. Furthermore, if we adjust gold prices for inflation, the value of gold is still below what it was in the 80s.
  
• 2.40-2.45: "Nefarious foreign governments own America's debts!" Actually, no. Foreign governments (and foreigners in general) only own about half publicly owned US debt. If I use the $14 trillion cited in the video (which includes all holdings of US debt) foreign ownership of US debt decreases to about 30% of the total.
  
• 2.45-3.10: ... printing money causes appreciation ceteris parabis. Also what do wages have to do with America borrowing money? I'm having trouble following the logic and I know it doesn't follow empirically. Sufficed to say that wage differentials between countries have far more factors acting on them than US borrowings.
  
• 3:10-3.20: Apparently outsourcing, which peaked before the Global Financial Crisis, caused the Global Financial Crisis.
  
• 3.20-3.40: Automatic stabilizers? Counter-cyclical spending? What is this I don't even.
  
• 3.40-3.50: Stagflation with 3% inflation? Seriously? That's not even above the target band for christsakes.
  
• 3.50-4.00 : "He can't make the Federal Reserve create more money without making inflation worse"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where's the inflation mang?
  
• 4.00-4.20: "Inevitable bankruptcy"? Evidence for assertion please.
  
• 4:20-5.15 : So America defaults... the world collapses because reasons.

In short, utter nonsense which doesn't even hold up to the most basic (eco101) level of scrutiny. Point in case, the author cannot seem to decide what inflation is and changes his angle on it at least three times that I counted. All in the same 5 minute video!

Thankyou Masada for your reply, I actually do hope you are right about all this ^^. I'm not an economics student, and I'm sure there is a lot of scaremongering going on. On the other hand, I'm aware that not a lot of people saw the 2008 crisis coming and when they did, they were ridiculed.

 

[Nylan]

There is a lot that I don't know. What I do know is that a household built upon excessive debt and irresponsible spending cannot last.

 

[Thlayli]

Debt service is a pretty easy thing to do. Once it rises (in 20-30 years) to an unenviable proportion of government spending you'll see a similar combination of reductions in defense and welfare spending that Europe has taken as its primary focus. Taken together, our entitlement and defense spending assumes roughly three quarters of the budget on any given year. Depending on which party controls Congress at the time of serious structural reform, one or the other will be cut in greater proportion.

Demographic and geopolitical changes will both force a variety of changes in the budget (the end of Medicare "as we know it," closing of US military bases abroad, etc.) that both sides of the political spectrum will dislike, but in no way is our debt situation untenable; it becomes tenable with a variety of politically ugly solutions (Bowles-Simpson et al) that nobody is as of yet willing to endorse.

 

[Crezth]

America cannot continually keep increasing its debt. Therefore it will stop. I cannot make predictions about what that will look like, but it will happen.

Why not? It may seem obvious, but you need to provide some explanation for why this is the case - other than "common sense." Otherwise it's a spurious claim.

 

[Thlayli]

Why not? It may seem obvious, but you need to provide some explanation for why this is the case - other than "common sense." Otherwise it's a spurious claim.

The obvious answer is that historically, exponentially increasing debt levels do result in default. The economic consensus is that an American default would result in a global recession. Of course, the nominal level of debt that one maintains is irrelevant; as anyone can tell you, the only thing that matters is whether the market (and presumably, math) sees the debt level as tenable. Japan's level of debt is nominally quite high, over 200% of GDP, but there's no threat of a Japanese default in the near-term since this level is roughly stable. Greece's nominal debt is lower, at 136% of GDP after the recent restructuring, but uncertainty on Greece's ability to prevent this from increasing ad infinitum is what causes international bond market pressure and the threat of default.

Right now, the US certainly can continue increasing its debt burden as long as the market sees no problem with it, (or rather sees no economic alternative to US of A as perpetual global seller's market) so the main objections to increasing our national debt are moral in nature.

At some point, creditors *may* flee, bond prices *may* spike, and the USA *may* suffer a globally catastrophic debt crisis. But the actual point at which these unknown unknowns take effect is unknown. As such, deficit hawks are practicing preventative medicine.