ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Bitchslapping the anklebiter

Tad tees himself up:
@Vox Day "They can't assert that debt doesn't matter at all anymore..."

No, they can't assert this. But, then they never did.  Burn that straw man down!!! 
It's hard for me to clearly communicate how much I despise anklebiting little bitches like Tad.  They're as stupid as they are ignorant, and yet they somehow manage to act smug whenever they are "correcting" their intellectual superiors.  The fact that such a cretin is willing to publicly assert I am attacking a straw man when I am doing nothing more than citing literally TEXTBOOK mainstream economics would alone be enough to make me reject democracy.  Three points:

1)  Debt isn't even listed in the extensive 13-page index of the most important textbook in economic history, Paul Samuelson's Economics.  622 pages and Samuelson devotes all of a paragraph to it, mostly to explain why it's irrelevant.

2)  In his latest book, Paul Krugman openly argues that debt is irrelevant for any nation with a central bank that borrows in its own currency because it cannot default, and since the nation cannot default, it can eventually grow its way out of debt through a combination of time, GDP expansion, and inflation.  He writes: "Governments depend on being able to roll over most of this debt, in effect selling new bonds to pay off old ones. If for some reason investors should refuse to buy new bonds, even a basically solvent government could be forced into default.  Could this happen to the United States? Actually, no—because the Federal Reserve could and would step in and buy federal debt, in effect printing money to pay the government’s bills. Nor could it happen to Britain, or Japan, or any country that borrows in its own currency and has its own central bank."

3)  In his landmark Neo-Keynesian textbook, Paul Samuelson expressly pointed out that domestic debt did not matter in the aggregate.  He wrote: "The interest on an internal debt is paid by Americans to Americans; there is no direct loss of goods and services. When interest on the debt is paid out of taxation, there is no direct loss of disposable income; Paul receives what Peter loses, and sometimes – but only sometimes – Paul and Peter are one and the same person.... In the future, some of our grandchildren will be giving up goods and services to other grandchildren. That is the nub of the matter. The only way we can impose a direct burden on the future nation as a whole is by incurring an external debt or by passing along less capital equipment to posterity."

So, the Neo-Keynesians have ALWAYS argued that debt doesn't matter in the aggregate so long as it is internal.  This is a fundamental aspect of their core view of economics, and this is why they don't understand bubbles as well as why their solution to economic depression always involves more debt and more spending.

I've noticed that as a general rule, if someone uses the phrase "straw man", they are almost invariably the same sort of mindless yapping idiot that used to make a habit of pointing out "correlation is not causation" and claiming "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  It's almost as if there is someone programming these morons to say demonstrably ludicrous things and inflicting them upon the public en masse.

UPDATE: Since Tad has somehow managed to conclude that economists explicitly arguing that debt doesn't matter is evidence that they believe it does, in fact, matter, let's add a few more Krugman quotes from "the document where this assertion was made by, say, Krugman", namely, his latest book,  End This Depression Now!  Tad clearly doesn't understand that the entire point of Krugman's book is not only to convince readers that debt doesn't matter, but to convince them that adding massive quantities of government debt to the existing debt is the actual and only solution to the speedy end of the current depression.  Here is Krugman writing in the chapter entitled "But What About the Deficit?"

"Where the harm done by lack of jobs is real and terrible, the harm done by deficits to a nation like America in its current situation is, for the most part, hypothetical....

The key thing to bear in mind is that the $5 trillion or so in debt America has run up since the crisis began, and the trillions more we’ll surely run up before this economic siege is over, won’t have to be paid off quickly, or indeed at all. In fact, it won’t be a tragedy if the debt actually continues to grow, as long as it grows more slowly than the sum of inflation and economic growth....  

Now let’s consider what all this implies for the future burden of the debt we’re building up now. We won’t ever have to pay off the debt; all we’ll have to do is pay enough of the interest on the debt so that the debt grows significantly more slowly than the economy."

Labels: ,

94 Comments:

Blogger redlegben November 13, 2012 7:35 PM  

Outside of your personal irritation, the explanation you have provided is nicely put forth. It is actually a succinct statement on debt that can be useful when arguing economics. Thank you.

Anonymous daddynichol November 13, 2012 7:37 PM  

Tad was a tad stupid.

Anonymous Baseball Savant November 13, 2012 7:43 PM  

anklebiting little bitches

oh how i love it!

Anonymous Amir Larijani November 13, 2012 7:46 PM  

Vox: As my wife often says, you can't fix stupid.

And it's amazing how many "educated" people--including Nobel Prize winners--have made stupidity into an art form.

That just fills me with great confidence in our government #HolyShitTranquility

Anonymous p-dawg November 13, 2012 7:58 PM  

My personal opinion is that it is a combination of declining public schools, pro-"science" propaganda, and the "everyone wins", "participation ribbon" mentality that is so prevalent today. When someone is not only never shown how they are wrong, but are never even told they are wrong, it is reasonable that they begin to believe they are never wrong.

Anonymous Res Ipsa November 13, 2012 8:22 PM  

"It's almost as if there is someone programming these morons"

The term you're looking for is "public school".

Blogger Michael November 13, 2012 8:26 PM  

And how would this even apply, given that a great deal of our debit is owed to foreigners (e.g. China)? By their own explanation, this debt matters very much.

Anonymous AlteredFate November 13, 2012 8:27 PM  

"It's almost as if there is someone programming these morons to say demonstrably ludicrous things and inflicting them upon the public en masse."

I've noticed that fools mimic parrots more than sheep. You can teach them a phrase or two and they can repeat it, but it is only so much noise to them. They know not what they say. If we had a gom jabbar I'm sure we'd be shocked at just how hard it would be to find real humans living among these masses of unthinking animals.

Blogger Rantor November 13, 2012 8:35 PM  

Your restraint is commendable, his head should hurt after that, but I don't think he'll understand.

Blogger tz November 13, 2012 8:39 PM  

'Twas the straw-man, the scarecrow, who sang "If I only had a brain...". Yet at the end, he received not a brain, but a degreee. Ingratitude, at least the WWW gave him several, in celcius or farenheight. He was hot, for a short while, but burnout is always a risk.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 13, 2012 8:41 PM  

I don't know why you hate them.

Then again I love crushing my enemies before me, and hearing the lamentations of their women. Yes, yummy tears of unfathomable sadness.

Then again, it is like kicking a cripple's ass, but I write for the lulz.

Blogger A November 13, 2012 8:43 PM  

It seems mid-wits and low IQ persons are very quick to call logical fallacies with no thorough explanation in the hope that they are somehow seen as brilliant. It's intellectual insecurity in my opinion, as Tad's silver bullet statement was said in complete ignorance of neo-keynesianism, and his high level of insecurity and lack of foresight led him to follow through with the absurd rebuke. Being a mid-wit myself, I used to do that when I was a teenager until the experience of reading vox's blog for years wore on me.

Anonymous MPC November 13, 2012 8:55 PM  

Looks like the GRIDS is starting to eat away at what remains of Tad's brain.

Anonymous Tad November 13, 2012 9:03 PM  

"debt doesn't matter at all anymore"

Can you cite the document where this assertion was made by, say, Krugman? Your example above doesn't do that. On the other hand, I can point you to where Krugman says debt can be a problem and debt has consequences...meaning, it matters.

Anonymous Tad November 13, 2012 9:09 PM  

It's a shame when self-styled Superintelligences get used up so simply by simple anklebiters.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 13, 2012 9:20 PM  

2012 US Election Maps if only certain groups voted

I've been seeing this posted around a lot lately.

Just post these photos to kill diversity anklebiters. Follow red to blue, but you might need to explain it to the less than 1% segment of the population with Tritanopia, or colorblindness to the increasing blue states. Don't miss the link at the bottom showing the 2008 election map with non-white votes only. Someone with Tritanopia will see a Rorschach ink blot. That's the real lulz there.

It is so simple, it is like kicking a cripple's ass. I am filled with lots and lots of lulz.

Anonymous Kickass November 13, 2012 9:20 PM  

Tad, you have him right where you want him. Just watch out for the flaming sword.

Anonymous Anonymous November 13, 2012 9:27 PM  

Tad, consider Google hit #1 and follow until you are Krugman lay out everything Samuelson said as quoted by Vox above.

-- MrGreenMan

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/on-the-non-burden-of-debt/

Anonymous Bisch November 13, 2012 9:27 PM  

Tad, you're in over your head. my advice is to ask the question, and then stop and listen. you really can learn a lot here, I promise, if only you're willing to be much less arrogant than you are now.

Anonymous A Visitor November 13, 2012 9:31 PM  

Paul Samuelson expressly pointed out that domestic debt did not matter in the aggregate. I took an econ class in undergrad and one in grad school. Even I, someone who is not an economist, knows that that statement is pure crap. Wow! These people really are that stupid!

Anonymous Jack Amok November 13, 2012 9:41 PM  

That is the nub of the matter. The only way we can impose a direct burden on the future nation as a whole is by incurring an external debt or by passing along less capital equipment to posterity.

Well then, let's take them at their word that inflation apparently doesn't matter. What do these fools think "internal" debt does? Why, aside from producing inflation, or rather as part of producing inflation, it also creates malinvestments. And what do malinvestents do, dear midwits? Why, they reduce the capital equipment we are able to pass on to posterity.

Good grief, even by their own definitions they're wrong.

Anonymous Grinder November 13, 2012 10:06 PM  

Zimbabwe shows you cannot just print yourself out of debt. Scale does not cancel out the law of gravity. The US is merely a larger ship that takes longer to sink than a punctured inner tube like Zimb.

Blogger Michael November 13, 2012 10:07 PM  

Here's classic Krugman, he says "So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html

This, after he spent a dozen paragraphs telling us all the reasons debt doesn't matter. Not only is he utterly wrong (about most everything), he can't even stay consistent within one op-ed.

Anonymous Noah B. November 13, 2012 10:14 PM  

I only CLEP'ed out of macroecon instead of taking the class, but it did mean I had to read the book from cover to cover. What struck me at the time was the that the description of the Keynesian approach to economic stimulus was that the government would use deficit spending to stimulate the economy in times of recession, with no mention of how or when the government should pay that back.

The reason they don't talk about paying back the debt is because they don't intent to. The hope is that government just continues to spend money that it doesn't have indefinitely, and somehow, magically, there are never supposed to be any consequences for this. They do say this outright in the intro level macroeconomics courses -- they save that and the animal spirits for the advanced courses, I guess.

Clearly, though, Keynes understood the long term implications of his approach. As he famously stated: "In the long run, we're all dead." Which is certainly a truism, but the way I translate that is, don't worry about the application of the theory over long periods of time, since any rational person knows it doesn't work that long. Keynes was a far more sophisticated con artist than Ponzi, after all.

Anonymous Noah B. November 13, 2012 10:16 PM  

Arrgh... that was supposed to say "They do NOT say this outright in the intro level macroeconomics courses"

Anonymous No use for a username November 13, 2012 10:18 PM  

I've noticed that as a general rule, if someone uses the phrase "straw man", they are almost invariably the same sort of mindless yapping idiot that used to make a habit of pointing out "correlation is not causation" and claiming "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Thank you, Vox, for calling "straw man" out. For the last few years I got the feeling that "straw man" was being used as a "Get out of your lost argument free" card.

Anonymous Porky? November 13, 2012 10:25 PM  

"Debt matters, but not that much."

-Paul Krugman


Gee, that took about 5 seconds of searching.

Anonymous David November 13, 2012 11:08 PM  

Porky, now try searching for the following phrases...

"We owe it to ourselves."

and

"We can grow our way out of it."

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 13, 2012 11:10 PM  

"Paul Samuelson expressly pointed out that domestic debt did not matter in the aggregate. He wrote: "The interest on an internal debt is paid by Americans to Americans"

Ah, mais ca n'est pas la vrai question! After all, there are aggregates and there are aggregates. WHICH Americans exactly, are paying all this interest to WHICH Americans, hmm?

Cut to Paul Samuelson sneaking out of the room: "Um, I'm needed in the basement."

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 13, 2012 11:15 PM  

Vox this talk is 2 hours 37 minutes long but is well worth it. It is by Ann Barnhardt.

The Economy is going to collapse

Money is a "Fungible Proxy". It is a great talk.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 13, 2012 11:24 PM  

Here is another one:

Jeff Berwick of Dollar Vigilante, Increasing your Freedom

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 13, 2012 11:54 PM  

"Why do you keep bringing up diversity? I don't get it!"

"You don't think that might be connected to the economy, through welfare expansion, immigration, and the housing bubble?"

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 13, 2012 11:56 PM  

C'mon Tad, get back in there! Trust your feelings!

<popcorn>

Anonymous Noah B. November 14, 2012 12:16 AM  

Second that, Wheeler. The Ann Barnhardt video was fantastic.

Anonymous Anonymous November 14, 2012 12:38 AM  

Disneynomics:

If we all just Believe In Ourselves, debt won't matter...

Anonymous Azimus November 14, 2012 12:42 AM  

Stay down Tad.

I am reminded of a Kids in the Hall skit where Bruce McCulloch picks a fight in a bar. If I knew how to hyperlink I would provide it for everyone. Seek it out. Study it. Stay down Tad.

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 14, 2012 12:48 AM  

"correlation is not causation"

I get sick of hearing that as well.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 1:34 AM  

@Azius "I am reminded of a Kids in the Hall skit where Bruce McCulloch picks a fight in a bar. If I knew how to hyperlink I would provide it for everyone. Seek it out. Study it. Stay down Tad."

Vox Day is easier to FactCheck against the boards than Romney for the same reason. He talks out of his ass and thinks his farts are truth because they are his. But they are really just brain farts. It took no more than a second or two to confirm his contention was rubbish. I shouldn't even have taken the time to check it.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 1:49 AM  

Let's see all three of the last Tad comments side by side:

---

"debt doesn't matter at all anymore"

Can you cite the document where this assertion was made by, say, Krugman? Your example above doesn't do that. On the other hand, I can point you to where Krugman says debt can be a problem and debt has consequences...meaning, it matters.

It's a shame when self-styled Superintelligences get used up so simply by simple anklebiters.

Vox Day is easier to FactCheck against the boards than Romney for the same reason. He talks out of his ass and thinks his farts are truth because they are his. But they are really just brain farts. It took no more than a second or two to confirm his contention was rubbish. I shouldn't even have taken the time to check it.

---

When it was demonstrated the exact opposite of what Tad said, as it was clearly cited. If only Tad had not taken the time to check it, then he would have never posted in the first place. Imagine.


Tad, does your brain touch your spinal column?

Anonymous kh123 November 14, 2012 2:50 AM  

I'd assume Tad touches many things.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 3:04 AM  

Fred Reed's latest column Romnibus made me all uncomfortable inside. The transverse colon felt weird and shameful, as the peristalsis torqued from fifth-gear to reverse, and back again. It was like watching a retard drive a pre-bailout Ford pickup truck after huffing copious keyboard cleaner. A paragraph would be correct, then the next paragraph would go wrong and drive over the line into the oncoming traffic. That's right, Fred just killed in a fiery death a bus full of Mormons on a tabernacle music tour. For fun. That column has some use after all.

He sure does love bathyspheres though. I've seen those appear in his corinthian columns multiple times. I guess the blinking metal orbs bring back memories to a simpler time, like when they launched Sputnik into the ocean of space. Or his pacemaker. I kid, I kid...

His last column "A Surrender" was just fine.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 3:35 AM  

I'd assume Tad touches many things.

Fred touched my soul. Tad tried to touch my soul, like a Catholic mind priest reaching in and massaging the chakras. "Does that feel good? How about now? Don't tell your mom or you're going to Hell..." Too much stupid is never good for the soul.

Anonymous zen0 November 14, 2012 3:50 AM  

Krugman wrote that debt matters in an article called NOBODY UNDERSTANDS DEBT from Jan. 1, 2012. He employed it as a rhetorical device in an article who's whole thrust is why debt does not matter as a whole as long as it is government debt.

Vox states: So, the Neo-Keynesians have ALWAYS argued that debt doesn't matter in the aggregate so long as it is internal.

Tad is either being disingenous or simply incapable of reading beyond a primer level.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 4:21 AM  

simply incapable of reading beyond a primer level.

I think that is rather obvious. But according to Tad, Vox is easy to fact check. That's like checking cereal for taste by only looking at the box. I checked it! Yum!

Even when I disagree with Fred, he still touches me in a good way because he is thinking.

Tad rapes my MIND with a creek of shit while my psyche is stuck in the little inner tube raft.

Anonymous mirrormirror November 14, 2012 4:51 AM  

Surprise, surprise. Vox outraged at the exact same kind of pedantry that he regularly engages in against opponents. What this post goes to show once again is that Vox is that most unreflective of hypocrites, oblivious to his own inconsistencies of behaviour, fueled by it.

Anonymous Stilicho November 14, 2012 5:24 AM  

To an Anklebiter dying young

The time you thought you'd won the race
We cheered you through the blogging place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
As you doubled-down your obvious lie.

Today, the road such liars run,
Shows you where your path is done.
And leaves you at a quiet place
With viscous egg yolk on your face.

Smart lad to slip betimes away
From whence your efforts do not pay,
And easy though the lying grows
it withers quicker than the rose.

Mouth the quoted fact has shut
Cannot speak, Tad you slut.
Your silence speaks more than your jeers
In the echo of the Dread Ilk's cheers.

Now you will not grace these pages
With all your homophilic rages.
A gadfly whom the facts outran,
the lies died e'en before the man.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 5:25 AM  

Tad mirror, is that you?

Changing your name out of shame? Was it comparing you to a Catholic priest that rapes minds, or the creek of shit analogy that did it?

Anonymous Prof William Huggins of Ettenmoor University November 14, 2012 5:28 AM  

mirrormirror November 14, 2012 4:51 AM

Surprise, surprise. Vox outraged at the exact same kind of pedantry that he regularly engages in against opponents. What this post goes to show once again is that Vox is that most unreflective of hypocrites, oblivious to his own inconsistencies of behaviour, fueled by it.


Do you mean he doesn't share your views on gay marriage, or something?

Anonymous VD November 14, 2012 6:02 AM  

Vox outraged at the exact same kind of pedantry that he regularly engages in against opponents. What this post goes to show once again is that Vox is that most unreflective of hypocrites, oblivious to his own inconsistencies of behaviour, fueled by it.

That's totally inaccurate. There is a massive difference between specifics that are contextually relevant, even vital, and a silly degree of pedantry that directly contradicts the contextually relevant point. It's not stupidly pedantic to argue the definition of evidence when someone asserts that "no evidence exists". It is stupidly pedantic to argue the definition of "doesn't matter" when someone asserts that "debt doesn't matter".

Could Tad argue that Neo-Keynesians don't say that debt doesn't matter because they are arguing that debt is good, necessary, and desirable, and something that is necessary obviously matters? Sure. I'd even agree with him in that case. But is that the argument that Tad is making? Tad could have asked for a clarification. That would have been reasonable. He could have even reasonably argued that my attack was confusing to him or sub-optimal. But instead, he falsely claimed that I am attacking a straw man, which quite clearly isn't the case since what I am attacking is Paul Krugman's Neo-Keynesian argument that debt is good, necessary, and desirable in times of economic depression.

Which, you will note, happens to be the entire point of his latest book.

Anonymous zen0 November 14, 2012 6:05 AM  

mirrormirror/Tad is just another obsessive parasite.

@ Azimus....the Stay Down bar fight seems to be wrapped up in "private video" pay per view land. If you actually have a copy of the URL that works, you can just put it in a comment and people can cut and paste. All I could find was a transcript.

It is an excellent example of trollitude.

Anonymous Stilicho November 14, 2012 6:13 AM  

Vox, as for your assertions re: use of the straw man fallacy, while I often see people erroneously assert that it is being used when it isn't, just as often (if not more) I see it used by those seeking to discredit an argument by attacking a rhetorically similar argument that's susceptible to the attack. It's a common accusation for good reason: it's a common practice. I think you may be a bit of a unique little snowflake because of your relative prominence and diligence in taking on various and sundry anklebiters who are prone to such false accusations.

Anonymous Anonymous November 14, 2012 7:09 AM  

"It seems mid-wits and low IQ persons are very quick to call logical fallacies with no thorough explanation in the hope that they are somehow seen as brilliant."

I agree with you there A. Saclzi the rapist just recently used this tactic on a dissenter. What made his accusation absurd is if you used Scalzi's own definition of a Strawman then his entire original post "Some Quick and Final Post-Election Notes to Some But Not All White Men" was a strawman.

Anonymous Elmer Fudge (friend of Sexual Chocolate) November 14, 2012 7:34 AM  

Tad, I challenge you. If perpetual debt is inconsequential, then perpetual war will be the norm. We have perpetual war because we have perpetual debt. War (unjust and undeclared) does not exist, without unending debt.[1]

I can point you to to Norman Dodd et al, to amplify fully the point. However, I doubt you will investigate. Without sound monetary policy and banking, we will see unending wars and unjust conflict for as far and long as the eye can see and believe.

For this cause, we will continually hear and see about those such as Naeemullah. So, I challenge you once again. Who are the compassionate ones here. Those for perpetual debt (and with it -- war), or those for not?



------------
[1] Check the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section VIII.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 8:48 AM  

Stating that Krugman and others believe "debt doesn't matter" isn't just a poor analysis of their economic philosophy. It's a contrived attempt at sloganeering. It's marketing. It's looking for some phrase that will stick due to its simplicity and outlandishness. It's a rhetorical spitball, disguised as commentary where real truth isn't a factor.

It's no surprise that having be called on this, Vox Day widened the goal posts a little. In fact it's nice to see as it's an acknowledgement that his original assertion was both wrong as well as underdeveloped...again in the service of trying to smear another in an attempt to lift himself up.

Well done, Mr. Super-Intelligence. Well Done.

Anonymous VD November 14, 2012 9:06 AM  

Stating that Krugman and others believe "debt doesn't matter" isn't just a poor analysis of their economic philosophy.

Yet another groundless assertion. Tad, you've yapped a lot, but you've offered nothing but an appeal to the authority of your opinion. You've provided absolutely no evidence of anything in support of that opinion. So, I suggest that you back up your opinion, just as I have already done. By all means, please provide us with a superior analysis of Krugman's economic philosophy, specifically with regards to debt.

We eagerly await illumination.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 9:20 AM  

I have no analysis to offer to Krugman's economic philosophy. I only have an analysis to offer of your claim he believes "debt doesn't matter". This clearly is not his position as he has said otherwise in numerous places. So, by pinning your attacks on this unfounded point, you identify yourself as a self aggrandizing blogger.

I'm not qualified to fully analyze his economic philosophy, nor am I interested in doing so. However, I am qualified to pick apart your shoddy attempt at rhetorical excess.

Still I note that you've amended your rhetoric by widening your goal posts. That's a good start.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento November 14, 2012 9:25 AM  

Debt matters but HOW MUCH it matters is the issue.
We can't look at national debt like we look at personal debt or business debt, for one thing, no one is gonna foreclose or garnish wages or put a lien on a country like the US, no one is gonna come "collecting" and when foreign countries "lend money" they do it on the condition of getting back in trade and such, far more than the "belief" they will get it paid back.
Yes, the US debt is a very big issue BUT it isn't as big an issue as personal/business debt, not in a realistic way.
Like I said, I don't see anyone "coming to collect" from the US or having their loans called in or having their lien put on their assets.
I am wrong on this? realistically speaking of course?

Anonymous Stilicho November 14, 2012 9:29 AM  

qualified

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 14, 2012 9:33 AM  

Of course, nations can default on their national debt and have many times over the years. Of course, nations can repudiate their national debt and have on several occasions. My favorite example is when the Soviet Union repudiated the debt of the Russian government it replaced, soon after the revolution. This fact led to the creation of EuroDollars in Paris in 1940 to enable the Soviet Union to pay for war materials they needed from the West. (EuroDollars were American currency.)

Of course, the Confederate States of America national debt was repudiated at bayonet point and a number of small wars and punitive expeditions were launched by imperialist nations in the West to compel third world nations to make good on their "arrears" and "outstanding obligations". Yes, this included the USA, under the old foreign policy formula of "money, missionaries, and Marines".

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 9:33 AM  

@Stilcho

I do not think your thought has much substance.

Anonymous Stilicho November 14, 2012 9:45 AM  

@Stilcho

I do not think your thought has much substance.


>facepalm<

Blogger Nate November 14, 2012 9:55 AM  

"I have no analysis to offer to Krugman's economic philosophy. I only have an analysis to offer of your claim he believes "debt doesn't matter". "


Given that there have been multiple links to multiple columns where Krugman spends paragraphs saying that EXACT thing...

How do you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you make this comment?

Anonymous Roundtine November 14, 2012 9:57 AM  

I Googled "Krugman debt doesn't matter"

Results differ for different people (thanks google!), but I got many diverse hits all taking him to task for this position, including a science blog!

Anonymous Josh November 14, 2012 10:05 AM  

Given that there have been multiple links to multiple columns where Krugman spends paragraphs saying that EXACT thing...How do you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you make this comment?

See, tad doesn't use the common meanings of words like us simple minded folk do.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 10:06 AM  

Krugman doesn't bellieve "debt doesn't matter". He's said the contrary numerous times. Ignore that fact or don't. I don't really care.

I just wanted to accurately point out that Vox Day was mistaken in making this claim. And my work is done here. You folks can defend the "Super Intelligence" all you want. But even he is now constructing new goal posts...widening them and moving them closer to him. Yet I'd bet he'll still miss the three pointer.

Anonymous JartStar November 14, 2012 10:07 AM  

VD: Neo-Keynesians say debt doesn’t matter.

Tad: Strawman! That isn’t what they say.

VD: Here’s the evidence that internal debt doesn’t matter in the context of their larger goals and philosophy.

Tad: They do think it matters in general and you know it, and that isn’t what you originally said.

VD: Supply evidence they think it matters more then there goal.

Tad: Irrelevant. You used shock rhetoric to make a point, were imprecise, and are now trying to wriggle out of your mistake.

So does Tad get points for pointing out Vox’s imprecise rhetoric, or lose points for immediately going to the Strawman Card without asking for clarification?

Tad makes a valid point that Vox was unusually sloppy here but Tad handled it poorly and derailed the possibility of meaningful conversation by using Strawman rhetoric of his own.

Blogger Nate November 14, 2012 10:10 AM  

Sorry... Having read Samuelson and Krugman... I cannot take anyone seriously that claims they believe debt is any way important in the grand scheme of things.

So yes... I characterize the statement "Paul Krugman doesn't think debt matters" as accurate.

There is no strawman. There is no goalpost moving.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 10:18 AM  

@JartStar Tad makes a valid point that Vox was unusually sloppy here but Tad handled it poorly and derailed the possibility of meaningful conversation by using Strawman rhetoric of his own.

Hey...have a ball....have a meaningful conversation. I'm even betting people here could get half way to that place. I'm not stopping anyone. Just pointing out that given Vox Day's claim that Krugman thinks "debt doesn't matter" isn't a factual basis upon which to generate a meaningful conversation.

Anonymous Josh November 14, 2012 10:19 AM  

Krugman doesn't bellieve "debt doesn't matter". He's said the contrary numerous times. Ignore that fact or don't. I don't really care.

You blathering Mongoloid, several people have provided you with evidence that Krugman has said debt doesn't matter.

Now, Krugman is such a bad economist and so intellectually inconsistent that he be saying that debt matters in some cases. He tends to contradict himself that way.

But, if someone assets that Krugman believes debt doesn't matter, all that is required to prove that is.to provide an example where Krugman says that debt doesn't matter. That has been provided. Case closed.

Anonymous Roundtine November 14, 2012 10:21 AM  

I am wrong on this? realistically speaking of course?

You're right in theory, wrong in fact. Once debt gets this large, it is the only problem in the way a black hole is your only problem because it destroys everything else. No one is going to collect U.S. debt, but U.S. debt is U.S. money. So what happens when no one wants your money?

Anonymous JartStar November 14, 2012 10:22 AM  

Nate,

You are correct, but I don’t think Tad was incorrect to point out Vox’s imprecision here. Vox constantly takes others to task, especially Krugman, about imprecise comments. He knows when taking on a big target like Krugman or the prevailing theory in a field that his detractors are waiting in the bushes looking for errors however small.

When Vox made the comment I knew it wasn’t entirely accurate when taken at face value as I’ve heard Krugman myself speak about the debt mattering as it gets too large. I took Vox’s comment as rhetoric based upon the overall Neo-Keynesian view of debt.

Krugman thinks "debt doesn't matter" isn't a factual basis upon which to generate a meaningful conversation.

It was rhetoric pure and simple when taken at face value and was playing to the "Down with the Fed" crowd, and when one is as arrogant as Vox and make a mistake well… criticism is expected.

Anonymous JartStar November 14, 2012 10:25 AM  

So what happens when no one wants your money?

The real question is: What happens when the Fed no longer wants to buy your debt? Krugman’s possible mistake here is expecting the Fed to buy the debt ad nauseum. The solution would be to nationalize the Fed and become Japan.

Anonymous zen0 November 14, 2012 10:56 AM  

If I said: "Government Debt matters, but not enough to do anything about it."

Is my meaning "debt matters" or "debt doesn't matter"?

For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men -
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

Anonymous Richardthughes November 14, 2012 11:01 AM  

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/debt-is-mostly-money-we-owe-to-ourselves/

"...People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.

That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems — it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.
"

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 11:08 AM  

Krugman has also noted that one of the meaningful consequences of high debt is the necessity of taxing to pay the interest. It's pretty clear Krugman doens't think "debt doesn't matter."

This thread is done. The author's contentions have been bruised and spoiled by reality. What a feckless attempt at self aggrandizing and a waste of digital space.

Anonymous Daniel November 14, 2012 11:19 AM  

Tad, you don't matter.

That doesn't mean you can't type.

Anonymous Daniel November 14, 2012 11:39 AM  

Let's reset to reality:

Vox Day: [The Neo-Keynesians] can't assert that debt doesn't matter at all anymore, since the conventional Samuelsonian argument was blown away by the growth of foreign debt and the financial crisis of 2008, so now Krugman and company have shifted to arguing that a certain and specific type of debt can be amassed infinitely.

Tad: Strawman! They never did!

Krugman: Shut up, Tad. Of course I did. Ignoring the foreign component, or looking at the world as a whole, the overall level of debt makes no difference to aggregate net worth — one person’s liability is another person’s asset. I may be misguided, but I don't need retards like you "defending" me. It doesn't work out for either one of us. Buy my book. I need your money in this crap economy.

Anonymous Roundtine November 14, 2012 11:47 AM  

Krugman has also noted that one of the meaningful consequences of high debt is the necessity of taxing to pay the interest. It's pretty clear Krugman doens't think "debt doesn't matter."

No, it means the ability to pay interest matters, not the debt itself. Which is why he calls for increasing the debt to increase economic growth and inflation. He doesn't think it matters as a factor in the economy, it's not included in most neo-keynesian macro models. They don't have a model like Steve Keen's, or the Austrians, who consider debt an important factor.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 14, 2012 12:34 PM  

So let me see if I got this straight. One of the members of the Tribe of Usurers is trying to coax us all into thinking that crushing debt is not such a big deal after all; since ya know, if Bob and Pete have to work their lives away to pay interest to Noah and Ari, well it's just money that Americans owe to "Americans", and so there's no difference and no big deal, right?

"what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children"

So as long as the children of Bob and Pete are the ones who pay, and the children of Noah and Ari are the ones who get paid, then all is right with the world.

Have I understood, Herr Professor-Doktor?

Blogger Giraffe November 14, 2012 12:36 PM  

Debt is great as long as the people you borrow from don't expect to be paid back.

Blogger Spacebunny November 14, 2012 12:40 PM  

Just pointing out that given Vox Day's claim that Krugman thinks "debt doesn't matter" isn't a factual basis upon which to generate a meaningful conversation.

Ah, but naked assertions are apparently. Brilliant!

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 14, 2012 12:42 PM  

The best part is that Bob and Pete didn't personally borrow money to help out the children of Bob and Pete; no, rather, at the behest of Senator Finkelman (who was elected with money donated by Noah and Ari), Bob and Pete are made through force of law to borrow money from Noah and Ari in order to help the children of Lashawn and Detravious and Mohammed and Taco and Chaco and Cheng Ho, none of whom by the way pay taxes, and none of whom ever will; and so not only do Bob and Pete have to pay Noah and Ari, they also have to now pay extra to move away from Chaco and Taco and Mohammed, and pay even more extra to send their one kid, Sally, to a private school so she won't be raped by Lashawn and Detravious. So Bob and his wife Carol, instead of having a family consisting of Jack, Sally, Jim, and Angie, instead can only afford to have a family with Sally in it. Which makes room for an even greater flood of Tacos, Chacos, Mohammeds, and Cheng Hos.

Meanwhile Noah, Ari, and Senator Finkelman toast each other, in semi-disbelief that they ever got Bob and Pete to fall for this horseshit.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 12:53 PM  

So let me see if I got this straight. One of the members of the Tribe of Usurers...

We are these day far beyond the traditional banking path and largely seek out the legal, medical and importation path.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 14, 2012 1:33 PM  

"We are these day far beyond the traditional banking path and largely seek out the legal, medical and importation path."

Heh, nice deadpan, it's a useful skill. I salute you for your continuing good humor despite wandering into such a shitstorm here. I like the bantering tone of this place but sometimes it can get a little too abusive a little too easily for my blood. And there's a gang mentality that sometimes gives me the willies, though I suppose that's what you'd expect when you form a crowd of pretty smart people who are all convinced they're right.

Obviously we two have some disagreements and they are not trivial, but neither are they a cause for pistols at dawn. Cream pies at dawn, maybe. It's more my speed.

Anonymous Stilicho November 14, 2012 1:37 PM  

A question: Who would allow Tad as a house guest?

Follow-up: would your answer change if Tad's nice, polite, hard-working, cousin the M.D. had to stay or leave with Tad?

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 1:43 PM  

@Scooby:

I'm bringing Kugel to the showdown and you don't stand a chance, particularly if its my sister's version, god help you.

Anonymous kh123 November 14, 2012 2:06 PM  

"I'm not qualified to fully analyze [Krugman's] economic philosophy, nor am I interested in doing so."

Clearly, one cannot approach God on the matter; that's what the veil and wave offering is for.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento November 14, 2012 2:19 PM  

Giraffe said:
Debt is great as long as the people you borrow from don't expect to be paid back.



And isn't that really the case with debt to other countries?
I mean, the US is still lending money to other countries too right? even though it doesn't have any money to lend, right?
When countries "lend money" isn't it really a ploy to exert influence and increase trade?

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 5:36 PM  

Tad is still posting? I shamed him out of his name, then shamed him back into it. Haha.

My dream is one day that I troll one of the trolls like Tad so hard, they decide to kill themselves. You know, like how Hannibal Lecter whispered to Miggs in the next cell until he finally swallowed his own tongue.

I dream big sometimes.

Anonymous Bobo November 14, 2012 5:36 PM  

Giraffe said:
"Debt is great as long as the people you borrow from don't expect to be paid back."

As long as the US is militarily superior to everyone else that should work, otherwise you'll end up in a situation where you foreign assets may be confiscated by your creditors - look at the Argentinian navy training ship in Africa. If that happened to a US ship, you'd just park a cruiser offshore and no one would mess with you- sadly for Argentina, they can't do that. They'll have to pay or lose face and the ship.

Anonymous Tad November 14, 2012 8:47 PM  

@Idle "My dream is one day that I troll one of the trolls like Tad so hard, they decide to kill themselves."

Everyone needs dreams.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 14, 2012 9:25 PM  

Tad, have you ever considered... the opposite? That God actually hates you, that's why he decided to make you Jewish? As a joke that paints a target on your back prime for mistreatment?

Anonymous Tom O. November 15, 2012 4:47 AM  

Tad needs his own encyclopedia dramatica page.

Anonymous ericcs December 15, 2012 9:40 AM  

Like all leftist trolls, Tad is playing with semantics and deliberately being obtuse in order to hijack the blog discussion. This is his real underlying motivation... it matters little to such smarmy little enemies that they best the issue under discussion, but only that they demotivate it onto some other less-useful sidetrack. If they can do the latter, then they and their handlers consider the whole exercise to be successful.

What Tad is doing with the present discussion is deliberately refusing to acknowledge that the phrase "debt doesn't matter" here means "debt has no downside".

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts