The Third Depression • Hacker News Board

Re: The Third Depression

#91

Post by sethg » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:27 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #80

rbranson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't possibly pay back the money we owe. If the government were a person, economics might agree with you, but it's not. This is what fiscal conservatives fail to see. The government can hold debt so long, that, due to inflation, it's value will fall to the point where paying it off is trivial. This is not practical for persons that have a finite lifespan. Corporations also fall in this category, albeit to somew…

> The government can hold debt so long, that, due to inflation, it's value will fall to the point where paying it off is trivial. Reread what he actually wrote instead of responding to a strawman. Pay particular attention to the words after "debts". >>> We're going to do default the hard way by not paying our debts or we're going to default by inflation. Note that inflation isn't free - it has huge costs that play ou…

Inflation doesn’t have to reach triple or even double digits to have an effect on a country’s debt burden. If a country owes a big pile of money at 4%, and inflation goes up to 2%, and the nominal GDP grows at 5%, then the overall debt-to-GDP ratio will decline.

Re: The Third Depression

#92

Post by dantheman » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:28 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #77

dantheman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The US involvement in WWI led to the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, if the US held back it's been argued that England and France would have sued for peace earlier and the harshness of the treaty wouldn't have been there and then one of the prime causes of WW2 would not have existed. The Us involvement in WW2 is due to escapades in China and the Philippines - the reason Japan attacked the US.

What are you arguing here? The fact (well, I agree) that the US badly screwed up its first really major intervention in world affairs has little to do with the present day, unless you contend that we learned nothing from it (e.g. for WWII Unconditional Surrender and the occupation and nation building we did in Japan and West Germany).

I'm arguing that non-intervention might be good; that perhaps interfering with other countries might not be a good idea. Now I'm all for humanitarian assistance, and helping people fleeing countries that are war torn. In fact, I think when their is serious strife the US should do it's best help people relocate to the US -- e.g. instead of letting people get slaughtered in Rwanda we should have helped evacuate them to the US.

I think that it is far from given that the US should be the world police, or that anyone should be the world police.

Re: The Third Depression

#93

Post by rbranson » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:29 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #80

rbranson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't possibly pay back the money we owe. If the government were a person, economics might agree with you, but it's not. This is what fiscal conservatives fail to see. The government can hold debt so long, that, due to inflation, it's value will fall to the point where paying it off is trivial. This is not practical for persons that have a finite lifespan. Corporations also fall in this category, albeit to somew…

> The government can hold debt so long, that, due to inflation, it's value will fall to the point where paying it off is trivial. Reread what he actually wrote instead of responding to a strawman. Pay particular attention to the words after "debts". >>> We're going to do default the hard way by not paying our debts or we're going to default by inflation. Note that inflation isn't free - it has huge costs that play ou…

You're assuming the US government can just simply print money. It can't: the Reserve and the Treasury are two different entities. While I might agree that default and inflation both have costs, with inflation perhaps costing more, you're ignoring the time value of money and elasticity of supply/demand. You better believe default on loans by the US gov't would cause panic and economic stagnation.

The purpose of this whole economic and central banking system is to smooth out the economic peaks and valleys, not to be perfectly efficient and/or "morally" correct. It's far more important that people continue to have food on their tables than the economy and government operate at peak efficiency.

Re: The Third Depression

#94

Post by yequalsx » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:29 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #61

yequalsx wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not understand the fallacy of argument from authority. I did not engage in this. If you think what I did was an example of the fallacy of argument from authority then you must think that people who insist that the person who performs their heart surgery be a heart surgeon are also engaging in this fallacy.

You do not understand the fallacy of argument from authority. I did not engage in this. Mere assertions is not going help you there. You have to explain why I am wrong.

For someone who made statements like this:

"Spending money on education is all well and good, but what about the dead GIs that we can't bring back to life? How many Einsteins, Teslas, and Neumanns die in that war anyway? We probably lost some of them in that war."

and

"Heard of the broken window fallacy?"

it's a bit too much to read this latest statement from you. A number of your statements on WWII were not relevant to my comments. You also made a number of unsubstantiated assertions. Also, the third sentence in my previous remark addresses your present question.

I believe a review of logical fallacies would be beneficial to you.

Re: The Third Depression

#95

Post by roel_v » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:30 PM UTC

bd wrote: post #88

roel_v wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweet mother of jesus no. Engineers would gravitate towards a centrally controlled system in no time. Economics is not a control system, it's emerging behavior from independently acting agents (free market economics is, which I argue is the only morally defensible system). A UK (?) technology-oriented scientist build a computer-controlled economic system for some South-American country in the 1970's, complete with a…

Project Cybersyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn Discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1190508

Thank you, that's the one.

Re: The Third Depression

#96

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:31 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #75

paulnelligan wrote: post #26

I often wonder why more engineers don't get into economics. It is a control system and would be well suited to engineering graduates with expertise in control systems.

Sweet mother of jesus no. Engineers would gravitate towards a centrally controlled system in no time. Economics is not a control system, it's emerging behavior from independently acting agents (free market economics is, which I argue is the only morally defensible system). A UK (?) technology-oriented scientist build a computer-controlled economic system for some South-American country in the 1970's, complete with a…

[deleted]

Re: The Third Depression

#97

Post by rbranson » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:35 PM UTC

d2viant wrote: post #89

rbranson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't possibly pay back the money we owe. If the government were a person, economics might agree with you, but it's not. This is what fiscal conservatives fail to see. The government can hold debt so long, that, due to inflation, it's value will fall to the point where paying it off is trivial. This is not practical for persons that have a finite lifespan. Corporations also fall in this category, albeit to somew…

If I owe you a hundred dollars, I can say outright that I'm not going to pay you back or I can wait until that $100 is worth so little that it can't even buy a pack of gum at the store. The end result for the lender is pretty much the same -- the only thing that differs is the timeline.

Uh, the lender is collecting interest the entire time. The government is borrowing to invest in and ensure the continuity of it's economy, which is it's source of tax revenue. Recession and/or economic stagnation are much more expensive than debt service.

Nobody would say you're a fool for taking out student loans to get a bachelor's degree. All things being average, the debt service on student loans is cheaper than the cost of not having a bachelor's degree.

Re: The Third Depression

#98

Post by exit » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 5:59 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #56

exit wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what do you think of basic income? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Maybe in the future, but it sure seems like a disincentive to working. I would prefer we implement a flat-rate tax on income filed as individuals and not as a family. Something like a 20/20 (first 20k exempt then 20% of the rest). I am not sure about the actual numbers (sounds like a big data crunch through the IRS income reporting would be good). Regardless of policy, it is very important to get as many people in th…

> Maybe in the future,

what are the criteria for this future?

Re: The Third Depression

#99

Post by exit » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 6:03 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #43

exit wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what do you think of basic income? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

We have so many people today who needs aren't being met and still aren't contributing. What about Basic Income motivates people to work when all their needs are met by doing nothing? This question even ignores logistical difficulties like what the definition of a wage "to meet all their needs" would be, or where the money to fund such a program would come from.

> We have so many people today who needs aren't being met and still aren't contributing.

can you clarify this? their needs aren't met because they have no ability to contribute to the labor market..

Re: The Third Depression

#100

Post by robryan » Mon, Jun 28, 2010, 6:06 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #86

robryan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use advances in technology to find jobs, probably mostly in the way of finding ways to use unskilled people effectively. Theres no doubt their is an endless amount of work out there that could be done to make life better, it's just that it's probably uneconomical to undertake currently. Maybe the answer is part welfare state, except that the government assign positions to people collecting welfare.

I don't think technology helps the unskilled all that much. Consider the knowledge it takes to use a shovel vs. a backhoe.

It doesn't, but it gives new areas which need more manpower for advancement. Sure these areas would also like skilled workers, but it could become viable if government allowed it to be in essentially a work for welfare program, so you still hav the skilled rich supporting the poorer unskilled just they are now being put to work to the best of their abilities.