a certainty barring WHAAAAT??... and i'd almost missed that PEARL bwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrffffffffffffffffff )))))))))))
2cents, I am quite surprised and disappointed. You said you were offering research paper links addressed to the question of whether U.S. government debt levels and growth levels are so excessive as to threaten to create future hyperinflation. The research paper links you provided do not discuss this question. They instead discuss the current account deficit. Do you know the difference between government debt and the current account? If we were focused upon the current account deficit, then these papers would be considered woefully out of date, since they were written in the year 2000, before the current account deficit became anywhere near as large a percentage of GDP as it is at this time. I think it was the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook, which observed that no industrial country has ever had a trade deficit, as a percentage of GDP, as large as that of the U.S., but I can't remember, is this true, what do you think? But really, I thought we were talking about possible hyperinflation resulting from the public debt, not just the trade deficit. Your link to wiki offers what purports to be an historical chart of total U.S. debt, except that the chart omits things like Social Security. These omissions make the chart meaningless for our purposes. Will the U.S. throw millions of regularly voting elderly and disabled into the streets, in order to prevent future hyperinflation? You have not offered anything to suggest that the level of U.S. public debt will not result in hyperinflation and dollar collapse. I am not saying it will; I am just saying you haven't offered anything that suggests it won't. Now, as the question of payment. If you will accept Reichsmarks, and stop pushing for T-bills, I will pay you double.
and i am saying that you haven't read even the 1st document i have provided "1. canada (40%), australia (60%) notably in terms of debt/gdp ratio... week-end read for you: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/ECONREV/PDF/1q01holm.pdf " i suppose you WERE keeping it for the week-end... whose page 19 is perfectly clear with regard to your question... in addition this paper in substance is still current enough with regard to the sustainability or not of the current acct deficit as well, but that wasn't the point... jimmy mate, if you are simply going to be disingenuous on this matter because you prefer to remain one-sided and ignore the full facts and prefer to adhere to the incantations of such and such magician because his/her conclusions suit your intuitions better, no matter what the underlying rationale, honestly that's fine by me... you keep the money mate, buy yourself a few books
No, 2cents, the link you provided does not say what you said it says. I read the entire page 19 very carefully. It contains absolutely no mention of public debt. It is a discussion of current account deficits, not public debt. You still have not provided any reason to believe that the U.S. public debt will not result in hyperinflation, when the government prints dollars needed to pay the debts. Your links do not say what you said they said. Your links do not even tangentially address the question. Your comments about me also miss the mark rather widely. I'm worried that I won't be able to find anybody to sell me books for my Reichsmarks. I was hoping that since you are such a firm believer in paper currencies, you might help support my Reichsmarks by accepting them in exchange for merchandise.
finally! good man... so, now that you are, hopefully, equiped with some of the basic reasoning and a bit less LAZY, read the Wiki page again, and NOT JUST the 1st 6 lines... plus i already replied to your SS objection, this is no debt, just (political) liability, and yeah, in all likelihood, you'll just have to sit on it )) if you still can't find it, here's a clue: Germany (68.1% est 2005), France (66.5% est 2005) thats their public debt to GDP ratio, that you seem to hold as the key to everything (Japan's 170% btw... ever heard talk of hyperinflation in Japan??)... but you'll have to understand that research takes time & effort and i am not seeing much at all from you, thats also why most people don't do it, and simply prefer to swear by 'austrian' type economists, or make easy statements to the effect that ' this doesn't prove there won't be a panic...'... btw, can i expect the courtesy of a response to my earlier: .. can you give me ONE compelling reason why the current situation WILL inevitably result in a panic run on the $?
I re-read the Wiki entry, like you asked, and I fail to find any support for your position in the Wiki, and I am mystified as to why you asked me to read it and why I read it. Twice. I don't see how you can rely on official government calculations for our public debt to GDP ratio. The U.S. uses enormous Social Security taxes, paid by workers, in order to avoid borrowing even larger amounts in the debt markets. Yet liabilities owed to these very same workers, in exchange for their Social Security taxes/premium payments, are excluded from the public debt. Very dicey. Your notion that Social Security is a liability, but not a debt, is a crude and ludicrous mangling of the English language. Millions of American workers worked hard all their lives, and paid Social Security taxes into the Social Security system, as premiums in exchange for their retirement insurance. A very high portion of them will, in their retirements, be totally dependent upon Social Security, with no other source of income; most because they were never paid enough to be able to save anything. And you think that the U.S. can just take all their money taxed and paid as insurance premiums, and tell them all to just piss off and go starve and freeze to death in the street? Your argument seems to be totally bereft, both of any sense of political or moral or legal reality. You haven't addressed the other liabilities omitted from official U.S. government reported debts. What about U.S. government guarantees of failing private retirement pension funds? These liabilities are not included in our reported public debt figures. What happens when these things hit the fan? You are comparing apples and oranges, since the numbers you are using are cooked and fraudulent. If we overlook this flaw in your argument, then there is another by your comparison to France as an example that high public debt is benign. They ain't doing so well. They are desperate, jobless, hopeless, and violently rioting. I can't give compelling proof that a dollar panic is inevitable. I never suggested it was inevitable. I have only questioned your view that dollar hyperinflation, panic, or collapse can't happen. Tell me, do you think there is any amount of U.S. government borrowing which might risk destroying the U.S. dollar? If so, then how much borrowing would it take to trigger such a risk? I have a proposal regarding your desire to be paid in T-bills. I will agree to this, provided you (1) loan the T-bills to me so I can use them to pay you, (2) provide me with ownership and control of a printing press which can produce genuine dollars and T-bills by which I can pay off my dollar-denominated debts, and (3) throw in an order of chinese food. You know, this borrowing thing isn't really working to well for me. Every time I try to solve my problems by borrowing, I feel poor again after an hour.
tsss tsss tsss jimmy, whats happened to intellectual honesty here? i only said its bollox, baseless, cheap talk, and that the so-called 'austrian' theory in particular is next to useless, which, to the extent practical, i have supported... i am not the one who wants to blindly believe that such assertions from the article's author might be cause for worry: "The Austrian theory of money, credit, and the business cycle teaches us that ultimately there is no in-between the mythological Scylla and Charybdis scenarioâbetween deflation and hyperinflation. Sooner or later, as pressure on the dollar rises and inflation rears its ugly head, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. There is no doubt that the newly-appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, an renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept helicopter pilot, will choose the latter course of actionâhyperinflation. " because i, like many, thankfully, can make the difference between propaganda for the masses and serious research... not particularly difficult in this case one wld have thought, but hey... and re your SS problem, wake up and smell the coffee is the friendliest advice i can give you... re public debt / gdp ratio, YOU brought that up as an important factor... France: good points, however they're not exactly bankrupt nor on the verge of hyperinflation are they? btw, their SS system has gone bankrupt so many times they can't even remember... didn't seem to be much of an issue... how about Germany, Japan etc... there is a pretty long list mate... thats because it contains 'pointers' to the information, i never said nor intended to give you the information on a silver plate... this info is and has been available all along and is a few mouseclicks away if you'd ever done ANY proper research of your own... what's to learn if we spoon-feed you all the time?? but my point is more that YOU SIMPLY HAVE BEEN TOO INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to do your own research, and have preferred to go by the grand declarations of some unproven bozo who happens to 'think' like you... i'm done here jimmy, i once thought you were genuinely asking for counterarguments, but no longer... plus, you don't seem really keen to part with your T-bills are you?... YOU have the last word. ciao buddy
2cents, You ridicule me for "blindly" accepting as truth the article we are discussing, but the fact is that I have not expressed any such endorsement of the article's position. I have, instead, asked for counterarguments, and I am quite surprised at the weakness of the counterarguments presented by you and others. I think your presumption that I believe in the article, even though I have repeatedly expressed my agnosticism and open mind on the question, demonstrates that you have a lack of comprehension, and a lack of interest, and a lack of respect for the opinions of others. You were wrong to take my discussion of the weaknesses in your arguments as an expression of my agreement with the article you were critiquing. I think you are way out of line to question my intellectual honesty or to call me lazy, based on anything in this thread. Your presumption that I have done no research is quite incorrect and irrational. I can only presume that your warped perceptions result from your inattention and lack of comprehension. I also think that your heavy reliance upon insulting others, in a discussion, reflects your unfortunate inability to provide rational support for your opinions. You haven't addressed one of my central questions to you: do you think there is any limit to the amount of money the U.S. can borrow, without creating a risk that the dollar will be destroyed via hyperinflation? If you think unlimited public debt poses no risk of hyperinflation, then this would suggest you are quite ignorant of thousands of years of history. I also think that you are pre-occupied with the idea that you are intellectually superior to others, and that this pre-occupation has prevented you from making rational arguments in support of your position. I think your approach of giving me clues and hints, instead of outright stating your viewpoint in a clear and logical fashion, is just plain insulting and silly. I see no evidence that your opinions are so valuable that they merit any detective work by others willing to consider them. If you aren't willing to state your viewpoints clearly and logically, then I wouldn't consider it a worthwhile use of anybody's time to try and piece things together by considering whatever clues and trails of scattered breadcrumbs you left, in your effort to avoid "spoonfeeding" me. Your pre-occupation with your own self-perceived superiority seems to have been such an impediment to our efforts to communicate, that I will now address the issue of superiority squarely. This may surprise you, but I actually believe my own opinions and knowledge, on this subject, to be superior to yours. I am happy to learn by debating, in a spirit of equality, with you or others who disagree with me, but I won't waste my time playing detective to try to ferret out your viewpoint, and I won't pretend that I think your opinions are better than mine. It seems you are unwilling to converse on any basis other than an agreement that your viewpoint is superior, so it appears we can't have much in the way of any meaningful discussion in which people would, ideally, treat each other as equals, even when they disagree.
thats a lot of words jimmy, as usual when you feel challenged... well that wasn't the intention but good faith can't just be assumed forever you know... where IS yr research?? and btw, no, my thinking isn't superior to anybody's, to anybody who actually spends TIME & EFFORT to research and think, that is... a parting gift: http://www.euractiv.com/en/agenda2004/stability-pact-rules-focus-public-debt/article-117997 scroll down for the comparison table... maastricht's treaty 'threshold' is 60% fyi... japan's in the 170% range... the US at? http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/bp/bpa1e.htm some interesting comparisons - G7, Can vs US - even if not the same aggregates... http://www.cepr.net/publications/real_budget.htm going your way to some extent http://www.cepr.net/publications/deficit_scare.htm but not by much at all even accting for the SS problem... a limit you ask? yes indeed like for most things in life there probably are, probably more like 2 actually... first one when the mkt starts pulling back & forth significantly on the basis of this particular ratio being looked at as a key issue... first signs of discomfort from the big money guys... 2nd one materializes in those instances when the mkt's has gone too far ignoring the earlier warning signs, and eventually collapses in a panic... what makes you think we are any close to any such limits? and if we are not, whats the point of the discussion i wonder?? now show us please, your research?? and your explanation as to why you believe a baseless idiotic text such as the OP's article is worth 'worrying'?
Back in college one of my economics teachers used to say... It is hard to get two economists to agree about how things are. But it is imposible to get two economists to agree on things are going to be.