Why Conspiracy Theories?
- Thread starter sherief
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apples are not racist black eyed babies conspiragasms conspiranauts control craner's defence league haugen 2024 homedawg1 king of the goblin nonces lizards moon unit mr tea is a cop nanoo nanoo nazis all over the shop nazis in exeter nazis nazis nazis nebuchadnezzar patty is an old whig pogrom massive san francisco is a suburb of ipswich steve jobs is living egypt the day yyaldrin went vegan tin foil hats where is ghislaine’s other foot? zoom in
luka
Well-known member
th idea that governments dont plan things, that events just emerge haphazardly from flux and chaos is absurd.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/227610
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/227610
Leo
Well-known member
yeah, but i guess i was thinking about more detail on how their ideas would actually be accomplished, and what the results would be. for example, it's one thing to believe a world power should should stop invading foreign countries, quit meddling in foreign governments, end propping up puppet regimes and engaging in covert operations, etc. ok, but then...how would you actually achieve this libertarian world where countries just minded their own business? and how would you enforce and maintain it? what's the chance that one country or group would see this as an opportunity and try to take advantage? and how would the lives of average citizens be under those circumstances? would social justice, human rights and standards of living be improved?
i guess i just hear a lot more pontificating and generalizations about the ideal world than I do how these solutions could actually come about in the real world, and what the result would be.
vimothy
yurp
Chomsky is confusing the govt deficit ("balanced budget") with the national debt. Even if the US starts to run a balanced budget, they will still have a fair amount of debt--about $10 trillion outstanding that's held by the public.
A balanced budget means no new additions to current borrowing.
Here's a graph showing historical US govt deficits vs. surpluses:
Over the last 50 years, the US has almost never run a surplus. (In fact it ran one once, during the Clinton Admin).
EDIT: BTW, It's not so easy to balance your budget, since two of the main components kinda lie beyond the control of the govt: the amount it takes in from taxes and the amount it pays out in transfers.
A balanced budget means no new additions to current borrowing.
Here's a graph showing historical US govt deficits vs. surpluses:
Over the last 50 years, the US has almost never run a surplus. (In fact it ran one once, during the Clinton Admin).
EDIT: BTW, It's not so easy to balance your budget, since two of the main components kinda lie beyond the control of the govt: the amount it takes in from taxes and the amount it pays out in transfers.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
I don't think that follows. Why shouldn't we worry about household debt?
Chomsky asks if we know of any households with no debt. Since the answer is no, why expect there to be any government with no debt?
But it's obvious that households can have too much debt. For instance, if their entire income is spent on debt service.
So say that there is a household with too much debt relative to income. Then it would make sense for this household to stop borrowing any more (i.e. balance its budget), since borrowing more just puts it in a worse position overall.
Chomsky asks if we know of any households with no debt. Since the answer is no, why expect there to be any government with no debt?
But it's obvious that households can have too much debt. For instance, if their entire income is spent on debt service.
So say that there is a household with too much debt relative to income. Then it would make sense for this household to stop borrowing any more (i.e. balance its budget), since borrowing more just puts it in a worse position overall.
Sectionfive
bandwagon house
Less social spending means cheaper "more flexible" workforce too of course
vimothy
yurp
Balancing the budget over any time frame doesn't have anything to do with having zero national debt per se. It simply means that there are no new additions to or subtractions from the debt. The US could run a balanced budget every year or on average over the cycle from now until the end of days and its public debt would still be $10 trillion or whatever it is currently.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah, I know, but assuming that it started at zero a balanced budget would lead to zero debt. I think that Chomsky is questioning whether or not that would be a worthwhile aim. Edit - a longer time going backwards as well as forwards I meant above ie over the history of the government having a balance at all.
Sorry, this is a really boring argument, but surely he knows the difference between the debt and the deficit.
Sorry, this is a really boring argument, but surely he knows the difference between the debt and the deficit.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
No one thinks that govts should have zero debt. And no one thinks that the govt should run a balanced budget on the basis of the idea that it should have no debt. (Evidently, because govts do have debt, and by defintion a balanced budget does nothing to reduce that debt). If he's thinking about public debt going to zero, which is what his analogy suggests, he should be talking about unbalanced budgets; namely, budget surpluses.
The issue that people do worry about is the trajectory of govt debt across time. If its growth rate exceeds that of the economcy, then debt growth is explosive and the govt will quickly become insolvent in present value terms. Therefore, the govt may need to balance its budget or run surpluses to control the growth of the debt.
Anyway, here's an interesting couple of facts: The person responsible for the idea that govt's should balance their budgets over the course of the business cycle? That would be the father of macroeconomics, John Maynard Keynes. The person responsible for the phrase "deficits don't matter"? That would be... Dick Cheney, channeling Art Laffer.
The issue that people do worry about is the trajectory of govt debt across time. If its growth rate exceeds that of the economcy, then debt growth is explosive and the govt will quickly become insolvent in present value terms. Therefore, the govt may need to balance its budget or run surpluses to control the growth of the debt.
Anyway, here's an interesting couple of facts: The person responsible for the idea that govt's should balance their budgets over the course of the business cycle? That would be the father of macroeconomics, John Maynard Keynes. The person responsible for the phrase "deficits don't matter"? That would be... Dick Cheney, channeling Art Laffer.
Leo
Well-known member
unfortunately, i've heard more than a few clueless tea party types -- even some who were elected into the US house of representatives in 2010 -- say pretty much the same thing.