The ongoing US debt crisis
July 26, 2011 · By Charles Anthony
So, Obama wants Americans to believe that printing more money is going to solve the problem created by printing money. I wonder how that is going to go over.
I predict a Hollywood re-appearance of Snake Plissken is imminent.
No, Obama wants Americans to believe that fucking around with budget matters at a moment when the debt ceiling needs to be raised – which it has been 74 times (!!) since 1962 – is stupid and dangerous, especially since we all just barely survived a financial meltdown. A lot of people on the right agree with this, by the way.
Bears repeating: 74 times since 1962. Republicans had lots of chances to fix the debt at the proper time, and haven’t. This is about creating a crisis they think they can benefit from, politically.
Nathan,
Charles is against the printing of money at ANY time. This current crisis actually has nothing to do with his post.
This post was prepared months in advance and then he simply runs a script the and then tells the evils of printing evil printed money.
I do appreciate the escape from New York reference though.
I wonder what Charles thinks about the US potentially losing their credit rating and having interest rates rise? I wonder how that might impact the value of the currency…
Whoops, it would appear that this high tech website does not allow tags in their text. In the disjointed paragraph, I was merely trying to point out that Charles’ response to printing money is an automated response and the actual details of the crisis are not relevant to him.
The value of the currency will go down. The rate at which it drops will be unpredictable. There will be sudden changes that translate into obvious malinvestment, waste and loss.
People will start using alternate currencies and the government will no longer be able to extort resources from the working class the way it has done for the past century.
1)
The value of the currency will go down. The rate at which it drops will be unpredictable.
2)
The value of the currency will go up. The rate at which it rises will be unpredictable.
Is there any way in which either of these arguments can be falsified?
There are no falsifiable arguments in economics, Mr. C. Your trolling is becoming both boring and a demonstration of your profound ignorance. Give me a reason to read your next comment.
Charles, by framing this as “Obama wants,” you showed yourself to be the troll. The fact is, Obama has acted more arch-conservatively through this than any other president, including Bush, including Reagan. (And I don’t mean that as a compliment.) He has promised massive cuts with very small increases in tax revenue, and most of that at the middle-class level.
Every president has raised the debt ceiling – most did it dozens of times. Reagan ranted against those who tried to make political hay out of the procedure.
Ignoring that simple fact shows you have no interest in forwarding an actual argument, as RD suggests.
Hello Charles. You suggest that the government has extorted resources from the working classes during the past century.
This is a falsifiable statement.
1)The value of the currency will go down over the next 100 years. The rate at which it drops will be unpredictable.
This is falsifiable.
To claim that something will happen at an unpredictable point, and that the rate at which that thing will happen will be unpredictable, that if a measure or a number of measures of that thing are taken at any point in time between now and eternity none of them will count as any proof or disproof of that original claim, to make a claim like that is utterly meaningless. it tells us nothing about what will happen.
I have no doubt that if from here on in the value of the dollar increases at a constant rate for the next 50 years, you’ll be laid on your deathbed proclaiming the rightness of your theories, with the usual get-out clause that they don’t have to be, can’t be (heresy!) tested.
I was asked my opinion and I gave it, Mr. C. I did not pretend to offer anything else.
Here is one more fact to throw into for your developing economic education: There is no physical law of nature from which causal relationships in economic analyses can logically be deduced in a universally objective manner.
Your falsifiability query does not apply to the field of economics.
Prove that statement is falsifiable.
Then tell the world how falsifiability is relevent.
“Here is one more fact to throw into for your developing economic education: There is no physical law of nature from which causal relationships in economic analyses can logically be deduced in a universally objective manner.”
Possibly true, possibly false, certainly diversionary. No one has mentioned laws of nature.
“Your falsifiability query does not apply to the field of economics.”
Restatement of previous claim.
Prove that statement is falsifiable.
If the value of the currency goes up over the next 100 years, then the statement:
“1)The value of the currency will go down over the next 100 years. The rate at which it drops will be unpredictable.”
..is false.
I think I’ve already explained why falsifiability is relevant in my previous post. Is there any particular section of that explanation that you find unclear?
That is your point and you are wrong.
Uncertainty in the market leads to malinvestment and stagnation. Go back and re-read all of my blogs again. This is not the first time that I have made this point.
As far as I am concerned, your trolling here on The Politic is done and your ignorance in the most basic of universally accepted macrockeconomic theory shines.
Hello Charles.
I fully concede that my knowledge of macrockeconomic theory is limited.
Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a few famous names in the field of macrockeconomics.
Even a text book or two on macrockeconomic theory would be useful.