I would take credit, but I watched a movie in my twenties called, the Matrix. It had such an impression on me at the time I saw it, I took the red pill and went down the rabbit hole.
Best, and worst, choice I ever made.
Keynesian Magic and Wizardry
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
I would take credit, but I watched a movie in my twenties called, the Matrix. It had such an impression on me at the time I saw it, I took the red pill and went down the rabbit hole.
Best, and worst, choice I ever made.
Interesting analogy. So Neo takes the pill, realizes that he can never go back. "But would you even if you could?" is the question that is asked. Of course he wouldn't, now that his eyes have "seen for the very first time".
But there IS a character that wants to go back and is sick of seeing the truth, right? Cyrus, or whatever his name was. Tries to go back and get plugged back into the game. Doesn't want to face the truth.
Truth is. It doesn't matter if you want to partake in it or not. I just try to find it and know it.
Thank you for re-engaging into the topic.
I'm trying to understand where you see that the debt was higher than it is today. What chart are you looking at? what table? What source?
I don't know what you mean "debt number in isolation". The Debt is the Debt. I appreciate that you are trying to downplay that you probably meant Debt to GDP, but I assure you the debt number "in isolation", as you say, is very much cared about in the bond market.
edit: Actually, it's important to a lot of folks - except Keynesians, of course.
You're arguing in bad faith. No one cares about the raw number alone. And bs on the bond market statement, ability to pay is the only concern.
"I owe $100,000.00"
A kid says it and one may well think, "whoa!"
I say it and you, not knowing anything about my ability to pay, perhaps weigh the statement in terms of your own ability to pay, or you dig a bit into my ability to pay.
Bill Gates says it and one thinks, "big whup."
Absolutely not true. The bond market, and economists care about the growth of the debt, the speed in which that growth occurs, the interest on the debt, the rate of the debt, etc. All of it matters. I will agree that it is a discussion of whether or not a country can repay, but what has that got to do with the stat you are quoting? You said debt was worse before. When? This was in response to a cartoon where the country was driving into levels of "DEBT" never before seen. You claimed it was worse before. I ask again, when?
There is a simple solution to this. Just say "I meant the debt to GDP." and then we can continue. Or, if you truly meant the debt level, then please show me where the debt level was worse in the 1950 time frame, as you said it was. Or any time post WWII. Or any time in the history of the country.
Christ, if I misspoke, I'd just come out with it and say "you're right, I meant X".
But when you do know it, what then?
There is a Sufi parable called, When the Waters Changed....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the Waters Were Changed (Sufi Story)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once upon a time Khidr, the teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed, with different water, which would drive men mad.
Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water and went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.
On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.
When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.
At first, he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.
That is a fascinating parable! I never heard it before.
If only we could have our memory wiped so easily, and we were alone in our malady that we, alone, saw the truth. I think you then get into an argument over what, really, is truth. If only one person sees things one way, is that truth? Or can truth just "be" without anyone even knowing it?
You're making my brain hurt.
Funny how we argue it every single day down here in the basement.
What is truth?---Pontius Pilate
I cannot speak for others, but when I argue, I am attempting to either open someone's eyes, or make sure my own eyes are open, to the truth.
Very few of us here in the basement (or anywhere else in society) argue from an informed perspective in society. Most of what we argue is either heard from some media outlet or "read on the internet".
When I argue politics, I have to revert to things like the internet and the media, and then run it across my own belief system to determine whether or not it passes the "smell test". Then I can say whether or not I think it's crap. But I don't have any factual evidence to support how I feel most of the time.
When I argue economics, I draw upon a somewhat more vast lake of knowledge that school, work and research got me. So I feel more confident in those types of discussions.