Raghu writes: >> That also is easy. We can safely say that a debt/GDP of 10% is way too >> low and a ratio of 10000% is probably too high for the US right now. >> You may say that that leaves such an enormous range for the "right >> level of debt" as to be almost useless in practice and you would be >> exactly right. >> >> The question you are asking simply does not lend itself to a more >> precise answer. That means that it is a poorly formulated question. >> >> More usefully, Krugman judges that under the present historical >> circumstances, even a 100% debt level for the US to be far too low. He >> also backs up his case with detailed analysis and explanations (see >> link I sent earlier). If you disagree with his analysis, please >> explain why.
You keep evading my question. I will stipulate for purposes of discussion that PK is right that a 100% debt level is better for the economy than the present debt level. But if PK knows that 100% is better, he should be able to tell me whether 110% is better, whether 120% is better, etc. -- he should be able to tell me at what point the percentage would be too high. I don't understand how PK can know that 100% is better if he does not know at what point X% is too high. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
