You're being reasonable, Max. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But what I'm thinking of is not a single pole of opposites but a system of coordinates in which there two axes -- faith/blasphemy and reason/unreason,
If I am located in the quadrant bounded by faith and reason and look across at someone in the adjoining quadrant, it is crucial (no pun intended) to know -- or at least surmise -- whether the adjoining quadrant is the one bound by faith and unreason (yokels) or the one bounded by reason and blasphemy (courtiers). We concede a great advantage to our opponents when we assume they are yokels when in fact they are courtiers! On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd go further and consider the net interest paid to GDP ratio, if we're > in this context. > > Then there is the uber-Keynes view, to which I've become increasingly > sympathetic, that these ratios don't matter at all. (Note Japan's debt/GDP > ratio is 2.3 (230%) and while they have not been the greatest economy they > are not blowing up.) > > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thanks Julio, it's good to know somebody actually reads these ravings. As >> everyone with an ounce of understanding of economics knows, it's not the >> nominal amount of debt that matters, it's the debt to GDP ratio. More GDP >> means more revenue to service debt. >> >> But what if the Pope and the Cardinals don't believe in God? Could they >> admit it and still retain their hold over their flock (and the assets of >> the Vatican)? I mean what if the ruling class doesn't believe in the GDP >> and knows damn well that to admit the Emperor has no clothes would be to >> forfeit their hegemony and very possibly their necks. >> >> It seems to me that if our almighty and merciful rulers lost faith in >> GDP, they would go on a binge of asinine "austerity" and deflationary "debt >> reduction" all the while hypocritically insisting on the sanctity of GDP >> and holy growth. This would enable them to rake in as many chips as they >> can before the deluge. >> >> Suddenly, if you look differently at the GDP end of the debt to GDP ratio >> and don't assume liars believe their own lies, the austerity swindle makes >> a lot more sense. >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Julio Huato <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>> For more immediate purposes, there's still the question of whether to >>> use these measures or not. I think it depends. I admit that, in >>> principle, there may be cases in which GDP measures are not only >>> potentially misleading, but that it may in fact be impossible to >>> determine a proper way to correct for the bias. Let alone the size, >>> the algebraic sign of the bias may flip, so that using GDP measures or >>> using "random" numbers may yield the same results. That said, I doubt >>> it seriously that this is the case in general. >>> >>> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Tom Walker (Sandwichman) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
