117th United States Congress: Insurrection 2021

[Roranora]

fuck, we should import Turks for kebab

[archibaldcrane]

Sath is embarrassing himself but the idea that Japan's lost decade is primarily from deficit spending is also cringe

[BerenTebogo]

This paper on Japan is poorly written and clearly isn't published in a well-established journal, but the sources referenced are helpful. Solo author in Vol. 2 Issue 2 of the journal is kinda cringey.

As of 2015 we're 10% behind Japan and ~80% behind Greece, which did collapse, and ~125% behind Japan, which is apparently in slow collapse. One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there is definitely some space for us to spend into without immediately going to shit.

I gotta say, the results of the Japanese paper are not overwhelming to me, but I also don't have a comparison of those causality plots for that given model for a healthy economy to compare them to. That would help. Also, from the conclusion:

However, this contains some problems. The Japanese economy has been
recovering in spite of the huge debt. There is some possibility that there is a debt
threshold. If a country reachesthis threshold (e.g., 100% or so), the debt effect
becomes irrelevant. This nonlinear effect, when it exists, may exist only in
countries with sound macroeconomic conditions and policies. On the other hand,
for some developing countries and emerging countries with high inflation, debt
seems a serious issue when the debt ratio is lower than that in developed countries.
The origin of debt also should be examined carefully. There is some room for
further study

That conclusion lines up more with my naive interpretation of the numbers presented in the paper, which is that past a certain point there is a reversion to the mean regardless of the intensity of the impulse. This seems to only not apply for trade<>growth and debt<>growth. I'm gonna read the rest of them.

[BerenTebogo]

Sath is embarrassing himself but the idea that Japan's lost decade is primarily from deficit spending is also cringe

It's only embarrassing to myself if I give a fuck

[Andalusian girls]

Sath is embarrassing himself but the idea that Japan's lost decade is primarily from deficit spending is also cringe

i was not referencing the Lost Decade, or at least not it alone. but yes even there Japan's deficit spending was critical in forming the liquidity trap, though the main issue was, of course, the asset price bubble engendered by an insane monetary easing policy combined with overleveraged banks and the central gov's response of bailing them out into zombiedom.

[fantasticdan]

yep. liquidated 10k in stocks my grandpa had purchased when i was an infant, at a loss, then immediately had to spend it all, plus all the disability back-pay (about 14k). used it to pay off my student loan, buy my car from my parents, and go on a small shopping spree for things like a new TV, monitor, legos, etc.

the limit for disability is 2k in liquid assets. not even net worth; they don't care how in debt you are. the system actively encourages fiscal irresponsibility.

Are ABLE accounts available in your state? It's like a government run savings account that doesn't count towards your assets for things like medicaid, SSID, etc. That's where I put my back disability money, I think I can keep up to like 100k in it.

[BerenTebogo]

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...rkingPaper.pdf

Taking the central estimate of 33 cents less invested per deficit dollar spent doesn't give me enough information to draw a conclusion here. What is the total $ value where this becomes unsustainable? If we take current levels as "dangerous but sustainable" then how far are we from the critical value? What is our rate of descent to that value? Those are important pieces of information because without any external information I don't know if we are fine as long as we stay below 75 c / $ or we are fucked the moment we go above 10 c / $. Because of the fixed inputs to the equation we can fine tune what the # c / $ is based on how we choose to allocate funding, taxation, or foreign and domestic investments. Also, apparently Chinn and Ito think that deficit spending doesn't mean fuck all, according to the references.

This doesn't give me scale. Stubbing my toe hurts more than a paper cut but a lot less than having my foot broken.

Edit: I'm also not being willfully obtuse. I'm really trying to see the nail in the coffin in everything as I read it. It just isn't there yet. 2 more to go.

[Andalusian girls]

alas the simpler among us are sometimes unwillfully obtuse

[Gredival]

I'm gonna read these but it's gonna take me a bit thank you

Also question that I may learn the answer to by reading: Have any of the recent (~20 years) first world economic collapses (greece, venuezula, etc) due in significant part to deficit spending? just curious
a

Greece was heavily influenced by the Olympics, which was bad spending I think?

[BerenTebogo]

The EU paper is of course 42 pages fucking long. Fuck. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1237.pdf

Right away there is a conflict with conclusions drawn from the JP paper. EU says 90-100% of GDP has demonstrable negative effects on long term growth, with negative indicators possibly appearing in the 70-80 range. Since population growth is a factor in the EU model but wasn't taken to be a factor in the JP model this could account for the difference. That's a very big difference in results though. It also implies, going from the JP model, that the US is beyond the negative effect threshold and any dollar we spend beyond this point pushes us further down the shit slope. Meaning there is no more acceptable deficit spending in our economy, per EU model.

The mathematical models used for the data in the JP and EU papers are also WILDLY different. Like...I'm not going to get into it, but they are wildly different. The JP paper models are child-like compared to the analysis done in the EU paper.

The implication of negative effects on growth around the 70-80% range are interesting. idk where to find the statistics but when was the last time the US was in that range? Were we even during Clinton? It's hard not to read into that that we are fucked either way. Rate of change of "fucked" is important here. I'm skipping the literature review and going to the data now.

Upon further investigation into the EU paper, the JP paper is indeed garbage. You should delete that reference from your bookmarks. Ticky-tack baby models holy shit.

Stochasticity in annual debt rate in either direction can be shown to be bad for growth. That's interesting.

The negative rate of change in growth depends largely on the order of the polynomial used to model the data. This isn't surprising, but the result means that if a lower order polynomial fit does better represent reality, long-term debt levels above 110-120% would be sustainable before any serious effects are seen. If the higher order polynomial fit is correct then it is more stark. The paper takes the median polynomial order which still isn't disastrous. The higher order ones are indeed B A D.

There is no data on theoretical recovery time which is too bad. I think that would be very interesting. Especially in this 40 year study across 12 countries with some actual examples of fucking up. Cutting by X% leads to net positive growth from Y levels in Z years, or whatever.

This paper is good and is evidence that you are right. The other 2 papers are garbage and I don't need to read the 4th now. Thanks.

alas the simpler among us are sometimes unwillfully obtuse

I can remain retarded longer than you can stand to reply seriously to me

[Andalusian girls]

you are right

[BerenTebogo]

Let it never be said I can’t admit when I’m wrong when someone gives me a good reason to

[Andalusian girls]

wanna make out about it

[Andalusian girls]

you know blah blah look into stochasticity polynomials blah but you could've saved yourself the time if you just accepted my initial abstract of

economy can have a little deficit spending, as a treat

[BerenTebogo]

you know blah blah look into stochasticity polynomials blah but you could've saved yourself the time if you just accepted my initial abstract of

But like...can it? I think that is one of the points missed by everything so far. An actual metric for rate of change of growth so positive to negative flip can be calculated and a model for recovery time based on a, b, c, and d parameters.

Like I accept your point but now I have as many questions as I did before, just different ones.

[Ksandra]

This is the most grown up bg has ever been.

[Jaybar]

Gonna need some graphs so we can all understand it.

[Salodin]

For all we know, a treat is a total of 5 trillion in stimulus. At least.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Kaslo]

Gonna need some graphs so we can all understand it.

this guy gets it

[zoobernut]

Yeah, didn't bane have to blow his entire savings just so he could qualify due to his Crohn's?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I have a friend who is a quadriplegic and she requires round the clock care. She is also a successful professional photographer. She has to be really careful not to earn too much money otherwise she loses all of her government assistance. But the terrible thing is the cutoff where she would lose her assistance is so low that she wouldn't have enough money to cover it herself. Not only that but the assistance she gets doesn't cover regular living expenses. The whole money issue for her is super complicated because of how easily they will just cut her off and how expensive her care is yearly.