Keep Upping The Stupid

[Mike Parrish]

3 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Oopsie!

What's three orders of magnitude between friends?

[BerniePragle]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

What's three orders of magnitude between friends?

And, I'm the mathematician that always is bitching about people having no grasp of large numbers.  Color me embarrassed. Lol.

The 31 billion I mentioned is only 1/10 of what we owe Luxembourg!

I usually put these federal budget/deficit numbers in terms of $ per man, woman, child in the US.  In this case, the 31 trillion is about 100,000 per man, woman, child assuming 300 million people in the US.  That makes it seem more realistic. 

I'm going to guess that you also don't run your personal finances like this. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

9 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I'm going to guess that you also don't run your personal finances like this. 

The notion that governments should function financially like we all do with our personal finances is just wrong. That worn out argument is used endlessly by would-be politicians lacking insight and creativity. Personal finances are one thing, world finance is a totally different animal.

We have separate college majors for Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Statistics, Mathematics, CS, etc.

Different fields, rules, scoring systems and goal posts. All difficult. Even if you're a master of one, you likely know very little about the other.

Probably where the "stay in your lane" phrase came from. (Although I don't like that phrase - too snarky for me.)

Edited January 2, 2023 by GreatWhiteNorth

[MPhillips]

5 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The notion that governments should function financially like we all do with our personal finances is just wrong.

And to think I believed what Mr. Pragle said was alluding to humor, maybe a giggle even...

[BerniePragle]

16 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

And to think I believed what Mr. Pragle said was alluding to humor, maybe a giggle even...

Much humor needs an element of truth to be funny.  

[BerniePragle]

5 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The notion that governments should function financially like we all do with our personal finances is just wrong. That worn out argument is used endlessly by would-be politicians lacking insight and creativity. Personal finances are one thing, world finance is a totally different animal.

We have separate college majors for Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Statistics, Mathematics, CS, etc.

Different fields, rules, scoring systems and goal posts. All difficult. Even if you're a master of one, you likely know very little about the other.

Probably where the "stay in your lane" phrase came from. (Although I don't like that phrase - too snarky for me.)

I have seen many more things misunderstood by making them too complicated than by making them too simple.  I'm a simple guy.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

11 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I have seen many more things misunderstood by making them too complicated than by making them too simple.  I'm a simple guy.

OK, OK, I submit. "Uncle". But it's a pet peeve of mine.

When I hear the "we all have to balance our checkbooks, why doesn't the government? I'm going to change that" by some goofball politician, it sets me off.

It is advisable politically because it is effective even though it is wrong. It resonates with a lot of people who just don't know any better - which I find repulsively deceptive.

How many people buy their houses with cash? Few. Leveraging buying strength with a mortgage can be financially solid. Yes - in many cases, debt is actually a good strategy.

[Mike Parrish]

8 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

OK, OK, I submit. "Uncle". But it's a pet peeve of mine.

When I hear the "we all have to balance our checkbooks, why doesn't the government? I'm going to change that" by some goofball politician, it sets me off.

It is advisable politically because it is effective even though it is wrong. It resonates with a lot of people who just don't know any better - which I find repulsively deceptive.

How many people buy their houses with cash? Few. Leveraging buying strength with a mortgage can be financially solid. Yes - in many cases, debt is actually a good strategy.

 

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

OK, OK, I submit. "Uncle". But it's a pet peeve of mine.

When I hear the "we all have to balance our checkbooks, why doesn't the government? I'm going to change that" by some goofball politician, it sets me off.

It is advisable politically because it is effective even though it is wrong. It resonates with a lot of people who just don't know any better - which I find repulsively deceptive.

How many people buy their houses with cash? Few. Leveraging buying strength with a mortgage can be financially solid. Yes - in many cases, debt is actually a good strategy.

Fascinating that one of your pet peeves seems to be pretty much the opposite of one of mine.  I've always been frustrated when I see people adding a lot of arbitrary rules and proprietary wording to otherwise simple concepts, until they are no longer easily understood.  Often this seems to be on purpose.  Obviously, your career and my previous career necessitated a lot of complexity and specifics.  However, I have no doubt that I could explain the most complex things I did so that you would understand them.  Of course, the language, some of the mathematical techniques, and other things would seem foreign to you.  I could explain those to you too!

I'm pretty sure once you strip away all the political and financial rhetoric here, you're left with a very simple concept... Is the current national debt too big, given the population of our country, GDP, and lots of other stuff I don't know?  Again, to put this in perspective that's $31 trillion ÷ 300 million people ≈ $100,000 per man, woman, child in the US.  For a family of 4, $400K.  Considering what I read about how many households would have trouble laying their hands on $400, let alone 1000 times that, it SIMPLY seems too much to me.  (I suppose the fact that some Americans could lay their hands on a thousand times $400,000 probably skews things back to it being more reasonable for the country, I guess.)

Of course nearly all households need borrowing for purchasing a house and probably a car.  The objective for the individual should be to increase net worth through paying down the mortgage, investing in retirement funds, etc.  The federal government keeps financing more and more houses, more and more cars, more and more pizzas, wings, and sodas.  Give me 4 of those, 8 of those, and also a couple Happy Meals.  Put it on my tab.  What pisses me off is it's my money, my kids' money, my Grandkids' money...  I suspect we're pretty close on our financial perspectives, though we go at it in a different way.
 

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

 

If you drew that just for me, I'm flattered.  Actually, if you found it for me I'm still flattered.

[Mike Parrish]

8 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

If you drew that just for me, I'm flattered.  Actually, if you found it for me I'm still flattered.

I wish my drawing skills were sufficient to the task.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

25 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Fascinating that one of your pet peeves seems to be pretty much the opposite of one of mine.  I've always been frustrated when I see people adding a lot of arbitrary rules and proprietary wording to otherwise simple concepts, until they are no longer easily understood.  Often this seems to be on purpose.  Obviously, your career and my previous career necessitated a lot of complexity and specifics.  However, I have no doubt that I could explain the most complex things I did so that you would understand them.  Of course, the language, some of the mathematical techniques, and other things would seem foreign to you.  I could explain those to you too!

I'm pretty sure once you strip away all the political and financial rhetoric here, you're left with a very simple concept... Is the current national debt too big, given the population of our country, GDP, and lots of other stuff I don't know?  Again, to put this in perspective that's $31 trillion ÷ 300 million people ≈ $100,000 per man, woman, child in the US.  For a family of 4, $400K.  Considering what I read about how many households would have trouble laying their hands on $400, let alone 1000 times that, it SIMPLY seems too much to me.  (I suppose the fact that some Americans could lay their hands on a thousand times $400,000 probably skews things back to it being more reasonable for the country, I guess.)

Of course nearly all households need borrowing for purchasing a house and probably a car.  The objective for the individual should be to increase net worth through paying down the mortgage, investing in retirement funds, etc.  The federal government keeps financing more and more houses, more and more cars, more and more pizzas, wings, and sodas.  Give me 4 of those, 8 of those, and also a couple Happy Meals.  Put it on my tab.  What pisses me off is it's my money, my kids' money, my Grandkids' money...  I suspect we're pretty close on our financial perspectives, though we go at it in a different way.
 

Whew - this is going to tough to trim down, but I'll give it a go...

•  Making simple things overcomplicated is the mirror image of oversimplifying complicated ones.
  • Both = bad
• Anyone who understands the complexity of their work can explain it easily to others.
  • As someone once said, "If you can't explain it in simple terms, then you don't truly understand it."
  • I believe we're in agreement here.
• Is the national debt too large?
  • Less debt would be better. 100% agreement.
  • Debt for the country isn't a bad thing, it can increase leverage similar to how your long-term home mortgage does
• Some Americans can lay their hands on a thousand times $400,000
  • That is a problem. Unless you're off a couple decimal points.

 

[El Luchador]

On 1/2/2023 at 7:15 PM, GreatWhiteNorth said:

OK, OK, I submit. "Uncle". But it's a pet peeve of mine.

When I hear the "we all have to balance our checkbooks, why doesn't the government? I'm going to change that" by some goofball politician, it sets me off.

It is advisable politically because it is effective even though it is wrong. It resonates with a lot of people who just don't know any better - which I find repulsively deceptive.

How many people buy their houses with cash? Few. Leveraging buying strength with a mortgage can be financially solid. Yes - in many cases, debt is actually a good strategy.

When people borrow they still need to do so within their budget. 

[mspart]

Right now the US is 31 Trillion plus change in debt.  US GDP is 20 Trillion.  

So right now we owe 50% more than we make.   Now that is not what the govt makes, it is what all of us rubes make.  The debt is way out of balance with what can be paid.  With interest rates rising, the amount of interest to pay on that debt grows ever more.   There is no country in the world that has overcome this kind of irresponsibility. 

Right now the US brings in record amounts of money year over year.   Yet the budget grows at ever faster rates.   There is no harm in acknowledging this.  But where the Ds are right now, you would think there would be.   The Rs, not always the most fiscally responsible, are saying we need to lower the deficit now in order to raise the debt limit because we are nearing the breaking point.   Biden and the D Senate is saying no way.   Only Manchin seems to be an adult in this regard on the D side and is looking for compromise somewhere so that a bill can be crafted and passed. 

Let's say Rs cave and do the debt limit alone.   How much leverage will they have in the future to lower the deficit spending?   About zero.   This is the time for this action to happen.   Lower the amount you are spending and you can borrow a little bit more.  This doesn't seem as unreasonable as Biden, the great uniter, would like us to think.   What did he call the Rs in this regard?  

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3815262-biden-knocks-fiscally-demented-republicans-in-mlk-day-speech/

“They’re gonna talk about big-spending Democrats again. Guess what? I reduced the deficit last year $350 billion. This year, federal deficit is down $1 trillion-plus. That’s a fact. And there’s gonna be hundreds of billions reduced over the next decade. But so what? These guys are the fiscally demented, I think. They don’t quite get it,” Biden said of Republicans.

Now there's a uniter we can all get behind.  At least he  and McCarthy are going to meet on this topic.  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-were-going-have-discussion-about-us-debt-with-house-leader-2023-01-20/ 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

Let's wait to see where the GOP decides cuts should be done.

[Plasmodium]

This debt is inevitable.  Since the budget was last balanced > 20 years ago we have spent multi trillions on wars, faced an unprecedented financial crisis costing trillions and the pandemic.  The response?  Thoughts and prayers, a ballooning GINI index, finger pointing and massive tax cuts.

[jross]

Quote

Guess what? I reduced the deficit last year $350 billion.

Really?  You stop spending emergency funds and call that deficit reduction?  Clown.

[jross]

Clown!
 

 

[Plasmodium]

47 minutes ago, jross said:

Clown!
 

 

A bit hyperbolic on the first assertion.  Unquestionably correct on the second.

[jross]

It's a big fuss over two things that have statistically zero chance of occurring.

[jross]

Clowns.  Samuel Parsons-Salas killed people before and was let out of prison.  

 

[mspart]

Maybe Reich is for enforcing enhanced sentences for the use of a gun in crime.   No, I don't think so.   Around here, that is the first charge to be plea bargained away.  

mspart

[Plasmodium]

Samuel Parsons-Salas notwithstanding, our solution is very clearly not more prisons.

[jross]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

Samuel Parsons-Salas notwithstanding, our solution is very clearly not more prisons.

Singapore knows.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

[GreatWhiteNorth]

5 hours ago, jross said:

Singapore knows.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

Still weirded out that you so doubtlessly favor having people killed. Not a good fixation for you... or anybody. Just weird.