First, I will acknowledge that I made a mistake. I read on pp 9-10 that the data went till 2006. I can cede a minor point because I'm still confident that these findings are not significant enough in the case US post-2006, because of all the other variables involved in this crisis, to warrant austerity measures because such measures will have a larger impact on growth than will increasing debt. The markets have lost faith in the US govt to enact substantive fiscal policy to stimulate job growth, aggregate demand, and confidence. You belong to a party that worships the market, so you should at least take note of what it's saying: We need Keynesian stimulus, not short term debt reduction.

Now -- Whatever they say holds for the OECD does not necessarily hold for the US. Because a member is part of the whole does not mean it shares the very characteristics of every other member. EZ countries have overstretched welfare states w/ demographic probs that we don't.

I stand by my point that crises are different and that the US needs to prioritize debt in the long term and not now. If you cut debt now, that takes income out of the economy, leading to further reductions in demand (which impacts jobs and investment, requiring further reliance on govt transfers like UI) and tax revenue (which INCREASES the deficit and debt -- you have not addressed this point because this may well be the only economic paper you have ever read.

And if you do want to look at the debt, your party's failed health care policy, unfunded wars, tax breaks and loopholes have contributed massively to that very debt you deride.

Reply · Report Post