how do you win? You're a student. You haven't disproven the economists. Go back to class and study up.

 

Look, you can fling as many insults as you want.

But if you're going to say something in the name of logic, you should at least have an understanding of how to participate in logical discourse.

Thus far you have done nothing of the sort, and your partisan disagreements with me do not substitute for a dissection of my own reasoning which does in fact follow logical principles.

So again, please read that guide to logic which I linked to, and once you have developed an understanding, then we can talk.

 

Welcome to only the latest thread where, after Bonzo is confronted with logic and his arguments are deemed weak, the thread decends in inanity and a broken record request for proof with not a shred of rebuttal.


The end.

 

omg you people ask for information, i back up my arguments. You say my arguments are wrong yet show no proof. You guys crack me up. You really do. I think you two should go to Last Comic Standing and do your routine on that show. You'll have a good chance of winning :lmfao:

 

OK here goes. I am trying to explain it to you guys in a form you may understand since you are not getting it. Yes even you Qtiger the mighty economics student




"GDP is calculated on a yearly basis whereas debt is cumulative. So you can have a decrease of debt relative to GDP, yes, but it does not mean that the overall debt has actually decreased".

First of all, no one said that this decrease of debt relative to GDP means that the debt has gone down. But what is does mean is that the economy as a whole can service the debt more effectively when this percentage is lower. Think about it in personal terms: your own debt to income ratio (D/I). Here's an example: say you owe 1,000 in loans against 20,000 in yearly income. Your D/I ration is 5% (1,000/20,000). If you take a new job making 40,000 a year. Your debt does not decrease, but your D/I ratio is now 2.5% (1,000/40,000). Which situation would you prefer? Let's play with the numbers some more. You're making 40,000/yr, so you figure you can take on more debt. So you buy a 500 stereo on your Mastercard. Your D/I is now 3.75% (1,500/40,000). Your D/I went up AND your debt went up. But your ability to service the new, higher debt is still greater than in the first example (1,000 debt with 20,000 income). In fact, even though you have MORE debt, you are a more attractive credit risk with the lower D/I ratio. Don't believe me? Go ask your banker. Now, just substitute National Debt for the D and GDP for the I, and you're there.

To your argument that this ratio is unsound as a measurement because debt is cumulative but income is not, that is literally correct, but functionally absurd. When you're asked how much you make each year, does your answer change by pay period? Do you include the phrase "...so far." when you answer? I didn't think so. How else would you compare across a timeline? And you are also incorrect in stating that "These numbers are not real numbers. They are not indexed. They are nominal." The numbers presented in virtually ALL government charts dealing with finanacial matters are in present dollar values, not in contemporary dollar figures. In fact, that is EXACTLY why the GDP/National debt ratio is important; it's used to compare budget strength across timelines.

Just a little something we like to call facts; perhaps you've heard of them?

 

Bonzo you are missing the point. As a diehard republican (me) the argument you are trying to present doesn't make logical sense.

 

Rick, why does it not make sense to you? Did you read my last post that put it in everyday terms?

This is not a Republican vs Democrat or Conservative vs Liberal issue. It is just the analyzation of figures which has been done this way for over 50 years.

 

Holy shit I think I'm going to have a heart attack! You actually explained yourself! If only you could do this more often! In all seriousness, please oh please make your posts like this from now on.

Notwithstanding your newfound discourse, the problem with your new example is that you are comparing the debt of the federal government to the GDP of the entire country. The GDP is not the determining factor of the government's ability to deal with the debt, revenue is. Yes, revenue is based on GDP, but it varies based on tax and budget policy. So to make a better comparison on the ability of the government to pay off its debt, one would look at yearly revenue compared to yearly budget deficit.

Debt is the cumulative effect of all of these things put together.

 

Man! Now you had to go and spoil it by making up a word. :sad:

 

actually it is a word Mike.

analyzation

\An`a*ly*za"tion\, n. The act of analyzing, or separating into constituent parts; analysis.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analyzation