The teacher is creating future economic value by building up human capital. The soldier isn't. Both need housing, transportation, supplies to do their job, and so on. Pretending the teacher doesn't is a bit disingenuous.

The point is the financial market is not at all worried about the ability to pay back the debt, which is why the interest rate is so low. They are not separate issues they are joined.

Right, but you keep claiming that the U.S. can simply print more money. If you believe the markets are loaning money to the U.S. with the expectation of being repaid with newly printed and thus devalued dollars, then either you're naive or the markets are incredibly stupid.

I thought we were talking about jobs within the context of stimulus? You want to count the future value of education as "stimulus"? No wonder people don't trust economists.

Right, but you keep claiming that the U.S. can simply print more money. If you believe the markets are loaning money to the U.S. with the expectation of being repaid with newly printed and thus devalued dollars, then either you're naive or the markets are incredibly stupid.

First - setting aside that the singlest largest holder of federal debt is actually the federal government itself (you can look it up -- the Social Security trust fund owns far, far more US debt than does China, Japan, or anyone else)

And I think there should be some devaluation. I think the absurd fetish in keeping inflation rates low is hurting the US and world economy (and is a big chunk of the problem in Europe).

I'm certainly no expert in government borrowing, but I'm fairly sure that if I were to buy a big bundle of US debt at auction today - the rate of return is set when I lend it. [...] If the dollar becomes worthless, your return will be paid in worthless dollars at the rate you bought them at.

The markets are loaning money believing it's all going to be repaid in non-devalued dollars. If they thought the US was going to default, they wouldn't be loaning at historically low interest rates, and if they thought the dollars they got back were going to be inflated away, they wouldn't be loaning at historically low interest rates.

But it still is value and the stimulus is at least as good, and I would still argue better because a bunch of your soldiers are housed in foreign lands and spending on them in Europe, Asia and wherever does not exactly stimulate the US economy directly.

You seem to be claiming to be much smarter than the markets, because you know the US will not be able to pay the debt back (or something, you have not made it very clear what you think will happen).

Are you unaware of the dozens of base closures in the U.S., and the incredibly adverse effects of those closures on the various states and localities?

At some point, something will have to give, whether it's draconian budget cuts or printing trillions of dollars.

Who argued that military spending has no effect on the economy? I thought this was a comparative question. Or have you moved posts again?

you know, there is actually a third option there--raising tax revenue. the fact that it wasn't even a consideration for you in making your statement is a pretty ####### large part of the reason why we are where we are.

First - setting aside that the singlest largest holder of federal debt is actually the federal government itself (you can look it up -- the Social Security trust fund owns far, far more US debt than does China, Japan, or anyone else)



Mind. Blown. This is almost as cool as having my wages garnished to pay back a 401K loan to MYSELF. With interest!

I think the new WPA you mentioned is precisely what should have been done 3-4 years ago. Arguably it should have been done 10 years ago, but the housing bubble was hiding the problem.

I can't believe no one is even proposing such a thing. It's as if all of these unemployed workers are miraculously going to become architects and software programmers.

It seems like the people on the left don't want to make people work, and the people on the right are afraid they'll unionize.

why bother?

Why are you assuming they'd be housed in foreign lands?

[url=http://www.salon.com/2011/06/28/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest/]When Eric Cantor shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations — it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.[/url]

[url=http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/27/590481/josh-mandel-shorting-treasury-bonds/?mobile=nc]The Republican nominee in Ohio’s Senate race stands to reap a significant financial windfall if the government defaults by not raising the debt ceiling, a move he opposed last year and has indicated he would vote against if elected to the Senate.
According to personal financial disclosure documents examined by ThinkProgress, Josh Mandel’s wife owns an undisclosed amount of ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury exchange-traded fund (ETF). This ETF aggressively “shorts” U.S. Treasury bills, meaning that it bets against U.S. debt and spikes when Treasury bill values drop. If a default were to occur, the desirability of Treasury bills would plummet and Mandel’s ETF would skyrocket in value.[/url]

does anyone else find these investments to be highly discouraging?

My stimulus (you say) doesn't get to be bridges, but has to be teachers and I can't count their output (teaching) as stimulus and we are ignoring the long term value. And yet my stimulus is still at least as good as yours. Change any of that and my side only gets better.

But if you want to think military spending is better I would love to hear why you think it is more stimulative. I have explained in detail why it is not.

Regarding the deficit and debt. First of all the debt is basically meaningless.

The deficit is a bit more problematic. But during down times you want the government to spend more, and then during good times save up. So when Bush cut taxes it was the worst thing to do. Oh well.

You honestly believe Eric Cantor is willing to tank the U.S. economy — and his political career — so a piddly $1,000 to $15,000 investment might increase in value?

I find it impossible to believe that parking more teachers in classrooms would have a greater short-term stimulative effect than the U.S. military adding a similar number of active-duty personnel, with all of the accompanying (U.S.) military bases, vehicles, weaponry, uniforms, etc., such an expansion would require.

You seem to be claiming to be much smarter than the markets,

How does some teacher sitting in a classroom have a greater economic multiplier than a soldier who needs housing to be built, needs an automobile to ride around in, needs guns and weapons for training, requires a support staff to cook, clean, etc., and so forth?

Even the best-case projection of increased tax revenue wouldn't put a dent in the current deficit, let alone the debt.

does anyone else find these investments to be highly discouraging?

He was also probably the only person in the world who actually read the prospectuses of those bundled mortgages.

Huh? The Bush tax cuts were passed during the early 2000s recession.

ITYM "The Big Short", the Michael Lewis book.

Reducing the deficit by 10% in the first year isn't "a dent" apparently. The CBO projects the deficit to go down drastically with the increased new revenues, reaching a low of 2.5% of GDP by 2017.

It's weird to read about the need for WPA-style stimulus from the same poster claiming we need to chop down Medicare and Medicaid distributions. I guess doctors don't spend money or invest it or do anything else with it.

CBO numbers are garbage. If Congress instructs the CBO to assume that 2+2=5, then the CBO is legally required to assume that 2+2=5 when making projections. CBO = GIGO.

The Right's push to politicize and disparage completely reputable institutions of government is fascinating.

Sure, Mitt may be a slow learner, but have to admit that he is a learner.

Right-wingers have disliked the CBO for a long time.

Just look at the the CBO's shifting numbers for Obamacare. When pimping Obamacare, the CBO projected it would reduce the deficit by $140 billion between 2013 and 2019. Now that projection has been quietly reduced to $4 billion, which means these partisan hacks "experts" were off by $136,000,000,000 before the law even took effect. Not very confidence-inspiring. (Other Obamacare-related projections were off even more [see link].)

Just to vent about a previous topic for a minute - airlines - WTF is up with all the noise pollution on the planes now? You get on and they start right in with the announcements, and the announcements go on and on and on for 10 minutes, with the most mundane obvious BS to tell us about. No, nobody -- nobody -- needs to be taught how to buckle a freaking seatbelt. What in the world is this?

and a good example of the attempts to discredit non-partisan actors who actually help keep government responsible.

It's been like this for at least the last 15 years, I thought. What do you mean by "now"? The safety announcement has been mostly unchanged, hasn't it?

"Sure, babe. We go down in a ball of burning flames, I'm totally pulling this door handle thingy and calmly placing the door on the seat. Whatevs, sweetcheeks." Then I pretend to turn off the iPod portion of the phone and go to sleep against the window. wait to get punched by someone tired of being called 'babe' and 'sweetcheeks'.

Total number of non-partisan actors in Washington, D.C.: 0

I'm totally pulling this door handle thingy and calmly placing the door on the seat.

wait to get punched by someone tired of being called 'babe' and 'sweetcheeks'.

Seems to me like it's at least 3 times longer now. Anyone know for sure?

No, nobody -- nobody -- needs to be taught how to buckle a freaking seatbelt. What in the world is this?

The use of safety belts, including instructions on how to fasten and unfasten the safety belts. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions the safety belt must be fastened about that passenger. This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and crewmember instructions concerning the use of safety belts.

Who doesn't know how to buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt, who is old enough or smart enough to grasp the lesson being given by Sweetcheeks? Is this not the dumbest thing ever? Who is sitting there and suddenly goes, "Yes. Yes. Now I know how to buckle and unbuckle this seatbelt."

Who doesn't know how to buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt, who is old enough or smart enough to grasp the lesson being given by Sweetcheeks? Is this not the dumbest thing ever?

Being told how a seatbelt works is a waste of time that doesn't really serve any legitimate purpose (since doing something because "it's the rule" is not itself a legitimate purpose).

Being told how a seatbelt works is a waste of time that doesn't really serve any legitimate purpose (since doing something because "it's the rule" is not itself a legitimate purpose). I don't think that there's a competent adult person alive who has the unique combination of having never experienced a seatbelt and the inability to figure it out through watching everyone else on the plane connect the pieces. A monkey could figure it out.

Stupid, frivolous lawsuits by people determined to file stupid, fivolous lawsuits can never be avoided, whether you stand up there for 3 minutes or 3 hours explaining the seatbelts.

The real problem with the "here's how a seat belt issue works" is that is clear evidence that not even the most rudimentary piece of common sense - ending an instruction that has been useless for decades - is achievable by the system. That only encourages to assume that they can't do anything right.

Actually, my point was that there's no reason Crosbybird's (completely harmless!) post expressing his opinion on the usefulness of seat belt instructions should bother *you*

Some people are more bothered by extraneous noise than others, and don't find it so easy to ignore.

Sam's comments about the costs could just as easily apply to a three (or twenty) minute presentation on the joys of Amway products, or of libertarianism.

Seatbelt instructions have more benefits than either of those would, but the costs are exactly the same (very small but not zero).

Sam's comments about the costs could just as easily apply to a three (or twenty) minute presentation on the joys of Amway products, or of libertarianism.

Copenhagen rocks

You say nothing is lost, but I say that a society that needs to exercise this much care to avoid a lawsuit has lost quite a bit.

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Besides, even if you think it's a waste of time, it's not a waste of your time. You're stuck on that plane regardless, and you can easily tune it out. It costs you nothing.

And that's what I'm disputing. It does cost something.

What? What does it cost?

A pimple on a gnat's ass. At most.

A pimple on a gnat's ass. At most.

Shocking! Another anti-drug policy that wastes money. I'm glad we're living in such a great economy that we can afford to piss our money away on this stuff.

And supporters of the bill still think it's a great idea, except now it's the principle of the thing or the children, apparently.

This is the same outfit that, like the good left-wing operation it is, predicted tax receipts would rise after the 1993 tax hike and fall after the tax cuts of 1997 and 2003. The CBO promptly went 0-for-3 on those predictions. The list of whiffs goes on and on.

In what sense are you claiming that tax receipts didn't rise after the 1993 increase? 1997 and 2003 are more debatable, but why are you omitting 2001? You can't call something "0-for-3" when you're intentionally omitting an at-bat.

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

In what sense are you claiming that tax receipts didn't rise after the 1993 increase? 1997 and 2003 are more debatable, but why are you omitting 2001? You can't call something "0-for-3" when you're intentionally omitting an at-bat.
Because I couldn't find the CBO's projection for the 2001 tax cuts in a quick search. Regardless, there's no real difference between 0-for-3 and 1-for-4 in this situation. The CBO whiffs so often that it's simply not a trustworthy operation.