"The National Debt is good"..This little punk from Harvard needs a smack!

[max]

This little punk columnist from CNBC is extolling the virtues of debts and deficits....Harvard grad.....good grief!

i thought this was satire at first...but he's serious. Harvard economics major

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27477819

[Elwar]

It builds character.

[surf]

Ivy League schools have brought us Paulson, Bernanke, and Krugman.... along with a bunch of MBAs that built these derivatives and models for derivatives.

We have a computer science major from Harvard running against an anti-bailout (pro-war) republican in my district. The republican is making a big deal out of the D saying she "majored in economics" at Harvard. She lied, but for the life of me i can't figure out why she did? An econ major from Harvard should be about as impressive as a "natural gas major" from Oklahoma State (or T Boone U).

A computer science major is far more impressive, imo. Econ, as we all know, or have learned on these forums, is so gaddamn simple. When you make it complicated, you're making mistakes in your methodology (see Keynes "money multiplier").

[dannno]

Econ, as we all know, or have learned on these forums, is so gaddamn simple. When you make it complicated, you're making mistakes in your methodology (see Keynes "money multiplier").

Keep in mind there is micro and macro economics, as well as finance. Economics encompasses quite a bit, and as a whole is not "simple", but you are right that macro economics is much more simple than they have you believe. I learned a lot of very valuable economics lessons getting my degree, but something was still missing. Austrian Economics fills the gaps and allows you to see the faults of other economic models, but it still generally fits in with the models presented. There are some missing pieces and assumptions made in the popular models that lead people to the wrong conclusion, but what's funny is that if you learned it their way, and really thought about it, one could come up with the Austrian Economics model by analyzing the other models that are taught. Someone once said that saying Austrian Economics is like saying German Physics... Economics is economics and Austrian Economics IS economics.

One could say that learning Keynesian Economics isn't useful, but a good portion of Keynesian Economics is based on precisely the same principles as Austrian economics, believe it or not.

[dannno]

The author is "Cliff Mason" lol

[mrwiizrd]

Keep in mind there is micro and macro economics, as well as finance. Economics encompasses quite a bit, and as a whole is not "simple", but you are right that macro economics is much more simple than they have you believe. I learned a lot of very valuable economics lessons getting my degree, but something was still missing. Austrian Economics fills the gaps and allows you to see the faults of other economic models, but it still generally fits in with the models presented. There are some missing pieces and assumptions made in the popular models that lead people to the wrong conclusion, but what's funny is that if you learned it their way, and really thought about it, one could come up with the Austrian Economics model by analyzing the other models that are taught. Someone once said that saying Austrian Economics is like saying German Physics... Economics is economics and Austrian Economics IS economics.

One could say that learning Keynesian Economics isn't useful, but a good portion of Keynesian Economics is based on precisely the same principles as Austrian economics, believe it or not.


Can you alliterate a little more on the "faults (wrong assumptions) of the other economic models?" I think I have a decent fundamental understanding of Austrian economics, and it generally makes sense to me, what I struggle with is how to identify and communicate what is tangibly wrong with most popular (Keynesian) economic theories.

[Tenbatsu]

This is the same crap they taught me in macro economics during college a few years back. This was before my awakening but at the time I knew something was totally f-ed with that line of thinking.

[AbolishTheGovt]

I sent the following email message:


In the middle of this heated campaign season, it was nice to have a good laugh. I really enjoyed Cliff Mason's hilarious satire piece "Budget Deficits? I Say Bring ' Em On For My Generation." The article was sharp, witty, and exposed the stupidity of the pro-deficit ideology in a very humorous way. I hope to see more satirical work from him in the future.

I say we all send in emails pretending to praise it as humorous satire exposing the ridiculousness of the pro-deficit crowd :D

[malkusm]

Yeah I'm in a macroeconomics class right now - I don't bother going to class because I get too frustrated. The last time I went to class, actually, we were talking about the national debt and the role of the Federal Reserve. According to my textbook, during a recession the government should lower taxes and increase entitlements, thereby expanding the national debt.

Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with the concept of deficit spending (well, assuming we HAVE an entitlement system at all), as long as in times of economic expansion we pay back those debts. The problem is that the American government wants to have their cake (spend to get out of recession) and eat it too (spend when things are going well). Deficit spending in an expansion creates an illusion of wealth, inflating a bubble and making the next recession worse, causing the government to spend more....

Another thing the textbook says is that, like this Harvard grad is saying, the national debt isn't bad because citizens own about 20% of it (by buying bonds) and the government owns another 35-40% or so (by buying their own bonds). The theory is that the debt is financed by continuing to sell bonds, but this theory basically accepts as fact that wealth can be created via a printing press. Sure, we might owe the debt to ourselves, but where did the government get the money to buy their own bonds? In this way, increasing the national debt is synonymous with increasing the money supply.

[enjerth]

Isn't this based on Keynesian Economics, which predicts that you can loosen up the economy by defacing (devaluing) the currency? The theory that, with inflation, people will be more interested in spending or investing their money than saving it.

But that doesn't work too well in a debt-based economy, now, does it?

[werdd]

hes the senior writer for mad money, lol.

[max]

the little snot nose would get a better economics education for just $5 and a few minutes reading at...

www.tomatobubble.com

[max]

One could say that learning Keynesian Economics isn't useful, but a good portion of Keynesian Economics is based on precisely the same principles as Austrian economics, believe it or not.

true...but as with all good con jobs, an element of truth always serves as a foundation...

Even Karl Marx's critique of "capitalism" (or what he refers to as capitalism, was not without some merits...

Keyenes, like Marx, was no dummy. In fact, I consider Keynes as a brilliant con man. I believe he knew as much about economics as Hayek or Von Mise did. A good understanding of the science was needed in order for him to distort it to fit the agenda of his banking masters...

same for Greenspan...In the 1960's he sounded like Ron Paul.....but he since sold out....No way Greenspan believes the crap he spewed...

[Original_Intent]

But what if we think of the U.S. Government as a business instead?

Businesses borrow money all the time in order to grow.


OK let's think of the U.S Government as a business.

What does the U.S Government produce?

Uh......

If a business doesn't produce something, but continues to go into debt more and more every year, what is the future of that business?

Uh....

Really hate self-idolizing Ivy league punks. :mad: CFR wannabe.