Bond Markets Say US Debt Doesn't Matter

[fskimospy]

You got nothing? I gave you what pretty much every working person I've met has agreed upon, and I've seen with my own two eyes. For me, that's all that matters.

You've given me nothing to discount any of that, except trying to pin productivity numbers to work ethic and say nano-bot guy is akin a God for work ethic.

I'm sorry if not having a peer reviewed study doesn't do it for you, I only deal in Reality. I get this feeling that if a study came out saying sh1t doesn't smell and is the best thing going, you'd wear it proudly and when Everyone in Reality told you you smelled like sh1t and WTF are you thinking, you'd derisively laugh at them waving your study, telling them 'Hahaha Fools, you have mere opinion, I have a study!'

Sometimes you need to, you know, observe, collect info from multiple sources, and, this is key, form your own opinion. I know, I know....insanity....

Chuck

Your evidence is extraordinarily poor. You are arguing that you can accurately discern differences in work ethic between people today and those who worked almost 70 years ago by talking to your friends. If that's enough to convince you, you're welcome to it. I for one am not so simple.

I do know that if a study attempted to draw conclusions on work ethic between multiple generations by asking a bunch of their friends what they thought, I would not only laugh at the author but never read any journal that was so foolish as to publish it again. Your derision for actual facts and evidence is noted however. It explains a lot.

 

[chucky2]

Friends? These aren't friends, these are late 40 year olds, 50 year olds, 60 year olds, even some 70-80 year olds. This is observing still working late 40-early 60 year olds.

Absent of an actual study that took like jobs performed the same way with the same tooling and processes, what other metric are you going to use? If you have something better than multiple opinions and observations, I'm all for it. You seem to like studies, I'm sure you've got at least a few in the Dem Study Playbook (and, the Dem's profess to be pro-worker, so I'm sure they're there) that have metric data for the same job performed the same way with the same tools/processes.

Post'em up since you don't like my observations/opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Friends? These aren't friends, these are late 40 year olds, 50 year olds, 60 year olds, even some 70-80 year olds. This is observing still working late 40-early 60 year olds.

Absent of an actual study that took like jobs performed the same way with the same tooling and processes, what other metric are you going to use? If you have something better than multiple opinions and observations, I'm all for it. You seem to like studies, I'm sure you've got at least a few in the Dem Study Playbook (and, the Dem's profess to be pro-worker, so I'm sure they're there) that have metric data for the same job performed the same way with the same tools/processes.

Post'em up since you don't like my observations/opinion.

Not only were most of the people you just mentioned not even alive in 1945, almost none of them were in a position to evaluate worker quality from that time. All that aside, you expect people to accurately recall their aggregate opinion of worker 'ethic' from 70 years ago? That's a fantasy.

I do very much like studies. You made a point and I asked you for evidence. "This guy over here said X" is extremely poor evidence. I'm not going to go hunt up evidence to prove your points, that's your job.

 

[chucky2]

Not only were most of the people you just mentioned not even alive in 1945, almost none of them were in a position to evaluate worker quality from that time. All that aside, you expect people to accurately recall their aggregate opinion of worker 'ethic' from 70 years ago? That's a fantasy.

I do very much like studies. You made a point and I asked you for evidence. "This guy over here said X" is extremely poor evidence. I'm not going to go hunt up evidence to prove your points, that's your job.

But you can't prove yours either. Exactly what then are you arguing? That my opinion is my opinion? OK? I already said that. I'm not sure even of your point any longer...first it was productivity when I'm talking about work ethic (a clearly wrong comparison, why you even brought it up is still not clear), and now you're arguing for me to produce a study that likely has neven been done - nor will it - on work ethic between WWII era workforce vs. current workforce.

Odd though: WWII era somehow managed to do all the 'jobs Americans don't want to do that's why we need to keep the illegal invasion going/Open Borders', yet, todays massive amounts of unemployed won't (but sure like collecting all the handout bennies). You'd think the current workforce, who is "enormously more productive" than that of the WWII era would be jumping at the bit to not be unemployed and to instead be working all those jobs. Wait. Their not. Darn...I guess my opinion was...er, wait, shoot, it was right...carry on...

I've got to ask: What do you do for your job? Are you an Exec? Because about the only job I've seen where someone needs studies to form any thought that enters their mind is Exec or Politician. I'm curious if you're a worker bee/lower level management or if you're Exec/Politician. If the former that is a very interesting mix...

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

But you can't prove yours either. Exactly what then are you arguing? That my opinion is my opinion? OK? I already said that. I'm not sure even of your point any longer...first it was productivity when I'm talking about work ethic (a clearly wrong comparison, why you even brought it up is still not clear), and now you're arguing for me to produce a study that likely has neven been done - nor will it - on work ethic between WWII era workforce vs. current workforce.

What do you mean my point? My point was that you don't have any evidence for yours. In statistical terms, I'm saying that you can't disprove the null hypothesis. What's interesting however is your retreat. Initially when I questioned it you said that the only possible explanation was that I was on drugs. Now you seem to be saying 'hey, it's just my opinion'.

As for why I brought up productivity, I did and still believe that it is an important measure of what is actually happening in the world, and more importantly is something we can actually measure. I didn't know you weren't interested in it.

Odd though: WWII era somehow managed to do all the 'jobs Americans don't want to do that's why we need to keep the illegal invasion going/Open Borders', yet, todays massive amounts of unemployed won't (but sure like collecting all the handout bennies). You'd think the current workforce, who is "enormously more productive" than that of the WWII era would be jumping at the bit to not be unemployed and to instead be working all those jobs. Wait. Their not. Darn...I guess my opinion was...er, wait, shoot, it was right...carry on...

This is an entirely different discussion. Regardless, labor force participation is much higher today than it was in the 1940's. And you don't need to put enormously more productive in quotes. We are undeniably vastly more productive today than we were then.

I've got to ask: What do you do for your job? Are you an Exec? Because about the only job I've seen where someone needs studies to form any thought that enters their mind is Exec or Politician. I'm curious if you're a worker bee/lower level management or if you're Exec/Politician. If the former that is a very interesting mix...

Chuck

I do analysis for a political consulting firm, but I am no executive and I would never, ever run for any elected office. Considering the amount of bullshit I see on any given day and what my job entails I greatly value empirical data.

 

[chucky2]

What do you mean my point? My point was that you don't have any evidence for yours. In statistical terms, I'm saying that you can't disprove the null hypothesis. What's interesting however is your retreat. Initially when I questioned it you said that the only possible explanation was that I was on drugs. Now you seem to be saying 'hey, it's just my opinion'.

Oh, you're certainly on drugs if you're making the case the current workforce has a better work ethic than the WWII workforce. That is certain. Tell you what. You go ask your co-workers if they think the current average US workforce has a better work ethic than the average WWII era workforce. If the majority say 'F Yes! We're awesome and they were a bunch of lazy losers!', then I'll say I was wrong you were right.

As for why I brought up productivity, I did and still believe that it is an important measure of what is actually happening in the world, and more importantly is something we can actually measure. I didn't know you weren't interested in it.

I'm only interested in it where it can be compared to the current workforce vs. the WWII era workforce. And the only place it can be apples to apples compared in respect to work ethic is jobs where the job hasn't changed nor the processes/tooling. Average productivity now vs. then is meaningless in respect to work ethic given the massive amounts of change in jobs, technology, and processes.

This is an entirely different discussion. Regardless, labor force participation is much higher today than it was in the 1940's. And you don't need to put enormously more productive in quotes. We are undeniably vastly more productive today than we were then.

It's the same discussion we've been having. The average unemployed person in the WWII era would have gone and got a F'ing job. He wouldn't have sat there collecting unemployment and all the other bennies because that was embarrassing back then. It'd be like a kid back then walking down the street with his pants falling down and his underwear showing - on purpose. You didn't f'ing do that. People/Society had shame, expectations, and some measure of pride.

I do analysis for a political consulting firm, but I am no executive and I would never, ever run for any elected office. Considering the amount of bullshit I see on any given day and what my job entails I greatly value empirical data.

I now understand why you're the way you are.

 

[Cerb]

It's the same discussion we've been having. The average unemployed person in the WWII era would have gone and got a F'ing job.

Which is but one more reason you can't make an apples to apples comparison. Today, there are fewer jobs than there are people trying to get jobs. That was not the case from the time WWII support geared up, right to the 70s. The average WWII era unemployed person, if transported to the present, would find themselves able to do little more than day labor, and with plenty of competition. OTOH, in his own era, employers needed employees badly, so he'd get snatched up within the first few tries.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anecdotal Evidence

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

[Fern]

Bond Markets Say US Debt Doesn't Matter

That statement is too facile, to simplistic.

If one means to say that other factors, such as fear or lack of a better place to park capital/money exert a very heavy influence on US bond rates at certain times, then, yes, I would agree.

There is nothing unusual, or unknown about that. We see it often.

But the area of concern is that it has always been temporary. When those compelling conditions recede we are left with a huge debt that will then matter.

What might our bonds rates be if other countries emerge from their economic problems before us and present themselves as a superior investment alternative?

I wonder if it would have helped if the Stimulus was over $1 trillion and Obama's original Jobs Act was passed. The one where he wanted to lower the payroll tax rate to 3.1% and give billions to businesses to boost hiring.

One of my complaints is that people continually speak of the quantity of stimulus and rarely, if ever, mention the quality of stimulus spending.

Slapping the label of "stimulus" on such mundane and routine maintenance projects as road repaving does not work to magically make such projects a mighty force of economic stimulus. Nor does shoveling money down to states so that they may avoid (non-GDP producing) govt job layoffs for another year.

And the true govt stimulus type projects spoken of elsewhere in this thread take many years to deliver their benefits. This is why Congress and the Obama admin largely chose to forgo such projects in the stimulus bill: What good is it, politically, if the benefits materialize 5 or 10 yrs down the road when you've already been voted out of office?

As regards the payroll tax proposal, I know of few, if any, serious business types who actually believe cutting the cost of employment by a few measly percentage points will cause employers to rush out and hire people. Not to mention that creating employment before increasing demand is like trying to push a rope up in the air. It must be pulled, and demand is what will pull employment upward.

"Another factor that matters is growth.
Growth is critical because if you think that the economy is going to grow in a robust fashion, then you won't want to lock up your cash with the government. You'll want to invest in real things or at least stocks that might boom along with the economy."

Rephrase: The debt might matter more in the future, but only if the economy is booming enough to where it probably offsets the affect anyway.

And don't assume that this growth must come from us. There's a whole world out there, and capital is the easiest thing to migrate. If somebody else beats us to an economic turnaround we may be facing higher bond/interest rates. And that's really going to hurt if our financial position hasn't changed.

In other words, many of the wealthiest entities in the world trust the United States with their money over any other person, country, mattress, or vault in the world. Because we have a printing press

And firing up those printing presses is inflationary, and that drives bond yields (our interest rates) higher.

If you are going to argue the stimulus either shouldn't have been passed or you disagree with my statements, then please explain your detailed, superior proposal that you would have passed instead.

I've explained mine in detail several times already, so won't do it again. I'll simply describe it as a large ($ wise) small business loan guarantee program using the existing SBA/local bank infrastructure.

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

Why can't we simply target 0% inflation and make minor adjustments when it deviates slightly? That is the Feds mandate after all, stable prices.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about money supply or price increases, but a static currency is impossible for prices and money supply. That's because the market sets prices while the Fed is increasing the money supply. The market always wins out, even if it may take it a while. Also, central banks are more inflationary than deflationary by their very nature as they're a protection for banks to loan out more than they have. If they issued a static currency, then the banks couldn't make above-market profits.

If it had a mandate of a fixed >0 CPI increase per year, then that wouldn't work out either, because the market sets supply, demand, and prices more than the Fed ever could.

 

[Alyx]

I'm not sure whether you're talking about money supply or price increases, but a static currency is impossible for prices and money supply. That's because the market sets prices while the Fed is increasing the money supply. The market always wins out, even if it may take it a while. Also, central banks are more inflationary than deflationary by their very nature as they're a protection for banks to loan out more than they have. If they issued a static currency, then the banks couldn't make above-market profits.

If it had a mandate of a fixed >0 CPI increase per year, then that wouldn't work out either, because the market sets supply, demand, and prices more than the Fed ever could.

Exactly! For example look at Black Wednesday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

 

[woolfe9999]

As regards the payroll tax proposal, I know of few, if any, serious business types who actually believe cutting the cost of employment by a few measly percentage points will cause employers to rush out and hire people. Not to mention that creating employment before increasing demand is like trying to push a rope up in the air. It must be pulled, and demand is what will pull employment upward.

Right, but cutting the payroll tax also gives consumers more money to purchase goods and services, thus stimulating demand. It may not be the best possible stimulus, but right now it's the only thing this administration can politically pull off. If you want good stimulus spending (of whatever type you think works best), then petition the GOP to support it. I'm unaware of any such support for anything other than tax cuts.

BTW your demand size analysis is spot on. Giving job creators more money will not create jobs. Demand must first increase. It's what the Keynsians have been saying all along...

 

[Fern]

Right, but cutting the payroll tax also gives consumers more money to purchase goods and services, thus stimulating demand.
-snip-

I thought the OP was referring to a proposal to cut the employers side of payroll taxes, not the employees?

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Not to mention that creating employment before increasing demand is like trying to push a rope up in the air. It must be pulled, and demand is what will pull employment upward.

Which is why govt job creation is so important to establishing greater demand. Private industry obviously isn't doing it, seeing as how we're in a liquidity trap as in the early 1930's.

How else will demand be created when private industry sees no reason to create jobs? They're already making record profits at reduced capacity, holding enormous cash reserves & engaging in stock buybacks.

While it's obviously desirable that those employed are doing something productive & worthwhile, it's really secondary in a macro sense to the idea that employment & wages need to be increased. Creating demand w/o jobs is an oxymoron.