Controlling the National Debt: Chess, Not Checkers
Paul Ryan’s widely-discussed budget proposal prominently features several charts designed to emphasize the severity of our budget problems. It’s easy to remember these long-term forecasts by using a lot of 80s: in 2080, government spending is projected to be a little less than 80% of GDP, and accumulated debt is projected to be over 800% of GDP.
The one thing that I can state with some confidence about these specific forecasts is that they are wrong. In the real world, something – either more prudent management of our federal fiscal affairs, or else a painful and destabilizing crash – will intervene.
The long-term forecasts, however, illustrate the crucial point that we are sitting on the mother of all bubbles. Many, probably most, Americans anticipate a stream of consumption that will be provided for them into old age by the government (i.e., other taxpayers). Unfortunately, most American taxpayers do not anticipate the kind of enormous increase in taxes that would be required to pay for this stream of benefits. One or both of these expectations will not be met. Americans as a whole are simply less wealthy, in the most useful sense of rationally anticipatable future material consumption, than they think they are. And the size of this disconnect is vastly greater than, for example, the size of the housing price bubble that just popped.
The only good news is that most of this unfunded spending anticipated under current law is decades away. This matters a lot. If we faced a total collapse of our economy 75 years from now, but could keep pushing the deadline out by about one year per year, it would remain theoretical.
But the bad news is that, in this instance, the combination of the debt we have just put on our balance sheet, plus the deficits that are scheduled to be created by these programs over the next 10 to 20 years, means that we need to confront this problem soon. We have increased public debt from about 40% of GDP in 2005 to about 70% of GDP by the end of this year; and we are projected to exceed the historical peak debt of about 100% of GDP (achieved at the close of WWII) within the next 15 years; thereupon we enter uncharted territory.
The borrowing capacity of the U.S. government is vast, but it is not limitless. At some point that nobody can predict, we will not be able to borrow enough to continue spending n the manner that current law assumes without extremely large negative effects. This is the way the bubble will very likely pop, if we let it come to that: A funding crisis for the U.S. government. This is very unlikely in 2011, or 2012 or 2013; but over 20 years, we are playing with fire. In essence, we don’t need to care that much about the projections for 2080, because long, long before that, we’re going hit the wall, unless we somehow address the problem.
The rational goal is to push the point of crisis out well beyond the current planning horizon. There is no “long-term solution” that can ever be achieved by any budget deal. In the end, the ballast in the entitlement and budgeting system that prevents it from going haywire in the long run is the good sense of the American electorate. That’s why neither the conservative emphasis on the character of the people, nor the progressive focus on maintaining social consent for the capitalist system, is entirely misplaced.
The ball we need to keep our eye on is not so much the theoretical ultimate cost, as how much time we have left before we crash. We should want a set of entitlement rules that we believe to be sustainable in perpetuity, but we need to push out the date at which we would have a crisis.
As a result, I think that a lot of the discussion of the Ryan plan, and of President Obama’s speech, has missed the point because it has been excessively focused on statements about what “we” will do many years from now. Setting a general direction and showing that it is possible to get tax receipts to equal expenditures is helpful in creating political momentum. It is also useful in that, on the margin, it can get lenders to the U.S. Treasury to be more comfortable with the safety of their investment.
But beyond this, long-term targets are mostly a sound-and-light show, because we can’t really control today what spending and taxation levels will be in 2065 or something, as each future Congress can change whatever it wants. These out-year targets are very much like proposed laws that would “guarantee” that carbon dioxide emissions will be 80% below today’s level in 2050. They will, unless and until that future electorate decides that they don’t want to forgo the economic consumption that this would require any more than we do in 2011.
A real plan to address our debt problems, then, should focus on two key elements: (1) putting in place mechanisms for influencing future legislatures that we cannot command, and (2) enacting structural reforms that will simultaneously encourage general economic growth as they do this.
One thing that helps to address the first requirement is to try to establish enduring public opinion, which is the primary real benefit of the debate and long-term targets that I referenced above, as this will hopefully have some effect on the political landscape confronting Congress for years. Another is to force some real spending cuts now, not just in the future, which affects both the future baseline and mindset. But the most important thing is to change the rules of the game. That is, to tilt the playing field so as to bias the system toward reducing deficits as compared to the current system each year. Of course, there are no absolutes – anything can be changed by a future Congress, or if necessary, via Constitutional amendment. The goal of the policymaker who wants to deflate the bubble is to make it much harder to do this than simply by passing a budget with X instead of Y dollars for some purpose. Paul Ryan is a skilled budget technician, and seems to me to have prioritized a number of features that will help to serve this purpose. This is the boring, nerdy-sounding stuff like “Create a budget point of order against legislation that would increase net mandatory spending beyond the ten-year window of the budget resolution,” and “Close the loophole that allows discretionary limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations” that form much of the guts of the plan.
The second requirement is that the plan should look hard for two-fers that create structures that both help the deficit problem, but also help growth in the long-term. One example of this is to get the tax code simpler and broader. Reducing or eliminating a large number of deductions (business and personal), convoluted subsidies and so on, not only helps with the short-term debt problem, but should help the economy grow over time by getting rid of distortions. This is a major emphasis of the sensible Bowles-Simpson report, and there are numerous (too timid in my view, but I don’t have to get elected to anything) instances of this in the Ryan plan, such as reform of the corporate tax structure, eliminating some agricultural and energy subsidies, and winding down government sponsorship of the mortgage lending business. Another example is decentralizing decision-making through exactly the kind of block grants of Medicaid and “voucherization” (in the conceptual sense, via premium support) of Medicare that Ryan has proposed. Rates and spending levels can always be changed back in the face of inevitable future “crises,” but structures are much harder to undo. Again, this can be used to get costs down short-term, but their major benefit is helping growth decades out. The silver lining of this crisis is that by being honest with ourselves about our current situation, we can hopefully establish a practical platform for future growth and prosperity.
Paul Ryan’s willingness to stand up and provide a comprehensive and understandable projection of balanced total inflows and outflows for the U.S. federal government is what marks him as serious about this problem; but the specific proposals to reduce spending now, to change the rules of the game, and to restructure the welfare state in ways that will encourage long-term growth, are what make the Ryan plan serious.
Ideally, these various strands would be combined by a national leader into an overall program that combines a long-term vision, sustained public support, changed rules of the game, and institutional structures designed for the 21st century rather than the 20th to partially lock-in a program over a long period of time. A great model for doing exactly this is the combination of FDR’s brilliant political messaging, the creation of powerful rent-seeking constituencies, and laws that set benefit changes on autopilot unless Congress proactively changes them (rather than, for example, demanding “zero based” budgeting for Social Security each fiscal year), that created the entitlement system that we are now trying to reform. All products of human agency have a finite lifespan. Like the FDR vision of the entitlement state that now appears to be in its death throes, whatever we put in place will eventually become antiquated and have to be replaced. Our job is to make sure that this happens 75 years from now, not 10 years from now.
(Cross-posted at The Corner)
“Paul Ryan’s willingness to stand up and provide a comprehensive and understandable projection of balanced total inflows and outflows for the U.S. federal government is what marks him as serious about this problem; but the specific proposals to reduce spending now, to change the rules of the game, and to restructure the welfare state in ways that will encourage long-term growth, are what make the Ryan plan serious.”
Neither Ryan nor his plan are serious, no matter how many times it gets repeated by one blowhard after another. Any deficit reduction plan that does not at least acknowledge the need to raise tax rates in some manner IS NOT SERIOUS. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. That’s because any deficit reduction plan that does not include tax increases is not actually about the deficit. It’s about using the debt and deficit crisis as an excuse to socially re-engineer America into something closer to a Randian’s wet dream.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 15, 07:28 PM · #
Why is it more evident that entitlement spending is in its “death throes” than is, say, military spending? Both soak up comparable, vast chunks of the budget, both are important bulwarks of national security. Yet both could conceivably be significantly trimmed and still deliver baseline functions that allowed for stability and even growth.
Why the urgency over entitlements now? They don’t drive up the national debt any more than excessive war financing, and they are not directly culpable for the current economic pain. Poor little social security is hardly a problem at all for the foreseeable future. And while medical costs are obscene, it’s not obvious at all that government subsidies for health care are the ultimate culprit.
Also, isn’t the chessmaster analogy just a shade elitist, bringing to mind an arrogant professor, complacent in his tenure, reading Chomsky?
If Ryan ascended to coach, I fear his policies would bring the same dispiriting results of another famous chessmaster:
http://dontfirealgroh.com/wordpress/
— Tony Artaud · Apr 15, 08:37 PM · #
I have to agree with Mike. Ryan’s plan is not serious.
Serious plans almost inevitably would go where the money is:
The military
Health care (and, to a much lesser extent, Social Security)
Tax increases (mostly on the rich, because they have most of the money).
And that’s about it.
Politically, all of these have been off the table forever, which is why the money accumulated there. Until that changes, deficits forever.
— Jay · Apr 15, 08:39 PM · #
Jay:
One of the points of my post is that we can’t have deficits (at the kind of level we’re used to) forever. It’s like saying that I’m just going to keep running up my credit card forever – we’re going to get cut off.
Tony:
I’ve advocated reducing our military commitments in order to reduce military spending prudently. The problem is that in the out-year projections, everything becomes tiny as compared to entitlement spending.
Mike:
Without endorsing the Ryan plan, I don’t understand why it is inherently unserious to argue that we should work backwards from ~X% of GDP as taxes collected by the government to how we would prioritize spending given that limit (his basic logic). You might not agree that we should limit spending to that extent, but the willingness to make the inflows roughly equal outflows is a lot different than what I hear from other major political leaders in both parties.
— Jim Manzi · Apr 15, 09:28 PM · #
PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
See what I mean about liberals having gone extinct?
Ending a discussion before it has ended is not a liberal trait.
— The Reticulator · Apr 15, 09:28 PM · #
“Without endorsing the Ryan plan, I don’t understand why it is inherently unserious”
Let me try and be more clear. A plan that supposedly solves the deficits without raising taxes is as serious as a plan that supposedly solves the deficit without cutting spending. We don’t even have to get into the economic discussion. The spending cuts/government reform required to eliminate the deficit without tax hikes are so gigantic and so radical that they will be impossible to achieve politically, much as the tax increases needed to eliminate the deficit without spending cuts/government reform are so massive that they are impossible to achieve politically. Ryan might just as well have said “I’ll eliminate the deficit with the infinite stream of money that shoots out my ass”.
And just to be more clear, we’re not talking about a permanent increase in taxes. You may think the current level of taxation is appropriate or may even prefer it to be lower. However, a higher level of taxation is going to be unavoidably necessary for some period of time if we are going to just get the deficit under control, let alone eliminate it.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 15, 10:25 PM · #
“Ending a discussion before it has ended is not a liberal trait.”
Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, there comes a point where sheer, stubborn idiocy can no longer be indulged.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 15, 10:29 PM · #
Mike,
Ryan’s plan doesn’t just not raise taxes, it actually cuts taxes, adding idiocy to idiocy. But I agree, any deficit-reduction plan needs to cut spending and raise taxes. Ryan’s plan isn’t deficit-reduction, it’s just wealth-transfer from poor and middle-class Americans to wealthy Americans.
— Andrew · Apr 15, 10:31 PM · #
I very often agree with Jim Manzi, so it’s unusual for me to see a post that makes me think “I wonder what the weather’s like on his planet.”
A few points. Ryan’s plan is not a plan to fix the deficit problem, at least for the next decade or two; it’s a plan to fix the “Rich people don’t have enough money” problem. It takes massive amounts of money out of various programs for the poor and middle class, and transfers it all to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. You can like this or dislike it, but it has nothing to do with deficits.
On the coming entitlement apocalypse – yes and no. Yes on medical care, no on social security, which isn’t far out of whack. The medical problem is a general medical expense problem, not an entitlement problem per se. Finding a magic wand for medicare and letting the medical expenses for GM and Intel and individuals go up 15% a year indefinitely is just as effective a way to trash the economy.
In this area, Ryan’s plan is positively destructive. It rescinds all of the long list of cost control measures in the Affordable Care Act and replaces it with nothing; and it adds another vested interest group (the insurers who take the vouchers) to the groups urging congress to do stupid things. As if we needed that.
It’s odd to see something where my reaction is “Any fool can see this is a transparent fraud”, and yet have people like Jim finding things in there that are absolutely invisible to me. It’s a mystery.
— Peter · Apr 16, 12:28 AM · #
Ryan’s plan is the same cowardly nonsense that all long term congressional plans are. Implement the things people like now and then hope 20 years from now congress seriously implements the things people don’t like.
Which worked so great for the sunsetting bush tax cuts, or the AMT patch, or the medicare doc fix…
However, unlike something like the affordable care act which aligns special interests in a way that ensures the system keeps working, Ryan’s plan aligns the special interests in a completely terrible way that ensures they just lobby for more money and keep cost control from ever happening. We can’t even get medicare advantage to save money but Ryan’s voucher system is magically going to?
— Console · Apr 16, 01:01 AM · #
I agree with the above about the patheticness of the Ryan plan. It even includes a good dose of supplyside voodoo economics, which I don’t understand how Jim, who is skeptical of regular economics, can support. Mostly this plan is just a hazy vision of a Randian utopia with eternally diminishing “block grants” thrown in as a head fake to the people who rely on medicare. I think it is literally the work of an adolecent mind, both in it’s substance and in it’s understainding of the politics of the moment.
The thing is, most people want medicare and social security. They understand that they are fucked without it. Due to the recession, the color of our presidents skin, and his uncommon name and upbringing, a bunch of conservative utopians, completely out of touch with average americans, got elected and becasue of the size of thier voting block, are dragging the republican party even further into ditch than usual. This kind of stuff happens. What usually happens next in a democracy, is the general public becomes aware of the nature of the utopians vision, and the utopians get smacked down.
So here is a technical question for Jim or whoever else can answer it: how much would taxes need to be raised to maintain our current entitlement regime?
— cw · Apr 16, 05:27 AM · #
Jim:
You put in all that hard work, on a typically well-reasoned post and you get absolute stupidity in response. You have remarkable patience.
— jd · Apr 16, 05:44 PM · #
I should have added, excepting the Reticulator.
— jd · Apr 16, 05:47 PM · #
Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, there comes a point where sheer, stubborn idiocy can no longer be indulged.
And yet, nobody is rounding up leftists and herding them into concentration camps, even though they are a greater danger to the country that Islamist terrorists.
— The Reticulator · Apr 16, 07:32 PM · #
Ryan’s plan would start to reduce Medicare spending, which is the biggest problem by far, only after ten years. Before his Medicare plan kicks in he would cut taxes and repeal the parts of Obamacare that try to restrain Medicare. The result of his plan would be to make the deficit worse in the next decade. I don’t see why you call a plan that would make the deficit bigger for the next decade plan serious.
— Mercer · Apr 17, 05:06 AM · #
I’m still trying to grasp why entitlement spending— in Ryan’s and Manzi’s interpretation— requires significant reevaluation right now. Again, why are the things our payroll taxes support so obviously entering their “death throes?”
This is odd. Only ten years ago, when entitlement spending was not significantly different than it is now, we had a surplus. In the intervening time, we entered two wars, cut taxes rather dramatically, and suffered from an economic recession/depression precipitated by a housing bubble that had nothing to do with Medicaid and Social Security. Yet, Manzi and Ryan insist that our deficit problems need to be addressed by cutting entitlements.
I get that demographics changes will make a sustained entitlement system, as it is now, increasingly untenable. The deficit issues of the moment, however, have a lot more to do with greatly diminished revenues and vastly increased military spending. Attacking entitlements seems like an opportunistic move, not unlike greenies who use shrinking glaciers and expensive gasoline to encourage us to make major reevaluations of our energy policy, even if it means some broadly shared sacrifice.
— Tony Artaud · Apr 17, 01:05 PM · #
“And yet, nobody is rounding up leftists and herding them into concentration camps, even though they are a greater danger to the country that Islamist terrorists.”
Hmm. I’m starting to understand why you get so little attention on your own blogs and come scurrying over here for a reaction.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 17, 02:42 PM · #
So, Mr. Bunge, do you think Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to our country than the American left?
— The Reticulator · Apr 18, 12:41 PM · #
@MBunge. Meh.
Obviously you could balance the budget without raising taxes, if you had freedom to cut whatever spending you wanted. The questions would be (1) what would you have to cut; (2) is it politically possible to make those cuts and (3) what would the consequences of the cuts be?
With regard to the Ryan plan, either the numbers add up or they don’t. If they add up, then it’s serious, at least in that it sets out what we would have to do to steady the ship if we only headed right.
— J Mann · Apr 18, 02:17 PM · #
The deficit issues of the moment, however, have a lot more to do with greatly diminished revenues and vastly increased military spending.
And I don’t supposed the diminished revenues have anything to do with increased spending? Nah. Feedback loops are impossible. I mean, if the sheep are not getting enough feed from your pasture and are not producing enough meat and wool, much less putting nutrients back into the soil, the obvious solution is to institute overgrazing.
BTW, I found a handy web site that can be used as a reality check whenever people try to tell you things like the sentence quoted above:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts.html
— The Reticulator · Apr 18, 04:25 PM · #
“So, Mr. Bunge, do you think Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to our country than the American left?”
Seriously, dude, it’s more than a bit pathetic.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 18, 05:08 PM · #
Seriously, dude, it’s more than a bit pathetic.
Someone closed-minded enough to write the following, and closed-minded enough to say the discussion is over when it’s not over, is probably not in the best position to be directing the word “pathetic” at others.
Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, there comes a point where sheer, stubborn idiocy can no longer be indulged.
— The Reticulator · Apr 18, 05:16 PM · #
Reticulator,
The government’s revenues are basically taxes, so if taxes are lowered and the taxpayers’ earnings decline over a certain period, then of course revenues fall, regardless of whether the government is spending more or less of those revenues in that period. If the government spends above its revenues, it creates a deficit; it does not create lower revenues.
— tony artaud · Apr 18, 05:27 PM · #
“Someone closed-minded enough to write the following, and closed-minded enough to say the discussion is over when it’s not over, is probably not in the best position to be directing the word “pathetic” at others.”
Look, I certainly understand why you think your non-rational crankitude should be indulged. I don’t have to go along with it, though, and the fact that you think you have some sort of moral high ground on this is beyond pathetic.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 18, 05:47 PM · #
Someone who wants to shut down discussion before it has ended is probably too far down in the moral swamps and cesspools to be able to judge whether anyone outside is on moral high ground or moral low ground. (Note: I do not mean to cast aspersions on our nation’s wetlands, especially those that provide listening pleasure on warm spring evenings.)
— The Reticulator · Apr 19, 12:38 AM · #
If the government spends above its revenues, it creates a deficit; it does not create lower revenues.
Except to the extent to which those deficits cause justifiable economic uncertainty and fear, which in turn creates lower tax revenues.
— The Reticulator · Apr 19, 12:40 AM · #
“So, Mr. Bunge, do you think Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to our country than the American left?”
Sure, you think the left is a greater danger, and others think the right is a greater danger, so we can agree that Islamist terrorists are not much of a threat. Now we’re right back at the start. Congrats, you’ve added nothing to the thread.
And yes, I know.
— jonathan · Apr 19, 01:31 AM · #
Now we’re right back at the start. Congrats, you’ve added nothing to the thread.
True, it adds nothing. But now that we’ve disposed of Bunge’s irresponsible rhetoric we can begin a grownup discussion of Jim Manzi’s post.
I liked the phrase, “putting in place mechanisms for influencing future legislatures that we cannot command.” Very important.
To that end, I’d like to point out that it is important to zero out a couple of programs. Not just cut them back, but cut them to zero. Congress has a lot of experience with 1) increasing spending, 2) increasing taxes, and 3) cutting taxes. It has very little experience with 4) cutting spending, much less zeroing out programs. This ineptitude was on display in the recent budget cutting farce. It needs the practice, badly.
I would recommend NPR/CPB as one program to cut to zero. It’s not needed, and the fact that we have it is an affront to the First Amendment. It’s also a form of welfare for the well-off. Cutting NPR won’t cause Grandma to be thrown out on the street with a can of dog food to keep her company.
But more important than that as a mechanism to influence future legislatures is cutting ag subsidies (including ethanol subsidies) to zero. Lopping off 20 percent isn’t going to accomplish anything for the long-term, because that 20 percent will be added right back on the next time the people let their guard down.
The reason it should be cut to zero is that it eliminates a corrupt source of votes for other spending programs. Congressman Hayseed, who is somewhat conservative except for his votes for ag subsidies for his wealthy constituents, will no longer be obliged to vote for funding for the unneeded airbase that Congressman Flyboy wants for his district. If ag subsidies are cut to zero, Congressman Flyboy can no longer give him a vote in exchange for a vote for the useless military base. So we’ll cut military spending, too. And so on and so on.
Cutting to zero would have a huge multiplier effect that will not be obtained just by cutting 20 percent out of the program. Because if the ag subsidy program is 80 percent of what it is now, the same vote trading we now have will be necessary.
I suppose you could argue that the corrupt congresspersons could still trade votes to reinstate the subsidies. But it’s a lot harder to do that on the sly than it is to bump up spending a few notches.
And now is one of those rare times when they can be cut without causing unmanageable dislocations. Farm commodity prices are high. They won’t be high forever. But if ag subsidies are cut now, there will be time for farmers and price mechanisms to make the necessary adjustments.
Leftwingers and conservatives alike claim to be against welfare for the rich. What better time than now to call their bluff?
— The Reticulator · Apr 19, 02:35 AM · #
Even if you go for the pretty ridiculous “perpetuity” numbers (which would be silly given your well-founded belief in future uncertainty), we’re talking 4.1% of GDP. Much less with 75-year numbers. And we’d still one of the lowest taxers among the community of thriving, prosperous, modern countries. It would actually move us up into the range where countries are not suffering regular financial and fiscal crises. Sounds good to me.
— Steve Roth · Apr 19, 11:22 AM · #
“Many, probably most, Americans anticipate a stream of consumption that will be provided for them into old age by the government (i.e., other taxpayers).”
I disagree. If you were to go back and see how 25-year-olds in 1965 imagined their government benefits would be 46 years later, you’d find that people grossly underestimated the purchasing power of their pension as well as the quantity and quality of medical care the receive (both in terms of the sophistication of services covered by Medicare and benefits that have been added since 1965).
I think that most people imagine a future that’s reached by a rate of health care cost inflation that’s much closer to GDP+1% than the historical rate of inflation. Similarly, I suspect that most underestimate the quality of life afforded by future pensions (which are growing at a much more sustainable rate and aren’t really the issue here, anyway).
To a certain extent, people expect “the best care possible” to be paid for forever, but folks underestimate how good the best care will be.
— Zach · Apr 19, 03:45 PM · #
“Paul Ryan’s willingness to stand up and provide a comprehensive and understandable projection of balanced total inflows and outflows for the U.S. federal government…”
Ryan’s budget simply states that he will raise 19% GDP in revenue forever. He doesn’t say how he will do this beyond (1) lowering the corporate and top rates to 25%, (2) lowering capital gains rates, (3) eliminating some expenditures, (4) “broadening the tax base,” and (5) eliminating the revenue-generating bits of Obamacare. This is neither understandable (this plan will not raise that much revenue in the near/medium-term unless there’s a whole lot of #4) nor a projection. Current policy (Bush-cuts-extended, AMT patched) gives projected revenues of 19% or so for the next decade. The policies that Ryan describes raise far less revenue than current policy.
— Zach · Apr 19, 03:51 PM · #
I read your piece twice. I can’t find the word “INTEREST” (on the debt) anywhere. I find that fascinating.
— Gretchen · Apr 19, 04:24 PM · #
“I would recommend NPR/CPB as one program to cut to zero. It’s not needed, and the fact that we have it is an affront to the First Amendment. It’s also a form of welfare for the well-off. Cutting NPR won’t cause Grandma to be thrown out on the street with a can of dog food to keep her company.
But more important than that as a mechanism to influence future legislatures is cutting ag subsidies (including ethanol subsidies) to zero.”
I know most folks don’t pay that much attention to Ol’ Recy, but just in case anyone is wondering…
NPR’s total revenues are about 145 million dollars. Even if every dime of that comes from the federal government, and most does not, totally eliminating federal funding for NPR would do jack squat about the deficit.
CATO puts federal ag subsidies at about 15 to 35 billion dollars a year. That’s not nothing, but the current federal deficit is about 1.5 trillion dollars, which means it’s next to nothing.
Just wanted to be sure no one was fooled for even an instant by the seemingly substantive nature of Ol’ Recy’s post. He’s still as much an unserious crank as ever.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 19, 04:53 PM · #
I know most folks don’t pay that much attention to Ol’ Recy,
That hurts — deeply. I know nobody else pays attention to what I write, but for Bunge himself to respond to what I wrote without first reading it is tough to take. On the other hand, I can take comfort that I’m in good company, because it appears that hardly anyone who commented on Jim Manzi’s post had bothered to read it, either.
— The Reticulator · Apr 19, 09:25 PM · #
“I know nobody else pays attention to what I write, but for Bunge himself to respond to what I wrote without first reading it is tough to take.”
Oh, I read it. It took a great deal of will power and some pharmaceutical assistance, but I got through it. Which is how I knew it was nothing but crank theories that have little to do with reality.
You offer up two proposals of deficit reduction. One is a complete joke. The other isn’t a totally terrible idea, but you use it as the basis of a scheme that shows a 8 year old’s understanding of both political and just plain human behavior and interaction.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 20, 03:00 PM · #