Interesting question actually. Given a level of inequality, how should debt be notionally 'distributed'? https://twitter.com/jamyerson/status/725357831466192896 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
@JAMyerson@vgr Also, significant chunk is $ the govt owes itself; and much of the rest, investment yielding future returns to citizens.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @upwithppl
.@gibsopi
@JAMyerson Yes but "government" isn't an abstraction. Sovereign debt *is* a representation of the credit worthiness of a people1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
.@gibsopi
@JAMyerson It's not like we're in 16thc Spain where you can get sloppy with sovereign debt defaults, even with a reserve currency1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
@vgr@JAMyerson Much evidence, including 20th century, of debt levels of 90% of GDP or more with no negative effects. So yeah, not 16th c.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @upwithppl
@vgr@JAMyerson Of course, to get that you have to understand that "national debt" in abstract is meaningless-- only meaningful as % of GDP.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl
@vgr@JAMyerson & then you have to annualize vs annual GDP. "18 trillion terror terror terror big number!!!!" means exactly nothing.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @upwithppl
@vgr Anyway, didn't@JAMyerson already dispense with this? http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/what-uncle-sam-really-owes.html …4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@gibsopi @JAMyerson Sure, we can safely get to debt at 90% of GDP under some conditions etc. But safe/dangerous boundary is complex
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.