CBO claims Unsustainable Debt

Originally posted by normbenign
Your hero, Joe Stiglitz disagrees with borrowing for education. Not so long ago, many people could work their way through college, on pay of menial jobs.

When was that? Until the GI Bill, only about 5% of Americans achieved a Bachelors degree; now that percentage is close to 30%.http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf

Could you quote me some place where Stiglitz opposes borrowing for education?

EDIT: Stiglitz: What economists call “human capital” — investing in people — is a key to long-term growth. To be competitive in the 21st century is to have a highly educated labor force, one with college and advanced degrees.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/student-debt-and-the-crushing-of-the-american-dream/

Of course, he's critical of the way our present system requires low and middle income students to take out heavy debt:

Robust higher education, with healthy public support, was once the linchpin in a system that promised opportunity for dedicated students of any means. We now have a pay-to-play, winner-take-all game where the wealthiest are assured a spot, and the rest are compelled to take a gamble on huge debts, with no guarantee of a payoff.

and suggests various types of public programs to reduce this. This is consistent with what I have said.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Did you have a point?

If you didn't get it, you never will.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is hardly "speculation" to believe that increased investment in infrastructure and education will reduce future expenditures and increase revenues.

Any time IF is part of a projection it is speculative.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When was that? Until the GI Bill, only about 5% of Americans achieved a Bachelors degree; now that percentage is close to 30%.http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf

Could you quote me some place where Stiglitz opposes borrowing for education?

EDIT: Stiglitz: What economists call “human capital” — investing in people — is a key to long-term ...[text shortened]... gests various types of public programs to reduce this. This is consistent with what I have said.

In his book "The Cost of Inequality", he is highly critical of the education system and its finances, in particular that student loans can't be erased by bankruptcy.

Part of his objections revolve around not enough government regulation, that is too many choices in education. Well at least he's consistent, always blame government interference and distortions, and then look to government for solutions to the messes they make.

Stiglitz points out repeatedly that bachelor's degree recipients often are faced with a market that can't or won't hire them. That isn't all a failure of schools or the market, but to some degree what the K-12 system sends colleges. Many baccalaureates haven't learned as many critical job skills as high school students 40 years ago. Of course those job skills have changed, but government doesn't react as quickly as markets, so they are still supporting stuff that doesn't work anymore.

I reject labeling people as "human capital". It is dehumanizing. Government "investments" are almost always taking from one person and giving to another, which is usually called theft.

Originally posted by normbenign
In his book "The Cost of Inequality", he is highly critical of the education system and its finances, in particular that student loans can't be erased by bankruptcy.

Part of his objections revolve around not enough government regulation, that is too much choices in education. Well at least he's consistent, always blame government interference and distortions, and then look to government for solutions to the messes they make.

I've said before and I'll say it again - you don't understand Stiglitz because you start with preconceived ideas that no evidence can shake. You need to clear your mind but that seems beyond your capability.

We saw what a lack of governmental commitment to higher education did pre-WWII and what the opposite has done afterwards; a 5 five fold increase in the chances of a person getting a college degree. Stiglitz's proposals amount to a fine tuning of the system not the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" approach your laissez faire religion always supports in these matters.

Originally posted by normbenign
Any time IF is part of a projection it is speculative.

The only "IF" in my statement concerned whether every cent of the reductions in military spending would go to equal increases in infrastructure and human capital spending. Please try a little harder to read; it would probably help you grasp Stiglitz as well.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've said before and I'll say it again - you don't understand Stiglitz because you start with preconceived ideas that no evidence can shake. You need to clear your mind but that seems beyond your capability.

I understand Stiglitz perfectly, and am capable of identifying his double speak, and inconsistencies. I'm currently reading a book by Hans Herman Hoppe, which blows in the first chapter all of Stiglitz' arguments on public goods out of the water. Of course, I already did that in my extensive notes on his book.

It is not a matter of capability, and I certainly recognize I come from a different viewpoint than Joe Stiglitz. If however, he were convincing, I would be convinced.

Originally posted by normbenign
I understand Stiglitz perfectly, and am capable of identifying his double speak, and inconsistencies. I'm currently reading a book by Hans Herman Hoppe, which blows in the first chapter all of Stiglitz' arguments on public goods out of the water. Of course, I already did that in my extensive notes on his book.

It is not a matter of capability, and I ...[text shortened]... a different viewpoint than Joe Stiglitz. If however, he were convincing, I would be convinced.

Yeah you'll learn a lot from the crank Austrian School.

EDIT: From Hoppe's wiki article:

Hoppe argues that monarchy would preserve individual liberty more effectively than democracy.


A true kindred soul of yours norm; he thinks Milton Friedman was a "socialist".

Originally posted by normbenign
In his book "The Cost of Inequality", he is highly critical of the education system and its finances, in particular that student loans can't be erased by bankruptcy.

Part of his objections revolve around not enough government regulation, that is too many choices in education. Well at least he's consistent, always blame government interference and dist ...[text shortened]... " are almost always taking from one person and giving to another, which is usually called theft.

Taxes as "theft" again.🙄🙄

Originally posted by no1marauder
The only "IF" in my statement concerned whether every cent of the reductions in military spending would go to equal increases in infrastructure and human capital spending. Please try a little harder to read; it would probably help you grasp Stiglitz as well.

Well as I've already pointed out without refutation, moving money from one goal to another doesn't do anything for the deficit or debt in the near term.

The chances of moving stuff dollar for dollar in such a way through Congress is slim and none, and Slim left town.

We just got through massive spending which ended up helping Wall Street, not to mention the massive inflation of the money supply which again helped the same folks. This didn't happen under a Waskally Wepublican administration.

Try reading some Murray Rothbard or Mises.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Taxes as "theft" again.🙄🙄

What do you call forced takings? 🙄🙄

Originally posted by normbenign
Well as I've already pointed out without refutation, moving money from one goal to another doesn't do anything for the deficit or debt in the near term.

The chances of moving stuff dollar for dollar in such a way through Congress is slim and none, and Slim left town.

We just got through massive spending which ended up helping Wall Street, not to men ...[text shortened]... happen under a Waskally Wepublican administration.

Try reading some Murray Rothbard or Mises.

Actually the Wall Street bailout (which I opposed) was enacted in the Bush Administration.

Of course, its axiomatic that any lending adds to your total debt in the near term. So what? The OP was claiming a systemic, long term unsustainable debt based on future projections not that the current debt is unsustainable. And infrastructure and human capital spending would reduce that long term debt. As always, your policy preferences are based on fallacious reasoning as well as being short sighted.

Originally posted by normbenign
What do you call forced takings? 🙄🙄

I won't waste time debunking such a claim again. No one is "forced" to be part of any society.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah you'll learn a lot from the crank Austrian School.

EDIT: From Hoppe's wiki article:

Hoppe argues that monarchy would preserve individual liberty more effectively than democracy.


A true kindred soul of yours norm; he thinks Milton Friedman was a "socialist".

I can't argue Hoppe's credibility, as I've only read a chapter of his book. Probably more than you have. How much Rothbard or Mises have you actually read to support your assessment of the Austrian school economics as "crank".

I can see that potentially a monarchy could preserve individual liberty better than democracy. It would, of course, depend on the monarch.

Democracy in its purest form ignores the liberty of a 49.9% minority.

I am not worshipful of any man, certainly not Milton Friedman. He had some things correct, and others not so much, but he was far more consistently logical than Stiglitz.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually the Wall Street bailout (which I opposed) was enacted in the Bush Administration.

Of course, its axiomatic that any lending adds to your total debt in the near term. So what? The OP was claiming a systemic, long term unsustainable debt based on future projections not that the current debt is unsustainable. And infrastructure and human capital ...[text shortened]... lways, your policy preferences are based on fallacious reasoning as well as being short sighted.

Yes, the Bush administration started it, and Obama raised the stakes several times to the delight of Wall Street.