Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45421)	9/1/2010 12:47:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

If X implies Y, X is still a different point than Y. That's even more true in this case because your point isn't that X (spending) implies Y (deficits), but that X implies Y in the context of condition Z (having no funding to cover the spending). But it would also be true if the point was always true (if spending a penny caused a deficit, even if we where currently having a large surplus). Something causing or implying something else, doesn't make the first thing the same as the 2nd. If spending causes harm itself, and also causes borrowing which in turn causes additional harm, then its still reasonable and I'd even say important to consider the direct harm. If the different points are going to be considered you'd have to call them something. I could say "the direct harm caused by the spending" and "the indirect harm caused by the fact that the spending causes higher deficits", but that would be both clumsier (obviously) and less accurate (since much of the harm of spending that isn't caused by deficits still isn't very direct). Its more reasonable to use the label the harm from the spending and the harm from the deficits. Using such labels does not imply or suggest that the spending can't or doesn't cause deficits. So in simpler terms the "effects of the spending" is different than "the effects of the borrowing". The borrowing is a subset of those effects from spending, but if those are the two points under consideration, the former can be analyzed in isolation from the later. Then you can add the borrowing effects to get the total picture. But rather than getting stuck in terminology, I toss the term you hate using (in the way I've been using it) so much. Instead of "did the spending...?" I'll ask - In your opinion, other than the issues associated with borrowing more money, was the effect of the extra spending, positive, negative, or neutral?