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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (706838)	3/31/2013 11:24:26 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578997

March 31, 2013, 6:41 pm More Stockman Not much more, I promise. As Mark Thoma points out, the verdict among everyone who knows anything is that Stockman’s piece, mysteriously given star treatment, was pathetic and embarrassing. It’s full of big numbers that are scary because they’re big numbers — we’ve run a current account deficit of $8 trillion. So? We have a $16 trillion a year economy; America’s net international investment position is a debt of about 30 percent of GDP, which isn’t that big; our balance of investment income is still positive. But it’s EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS! Anyway, I get especially annoyed when people portray all of US fiscal history since the 50s, or something, as a tale of bipartisan runaway spending. You should always have this picture in mind: We didn’t have anything you could call a deficit problem until 1980. We then saw rising debt under Reagan-Bush; falling debt under Clinton; rising under Bush II; and a sharp rise in the aftermath of the financial crisis. This is not a bipartisan problem of runaway deficits! Pre-1980, no problem at all; after 1980, deficits were very much a monopartisan issue until the financial crisis, which was a time when running deficits was appropriate. Anyone who says differently hasn’t done his homework.