Yes.
im sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case, this was not really an error. When i hear the words math error, I envision some dude with pencil and paper forgetting to carry a 1, or mistyping on his calculator.
this had more to do with whether or not you believed congress would do a complete 180 and start controlling their spending or not. Apparently Geitner does and the s&p does not. it was a disagreement, not an error.
[quote]some dude wrote:
The administration claims S&P should have assumed that discretionary spending would grow at the rate of inflation. You know, because all the kingâ??s horsemen and all the kingâ??s men have pinky sworn on it. They passed a bill and everything. In this scenario, due to real GDP growth, spending would fall as a fraction of GDP.S&P assumed that discretionary spending would rise at 5 percent, roughly the rate of nominal GDP growth (real growth plus inflation). In this scenario, discretionary spending as a fraction of GDP would remain constant. Given the historical record, this may in fact be conservative. But under this assumption, the increase in debt over 10 years totals $2 trillion more than the administration claims. [/quote]
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
You seem to be assuming that we have seen the end of quantitative easing just because it doesn’t work. Governments don’t usually work that way JEATON.[/quote]
You mean, printing more money ?
[/quote]
so instead of using the brakes to slow down they are jacking up the edge of the cliff so it takes us longer to go over, but the fall is that much further.
gotta love the way their brains work.
[quote]koffea wrote:
im sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case, this was not really an error. When i hear the words math error, I envision some dude with pencil and paper forgetting to carry a 1, or mistyping on his calculator.
this had more to do with whether or not you believed congress would do a complete 180 and start controlling their spending or not. Apparently Geitner does and the s&p does not. it was a disagreement, not an error.
[quote]some dude wrote:
The administration claims S&P should have assumed that discretionary spending would grow at the rate of inflation. You know, because all the kingâ??s horsemen and all the kingâ??s men have pinky sworn on it. They passed a bill and everything. In this scenario, due to real GDP growth, spending would fall as a fraction of GDP.S&P assumed that discretionary spending would rise at 5 percent, roughly the rate of nominal GDP growth (real growth plus inflation). In this scenario, discretionary spending as a fraction of GDP would remain constant. Given the historical record, this may in fact be conservative. But under this assumption, the increase in debt over 10 years totals $2 trillion more than the administration claims. [/quote]
this is politics, no need to get technical with definitions, you say tomato I say cucumber same thing right.
Here comes inflation like a mother fucker.
i agree with S&P’s assumption on discretionary spending…there is no way that real gdp will grow at the same rate with less spending…
granted, i personally believe all of the government’s assumptions to be highly unrealistic…i even think standard and poor’s assumptions to be overly optmistic…
imo we will reach 100% debt to nominal gdp by next year…
that being said…i still think treasuries are safer than having your money in a bank…