<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trust Is (Rightly) In Short Supply</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620599</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620599</guid>
		<description>Krugman is &lt;em&gt;really, really worried&lt;/em&gt; about deflation. Just about anything (including adding an extra trillion to the national debt) is better than deflation.

(Just for perspective, the Bush Administration added $3.9 trillion to the national debt, during the course of their tenure.)

But how much debt is too much?

Let me respond with the conventional view (which I freely admit is open to criticism). When the amount of Federal debt is too large, creditors (the holders of treasury bonds) will start demanding higher interest rates. Right now, the interest rate on federal debt is essentially zero. So there&#039;s a lot of room to borrow a lot of money, before our creditors start showing concern (in the form of higher rates) about our ability to pay.

Of course, there isn&#039;t &quot;one&quot; interest rate on Treasuries. There are short term rates and long term rates. You don&#039;t want to finance the national debt with short-term borrowing. That&#039;s like taking out an ARM on a very expensive house (and we all know how well &lt;strong&gt;that&lt;/strong&gt; worked out).

Short term rates are at zero. The number to watch is the spread between long term and short term treasuries. That, too, is at historical lows. Which basically says that we can go ahead and borrow a lot of money at very favourable rates, right now.

Now, I&#039;m not saying that&#039;s a &lt;em&gt;desirable&lt;/em&gt; thing to do. But if you believe Krugman, the alternative is even less desirable.

I dunno. The economists in the Obama Administration seem to think that $800 billion (or so) is big enough.

I hope they&#039;re right ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Krugman is <em>really, really worried</em> about deflation. Just about anything (including adding an extra trillion to the national debt) is better than deflation.</p>
<p>(Just for perspective, the Bush Administration added $3.9 trillion to the national debt, during the course of their tenure.)</p>
<p>But how much debt is too much?</p>
<p>Let me respond with the conventional view (which I freely admit is open to criticism). When the amount of Federal debt is too large, creditors (the holders of treasury bonds) will start demanding higher interest rates. Right now, the interest rate on federal debt is essentially zero. So there&#8217;s a lot of room to borrow a lot of money, before our creditors start showing concern (in the form of higher rates) about our ability to pay.</p>
<p>Of course, there isn&#8217;t &#8220;one&#8221; interest rate on Treasuries. There are short term rates and long term rates. You don&#8217;t want to finance the national debt with short-term borrowing. That&#8217;s like taking out an ARM on a very expensive house (and we all know how well <strong>that</strong> worked out).</p>
<p>Short term rates are at zero. The number to watch is the spread between long term and short term treasuries. That, too, is at historical lows. Which basically says that we can go ahead and borrow a lot of money at very favourable rates, right now.</p>
<p>Now, I&#8217;m not saying that&#8217;s a <em>desirable</em> thing to do. But if you believe Krugman, the alternative is even less desirable.</p>
<p>I dunno. The economists in the Obama Administration seem to think that $800 billion (or so) is big enough.</p>
<p>I hope they&#8217;re right &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620580</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620580</guid>
		<description>Jacques, read the Krugman link...but it appears he is suggesting that over $2 trillion would be necessary...I don&#039;t see how that is possible, considering the incredible deficit we will already be running...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacques, read the Krugman link&#8230;but it appears he is suggesting that over $2 trillion would be necessary&#8230;I don&#8217;t see how that is possible, considering the incredible deficit we will already be running&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620408</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620408</guid>
		<description>Hmm. That link didn&#039;t work.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Try again&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm. That link didn&#8217;t work.</p>
<p><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/" rel="nofollow">Try again</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620381</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:28:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620381</guid>
		<description>Paul Krugman is &lt;a&gt;not happy&lt;/a&gt; with the stimulus bill that has emerged from the Senate.

Cutting $40 billion for state budget stabilization seems particularly stupid.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessions.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This graph&lt;/a&gt; (whatever you may think of the source) quite effectively drives home the severity of the situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul Krugman is <a>not happy</a> with the stimulus bill that has emerged from the Senate.</p>
<p>Cutting $40 billion for state budget stabilization seems particularly stupid.</p>
<p><a href="http://speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessions.jpg" rel="nofollow">This graph</a> (whatever you may think of the source) quite effectively drives home the severity of the situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620279</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620279</guid>
		<description>&#039;apprciate&#039;=&#039;appreciate&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;apprciate&#8217;='appreciate&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620278</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620278</guid>
		<description>How about John McCain?  He&#039;s a pretty prominent Republican...

I apprciate your kind words - it&#039;s not that I thought you were accusing me of racism, but you&#039;re still missing the point:  the Republican party is not made up entirely of dittoheads...it has room for people like me in it, too.  

The loudmouths are often mistaken for the voice of the party by dint of the sheer volume of their shouting...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about John McCain?  He&#8217;s a pretty prominent Republican&#8230;</p>
<p>I apprciate your kind words &#8211; it&#8217;s not that I thought you were accusing me of racism, but you&#8217;re still missing the point:  the Republican party is not made up entirely of dittoheads&#8230;it has room for people like me in it, too.  </p>
<p>The loudmouths are often mistaken for the voice of the party by dint of the sheer volume of their shouting&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620272</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:08:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620272</guid>
		<description>Post 19:  take a look at Congressman Phil Gingrey -- who made the rather obvious point that people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can throw stones but are not responsible for acting on behalf of a constituency -- and then had to genuflect on the radio before Limbaugh for taking such an audacious position.  Can you name a single prominent Republican who would stand up to Rush Limbaugh?

Post 20:  Mark, I would never accuse you of being a racist.  I think that you are a fair-minded soul, and I&#039;ve never seen anything in your blog which remotely smacks of racism.  My only point is this:  if you delete all of those who follow people like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- who are, if nothing else, angry white men -- from the Republican party, what do you have left?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Post 19:  take a look at Congressman Phil Gingrey &#8212; who made the rather obvious point that people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can throw stones but are not responsible for acting on behalf of a constituency &#8212; and then had to genuflect on the radio before Limbaugh for taking such an audacious position.  Can you name a single prominent Republican who would stand up to Rush Limbaugh?</p>
<p>Post 20:  Mark, I would never accuse you of being a racist.  I think that you are a fair-minded soul, and I&#8217;ve never seen anything in your blog which remotely smacks of racism.  My only point is this:  if you delete all of those who follow people like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity &#8212; who are, if nothing else, angry white men &#8212; from the Republican party, what do you have left?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob from Ohio</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620269</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob from Ohio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620269</guid>
		<description>If this bill was such a political and economic winner, why the need for GOP votes and the anger displayed here and elsewhere towards the GOP?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this bill was such a political and economic winner, why the need for GOP votes and the anger displayed here and elsewhere towards the GOP?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620243</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620243</guid>
		<description>Oh, alright, one more thing - I&#039;m not necessarily arguing that certain types of spending have a bigger multiplier, but rather that there is too much spending in this bill that doesn&#039;t pass the triple-T test (itself a triple T - kind of neat, in a self-referential way) of temporary, targeted, and timely...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, alright, one more thing &#8211; I&#8217;m not necessarily arguing that certain types of spending have a bigger multiplier, but rather that there is too much spending in this bill that doesn&#8217;t pass the triple-T test (itself a triple T &#8211; kind of neat, in a self-referential way) of temporary, targeted, and timely&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/comment-page-1/#comment-620241</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2009/02/05/trust-is-rightly-in-short-supply/#comment-620241</guid>
		<description>Well, the devil is in the details...let&#039;s see what comes out of conference next week, and I&#039;ll try to be open-minded (except about &quot;Buy American&quot; - that simply HAS to go, or I don&#039;t support the bill, no matter what)...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the devil is in the details&#8230;let&#8217;s see what comes out of conference next week, and I&#8217;ll try to be open-minded (except about &#8220;Buy American&#8221; &#8211; that simply HAS to go, or I don&#8217;t support the bill, no matter what)&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

