I would hope that my take on the debt debate is clear by now, but weird victory lap posts by Bob make me think maybe it's worth clarifying (I have several brilliant flashes of insight in the comment section of that post)...
If you are asking what will happen to individuals that live in the future, Bob and Nick are exactly right.
1. It's not what a lot of us are talking about or worrying about
2. When you think about actual programs like Social Security it's not clear their point matters one iota
But if you find yourself asking that question, Bob and Nick are right.
This hardly suggests to me that Dean Baker and Paul Krugman are wrong.
One caveat: I'm still not sure I've wrapped my head around Gene Callahan's point that this is an issue of the transfer and not the debt (that no debt increase at all can give you the same results if you still have the transfer). He says some of the modeling I've done demonstrates this. If that's true I'm loathe to admit I don't understand what I've demonstrated. But if he's right about all that, maybe Bob and Nick aren't even right on the question they're interested in. I'll stay agnostic on that until I understand it, but all of Bob and Nick's arugments seem right to me.
Dreher Is on to Rationalism in Religion
1 hour ago