Prediction requires knowing about technologies that will be discovered in the future. But that very knowledge would almost automatically allow us to start developing those technologies right away. Ergo, we do not know what we will know.
N. N. Taleb, The Black Swan
Prediction requires knowing about technologies that will be discovered in the future. But that very knowledge would almost automatically allow us to start developing those technologies right away. Ergo, we do not know what we will know.
Steve,
Jake and I were just talking about your site yesterday over lunch, he says hi by the way. He was telling his attorney that he really should read your site.
Also, I am reading the black swan myself right now, wow great thinking and digging. Maybe I'll try to get Jake to read it. Happy New Year
Posted by: Steve Dalton | 05 January 2008 at 08:07
Speaking of debts and deficits (in the prior post) here is a simple question, what stops our government from overspending? This year 2008 our budget deficit will be about 200 billion dollars, but the total amount that will be added to the national debt will be a little over 700 billion dollars and will top 9.7 trillion in total national debt. It basically comes down in simple terms of “on and off” budget spending. A curious thing has happed in the budget process that has turned debt and deficit spending on its head. The majority of overspending in the past was in the yearly budget deficit and watched carefully, ---->but now the majority of overspending goes straight to the national debt bypassing the budget process. So if the national debt can be used as an ever-growing slush fund with an ever-growing choirs of neo-cons that feel there is no obligation to pay the national debt down—just the opposite. Since the Reagan administration and under Republican presidents the national debt had grown 1700%. So why should our government control its spending when there no obligation to constrain it? In fact if you can keep adding to the national debt without consequences then you can have your cake and eat it too. In essence you can have greater and greater spending and lower and lower taxes with no down side!!!---------But what about the currency---the world may judge us harshly for our financial recklessness.
And lastly, one of the most useless statistics used when speaking of the nation debt is its comparison to national income (GDP). It is the debt to income ratio (tax income) that is important. Also the debt service (interest on the debt) which over the next 3 years will be close to a trillion dollars.
Posted by: gunthestops | 05 January 2008 at 11:53
Taking time to respond to that drivel would be a complete waste of time. Complain onward about the debt. Loathe, if you must, the economic progress of this country in the last 25 years. Resent the growth of the world's economy following similar patterns toward success.
It's good theater to watch the stupid happen in real time.
Posted by: Nom de Blog | 05 January 2008 at 12:57
Steve,
How amusing. Yet again you and I are reading the same book at the Holidays.
Hope all remains well with you and yours. In-Laws took us to the Austin/San Antonio area or I would have offered to buy dinner again.
-Gene
Posted by: Gene Hoffman | 05 January 2008 at 16:29
Nom de Blog<-- Ignorance is bliss, but obtuse arrogance has no bounds! Would you like to dispute the facts of the debt or would you like to dispute the fact that you don’t know what the facts are???
Posted by: gunthestops | 05 January 2008 at 17:41
Gunthestops, you are thread jacking, moreover, you are playing the fear mongers' fool. If ratio is important as a number, as you said,
"It is the debt to income ratio (tax income) that is important. Also the debt service (interest on the debt) which over the next 3 years will be close to a trillion dollars."
Then why are you shape shifting to a ?scary to you? number, ?trillion dollars? You were wrong in the prior thread, and you are again wrong here.
A "red flag" in budget discussions is the switch from percentages to raw dollar amounts. Related? Yes! Identical? No way! When I see that I know we have a fear monger, or a person ignorant of the subject.
Which are you?
Posted by: CoRev | 06 January 2008 at 08:26
CoRev is right - gunthestops calls the debt service ratio important but then abandons the ratio in favor of scare tactic trillion dollar number. What will tax receipts be over the next 3 years I wonder?
interest on debt as a percent of tax revenue has declined over the last 8 years. So by your own ratio you call important, we are doing better. Tax cuts yielding higher overall tax revenue due to economic growth - what a concept!
Posted by: Dave | 07 January 2008 at 10:38