tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post210553526609752541..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Can't be done.The Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-12647334133668894842015-06-20T03:58:07.199-04:002015-06-20T03:58:07.199-04:00Oh yeah, good point. Thanks, Jazz.
:)
Oh yeah, good point. Thanks, Jazz.<br />:)<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-59722256399773585032015-06-19T22:41:23.339-04:002015-06-19T22:41:23.339-04:00I think you've over analyzed, and in the proce...I think you've over analyzed, and in the process gotten a little bit confused.<br /><br />A few points -<br /><br />1. Graph 3 nicely illustrates the growth and decline in the change of the <b>interest portion </b>of the annual deficits<br /><br />2. In graph 4, you're looking at the YoY % change in the <b>interest due</b> portion of the deficit. Interest rates fell rapidly after the summer of '81, as you point out with graph 5. This might be a bit of a challenge to JWM's point, but it has nothing to do with mine. You've illustrated in a different way that the growth of interest debt was declining. Remember, I'm blaming Reagan for the <b>Primary</b> budget explosion, and you have subtracted that away.<br /><br />3. "Taken together, these graphs show increase from 1950 to 1973, faster increase from 1973 to 1981, and decline after 1981."<br />Exactly so - for the growth of the <b>interest contribution </b>to federal debt.<br /><br />4. "Sorry, Jazz. Can't be done."<br />This remains unproven. What you've done is interesting, but unrelated to my premiss.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com