I write about debt; couldn't resist the Strangelove reference 1/

Now, many people will surely start waving around frightening-looking projections, like those of the CBO 2/ https://t.co/J2XjDKa90L
But while I respect CBO's integrity, those long-run debt projections are much more questionable than people probably realize. Realistic projections, I (and many sensible economists) argue, are much less alarming 3/
CBO projects a big rise in spending as % of GDP, and if you don't look under the hood you might well assume that this is driven by fundamentals, especially the aging population 4/
Actually, though, the biggest component is a huge assumed rise in interest costs 5/
And it's not mainly bc of rising debt: CBO projects debt/GDP doubling, but interest/GDP rising by a factor of 5. Why? 6/
Well, it's all about interest rates, which CBO assumes will rise back to mid-2000s levels. Obviously this could be true — predictions are hard, especially about the future. But not clear why we should believe this 7/
Without the assumed rise in rates, projected deficits would be much lower, debt considerably lower, and real interest payments much lower than CBO projects. The long-run budget outlook wouldn't look especially scary 8/
As I see it, at this point alarming long-run projections involve an element of unintentional bait-and-switch. They look as if they're being driven by the unsustainability of entitlement programs, but they're actually reflecting dubious assumptions about interest rates 9/
Oh, and since someone will surely bring it up, none of this has anything to do with MMT; it's pure mainstream analysis, but reflecting the reality of low interest rates 10/

More from Life

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?