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

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?