The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

https://www.epi.org/publication/as-wisconsins-and-minnesotas-lawmakers-took-divergent-paths-so-did-their-economies-since-2010-minnesotas-economy-has-performed-far-better-for-working-families-than-wisconsin/

This is a study comparing the economic recovery and health of Minnesota and Wisconsin, The premise is that WI had a republican governor, and legislature and passed and promoted republican policies. while Minnesota had a democratic governor and legislature and passed and promoted democratic policies. The geographic location and demographic composition of the states are very similar and so this allows a like to like comparison of Rep vs. Dem over a 7 year period from 2010 to 2017 to see what  empirically worked better.

Spoiler, democratic progressive policies worked way better than republican ones, in every single measurable category Minnesota came ahead of Wisconsin and it wasn't even close.

What isn't mentioned is how Minnesota's state debt is more than TWICE as much as Wisconsin's (MIN--$51.6 billion...$9,148 per citizen, WI--$23.8 billion...$4,099 per citizen).  MIN spends well over TWICE as much as WI ($73.2 billion vs. $29.2 billion), and while WI is bringing in less in-state income than MIN ($54.2 billion vs. $29.9 billion), WI is spending less than they earn (net of +$684.5 million) than MIN (net of -$19 BILLION).  

It seems like every time I see a story like this, there are very key points of data that aren't included.

Minnesota has NEVER gone red in a presidential election.   Not even in 1984 when Ronald Regan wiped the floor with Walter Mondale.   Mondale won two states, DC and Minnesota

Never is false.   without looking. 1972 Nixon.  Don’t know if there are other examples.

Is the point of this post to illustrate that Democrats are better than Republicans, so therefore everywhere should be run by Democrats? If that was the case you would see a mass exodus from Wisconsin to Minnesota. Not everyone cares, but most people lean one way or the other and should appropriately choose where to live.

so you're saying that budget deficits are good for workers and the economy .. and we should all run a deficit ?

the point was very simple and i even made it the post title .. democratic policies are better for the economy than republican ones .. so .. yeah .. end of point

Everyone has a different idea of what "better" actually is. Otherwise like I said, if everyone actually agreed with your point, you would see a mass exodus from Wisconsin to Minnesota. Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them?

I'm saying you're picking and choosing what parts sound good to you and ignoring the parts that are detrimental to your argument.

It's typical around here, haha.

Just to be fair... "Around here" in that sentence could be replaced by "with human beings in general" and it would be more realistic.

While you are technically correct. I was more referring specifically to this site and some of its members.

The problem with the article that was pasted by the OP is that it is skewed to project the viewpoint of the writer by using primarily percentage increases to arrive at their conclusion; instead of also pointing out the hard numbers.  For example if Wisconsin started out at lets say 100, and Minnesota started out at 80, and they both increased by 20, to 120 and 100 respectively, then they both increased by 20...BUT Wisconsin would be a 20% increase and Minnesota would be a 25% increase.  The author is pointing out in his opinion Minnesota is doing much better because they increased by 25%, while Wisconsin only increased by 20%, yet Wisconsin started out in much better shape, and is still in better shape than Minnesota.  If you look at the overall job count numbers Wisconsin started with higher employment and finished with higher employment (even while cutting state & local gov't jobs-which is good for tax payers).

Now Wisconsin's population is a little greater (5.8 mil vs. 5.6 mil) so they should have higher employment numbers, but none of this is taken into consideration by the author when he narrowly focuses on comparing only percentage growth.

And as for Tax Burden, Minnesota is the 5th worst state for per capita annual taxes; Wisconsin is 16th.

So, for the author to imply that the Democratic rule is so much better than Republican rule is not fair.  Especially if you want to look at debt accumulations by each of the states.

As a person everyone agrees you can't have more debt than you do income. Not sure why people can't see that for our government.

Almost every person that buys a house, attends college or start a business has more debt than income, there are exceptions but in general.

But you do agree not having debt is better.  If we own houses in the same neighborhood, same square footage, same lot size, but mine is paid off and yours isn't, I'm in better shape financially, correct?  Even if you are making more money, if your bills keep putting you further in debt, while I'm completely out of debt, which is better?

governments aren't people .. you can't compare personal budgets to government budgets, especially when we have currency by fiat. it's worth whatever government decides and they can print as much or as little as they want. 
There are ways to modify global currencies that would address that, but in the meantime, government debt is pretty meaningless. if politicians choose to ignore it (and 90% do) then it doesn't matter.

Absolutely.  I agree that is better.  But most people don’t have an option of paying cash for a house.....

So which is better renting an apartment or going into debt and buying a house?  Most of the time buying a house.

Which is better going into debt to buy a car or lose your job because you can’t get to work?

Which is better a town going into debt to buy an ambulance or not having an ambulance because the engine is blown on the old one?

Debt isn’t always a bad thing. 

Sorry. I meant you shouldn't have more debt payments than you can pay back. If you make $50,000 a year you might buy a $200,000 home but you sure as heck aren't going to buy a $2,000,000 house even if they let you do it. Why? Because you know you can't pay it back. That doesn't stop our government from spending money they don't have.

When all things are equal, it is always better not to be in debt than to be in debt.  Buying a home and renting an apartment are not equal.  I didn't say debt isn't necessary, I said not being in debt is better.  When you have two states, one that is majorly in debt and continues to rack up more and more debt, and one that has a surplus, it's not difficult to see which is a better.  To ignore this key fact and brush it off like Fau is doing makes this conversation pointless.  There is a much larger picture. 

That's not even black/white true.  A house is an asset with a value.  If you buy a $2,000,000 that's going to be worth $2,500,000 in the next two years, you should, even if you can't "afford" it.  Some entire real estate markets are built on this idea.

In South Florida, if you save to afford a house, you'll never afford a house because the houses appreciate faster than you can save.  It's a very non-traditional financial decision.

Now, that's not to say that it's always a good thing, because you get bubbles that burst and people have to foreclose.  ...but there are gray areas and nuance, is all I'm saying.

The huge issue I see in this example is that no one is going to buy your house in 2 years for a profit if you are in foreclosure. If you can't make the payments on an investment it is almost impossible to make money.   

You can't even comprehend $22 Trillion in debt. Printing more money doesn't fix that problem because you are only debasing the currency at that point. The more you print, the less it's worth. Debt isn't a good practice in the long run. The only way out is to spend less than you take in and pay down the debt. This whole thing is going to colapse eventually, count on it...

Similar to what Dave said, when buying a house or a business the amount borrowed should be at least equal to the value of the house or the business, otherwise the banks wouldn't loan you the money.  Hence, you have positive equity in those situations.  Sure there can be a housing market crash, or you can be a poor businessman and ruin the value of a business purchased, but typically in these instances the assets or more valuable than the debt so it's not a bad thing.  Student loans, credit cards, and car loans are a whole different story.  This type of debt can be very detrimental to a person's financial situation if over extended.

So when it comes to the $22 Trillion debt in US economy. What's the asset? Is there positive equity? Is it appreciating or depreciating. In my opinion, most of the US debt would be like eating at a restaurant for every meal everyday and paying for it with a credit card while just making the minimum payment every month. The money is gone and there is nothing to show for it except a fat bloated belly. 

Exactly, and MN's economy was better than WI's.  Therefore, their economies were not equal, just like buying a home vs. renting an apartment.

I'd say the state with the significantly better economy is doing better.  That has more of an impact on the day-to-day lives of its citizens then some number on a ledger in the state controller's office.

You are using a very narrow definition of "equity" here.

If I take out student loans to get a degree, on paper that is negative equity because my increased earning capability (due to my degree) is not something you can appraise like a house.  Does that mean degrees are a waste of money?  Of course not.

The same can be said for a car loan.  If I take out a loan on a reliable new car, and that new car allows me to get (and keep) a better job than the jobs I can get taking the bus, or the jobs I lost due to having an unreliable bucket that breaks down all the time, that car loan can easily be worth the debt.  Credit card debt can be nearly anything (including school books or car repair) so that may fall in the same category.

Now, is it possible to take on ill-advised student debt, or car debt, or credit card debt?  Sure... and it's also possible to take on ill-advised mortgage debt, yet few would say renting is better than buying.  Debt by itself is not necessarily good or bad; it's how you manage the debt that matters.  Saving money for 30 years so you can pay cash for a house is avoiding debt, but it's also a terrible financial decision.

Renting can be better than buying depending on the circumstances, there are very many factors to consider. They both have pros and cons. All things equal, neither is better than the other, at that point it comes down to choice. It's not one size fits all proposition. Anyone that says any different is a fool...

Which is why I said these types of debt "CAN BE" detrimental.

If you read the post by Hoodie that I quoted it had to do with going into debt by individuals, and my post (which you quoted) was in specific response to that.  It had nothing to do with what you are referring to above.

You contrasted student loans, credit cards, and car loans to housing or business debt.  My point is that either kind of debt can be good or bad... it's situational.

Ultimately, I would put it this way:

1) Debt is a tool that you can use to achieve goals, and like any tool, it can be used either wisely or foolishly.
2) We should never compare personal debt of individuals to that of the government.  The government has many tools to resolve debt that are not available to you and I.

Just as an aside, I work in a field where I deal with people who are dealing with debt and credit.  It's shocking how little many, many people understand about what credit is and how it works.  ...and how to make smart decisions around it.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about government debt and policies. My post was mostly referring Fau's post. My apologies sir.

I disagree completely. There is no tool available to the US government that will resolve $22 trillion in debt except to spend less and pay it off as quickly as possible. Which by the way is the same tool that you or I would use. But they won't do that, they will just keep kicking the can down the road until we crumble like many before us.

This is factually false.  The US government has the legal option to order the printing of $22 trillion tomorrow and immediately resolve all outstanding debt.  This option is not available to you or I.

Now, you could argue that this would be a bad idea because it would devalue the dollar... but then you would necessarily be arguing that keeping our debt is preferable to legally printing enough money to immediately resolve it .  And the one thing that would unquestionably devalue the dollar more than printing lots of money would be simply refusing to pay our debt (i.e. not raising the debt ceiling).

Never mind, I should have known you were going to say something retarded like that. Carry on sir...

I don't think it's "retarded" to point out the fact that the government can (and does!) print money, and that you and I do not have that available as a legal option to resolve debt.

An option but robbing Peter to pay Paul is never a good option

Not a viable option.

If you're talking about individuals, robbery is illegal.
If you're talking about the government, legally printing money is in no way comparable to robbery.

Stop being purposefully obtuse. You know what he means. Moving debt from one place to another doesn't mean the debt is gone.

Printing money causes debt. Creating money out of thin air is adding an asset in the private sector, which adds a liability to the public sector on the books. Hyperinflation ensues, the economy crashes, tax revenue declines, and the country crumbles into a death spiral. You cannot reduce debt by creating more or using magical math tricks. The only way to reduce debt is to pay it off legitimately or if the debt is forgiven somehow.   

Is that the TOOL you were saying the government could used to absolve its debt? Your magical government tool would be exponentially worse than not raising the debt ceiling, LMFAO......

Not to mention, it will never happen. Any other bright ideas?

Printing money does not cause debt.  Period, full stop.
If you don't understand that basic fact, this discussion is pointless.

You obviously don't understand how it works. Printing more money causes inflation. Or in your example of printing $22 trillion, it would cause hyperinflation. Which basically is shifting the government debt on to the people through debasing that dollar and higher prices. Which in turn would have a dramatic effect on tax revenue. The basic fact is that you can't just make $22 trillion disappear, you can only move it around.

And you are correct, this discussion is pointless since your premises that the government can just print $22 trillion and it would solve our debt problem. That is stupidity of the highest order.

History supports your comments.  From Weimar Germany after the Treaty of Versailles where the printing of money caused hyperinflation of 30,000% per month (prices of goods literally doubled every few days), to Zimbabwe between 2007 and 2009 where they printed so much money that the inflation rate was a staggering 79 BILLION % perm month, to post WWII Hungary where printing money caused an annual inflation rate of 13 QUADRILLION % and prices of good doubled every 15 hours to a large number of Latin American countries over the last 40 years have printed money to the point where it become pretty much devoid of any value.  But ya know, god forbid we actually learn something from history. It really isn't that hard of a concept so I don't know why people don't get that.  This is the kind of stuff that they teach on day one of a high school economics class. 

Yes, printing money causes inflation, and printing a lot of money in a short time creates hyperinflation.  But that isn't the same thing as debt.  So the statement "Printing money causes debt" is categorically false.  Debt may be bad, and inflation may be bad, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.  Words matter.

And while we're on the subject of Things That Are Bad: however bad inflation (or even hyperinflation) might be, it is unquestionable that outright refusing to pay your debt (i.e. refusing to raise the debt ceiling) is far worse.  Inflation means that the payment for the debt has reduced value; refusal to pay the debt means the payment has zero value (because there is no payment).

Let's keep in mind that the ability to legally print money (again: something the gov't can do and individuals cannot) is flexible.  If the US government wants to resolve the current debt, it doesn't have to print one single $22T coin and deposit it in the Treasury; it can print an extra $1T for the next 22 years, or an extra $2T for the next 11 years, or any other combination.  Any option would be better than defaulting on our debt.

I don't have time to argue semantics with you. The government can't and won't print $22 trillion to pay off the debt, it would be catastrophic. It's hard to fathom that someone would suggest such non sense instead of just being responsible and paying your debt down while spending less than you take in. That's some AOC level stupidity right there, LMFAO...

^^^Yes, let's add another $93 Trillion to our debt (New Green Deal), we can just print more money!

You guys are being weird.

He's not suggesting we print the money.  He's just saying (correctly) that printing money doesn't create debt.  And also, that the govt has options that individuals do not.

You could also do a combination of paying some of the debt and printing the rest, which wasn't discussed.

Besides being responsible and paying what you owe and spending less than you take in, I'd like to hear the other options(plural) that the government has. Printing $22 trillion out of thin air isn't a realistic or viable option.

Let's be clear about two things:

1) I don't think it's necessary to pay down the debt all at once (or ever, really).  As Dick Cheney put it, "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." The "national debt" is a rhetorical crutch that is only trotted out when someone wants to argue against funding some program they disagree with anyway.

2) Your preferred alternative to paying off the debt by printing more money is... to simply refuse to pay our debts, which would be FAR worse than minting a $22T coin.  So I find it rather ridiculous that you are accusing me of having nonsensical solutions; your solution would detonate the economy instantly.

No, you either can't read or refuse to read. My last 2-3 posts have stated my preferred method to pay off the debt is to actually pay off the debt. Spend less than you make and pay down the debt.

But from reading your #1 point above, it seem as though you think we can just keep spending more than we have and racking up debt and not worry about it because it's just a crutch and not real. You don't live in reality anymore, go see a therapist.

We could never pay the debt off .. if we did that there would be no money in circulation at all. our cash is backed by debt .. that's what it is. I don't know that people understand the relationship between debt and currency. debt = currency .. no debt .. = no currency

pondwater, you have repeatedly stated that refusing to pay our debts is preferable to printing extra money to pay it off.  This is crazy.

As for the danger of the debt: my actual point is that no one (including you) believes it is a real problem.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Do you oppose the Trump tax cuts that exploded the debt?  How about our military spending that eclipses nearly all of the rest of the world combined?

Like I said: the only time people care about "the national debt" is when talking about cutting programs they already oppose ideologically.

actually spending less or printing money is not the only two options, raising taxes (or at least not cutting them)

And while I agree printng money can cause inflation, the examples always given are of countries in which the debt was primarily not in the countries own currency.

If Venuzula owes its debt in US dollars, printing more Venuzalian dollars won’t retire the debt because the value if V$ will drop relative to US$ and the debt.  OTOH if the debt is in your own country while inflation will occur and the currency will fall in value relative to other currencies the debt will be retired and you will have a clean slate. 

Let me add a bit to my previous post, as I know it seems "reasonable" to care about the debt/deficit:

When I first started following politics, I also believed that the responsible thing to do is to pay down the national debt.  And then as I learned more, I found out that in the '90s under Clinton, we were actually running a surplus!  We were on the way to paying off the debt.

So what was the first thing that Republicans - the party of fiscal responsibility - did when W became President?  They said that "running a surplus means we are taxing the people too much" and immediately cut taxes until we were back in deficit, naturally followed with a lot of furrowed brows about how we can't afford Social Security.

NO.
ONE.
CARES.
ABOUT.
THE.
DEFICIT.

If you take power, and you allow the opposition to deficit-shame you into not enacting your policy priorities, you're a sucker.  Because the moment they take power, they will happily explode the deficit to enact THEIR policy priorities.

If you say so ::)

I agree with your comments here for the most part, and I hope what I'm about to say won't create a major thread hijack...but the deficit is like global warming.  Most people don't really care about either one, but if both are allowed to go unchecked sooner or later it will lead to a world wide disaster.  It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but both issues can affect all of us on some minor levels now, whether we agree on the reason or not.  It is better to try and be fiscally responsible when prudent, and to try and work towards reducing greenhouse emissions, and to use renewable energy when possible.

I don't think that's a good comparison.

Once most of the world departed the gold standard and moved to fiat currency, "money" is almost entirely psychological.  It is whatever the people who hold it agree it is.  So one country can simply forgive debt owed by another, and a third country can create a whole bunch of money out of nothing, or destroy it.  Under our current system, money is an infinite resource, restrained only by the willingness of various countries to create more.  Our current system will be perfectly fine as long as people believe it is fine; it is only a panic that can cause the system to collapse.  In short, it's a system based on psychology.

In contrast, climate change is tied to objective scientific measurements and outcomes that are outside of the political system.  No matter how much you believe climate change is a hoax, it won't stop your home from burning down in a wildfire, or being flooded in a hurricane.

But the analogy could be similar, I suppose.  If the world was still on a gold standard, and there was some sort of "gold rot" that turned gold into lead (but that certain political groups did not recognize as real), then that would make the economic and environmental comparisons more alike.  But even then, we would always have the option to switch to a different standard like silver... whereas we can't switch to a different planet.