“The cost of debt compared to the cost of unemployment is incredibly low. A trillion dollar deficit costs us $25B per year to pay the interest on that. If we have an extra 10M people unemployed that’s $250M lost forever each year so it’s a 10 to 1 trade-off .”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Apparently I am “unimaginably stupid” because I cannot imagine what Madcow is trying to say here. I am sure that it must be amazingly brilliant if someone would just explain it to me.
That was the professor who said that in her ‘interview’ and that is why I posted it it. He states nonsense as if it is obvious fact.
His point is that the interest on the debt is nothing compared to something else, the something else is the loss to the government of not employing the unemployed as government workers (?????). He then cites two made up $$$ numbers that appear to defeat his own case to prove something, that we need to run up more debt to hire more government workers. Such is the liberal education lecture theme of every nights Maddow show.
You’re not the one who’s unimaginably stupid here - Madcow is (that or, more likely, she’s once again lying for rank political purposes). This is nothing more than the left’s two favorite economic fallacies - engaging in single-entry bookkeeping and failing to appreciate the full extent of the creation - and conservation - of wealth, a failure that is itself inexplicable given that Marx, for all of his other faults, provided some good insight into the mechanics of wealth creation, and leftists all claim to have read and understood every one of Marx’ words.