T Nation

Blyth Devastates Congress' Approach to Budget

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If I can afford a house in a location with better schools, better job opportunities, less crime, etc… taking a loan out is worth it, imo.
[/quote]

Exactly, the negative (the debt you accrue) is smaller than the positive things you can do with the equity. You are admitting exactly what I’m pointing out. Debt as a thing is always really bad. You can sometimes argue that associated positives in a transaction out weigh the negative that is the debt.

And while this sounds like a semantic argument the myth that there is positive debt is one of the things that’s most wrong with this country. Per your example home debt is “positive” right? Until market values stop going up, then what?

Specifically the act of owing is always bad. The act of owing but getting something you value higher in return can be seen as net positive.

If you murder an innocent man to save 5 innocent men, it could be argued as justifiable murder, but it ain’t and never will be “good murder”.

Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.

Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.

Since there is evidence to prove this as shown by the professor why don’t people believe the evidence but instead hold on to their ideology?[/quote]

How much extra money will you donate to the federal government to fix the revenue problem? Every little bit extra you can give will help. After all if it is a revenue problem your extra revenue could be part of the solution.

Why wait for the government to mandate it when you can do it out of the goodness of your heart?

Thank you for your patriotic contribution. You could even consider working more hours to increase your contribution to ridding us of the revenue problem. You could try getting rid of Netflix, cutting down on fast food, etc. This will help you have more money to donate to the revenue problem. [/quote]

Or we could have the corporations pay the taxes that they owe.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.[/quote]

Tried austerity? You mean spent themselves into so much debt that everyone stopped lending them money so they went completely bankrupt? Yeah, cause that’s exactly like not going into debt.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If I can afford a house in a location with better schools, better job opportunities, less crime, etc… taking a loan out is worth it, imo.
[/quote]

Exactly the negative (the debt you accrue) is smaller than the positive things you can do with the equity. [/quote]

That’s gonna be pretty subjective and it’s the availability of debt that allows for this positive situation. You’ve also just demostrated that this:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad.[/quote]

Is not the case.

What is the alternative? Live in an apartment and always owe someone. Live with your parents (who probably financed their house), which sounds wonderful. Live on the streets.

Awesome choices.

[quote]
You are admitting exactly what I’m pointing out. Debt as a thing is always really bad. You can sometimes argue that associated positives in a transaction out weigh the negative that is the debt.

And while this sounds like a sematic argument the myth that there is positive debt is one of the things that’s most wrong with this country. [/quote]

No, I’m not. Debt as a thing is not always bad. Scroll up… Debt can lead to all sorts of positive outcomes, which means, survey says, it isn’t’ inherently bad. It is just a tool.

When a gun is used is is too either injure or kill another person. Is it inherently bad?

I never said anything about “positive debt”. Debt is a tool that allows for positive outcomes. That’s it.

[quote]
Per your example home debt is “positive” right? Until market values stop going up, then what? [/quote]

Then you still get to live in a house instead of on the street… Why does a house have to apprecaite in order to be considered a good investment? Also, house’s have historically appreciated as they are yet again.

[quote]
Specifically the act of owing is always bad. [/quote]

No it really isn’t and honestly it’s a ridiculous notion.

[quote]
The act of owing but getting something you value higher in return can be seen as positive. [/quote]

No one said anything about positive debt except you.

This is ridiculous.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.[/quote]

Tried austerity? You mean spent themselves into so much debt that everyone stopped lending them money so they went completely bankrupt? Yeah, cause that’s exactly like not going into debt.[/quote]

How much debt does the U.S. have? Are countries still buying our debt?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.

Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.

Since there is evidence to prove this as shown by the professor why don’t people believe the evidence but instead hold on to their ideology?[/quote]

How much extra money will you donate to the federal government to fix the revenue problem? Every little bit extra you can give will help. After all if it is a revenue problem your extra revenue could be part of the solution.

Why wait for the government to mandate it when you can do it out of the goodness of your heart?

Thank you for your patriotic contribution. You could even consider working more hours to increase your contribution to ridding us of the revenue problem. You could try getting rid of Netflix, cutting down on fast food, etc. This will help you have more money to donate to the revenue problem. [/quote]

Or we could have the corporations pay the taxes that they owe.[/quote]

It’s good to see nothing has changed.

Lol.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If I can afford a house in a location with better schools, better job opportunities, less crime, etc… taking a loan out is worth it, imo.
[/quote]

Exactly the negative (the debt you accrue) is smaller than the positive things you can do with the equity. [/quote]

That’s gonna be pretty subjective and it’s the availability of debt that allows for this positive situation. You’ve also just demostrated that this:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad.[/quote]

Is not the case.

What is the alternative? Live in an apartment and always owe someone. Live with your parents (who probably financed their house), which sounds wonderful. Live on the streets.

Awesome choices.

[quote]
You are admitting exactly what I’m pointing out. Debt as a thing is always really bad. You can sometimes argue that associated positives in a transaction out weigh the negative that is the debt.

And while this sounds like a sematic argument the myth that there is positive debt is one of the things that’s most wrong with this country. [/quote]

No, I’m not. Debt as a thing is not always bad. Scroll up… Debt can lead to all sorts of positive outcomes, which means, survey says, it isn’t’ inherently bad. It is just a tool.

When a gun is used is is too either injure or kill another person. Is it inherently bad?

I never said anything about “positive debt”. Debt is a tool that allows for positive outcomes. That’s it.

[quote]
Per your example home debt is “positive” right? Until market values stop going up, then what? [/quote]

Then you still get to live in a house instead of on the street… Why does a house have to apprecaite in order to be considered a good investment? Also, house’s have historically appreciated as they are yet again.

[quote]
Specifically the act of owing is always bad. [/quote]

No it really isn’t and honestly it’s a ridiculous notion.

[quote]
The act of owing but getting something you value higher in return can be seen as positive. [/quote]

No one said anything about positive debt except you.

This is ridiculous. [/quote]

“Debt is not inherently a bad thing”

I’m not being clear, because I never said don’t by the house. I never said the total net of a transaction involving debt is negative (actually the opposite). But the debt is ALWAYS a negative term in every transaction. There is no “not bad” debt. Debt is inherently a bad thing. Listing out the positives and negatives of a transaction debt ALWAYS goes in the negative column.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Debt is not inherently a bad thing”

I’m not being clear, because I never said don’t by the house. I never said the total net of a transaction involving debt is negative (actually the opposite). But the debt is ALWAYS a negative term in every transaction. There is no “not bad” debt. [/quote]

Agree to disagree I guess.

Debt is a means to an end. You never said don’t buy the house, but in almost all cases you need debt to buy the house. Someone is giving you money so you can pursue your desire and you in turn pay that money back with interest. I fail to see how that’s a bad thing.

[quote]
Debt is inherently a bad thing. Listing out the positives and negatives of a transaction debt ALWAYS goes in the negative column.[/quote]

Debt being a negative (arguable) =/= bad. Debt could be the difference between opening a new factory and doubling revenue or going out of business. That doesn’t make it good or bad.

It’s just a tool. It’s indifferent.

Myth: Debt is a tool and should be used to help create prosperity.
Truth: Debt isn’t used by wealthy people nearly as much as we are led to believe.
-Dave Ramsey

More people wouldn’t need debt to by a house if fewer people used debt. It is possible to buy a house for an average guy without debt. But this is besides the point of my argument.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Myth: Debt is a tool and should be used to help create prosperity.
Truth: Debt isn’t used by wealthy people nearly as much as we are led to believe.
-Dave Ramsey[/quote]

Good for multi-millionaire Dave Ramsey who can write a check for his summer home(s).

[quote]
More people wouldn’t need debt to by a house if fewer people used debt. [/quote]

I don’t buy that.

Possible, sure. More likely though, less people would be buying houses.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Good for multi-millionaire Dave Ramsey who can write a check for his summer home(s).

[/quote]

That statement can go both ways if you think about it. And his Nashville house is ugly FTR.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.[/quote]

Tried austerity? You mean spent themselves into so much debt that everyone stopped lending them money so they went completely bankrupt? Yeah, cause that’s exactly like not going into debt.[/quote]

Agreed? Where has Europe tried austerity? Germany maybe? The entire Euro zone is run by socialist Keynesian bullshit economics.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.[/quote]

Tried austerity? You mean spent themselves into so much debt that everyone stopped lending them money so they went completely bankrupt? Yeah, cause that’s exactly like not going into debt.[/quote]

Agreed? Where has Europe tried austerity? Germany maybe? The entire Euro zone is run by socialist Keynesian bullshit economics.
[/quote]

That whole electing a communist thing is really working out for Greece, lmao.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Myth: Debt is a tool and should be used to help create prosperity.
Truth: Debt isn’t used by wealthy people nearly as much as we are led to believe.
-Dave Ramsey

More people wouldn’t need debt to by a house if fewer people used debt. It is possible to buy a house for an average guy without debt. But this is besides the point of my argument.[/quote]

Dave Ramsey is to Finance what Slim Fast is to Fat People: Something quick, nutritious, prepackaged and hard to fuck up.

Debt is to Finance what Alternate Day Fasting is to Bad Assed T-Nation members: it’s a sophisticated way to meet your goals, but you better have your fundamentals in place before you try it.

Or it’s like fire: you can use it to heat your house or burn your house down. I can go all day with these analogies, fella! LOL

I personally feel that with interest rates as low as they are and the availability of investment giving me double digit yields, I’m perfectly happy leveraging property that I OWN and freeing up capital to make a better return than the interest I am paying. Plus I can write the interest off and pay less taxes.

In a black and white world, and if I were giving advice to my young adult son, I agree 100%: debt is like the plague, avoid it at all costs! But fifty shades of grey ain’t got NOTHING on the world of finance. When I take short position, I am using leverage - that’s not “bad”, it usually makes me a couple hundred bucks in a hour’s worth of trading with a risk to reward ratio of 4:1 - I make my 10-20 basis points then get the fuck out. When applied with patience, wisdom and understanding, it’s a fairly reliable tool in the toolbox.

I don’t like paying interest though, so if there is not compensating factor, it’s best not to pay interest - if you can help it. If not, get the lowest rate that you can, pay that shit down as fast as you can and get out of debt.

So I guess you are both right!

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]

Debt is not always bad. Who taught you this?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]

Debt is not always bad. Who taught you this?
[/quote]

Name a situation where adding just debt to it makes it better.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]

Debt is not always bad. Who taught you this?
[/quote]

Name a situation where adding just debt to it makes it better.[/quote]

I don’t really wanna go down this road again today, but better / worse =/= good / bad. You’re making the mistake, imo, of conflating these two very different things.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.

The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]

No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]

Debt is not always bad. Who taught you this?
[/quote]

Name a situation where adding just debt to it makes it better.[/quote]

I don’t really wanna go down this road again today, but better / worse =/= good / bad. You’re making the mistake, imo, of conflating these two very different things. [/quote]

I’ll take that as an “I can’t”. And I think it’s you guys who are confusing the evaluation of something with the evaluation of its use as a means to an end.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Notice how none of the interviewees offer any evidence like Blythe. We are just supposed to believe their theories. And why is austerity wrecking Europe?
The countries that have tried austerity the most are the ones that suffer the most. A fallacy of composition is what this leads from. So we have politicians making policy based on the wrong assumptions or they purposely lead people astray to hold onto their own power.[/quote]

Tried austerity? You mean spent themselves into so much debt that everyone stopped lending them money so they went completely bankrupt? Yeah, cause that’s exactly like not going into debt.[/quote]

Agreed? Where has Europe tried austerity? Germany maybe? The entire Euro zone is run by socialist Keynesian bullshit economics.
[/quote]

Where have you been? Living under a rock? Who is the socialist Keynesian who does the opposite of what Keynes would do?