Comments on: John Taylor’s disingenuousness http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: traduceri daneza romana http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-55074 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:34:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-55074 I think other web site proprietors should take this site as an model, very clean and great user friendly style and design, let alone the content. You are an expert in this topic!

]]>
By: Dwight Lombrana http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-54511 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:43:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-54511 stylish, easy and restrained

]]>
By: caveat bettor http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2132 Thu, 28 May 2009 19:48:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2132 Spending cuts not a logical option? Or logic not an option?

]]>
By: Cajagora http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2129 Thu, 28 May 2009 17:49:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2129 The fact that Mr. Taylor made an error in his calculation does not change the fact that his main argument is correct. It appears that Mr Salmon lost perspective of Taylor’s main point purposely to attack him, instead of debating his message. He goes further and brings another of Taylor’s idea that is not included in this specific article to strengthen his attack. The question is, does Mr. Salmon has something personal against Mr. Taylor or lacks rational arguments to debate?

]]>
By: Barry Ickes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2048 Wed, 27 May 2009 17:27:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2048 What about his whopper concerning the Debt/GDP ratio? He claims that:
“The debt was 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 1988, President Ronald Reagan’s last year in office, the same as at the end of 2008, President George W. Bush’s last year in office.”

But this is not true. In 1988 when Reagan left office it was about 51%, up from 32% when he took office. In 2008 it was about 70%, up from 57% when he took office. That seems like a real whopper to me. You can check it out in the Economic Report of the President, page 378 (Bush’s last report).

Of course, what Taylor is referring to is Gross Federal Debt held by the public. So he is ignoring all the debt held by the social security system. I think that is what you need to do to make Bush look like a fiscal hawk.

]]>
By: dWj http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2044 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:38:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2044 John Taylor knows perfectly well about compounding; I would guess he thinks that many FT readers don’t, and doesn’t want to explain it. (“About” is presumably his sop to correctness.) In any case, he’s talking qualitative more than quantitative here, so that it doesn’t matter.

My guess is he underestimates the FT readership, but that this would have been a good communication strategy if he were writing for USA Today.

]]>
By: Kevin http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2043 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:37:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2043 The GDP to Federal budget deficit ratio is unsustainable. This will get corrected.

Three routes

1. Massive inflation will make the real size of government shrink.(Taylor’s argument)

or

2.Official will cut spending

or

3.The Government will go bankrupt

I see no other options do you?

PS The Soviets tried a government led command economy, it failed. And the Russians are smart people.

]]>
By: Cezmi Dispinar http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2038 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2038 Short-run deficits can help to end recession. Doesn’t it matter, how the government spend the borrowed money? For instance for financing investments in better infrastructure, sustainable environment and human capital etc. On the long-run “smart” investments of government the GDP (denominator) go up faster than the debt (numerator) in the ratio.

]]>
By: Hans http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2034 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:35:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2034 I have a hard time believing anything this John Taylor says when he makes such elementary mistakes as not compounding interest (10 * 10% = 100%) and thinking a 100% depreciation of something means its price has halved. If he had made these mistakes in a live debate somewhere, that could be forgiven, but this is a column published in the freaking Financial Times of London. What the hell?

]]>
By: Matthew http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/comment-page-1/#comment-2033 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:27:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/27/john-taylors-disingenuousness/#comment-2033 Also, Americans would be paying $2.80 for a euro with incomes twice as large as now. Ditto their ounce of gold.

]]>