• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Living Beyond Our Means..."

The tricky part is knowing what resources are actually available. That's how Venezuela got into trouble.
No, what got it into trouble was having a lot of its debt denominated in US dollars.
How do you know it would be? And if you do know, how do you deal with all the people who don't believe you?
We have the OBR in the UK. Unfortunately it currently uses neoclassical thinking. However, to give some idea of its clout, when Truss didn't wait for it to assess her spending plans she had to eventually resign as PM after trying to hang on by sacking her chancellor of the exchequer.
Also how does this address the problem of what the spending is for? Last year the US Federal government spent 47% of its discretionary budget on defense, and a further 8% on veterans benefits. That means more that half goes to the military, dwarfing other things such as health (7%) and education (4%). So the problem isn't so much how much is being spent as what it's being spent on. How does your independent body address this? The answer, it can't without being political and therefore not independent.
What the government spends money on has both a political and economic dimension. The independent body can give its assessment of the likely economic effects of government spending, such inflation and growth, and leave the moral arguments to politicians.
 
No, what got it into trouble was having a lot of its debt denominated in US dollars.

We have the OBR in the UK. Unfortunately it currently uses neoclassical thinking. However, to give some idea of its clout, when Truss didn't wait for it to assess her spending plans she had to eventually resign as PM after trying to hang on by sacking her chancellor of the exchequer.

What the government spends money on has both a political and economic dimension. The independent body can give its assessment of the likely economic effects of government spending, such inflation and growth, and leave the moral arguments to politicians.
You just destroyed your own argument, because neoclassical economics has an ideological underpinning. So your one example of an 'independent' body isn't.

Rachel Reeves v the OBR: chancellor aims to loosen the watchdog’s grip
Jo Michell, a professor of economics at the University of the West of England, said: “It’s really about how do you stop this silly dance where the government adjusts long-run plans to short-run moves in bond markets. Forecasts are not a bad thing per se, but it’s the tail wagging the dog.”... James Meadway, a former economic adviser to John McDonnell and host of the podcast Macrodose, argues that it is impossible to drain the politics out of forecasting. “These aren’t neutral facts at all – they’re hotly contested, just like everything else in economics,” he said.
 
You just destroyed your own argument, because neoclassical economics has an ideological underpinning. So your one example of an 'independent' body isn't.
All scientific disciplines have an ideological underpinning. Unfortunately mainstream economics (i.e., the neoclassical school) has many wrong ideas about how money, debt and the economy in general work.

Should we also get rid of the IPCC? How about the ONS?
 
trump offers some relief to people living beyond their means by floating a 50 year mortgage, potentially saving several dollars a month in payments at the low cost of over double the lifetime interest on the loan.
And no doubt, he thinks he has come up with a novel idea even though refinancing options on home loans have existed forever. It is even possible in some places to get an interest only housing loan.
 

trump offers some relief to people living beyond their means by floating a 50 year mortgage, potentially saving several dollars a month in payments at the low cost of over double the lifetime interest on the loan.
A good thing is that Trump has not heard that in Japan, parents can take mortgages that are binding for their heirs. I think those mortgages are already at 50 years, but obviously, you could make 100 year mortgages in that way.
 
A good thing is that Trump has not heard that in Japan, parents can take mortgages that are binding for their heirs. I think those mortgages are already at 50 years, but obviously, you could make 100 year mortgages in that way.
That's interesting. Normally the debts of an estate have to be settled before the remainder can be distributed to the beneficiaries. If the estate does not have enough assets that can be liquidated to settle its debts then the remaining debt can't be settled (there is nobody to collect it from). It's the principle that "debt dies with the debtor".

You seem to be suggesting that in Japan, the beneficiaries must settle the debts of the estate if it is short of assets. Does this apply to all named beneficiaries (ie a person can't refuse to be a beneficiary) or just to the children of the deceased debtor? Are children of the debtor automatically beneficiaries?
 
You seem to be suggesting that in Japan, the beneficiaries must settle the debts of the estate if it is short of assets. Does this apply to all named beneficiaries (ie a person can't refuse to be a beneficiary) or just to the children of the deceased debtor? Are children of the debtor automatically beneficiaries?
I don't know any details. I was told this by Japanese friends, one of whom had inherited a small debt from his parents.
 
And no doubt, he thinks he has come up with a novel idea even though refinancing options on home loans have existed forever. It is even possible in some places to get an interest only housing loan.
Yes I refi'd a 30 year after 10 years (in 2020 @ 2.8%), essentially creating a 40 year mortgage.

Interest only loans are almost always floating, or adjusting, AFAIK.
 
A good thing is that Trump has not heard that in Japan, parents can take mortgages that are binding for their heirs. I think those mortgages are already at 50 years, but obviously, you could make 100 year mortgages in that way.
The 100 year mortgages did become a thing in Japan - meant to be spread over 3 generations. Don't know if they are still offered.
 
I don't know any details. I was told this by Japanese friends, one of whom had inherited a small debt from his parents.
So it may not be anything more remarkable than if a child wants to keep their parents' house and it has a mortgage on it then they have to refinance it (or, if the bank agrees, take over the mortgage payments).
 
It's the principle that "debt dies with the debtor".
While this is true in places like Australia, it doesn’t stop debtors from having a crack at relatives of the deceased. My father and brother both died in debt and with no assets ( a long and sad story). I was the default executor of their non-existant “estates. The number of phone calls and threatening letters and emails was staggering. When I explained the situation, some withdrew. Others, most particularly the estate agents of their rented flat, persisted for years.
 
While this is true in places like Australia, it doesn’t stop debtors from having a crack at relatives of the deceased. My father and brother both died in debt and with no assets ( a long and sad story). I was the default executor of their non-existant “estates. The number of phone calls and threatening letters and emails was staggering. When I explained the situation, some withdrew. Others, most particularly the estate agents of their rented flat, persisted for years.
You mean creditors, not debtors.
 
So it may not be anything more remarkable than if a child wants to keep their parents' house and it has a mortgage on it then they have to refinance it (or, if the bank agrees, take over the mortgage payments).
You are right, I looked it up: the sons and grandsons are not required to pay off the debt if they don't want to. My friends gave me another impression.
 
While this is true in places like Australia, it doesn’t stop debtors from having a crack at relatives of the deceased. My father and brother both died in debt and with no assets ( a long and sad story). I was the default executor of their non-existant “estates. The number of phone calls and threatening letters and emails was staggering. When I explained the situation, some withdrew. Others, most particularly the estate agents of their rented flat, persisted for years.
It's sad that your relatives had nothing to show for a life time of blood, sweat and tears and it doesn't surprise me in the least that creditors would harass noob executors who are unsure of how to dot the i's and cross the t's (for many, it is their first time dealing with the legal minefield of probate law).

If the estates were basic, then a legal firm wouldn't have charged too much to file the necessary paperwork and it would have taken all of the heat away from you.
 
Last edited:
You are right, I looked it up: the sons and grandsons are not required to pay off the debt if they don't want to. My friends gave me another impression.
I should hope not! It would be pretty rank if I could live the life of Riley then when I am gone, stick my children with the bill (credit companies might like it though).
 
Yes I refi'd a 30 year after 10 years (in 2020 @ 2.8%), essentially creating a 40 year mortgage.

Interest only loans are almost always floating, or adjusting, AFAIK.

difference is though that after 10 years on a 30 you're pretty likely to have paid some principle down, but unlikely in a 50 given the way amortization works and the higher rate that comes with a riskier longer term loan.
 
difference is though that after 10 years on a 30 you're pretty likely to have paid some principle down, but unlikely in a 50 given the way amortization works and the higher rate that comes with a riskier longer term loan.
You would have made payments totalling about 65% of the principal and paid down about 18%-19% of the principal after 10 years on a 30 year loan. But it wouldn't matter if you had an interest only loan (never paid any principal). Your equity would increase because of rising property prices.
 
Last edited:
This pulls together some stuff I knew and some I didn't. The broken metric in question is the US poverty line and why it skews other metrics. I'd love to see these numbers crunched for the UK. (hat tip to @russincheshire.bsky.social)


“The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.”

I read it again. Three times the minimum food budget.

I felt sick.
 
i didn't realize that was michael green until the end. pretty sharp guy
 

Back
Top Bottom