This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Whitepill, I would say I recheck this graph every so often to see if this ratio starts going up again. (Blue is all aggregate USD debt/gdp, red & green are more usefully decomposing that into private (at least non-federal) debt and federal government debt, and the bold black line is the ratio of red:green). Maybe you could slice the sectors up a bit more finely between households, firms, local/state governments, foreigners, etc., but I think this one pretty much gets what it's trying to capture.
Basically I think many agree that a big caution point for an economic crash/collapse is ballooning private debt. Most analysts now recognize there is just a fundamental difference between that and 'public' debt from the government that issues the currency, and that public debt is at least not as bad. I'd go much farther and say that by the accounting, the national government is more akin to the overall economic score-keeper, and that it would be rather goofy to think you're tracking something negative at all when counting up everyone's total outstanding scores and calling that 'public debt'. The national public debt is essentially our net money supply (money can be increased by other private debt, but not in net); our financial wealth.
So then, tracking private debt to gdp (red line) is some kind of a 'debt to income' ratio term, while private debt to public debt (black line) is a kind of 'debt to wealth' ratio. So I see the red line still steadily coming down since 2008's high, and the black line falling off precipitously after it rose to a huge level in 07/08. I've posted this a few times before, but in the US, our only 6 economic depressions were each immediately preceded by the only 6 multi-year significant reductions in the outstanding government debt. The 7th most significant government surplus run was less dramatic, in the late 90s, and directly coincided with the private sector going much more into debt, causing that bold black ratio to spike, running up until the 08 crash when the private sector forcefully deleveraged, also forcing the government hard back into deficit. So the intuition that government debt is destabilizing or that government surpluses are a good thing, that's what I see as dangerous. If we start getting more politicians in places of influence who think 'quadrillion' is one syllable or zero too far for economic well-being, and who start pushing for austerity and surpluses, that's when I'm getting back into prepper mode.
As others have mentioned though, none of this necessarily has bearing on all stock-market bubbles or corrections. It's just to say that 2008 was a different beast, and I don't personally see any table-setting for that kind of financial crash & great recession/depression angle. I'm still plowing each monthly paycheck into the broad market index and trusting the longterm, while kind of wishing it will dip long enough at some point for me to harvest some on-paper losses to pay less taxes.
More options
Context Copy link