The author of that blog is confusing a long term problem, of a need to have a higher educated work force, with the immediate concern of a deficit. Also, that blogger is dreadfully ignorant of how and how much taxes are collected because he forgets that tax revenues increase as the economy rebounds, thus making that 5 billion not just 5 billion from all the other revenue streams being increased. That 5 billion provides an almost immediate hitting down of the debt, in addition to other issues. Just because a politician points to a single issue doesn’t mean it is both the only issue he is championing and that it isn’t the head of other similar policies, and that blogger seems to be wilfully ignorant of this point.
Following this, the author of that blog makes several critical errors in terms of economics. He likely has learned economics from watching TV and reading wikipedia articles from the method he argues about the adjustment in prices during the economic-demographic shifts that are coming. His understanding fails in three ways: (1) the shift will be messy, harm people, and be disastrous if we do nothing (the short term suffering will be huge in the blogger’s long term analysis) (2) we live in a global society and those prices will be kept to the norm in other states–specifically the United States–and we will be harmed in the process, and (3) he is assuming that the price of education will fall and that inroads into education will disappear for a generation who (a) wont have the same financial strength as before generations and (b) find themselves in a tougher, more competitive global market place. Dave, both his assumptions about economics are wrong and his analysis is inadequate.
Pingback: Tweets that mention » Blog Archive » Ignatieff on the Hour -- Topsy.com
Related: http://cdnindependent.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/ignatieff-wrong-on-deficit-reduction-wrong-on-economic-policy/
Dave, the blog you’ve linked to is wrong.
The author of that blog is confusing a long term problem, of a need to have a higher educated work force, with the immediate concern of a deficit. Also, that blogger is dreadfully ignorant of how and how much taxes are collected because he forgets that tax revenues increase as the economy rebounds, thus making that 5 billion not just 5 billion from all the other revenue streams being increased. That 5 billion provides an almost immediate hitting down of the debt, in addition to other issues. Just because a politician points to a single issue doesn’t mean it is both the only issue he is championing and that it isn’t the head of other similar policies, and that blogger seems to be wilfully ignorant of this point.
Following this, the author of that blog makes several critical errors in terms of economics. He likely has learned economics from watching TV and reading wikipedia articles from the method he argues about the adjustment in prices during the economic-demographic shifts that are coming. His understanding fails in three ways: (1) the shift will be messy, harm people, and be disastrous if we do nothing (the short term suffering will be huge in the blogger’s long term analysis) (2) we live in a global society and those prices will be kept to the norm in other states–specifically the United States–and we will be harmed in the process, and (3) he is assuming that the price of education will fall and that inroads into education will disappear for a generation who (a) wont have the same financial strength as before generations and (b) find themselves in a tougher, more competitive global market place. Dave, both his assumptions about economics are wrong and his analysis is inadequate.