tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post5195234516284913112..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: Op-Ed: “Shared Sacrifice”: Obama's DemagoguerySheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-42517942180943268972011-07-31T07:33:02.047-05:002011-07-31T07:33:02.047-05:00This comment was apparently intended for the post ...This comment was apparently intended for the post on Roger Garrison's point about the word <i>default</i>. I noted on Facebook that the Wikipedia entry seems to contradict Garrison, but we should take care not to drop the context. No one in Washington is warning that the government will <i>refuse</i> to make a payment to the bondholders that it is <i>able</i> to make if the debt-ceiling deadline is missed. That would make no sense. Why would it refuse? Treasury Secretary Geithner has not hinted at that -- quite the contrary. Thus willful default isn't on the list of realistic possibilities. The clear implication of the warnings is that the government will be <i>unable</i> to pay. But we know that's not true because we know it will have enough tax revenue income to pay the bondholders. (Not that it should.) <br /><br />The upshot is that Garrison is right in this context. He writes, "[I]f default means that you’re unable to pay [which is what people mean in this context], then 'choosing to default' must mean that you 'choose to be unable to pay.'Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-51801107749538608092011-07-31T01:30:25.450-05:002011-07-31T01:30:25.450-05:00FWIW, Wikipedia seems to disagree:
http://en.wiki...FWIW, Wikipedia seems to disagree:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance)</a>Roderick T. Longhttp://aaeblog.comnoreply@blogger.com