Pages

Jump to bottom

6 comments

1 Virginia Plain  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 9:55:42pm

Hope this guy has good security, because a lot of people are going to kill him, miscalculations or no. He also shares the same name as Cisco System's CEO. Both of them better have good protection.

2 RoadWarrior  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 10:11:19pm

Unfortunately for the argument of the US Treasury, even a $2 trillion error shouldn't alter anybody's conclusion in the context of a $50 trillion US federal budget over the next decade. If it had been a $7 trillion error, then we might have had something to discuss.

3 Bob Dillon  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 10:32:42pm

"He essentially admits a $2 trillion mistake but downplays its significance."

No, it was difference of opinion on which baseline to use looking out to 2015. 1.5% of GDP projected out 4 years with every government agency except the Comptroller General cooking the books .. $2 trillion did not make enough of a difference in debt to GDP ratio to keep AAA.

BTW our debt has now surpassed our 2010 GDP.

If you want the truth listen to David Walker every chance you get.

4 simoom  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 11:10:27pm

re: #3 Bobibutu

Walker: .. they're alleging there's a several trillion dollar difference between what they came up with and what you asserted ...?

Chambers: ... we had a discussion over the baseline, we agree with the Treasury's postion on this, and our figures that we have published reflect this ...

...

Cooper:... they say that S&P sent treasury an error in their analysis that inflated the U.S. deficit by $2T ... did you make a mistake of $2T in your analysis?

Chambers: ... the difference between baseline calculations out to 2015 is %1.5 of GDP.

The way I read the conversation is that Treasury went over S&P's numbers, found an error in S&P's baseline calculations, S&P acknowledged the error and corrected it. Publicly they're downplaying it by saying it isn't that significant. Of course $2T baseline difference seems quite meaningful, particularly when you seemed to be OK with a $4T deal vs the current ~$2T deal, and you're ignoring another $1T because you've adjusted your future revenue assumptions.

5 simoom  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 11:14:34pm

re: #3 Bobibutu

No, it was difference of opinion on which baseline to use looking out to 2015.

Just to clarify, it wasn't a difference of opinion because S&P agreed with Treasury's correction and adopted it.

6 Bob Dillon  Fri, Aug 5, 2011 11:29:11pm

re: #5 simoom

Whatever. 1.5% one way or another is meaningless in the context of the U.S. as AAA or AA+ in terms of total debt to GDP.

IOU $100 and we are arguing about less than $0.02 and we can't even agree on projected interest rates let alone if it was $100 or $101 to start with.

Its point fingers anywhere and blame everyone else. Disgusting.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh