Ed Elson asked why investor anxiety about US fiscal behaviour seemed to flip this summer when the underlying trend has been the same for years. Marks, who has been complaining about it for decades, credits the roundness of the number and cognitive dissonance finally giving way. His summary: you don't need a very good reason for things to happen.
…like that, you have to face the possibility that your fundamental company level possibilities get worse. It's not an easy decision. And given that the U.S. continues to be the, I think, the best functioning developed world economy, if you were going to do any, I wouldn't do very much. Part
…is going to come in two years or if it's going to come in 20 years. I'm not sure if there's any way to know that, but that seems to be a pretty significant point for investors to grapple with. Do you land anywhere on that spectrum? Do you have any thoughts on how to even address that question?
…you say, well, I guess that's the way it is. Maybe that was reached. And, you know, a lot of people said to me this summer, my God, 40 trillion, that's a lot of money for the national debt. Nobody ever said to me, oh, my God, 39 trillion is a lot, or 37 trillion is a lot. Now, maybe it's the roundness of the number 40 or the fact that you changed that first digit. But, you know, I do think that I've had more questions about the national debt since it turned 40 than I did when it was 39.
It seems as good a reason as any to care about it. Exactly.
Well, that's the point. The point, you don't need a very good reason for things to happen.
Yes. Just before we let you go here, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson says that the yields do not reflect the fundamentals of the U.S. economy. He says that basically the bond markets are wrong, or maybe that they're lying. They've got something. Off about what's happening in America. What do you…