The "author" is conducting a learning exercise. There is no sign of a political argument, nevermind a political point here.
He's focusing on certain elements and not others because that's what he has data for, and that's what the exercise is about. The data he's got is bonds: bank bonds, government bonds & corporate bonds. That's what he's playing with, trying to see how this information can be unpacked, analyzed and understood. I haven't seen the actual exercise but I assume students might be able to do things like "how can we cancel the maximum debt with the minimum number of transactions?" The fact that this does not consider relative bond ratings, macroeconomic effects or whatever else you care about is a red herring.
Every economic model everywhere simplifies reality. Otherwise nothing is fungible/general and nothing can be modelled.
You ascribing sinister motives is you being blinded by whatever you think is the important debate in economics.
That's not paranoia. He misunderstood what this is about, jumped to conclusions, and now can't backtrack. Notice how Lazare started by rejecting the validity of the exercise as:
> "absurd assumptions with no bearing on reality"
But the argument suddenly turned into rejecting the credibility and motivation of the person proposing it as:
> "making a misleading graph to advance a political argument".
Also while his "demonstrations" kinda' sorta' make sense when viewed from the plane, it's the details that are completely off that give away that there's no formal knowledge or training behind them but a mish-mash of ideas probably gathered from the media, internet, and his personal conclusions and assumptions.
The whole line of reasoning for this discussion is that all physics problems that assume the ideal gas, the perfect sphere, etc. are unrealistic, so they are political statements. Don't feed the troll.
The "author" is conducting a learning exercise. There is no sign of a political argument, nevermind a political point here.
He's focusing on certain elements and not others because that's what he has data for, and that's what the exercise is about. The data he's got is bonds: bank bonds, government bonds & corporate bonds. That's what he's playing with, trying to see how this information can be unpacked, analyzed and understood. I haven't seen the actual exercise but I assume students might be able to do things like "how can we cancel the maximum debt with the minimum number of transactions?" The fact that this does not consider relative bond ratings, macroeconomic effects or whatever else you care about is a red herring.
Every economic model everywhere simplifies reality. Otherwise nothing is fungible/general and nothing can be modelled.
You ascribing sinister motives is you being blinded by whatever you think is the important debate in economics.