Wow… I feel like “substance over form” contradicts a core sovcit belief: That there are specific magic phrases and processes that must be executed precisely to be valid. The systems in place intentionally hide, obscuring, and otherwise make it as difficult as possible for the sovcit to perform the rituals correctly. But if they do, they will “win”.
Of course, leave it to a sovcit to find another contradictory concept to shove into the rest of their contradictory beliefs.
This article is mostly talking about an economics concept of “r vs g”, which the author describes as follows:
I’m not an economist, but this seemed odd to me. I suspected the author might not understand economics and the concept might more complicated than they were making it out to be.
A quick search on “r vs g economics” seems to indicate that this author has no business writing about economics. Here is the first result I clicked on, which near the start of the article states:
That makes a lot more sense to me. The economics concept applies when the deficit is small. The US deficit is not small. Regardless of R vs G, a large deficit means that debt is becoming more of a burden, even if R is less than G. Yes, R getting closer to G or exceeding G increases the burden of US debt, but R vs G isn’t all that matters like the writer of this piece in the Atlantic claims.
…At least as far as I can tell… But it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m not an economist. I’d love to hear what one has to say about this article, even if they tell me I’m totally wrong.