there's a point here when somebody asks if this is all about investors, but in sort of a tongue in cheek way that suggests it was more of a comment: that this is all about investors.

but, it's also a good example of why normal plebs like me view financial experts as charlatans to be treated with derision or even contempt.

summers spends a good chunk near the end defending his position as essentially harmless. that's not the right argument, not even under attack. it suggests that the best reason to listen to him is that it won't make any difference. but, then, why listen to him? yet, he lets on something that he's clearly aware of: it really won't make any difference. or, at least it won't make any difference in the context that the panel is supposed to be discussing.

the debate doesn't exist in the real world. both sides are trying to present an argument designed to convince an audience on terms that are entirely disingenuous. the debate is presented here as being about sound fiscal management, aggregate demand - policy positions.

but, it's really all about investors.

see, short term loans are casino capitalism and benefit investors that want to play the market like it's vegas. buy low, sell high. run it up; burst it. somebody's always manipulating the market. somebody's getting rich fast, and somebody's getting poor fast. long term loans are investment capitalism and benefit things like pension funds and state actors. it's about buying a lot of something that you can have a high certainty will gain value predictably over time.

from a policy perspective, it really doesn't matter. but, it matters a lot if you're trying to set the rules of the game.