Oh yeah because there only are about four economic papers written so each one is of enormous importance.....
That's a very skewed summary based no doubt on reading a very sloppy piece of journalism and no understanding of the underlying concepts.
The truth of the matter is that debts have to be paid back at some point - unless you want to go bust. This is as basic as saying that the world isn't flat.
Debts spiral because you have to pay interest on them and that interest rate is almost always higher than inflation. Nothing earth shattering there.
Therefore what you don't pay today, will be paid tomorrow with interest.
You don't need to study economics to see the logic of trying to stop debts escalating. This was the understanding that most people had before anyone invented Excel.
The only embarrassing detail is that the fear of future debt repayments doesn't cause GDP to shrink nearly as much as previously thought. It still does shrink though.
I'm no economist (I am ###### hot at Excel for a start, which overqualifies me) but it does seem that there are lots of economists (proper ones, with Nobel Prizes and "A Dummy's Guide to Excel 2003" on their bookshelves) that would disagree with much of what you've put there.
Maybe you're right and they're all wrong. I don't know. But I find economics fascinating. It seems much more of a black art than a science to me.
One thing I do know is that debts don't have to be paid back. I once heard that the UK government still pays out on bonds sold to fund the Napoleonic Wars. No idea if that is actually true.
"You don't need to study economics to see the logic of trying to stop debts escalating. This was the understanding that most people had before anyone invented Excel."
That line of reasoning worries me BTW. There are lots of things that "logic" tells you should be true, but aren't. Science was invented precisely because this line of reasoning was so poor at actually working out how the world really does work. One would hope that, with the remarkable increase in computing power and data storage, economics could move towards a more empirical evidence base and away from old fashioned common sense dressed up as "logic"
....while two leagues of 12 with an 8-8-8 split was viewed as a compromise, sponsors were not keen to be associated with the bottom 16 after the split.
Guggisberg said: “We changed to a league of 10 in 2003 because the second part of the championship didn’t work. It was very complicated for television and sponsors who didn’t want to be associated with any meaningless matches. It is much easier to have two separate divisions."