PhoenixDark
Banned
Apparently he also criticized Romney's "self deportation" policy
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Apparently he also criticized Romney's "self deportation" policy
That is a high price to pay for those 'examples'.
And it would probably work, too. Not that I agree with that approach.
Black Republican
Member
damit people i want some debates, i miss them :-(
hopefully romney or obama challenges the other before the real october debates
hopefully romney or obama challenges the other before the real october debates
It doesn't work like that now, otherwise Obama never would have authorized NCFRR. Simpsons-Bowles would be a meaningless expression. Revenues, debt and deficits matter. They decide elections.
The reality is the people that would have the power and authority to enact your solution(s) would never make it to office or would quickly be thrown out in the next election. That's it. It's that simple.
Mosler is a prime example. How did he fair?
I have insurance. But at an earlier age it was terrific to have the choice.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Right, I get that, though I would semantically parse your use of "grease" instead of a goods/service equivalent, since currency is how those are converted from one to the other (like a measure of energy).
What I take issue with is the idea that a government can just inflate its currency to pay for anything it wants and/or to erase any debt. I'm sure you have some academic support, I'm just imagining that this would be a quick way to have an actual worthless currency, rather than one imaginably worthless.
That's called inflation, right? What am I missing? If it's so easy and obvious, why hasn't the idea won out?
RustyNails
Member
Become cripple or die!! doesn't work on anyone.
Average median household income in US is $40,000. People are barely making ends meet, and many (just like Congress) would rather punt the issue to the last moment.
Average median household income in US is $40,000. People are barely making ends meet, and many (just like Congress) would rather punt the issue to the last moment.
empty vessel
Member
Obama does not understand the monetary system.
Well no. Not meaningless. It's misguided because it is premised on a failure to understand the monetary system and the results were harmful because they disregard macroeconomic thought.
Not for the reasons you think. Revenues matter because they express how much money the government is destroying over a given time period, which impacts aggregate demand. Debt matters because it expresses the size of the national bank, a government spending program that favors higher income earners. And deficits matter because they express how much money the government has net spent over a given time period, which impacts aggregate demand. That is how each matters. None matters per se but only in relation to the real economy.
Hence why I have to keep repeating myself. First you revel in paying corporations inflated sums for services, and now you revel in the fact that the political class is ignorant. The ignorance of (and sometimes class consciousness of and deliberate obfuscation by) the political class is not a good enough reason for me to stop making sense. I am not going to start talking about the universe in creationist terms just because a lot of politicians are stupid enough to believe it (or at least pretend they are). That's what you are asking me to do.
What you are missing is what a lot of people miss when they first hear about this. And that is that there is no difference between "inflate its currency" and "spending." Every time the government spends money (on anything, for any reason) it creates money. All spending is the mathematical equivalent of money creation at the point of spending. And all revenue is the mathematical equivalent of money destruction. So the government is constantly "inflating" and "deflating" its currency. The only question is the appropriate rate of money creation (or destruction, although the norm will be creation because more money is needed over time to circulate in a growing economy with a growing population). Figuring out what that appropriate rate of "inflation" is requires looking to the broader economy to see whether and how much it needs to be heated up.
I am using inflation in scare quotes because it is not technically inflation. Inflation is a rise in the price of goods and services, not a rise in the amount of money in circulation. A rise in the amount of money in circulation may cause inflation (if the economy's productive capacity is maxed out) but it is not itself inflation.
Blergmeister
Member
The idea isn't that the Government can just print its way out of any problem. That is false. The idea is that Government spending is not constrained by revenue but by inflation. The Government can print money until inflation becomes a problem. Empty Vessel then, additionally as an opinion, goes on to say that currently inflation is not a problem so that the Government CAN print more money right now and that money should be used for Single Payer Healthcare, Infrastructure Spending, Jobs for anyone who wants one, etc.
Obama would have probably been +10 in every poll against Santorum right now. It's a damn shame he didn't win.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
But that (bold) is absolutely correct! It's the second part I don't understand, in addition to trying to determine how much room in inflationary terms the Govt has to work with.
Black Republican
Member
thats a reagan relection blowout right there son
Obama is closest thing to Kenseyian (and Kenyan .. heyooo) that's ever going to win the Presidency. So again, you are not dealing in the reality of the world we live in.
It's not misguided. Because it's a solution to a problem that the voters desperately want to see addressed.
No, revenues matter because that's what Congress uses to set budgets. Budgets that decide how much service they provide to the people.
Explaining to someone how reality works is not reveling in it. Merely reporting.
Evolution has concrete, hard evidence that it works (and is working). Neo-chartalism has .... ?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
^Reagan was more of a Keynesian than Obama, for one. Second, even Romney has acknowledged the relationship between government spending and the economy, noting that his planned cuts would take something like $3B out of the economy. Not sure I buy your theory that a keynes is dead in the US. They just have to call it something else.
Part of that is that none of the serious candidates (Jeb/McDaniels) actually ran, which is also why the "field" has exactly one serious VP candidate in it as well.
Part of that is that none of the serious candidates (Jeb/McDaniels) actually ran, which is also why the "field" has exactly one serious VP candidate in it as well.
cot damn, class adjourned.
Seems awfully hard in the current environment to publicly state those particular views on debt, and deficit. To not state them, doesn't automatically mean you don't understand the monetary system, could just mean it's politically nuclear to express that opinion, at least now.
empty vessel
Member
I should add to this that "inflating the currency" (increasing the amount of money) will devalue the currency against other currency, but that is by and large invisible within the economy. It affects international trade, and a devalued currency means more sales and exports for businesses within the economy. And there is a natural bottoming-out that occurs here, because as exports increase and the economy heats up as a result, government spending should fall (or taxes should rise).
Neo-chartalism is an empirical description of the monetary system, just as evolution is an empirical description of the formation of biological life. That is why it is important. It describes the system of fiat currency that we actually use.
Blergmeister
Member
Can you explain what part you don't understand more specifically?
I'll admit, I am not knowledgable on determining the inflationary wiggle room the government has outside of waking up in the morning, looking out the window, and seeing inflation is only 1.7% and we are aiming for 2.3%. I do know that spending puts upwards pressure on inflation and that taxing puts downward pressure on inflation, so if inflation begins to creep up that is when we raise taxes/cut spending.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think what he doesn't get, and what I also don't quite get, is why creating large amounts of money to help infrastructure and the economy currently wouldn't have negative inflation effects.
Blergmeister
Member
It would definately increase inflationary pressure. Would the increase in inflation (whatever it ends up being) be worse than the benefit of infrastructure and economic spending right now? The part of increased spending was all opinion, like calling for more stimulus now is, not describing how the economics work.
I think it's a mistake to go by a President's record in some regards. Reagan had a powerful Democrat Congress and a Cold War pushing him to spend, whereas Obama had blue dogs and other deficit hawks (Tea Party backlash) holding him back. Congress holds the purse.
If you gave both men total control of the economy, I think it's pretty clear which way they would shake out on the spectrum given their pasts.
empty vessel
Member
Because the money that gets injected increases aggregate demand (more people have money to spend and want to do so). That in turn causes producers to begin utilizing capital and labor that is currently idle as a result of a less than optimized economy. Businesses will hire more workers to produce more goods in response to the increased demand.
Inflation occurs only when too much money is chasing too few goods (which causes sellers to have to raise prices). In short, in an economy with idle capital and labor (unemployed people) the increase in money circulating in the economy is met with an increase in goods and services to meet the demand, so you will not get a rise in prices. One sees inflation when capacity to produce is already maximized (no idle capital, no idle labor), such that further increases in money can only cause more money to chase the same amount of goods. That is what causes a rise in prices known as inflation.
It's important to keep in mind, too, that while inflation is not good and imposes unwarranted costs on a society, unemployment imposes far more costs. People not working represents a huge loss in wealth that could have been created if they were put to work. Currently, the pendulum on the balance between inflation and unemployment is way out of whack. Our society is losing an immense amount of wealth from unemployment.
Mourdock Accidentally Releases Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Reaction To Obamcare
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/richard-mourdock-obamacare-youtube-accident.php?ref=fpa
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/richard-mourdock-obamacare-youtube-accident.php?ref=fpa
RustyNails
Member
And this is why spending is absolutely necessary during an economic depression. During such times, people simply hold their savings in bank accounts which on any other day they spend it on useless shit. To a government, that money is "lost" from circulation.
To fully appreciate lost money from circulation, if 100 million people do not spend $100 (just a rough figure), that is $10 billion "missing" from economy which during a non-recession period should be "there". We need most money in circulation during a depression.
No, Rubio defended it/tried to explain it away.
Blergmeister
Member
I also want to make sure I was clear on, MMT is not advocating for any specific policy, not for more or less spending. It is just stating that with a fiat currency a government is not constrained by revenue since it can technically print all the money it wants. The practical constraint on government printing/spending money is inflation. Now determine whether the government has the room spend/tax on programs based on this, not on how much revenue it is taking in.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
This is nonsense, TA. You are always your record. Pretending otherwise is where we get ideas that Obama is somehow anti-guns, pro-environment, or a big spender. He's done absolutely none of the above, but these conspiracy nutjobs that say that congress held him back look really silly.
Excuse me for not holding my breath.
Mildly lucky, perhaps. I don't think there would be an appreciable difference between Romney and the alternatives listed. I'll say Obama's fortunate that the Republican base is extreme enough not to even countenance nominating a moderate.
See, I don't see how it can NOT be tied to policy in America. To get from the paradigm that exists today, to where MMT is actively being put into motion (sufficiently!) is going to take a major change in budgetary policy. Changes that will be campaigned for/against.
It seems like people want to have it both ways. They want to say this is what works, yet do not want to admit the possible ramifications of actively advocating those actions.
PL said:
It's not nonsense. It's being logical and rational. Nonsense would be accrediting everything that happens in office to the person sitting in the President's seat on that given day (which of course happens). There are no definitive statements when talking about Presidential preferences. You can still have a nuanced discussion about the compromises that were made and why they did it.
Do you think Obama would have pushed for a bigger stimulus package if there was no resistance? I do. But he had to work with what he had at that moment. Same with Reagan. He had acqueisce many times to get the increases in military spending that he desperately wanted.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The small stimulus was because Obama's economic team underestimated the severity of the recession.
I agree with you about everything except this. The Chairman DOES understand the monetary system, he's just intentionally acting like he doesn't so that he can some how seem reasonable to the right wingers.
Fixed.
Manmademan
Member
its also because republicans in congress insisted that a large chunk of that stimulus be "tax cuts" which are wildly ineffective at actually stimulating anything.
had the stimulus been 100% infrastructure or whatever, the effect would have been greater.
The best part of the tax cut thing is that Republicans love to include the effect they had on the deficit while simultaneously arguing that tax cuts (that they want at least) don't contribute to the deficit.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I can't imagine why there's a debate on it. Anecdotal evidence is totally valid. I know because I saw a guy use it in an argument once, and he won.
And then insurance will drop you because there's no regulation saying they can't. MUAHAHA
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama's up 4 on Romney in Pew, 50-46.
Wow, Gallup has him down 2! 6 point swing!
Wow, Gallup has him down 2! 6 point swing!
A peak at the "small gamble" you take without insurance.
Shoulder surgery bill for a 31 year old. Again, major medical surgery, paid by the employer, a real person. I'm not posting this to provide proof that a large percentage of 30 year old's get major medical surgery, but proof that these situations do happen, and they suck. Important to me, regardless of the percentage it represents, one individual (otherwise healthy and productive) having to pay a medical bill they cant afford, is too many in my opinion.
Shoulder surgery bill for a 31 year old. Again, major medical surgery, paid by the employer, a real person. I'm not posting this to provide proof that a large percentage of 30 year old's get major medical surgery, but proof that these situations do happen, and they suck. Important to me, regardless of the percentage it represents, one individual (otherwise healthy and productive) having to pay a medical bill they cant afford, is too many in my opinion.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Just gonna drop this right here...
Why am I not surprised. Republican constituents rejecting reality once again.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
But the US government gave Iraq WMDs prior to the Iraq war.
Step 1: Deregulation
Step 2: Eliminate the revenue stream
Step 3: fuck, we should have thought this through
Invisible_Insane
Member
In the style of the esteemed PantherLotus, allow me to suggest that you find a Utopia Thread to go post in.
More seriously: the point I expressed frustration with before was the conviction you appear to hold that conjuring up instances or young people with outsize medical bills should cause us to reflect differently on actuarial truths about the cost of insuring that cohort. I don't think anyone asserted that young people never become ill or get injured, so it's not clear what your posting of this anecdote is supposed to accomplish. Your reaction reminds me of the reaction of many women's groups to the announcement that most women were getting too many mammograms, or men's groups to the comparable announcement about prostate exams.
PantherLotus: what I want out of this thread is an intellectually honest dialogue about politics and policy. Propagating partisan memes about the "optics" of retail politics interferes with that; that's why I get annoyed when Kosmo does it. And I don't much see the point in arguing about whether anecdotal evidence is a useful baseline from which to generate an understanding of how the healthcare system works and how it doesn't.
CHARTS
At what point does it because serious? 20% of young adults have medical debt. What does it need to be? 40%? 50%? Young adults are also the most likely to be unemployed along with they are make significantly less on average than older adults. The costs are definitely going to be making more of an impact than someone who is 40.
No one has said that people should not be insured. No one said that accidents don't happen to people. In fact, I believe that single payer is the only solution to our problems, but that doesn't seem politically viable.
What was said was that the choice to be insured should be left to the individual. At certain points in people's life they may want to elect to go without insurance if they feel the time is right for them.
What was said was that the likelihood of a healthy 30 year old to require significant medical attention is small. Which it is and I provided nationwide evidence to illustrate so.
There are people in their 20's and 30's who do not have life insurance. Those who do not have a will. That is the choice they make because they know the likelihood of them needing it is small.
-- // --
Having private insurance isn't the foolproof answer to protecting yourself anyways. As 3/4 of people that go bankrupt because of a medical bills HAD insurance at the time.
Chumly said:
That's a shame, but not surprising considering the astronomical unemployment rate among that age group.
But it's not even half of the national average among working-age adults.
empty vessel
Member
Nah. That kind of irresponsibility can affect me negatively. And it's stupid. How is the time ever "right" to risk a medical emergency? It's not like one can plan not to have one. They just happen. Like natural disasters. Hence, insurance. Why should I let people gamble when I am charged when they lose biggest? Heads, they win, tails, I lose. No thanks.
Besides, having a single purchaser of health care makes health care collectively cheaper through the magic of monopsony. See WalMart.
Not really surprising seeing as how older people have more time to rack up medical debt, no?
We don't allow people to go without car insurance. Ive gone 10 years without causing an accident or getting a ticket yet I'm forced to get it. That is something I can control by driving safely. Medical insurance can be the same way except when you take the gamble and lose you just push the costs back onto taxpayers and everyone else through higher prices. Why should we be paying for other peoples gambles?
Just because its half the average for older adults doesn't make 20% any less significant.
- Status