Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

Anyway to access the Boston Globe story in full?

 

[speculawyer]

It has nothing to do with MMT.
Please read my post again more carefully, if you still think I'm making a case for unlimited spending or that the amount of government spending doesn't matter (which again, I'm pretty sure no MMT proponent actually suggests, but I'm neither an MMT-er nor an expert on the subject), let me know and I'll give it another stab.

Well I'm not sure what you are saying. I guess your unstated premise is that we need even larger tax hikes than just the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? I don't think that is in the realm of the current political reality.

 

[Dan]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...ident-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html



Hilarious. What did they think the offices and staff were used for? Obama gift giveaway parties or something?

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run,” said Tagg, who worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency.

It's crazy to hear how desperately his family wanted and needed him to get the presidency. And the only things they ever seemed to think supported that belief was that Mitt Romney was his personal generosity. I'm not sure I buy Tagg's exaggeration, but yeah.

I kinda admire Romney's strategist for wanting to actually talk about issues and whatnot, even if they were on the wrong side of them.

 

[Chichikov]

Well I'm not sure what you are saying. I guess your unstated premise is that we need even larger tax hikes than just the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? I don't think that is in the realm of the current political reality.

No, my (I thought stated but apparently) unstated premise is that we need to do a cost benefit analysis of each government program, and again, it's perfectly fine to consider the fiscal impact there (in fact, I think it's required).
What I don't accept is that there's is this overriding meta imperative for "making cuts" or whatever.

And I'm no just being pedantic here, that rhetoric have been deliberately used to obfuscate the implications of policy positions, and I don't think we should participate in that game.

 

[Forever]

Politico: Why Obama isn't caving

 

[RDreamer]

No, my (I thought stated but apparently) unstated premise is that we need to do a cost benefit analysis of each government program, and again, it's perfectly fine to consider the fiscal impact there (in fact, I think it's required).
What I don't accept is that there's is this overriding meta imperative for "making cuts" or whatever.

And I'm no just being pedantic here, that rhetoric have been deliberately used to obfuscate the implications of policy positions, and I don't think we should participate in that game.

I think I get what you're saying. To bring up a concrete example, there's the raising of medicare eligibility age. Your premise is that we should not do that, because it benefits us more as a society. By raising it, it may cost the government less, but it would cost us the citizens more. Thus, the benefit of the age as it is now, or even lowering it is worth its cost, because otherwise it would cost more. If you accept the premise, though, that "we can't afford it" and thus have to cut things, then perhaps this could be on the chopping block, because, again, "we can't afford it."

We should never start the conversation by what can we afford to do, in other words. We should start it with "What programs could we do that would benefit us the most?" and then "fund" it accordingly. After all, if it's a benefit, it should be funded.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think I get what you're saying. To bring up a concrete example, there's the raising of medicare eligibility age. Your premise is that we should not do that, because it benefits us more as a society. By raising it, it may cost the government less, but it would cost us the citizens more. Thus, the benefit of the age as it is now, or even lowering it is worth its cost, because otherwise it would cost more. If you accept the premise, though, that "we can't afford it" and thus have to cut things, then perhaps this could be on the chopping block, because, again, "we can't afford it."

We should never start the conversation by what can we afford to do, in other words. We should start it with "What programs could we do that would benefit us the most?" and then "fund" it accordingly. After all, if it's a benefit, it should be funded.

That's where I'm at.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Did they think Obama was playing around in 2008 and accidentally won? How does a campaign not understand basic shit like that; none of them had experience running a local election? This is the type of thing that would have been obvious early to an old campaign vet. You can just imagine the scene from the upcoming adaption where dramatic music and a montage of voter contact scenes quickly flash, then the rugged Romney campaign guy drops his scotch and says "they're running a local campaign...on a national level. Get me the governor on the phone." That will be in Game Change 2, mark my words.

These guys better not run another campaign ever again.

By contrast, I would like them to run more. I want them to run every Republican presidential campaign for the next 40 years.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Politico: Why Obama isn't caving

And yet he's offering social security cuts.Politico narrative building

 

[Aaron Strife]

And yet he's offering social security cuts.Politico narrative building

Which probably won't be in any final offer, now that it's become clear Boehner will need huge Democratic support to pass anything. Hopefully.

 

[kirblar]

For the record, MMT is not something that "one is." It is the name given to an empirical description of the monetary system. So, for example, when I say "We have unlimited amounts of money, which is a mere accounting unit," I am not "being an MMTer," I am merely describing the empirical world. Abstract accounting units are not empirically finite. To worry that we are running out of money is like worrying that the NFL scoreboard operator might run out of points if the teams keep scoring. MMT is great precisely because it focuses its attention on the underlying real things to which the social constructs relate rather than on the constructs alone.

It is unfortunate that we ever had to represent social abstractions like money physically, i.e., paper money, because it tricks people into believing that money itself is a thing that is finite and requires conservation. Hence the complaint always turning to "printing money." The sooner we get rid of paper currency and coins the better. It will help people to better understand the nature of money when it ceases being represented in physical form at all.

Playing M:TG was the best thing that ever happened to me. So much experience with Central Banking that I didn't realize I was getting.

 

[The Technomancer]

Playing M:TG was the best thing that ever happened to me. So much experience with Central Banking that I didn't realize I was getting.

The same thing happened with me, only it was M:TG and computer programming. Not just the stack but the discrete nature of events.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Maybe I missed this being discussed, but Lolz at Mittens and his shitty family:

Mitt Romney had no desire to run, says Tagg Romney

That's what Tagg Romney, Mitt's oldest son, told the Boston Globe for its big post-mortem on his father's failed presidential bid published on Sunday.
“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life," Tagg Romney told the paper. "He had no desire to ... run. If he could have found someone else to take his place ... he would have been ecstatic to step aside.

Such fucking pathetic losers

 

[Aaron Strife]

Maybe I missed this being discussed, but Lolz at Mittens and his shitty family:

Mitt Romney had no desire to run, says Tagg Romney



Such fucking pathetic losers

Riiiight.

Maybe Ann Romney should have taken his place. She seemed to have wanted it more.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Politico: Why Obama isn't caving

President Barack Obama’s stiffening resolve during the fight over the fiscal cliff can be traced directly to the lessons he drew from his hard-won triumph of the 2012 campaign.

Probably has more to do with the way the House GOP behaved from 2010 to 2012, and Boehner's total lack of good faith during negotiations. Poorly reasoned article.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Maybe I missed this being discussed, but Lolz at Mittens and his shitty family:

Mitt Romney had no desire to run, says Tagg Romney



Such fucking pathetic losers

Of all the excuses to explain Romney's loss, this one is the most baffling to me.

He had no desire to run? Then why the fuck did he spend all that money in the primaries? Trying desperately to lie his way to the highest office on the planet?

Mitt Romney was more interested in HAVING the job, than DOING the job. Which is why he had no plans. His whole platform was

1)Fuck Obama
2) I'm not Obama
3)????
4)Profit!

 

[The Librarian]

If Romney didn't want to be president, why was he trying to run during the past six years?

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Riiiight.

Maybe Ann Romney should have taken his place. She seemed to have wanted it more.

I cannot wait for the next generation loser from that shitty family to fail at winning the biggest political office as well. It's like an anti-dynasty.

 

[Y2Kev]

I believe the real brains behind that shittanker was Ann!

 

[Forever]

I cannot wait for the next generation loser from that shitty family to fail at winning the biggest political office as well. It's like an anti-dynasty.

Tagg ur it.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Tagg ur it.

haha

 

[empty vessel]

Playing M:TG was the best thing that ever happened to me. So much experience with Central Banking that I didn't realize I was getting.

The same thing happened with me, only it was M:TG and computer programming. Not just the stack but the discrete nature of events.

Games are great for understanding money because the point systems they employ are no different from money. Points are accounting units for the game. Money is just the "point" tally for society's economic game. In fact, I wish we called them points, because it would make money's nature more transparent. I accumulated 1,500 points from my work this week!

In Monopoly, for instance, the game comes with a set amount of "printed" money. But the game is actually not bound by this money supply. Monopoly rules dictate that when the printed money supply is gone, the banker simply starts accounting for it with pencil and paper (or "prints" more of it). In short, the board instructs that when their economy has grown so much as to outstrip the money supply, additional money will be created:

Besides the Bank's money, the Bank holds the Title Deeds, and the houses and hotels prior to purchase by the players. The Bank pays salaries and bonuses. It sells and auctions properties and hands out the proper Title Deed cards when purchased by a player, it also sells houses and hotels to the players and loans money when required on mortgages.

The Bank collects all taxes, fines, loans and interest, and the price of all properties which it sells and auctions. The Bank "never goes broke." If the Bank runs out of money, the Banker may issue as much as needed by writing on any ordinary paper.

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/00009.pdf (PDF)

Like the bank in Monopoly, the US government never goes broke and may issue as much as needed. Any video game that has a point system works the same way. It can only be point-constrained if it is programmed to be. So we never need to worry about not having enough money, which we can create and destroy at will, but we should always be asking how much money ought to exist at any given time. And most people believe that this is the amount of money that generates full employment without inflation, which may well change over time. (It will certainly and typically need to increase over time as the population increases and economy grows, but it is possible it would have to decrease, too, if, say, a disaster happens that substantially reduces the real productive capacity of the economy.)

 

[CHEEZMO™]

LMAO @ the Romney sour grapes.

 

[Link]

Maybe I missed this being discussed, but Lolz at Mittens and his shitty family:

Mitt Romney had no desire to run, says Tagg Romney



Such fucking pathetic losers

What a gutless family. They all deserve one another.

 

[kirblar]

Games are great for understanding money because the point systems they employ are no different from money. Points are accounting units for the game. Money is just the "point" tally for society's economic game. In fact, I wish we called them points, because it would make money's nature more transparent. I accumulated 1,500 points from my work this week!

In Monopoly, for instance, the game comes with a set amount of "printed" money. But the game is actually not bound by this money supply. Monopoly rules dictate that when the printed money supply is gone, the banker simply starts accounting for it with pencil and paper (or "prints" more of it). In short, the board instructs that when their economy has grown so much as to outstrip the money supply, additional money will be created:



http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/00009.pdf (PDF)

Like the bank in Monopoly, the US government never goes broke and may issue as much as needed. Any video game that has a point system works the same way. It can only be point-constrained if it is programmed to be. So we never need to worry about not having enough money, which we can create and destroy at will, but we should always be asking how much money ought to exist at any given time. And most people believe that this is the amount of money that generates full employment without inflation, which may well change over time. (It will certainly and typically need to increase over time as the population increases and economy grows, but it is possible it would have to decrease, too, if, say, a disaster happens that substantially reduces the real productive capacity of the economy.)

M:TG's very nature makes the creator (WoTC/Hasbro) a central banker because they control the capital supply necessary to build decks with. Learning to understand why this (http://blacklotusproject.com/cards/Zendikar/Scalding+Tarn/) happens was a huge help to grasping economic concepts.

 

[pigeon]

Any video game that has a point system works the same way. It can only be point-constrained if it is programmed to be.

Well, the funny thing about this example is that this isn't true -- any video game will have a point limit by default because of the memory constraints on number formats, although it is accurate to say that they could be programmed not to have such a limit.* Think of it as a limit to point supply caused by legacy approaches to game programming. Kind of like a zero lower bound.


* okay, technically even this isn't true, but either way.

 

[Angry Fork]

For the record, MMT is not something that "one is." It is the name given to an empirical description of the monetary system. So, for example, when I say "We have unlimited amounts of money, which is a mere accounting unit," I am not "being an MMTer," I am merely describing the empirical world. Abstract accounting units are not empirically finite. To worry that we are running out of money is like worrying that the NFL scoreboard operator might run out of points if the teams keep scoring. MMT is great precisely because it focuses its attention on the underlying real things to which the social constructs relate rather than on the constructs alone.

It is unfortunate that we ever had to represent social abstractions like money physically, i.e., paper money, because it tricks people into believing that money itself is a thing that is finite and requires conservation. Hence the complaint always turning to "printing money." The sooner we get rid of paper currency and coins the better. It will help people to better understand the nature of money when it ceases being represented in physical form at all.

What happens to the psychology of people during the transition process to a moneyless society? Is there any research on this kind of thing? Some people spend more on a credit card for example because they don't feel like they're losing something the way you 'feel' like you're losing if you let go out a bunch of 20 dollar bills.

Would a moneyless society in your view be based on something like credit cards or something like Marxian wage slips that can only be used once? I don't know anything about this sort of thing I'm just interested.

Would that blog be a good starting place to understand how modern day economies function? (and alternatives or fixes to certain problems?) What you say always makes a lot of sense to me but I know there are people who think you're crazy and I'd like to know what their arguments are as well.

 

[speculawyer]

I think I'll create a separate thread for the Tagg comments. It is amusing enough.

 

[RDreamer]

What happens to the psychology of people during the transition process to a moneyless society? Is there any research on this kind of thing? Some people spend more on a credit card for example because they don't feel like they're losing something the way you 'feel' like you're losing if you let go out a bunch of 20 dollar bills.

Would a moneyless society in your view be based on something like credit cards or something like Marxian wage slips that can only be used once? I don't know anything about this sort of thing I'm just interested.

Would that blog be a good starting place to understand how modern day economies function? (and alternatives or fixes to certain problems?) What you say always makes a lot of sense to me but I know there are people who think you're crazy and I'd like to know what their arguments are as well.

We're practically already there. Most people get paid either by check or even more now just by direct deposit. I rarely if ever have actual cash. In total through a year my wife and I probably go through maybe $300 in actual real paper cash. I spend everything through debit cards.

Also, new economic perspectives is a great blog, though some of their better explanations might be a bit further back and need searching. I also recommend 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, too, as that's what started me on that path when EV posted it. There are some easy to find PDFs of it online.

 

[Manmademan]

In hindsight, Obama was practically handed a second term.

not sure I agree. I don't think there was anyone that could have beaten him, but the win was the result of a LOT of hard work and GOTV efforts going back to 08.

by the time 2012 rolled around, those grassroots networks had actually expanded, and there wasn't a single republican that had the funds or experience to match it.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, the funny thing about this example is that this isn't true -- any video game will have a point limit by default because of the memory constraints on number formats, although it is accurate to say that they could be programmed not to have such a limit.* Think of it as a limit to point supply caused by legacy approaches to game programming. Kind of like a zero lower bound.


* okay, technically even this isn't true, but either way.

Yeah, I suppose so. But the game instructions could then just tell you to continue adding points manually like Monopoly!

What happens to the psychology of people during the transition process to a moneyless society? Is there any research on this kind of thing? Some people spend more on a credit card for example because they don't feel like they're losing something the way you 'feel' like you're losing if you let go out a bunch of 20 dollar bills.

Would a moneyless society in your view be based on something like credit cards or something like Marxian wage slips that can only be used once? I don't know anything about this sort of thing I'm just interested.

Would that blog be a good starting place to understand how modern day economies function? (and alternatives or fixes to certain problems?) What you say always makes a lot of sense to me but I know there are people who think you're crazy and I'd like to know what their arguments are as well.

Yeah, the link in my post is a good place to start. And what I'm talking about isn't a moneyless society. There is still money. It just is not represented in physical form by paper or coins. It is represented physically only as pixels on computer screens. That is how most money is represented even today. If I want to know how much money I have available to me to spend right now, I check a computer screen that is connected via internet to my bank that reflects a number. When I make an online purchase by typing in some numbers given to me by my bank to authenticate my identity (i.e., use a debit card), that number subsequently changes. My points have been lowered and I have a real good in its place! Whoever I bought the good from gets a corresponding increase in points. No physical money ever changes hands anywhere in the process but a transaction involving something real has occurred.

I rarely use paper money or coins anymore and sometimes go days without having any on hand. I don't expect paper money or coins to be around that much longer.

This chart reflects M1 (funds that are readily accessible for spending) along with its currency component (paper money and coins). The space between them reflects spendable money in non-paper and non-coin form.

 

[soul creator]

Well, the funny thing about this example is that this isn't true -- any video game will have a point limit by default because of the memory constraints on number formats, although it is accurate to say that they could be programmed not to have such a limit.* Think of it as a limit to point supply caused by legacy approaches to game programming. Kind of like a zero lower bound.


* okay, technically even this isn't true, but either way.

United States killscreen coming up

Killscreen coming up you guys

 

[norinrad]

Maybe I missed this being discussed, but Lolz at Mittens and his shitty family:

Mitt Romney had no desire to run, says Tagg Romney



Such fucking pathetic losers

I wonder how the republican voters are feeling after reading this about the guy they voted for

 

[PhoenixDark]

If games can teach you about economics, can't they teach you how to kill to?!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I would laugh so hard if Paul Ryan was Speaker. I think it'll be Cantor though, which sucks because the dude is insufferable and I can't stand his voice. Every word out of that man's mouth makes me want to punch a baby.

The Cantor Effect. He might be my most despised politician next to McConnell and Lieberman.

 

[lordfroakie]

While elections were going on, we missed this little gem:

The First Family:

The series centers on William Johnson (Christopher B. Duncan), who attempts to balance his family life with his wife Katherine (Kellita Smith) and their two sons and two daughters as they adjust to living in the White House, while maintaining his duties as the second African-American and 45th overall President of the United States. William, in turn, also has to deal with other family members, including his boisterous sister-in-law Pauletta (Jackée Harry) and William's own father Alvin (John Witherspoon), who despite his constant bickering with Pauletta, will sometimes partner together with her for various schemes.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

United States killscreen coming up

Killscreen coming up you guys

Where?!

 

[ezekial45]

While elections were going on, we missed this little gem:

The First Family:

4 kids, in laws, and working as the President of the US. Good lord, Obama has it easy.

 

[adamsappel]

Why/how in the world are in-laws and parents going to feature in a show about the president? Are they going to move in? This show is going to be really stereotyped, isn't it?

 

[Forever]

Why/how in the world are in-laws and parents going to feature in a show about the president? Are they going to move in? This show is going to be really stereotyped, isn't it?

Obama's mother in law actually did move in.

 

[Hitokage]

For the record, MMT is not something that "one is." It is the name given to an empirical description of the monetary system.

The T in MMT is apt. It's a model of a monetary system and certain stipulations, but it is by no means the only one nor is it uncontested. It may or may not prove to be the strongest model, but "empirical" does not mean "correct".

 

[empty vessel]

The T in MMT is apt. It's a model of a monetary system and certain stipulations, but it is by no means the only one nor is it uncontested. It may or may not prove to be the strongest model, but "empirical" does not mean "correct".

Well, the T is a misnomer, at least in the narrow understanding of MMT, which is just a description of the monetary system. I disagree that MMT in this sense is a model, at least to the extent that a description of any phenomenon can ever not be a model. Models are representations of a system that can be used for making predictions, not mere descriptions of something that can be observed. For example, if I say that when I jumped in the air I came back down, is that a model, or just a description of an observed phenomenon?

Consider the difference between radar tracking of a hurricane and a hurricane model. A radar just observes an existing hurricane and tracks its movement. After the hurricane passes, a meteorologist can describe what the hurricane did. the meteorologist isn't constructing a model, (s)he is just describing an observed phenomenon. A hurricane model, by contrast, tries to represent how a theoretical (non-existent) hurricane might behave. Then when an actual hurricane exists, the relevant data collected from it gets plugged into the model to try to predict its behavior in the future.

MMT does not try to predict how the monetary system will behave. Like the radar, it just collects data (observations about laws, accounting relationships, and central banking operations) and describes how the monetary system behaves in fact. An economist who acknowledges MMT might well also make economic predictions, but those predictions will be based on an economic model (e.g., Keynesian), not MMT. MMT might inform the model, but it is not itself the model. In other words, understanding the monetary system as it exists is one thing. Economic prediction and policy prescription is another. MMT predicts nothing.

I do agree with you, though, that just because MMT is an empirical description and not a model does not mean that it is a correct empirical description. If I said that when I jumped up in the air just now I floated into outer space, that would still be an empirical description, it just wouldn't be an accurate one. Ultimately, what MMT is and is not is really not important to me. I don't ever even bring it up as such (although I might respond to somebody else's bringing it up). When I post about the monetary system, I post assertions directly about the monetary system, not about "MMT." So if somebody takes issue with the correctness of an empirical assertion I make about what the monetary system is, they should absolutely do that. I'd rather discuss that than what MMT does or does not encompass.

 

[Angry Fork]

Isn't there a danger of money being 'locked' away from you easier if cash doesn't exist? Meaning someone has to control the apparatus by which the digital flow of money circulates and what happens if the person (or company, bank) in charge of a specific credit card decides to prevent money from circulating in a particular direction? Like when donations to wikileaks were blocked.

The transition from cash to credit card in subways scares me a bit too which is being toyed with in NYC, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of government agencies having information available to financially cripple me if they wanted to. If cash existed at least you could have it on hand if you needed it and still use it everywhere.

It reminds me of the debate on digital games vs. physical media. I mostly do digital now but would feel apprehensive if someone said all physical media will be gone.

 

[Dram]

While elections were going on, we missed this little gem:

The First Family

Why do sitcoms always add so many unnecessary children in their shows? Should have just kept it at two.

 

[Mario]

Why do sitcoms always add so many unnecessary children in their shows? Should have just kept it at two.

3 is the Hollywood minimum, surely? Teen to cover "teen issues and situations", pre-teen to cover "pre-teen issues and situations", and the smart mouth annoying young one.

 

[adamsappel]

And a baby to introduce when ratings slip.

 

[Dram]

3 is the Hollywood minimum, surely? Teen to cover "teen issues and situations", pre-teen to cover "pre-teen issues and situations", and the smart mouth annoying young one.

It just wastes time and leaves one child underdeveloped character wise, especially when the kids aren't the focus of the show, i.e. Meg from Family Guy. Should just have the teen and a younger child.

And a baby to introduce when ratings slip.

Does that ever help the ratings?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

3 is the Hollywood minimum, surely? Teen to cover "teen issues and situations", pre-teen to cover "pre-teen issues and situations", and the smart mouth annoying young one.

And a baby to introduce when ratings slip.

Did this become the Modern Family OT?

 

[Mario]

It just wastes time and leaves one child underdeveloped character wise, especially when the kids aren't the focus of the show, i.e. Meg from Family Guy. Should just have the teen and a younger child.

That would put an incredible burden on the writing team though.

Spoiler

I'm just kidding around

 

[dabig2]

Did this become the Modern Family OT?

Actually that talk coupled with the black family reminded me of My Wife and Kids. Got all em tropes down.