One of my exceedingly rare (like ~1 per year) contributions to the twittersphereaverse.
-
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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
One of my exceedingly rare (like ~1 per year) contributions to the twittersphereaverse.
Link
The Autumn Wind
...and they never heard from Hawkian again.
One of my exceedingly rare (like ~1 per year) contributions to the twittersphereaverse.
TacticalFox88
Banned
We really dodged a bullet by not electing that asshole.
As sad as it is to say, the stress of the Presidency probably would've killed him and we would've been stuck with...
Oh dear.
As sad as it is to say, the stress of the Presidency probably would've killed him and we would've been stuck with...
Oh dear.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I need one of those windows from Fringe that can see into alternate universes, because I would never want this to be a reality, but I'd love to see the outcome of it.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Rocket Scientist
Member
I know someone who viewed McCain as a hero. Really wonder how he feels about him since 2008. Nice reply Hawkin.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I saw an ad for paid forum posting on gaf over the weekend. Nothing like drumming up support for your cause by making some think you have a bigger representation that weekdays truly there.I screwed up and started reading the commentsWTF @ people opposing the idea of free public wifi?!?
Lame. Can't believe he wussed out. I need some more comedy in my life and god knows Hermain Cain isn't running for anything for a while.
It's more likely that the Boston Herald is a piece of shit rag making it up and Taggart was never thinking about running.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Poligaf.
I need some help.
I need to collect as much info (Blogs/studies/reports/op-eds/interviews/whatever) that can help me explain why the debt is not a problem, at the least at this time, in the best, most thorough, yet easy to understand way.
I know krugman is especially good at this though more obscure sources would be awesome too. My main points are going to explain the fact that we have a fiat system and thus default its technically impossible as well as looking at bond market shows that the "markets" have no fear of the debt and continue to trust the US treasury as the golden standard of stability (also bringing up Japan to show how these debts have never done damage).
I know EV has a bunch on this but was wondering if there was any non-mmt information. I've seen a bunch of posts through out my lurking but I can't seem to find much. The more information the better. Anything can help.
I need some help.
I need to collect as much info (Blogs/studies/reports/op-eds/interviews/whatever) that can help me explain why the debt is not a problem, at the least at this time, in the best, most thorough, yet easy to understand way.
I know krugman is especially good at this though more obscure sources would be awesome too. My main points are going to explain the fact that we have a fiat system and thus default its technically impossible as well as looking at bond market shows that the "markets" have no fear of the debt and continue to trust the US treasury as the golden standard of stability (also bringing up Japan to show how these debts have never done damage).
I know EV has a bunch on this but was wondering if there was any non-mmt information. I've seen a bunch of posts through out my lurking but I can't seem to find much. The more information the better. Anything can help.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I know this isn't the previaling view here, but I'd say that the debt is a problem just not an immediate one and addressing it exacerabates our immeiate problems.
MMT, at least as interpreted on this thread, seems liek magical thinking to make problems go away. I doubt it's that simple, or it would be a more widespread view.
MMT, at least as interpreted on this thread, seems liek magical thinking to make problems go away. I doubt it's that simple, or it would be a more widespread view.
Can you imagine if someone who succeeded the presidency after an assassination of X said "X was a little too liberal/conservative for my taste" nowadays? Just days, or hell, even a few years after X was assassinated?
We'd probably end up with another assassination on our hands :/
The Librarian
Banned
I know you already cited Krugman, but here's his MorningJoe review where he argues what you're asking for.
Blergmeister
Member
Could you explain further how debt is a problem? MMT, at least how I understand it, states that Federal spending is only constrained by inflation, not revenue. It doesn't say that we have infinite capacity to spend. It doesn't even say that we should spend or tax more than we are currently, as thats just policy preferences.
The Librarian
Banned
Well, that was said in the Executive Office Building, only between the two men. You wouldn't have heard about that conversation until years after the assassination.
empty vessel
Member
Seems as good of a place as any to put this:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/u-s-and-states-prepare-to-sue-s-p-over-mortgage-ratings/
I don't know why you'd want to avoid MMT references since that appears to be what you intend to argue.
http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
U.S. and States Prepare to Sue S.&P. Over Mortgage Ratings
The Justice Department, along with state prosecutors, plans to file civil charges against Standard & Poors Ratings Service, accusing the firm of fraudulently rating mortgage bonds that led to the financial crisis, people briefed on the plan said Monday.
Up until last last week, the Justice Department had been in settlement talks with S.&P., these people said. But the negotiations broke down after the Justice Department said it would seek a settlement in excess of 10 figures, or at least $1 billion, these people said, which would wipe out the profits of S.&P.s parent, the McGraw-Hill Company, for an entire year.
The Justice Department, along with state prosecutors, plans to file civil charges against Standard & Poors Ratings Service, accusing the firm of fraudulently rating mortgage bonds that led to the financial crisis, people briefed on the plan said Monday.
Up until last last week, the Justice Department had been in settlement talks with S.&P., these people said. But the negotiations broke down after the Justice Department said it would seek a settlement in excess of 10 figures, or at least $1 billion, these people said, which would wipe out the profits of S.&P.s parent, the McGraw-Hill Company, for an entire year.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/u-s-and-states-prepare-to-sue-s-p-over-mortgage-ratings/
I don't know why you'd want to avoid MMT references since that appears to be what you intend to argue.
http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
I don't know too much about MMT, but the indicators by which mainstream economists decide if the debt is too high (inflation, yield rates, unemployment) all suggests that it isn't.
Why do you think it's too high?
What do you think our debt should be?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I can't answer these questions with any depth. Generally, I tend to think of debt to GDP as the issue. If we were to reach a point where we had difficultly servicing the debt without issuing more currency, that would be a problem. I realize MMT says we can issue money at will, but the results of that action are theoretical. Debt has owners, and such an action will affect them.
Black Mamba
Member
http://nsc.newamerica.net/sites/new...ean_DebtDeficitsDemographics_November2012.pdf
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/debt-2011-06.pdf
Mainstream economists don't really know when the debt is too high. No one actually knows if the debt level for a sovereign money producer matters.
So even though you can't tell what is the desirable level of debt, you think we have too much of it.
So I'll ask you again, why?
You can use GDP/debt ratio in you explanation if you want.
Again, this has nothing to do with MMT, I'm talking in pure Keynesian terms here, though for the record, I don't think MMT says that.
And I'm really not sure what the debt holders have to do with any of that.
Mainstream economists mostly use inflation to figure that out.
Black Mamba
Member
Is debt to GDP the issue or is interest payments to GDP the issue?
And what do you make of the "fake debt" we have? Does it matter?
There's a general belief in mainstream economics that debt matter in the long term. Just no one knows when that point hits and what it will look like. And maybe it doesn't matter.
inflation and debt don't always go hand in hand. See: Japan.
edit: even if you look at a case like Zimbwabwe, it was a supply shock that was the cause of the inflation originally, not debt.
If unnecessary deficits lead to huge debt and then uncontrollable inflation, economists would point it out. But generally speaking, we don't see this. We see something else being a cause.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Chichlov, ease up. I'm not making a case, I'm explaining my already self-proclaimed weak understanding.
If Debt-to-GDP were too high, more revenues would be put to servicing debt and less into public spending, which in turn would depress the economy.
In effect, it would do to us involuntarily what we've chosen to do voluntarily.
As far as debt holders, they are the demand. If (wildly extreme case here) we starting issuing currency and causing inflation, then demand for debt could shift elsewhere (currently inconceivable but so is issuing currency to cover debt) and I don't think anyone knows what the results would be.
And MMT might not say that, but it seems EV's link and past posts do.
BM: Interest on the debt.
If Debt-to-GDP were too high, more revenues would be put to servicing debt and less into public spending, which in turn would depress the economy.
In effect, it would do to us involuntarily what we've chosen to do voluntarily.
As far as debt holders, they are the demand. If (wildly extreme case here) we starting issuing currency and causing inflation, then demand for debt could shift elsewhere (currently inconceivable but so is issuing currency to cover debt) and I don't think anyone knows what the results would be.
And MMT might not say that, but it seems EV's link and past posts do.
BM: Interest on the debt.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Do you seriously think that Mr. I want to punch the President in the face Romney actually has a chance of winning the MA senate seat?
PhoenixDark
Banned
McCain...
I hope Obama personally negotiates with the Iranians for a week behind the scenes just to hear the outrage...and then emerges with an agreement for them to end their nuclear program and re-enter the global community. What better way to expose that Israel, the GOP, etc have no interest in peace - and are solely concerned with perpetual warfare.
I hope Obama personally negotiates with the Iranians for a week behind the scenes just to hear the outrage...and then emerges with an agreement for them to end their nuclear program and re-enter the global community. What better way to expose that Israel, the GOP, etc have no interest in peace - and are solely concerned with perpetual warfare.
This is very good news. It's such a no-brainer that it's a little bewildering that any state is rejecting it, but I'm glad to see a number of GOP governors doing so. It's good for the people, very good for the medical industry, and good budgeting for the state. You've got to be strongly philosophically predisposed to punish the poor to reject them. It's kind of a litmus test for governors.
He gets it. It's a reminder to me of one of the many reasons Obama's reelection was a big fucking deal. For all the gridlock we're going to see for four years, stuff like this will have a big impact on millions of lives.
Sirpopopop
Member
It's why Nikki Haley is a horrible governor.
I've had some friends who worked as consultants with her government. Their reports are scathing.
I've had some friends who worked as consultants with her government. Their reports are scathing.
Speaking of McCain: https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/298550584787730433
I no longer have any doubt that Hagel will be confirmed.
I no longer have any doubt that Hagel will be confirmed.
My problem is not that you can't tell the appropriate levels of debt, I can't tell you that either, is that you pass judgment on the size of the debt without knowing that figure, which I find problematic.
That is all.
To steal Krugman (an MMT hater by the way) point - so because sometime in the future, we might be in a situation that would require us to do some painful things, we must do them now?
That doesn't make too much sense to me.
empty vessel
Member
One problem that I see from your framing is that you think "issuing money at will" is an act that MMT posits can be done in the future to avoid some problem. This is a common misconception of MMT and isn't what MMT says; MMT simply recognizes that every dollar the US spends right now is "issued at will." MMT (correctly) sees every dollar that the US government spends as money that it has "printed." In other words, MMT does not say that the government can crank up the printing machines in the future to pay off debt. It recognizes that the printing machines have been steadily running for the last 40+ years.
Money out = money printed
Money in = money shredded
People who don't understand MMT also seem to think that the amount of base money in the economy is static, when in fact it is and always has been increasing (as it must if we are to have economic and population growth).
So what exactly does it mean to object to "issuing more currency" when creating more money is the norm?
None of this should be taken to mean that MMT says that a government can or should have limitless debt. Indeed, MMT recognizes that monetarily sovereign governments do not have to issue debt at all. So if the amount of money your government is promising to pay people in the future concerns you, then you ought to be arguing that it should stop making those promises. But what has to be recognized is that the government's ability to spend today has no connection to the debt it takes on today. All of that debt is completely voluntary on the government's part.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Holy shit at suing Standard and Poors for all the profits their parent company makes. That's some good shit.
Black Mamba
Member
Debt to GDP has risen while interest payments to GDP has dropped.
We are almost at historic lows for that right now.
And the current rates are very low. And future debt burden can be wiped out by an improving economy.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
You have me backwards on the issue. I said up front I think it's a problem in the long term, *not* in the short term.
I'm a believer in borrow and grow out of recession and lessen debt when revenues are good, not to try to cut back when they are bad.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Did you guys see the report on him making 150k for crazy little 'work' right before he was nominated? I saw it fly by on Tumblr but didn't register everything.
TacticalFox88
Banned
That would be some grade A political wizardry.
Obama and the Democrats re-entering Iran into the Global Economy.
Holy shit.
Do want.
jamesinclair
Banned
Hold the fuck up.
The ratings people are the same as the text book price gouging people?
Fuck this planet
Rating agencies are a joke.
If you know someone in a large investment bank, ask them what they think about rating agencies.
I really have no idea why anyone would listen to them after they were wrong about everything.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I deleted the part above becuase I understand it, and do not disagree.
The nuance here is a mater of degree, not absolutes. Creating money at will is what happens, what happens when it's done *more*? That's what I am talking about.
Similarly, I don't think government debt is bad, in fact I'd say it's essential to a lot of our economy. It's a matter of how much.
Lastly, whether on a fiat system or not, the money supply is controlled. I don't think abandoning or extremely loosening that control is a good idea.
And no, I don't know what the right levels for these controls should be. My initial post was simply to the comment that "debts aren't a problem" which I think is overly simplistic.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
1) Did not know that. Good. (Presuming that we ever have to raise interest rates, that will change, but that's for later)
2) Your last sentence, agree and that's the plan. Hence my concern about this as a future thing and not a current thing.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not couching some sort of pro-austerity view in terms of "later issues" I really mean it's something to be addressed at a time other than now. As in, booming economic times. Even then, I see the economy more growing that the debt shrinking, just the debt not keeping pace.
I don't think saying "we need to figure out what is the desirable level of debt before we say if we have too much or too little of it" is the same as saying "debts aren't a problem".
Saying that the current level of debt is not a problem is not simplistic, it's at worst wrong.
And I have never seen any economists who suggests that the money supply doesn't matter.
That exactly what Keynesians prescribe.
Countercyclical, yo!
It served this country very well for many years, and we got off of it for no good reason.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yeah, I'm on board.
"Fiscal conservatism" has been one of the last vestiges of my conservative upbringing to die, but 2008-present really killed it. I see Europe (in particular Greece and Ireland) and I see us, and I wonder why all the tea party people want us to be like Europe when we had been doing exactly what was working until they derailed it.
And then, of course, they harp on the slow recovery...
Rocket Scientist
Member
Cool now you just need to convince a few dozen million other people and we can get this keynesian mmt party started. Or we can just install ev as benevolent dictator. But I guess you guys seem to like 'democracy' ugh.
That's 100% understandable, and if you look carefully at my post history (though I'm certain you can find better ways to entertain yourself) I'm sure you can find times where I accepted (implicitly or explicitly) that we have a debt problem.
It took me a while to realize that I can't claim anything about the size of the debt if I can't articulate what is the desired amount of it.
This should really be a technical question, not an ideological one, and it only became an ideological question when conservatives thought that with enough debt they can persuade the public to cut social security and medicare, programs they don't like for unrelated ideological reasons.
Black Mamba
Member
The problem with our long term debt (if it is a problem) is healthcare costs. But the problem with healthcare costs is not limited to public spending but also private spending.
Fact of the matter is that we are spending now and into the future way too much a percentage of our GDP into healthcare. Everything else is fine.
If someone is concerned about public debt, they should be concerned about healthcare and finding a way to actually bring down costs over time.
The rub is that most people who are insanely vocal about the debt also don't want to do anything about healthcare costs.
(this isn't directed at you Ignantz, my statement is a general statement not directed at anyone here)
Fact of the matter is that we are spending now and into the future way too much a percentage of our GDP into healthcare. Everything else is fine.
If someone is concerned about public debt, they should be concerned about healthcare and finding a way to actually bring down costs over time.
The rub is that most people who are insanely vocal about the debt also don't want to do anything about healthcare costs.
(this isn't directed at you Ignantz, my statement is a general statement not directed at anyone here)
We also spend way too much on defense (but I agree with the general crux of your argument).
Shadow Hog
Member
But if we allow sequestration to happen, "the world as we know it will end"!
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
And $1 billion is only one year of profits. Wow :O
- Status