Aaron Strife
Banned
Typical liberal propaganda. When are you commies gonna learn.
-
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
empty vessel
Member
Any for-profit entity must place making a profit as its first priority. That means that any for-profit entity cannot make curing cancer patients its first priority. I would never go to a for-profit cancer center if I had cancer. I would want the institution to which I go to make helping me its first priority.
Well, banks only leverage the government's currency, they don't net create it. Every loan a bank makes has a corresponding liability. When a bank loan gets paid back, the money it leveraged (or "created") gets destroyed. Only the government can add dollars into the system. And, specifically, only the Treasury can do so by spending them into it. The "debt" is just a running tally of how much it has net created.
I saw that image on my facebook feed too, and I was going to reply to it, but then I thought "Man, I have better things to do on a saturday".
Best decision I made all day.
Don't waste your time with these "fiscal conservatives of convenience". Not a peep was heard from those people when unfunded tax cuts for the rich, two wars, a prescription drug program, and a massive homeland security apparatus was thrown on the credit card whose limit was raised without condition.
makingmusic476
Member
Posted this:
Hopefully instead of just "derp", his response could be something from Heritage foundation or Fox News and the like to make this semi-interesting.
yes I'm aware that they're pretty much the same thing as "derp"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Often my greatest insights occur to me late at night, and I just had one. I'm in bed on my iPod and read through some takes on Obama lobbying his state to adopt gay marriage...when I thought what if this is the WH plan to roll out the Hagel nomination? He's being slammed by progressives due to his anti-gay views, and perhaps this move on gay marriage is a pre-emptive move to excite the base before dropping the boom.
Gay power brokers spent a lot of money to get Obama re-elected, I doubt they want to see his first move be to nominate someone who clearly has or had a problem with gay people. Personally helping get gay marriage passed in Illinois would erase any disappointment.
Gay power brokers spent a lot of money to get Obama re-elected, I doubt they want to see his first move be to nominate someone who clearly has or had a problem with gay people. Personally helping get gay marriage passed in Illinois would erase any disappointment.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Wow! Wow, wow, wow! I cannot believe the irony. These people are disgusting.
Edit: So he supports dialogue with Iran and Hamas? What the hell we need him in charge if he's going to act on that.
Edit: Any word on when Hillary is going to testify?
More to the pont, for-profit healthcare represents a conflict of interest, as the goal of good medicine is to lose customers to wellness and reduce sales whle doing so.
Yeah, I get responses like that a lot. It's like their brain can't process it, but they know it's wrong and they're afraid.
My cousin stopped responding to that facebook page the other day after I posted:
But his friend just posted "wow" afterwards.
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...ures-if-american-people-decide-its-important/
Oh, come the fuck on, Bams!
Oh, come the fuck on, Bams!
Link
The Autumn Wind
What's wrong with that strategy? I think a majority of the people will support it, especially after the latest incidents, and it will cushion the backlash of those screaming "He's taking our guns!"
To be honest, if the country isn't behind it, Obama would be wise to get immigration and other stuff done first. Why get bogged down in an unwinnable fight?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Nothing new there.
I am now fully invested in this debate and want updates.
He was always going to get tax rate increases Graham. No matter how much bafoonery you people engaged in.
The only question is if he gives up relevant concessions to you idiots for something he was always getting free...
Unlike the title Think Progress gave that article, I see nothing wrong with his answer.
That's how representative democracy works.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Oh, nothing is wrong with the strategy, I just didn't like the way he worded it, I know what he meant but it comes off as him saying "Till you guys tell me to do something about it, I'm not doing anything about it."
But alas, semantics and all that jazz.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Obama said:
Bu bu PD said!!!
Damn straight Bams.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Whatever, Obama. True Americans know you'll be illegally changing the Constitution and running for a third term.
The Librarian
Banned
Hey! He had another Great Insight™ last night. Stop trying to undermine him.
I think it comes mostly from the sensationalist title Think Progress picked.
He said specifically that he's going to put forward a proposal and he's going to push for it.
He's also correct in saying that this will never get passed unless there's a strong public support for it.
What if he was also wrong about Zelda music?
inceptionbear.gif
soul creator
Member
I onced watched Scott Pilgrim with lady friend, which features Zelda music, and got laid later that night. You might be on to something...
If only we knew this seven years ago, we could have all been upping our game with the ladies/fellas by blasting Zelda music.
Graham also said something today while talking about Obama's political victory that "We have not taken steps to not become Greece." Herp derp.
I really wonder if some of these people really think that. I know some politicians are just using this debt shit to cut social programs, but others.... I mean does Lindsey really not see any difference at all between us and Greece and the monetary system? Also does he not see anything at all in the effects of Greece implementing austerity and how well that worked?
I really wonder if some of these people really think that. I know some politicians are just using this debt shit to cut social programs, but others.... I mean does Lindsey really not see any difference at all between us and Greece and the monetary system? Also does he not see anything at all in the effects of Greece implementing austerity and how well that worked?
CyclopsRock
Member
Blimey, the MMT bandwagon has really taken control, here, eh?
I guess you're all for Austerity on state budgets then, right?
I guess you're all for Austerity on state budgets then, right?
Just as a note in the margin, Greece might very well had big problems regardless if they had their own currency.
(Devaluing ones currency, and leaning on inflation to reduce ones debt does interesting things to your bonds if you're in Greeces position.)
Can you expand on this a little?
Because states are users of the currency rather than issuers, yes I'm more "conservative" when it comes to state budgets in that they should be more careful not to overspend and at most times be balanced. That said, I think during a recessionary time you should be careful not to cut too much demand, because then you start shrinking your economy. Then your revenue goes down from the shrink, and your debt goes up. So, if you can cut a few things here and there that don't affect demand too terribly much, then that's good. If it affects those in the poor and middle class, though, it'll likely affect demand quite a bit.
It's very situational, really. If you can spend a bit more, but know that it'll pull you out of a recessionary period quicker, then I would support it. That's like putting money down on a car that could help you go to work when you're out of a job. Yes perhaps you can't "afford it" right at that moment, but it'll get you to a place where you can.
I also support federal spending to help states so they don't have to go through these things quite as much, and when a state gets that support they should absolutely not turn it down like some dumbass governors did (Scott Walker).
Maybe crazy idiots like Bachmann, but not establishment Republicans.
Just look at what George Bush said after 9/11 and when the economy was getting ready to tank in '07 - he was pretty much saying to the American public - "shop more".
Liberals were all like "zomg consumerism" but it's a strict Keynesian solution, Hayek would've advocated increased savings and paying off your household debt.
So yeah, when push came to shove, even the most Austrian president we ever had found his inner Keynes, that should really tell you everything you need to know.
It's starving the beast, that's all it ever was.
Is this in response to someone in specific?
Because I see mostly classical Keynesian posts here (which is what used to be call "mainstream economic theory" up until pretty damn recently).
Yeah, I could tell Romney was definitely in that camp. He advocated Keynesian policies, but had to placate the tea party base and kind of reform the policies around what might be palatable for them (weaponized Keynesianism!).
I still get confused from time to time, though, on who's actually a true believer in this stuff and who is just using it because the big scary debt number is now big and scary enough that they can win elections and arguments based on it.
I still think this was one of the weirder things to watch play out over the last elections, too. Largely the republican base doesn't understand and actively goes against normal economics to the point where people running for office have to also parrot those dumb views. It comes across even weirder than parroting dumb social views, because at least those are kind of subjective in a minor way.
CyclopsRock
Member
Keynes wasn't a Chartalist, though. Indeed, he actively considered himself to be a classical liberal, something which Hayek was confused about during their letter debates. He suggested using deficits to increase demand, but not that this was universally possible, or that the government "can't run out of money you yourself create" as has been said at least once on this page of this thread. Whilst tautologically true, it's basically irrelevant. I can't run out of CyclopsRock dollars either, but if no one wants them, they're useless. the US economy is large and powerful, but only a fool would suggest that deficits literally don't matter, which appears to be the logical extension of the "you can't run out of money you print" argument, nor did he advocate removal of the bond system.
Likewise, to the "they're basically paying us to take their money!" re: negative interest rates, that's true, and only a silly billy - be they private or public - would ignore an offer like that. It's worth noting, though, that by far the single largest holder (and increasing, not decreasing, as a share of debt - up almost 3x in the last decade) of US bonds is the US government itself. This has the benefit of pushing down the interest rates of the other, foreign holders (as well as domesticate ones like pension funds which, obviously, suffer from negative interest rates), but also means that those arms of the US governments that buy its own bonds will lose out when they get them repaid at negative interest rates. Given this is such a large portion of the debt, the perceived gains from this negative interest rate is significantly lower than it appears on the surface.
But, further to this, it seems that this is offered an argument to continue with public spending. The problem with this is that, short of building a lot of infrastructure, this encourages the production of structural deficits - which, again, when you're having other people pay you to take their money is OK, but structural deficits aren't easy to remove. If you do take a look at Greece (and I'm not drawing a comparison with the US here, but we can all learn lessons), it used debt to bolster it's GDP for about a decade. It's GDP rose almost exactly in line with its debt for its first decade in the Euro - so the economy itself really didn't grow at all. Its wages also rose in real terms, as well as its public welfare programmes etc. The problem is that it wasn't actually producing any more - indeed, it's increased wages actually caused its international competitiveness to go down. Its started cutting now - which has had disasterous effects on its economy - and it's GDP has fallen, but it still hasn't fallen as far as it grew since it's adoption of the Euro; A place it'll inevitably end up in, as it's real economy has not grown in that time. This highlights the problem is using temporarily cheap credit (as Greece's was from the ECB, after their own high rates with the drachma) to fund not infrastructural projects, but ones that need constant payments - that credit won't always be there. A better use for the money, therefore, in my view, is to either earmark specific parts of it to specific bits of infrastructure, or to fund tax cuts to the lowest paid (and then work your way up - in the UK now, anyone earning under about $14k doesn't pay any income tax at all, and that ceiling is going up still). These both have the effect of increasing demand without offering long term liabilities to the government which do real harm when they are later removed.
While it's possible there's a political calculus at play as you described, my thinking is it has more to do with Obama's understanding of how social change happens. I wish I could find it, but Obama has laid it out pretty clearly in a few interviews early in his term. He's less interested in getting engaged in a big national debate than simply presiding over a gradual change, and helping to move the dial a bit as it happens. The gradual roll out of regulations and such supportive of gay rights through his first term is consistant with that approach, slowly making it the norm. His "evolution" which coincided with the turn in popular opinion, which helped move it further, is another.
And he knows that as more and more states allow gay marriage, it will become increasingly accepted as the norm; at some point the SCOTUS will step in and make it national. I think he's just trying to help that process along as opportunity allows.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Congrats GOP. You're the worst Congress in Generations.
CyclopsRock
Member
Wait, are we associating "best" with "most laws created"?
empty vessel
Member
States are financially constrained because, as RDreamer said, they are mere users of the federal governments currency. That doesn't mean anybody supports "austerity" for them, although it does mean that their spending is limited by their revenue and borrowing capacity.
This is exactly how a state government's revenue can be boosted when its tax revenues fall, e.g., as a result of an economic recession. The state government's spending is limited to its revenue, but its revenue is not limited to tax collection, because the federal government is another source of revenue. The federal government is obligated to backstop state governments and has bailed out various state governments many times with nary a peep from other state governments. (See, e.g., every natural disaster.) Note that this could be a potential solution to the Eurozone mess, but it would require restructuring their system to provide for a more powerful federal entity. Germany whines about bailing out Greece (despite the fact that Greece's use of the Euro was a boon to Germany), but New York did not whine about bailing out Texas after the Savings and Loan crisis.
One of the reasons our unemployment rate is so high currently is because the federal government failed to satisfy its obligations to bail out state governments during this last recession. Had it done so, unemployment would be a couple points lower than it is now.
Well, it can't. The thing is that this is a counter argument to the statement "We will run out of money." We can't. Period. It's not irrelevant when the conversation is focused on whether we do or do not have that specific money, and people who say we don't point to the debt and deficit as proof.
Basically you need to think of "the government can't run out of money you yourself create" statement as something intended to get the conversation back on the tautologically correct track. If we're arguing about things that are untrue, then we've strayed and our arguments hold no real weight. If we accept the government cannot run out of money that they create, though, then we're starting from a basis of truth and we can further examine the real problem that may indeed happen if the government overprints its money. Correctly arguing in the basis of reality is never irrelevant.
That is not really the logical extension at all, at least I think what you're saying isn't. People who seem to dislike or fear MMT seem to have this notion that "deficits don't matter" means we can print forever and ever without regard to anything at all. That is not the case. Deficits (i.e. the specific amount we spend in surplus of what we take in) doesn't matter, true. But what does matter is what we spend in relation to inflation and unemployment. Those are your barometers, not a specific deficit number. I.e. if we're in a good economic time, and things are booming, inflation is slightly high and we have full employment a very high deficit could very well push us over the edge to higher inflation, and that would be bad.
So, deficits matter, because spending matters in relation to other things. Most people who know MMT say this and know this. The reason people seem to be confused on this issue is that we're bringing it up during a time when, seriously, deficits are not a bad thing. Our barometers indicate that we need a larger deficit right now, not a lower one. That is right now, though, not forever on in perpetuity.
I'm not aware of any economic discipline that argues that the government can't increase the money supply in a fiat currency system, nor am I aware of any such theory that claim that overall money supply has no effect on the economy.
This has nothing to do with MMT.
You're arguing against Keynesian economics here, which is fine, but once again, this has nothing to do with MMT specifically, this is the old countercyclical vs. procyclical argument.
CyclopsRock
Member
Both these paragraphs are linked, though. They're both true, but MMT'ers interpretation of money supply and fiat currencies entirely informs what appears to be their consensus view on Keynesian stimulus - which is understandable, as the cost of borrowing is a big part (though obviously not all of) the arguments against Keynesian stimulus. I often see those agreeing with MMT say that there's nothing about MMT that specifically demands public spending - MMT is primarily concerned with money supply, after all, and it's offered that what you do with that money is up to you, be it public spending or tax cuts (which is basically what I was advocating in that bottom paragraph) - yet no one ever seems to do the the latter, only the former. And of course, a big part of the MMT theory on maintaining the value of a currency comes from the governments ability to force its citizens to pay tax in US Dollars, which means that it's fairly difficult to advocate MMT policies without also advocating Keynesian ones.
empty vessel
Member
First, on Keynes:
From Keynes's A Treatise on Money.
Second, the proposition "you can't run out of money" is not equivalent to the proposition "the amount of money you create and spend has no consequence." The first is true. The second is not. Accordingly, the relevant questions are (1) what are the consequences of creating and spending too much money; and (2) how do we know when too much money is created and spent?
People like you just point to the very existence of money creation itself (deficit) and say: too much. It's a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even require further rebuttal. If we are to be serious about this subject matter, then we must investigate the two questions above.
If the US government owes itself so much debt, one ought to recognize that debt as totally illusory. I can talk about the debt that my left hand owes to my right hand, but it'd be a stupid thing to account for.
The irony of talking about US bonds as debt is that US dollars, themselves, are debt. A bond is a debt instrument that just replaces another debt instrument.
The bolded statements are economically diametrically opposed. Both cannot be true.
Part of the reason I voted for him again was his steady stance on DADT. He could have very well easily EO'd it away, but he took the smart route of "just wait a bit longer" and let the courts repeal it. Gave it a better foundation to build off of and stopped kicking the DADT repeal can down the road for another conservative president to undo.
It was agonizing for that period of time, but was a much better way for future progress.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Did you read the article?
CyclopsRock
Member
Yes. I assumed the bits bolded about the number of laws being passed were relevant.
The Librarian
Banned
Even if we don't use number of laws passed as a barometer for the quality of a Congress, the 112th is still the worst Congress in recent history.
Technically yes cutting taxes and public spending are in the same sort of category as tools to spur economic development. I think the reason that you don't see so many people advocating cutting taxes is that if you do an across the board tax cut you are mainly giving a lot of money to the already well off. It tends to skew things. If your primary concern is demand in a recessionary time you have to skew your spending and cuts toward what will give you the most demand. Tax cuts aren't that thing. Spending increases on things like infrastructure are much better, because you absolutely know that money will be spent here on people in the US, and thus it affects demand a bit more. The other thing is that a lot of other governmental programs and spending that we'd say to increase primarily help lower class people who tend to spend all of their money and affect demand more. Last, things like education spending and things like that are good because that's an investment. That more educated populace will help you later on, too, when they can perhaps invent new things and come up with new businesses. And spending on renewable energy tends to both help local economies (because you can't really import wind energy) and helps us secure the future.
So, there are plenty of reasons people tend to gravitate more toward spending that cuts at this point. We've tried the cuts under Bush, and they largely didn't work that well. We also now have some of our lowest rates in history already. You're reaching the point of diminishing returns on that.
And on top of that I personally believe at this moment it's far more palatable to cut spending, whatever it is, than to raise taxes. People will almost always fucking hate raising taxes. It's a hard as hell thing to get done, and thus I'm really apprehensive about lowering it any further, because it just won't be going back up even when we need it to.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
In terms of productivity, easily.
But at least there weren't senators beating the shit out of each other on the floor with canes or anything.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
What about the other parts were previous bipartisan bills that never ever Had trouble getting through congress have been blocked?
Stuff like the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act?
Is it right to assume you only read the bolded?
You also don't seem to have a problem that a significant number of bills passed have been about renaming/naming post offices and crap? How how much wasted time the House has spent on 'repealing Obamacare?'
You see no problems with any of it?
This congress has been literally the least productive congress since the 40's and bar none, one of the worst as well.
The Librarian
Banned
I dunno. I think the Senate could get more things done if Harry Reid were allowed to beat the shit out of the Senate's turtle.
And by "modern" I meant to type "recent." Whoops!
- Status