Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

I should stop watching MTP. Haven't seen the interview yet, but the panel discussion is just horrible. You cannot tango without a partner, and Obama hasn't had one for four years. Gregory read a tweet from Axelrod shaming the media for not admitting one side is to blame, then the panel determined both sides are to blame because nothing gets done.

Then there's the annoying Lincoln historian who argued Obama should invite congressmen to sleep over at the WH, and Obama should take a train around the country in order to get out of the bubble and talk to folks. Seriously, that was her solution to obstruction.

 

[S1lent]

Then there's the annoying Lincoln historian who argued Obama should invite congressmen to sleep over at the WH, and Obama should take a train around the country in order to get out of the bubble and talk to folks. Seriously, that was her solution to obstruction.

Ha...was that Doris Kearns Goodwin?

 

[pigeon]

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?

This is an interesting phrasing. Surely the questions should be about the effects of creating and spending money at all, rather than "too much," which is presumably simply a special case. (That is to say, surely the effects of expanding the money should be, in the main, continuous, rather than discrete, and so understood continuously.) Similarly, the answer to 2 is presumably just "when the consequences of 1 become problematic instead of beneficial."

 

[RDreamer]

Then there's the annoying Lincoln historian who argued Obama should invite congressmen to sleep over at the WH, and Obama should take a train around the country in order to get out of the bubble and talk to folks. Seriously, that was her solution to obstruction.

So... he should do what he just did for months on end and go back to campaigning?

 

[The Librarian]

Apparently the major sticking point (that is, not the only one, but the major one) is that the Senate GOP is asking for chained-CPI, and Senate Dems are like, "No." One Dem aide called it a "poison pill."

Edit: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/285463537688649729

 

[empty vessel]

This is an interesting phrasing. Surely the questions should be about the effects of creating and spending money at all, rather than "too much," which is presumably simply a special case.

That is true. It's just that all anybody seems to express concern about is the "too much" aspect. I think this is because, on some level, everybody must already acknowledge that all money is in fact created, i.e., it is something we do. Of course, it should be just as important to ask what are the consequences of creating too little money, especially since that is the situation we have been in since WWII.

Similarly, the answer to 2 is presumably just "when the consequences of 1 become problematic instead of beneficial."

Yes, but this just replaces one abstraction with another. I agree that would be the test. But then we still have to classify certain outcomes as "beneficial" and "problematic." These are usually obvious, i.e., an economy in which wealth production is maximized is "beneficial" and one in which it is not is "problematic." But, in terms of real power, it is not the case that everybody views an economy in which wealth production is maximized as "beneficial," because such an economy may erode the individual economic power of some. For example, we know that unemployment is a suboptimal economic state. It represents vast amounts of wasted potential for wealth creation. Yet, unemployment is very much in the interest of persons and institutional entities (e.g., corporations) who benefit from keeping wages low and profits high.

 

[The Librarian]

Looks like talks have broken down. Reid just went to the floor and said Democrats cannot make a counteroffer to what the Republicans are proposing.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

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.

I understand that but you are describing a large majority of all healthcare. The initial point I was responding to was about a for-profit cancer treatment center. Even not-for-profit healthcare entities, have reasons to keep people from coming back. I was taking exception that a cancer center is worse for being 'for-profit'. How that is different than a for-profit surgery center or clinic, in our current system is where I'm getting lost. Most doctors and healthcare entities are interested in making a profit. And we are not inherently evil because of it. I would wager most businesses are for-profit.

If you separate healthcare entities among the four entities that the public has a large amount of trust, you may be able to tease out police and clergy as not being for-profit, yet lawyers are.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Washington (CNN) – A Democratic source familiar with the talks tells CNN they have hit a “major setback” because Republicans are now insisting that any fiscal cliff deal include “chained CPI,” which Democrats consider a “poison pill.”

The Democratic source says they understand the president offered this in talks with House Speaker John Boehner, but Democrats say that was in the context of a larger deal — in exchange for changes to the way the debt ceiling is approached — which is not in the plan anymore.

Chained CPI effectively means that Social Security recipients would have smaller checks each month. Most Democrats oppose this, but many were willing to go along with it as part of a larger deal.
This Democratic source did not want to be identified because of the closed nature of the talks, but was clearly giving the information to CNN to make public the Democrats’ point of view and push the Republicans to give in on this high stakes issue.

The source also told CNN that Democrats are currently “going outside their comfort zone” in these talks with regard to tax rates — keeping tax rates in place for higher income households than the president wants. The source also said Democrats are negotiating with Republicans on extending the current lower estate tax rate, a big issue for many Republicans as well as moderate Democrats.

A Senate Republican leadership source responded by pointing to the president’s comments in an interview that aired Sunday suggesting he is willing to look at chained CPI “in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long term.”

Democrats, however, do not see the mini-deal they’re talking about now as a long term prospect with regard to entitlements.

CNN is also told that if things don’t change by the time senators meet at 3 p.m. ET, Democratic leaders will have to tell their rank and file that things are not there yet.

This source further said that they will decide by early this evening whether to pull the plug and put the fallback bill on the floor, a bill that keeps tax rates in place for those making less than $250,000, fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, the so-called doc fix, and extending unemployment benefits.

Heh

 

[B-Dubs]

Heh

PD is just batting 1000 today!

 

[Chichikov]

So the GOP says either we get social security benefit cuts or we will blow the economy.
Going against it sounds like an EXTRMLEY easy message to sell to the American public, and the DNC should hammer that point with everything they got.

 

[empty vessel]

I understand that but you are describing a large majority of all healthcare. The initial point I was responding to was about a for-profit cancer treatment center. Even not-for-profit healthcare entities, have reasons to keep people from coming back. I was taking exception that a cancer center is worse for being 'for-profit'. How that is different than a for-profit surgery center or clinic, in our current system is where I'm getting lost. Most doctors and healthcare entities are interested in making a profit. And we are not inherently evil because of it. I would wager most businesses are for-profit.

If you separate healthcare entities among the four entities that the public has a large amount of trust, you may be able to tease out police and clergy as not being for-profit, yet lawyers are.

Investor-owned, for-profit health care provision is actually a fairly recent phenomenon (since the 1960s). Traditionally, health care was provided by non-profits, sole practitioners, and, essentially, collectives (doctor-owned and run facilities).

It would be great to get investor-owned, for-profit health care providers out of the health care industry altogether. That is different from saying that doctors should not be able to earn money or own and run their own practices making whatever amount of money they generate from it. It is more the corporatization of the industry than anything else that is problematic in my view.

So the GOP says either we get social security benefit cuts or we will blow the economy.
Going against it sounds like an EXTRMLEY easy message to sell to the American public, and the DNC should hammer that point with everything they got.

That would have been a lot easier had Democrats not already offered to cut it. (I realize that was in exchange for other things, but if you have to explain, you've already lost.)

 

[The Librarian]

Heh

Aside from TPM, I don't even visit news websites anymore. I get all my news from Twitter, and it's often faster too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama's horrible negotiating skills coming back to bite dems, and ultimately hurl us off the cliff. I don't see how someone can have the job for four years and still not learn how to negotiate

 

[CyclopsRock]

First, on Keynes:

From Keynes's A Treatise on Money.

That he acknowledges - as do I - that the government can set the value of money is not the same as being a chartalist (or, rather, as advocating chartalism - we both own private capital, but I imagine only one of us would describe himself as a capitalist!)

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.

I didn't say the second of those statements, so I'm not sure why it's in quotation marks - I'm aware you're not of the view that the amount of money created is without consequence. I think you'll struggle to find a time when I've said that the US (specifically - as MMT is a fairly US centric policy as far as its effectiveness may stretch) deficit is too high. My problem, as I explained above, is that MMT is almost always used to justify Keynesian stimuli, as its of the view that the government can stimulate demand but is mandated to keep taxing in order to maintain demand for the currency. It's not the tautologically true fact that the government can print what it wants, often without even worrying about even having to worry about inflation I have a problem with - it's the idea that this is a good idea which I oppose. Which is why I have a problem with people using the idea that deficits don't matter as a defence of large public spending - the idea that if you can afford to spend it, it's necessarily a good idea.

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.

Sure, but we were talking in the context there not of an MMT escalation in the printing of money, but in financing debt with negative interest bond yields - whereby the idea of the left hand owing the right hand money at a negative interest rate renders any benefits (or drawbacks) of that rate moot - which was my point.

The bolded statements are economically diametrically opposed. Both cannot be true.

I apologise, I should have been clearer - almost all of Greece's growth in domestic production was a response to demand created by debt. Now that this debt is going away, so is all the "growth". I think many people would struggle to consider this an increase in production in any practical sense, in the same way that me asking for my salary a week earlier doesn't mean that I've earned double the previous week.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Obama's horrible negotiating skills coming back to bite dems, and ultimately hurl us off the cliff. I don't see how someone can have the job for four years and still not learn how to negotiate

I bet it has caused problems in the bedroom with Michelle. What woman wants to have sex with a weenie.

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

I didn't say any of the stuff you just asked. The bit about the number of laws passed was bolded, and I asked if that's actually a metric for determining "best" - as was suggested. I did read the whole thing, but honestly, I thought it was weird that such a metric was used. Indeed, the fact that so many of the laws were regarding post offices demonstrates exactly why it's a dumb metric - they could have renamed even more, and got the record for most laws passed.

(That said, if renaming a post office requires a new law, what else are you going to do? I don't believe there's some sort of hierarchy of importance that needs to be worked through.)

 

[The Librarian]

I bet it has caused problems in the bedroom with Michelle. What woman wants to have sex with a weenie.

Once again PD's horrible prediction skills have come back to bite him.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

*backpat*

Do you have something to do with TPM

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

Absolutely, but it's a different discussion.

I've had this chat with some fellow libers before, where we all mourned the fact that we end up spending ages debating with people the virtue of lowering taxes from a laffer perspective, as if absolutely maximising revenues should be the goal of the government at all times - rather than arguing that we should be spending less (and then taxing less) because it'd actually be better to spend less. Again, they're really two different arguments, and that's how I see MMT here - a lot of people use it as an argument for spending more, as if the ability to afford to be able to spend immediately makes spending it a good idea.

I won't actually go into your post - as you've said, it's the usual fare, and I agree about education - personally, I'd love to see that the largest portion of the pie on any government expenditure graph. But that really is a case by case - most of my fellow Libertarians wouldn't agree with me there (I'm also not huge on defence, private ownership of guns, etc) and I'm spamming this place up enough as it is! Thanks for the response, though.

 

[empty vessel]

I didn't say the second of those statements, so I'm not sure why it's in quotation marks - I'm aware you're not of the view that the amount of money created is without consequence. I think you'll struggle to find a time when I've said that the US (specifically - as MMT is a fairly US centric policy as far as its effectiveness may stretch) deficit is too high. My problem, as I explained above, is that MMT is almost always used to justify Keynesian stimuli, as its of the view that the government can stimulate demand but is mandated to keep taxing in order to maintain demand for the currency. It's not the tautologically true fact that the government can print what it wants, often without even worrying about even having to worry about inflation I have a problem with - it's the idea that this is a good idea which I oppose. Which is why I have a problem with people using the idea that deficits don't matter as a defence of large public spending - the idea that if you can afford to spend it, it's necessarily a good idea.

Then what needs to be discussed is what are the circumstances that cause inflation and what is the rationale for believing inflation is potentially problematic if additional money is spent. In my experience, people's understanding of inflation is very deficient. I do agree that simply having the capacity to increase net spending is not a reason to spend; it is only a precondition to doing so.

I apologise, I should have been clearer - almost all of Greece's growth in domestic production was a response to demand created by debt. Now that this debt is going away, so is all the "growth". I think many people would struggle to consider this an increase in production in any practical sense, in the same way that me asking for my salary a week earlier doesn't mean that I've earned double the previous week.

But what should be immediately apparent is that the consequences of Greece's borrowing (austerity) which are hurting Greece's current economic production are wholly attributable to its lack of monetary sovereignty. The debt it accumulated in a currency over which it has no control hampers its economic productivity today because it has no capacity to increase its money supply. This is a design flaw of the Eurozone, and it's basically the same flaw that required abandonment of the gold standard. It represents a failure to understand money as a social tool that must expand with economic and population growth in order to be a useful tool (rather than a destructive one).

 

[Hitokage]

Obama's horrible negotiating skills coming back to bite dems, and ultimately hurl us off the cliff. I don't see how someone can have the job for four years and still not learn how to negotiate

2/10

 

[Particle Physicist]

Apparently the major sticking point (that is, not the only one, but the major one) is that the Senate GOP is asking for chained-CPI, and Senate Dems are like, "No." One Dem aide called it a "poison pill."

Edit: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/285463537688649729

What is chained-CPI?

 

[The Librarian]

Oh hell no.

Nah, just a lazy reference to the "TPM backpats" meme from a while back.

You're a moderator now. I expect more thought-out replies than that!

Anyway, continuing the theme of Twitter being the best news source. Also, McConnell spoke to Biden, but won't say what the conversation was about. If I had to guess, it'd be Biden saying he'll be there for the upcoming vote for Reid's back-up bill, but that doesn't make too much sense.

 

[RDreamer]

Absolutely, but it's a different discussion.

I've had this chat with some fellow libers before, where we all mourned the fact that we end up spending ages debating with people the virtue of lowering taxes from a laffer perspective, as if absolutely maximising revenues should be the goal of the government at all times - rather than arguing that we should be spending less (and then taxing less) because it'd actually be better to spend less. Again, they're really two different arguments, and that's how I see MMT here - a lot of people use it as an argument for spending more, as if the ability to afford to be able to spend immediately makes spending it a good idea.

I think you're just not seeing the "MMT" arguments here as what they really (usually) are: responses. They're a response to the assertion that we can't afford to spend immediately, and that's usually the excuse that cutting is a good idea.

Absolutely I don't think you can blanket say that the ability to afford to be able to spend makes spending a good idea. Affordability shouldn't be the first thing in the conversation, and I believe we had this conversation here a few days ago. The first thing should be benefit. if a program benefits us, especially perhaps in a cost to dollars spent ratio, then we should fund it. If it does not, then we shouldn't regardless of if we can afford it or not. The example I brought up back in that discussion was medicare age. Cutting spending there by raising the medicare age would be silly, because we as a nation then end up spending more on healthcare than our government saved by cutting it. Those are the sorts of analyses we should be doing.

Now, I realize a lot of that does get lost in the conversation of recessionary stimulus spending, when people are definitely (me included) very eager to say we need to spend more. We do. But that spending should also be on things that benefit us. It does just so happen that spending will disproportionately benefit us even more during a recessionary time, but we should still look at that.

And after all that I'll agree that we should have lower taxes where we can. Lower taxes can translate to a "freer" economy in that people can pick and choose products that they like. But to get there we shouldn't cut objectively beneficial programs. So, we should spend only as much as is beneficial to us, and tax only so much as we need to in order to curb inequality (until that is in turn no longer beneficial to us) and curb inflation.

 

[B-Dubs]

You're a moderator now. I expect more though-out replies than that!

Anyway, continuing the theme of Twitter being the best news source. Also, McConnell spoke to Biden, but won't say what the conversation was about.

The entire conversation consisted of Biden cracking open an Ice House and putting on some Foghat. Slow ride....take it easy....

 

[Particle Physicist]

Heh

Ah, here is my answer. Jesus, fucking republicans. So basically they want Democrats, once again, to compromise on something they most definitely do not want to do, and they will give them nothing in return. Unbelievable.

 

[The Librarian]

The entire conversation consisted of Biden cracking open an Ice House and putting on some Foghat. Slow ride....take it easy....

Biden, amidst laughter: "Listen here, sonny, I once caught a turtle this big, so I know how to handle people like you."

 

[Chichikov]

Absolutely, but it's a different discussion.

I've had this chat with some fellow libers before, where we all mourned the fact that we end up spending ages debating with people the virtue of lowering taxes from a laffer perspective, as if absolutely maximising revenues should be the goal of the government at all times - rather than arguing that we should be spending less (and then taxing less) because it'd actually be better to spend less.

Conservatives tried that in this country and got destroyed; every public poll on the subject suggests that by and large, cuts to government programs are still very unpopular.
The GOP argue through that framing because it's the only chance they have to win.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I didn't say any of the stuff you just asked. The bit about the number of laws passed was bolded, and I asked if that's actually a metric for determining "best" - as was suggested. I did read the whole thing, but honestly, I thought it was weird that such a metric was used. Indeed, the fact that so many of the laws were regarding post offices demonstrates exactly why it's a dumb metric - they could have renamed even more, and got the record for most laws passed.

(That said, if renaming a post office requires a new law, what else are you going to do? I don't believe there's some sort of hierarchy of importance that needs to be worked through.)

That is why I asked you if you read the entire article, because passing the most laws is not at all what the entire article was about.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Biden, amidst laughter: "Listen here, sonny, I once caught a turtle this big, so I know how to handle people like you."

Lol haha. Love it.

 

[Chichikov]

What is chained-CPI?

It's a cut to social security benefits for no good reason.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

It's a cut to social security benefits for no good reason.

There's going to be alot of eating crow when a dealis announced. Just remember I told y'all

 

[TacticalFox88]

So, anyone taking bets on when Obama's going to constitutionally get rid of the debt ceiling? I say after 2014.

 

[Y2Kev]

I want to go off the cliff, and most Republicans would want to as well. Aren't most of the cuts in military spending?

 

[The Librarian]

So, anyone taking bets on when Obama's going to constitutionally get rid of the debt ceiling? I say after 2014.

Early 2013 when he is forced to raise it himself.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So, anyone taking bets on when Obama's going to constitutionally get rid of the debt ceiling? I say after 2014.

He wont.

 

[B-Dubs]

I want to go off the cliff, and most Republicans would want to as well. Aren't most of the cuts in military spending?

About half the cuts are military, other have is safety net stuff.

 

[RDreamer]

So, anyone taking bets on when Obama's going to constitutionally get rid of the debt ceiling? I say after 2014.

I really hope he does. The fallout from this would be freakishly hilarious.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't know about you guys but I'm ready

 

[Piecake]

So, anyone taking bets on when Obama's going to constitutionally get rid of the debt ceiling? I say after 2014.

If republicans try to threaten to default I imagine he will do something. If the republicans lose the 2014 midterms or actually become insane, I dont think Obama will do anything

 

[makingmusic476]

I am now fully invested in this debate and want updates.

His response:

I could go into great detail about how misinformed you are and I could write pages trying to explain everything to you but it would just be ignored. I don't believe that you want bad things for our country. I think you care about our country just as much as I do. However, I do believe that you have been so mislead with false information and fooled by media, our own government, and years of society accepting things as truth when they are false. Until one realizes that he has been blinded, there is nothing another can say to make him see
3 hours ago via mobile

 

[B-Dubs]

His response:

So he ignored your question on the debt ceiling? I for one am shocked.

 

[TacticalFox88]

His response:

Wow. Absolutely positively FUCK people who think like this and most of all fuck him.

 

[RDreamer]

His response:

Yes, you are totally blinded by the media... the media that is actively pushing the same crap this idiot is totally blinded you.

I really hate responses like that. "I could totally eviscerate you, but I won't even address anything you said at all. I'll just stop the conversation here for no real reason." Yeah... uh huh. Not surprising, though. Too many people pull that crap.

 

[bananas]

His response:

Reply with something like:

So you won't answer my question because you think I'm blinded and that you obviously are more informed than I am. And won't bother? And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the elitist snobs.

 

[makingmusic476]

I kinda wanna take this further and see if I can get any sort of real response from him.

Edit:

^ I'd go with a response like that if he still didn't give me any sort of concrete response.

 

[B-Dubs]

I kinda wanna take this further and see if I can get any sort of real response from him.

You won't, people only pull this shit when they know they're fucked. He just won't admit it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Reply with something like:

So you won't answer my question because you think I'm blinded and that you obviously are more informed than I am. And won't bother? And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the elitist snobs.

A boss response. I approve.

 

[RDreamer]

I kinda wanna take this further and see if I can get any sort of real response from him.

I doubt it. Posts like that are usually codewords for "I have no idea what I'm talking about so let's end this conversation here before I demonstrate that fact in full."