Support NeoGAF

[campfireweekend]

Cap and trade sounds more like creating a new market (and money making scheme) than does your more sensible suggestion (icky taxes). In today's political environment, Dems probably feel like the first is a more reasonable possibility.

I'd give it 5 days until cap and trade derivatives became a thing.

But a carbon tax is literally a market solution. It creates the least regulation, is the easiest to implement, and has the most provable impact. All it relies on is that people use less of something when it costs more, and this is especially great rn, with gas so low.

Taxes on cigarettes and other pigouvian taxes show us that it works.

Seriously, just make it revenue neutral. Cut income taxes for everyone as much as the carbon tax raises. Sell it that way. This is not crazy.

 

[User 463088]

As long as Bernie makes the very best of it, and I'm sure that would include not conceding an inch, to the Republicans, on our core principles, his popularity amongst core supporters should remain steadfast, including mine, and I would totally help to get the vote out, in the mid-terms.

Hence our terror....

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why are liberal so stuck on cap and trade, when it is so much more economically efficient and directly impactful to impose a tax on carbon, thus pricing CO2's negate externalities?

... I have written like 8 articles in my local newspaper in the last year arguing for a carbon tax. I'm referring to this article which talks about a legal loophole for installing cap and trade without congressional approval and which I'm not sure applies to a carbon tax:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10809684/epa-carbon-trading-section-115


... The organization I'm a part of supports all of your ideas, lol:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/

 

[Aaron Strife]

Probably not till midterms and he'd have to be an amazing politician to win the rhetorical war to explain his failure to push anything the first two years. And Dems don't show up for midterms (yet). Maybe Bernie could get them there. We still have five more years before we can address the gerrymandering shit-show in states with no ballot measure options or hope for judicial intervention.

Dem voters better fucking turn out in 2018, otherwise we'll be dealing with this gerrymandering shit for yet another decade.

Democrats need to flip the governor's seats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida to ensure fair maps are drawn there while holding onto Virginia (2017) and Pennsylvania. On top of that, Democrats can also capture trifectas in -

Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota
New Jersey (2017)

- and draw their own gerrymanders if they so desired (which they already did in IL and MD).

Democrats could also try getting independent commissions set up in several of these states via ballot referendum (OH, FL, MI specifically) while there are also redder states that would benefit from it too. A competitive-in-a-good-year district (44% Obama 2012) could be made in Arkansas, nonpartisan maps in Missouri and Nebraska would protect Emanuel Cleaver and Brad Ashford in future elections by shoring up their districts, and Democrats could get a safe Salt Lake City-based seat in Utah that could elect Rocky Anderson instead of having to struggle just to get a conservative Matheson type. These could all be put on the ballot this year. Then we'd only have to worry about defeating Walker, Christie, Rauner and Hogan and make sure to hold on in MN, PA and VA.

 

[campfireweekend]

... I have written like 8 articles in my local newspaper in the last year arguing for a carbon tax. I'm referring to this article which talks about a legal loophole for installing cap and trade without congressional approval and which I'm not sure applies to a carbon tax:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10809684/epa-carbon-trading-section-115


... The organization I'm a part of supports all of your ideas, lol:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/

Oh, awesome. LOL

Sorry for going off. It's just that that's one leftist policy I will not abandon.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I just remembered that Paul Ryan is a climate change denier.

Good thing we'll only need double digit votes from House Republicans to pass major legislation and this guy is the leader of the House Republicans.


edit: On the Issues' system of grading is fucked up. If you don't have a lot of positions rated, you get listed as "moderate" no matter what. Jason Chaffetz has a limited number of listed positions and thus he is called a "moderate Republican" even though one of the bills he sponsored tried to end birthright citizenship!

 

[eBay Huckster]

Right, i gotta tie this to extremist rethoric somehow, so... imagine it is water.

so what you're saying is rubio's going to take a swig of the grassroots in the middle of a speech

 

[thepotatoman]

I just remembered that Paul Ryan is a climate change denier.

Good thing we'll only need double digit votes from House Republicans to pass major legislation and this guy is the leader of the House Republicans.


edit: On the Issues' system of grading is fucked up. If you don't have a lot of positions rated, you get listed as "moderate" no matter what. Jason Chaffetz has a limited number of listed positions and thus he is called a "moderate Republican" even though one of the bills he sponsored tried to end birthright citizenship!

Sorry, but outside of the extremely rare discharge petition, you're still gonna need Paul Ryan's support before you can even get a vote to take place.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Sorry, but outside of the extremely rare discharge petition, you're still gonna need Paul Ryan's support before you can even get a vote to take place.

Yep.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

They both placed equal importance on both full employment and inflation. It's part of the Fed's dual-mandate. That shit isn't a suggestion, it's part of the founding charter of the organization.

Bernanke and Yellen were the heroes of the recession, keeping rates low and executing QE. Those are good monetary economics, and they helped a lot of people, quantifiably. We really need to leave the paradigm of Republican or Democrat when speaking about monetary economics. There is consensus, and then there is heterodox, and as far as I'm sure, heterodox people are the ones that have to thoroughly make their case for why the consensus view is wrong. This includes MMT. This also includes inflation hawks. The former would ignore the inflation mandate, while the latter completely disregards the employment mandate.

Also, quite a few is disengenuous. A decent plurality can be seen supporting a small rate hike, and that percentage only goes up when weighted for confidence. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0kXNVic9IQwmmjz

You can read each economists view as to why also if you want.

I also don't understand what point you're trying to make with the Donald Kohn mention, unless you're trying to say that literally ever person the GWB administration touched was shit. He left for the brookings institution after leaving the Fed, a center-left think tank!

It must be viewed as a suggestion rather than a binding mandate from Congress because the US economy is not operating at full employment and inflation targets aren't being met year after year.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

And potential GDP and expectations of where the economy should be has been repeatedly revised downward. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that permanent damage followed the work of the alleged heroes.

http://bit.ly/1VhzsoD

Moreover, there was a cyclical increase in non-discretionary spending that also occurred so it's amazing to me that you would call those two heroes. I highly doubt they were thinking about people like you when they lowered the funds rate.

Anyway my point of mentioning Donald was that he also has the credentials, was in the running for Fed chair, and I would categorize Yellen the same way you described the think tank that he went to. What's disingenuous about claiming a fair amount of people disagree with the rate hike? Also, do you have any sources for your claims that QE quantifiably helped a lot of people? Through what mechanism can swaps that have 0 or negligible impact on lending do that?

Image source: http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/07/17/did-quantitative-easing-boost-bank-lending/

Look around at how the most vulnerable are doing compared to the rich and influential. To me, there's no way to spin it except one side received a ton of gov't assistance and the other side did not. It's not about Republican or Dem...it's about people getting burned by the folks they trust to have their back and know what they're doing.

 

[campfireweekend]

It must be viewed as a suggestion rather than a binding mandate from Congress because the US economy is not operating at full employment and inflation targets aren't being met year after year.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet


And potential GDP and expectations of where the economy should be has been repeatedly revised downward. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that permanent damage followed the work of the alleged heroes.

http://bit.ly/1VhzsoD

Moreover, there was a cyclical increase in non-discretionary spending that also occurred so it's amazing to me that you would call those two heroes. I highly doubt they were thinking about people like you when they lowered the funds rate.

Anyway my point of mentioning Donald was that he also has the credentials, was in the running for Fed chair, and I would categorize Yellen the same way you described the think tank that he went to. What's disingenuous about claiming a fair amount of people disagree with the rate hike? Also, do you have any sources for your claims that QE quantifiably helped a lot of people? Through what mechanism can swaps that have 0 or negligible impact on lending do that?



Look around at how the most vulnerable are doing compared to the rich and influential. To me, there's no way to spin it except one side received a ton of gov't assistance and the other side did not. It's not about Republican or Dem...it's about people getting burned by the folks they trust to have their back and know what they're doing.

You do understand that monetary policy has a lag, correct? You think that the economists at the Fed decided to raise rates for no reason?What is your theory on why they did it? It doesn't benefit wall street.

What number is full employment to you, because by most estimates we are there, and inflation is slightly trending toward 2%.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that lowering rates does not help people at all? Then why does raising rates hurt them? Why are you railing against a 50bps increase if the work they did during the recession did nothing? By most estimates, QE had a quantitative impact on mortgage rates, which directly impacts a lot of people.

Why did they do these things if people on Wall Street constantly railed against them for doing them?

This article from the NYT provides plenty of graphs that display exactly the impact QE had on people.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/3...arts.html?ref=economy&abt=0002&abg=1&referer=

Of course we should have had more counter cyclical fiscal policy during the recession, but counter cyclical monetary policy doesn't only help the rich, and it's quite odd that you'd suggest that, and even go so far to say that permanent damage followed what they did.

 

[Jack Remington]

If Bernie loses in the primary and endorses Hillary in the general, will the really hard core Bernie fans vote for her?

 

[neurosisxeno]

If Bernie loses in the primary and endorses Hillary in the general, will the really hard core Bernie fans vote for her?

There's some idiots that say they will vote for Trump but every reasonable Democrat I know says they will still vote for Hillary. If he endorses her there's no way a majority of his supporters don't do it as well.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

If Bernie loses in the primary and endorses Hillary in the general, will the really hard core Bernie fans vote for her?

Well, here's a Reddit thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/42eq71/if_bernie_doesnt_get_the_nomination_it_shouldnt/

 

[User 85168]

You obviously haven't been paying close enough attention to recent posts, as I was addressing the suggestion that if Bernie's undeniable popularity, translated into a commanding majority in the Senate (entirely possible), and just maby, the House too (remember, FDR converted a tied House into a 72% majority, where just 60% is needed to thwart fillibusters), that, like FDR, he too should have no trouble passing his legislation, e.g. his tax proposals are hardly that excessive (where's the 90%, Trump?), and it is so time, to tax capital gains and dividends at standard rates (one of Martin's favorite policies too).

I will agree that it is becoming tiresome to keep have this back and forth, over just how big a win Bernie could actually achieve, and I am happy to wait until Iowa to see whether our FDR scale dream for America, has legs.

Are you seriously saying you think Bernie would be able to pull off what FDR did as one of America's most capable and popular president? Present day Americans would rather vote for an atheist than a self-proclaimed socialist. Say what you will about what that tells about the American people, but it's another thing to setting yourself for disappointment even if he were to win.

 

[East Lake]

You're not gonna find a more liberal appointment than Janet Yellen that is actually a good economist.

And don't mention any MMT economists. That theory is heterodox trash.

That and Bernie's attempts to tag team audit the Fed with Rand Paul, a move which would compromise their independence, an aspect of the Fed which has shown to be integral in every country that has a central bank, are a few reasons why I will never entertain him as a serious candidate. A lot of what he believes is really just bad economics.

I wasn't aware mainstream economists had it all figured out.

 

[Jack Remington]

I would have loved to see Krugman as Fed chair.

 

[East Lake]

Just to add I'm not defending MMT. Only that it might be good to take mainstream economists declarations with a bit more skepticism.

The subprime mess is grave but largely contained, said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Thursday, in a speech before the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. While rising delinquencies and foreclosures will continue to weigh heavily on the housing market this year, it will not cripple the U.S. economy, he said. The speech was the Chairman's most comprehensive on the subprime mortgage issue to date.

"Given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited," Bernanke said.

In March, Bernanke had said that the problems in the subprime market would only reduce somewhat the effective demand for housing. But on Thursday Bernanke's language was sharper.

"We are likely to see further increases in delinquencies and foreclosures this year and next," Bernanke said. Although a leveling-off of sales late last year suggested some stabilization of housing demand, the latest readings indicate a further step-down in the first quarter.”

Even as the housing industry stumbles through its correction, major financial institutions should be spared. Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market; troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits, Bernanke said.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/17/bernanke-subprime-speech-markets-equity-cx_er_0516markets02.html

Oops. Not to say he didn't do the right thing, but I also hear economists come on Bloomberg all the time and worry about QE asset inflation, so yeah.

 

[Makai]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...82a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

WaPo reports Rubio's childhood arrest. Marco Rubio responds with attack ad against

Spoiler

Marco Rubio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_q3R1ngyVA

 

[Jack Remington]

MMT economists make some good points.

I'm still not sure how valid the bulk of their work is. We need empty vessel back here.

 

[User 463088]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...82a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

WaPo reports Rubio's childhood arrest. Marco Rubio responds with attack ad against

Spoiler

Marco Rubio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_q3R1ngyVA

Well, ya, but did he go after anyone with a hammer, though?

Meh, is this what made Rmoney pass on him? I mean...I couldn't care less what happened when he was 18, when everything he's done since then has been a giant F U to anyone who isn't rich and white. But....ya, the optics aren't great.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Well, ya, but did he go after anyone with a hammer, though?

Meh, is this what made Rmoney pass on him? I mean...I couldn't care less what happened when he was 18, when everything he's done since then has been a giant F U to anyone who isn't rich and white. But....ya, the optics aren't great.

Shit, Bernie proudly proclaims he was arrested during the Civil Rights Movement and I don't think people really care. The Rubio thing sounds like a non-story. He wasn't charged with anything, he wasn't even accused of anything bad, just happened to be in a park after hours.

 

[campfireweekend]

I would have loved to see Krugman as Fed chair.

Krugman is a trade economist. He did not study monetary economics. This wish doesn't make sense.

Just to add I'm not defending MMT. Only that it might be good to take mainstream economists declarations with a bit more skepticism.



http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/17/bernanke-subprime-speech-markets-equity-cx_er_0516markets02.html

Oops. Not to say he didn't do the right thing, but I also hear economists come on Bloomberg all the time and worry about QE asset inflation, so yeah.

I understand where you're coming from. But I really think skepticism should be reserved for those that challenge the mainstream view. After all, I'd how you wouldn't sat the same if we were talking about homeopathy, and directing skepticism towards mainstream medical professionals.

If MMT theorists can prove their theories using models, then eventually their view will be incorporated into the mainstream.

Also, you're liberal right? Why are you concern trolling for fringe conservative inflation hawks with that last sentence? Any inflation the Fed creates, they can easily fix. That's one thing they're good at.

All I'm stating is that the Fed did what they could with the tools they had to greatly lessen the impact of the recession. I mean sure, they could've also tried negative interest rates, a move which they've stated they are open to in the event of another recession. But overall, they did what they could to fulfill their dual mandate.

 

[User 463088]

Today I learned that Hillary won a Grammy back in the day

Also found this hilarious pic from 1992 where Bill was sweating his organs out and Hillary just looked completely chill

I meant to respond to this earlier...

Hillary doesn't sweat. Like, at all, supposedly. She's mentioned this in a few interviews.

ANOTHER ROUND: In preparation for this interview, I watched a lot of your interviews, and I noticed you never sweat, like physically. I’ve done like a little bit of press and I get so hot — TV lights, stage lights.

ANOTHER ROUND: I’m sweating now and I’m sitting still.

ANOTHER ROUND: What is your deodorant situation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, you’ve only done a little bit. When you’ve done as much as I have —

ANOTHER ROUND: But like, what is your secret?

HILLARY CLINTON: My secret is just you do it so often. You didn’t see me 40 years ago when I did my first ones. Right?

ANOTHER ROUND: I don’t mean sweat because you’re nervous. I just mean physically. I’m genuinely curious what your deodorant is.

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I just turned off the thermostat. [Clinton glances at the wall.] No, no, I don’t know.

ANOTHER ROUND: Do you have a spray situation. Is it a liquid? I’m not joking.

HILLARY CLINTON: Solid. Solid block. I like the solid. Solid block is much better.

ANOTHER ROUND: OK. This is an odd question that I lobbied for a lot because it’s one of my favorite questions to ask people. If you don’t have an answer, that’s fine, but I will be a little sad. What’s the weirdest thing about you?

HILLARY CLINTON: The weirdest thing about me is that I don’t sweat.

ANOTHER ROUND: Obviously. Best argument for Hillary as a robot: zero sweat.

HILLARY CLINTON: You guys are the first to realize that I’m really not even a human being. I was constructed in a garage in Palo Alto a very long time ago. People think that, you know, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, they created it. Oh no. I mean, a man whose name shall remain nameless created me in his garage.

ANOTHER ROUND: Are there more of you?

HILLARY CLINTON: I thought he threw away the plans, at least that’s what he told me when he programmed me — that there would be no more. I’ve seen more people that kind of don’t sweat, and other things, that make me think maybe they are part of the new race that he created: the robot race.

ANOTHER ROUND: So there’s a cyborg army is what you’re saying.

HILLARY CLINTON: But you have to cut this, you can’t tell anybody this. I don’t want anybody to know this. This has been a secret until here we are in Davenport, Iowa, and I’m just spillin’ my electronic guts to you.

ANOTHER ROUND: And without bourbon.

HILLARY CLINTON: Without any bourbon. Yeah. That’s why I have to wait ‘til the end of the day.

 

[lednerg]

Dan Pfeiffer ‏@danpfeiffer
Bloomberg running for President would almost certainly hand the WH to the GOP. If no one gets 270 EV's, GOP congress picks the prez​

I think he's being a bit presumptuous here about Bloomberg's chances, but it raises an interesting point about how a nominee needs 270 electoral votes at the end of the day, not just a majority. Otherwise, the House would elect the POTUS and the Senate would elect the VP. Bloomberg has said so far that he would only run if Sanders won the Democratic nomination and was going up against Trump or Cruz. Forget about Bloomberg, if Trump dumped the GOP and ran as an independent, it could seriously fuck shit up. I know Trump signed that ridiculous contract a while back, but what are they going to do, sue him?

 

[Jack Remington]

Krugman is a trade economist. He did not study monetary economics. This wish doesn't make sense.

He seems to know a fair bit based on some of his blog posts.

Treasury Secretary might have been a better position for him.

 

[campfireweekend]

He seems to know a fair bit based on some of his blog posts.

Treasury Secretary might have been a better position for him.

I think labor secretary would have been best. But from his blog, I'd say he largely agrees with how Yellen runs the Fed.

If you guys think there are liberal policies they are not undertaking that a hypothetical Krugman would, I'd really like to hear them.

 

[sc0la]

Dan Pfeiffer ‏@danpfeiffer
Bloomberg running for President would almost certainly hand the WH to the GOP. If no one gets 270 EV's, GOP congress picks the prez​

I think he's being a bit presumptuous here about Bloomberg's chances, but it raises an interesting point about how a nominee needs 270 electoral votes at the end of the day, not just a majority. Otherwise, the House would elect the POTUS and the Senate would elect the VP. Bloomberg has said so far that he would only run if Sanders won the Democratic nomination and was going up against Trump or Cruz. Forget about Bloomberg, if Trump dumped the GOP and ran as an independent, it could seriously fuck shit up. I know Trump signed that ridiculous contract a while back, but what are they going to do, sue him?

Do they have to pick from the nominees, or could they elect say, Paul Ryan? *troll face*

Edit: trump won't run 3rd party simply because he will be the nominee.

I think labor secretary would have been best. But from his blog, I'd say he largely agrees with how Yellen runs the Fed.

If you guys think there are liberal policies they are not undertaking that a hypothetical Krugman would, I'd really like to hear them.

Krugman would be wasted at the fed, but I seriously don't see how this congress would confirm him for anything.

 

[Makai]

I like Seder's take on Trump pivoting to the center - it's not going to be hard to tack back from Make America Great Again.

 

[East Lake]

Krugman is a trade economist. He did not study monetary economics. This wish doesn't make sense.



I understand where you're coming from. But I really think skepticism should be reserved for those that challenge the mainstream view. After all, I'd how you wouldn't sat the same if we were talking about homeopathy, and directing skepticism towards mainstream medical professionals.

If MMT theorists can prove their theories using models, then eventually their view will be incorporated into the mainstream.

Also, you're liberal right? Why are you concern trolling for fringe conservative inflation hawks with that last sentence? Any inflation the Fed creates, they can easily fix. That's one thing they're good at.

All I'm stating is that the Fed did what they could with the tools they had to greatly lessen the impact of the recession. I mean sure, they could've also tried negative interest rates, a move which they've stated they are open to in the event of another recession. But overall, they did what they could to fulfill their dual mandate.

I think some of these people aren't necessarily inflation hawks, it's a lot of bank or other corporate economists worrying that the central banks are distorting asset prices. A lot of them say we need more fiscal policy, so they're not all austerity types. Also I don't think homeopathy is an apt analogy, maybe for some it is but even an economist like Olivier Blanchard recognizes the need for new tools.

Macroeconomic policy also has an essential role to play. If nominal rates had been higher before the crisis, monetary policy’s margin to maneuver would have been larger. If inflation and nominal interest rates had been, say, 2 percentage points higher before the crisis, central banks would have been able to decrease real interest rates by 2 more percentage points before hitting the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates. These additional 2 percentage points are not negligible. Their effects would have been roughly equivalent to the effects of the unconventional monetary policies that central banks pursued when the zero bound was reached—purchasing private sector assets and long-term government bonds to lower long-term interest rates rather than using the standard technique of manipulating a short-term policy rate. (Harvard Professor Kenneth S. Rogoff, former head of the IMF’s Research Department, has suggested solutions other than higher inflation, such as the replacement of cash with electronic money, which could pay negative nominal interest. That would remove the zero bound constraint.)

Turning from policy to research, the message should be to let a hundred flowers bloom. Now that we are more aware of nonlinearities and the dangers they pose, we should explore them further theoretically and empirically—and in all sorts of models. This is happening already, and to judge from the flow of working papers since the beginning of the crisis, it is happening on a large scale. Finance and macroeconomics in particular are becoming much better integrated, which is very good news.

But this answer skirts a harder question: How should we modify our benchmark models—the so-called dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models that we use, for example, at the IMF to think about alternative scenarios and to quantify the effects of policy decisions? The easy and uncontroversial part of the answer is that the DSGE models should be expanded to better recognize the role of the financial system—and this is happening. But should these models be able to describe how the economy behaves in the dark corners?

Let me offer a pragmatic answer. If macroeconomic policy and financial regulation are set in such a way as to maintain a healthy distance from dark corners, then our models that portray normal times may still be largely appropriate. Another class of economic models, aimed at measuring systemic risk, can be used to give warning signals that we are getting too close to dark corners, and that steps must be taken to reduce risk and increase distance. Trying to create a model that integrates normal times and systemic risks may be beyond the profession’s conceptual and technical reach at this stage.

The crisis has been immensely painful. But one of its silver linings has been to jolt macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy. The main policy lesson is a simple one: Stay away from dark corners.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/blanchard.htm

 

[Plinko]

Dan Pfeiffer ‏@danpfeiffer
Bloomberg running for President would almost certainly hand the WH to the GOP. If no one gets 270 EV's, GOP congress picks the prez​

I think he's being a bit presumptuous here about Bloomberg's chances, but it raises an interesting point about how a nominee needs 270 electoral votes at the end of the day, not just a majority. Otherwise, the House would elect the POTUS and the Senate would elect the VP. Bloomberg has said so far that he would only run if Sanders won the Democratic nomination and was going up against Trump or Cruz. Forget about Bloomberg, if Trump dumped the GOP and ran as an independent, it could seriously fuck shit up. I know Trump signed that ridiculous contract a while back, but what are they going to do, sue him?

Bloomberg wouldn't win one state.

 

[Teggy]

Bloomberg wouldn't win one state.

He doesn't have to win a state, he just would have to siphon off enough votes to allow Trump to win a state he wouldn't normally win.

 

[Diablos]

Bloomberg wouldn't win one state.

I don't know about that.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't know about that.

YouGOV's First Verdict impact polling estimated him taking 9%. That's not taking anywhere.

 

[Makai]

YouGOV's First Verdict impact polling estimated him taking 9%. That's not taking anywhere.

It might after he spends his billion and Wall Street money flocks to him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It might after he spends his billion and Wall Street money flocks to him.

Again, I'm unconvinced this it the right election for Wall Street money. The optics don't play well.

 

[Y2Kev]

In addition, Wall Street doesn't spend money on THINGS THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

I don't know about that.

With Trump v. Sanders, Bloomberg probably wins Utah.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In addition, Wall Street doesn't spend money on THINGS THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

y2kev, I have some unpleasant truths to break to you...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, talking of YouGOVs polling, we should have their Iowa, NH, and SC polls in about an hour - assuming they release them on time, they were like 2 days late last week. ;_;

 

[Black Republican]

smh

Fox News Iowa

Trump 34(+11)
Cruz 23(-4)
Rubio 12(-3)
Carson 7(-2)
Paul 6(+1)
Bush 4
Christie 4

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/22/fox-news-poll-iowa-presidential-primary/

Fox NH
Trump 31(-2)
Cruz 14(+2)
Rubio 13(-2)
Kasich 9 (+2)
Bush 7
Christie 7

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...news-poll-new-hampshire-presidential-primary/

 

[Y2Kev]

my head shakes

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Goonberg is going to spend $1 billion to get five percent of the vote? LMAO.

 

[A Human Becoming]

If Jeb! can't salvage 10% in NH he should drop out. Game over man.

 

[User 406]

MMT economists make some good points.

I'm still not sure how valid the bulk of their work is. We need empty vessel back here.

Yeah, I chewed over MMT for a long time, and I never could find a good argument that refutes it. Pretty much every argument against it ended up invoking a Zimbabwe slippery slope argument that completely disregards what the theory is actually saying.

The biggest impact MMT on my thinking was realizing that a fiat currency issuer can't possibly need to borrow money, and that that vestigial requirement has hampered stimulative measures that inevitably prove themselves to fall short. It also made me realize that the way we practice federalism just makes for unnecessary problems on the state and local level because of budgetary constraints.

Wish empty vessel was back too, I loved his posts on the subject. :/

 

[Black Republican]

Any candidate who wants to be on the big primetime debate stage needs to be in the top six spots nationally in an average of the five most recent polls or, at the very least, be in the top five in Iowa in New Hampshire in an average of state polls.

Fox will be looking at polls up until those released on next Tuesday, two days before the big debate.

it was 7 before on the main stage, wonder if anyone will get cut again?

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.startribune.com/rubio-clinton-take-early-lead-in-star-tribune-minnesota-poll/366314221/

MN Poll

Hillary 59
Bernie 24

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah, I chewed over MMT for a long time, and I never could find a good argument that refutes it. Pretty much every argument against it ended up invoking a Zimbabwe slippery slope argument that completely disregards what the theory is actually saying.

The biggest impact MMT on my thinking was realizing that a fiat currency issuer can't possibly need to borrow money, and that that vestigial requirement has hampered stimulative measures that inevitably prove themselves to fall short. It also made me realize that the way we practice federalism just makes for unnecessary problems on the state and local level because of budgetary constraints.

Wish empty vessel was back too, I loved his posts on the subject. :/

That's not MMT, though - at least, not exclusively. It's just a truism from what it means to have a fiat currency; essentially nobody will disagree with this, be they monetarist or whatever (obviously they'll disagree about whether doing so is beneficial or not). Most countries can't exploit this because the organization in charge of monetary policy is autonomous from the organization in charge of fiscal policy. You, as the government, need to borrow money, because you don't control the central bank and the central bank is unwilling for whatever reason to simply create new money to give to you. If you want to be able to proscribe MMT solutions (in the sense of "governments should fund short-term stimuli using created money"), you have to argue for either removing the independence of the central bank, severely curtailing that independence, or changing the mandates of the central bank to be strongly different from the status quo.

That's the important conclusion of MMT, and the one that is strongly heterodox - all of the other Keynesian branches (and MMT is a sub-branch of Keynesianism, in the sense that it draws upon the most fundamental Keynesian tenets) think there is more value in having an independent central bank. There's some overlap because there's a growing school of Keynesians who think that inflation targets are actually a pretty poor way for central banks to work, and the nominal GDP targets are actually better, and I suspect this might one day be the new orthodoxy because the early papers are promising and frankly inflation-targeting hasn't worked as well as desired [and being honest, most central banks basically gave up on it altogether anyway during the financial crisis], but most MMT people (not all, but most) are full-throttle "reincorporate the central bank". I don't see that ever happening.

 

[lednerg]

Edit: trump won't run 3rd party simply because he will be the nominee.

Even if it's not Bloomberg or Trump, there are still others out there who could stir things up and make it so 270 EV's aren't a guarantee for the GOP/DNC candidates. If a successful independent candidate could lead to handing the presidency to the GOP House - then money's no object. The Supreme Court appointments alone would be worth trillions to them.

And sure, this almost positively won't be a concern for this election since we're already so late into it, but for 2020 (when the census and redistricting will be on the line), I could see it being a factor.

 

[Makai]

it was 7 before on the main stage, wonder if anyone will get cut again?

If Kasich beats Christie in national polling, Christie will get cut. Otherwise, it will be the same lineup as last time.

EDIT: Oh shit, Rand has a chance after that Iowa poll.