• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Chumly
Power Girl's bosom
gives me strength
(04-25-2012, 03:20 AM)

Originally Posted by Oblivion

The WSJ had their token non-ultra right wing view point article today (thus meeting their quota for the rest of the year) about higher taxes on the rich not likely destroying the world economy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...997820160.html

As usual, the comments section is very revealing. 90% of the people disagreeing with the article's premise are dismissing it simply based on the fact that the columnists are egghead, latte-sipping, Academia dwelling perfessors who never worked in the "private sector" a day in their lives. A few people try to go into detail as to WHY they think the article's incorrect, but don't really providing much compelling arguments.

I read a few of the arguments and its amazing what a brainwashed party conservatives have become.
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 03:58 AM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Oblivion

The WSJ had their token non-ultra right wing view point article today (thus meeting their quota for the rest of the year) about higher taxes on the rich not likely destroying the world economy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...997820160.html

As usual, the comments section is very revealing. 90% of the people disagreeing with the article's premise are dismissing it simply based on the fact that the columnists are egghead, latte-sipping, Academia dwelling perfessors who never worked in the "private sector" a day in their lives. A few people try to go into detail as to WHY they think the article's incorrect, but don't really providing much compelling arguments.

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-25-2012, 04:28 AM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar
Two blue dogs down - Tim Holden (to attorney Matt Cartwright) and Jason Altmire (to fellow Rep. Mark Critz).

Critz isn't much better, but Cartwright should be able to hold down Holden's district (it's D+5ish now).
AlteredBeast
Member
(04-25-2012, 04:41 AM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.

So everything that i have been saying for months. Shame that instead of sanity, you get ridiculous budgets from Paul Ryan and things that get zero votes like Obama's proposal.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:02 AM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.

And watch the economy sink again, all to make two numbers match each other for no discernible reason. It's like a weird numerology cult. Like everybody has turned into the guy from the movie Pi.
Last edited by empty vessel; 04-25-2012 at 05:06 AM.
zchen
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:19 AM)
zchen's Avatar
I've stopped taking any of PD's how Romney will win comments seriously and prefer to read them out in my mind with as much sarcastic tone as possible.
Miletius
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:30 AM)
Miletius's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.

He also mentions, however, that ultimately if Washington could solve problems like Health Care then a lot of this talk would be unneeded. He's appealing to our notion that Washington is too broken to do actual problem solving. In response Americans are supposed to accept Greek-like austerity measures.

He's probably just playing devil's advocate though, there's no way he could seriously think that raising taxes on the middle class in addition to everything else he mentions on the broadcast is a good idea. Some of it, sure.
Jason's Ultimatum
Americans out of Mexico! The Border Tax Equity Act
(04-25-2012, 05:37 AM)
Jason's Ultimatum's Avatar
PD is still angry that Hillary didn't win the Democratic nomination.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:52 AM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.

Just read the article itself, and it's terrible:

Originally Posted by NPR

[Simon Johnson] argues that a tax hike is necessary to pay for Social Security and especially Medicare, which is projected to become significantly more expensive in the coming decade.

If you want to keep social insurance in place in a sustainable fashion, you need revenue. ... In the United States today, your main chance for getting revenue is don't extend the bush era tax cuts. Have an increase in taxes for people at the higher end, for sure, but also throughout the middle class.

This is just so wrong on so many levels, and, amazingly, not just from the realist perspective. In the first place, even if you wrongly believe, despite all common sense, that taxes "pay" for government spending, social insurance is still not "paid for" by "revenue" collected by income taxes, but from separate "revenue" collected by payroll taxes. Raising income taxes does not affect the "solvency" of social insurance unless and until Congress changes the law requiring that social security payments not exceed the amount of money the government taxes via the payroll tax. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will have no affect on that under current law.

In the real world, and exactly contrary to what Johnson said, if you want to keep social insurance in place in a sustainable fashion, you don't need revenue. The government can always meet its obligations to pay money, notwithstanding revenue. So if you want to keep social insurance in place, all that has to happen is that the Congress direct the government to pay for it. Period. If the government stops paying for it, that will have been a pure political choice, i.e., the execution of class warfare against America's middle class. And Democrats and Republicans will have done it together. In this era of plutocracy and corruption, who says that bipartisanship is dead?

MIT should be embarrassed.
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-25-2012, 05:53 AM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Today's Planet Money had a good story on what needs to be done to REALLY cut the deficit if you are serious about the budget.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...should-we-jump

Basically . . . let all the Bush tax cuts expire, cut various deductions, cut spending, etc.

Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire and the cuts in the debt limit deal go through is probably going to do wonders for the deficit.

Of course, something like the Communistngressional Progressive Caucus' plan would be even better, but I doubt anything after the 2012 elections is going to look like that. It'd need a perfect storm.

(In theory, if Democrats still held control of the Senate while winning the House, they could pass a massive budget bill through reconciliation. I'm not that optimistic)
Last edited by Aaron Strife; 04-25-2012 at 05:56 AM.
Oblivion
Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
(04-25-2012, 06:24 AM)
Somebody at Dailykos made a good point today. If social security and medicare could go bankrupt, why can't the pentagon as well?
sc0la
Member
(04-25-2012, 06:29 AM)
sc0la's Avatar

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Somebody at Dailykos made a good point today. If social security and medicare could go bankrupt, why can't the pentagon as well?

its an argument I have made before. Why don't we have to "fund" conflicts? I imagine blowing up brown people in far away lands would be a lot less popular if it meant large tax increases during war time.
jamesinclair
smells clean, brushes teeth. Also combs hair regularly.
(04-25-2012, 09:09 AM)
jamesinclair's Avatar
Newt ego on suicide watch

and Pennsylvania, the last Gingrich’s birthplace and early childhood home. Although his campaign had predicted a strong finish there, Gingrich placed fourth in Pennsylvania behind Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, who suspended his own presidential campaign weeks ago.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ney-rolls.html
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 09:30 AM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

JIn the real world, and exactly contrary to what Johnson said, if you want to keep social insurance in place in a sustainable fashion, you don't need revenue. The government can always meet its obligations to pay money, notwithstanding revenue. So if you want to keep social insurance in place, all that has to happen is that the Congress direct the government to pay for it. Period. If the government stops paying for it, that will have been a pure political choice, i.e., the execution of class warfare against America's middle class. And Democrats and Republicans will have done it together. In this era of plutocracy and corruption, who says that bipartisanship is dead?

MIT should be embarrassed.

So you think the government should just print money? Is that what MMT is? Magic Money Theory? If you do that your currency will tank and you'll just have massive inflation. It is not like countries haven't tried that before. We've run that experiment. It doesn't work well.

People already think our currency is in trouble . . . you do that, it will be.
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 09:32 AM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Maybe not. It will be interesting to see if there continues to be an anti-Romney vote. Maybe Newt will get a resurgence? maybe Ron Paul will bring in more than 10%. Maybe people will continue to vote for Santorum.

It will be very interesting to see the turn-out and what the total of Romney votes versus not-Romney votes is.

I have no idea what will happen.

Welp . . . that sucked. I was hoping for at least one state where the sum of the anti-Romney vote was more than the Romney vote. But nope. He got more than 50% in every contest.

He won. It is all over. But Ron Paul as ALL the delegates.
Black Mamba
(04-25-2012, 09:50 AM)
Black Mamba's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

So you think the government should just print money? Is that what MMT is? Magic Money Theory? If you do that your currency will tank and you'll just have massive inflation. It is not like countries haven't tried that before. We've run that experiment. It doesn't work well.

People already think our currency is in trouble . . . you do that, it will be.

I think he's arguing more along the lines of how much of a farce it is that social insurance is tied to payroll taxes, meanwhile when we go to war we just borrow.

Everyone talks about how SS will be broke in say 2033 or whatever it is now ignoring that we could simply print money to cover it, but even less so, borrow like we do right now to cover it.

Anyway, it's high time we get rid of FICA and just have an income tax. Then these things would stop being politicized to the extent they are. The money all goes into the general fund (or according to EV in a wastebin) together. Where it comes from means nothing.

If SS goes "broke" it's because our gov't doesn't want to fund it, period. It's not because it actually goes broke...
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 10:00 AM)
speculawyer's Avatar
I listened to the Romney speech. Meh. Nice flag-waving and saying 'America' over & over. But no solid policy prescriptions. Well, I guess it wasn't the forum for that.
Oblivion
Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
(04-25-2012, 10:25 AM)

Originally Posted by speculawyer

I listened to the Romney speech. Meh. Nice flag-waving and saying 'America' over & over. But no solid policy prescriptions. Well, I guess it wasn't the forum for that.

But think about all the grandparents that can't visit their kids cause Obama won't allow drilling in Yosemite. :(
eznark
john deere tramp stamp
(04-25-2012, 02:28 PM)
eznark's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

I listened to the Romney speech. Meh. Nice flag-waving and saying 'America' over & over. But no solid policy prescriptions. Well, I guess it wasn't the forum for that.

It was a really good speech from a terrible candidate. But c'mon, a primary victory speech isn't the time for policy prescriptions, it's a time for soaring rhetoric and throwing out as many quotable one-liners as you can.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 02:29 PM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

So you think the government should just print money? Is that what MMT is? Magic Money Theory? If you do that your currency will tank and you'll just have massive inflation. It is not like countries haven't tried that before. We've run that experiment. It doesn't work well.

People already think our currency is in trouble . . . you do that, it will be.

You do not understand the monetary system. You also do not understand what inflation is. You also do not understand how inflation is caused or how it is controlled. You also do not understand that the monetary system fundamentally changed in 1971 (the US voluntarily defaulted and created a new currency). It is also not true that "we've run that experiment." It is also not true that I think the government "should just print money." It is true that I think the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does not need to collect dollars from citizens to accomplish that.

We are not on the gold standard or any other convertibility standard, but your positions are based on the assumption that we are. In this way, you are much closer to Ron Paul than you might think. All of your policy analysis flows from a failure to grasp the implications of the switch in the monetary system that occurred in 1971. If you ever wondered why Libertarians sneer at fiat money, it is because it democraticizes money and places it fully within the control of the public (as opposed to pegged to some commodity over which they have no real collective control). Fiat money creates policy options that do not otherwise exist, including freedom from taxation for the purpose of raising revenue. (Taxation is necessary for other reasons, just not to finance the government's spending.)

For a (very) brief spell in 1945, the US had a fiat monetary system also. This was after the gold standard had broken down but before the Bretton Woods agreement that re-restablished currency convertibility and fixed exchange rates. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at that time (Beardsley Ruml) gave a speech to the American Bar Association during this period entitled "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete." And in that speech, he said:
The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. ...

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-i...l_obsolete.pdf

Let that sink in a bit in relation to the NPR article and what Simon Johnson was asserting. It may well be the case that spending more in aggregate on social security will result in a need to raise taxes (although I seriously doubt it), but that will not be because the government needs revenue. It will be because it is necessary to reduce aggregate demand and the prospect of inflation. From an MMT perspective, the need to raise taxes to reduce aggregate demand is a good thing, because it means the economy is full steam ahead.
Last edited by empty vessel; 04-25-2012 at 05:38 PM.
Kosmo
Banned
(04-25-2012, 03:53 PM)
Kosmo's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

You do not understand the monetary system. You also do not understand what inflation is. You also do not understand how inflation is caused or how it is controlled. You also do not understand that the monetary system fundamentally changed in 1971 (the US voluntarily defaulted and created a new currency). It is also not true that "we've run that experiment." It is also not true that I think the government "should just print money." It is true that I think the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does need to collect dollars from citizens to accomplish that.

We are not on the gold standard or any other convertibility standard, but your positions are based on the assumption that we are. In this way, you are much closer to Ron Paul than you might think. All of your policy analysis flows from a failure to grasp the implications of the switch in the monetary system that occurred in 1971. If you ever wondered why Libertarians sneer at fiat money, it is because it democraticizes money and places it fully within the control of the public (as opposed to pegged to some commodity over which they have no real collective control). Fiat money creates policy options that do not otherwise exist, including freedom from taxation for the purpose of raising revenue. (Taxation is necessary for other reasons, just not to finance the government's spending.)

For a (very) brief spell in 1945, the US had a fiat monetary system also. This was after the gold standard had broken down but before the Bretton Woods agreement that re-restablished currency convertibility and fixed exchange rates. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at that time (Beardsley Ruml) gave a speech to the American Bar Association during this period entitled "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete." And in that speech, he said:

The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. ...

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-i...l_obsolete.pdf

Let that sink in a bit in relation to the NPR article and what Simon Johnson was asserting. It may well be the case that spending more in aggregate on social security will result in a need to raise taxes (although I seriously doubt it), but that will not be because the government needs revenue. It will be because it is necessary to reduce aggregate demand and the prospect of inflation. From an MMT perspective, the need to raise taxes to reduce aggregate demand is a good thing, because it means the economy is full steam ahead.

EV, what of this notion to "pay off our debt":

Simply mint some $500B coins and "payoff" the debt. They would effectively be unusable as currency, but would they not satisfy the debt?
el retorno
Member
(04-25-2012, 03:53 PM)
el retorno's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

You do not understand the monetary system. You also do not understand what inflation is. You also do not understand how inflation is caused or how it is controlled. You also do not understand that the monetary system fundamentally changed in 1971 (the US voluntarily defaulted and created a new currency). It is also not true that "we've run that experiment." It is also not true that I think the government "should just print money." It is true that I think the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does need to collect dollars from citizens to accomplish that.

That's one theory, its not the gospel. And a lot of people disagree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism#Criticism
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 04:12 PM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kosmo

EV, what of this notion to "pay off our debt":

Simply mint some $500B coins and "payoff" the debt. They would effectively be unusable as currency, but would they not satisfy the debt?

Of course it would pay off the "debt" (promises to pay people in the future), and it likely wouldn't be nearly as inflationary as you think. Why? Because it's basically an asset swap (money for bonds). But the asset swap is with people who were currently saving (not spending) that money, meaning that is money that is not contributing to aggregate demand. If people receiving the asset swap continue to save (rather than spend), then you will not see inflation, because inflation occurs when too much money is trying to be spent on too few goods. Consider that bonds, themselves, are highly liquid. If a person with bonds decides to change his/her behavior from saving to buying, it is very easy for that person to do so. So a swap of money for bonds is not nearly as big a deal as one might think. (Also never mind that the government itself is the beneficiary of much of the government's promised obligations to spend, meaning a good chunk of those promises are entirely illusory.)

Your assertion that 500B in money created by the government would be unusable isn't supported by an argument of any kind. And the government need not mint the money. It can just use a few keystrokes to change bank accounts. Most money is now entirely abstract, represented in pixel form, not actual cash. We now account for money, like a scoreboard operator accounts for points scored during a sporting match. We don't really physically create it or physically use it, at least not very much.

Note that when you characterize the debt as a promise to pay people in the future (which is all it is), then you can see the social security program itself as debt that is indistinguishable from bonds only in to whom the promises were made. Social security is promises made to pay elderly people to be secure in their old age. Bonds are promises to pay a much narrower class of on average wealthier people. So if it comes down to the "debt" or "social security," guess which one I would choose.
Last edited by empty vessel; 04-25-2012 at 04:18 PM.
ToxicAdam
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:21 PM)
ToxicAdam's Avatar
I guess America's 'too big to fail' in EV's eyes.

It will be a motherfucker when the entire world collectively turns their back on your currency when you start "keystroking" away it's perceived value. Pretty dangerous game of chicken that no one in Washington would ever sign off on.
Hitokage
Setec Astronomer
(04-25-2012, 04:22 PM)
Hitokage's Avatar

Originally Posted by el retorno de los sapos

That's one theory, its not the gospel. And a lot of people disagree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism#Criticism

Interesting reads from there:

http://www.webcitation.org/60FIKbbn1
http://mises.org/daily/5260/The-UpsideDown-World-of-MMT
http://www.businessinsider.com/weeke...ory-mmt-2011-1

Edit: I like that last one the most.
Last edited by Hitokage; 04-25-2012 at 05:13 PM.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
(04-25-2012, 04:59 PM)
Dr. Pangloss's Avatar
Dat Austerity

Britain's economy slid into its second recession since the financial crisis after official data unexpectedly showed a fall in output in the first three months of 2012, piling pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron's embattled coalition government.

The Office for National Statistics said Britain's gross domestic product fell 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 after contracting by 0.3 percent at the end of 2011, confounding forecasts for 0.1 percent growth.

Most economists had expected Britain's $2.4 trillion economy to eke out modest growth in the early 2012, but these forecasts were upset by the biggest fall in construction output in three years coupled with anaemic service sector growth and a fall in industrial output.

Wednesday's figures will be a deep blow for Britain's Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, which has slid in opinion polls since a poorly received annual budget statement in March and risks embarrassment at local elections on May 3.

The government is also under pressure over revelations about its close relationship with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

The government desperately needs growth to achieve its overriding goal of eliminating Britain's large budget deficit over the next five years.

Britain's economy contracted by 7.1 percent during its 2008-2009 recession and recovery since has been slow, with headwinds from the euro zone debt crisis, government spending cuts, high inflation and a damaged banking sector.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47169446

If only we could follow their lead with the Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity*.

*Prosperity not guaranteed for all citizens.
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 05:12 PM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

You do not understand the monetary system. You also do not understand what inflation is. You also do not understand how inflation is caused or how it is controlled. You also do not understand that the monetary system fundamentally changed in 1971 (the US voluntarily defaulted and created a new currency).

Yeah . . . me and most economists are just all a bunch of idiots.

Just because someone exposes a theory that you like, that doesn't mean it is true or it works.

It is also not true that I think the government "should just print money." It is true that I think the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does need to collect dollars from citizens to accomplish that.

Those statements contradict each other (as long as you are not being a goofball and taking them completely literally . . . "print money" = spend money that did not exist before.)

We are not on the gold standard or any other convertibility standard, but your positions are based on the assumption that we are. In this way, you are much closer to Ron Paul than you might think. All of your policy analysis flows from a failure to grasp the implications of the switch in the monetary system that occurred in 1971. If you ever wondered why Libertarians sneer at fiat money, it is because it democraticizes money and places it fully within the control of the public (as opposed to pegged to some commodity over which they have no real collective control). Fiat money creates policy options that do not otherwise exist, including freedom from taxation for the purpose of raising revenue.

They like the gold standard because it prevents anyone from screwing up the money system since you can't print gold. With Fiat money, you can. And that is fine as long as it is done judiciously. But you can't just print million dollars bills, give them to every citizen, and expect us all to be suddenly wealthy.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:24 PM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

I guess America's 'too big to fail' in EV's eyes.

Most definitely. That's the prime benefit of sovereignty.

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

It will be a motherfucker when the entire world collectively turns their back on your currency when you start "keystroking" away it's perceived value. Pretty dangerous game of chicken that no one in Washington would ever sign off on.

Well, that's not really what happens. First, because spending money increases aggregate demand, the economy picks up steam (which actually has the effect of reducing the "deficit," kind of like how cutting spending in a recession increases the "deficit"). Second, because the dollar floats, its devaluation has a floor as American goods and services become more attractive to the rest of the world. This is why currency being allowed to float on an exchange is a central tenet of MMT. Without this facet of currency, MMT does not hold, and it is part and parcel of what a "modern monetary" system is.
Black Republican
water to wine
the drink exchanger
(04-25-2012, 05:26 PM)
Black Republican's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr. Pangloss

Dat Austerity



If only we could follow their lead with the Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity*.

*Prosperity not guaranteed for all citizens.

guess i bailed out the right time lol


but seriously that fucking sucks :(
PhoenixDark
(04-25-2012, 05:32 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

WASHINGTON -- Once thought to be solidly behind President Barack Obama, younger voters burdened by a bleak employment picture, high gas prices and student loan debt are being aggressively wooed by the Democrat and his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

In 2008, Obama had a 34-point advantage over Republican Sen. John McCain among voters under age 30. He won about two-thirds of the vote in that age group.

But a new Harvard poll suggests the president may face a harder sales job with younger voters this time around. Obama led Romney by 12 points among those ages 18-24, according to the survey. Among those in the 25-29 age group, Obama held a 23-point advantage.

It's an opening Republicans hope to exploit by focusing on young people's disillusionment with the candidate who promised "hope" and "change."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1451667.html

But the unemployment rate among young people doesn't matter remember
RDreamer
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:36 PM)
RDreamer's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

But you can't just print million dollars bills, give them to every citizen, and expect us all to be suddenly wealthy.

Please tell me you don't believe this is what EV is saying or advocating or that MMTs say or advocate this, because it's completely ridiculous.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:37 PM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Yeah . . . me and most economists are just all a bunch of idiots.

http://heteconomist.com/?p=5175

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7uJI...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Just because someone exposes a theory that you like, that doesn't mean it is true or it works.

You mean a man who, at the time he made the remarks addressed to the foremost legal association in America, was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? I agree that title doesn't make him correct. It ought, at least, suggest those naysaying or downright ignoring MMT might want to pay some attention and look into it when the government's central bank has expressly said (to a sophisticated audience) that taxation's purpose is not to raise revenue for the government. This isn't an outside economist saying this. It is somebody who, at the time, handled the government's accounts.

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Those statements contradict each other (as long as you are not being a goofball and taking them completely literally . . . "print money" = spend money that did not exist before.)

How are they contradictory? I don't believe that the US "should just print money," even if printing money = spending money. That's a ridiculous simplification. I do, however, believe the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does not need to collect dollars from citizens in order to accomplish that. (It does, however, need to tax money for other reasons).

Originally Posted by speculawyer

But you can't just print million dollars bills, give them to every citizen, and expect us all to be suddenly wealthy.

I don't know who you are addressing with this argument.
Last edited by empty vessel; 04-25-2012 at 05:40 PM.
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(04-25-2012, 06:11 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr. Pangloss

Dat Austerity



If only we could follow their lead with the Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity*.

*Prosperity not guaranteed for all citizens.


So will the American media talk about this and state that auserity during a slow recovery is not a good idea?

And more importantly will politicians in Washington? Including Obama!
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 06:18 PM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by RDreamer

Please tell me you don't believe this is what EV is saying or advocating or that MMTs say or advocate this, because it's completely ridiculous.

Well, I have yet to be explained the difference.

Originally Posted by empty vessel

http://heteconomist.com/?p=5175

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7uJI...layer_embedded

Yes. Minority alternate schools of thought exist. So what? That proves nothing.

You mean a man who, at the time he made the remarks addressed to the foremost legal association in America, was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? I agree that title doesn't make him correct. It ought, at least, suggest those naysaying or downright ignoring MMT might want to pay some attention and look into it when the government's central bank has expressly said (to a sophisticated audience) that taxation's purpose is not to raise revenue for the government. This isn't an outside economist saying this. It is somebody who, at the time, handled the government's accounts.

And there are climate scientists that still deny climate change. So what?

Look . . . we DO print money. The Federal reserve does it. But we try to do it judiciously. You seem to advocate handing that power over to the federal government so they can just spend away. I think that is a bad idea as do most economists. Good luck pushing the alternate view.

How are they contradictory? I don't believe that the US "should just print money," even if printing money = spending money. That's a ridiculous simplification. I do, however, believe the US government can and should spend more money, and that it does not need to collect dollars from citizens in order to accomplish that. (It does, however, need to tax money for other reasons).

They are contradictory because you say "I don't think the government should print money" . . . but they should actions that are equivalent of just printing money except that instead of literally printing the money & handing it out, we just conjure up digits in bank accounts.

Please explain how what you are advocating is any different. I have yet to see the difference. Anyone else see the difference?

And as I point out above . . . we already do this. We just do it through the Fed buying government debt. We use that debt level as a metric to control how much we will do it.
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(04-25-2012, 06:25 PM)
speculawyer's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

Well, that's not really what happens. First, because spending money increases aggregate demand, the economy picks up steam (which actually has the effect of reducing the "deficit," kind of like how cutting spending in a recession increases the "deficit").

Well, that is the theory anyway. And I think it works sometimes but not other times. I think it worked in the great depression since we were relatively isolated. But I think it doesn't work well today because most of the newly created demand just stimulates foreign economies not the domestic one.

This seems to be far-liberal flip-side to 'cut taxes to zero, infinite revenue!'

Second, because the dollar floats, its devaluation has a floor as American goods and services become more attractive to the rest of the world. This is why currency being allowed to float on an exchange is a central tenet of MMT. Without this facet of currency, MMT does not hold, and it is part and parcel of what a "modern monetary" system is.

EXACTLY. If we inflate our currency like crazy it eventually becomes worthless such that we can't buy imported goods. We all become poor and destitute so that we become willing to work in sweat shops. But is that a good thing?
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-25-2012, 06:26 PM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar
Gingrich is ending his campaign.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
RDreamer
Member
(04-25-2012, 06:33 PM)
RDreamer's Avatar

Originally Posted by speculawyer

Well, I have yet to be explained the difference.

We've explained it multiple points throughout the thread. We are not arguing that the government can and should create money willy nilly with no thoughts to the consequence, because apparently there are none. That would be nonsense. We are saying that the "consequences" politicians are railing about are fictional, not that there are none at all. We don't have to collect revenue in order to spend. That is a fact, because we create our own money. So, the consequences of spending all willy nilly in this monetary system aren't that we won't have money anymore, they are things like rampant inflation. That is why we don't hand out million dollar bills and why a MMTer would never advocate for it. And the reason that inflation isn't a problem at this time, is because we're in a recession with high unemployment. That means that aggregate demand is at a low. That means we have too few dollars chasing too many goods. Rampant inflation happens with the opposite of that scenario, not when you balance out that scenario. The balancing of that scenario would result in a healthy economy, and the balancing of that scenario should be what we're aiming for.

What EV and MMTers are advocating is that we face up to the reality of our monetary system, and use taxes for their actual purpose. That is, we tax to fix things like income inequality, manage aggregate demand, and to warm up or cool down the economy. We do not tax, however, in order to gain revenue. MMTers are saying that the deficit isn't a thing that exists in order to balance out at some point. The deficit is simply a measurement of the difference between what a government creates and what it destroys in order to do those things I just listed.
empty vessel
Member
(04-25-2012, 06:42 PM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by RDreamer

We've explained it multiple points throughout the thread. We are not arguing that the government can and should create money willy nilly with no thoughts to the consequence, because apparently there are none. That would be nonsense. We are saying that the "consequences" politicians are railing about are fictional, not that there are none at all. We don't have to collect revenue in order to spend. That is a fact, because we create our own money. So, the consequences of spending all willy nilly in this monetary system aren't that we won't have money anymore, they are things like rampant inflation. That is why we don't hand out million dollar bills and why a MMTer would never advocate for it. And the reason that inflation isn't a problem at this time, is because we're in a recession with high unemployment. That means that aggregate demand is at a low. That means we have too few dollars chasing too many goods. Rampant inflation happens with the opposite of that scenario, not when you balance out that scenario. The balancing of that scenario would result in a healthy economy, and the balancing of that scenario should be what we're aiming for.

What EV and MMTers are advocating is that we face up to the reality of our monetary system, and use taxes for their actual purpose. That is, we tax to fix things like income inequality, manage aggregate demand, and to warm up or cool down the economy. We do not tax, however, in order to gain revenue. MMTers are saying that the deficit isn't a thing that exists in order to balance out at some point. The deficit is simply a measurement of the difference between what a government creates and what it destroys in order to do those things I just listed.

Well said. I wouldn't have anything to add to this, and don't think I could have said it better.

The problem with arguments that the government "needs" revenue to spend--besides that it foolishly directs the whole of taxation policy at a completely unnecessary and irrelevant objective--is that it unduly limits important policy options and obscures the political nature of Congress's acts and omissions. It allows representatives to hide behind financial and economic constraints that aren't really there. The only limitations are political and legal, and Congress is responsible for that.
Last edited by empty vessel; 04-25-2012 at 07:00 PM.
Black Republican
water to wine
the drink exchanger
(04-25-2012, 06:43 PM)
Black Republican's Avatar
Gallup daily: Obama 49, Romney 43
Miletius
Member
(04-25-2012, 06:52 PM)
Miletius's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1451667.html

But the unemployment rate among young people doesn't matter remember

I agree that Obama is going to have a hard time counting on younger voters the way he did 4 years ago. However, I don't think that Romney will be able to offer an alternative to young folks, who by and large don't buy the corporations are people, less regulation is good argument as well.

The best he can hope for is to further depress the young turnout, but seeing as how it's not that high to begin with I don't really see what good it accomplishes. It's a question of margins here, and I don't think that putting in that much effort is worth his time. Certainly not "an aggressive push."
PhoenixDark
(04-25-2012, 06:58 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Miletius

I agree that Obama is going to have a hard time counting on younger voters the way he did 4 years ago. However, I don't think that Romney will be able to offer an alternative to young folks, who by and large don't buy the corporations are people, less regulation is good argument as well.

The best he can hope for is to further depress the young turnout, but seeing as how it's not that high to begin with I don't really see what good it accomplishes. It's a question of margins here, and I don't think that putting in that much effort is worth his time. Certainly not "an aggressive push."

Compare 2004 to 2008. That's what depressed youth turn out does: lose swing states by thin margins. There is next to no reason for young people to vote in droves this year given their dire economic situation.
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-25-2012, 07:14 PM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar
Obama leads Romney by 2 in Arizona!
stressboy
Member
(04-25-2012, 07:18 PM)
stressboy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aaron Strife

Obama leads Romney by 2 in Arizona!

Doomed.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(04-25-2012, 07:34 PM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

Compare 2004 to 2008. That's what depressed youth turn out does: lose swing states by thin margins. There is next to no reason for young people to vote in droves this year given their dire economic situation.

Sure there is. A Romney administration is likely to make their long-term prospects worse.

Originally Posted by Aaron Strife

Obama leads Romney by 2 in Arizona!

Allow me to be the first to cry voter fraud if AZ goes blue.
AlteredBeast
Member
(04-25-2012, 07:36 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

Sure there is. A Romney administration is likely to make their long-term prospects worse.

They don't know that, though. Most 18-29 year olds are driven more by Facebook posts than candidate's actual positions.
PhoenixDark
(04-25-2012, 07:38 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

They don't know that, though. Most 18-29 year olds are driven more by Facebook posts than candidate's actual positions.

Exactly. A Romney presidency could just mean a possible chance at a better economy for them. The last four years certainly haven't worked well for them
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-25-2012, 07:39 PM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

They don't know that, though. Most 18-29 year olds are driven more by Facebook posts than candidate's actual positions.

Which is why they'll all vote for Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

Allow me to be the first to cry voter fraud if AZ goes blue.

I'd say it has a reasonable chance to go blue. It wouldn't be the tipping point for an Obama victory, more like icing on the cake - yet I think it's more plausible than say, Texas or Georgia, states which were also targeted by Obama's campaign team early on.

It sounds like they're pushing for a massive voter registration drive. Even if Obama didn't win it, it'd be laying the groundwork for a successful Democratic campaign in the future. Same with Texas, though I highly doubt that's on the table for Obama this year.

The best - plausible - Obama map is probably 2008 + Arizona and Missouri, minus Indiana.
Last edited by Aaron Strife; 04-25-2012 at 07:44 PM.
PhoenixDark
(04-25-2012, 07:46 PM)
PhoenixDark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aaron Strife

Which is why they'll all vote for Ron Paul.


I'd say it has a reasonable chance to go blue. It wouldn't be the tipping point for an Obama victory, more like icing on the cake - yet I think it's more plausible than say, Texas or Georgia, states which were also targeted by Obama's campaign team early on.

It sounds like they're pushing for a massive voter registration drive. Even if Obama didn't win it, it'd be laying the groundwork for a successful Democratic campaign in the future.

I can't find it right now, but there was an article in Time last month about a massive voter registration drive that flipped a local election to democrats thanks to Latino votes. National dems have acquired the guy responsible for the voter registration drive, and are heavily investing in trying to replicate that success in November. I just wonder if democrats are also ensuring people have IDs this time, just in case.
TacticalFox88
Lives in a Tom Clancy novel
(04-25-2012, 07:46 PM)
TacticalFox88's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

They don't know that, though. Most 18-29 year olds are driven more by Facebook posts than candidate's actual positions.

http://www.facebook.com/BeingAmericanByGO

This is a prime example. Over 1.5 million likes. Seems like it's just a regular page about "Being American" right? Nope. Read the posts it actually puts up. It's right wing propaganda at it's finest. And the scary part it's not the ONLY one. It's about as subtle as a trainwreck to any of us, but to teens who don't follow politics....well...:(
RDreamer
Member
(04-25-2012, 07:49 PM)
RDreamer's Avatar
This video is aggrivating to watch

It's not that Varney is completely without valid points (this doesn't solve the problem of rising tuition costs), but he's still being a complete douche in the interview. "Bailout! Bailout! It's a bailout! You're buying votes!"


Originally Posted by PhoenixDark

Exactly. A Romney presidency could just mean a possible chance at a better economy for them. The last four years certainly haven't worked well for them

Obviously there are large exceptions, but I really don't see Romney "stealing" those votes in any way shape or form. Most of the people I've seen are disillusioned because Obama didn't go far enough. Sure they're disillusioned enough to not vote at all, but I absolutely don't see a lot of them flipping their vote for Romney.
Last edited by RDreamer; 04-25-2012 at 07:55 PM.

Thread Tools