Support NeoGAF

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm pretty sure you won't be banned for your political opinions.
And I'm not sure I know what left morality means.

Listen, if you want a discussion here, then post your paper and be prepared to talk about it.

Because at this point, you're just telling cryptic anecdotes about your college life.

I'm pretty sure you do know what it means; this is the part where we try to be diplomatic about bigotry in its various religiously motivated capacities.

 

[The Librarian]

Wacky.

I told my dad he needed to not get a Dem primary ticket and to instead vote for Lugar. Like him or not, he'll be more friendly to the Dems than Mourdock would. Plus, he's got seniority and can help Indiana with those perks.

When it comes to what? Judicial stuff?

 

[Tim-E]

The Obama campaign began the week by announcing a whopping $25 million ad buy in nine battleground states — and their top strategists told reporters that it is only the beginning.

“We’re not letting our foot off the pedal,” said campaign manager Jim Messina in a conference call with reporters Monday morning. “We have a very simple choice between going forward and going back.”

Messina, along with senior strategist David Axelrod, told reporters that the ad, called “Go,” is part of a larger campaign effort to convey all that President Obama has done since taking office in the midst of an economic crisis and two wars in January 2009.

Axelrod said the president’s decision to talk positively about his record on the auto-industry bailout, winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, going after al-Qaeda and other achievements contrasts starkly with the strategy of his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, to blame the nation’s continuing economic difficulties on the current administration without offering credible solutions.

“We’re in a different place,” Axelrod said. “We’re fighting our way through. There are still significant headwinds.”

Axelrod didn't preclude the need to respond to Romney’s attacks — and those of independent Republican super PACs, which he said the Obama campaign will respond “vigorously” to and treat “as an ad from governor Romney.”

Axelrod went so far as to describe the conservative Koch brothers, who have bankrolled several anti-Obama efforts including the free-market group Americans for Prosperity, as “contract killers over there in super PAC land who are going to continue to pound away on behalf of governor Romney.”

Axelrod didn’t mention the negative ads that Obama has aired already, including one broadcast in Ohio, Virginia and Iowa this month slamming Romney for holding a Swiss bank account.

A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg, did not respond to an inquiry about whether Romney would answer the Obama ad buy with one of his own, but she offered this rebuttal to the Messina/Axelrod call:

“President Obama would like for voters to believe he hasn’t been president for the last three years. Americans are disappointed in President Obama’s liberal policies that haven’t made their lives any better. President Obama just hasn’t lived up to his promises. It’s harder to get a job, buy or sell a home, and those fortunate enough to have jobs often have less in their paychecks. Mitt Romney will get our country back on track and stop the middle-class squeeze of the Obama economy.”

Axelrod and Messina were also asked about Vice President Biden’s remarks on gay marriage during an appearance on “Meet the Press”Sunday, which have been widely interpreted to reflect a more pro-gay-marriage stand than the administration has adopted to date.

Biden said he is “absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage. On the call Monday, Axelrod said the vice president’s remarks are entirely in sync with the administration’s.

Axelrod said the issue offers yet another contrast between Obama and Romney, and that Romney’s support of several anti-gay marriage initiatives and for a constitutional amendment banning the practice are backward-looking positions that most Americans reject.

“There’s a very clear distinction in this race,” he said.

During the call, Axelrod also discussed Vice President Biden’s remarks Sunday that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage.

Even after the Obama team announces they're running a $25 million ad campaign that revolves entirely around his record, they're still going to trump the "lol running away from his record" card.

 

[eznark]

When it comes to what? Judicial stuff?

Spending. Lugar is a huge fan of any and all spending. He's also fairly left on guns.

Ha, I didn't realize that he is actively begging for democrat votes.

“We’re asking for independents. We’re asking for Democrats. We’re asking for unknowns. All of the above, everybody,” he implored, tacitly acknowledging victory among an overwhelmingly Republican electorate was elusive.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75972.html#ixzz1uCfpJUPS

I hope he loses by 15.

 

[The Librarian]

Spending. Lugar is a huge fan of any and all spending. He's also fairly left on guns.

Ha, I didn't realize that he is actively begging for democrat votes.

Ah. So he voted for the Recovery Act and the American Jobs Act. Very good.

 

[speculawyer]

Obama is the worst Socialist President ever
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/b...getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html

Stereotypes trump reality. If want someone that talks about reducing government, elect a Republican. If you want someone that actually reduces government, elect a Democrat.

 

[Blergmeister]

Don't you see how investors could just say "screw this" and high tail it out of system that plays with their assets and what not in some misguided effort "to keep the economy moving efficiently?"

That argument seems off to me. How much of the worlds currency is fiat right now? Where are they going to run to? Your argument sounds like reasons people offered to stay on the gold standard.

 

[eznark]

Ah. So he voted for the Recovery Act and the American Jobs Act. Very good.

Voting against the on year earmark moratorium seems to be getting a lot of attention as well. He is being portrayed as anti school choice, but I honestly have no idea if that is true.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Like him or not, he'll be more friendly to the Dems than Mourdock would.

Donnelly would be even friendlier.

If I were a Hoosier I'd take my chances with Mourdock winning the primary.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

That argument seems off to me. How much of the worlds currency is fiat right now? Where are they going to run to? Your argument sounds like reasons people offered to stay on the gold standard.

The fact that there isn't a good alternative now doesn't mean there will never be one. That being said, I do agree that the US is currently failing to utilize the advantages afforded it by its current system.

 

[el retorno]

That argument seems off to me. How much of the worlds currency is fiat right now? Where are they going to run to? Your argument sounds like reasons people offered to stay on the gold standard.

Because what happened to the pound 100 years ago?

They can run to a country that doesn't play games with its money. They can hold other assets, etc.

Like Invisible_Insane this doesn't mean the US can't use some advantage it has (it is right now) but I just don't want to see people go crazy with the idea that everybody is gonna keep using the dollar and its demand is forever.

 

[Stinkles]

that is a pretty cool song.

Its a trash heap of liberal center of the world community college in Portland Oregon, and I don't like it one bit. I can dig some "left" economic policy, and I somewhat consider myself post-Keynesian, but I don't like left morality at all... for reasons I wont say on this site because I would probably be banned.

Let us read your paper. PLEASE.

 

[Tim-E]

Let us read your paper. PLEASE.

Seriously. I would love to see it.

 

[The Librarian]

Voting against the on year earmark moratorium seems to be getting a lot of attention as well. He is being portrayed as anti school choice, but I honestly have no idea if that is true.

Nice side-step there.

 

[Skiptastic]

perfect!

I see what you did there.

When it comes to what? Judicial stuff?

According to the commercials, he voted to allow in the Supremes Obama nominated.

Donnelly would be even friendlier.

If I were a Hoosier I'd take my chances with Mourdock winning the primary.

If Mourdock and his Club for Growth buddies can take down a (previously) fairly popular Senator who's been in office over 30 years, I'm getting sure he'll be able to take down Donnelly. But if it comes to the two, I'll probably vote Donnelly myself.

 

[PhoenixDark]

But Obama ate a dog when he was 6 years old.

I'd imagine the response will focus on Obama doing cocain and smoking weed

Not that either story matters. Romney's folks are pretty good at this

 

[eBay Huckster]

Even after the Obama team announces they're running a $25 million ad campaign that revolves entirely around his record, they're still going to trump the "lol running away from his record" card.

You should know by this point in the cycle that facts don't stop Mitt Romney.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Club for Growth and all of those PACs are so ridiculous. You can't listen to AM radio without getting bombarded with ads for or against our two main Republican challengers to get Ben Nelson's seat. Bob Kerrey will probably win because Omaha is fairly democrat-leaning, and his campaign is seeing far less teardown than the ones attacking the Republican rivals.

Deb Fisher, the outlier in the Republican primary seems like a decent enough lady, but gets no press because she is from the boonies. John Bruning is a total scuzz and Don Stenberg is a tard, as well.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

community college

Why are you writing a philosophy paper in community college? I didn't learn how to repair a VCR when I went to real college.

 

[Particle Physicist]

At least he didn't stick him on the roof?

But he said it was delicious!

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Mourdock and his Club for Growth buddies can take down a (previously) fairly popular Senator who's been in office over 30 years, I'm getting sure he'll be able to take down Donnelly. But if it comes to the two, I'll probably vote Donnelly myself.

While I'd still peg Indiana as Lean R, because it is a red state, I'd have to say going after Donnelly is an entirely different beast than going after Lugar. With Lugar, it's about convincing dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters that the current nominee isn't conservative enough. But once you get to Mourdock vs. Donnelly, you have to convince all of Indiana that a conservative, pro-life pro-gun blue dog representative isn't an ideological fit for the state.

Indiana from what I can tell has a bit of a moderate streak. It's like in North Dakota, where the state has such a heavy red lean that the distinction soon becomes about moderate Republicans vs. conservative Republicans. A moderate Republican will sweep with 70% of the vote, but the right kind of Democrat (and Donnelly's got a decent profile - in ND, this is almost the exact dynamic of Heidi Heitkamp vs. Rick Berg, except the retiring senator is a Democrat) can win against a conservative Republican. I'm not sure how comfortable Hoosiers will be about replacing Mitch Daniels and Richard Lugar with Mike Pence and Richard Mourdock, but it might be enough to get Team Blue over the hump.

Club for Growth and all of those PACs are so ridiculous. You can't listen to AM radio without getting bombarded with ads for or against our two main Republican challengers to get Ben Nelson's seat. Bob Kerrey will probably win because Omaha is fairly democrat-leaning, and his campaign is seeing far less teardown than the ones attacking the Republican rivals.

Interesting. Most of the beltway CW has written this seat off for the Democrats. I'd like to see more polling here.

 

[Gr1mLock]

But he said it was delicious!

Liberals waging war on puppies. How did you not see it coming?

 

[empty vessel]

Adding my own two cents.

Yes, if we kept printing money we would end up like Zimbabwe. MMT doesn't state that we just keep printing money though. It just states that it is not the deficit that constrains our spending but inflation. We can keep printing money until we get to an unacceptable point of inflation. When inflation is too much we tax to take money out of the system.

Today we put money into the system by traditional government spending and by paying off bonds along with bond interest. We tax/destroy money by traditonal taxation and by taking in money for bonds. Government bonds connection with the deficit is a remnant of the gold standard. We can remove this rule while still leaving in the bond program. Then the program becomes a tool to manage inflation just like taxation is. We can issue as many or as few bonds as we feel economically efficient, just as we can spend as much or as little as we feel the same. We can even issue the same amount of bonds that match the difference between spending and taxation as we do today. Whatever keeps the economy moving efficiently.

Well said.

Don't you see how investors could just say "screw this" and high tail it out of system that plays with their assets and what not in some misguided effort "to keep the economy moving efficiently?"

You are going to have to explain what you mean by "playing" with their assets. This is an awfully vague thing to respond to. As you'll recall, nobody is proposing anything different from what we already have. The government already creates and destroys money, and for the last 40 years has (appropriately) created more than it has destroyed:

These deficits--or, put differently, these net increases in dollar-denominated financial assets circulating in the private sector--have been necessary for economic growth. (Note the ill-advised crossing of the streams just before the 2001 recession.)

Money is our collective asset. We use it as a tool for economic activity. The objective of a society, or even an individual, is never to have money (which has no intrinsic value), but to have real goods and services. I sit on a couch and watch television. I do not sit on money and watch money. Money is circulated as a tool to create and distribute couches and televisions. Rich people are not wealthy because they have a lot of money. They are wealthy because they can command real goods and services (like lots of couches and televisions). They use money for that purpose, but that is by collective design.

I don't think you fully appreciate what nonsense it is to say that keeping the economy moving efficiently is misguided. Because the government has the sole power to create money, which is a critical tool of the economy, and is responsible for the amount of dollar-denominated financial assets in the private sector, the government has a responsibility and duty to ensure that its actions are optimized for economic activity. By virtue of its money-issuing character, the government essentially presides over the economy and cannot be extracted from it or sidelined. Economic investors, producers and consumers use and depend upon access to money, a government-created tool.

Consider, if you will, a society in which only a finite supply of money exists. The supply of money never changes, never increases nor decreases in quantity. What happens as that society's population and economy grows? Money per person and per real goods and services decreases, i.e., money becomes scarcer, the prices of goods must drop, and economic activity will slow to a crawl (and eventually, if this goes on long enough, probably stop altogether as money becomes harder and harder to find). What would be a nice collective solution to this dilemma if you were part of this society? How about increasing the money supply to accommodate the growth in the population and economy. That is all that the chart I posted above reflects: a government increasing the money supply to accommodate economic growth.

You can call this playing with people's assets, but I call it common sense. No investor would oppose it, either, because it is in their interests to have a functioning economy that is not in perpetual recession but that is actually growing. So it's not surprising that this is exactly what we see--40 years worth of increasing the amount of dollar-denominated financial assets alongside a growing economy.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Interesting. Most of the beltway CW has written this seat off for the Democrats. I'd like to see more polling here.

I would be surprised to see him lose, despite him not even living in Nebraska for the last 10 years. There is a lot of negativity amongst the republican candidates. I get my haircut at an old fashioned barbershop to catch up on the local gossip (and, incidentally, farming trends), and every time politics comes up, all of the old guys pretty much agree that the republicans all have skeletons in their closet. Besides the inane footbridge that stretches across the Missouri that bears his name, Bob Kerrey is well-regarded.

 

[polyh3dron]

Credit where it's due. Governator calling out the GOP: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/scharzenegger-condemns-gops-ideological-rigidity

Yeah of course he'd wait until he cashed his chips in.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Yeah of course he'd wait until he cashed his chips in.

It's kind of amazing how Republicans find moderation once they leave office like prisoners find Islam.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's kind of amazing how Republicans find moderation once they leave office like prisoners find Islam.

I imagine its a "I need to get re-elected so I'll smile and nod with the crazies" type thing

 

[polyh3dron]

It's kind of amazing how Republicans find moderation once they leave office like prisoners find Islam.

It's kind of like how John McCain's wife and daughter didn't come out against CA's Prop 8 which banned gay marriage until AFTER John lost the presidential election. (which coincidentally was after it was passed)

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's kind of amazing how Republicans find moderation once they leave office like prisoners find Islam.

There are a few good ones. Governor Arne Carlson (R-MN) was fairly moderate during his tenure, although since then he's become an independent and endorsed Obama.

 

[eznark]

I think you're way off on the Indiana reading, Aaron. Pence is running essentially unopposed and that fact alone is going to hurt the Dem turnout in November. Mourdock and Lugar both would both win handily over Donnelly. I'm guessing you didn't follow the right to work stuff very much this year? I don't blame you, there was very little outcry (relatively speaking) as the GOP rammed it through.

Nice side-step there.

What did I side step? I assumed you were being snarky and I added additional issues that have arisen during the campaign.

 

[The Librarian]

What did I side step? I assumed you were being snarky and I added additional issues that have arisen during the campaign.

Oh come on. You said he was in favor of "any and all" kinds of spending, so why did he not vote for the Recovery Act or the American Jobs Act? Leading back to my earlier question: How is he more willing to work with Democrats? He's been as partisan as every other member of the GOP.

 

[AlteredBeast]

There are a few good ones. Governor Arne Carlson (R-MN) was fairly moderate during his tenure, although since then he's become an independent and endorsed Obama.

"he" hasn't become an independent. In reality, the GOP has taken such a hard right turn, regular people like me are forced to declare independence. We are men without a country!

 

[eBay Huckster]

When it comes to what? Judicial stuff?

Well, to be fair, he's more friendly to whoever's the President regardless of their party affiliation on that front.

 

[The Librarian]

Well, to be fair, he's more friendly to whoever's the President regardless of their party affiliation on that front.

I am being fair because I do acknowledge that, but on nearly every other front, he's as partisan as the rest of the GOP. If only working with Democrats on judicial stuff means "more willing to work with them" as a whole, then sure, I guess that's right.

 

[eznark]

Oh come on. You said he was in favor of "any and all" kinds of spending, so why did he not vote for the Recovery Act or the American Jobs Act? Leading back to my earlier question: How is he more willing to work with Democrats? He's been as partisan as every other member of the GOP.

He voted for TARP, voted to raise debt ceiling 8 of 11 times, voted for ethanol subsidies, voted against earmark reform, voted to increase the stimulus, and has supported countless pork projects. In 2010, when he saw the winds start to shift he absolutely did the smart thing and tried to tact right, but apparently his constituents aren't buying it. He has only been partisan in the last couple of years.

Selfishly, I'd like to see Lugar win. If that happens I think my man Horning can get 10% of the total.

 

[Tim-E]

Ahnuld and these other more moderate republicans are just as much republicans as they ever were, it's just that the crazy has pretty much overwhelmed their dialogue that to be relevant to the base, it's not enough to just be mostly conservative.

I don't recall who said it, but it's true that a republican like Reagan, one that is worshiped by the farthest of the right, wouldn't even make an impact in this year's primary. He probably would've been out after New Hampshire.

 

[The Librarian]

He voted for TARP, voted to raise debt ceiling 8 of 11 times, voted for ethanol subsidies, voted against earmark reform, voted to increase the stimulus, and has supported countless pork projects. In 2010, when he saw the winds start to shift he absolutely did the smart thing and tried to tact right, but apparently his constituents aren't buying it. He has only been partisan in the last couple of years.

So any and all kinds of spending only applies when a Republican is in the presidency. Ethanol subsidies? Earmark reform? Small stuff.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I am being fair because I do acknowledge that, but on nearly every other front, he's as partisan as the rest of the GOP. If only working with Democrats on judicial stuff means "more willing to work with them" as a whole, then sure, I guess that's right.

Yeah, when I say "to be fair" I'm trying not to convey disbelief that anyone thinks Lugar's a moderate just because he works with whoever's President on one thing while reflecting Republican orthodoxy on literally everything else for his entire history as a Senator.

 

[The Librarian]

Yeah, when I say "to be fair" I'm trying not to convey disbelief that anyone thinks Lugar's a moderate just because he works with whoever's President on one thing while reflecting Republican orthodoxy on literally everything else for his entire history as a Senator.

Oh yeah. That's true too. I mean, I guess he's a moderate compared to Murdock but that's not saying much.

 

[eznark]

So any and all kinds of spending only applies when a Republican is in the presidency. Ethanol subsidies? Earmark reform? Small stuff.

I think the idea is more that he shows his true colors when he isn't worried about reelection.

Mourdock killed him on spending and being out of touch and has a double digit lead. Whatever he did it worked.

 

[el retorno]

You are going to have to explain what you mean by "playing" with their assets. This is an awfully vague thing to respond to. As you'll recall, nobody is proposing anything different from what we already have. The government already creates and destroys money, and for the last 40 years has (appropriately) created more than it has destroyed:

These deficits--or, put differently, these net increases in dollar-denominated financial assets circulating in the private sector--have been necessary for economic growth. (Note the ill-advised crossing of the streams just before the 2001 recession.)

Money is our collective asset. We use it as a tool for economic activity. The objective of a society, or even an individual, is never to have money (which has no intrinsic value), but to have real goods and services. I sit on a couch and watch television. I do not sit on money and watch money. Money is circulated as a tool to create and distribute couches and televisions. Rich people are not wealthy because they have a lot of money. They are wealthy because they can command real goods and services (like lots of couches and televisions). They use money for that purpose, but that is by collective design.

I don't think you fully appreciate what nonsense it is to say that keeping the economy moving efficiently is misguided. Because the government has the sole power to create money, which is a critical tool of the economy, and is responsible for the amount of dollar-denominated financial assets in the private sector, the government has a responsibility and duty to ensure that its actions are optimized for economic activity. By virtue of its money-issuing character, the government essentially presides over the economy and cannot be extracted from it or sidelined. Economic investors, producers and consumers use and depend upon access to money, a government-created tool.

Consider, if you will, a society in which only a finite supply of money exists. The supply of money never changes, never increases nor decreases in quantity. What happens as that society's population and economy grows? Money per person and per real goods and services decreases, i.e., money becomes scarcer, the prices of goods must drop, and economic activity will slow to a crawl (and eventually, if this goes on long enough, probably stop altogether as money becomes harder and harder to find). What would be a nice collective solution to this dilemma if you were part of this society? How about increasing the money supply to accommodate the growth in the population and economy. That is all that the chart I posted above reflects: a government increasing the money supply to accommodate economic growth.

You can call this playing with people's assets, but I call it common sense. No investor would oppose it, either, because it is in their interests to have a functioning economy that is not in perpetual recession but that is actually growing. So it's not surprising that this is exactly what we see--40 years worth of increasing the amount of dollar-denominated financial assets alongside a growing economy.

Where did I say I'm opposed to controling the money supply?

And my point is that playing with their assets? Just printing money is not going to make people go to a more stable system?

And I love your assertion that your MMT will produce continual growth and not boom and bust cycles. "Just have to adjust the nobs!"

 

[Chumly]

I would be surprised to see him lose, despite him not even living in Nebraska for the last 10 years. There is a lot of negativity amongst the republican candidates. I get my haircut at an old fashioned barbershop to catch up on the local gossip (and, incidentally, farming trends), and every time politics comes up, all of the old guys pretty much agree that the republicans all have skeletons in their closet. Besides the inane footbridge that stretches across the Missouri that bears his name, Bob Kerrey is well-regarded.

What do you think of the Bob Kerry commercials. Not surprising he's basically running on Compromise and getting work done. Meanwhile you have brunings adds bragging about how he's an obstructionist. Republicans are just eating each other up right now.

 

[Skiptastic]

I'm not sure how comfortable Hoosiers will be about replacing Mitch Daniels and Richard Lugar with Mike Pence and Richard Mourdock, but it might be enough to get Team Blue over the hump.

I can tell you that there are some that are not comfortable with this thought (you're talking to one of them) and I still think there are a good number of moderate Hoosiers, but I think ez's right: Rs are taking Indiana this year, just depends on which ones.

I'm a bit pissed off at Mitch for not having someone in his mold to replace him this time around. Now we're going to have to have Mike Pence as governor...ugh...

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Where did I say I'm opposed to controling the money supply?

And my point is that playing with their assets? Just printing money is not going to make people go to a more stable system?

And I love your assertion that your MMT will produce continual growth and not boom and bust cycles. "Just have to adjust the nobs!"

I don't think any of that responds substantively to the points he made, but the last point is especially weak. I don't think EV has said that MMT guarantees continual growth, simply that we are not using all of the tools at our disposal and that doing so would produce better outcomes than our current self-constrained modus operandi.

More importantly: if the worst thing to come of MMT is a boom-bust cycle, all that that means is that it's no better than what we're doing now.

 

[AlteredBeast]

What do you think of the Bob Kerry commercials. Not surprising he's basically running on Compromise and getting work done. Meanwhile you have brunings adds bragging about how he's an obstructionist. Republicans are just eating each other up right now.

Yeah, his ads are insanely positive, show his war record and then ends with him saying, I will work with both parties.

Bruning and Stenberg are all gnashing of teeth and infighting. It is embarrassing times to be a republican, to be sure.

That is why I hope Deb Fischer gets some love. She at least doesn't seem like a total boob.

 

[RDreamer]

Where did I say I'm opposed to controling the money supply?

And my point is that playing with their assets? Just printing money is not going to make people go to a more stable system?

And I love your assertion that your MMT will produce continual growth and not boom and bust cycles. "Just have to adjust the nobs!"

You really really don't get it.

We are "just printing money" right now. That's what his graph is showing. The problem with getting to a more stable system isn't just printing money, it's understanding the reasons for printing more money and reasons against it. Actual reasons, not farce like "we can't afford X program."

And you really seem to think that MMT just means print money forever and ever. I don't get where some of you get this from. I'm relatively new to the theory, but I understood that's not what it meant right off the friggin' bat.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Speaking of evolving
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf

ho ho ho

 

[el retorno]

I don't think any of that responds substantively to the points he made, but the last point is especially weak. I don't think EV has said that MMT guarantees continual growth, simply that we are not using all of the tools at our disposal and that doing so would produce better outcomes than our current self-constrained modus operandi.

More importantly: if the worst thing to come of MMT is a boom-bust cycle, all that that means is that it's no better than what we're doing now.

He's last statement said that it wouldn't create permanent recession (which isn't what we have but whatever) I'm taking that to mean its going to create all or mostly growth (which our system already has done).

My question is what is this self-constrained model that isn't keynesian? What can MMT theory do that others can't? All it seems to do is reframe a definition but that the same time be very arrogant about the place of the US in the economic pecking order and say that thus it can finance its debts itself forever. Which is technically true but would be a mess if applied in the real world.

You really really don't get it.

We are "just printing money" right now. That's what his graph is showing. The problem with getting to a more stable system isn't just printing money, it's understanding the reasons for printing more money and reasons against it. Actual reasons, not farce like "we can't afford X program."

And you really seem to think that MMT just means print money forever and ever. I don't get where some of you get this from. I'm relatively new to the theory, but I understood that's not what it meant right off the friggin' bat.

It plays lip service to the fact that it doesn't say that but it calls for spending and cutting taxes to solve all problems because it can just pring the money to pay for it. Theres nothing innconsistant about that? The intrest rates are going go up and all that newly printed money is just gonna go into the debt (which isn't "real") not to actually real things that EV talked about. Inflation doesn't exists? (but we can just print more!)

 

[empty vessel]

Where did I say I'm opposed to controling the money supply?

And my point is that playing with their assets? Just printing money is not going to make people go to a more stable system?

I literally do not understand what you are saying. What does "playing with their assets" mean? And what does "just printing money" mean? I am not proposing that the government do anything different than it already does in terms of spending. I am explaining what it is doing.

The bond issue--whether the government should issues bonds and, if so, how much--is an entirely separate one having nothing to do with the government "printing money" (which it already does). And I don't see the connection. The only reason you see a connection is because you don't understand the system currently in place. The government's issuance of bonds does not mean it is not "printing money." It actually means it is "printing" more money than it would otherwise have to.

And I love your assertion that your MMT will produce continual growth and not boom and bust cycles. "Just have to adjust the nobs!"

Macroeconomics 101 calls for knob-adjusting: "Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Post-Keynesians (MMTers) believe specifically that monetary policy actions are useless and that all the action lies with fiscal policy.

Although I prefer the steering wheel analogy:

Chapter 1 of Lerner’s 1951 book The Economics of Employment, was really a rewritten version of the 1941 article The Economic Steering Wheel where he elaborated his version of Keynesian thinking. He began the book as such:

Our economic system is frequently put to shame in being displayed before an imaginery visitor from a strange planet. it is time to reverse this procedure. Imagine yourself in a Buck Rogers interplanetary adventure, looking at a highway in a City of Tomorrow. The highway is wide and straight, and its edges are turned up so that it is almost impossible for a car to run off the road. What appears to be a runaway car is speeding along the road and veering off to one side. As it approaches the rising edge of the highway, its front wheels are turned so that it gets back onto the road and goes off at an angle, making for the other side, where the wheels are turned again. This happens many times, the car zigzagging but keeping on the highway until it is out of sight. You are wondering how long it will take for it to crash, when another car appears which behaves in the same fashion. When it comes near you, it stops with a jerk. A door is opened, and an occupants asks whether you would like a lift. You look into the car and before you can control yourself you cry out, “Why, there’s no steering wheel”. Want a ride?​

In other words, macroeconomics was all about “steering” the fluctuations in the economy. Fiscal policy was the steering wheel and should be applied for functional purposes. Laissez-faire (free market) was akin to letting the car zigzag all over the road and if you wanted the economy to develop in a stable way you had to control its movement.

This led to the concept of functional finance and the differentiation from what he called sound finance (that proposed by the free market lobby). Sound finance was all about fiscal rules – the type you read about every day even these days. So balance the budget over the course of the business cycle; only increase the money supply in line with the real rate of output growth; etc.

Lerner thought that these rules were based more in conservative morality than being well founded ways to achieve the goals of economic behaviour – full employment and price stability.

He said that once you understood the monetary system you would always employ functional finance – that is, fiscal and monetary policy decisions should be functional – advance public purpose and eschew the moralising concepts that public deficits were profligate and dangerous.

Lerner thought that the government should always use its capacity to achieve full employment and price stability. In modern monetary theory (MMT) we express this responsibility as “advancing public purpose”. In his 1943 book (page 354) we read:

The central idea is that government fiscal policy, its spending and taxing, its borrowing and repayment of loans, its issue of new money and its withdrawal of money, shall all be undertaken with an eye only to the results of these actions on the economy and not to any established traditional doctrine about what is sound and what is unsound. This principle of judging only by effects has been applied in many other fields of human activity, where it is known as the method of science opposed to scholasticism. The principle of judging fiscal measures by the way they work or function in the economy we may call Functional Finance …

Government should adjust its rates of expenditure and taxation such that total spending in the economy is neither more nor less than that which is sufficient to purchase the full employment level of output at current prices. If this means there is a deficit, greater borrowing, “printing money,” etc., then these things in themselves are neither good nor bad, they are simply the means to the desired ends of full employment and price stability …​

This is why I always criticise the mainstream use of fiscal rules as being divorced from a functional context. It may be that a budget surplus is necessary at some point in time – for example, if net exports are very strong and fiscal policy has to contract spending to take the inflationary pressures out of the economy. This will be a rare situation but in those cases I would as a proponent of MMT advocate fiscal surpluses.

You do realize that by saying the government should not try to control boom and bust cycles, you are advocating for a laissez faire economics system that has been discredited for decades, right? Macroeconomics since Keyens has been all about controlling these cycles, which is why a government increases net spending during recessions.

I think you are making extreme economic statements that you don't fully understand out of some knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that the government stop arbitrarily issuing bonds in the amount of its net spending. This suggestion requires that government to do nothing different on the spending side from what it already does. The government "prints money" now and it will still "print money" (in less amounts, actually) then.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I would be surprised to see him lose, despite him not even living in Nebraska for the last 10 years. There is a lot of negativity amongst the republican candidates. I get my haircut at an old fashioned barbershop to catch up on the local gossip (and, incidentally, farming trends), and every time politics comes up, all of the old guys pretty much agree that the republicans all have skeletons in their closet. Besides the inane footbridge that stretches across the Missouri that bears his name, Bob Kerrey is well-regarded.

Bob Kerrey has no skeletons in his closet.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166531/bob-kerrey-mass-murderer