[!@#$%!]

why does beauregard keep spamming this thread?

[!@#$%!]

gross

[!@#$%!]

you got drunk in the golden toilet. understood it the first time, still gross.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

a proud Xer!

Happy birthday and all that but by any definition I've read, at 62, you're a boomer, not a Gen-Xer.

[tw2113]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

why does beauregard keep spamming this thread?

Probably because the board started collectively ignoring the Trump thread. He went where the action was.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by tw2113

Probably because the board started collectively ignoring the Trump thread. He went where the action was.

lol he should continue to talk to himself elsewhere

ANYWAY

here’s an article that sez bernie is not so scary

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/211489...-establishment

and yeah it even mentions the aggro supporters

eg: “ Some of the anti-Sanders sentiment is driven by pique at his followers’ most obnoxious behavior. But it would be better to bring these voters into the tent than leave them outside attacking inward.“

lmfao. a but perverse, like submitting to blackmail. but ok, there are other areas that make good sense, e.g. his long career showing other sides to him than just “fiery revolutionary.”

[Derek]

Perhaps his supporters being on the outside in the first place motivates them to attack inward. I will be very curious when he wins who in the media and the party will buckle and get in line and who will lead some sort of hopeless Never Bernie stance. As I recall, most Never Trumpers either flipped or became castigated by the Republicans.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Derek

Perhaps his supporters being on the outside in the first place motivates them to attack inward. I will be very curious when he wins who in the media and the party will buckle and get in line and who will lead some sort of hopeless Never Bernie stance. As I recall, most Never Trumpers either flipped or became castigated by the Republicans.

perhaps but it would be awesome if they cooled it some. then again maybe it’s a good cop/bad cop strategy.

either way the repukes are nobody to emulate. we’re trying to get away from all that. let’s not all become beauregards in charlottesvilles.

anyway i’m a lot less scared of bernie than i was... oh... a couple of weeks ago?

the electability argument is turning out to be more speculative then empirical. i mean everyone can spin but the numbers appear real.

if he can bring a coalition of disenfranchised voters across the spectrum that makes up for the inevitable loss of independent voters, then it could be historical.

please don’t tell me “it will happen” because i’m not a man of faith. i need to see proofs and empirical signs.

[The Soup Nazi]

From The New York Times:

Bernie Sanders Isn't the Left's Trump
And this is no time for ego or self-indulgence.

By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist

Feb. 23, 2020, 10:04 a.m. ET


Look, I know the primaries aren't over, and it's still possible that Democratic centrists will get their act together. But Bernie Sanders is now the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination. There are many things to say about that, but the most important is that he is NOT a left-leaning version of Trump. Even if you disagree with his ideas, he's not a wannabe authoritarian ruler.

America under a Sanders presidency would still be America, both because Sanders is an infinitely better human being than Trump and because the Democratic Party wouldn't enable abuse of power the way Republicans have.

And if you're worried about his economic agenda, what's your concern, exactly? That he'll raise taxes on the rich part way back to what they were under Dwight Eisenhower? That he'll run budget deficits? Trump is doing that already — and the economic effects have been positive.

I'm more concerned about (a) the electability of someone who says he's a socialist even though he isn't and (b) if he does win, whether he'll squander political capital on unwinnable fights like abolishing private health insurance. But if he's the nominee, it's the job of Dems to make him electable if at all possible.

To be honest, a Sanders administration would probably leave center-left policy wonks like me out in the cold, at least initially. And if a President Sanders or his advisers say things I think are foolish, I won't pretend otherwise in an attempt to ingratiate myself. (Sorry, I'm still not a convert to Modern Monetary Theory.) But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line.

[Kuhb]

Is anyone familiar with/have sympathy for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Because it tells you that Bernie would raise taxes on the rich for social equity reasons, but he won't actually need theirs or your tax money to fund his programs.

MMT also tells you why Trump's tax cuts and budget deficits have increased the health of the economy

[!@#$%!]

right, the idea is that deficits don’t matter

but i am not sure how long that can go on

krugman isn’t too sure either...

it did not work for third world countries in the past century because the cost of servicing the debt was too high

although that was in foreign debt not local currency

maybe the usa has achieved virtual reality. or world monopoly.

but mmt sort of presumes no currency exchanges. no? which is not the case of our reality.

but still... im not an economist, and this shit is like quantum theory or something

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

right, the idea is that deficits don’t matter

but i am not sure how long that can go on

krugman isn’t too sure either...

it did not work for third world countries in the past century because the cost of servicing the debt was too high

although that was in foreign debt not local currency

maybe the usa has achieved virtual reality. or world monopoly.

but mmt sort of presumes no currency exchanges. no? which is not the case of our reality.

but still... im not an economist, and this shit is like quantum theory or something

Yes, this only applies to countries with sovereign currencies and doesn't apply to debts in foreign currency.

I won't taken over the whole thread, but MMT tells us a number of things.

1) The US govt creates the US dollar when it spends or credits banks. It doesn't need tax money whatsoever to undertake any project or buy anything for sale in US dollars.
2) Taxes are still important for equality and to prevent inflation via excessive spending causing resources to run short. However there is no indication that this is close to happening.
3) Fiscal surpluses or deficits are meaningless. What matters is whether the economy is being fully employed or not, and that likely involves a greater amount of government involvement in the economy.
4) As it presently sits, a New Deal-esque job guarantee and health program would improve the US economy, as long term austerity has left the economy under utilised. There is 'fiscal space' for more government spending. This is the same reason Trump's tax cuts and deficit spending have boosted the economy: there is room to grow and Trump's spending facilitated it.
5) Therefore, Bernie could pay for his plans in the same way any war is paid for... The government simply credits the accounts and creates the dollars. Then, if and only if inflation begins to rise due to the higher amount of economic activity, taxes could be raised down the line. Bernie's taxes on the rich would likely already offset any inflation risks anyway.

This diverges significantly from our mainstream understanding of economics and I understand any skepticism. Stephanie Kelton (former chief economist of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee) and Bill Mitchell (Australian economist and professor) are two people to look up if anyone is interested.

Kelton on CNBC giving a good overview https://youtu.be/7cho7naef_k

Mitchell going into a bit more detail. Full lectures of his are available online https://youtu.be/YnyDRwSqp2E

[!@#$%!]

how does the mmt explain the weimar republic?

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

how does the mmt explain the weimar republic?

Bill Mitchell discusses Weimar and Zimbabwe far better than I could.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773

In short, MMT says runaway inflation will occur when the productive capacity of the economy reaches it's limit. Both cases have unique historical reasons for reaching this ceiling: reparations and politics in the case of Weimar, and Mugabe's poorly managed land reforms in the case of Zimbabwe.

Contrast that with Japan, which has run fiscal deficits almost consistently for 30 years and has become a world power (aside from the brief periods of budget surplus, which were quickly followed by recession/downturn)

[!@#$%!]

just read the naked capitalism article on zimbabwe + weimar citing foreign currency debt + lost productivity

this one: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010...inflation.html

im trying to go to sleep (and failing) so i hope you stick around a bit in this thread


—


the usa also has had recessions that follow surpluses

ok let me look at that link you posted

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

just read the naked capitalism article on zimbabwe + weimar citing foreign currency debt + lost productivity

this one: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010...inflation.html

im trying to go to sleep (and failing) so i hope you stick around a bit in this thread

Just finished work here in Aus, so happy and ready to answer any questions haha.

The takeaway message I suppose is that the Weimar and Zimbabwe experiences are historically contingent, and little to do with a stereotype of 'money printing', which is wielded by fiscal conservatives to pursue a 'small govt' agenda imo

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the usa also has had recessions that follow surpluses

ok let me look at that link you posted

100% re: recessions. Australia had consecutive surpluses in the 1990s, where the economy was propped up by growing household debt and the mining industry. We didnt have a recession however have, according to some measures, the 2nd highest household debt:GDP ratio in the world as a result. If the government won't spend, the private sector has to go into debt in order to meet costs

[!@#$%!]

right, austrians (the school, not you) argue that the money supply alone brings inflation

this is something else

i just read half of that link you posted and it blew my mind a little. his axioms sort of turned my mind inside out.

however i am out of gas for charts and case studies and will have to finish tomorrow hahaha. im sorry, 11pm here and im up at 5.... ooooof... sleep is a deficit that matters

—

oh! australia not austria! see, i need sleep lol

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

right, austrians (the schools, not you) argue that the money supply alone brings inflation

this is something else

i just read half of that link you posted and it blew my mind a little. his axioms sort of turned my mind inside out.

however i am out of gas for charts and case studies and will have to finish tomorrow hahaha. im sorry, 11pm here and im up at 5.... ooooof... sleep is a deficit that matters

—

oh! australia not austria! see, i need sleep lol

No worries mate! Haha

Yes, it's as close as you can get to a revolution in economics, and is head spinning as a result. As you can tell, I'm sold... But yeah hence why I'm understanding of skepticism

But this is why I'm not just a supporter of Bernie (not that I can vote), but also think he can pull of his plans and change the economic paradigm along the way. Then I hope the neoliberal hacks who run my country can't help but take notice

[ilduclo]

Deficits do matter. Should be used freely when the economy is sour, but only to increase demand (no tax cuts for the richies)

Read a little of that Mitchell screed. He’s a hack. Very, very wrong on what unemployment means..