[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by 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..

Respectfully disagree. Fiscal deficits in and of themselves don't matter, it's just a measure that the government sent more money out into the economy than it withdrew. If there is a shortage of jobs due to an inactive or underfunded private sector, it's entirely appropriate for the government to make up that gap. No one is calling the US govt up to pay back the fiscal 'debt'... They're the only institution which can make US dollars.

[ilduclo]

You’re going to find few respected economists who agree.

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

You’re going to find few respected economists who agree.

Certainly. But in turn you'll find those same respected economists, from Krugman in the mainstream, to descendants of the Chicago school, through to the better post-Keynsians who were wrong about Japan, the Eurozone, the 2008 crash, and the wisdom of austerity in the face of recession. History has shown significant misunderstandings at the heart of mainstream economics.

[ilduclo]

yeah, right.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Why would Joe Biden say his dead son was the Attorney General of the United States?

Just another slip-of-the-tongue faux pas or a hint that something is wrong:

Joe Biden tells crowd ‘I’m a candidate for the United States Senate’ in confused campaign speech

[!@#$%!]

okay covfefe

[ilduclo]

DJIA off another 700, tired of winning yet?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Kuhb

Certainly. But in turn you'll find those same respected economists, from Krugman in the mainstream, to descendants of the Chicago school, through to the better post-Keynsians who were wrong about Japan, the Eurozone, the 2008 crash, and the wisdom of austerity in the face of recession. History has shown significant misunderstandings at the heart of mainstream economics.

krugman has always been against austerity but he’s not ready to make the conceptual leap into mmt-land

[ilduclo]

but. the KUBH school has it DOWN!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

but. the KUBH school has it DOWN!

we're having a nice conversation. please don't shit it down...

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

but. the KUBH school has it DOWN!

Bizarre lol

I'm just saying that Krugman has made a number of incorrect calls due to his basis in Keynesianism (an economics from gold standard era). He actually admitted around 2014 that he was wrong about Japan, but isn't sure why. He gets close every so often.

The the two key insights which MMT offers, which are plainly correct is that

1) The government does not need tax revenue in order to spend. Spending occurs first, which creates the money, then taxes occur second, to restrict the money supply and legitimate the currency.

2) Government spending in and of itself is not necessarily inflationary. What matters is whether there is fiscal space (slack) in the economy for the government to step into.

But if you're stuck equating a fiscal budget with a household budget (you've gotta pay it back!), you'll not be able to see this.

[!@#$%!]

still at work, so let me summarize quickly what i've grasped/deduced and ask you some questions

-because money is not a commodity but just a means of exchange, economic supply and demand are the only thing that matters--yes? these can be regulated by the government via money supply.

-inflation happens due to a loss of productivity plus other factors when supply cannot meet demand--yes?

-therefore recession/depression happens when demand drops?

and if the aboves are yeses: how is it that stagflation happens?

thanks in advance. if harassed elsewhere please ignore.

-

i edited a bit to clarify

[Kuhb]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

still at work, so let me summarize quickly what i've grasped/deduced and ask you some questions

-because money is not a commodity but just a means of exchange, economic supply and demand are the only thing that matters--yes? these can be regulated by the government via money supply.

-inflation happens due to a loss of productivity plus other factors when supply cannot meet demand--yes?

-therefore recession/depression happens when demand drops?

and if the aboves are yeses: how is it that stagflation happens?

thanks in advance. if harassed elsewhere please ignore.

-

i edited a bit to clarify

To give my best/simplest explanation, stagflation was the meeting of multiple forces... the OPEC oil shock providing real resource constraints on business, and wage demands due to labor power of the era. Oversimplifying here, but MMT says that inflation will occur when the real resources of the economy become fully employed/utilised. After this, the 'bids' made for these scarce resources increase, as well as firms raising their costs in order to remain profitable with the fewer available resources.

There is a lot more detail to the stagflation question and it is a pressure point which divides the traditional Keynesians from the MMT and other heterodox economists.

The main point is the particular historical contingency of the 70s oil shocks, which have sadly been used to extract generalizing principles

[Bytor Peltor]

Bloomberg turning up the heat......or total desperation?

JUST NOW on CNN: Orgasms-children running naked-rape fantasies


The Loony Side Of Bernie

A. women get cancer from too many orgasms

B. toddlers should run around naked touching genitals to insulate themselves from porn

C. women’s rape fantasies


Does CBS use any of this in tonight’s debate?

Will any of the debaters work it in??

[!@#$%!]

beauregard please secede

[!@#$%!]

holy fuck warren is gutting bloomberg alive again

lindsey graham!

—

damn, she goes at it again with redlining

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

beauregard please secede

It’s not my fault that President Trump is winning another Democratic Debate!



......and did SmokinJoe really say 150 Million people have died from gun violence in the US since 2007???

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

holy fuck warren is gutting bloomberg alive again

A Democrat standing up for LIFE

[ilduclo]

They’re all so much better than the pResident

Boy-o-boy, Margaret Brennan is a babe.

[!@#$%!]

in reading order:

bloomberg a little aloof and monomaniac but his “doing not talking” message sort of reverberates vis a vis the debates

the boy scout is a good talker

warren useful for others in the attack

bernie i think failed to repeal some of the accusations

biden a little better than in the past but he always trips himself

klobuchar okay but nothing brilliant

steyer is a nice guy but whatevs

all and any of them much better than el dotardo could ever possibly be

[MisterTrick]

the more I watch I am more convinced that Warren is not only the best person on that stage but also kinda needs to be the nominee

I really think there is such an echo chamber around Sanders that people aren't seeing the bigger picture with the Senate and House and I am getting such Corbyn vibes off that prospect that it has literally scares me to death and it should everyone else