Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Having read the rest of this thread. . .

There is indeed one centrist in our political life, a rather important one named Barack Obama. I'm not defending his centrism or suggesting that it's accomplishing much of anything except perhaps keeping the government nominally functioning, but it's real all the same, and he's staking his, and our, future on it. He wants to bring on the High.

DK

He isn't the President of the Democratic Party, and yes, he must move to his right sometimes. Part of functioning in a society together is to have some give and take. The Erics of the world think it is realistic to vote out all the Republicans and demonize them for their (faulty) belief system.

How about we take all the Erics and all the JPTs, put them in a cage somewhere and let the adults take over again.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's time to start movements in every state aiming for a constitutional convention. Until we get the corporate money out of politics, nothing else is going to happen, and the force of Supreme Court rulings is such that only by amending the Constitution can we make that happen. Nor is it realistic to expect the necessary amendments to receive the 2/3 approval in a corrupt Congress that they require if we go that route. A convention is the only recourse we have, short of revolution.

I agree with this but it will take possibly along time to enact. And as for a revolution, I think we are in the very beginning stage.

As a side note; Today every intersection in our town had a *young* voter holding a Ron Paul campaign sign. I was shocked to see them out in full force in our neck of the woods. I've just never seen this in all the years I've lived here. As the song goes;

Something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

For those of you wondering why the above exchange about macro economics I am having with Indy, and now Justin, is on this thread, please note that this started with my post concerning Ron Paul, one of the GOP candidates, and using a Paul Krugman column describing how Paul and the Austrian School of Economics have been so wrong for so long and yet people still listen to them.

Let me expand on that =

After the largest historical toxic debt in the private sector popped, we have a situation in which the household sector is furiously de-leveraging its debt. It is not spending enough to sustain aggregate demand at a level that can sustain anything close to full employment (which really is much less than actual full employment, but I'll save that for another time) and we have significant unemployment, people under-employed, and people who have given up. That, in turn, means there is no reason for the business sector to invest in anything on the supply side; they are not only forgoing taking out new loans to expand (i.e. employ more resources including labor), they are sitting on hoards of cash that is looking for safe, but unproductive havens (e.g. gold, T-bills).

There is only one economic sector that is in the position to net spend, to create demand, to keep the economy from contracting again and throwing more people into unemployment - that is the federal govt. What MMT tells us, that no one can refute, is that the federal govt can spend money to put everyone willing and able to work and do so without raising anyone's taxes. And, in our present economic situation, it can do this without causing harmful inflation.

What we have politically is a range of GOP candidates that instead believe that reducing federal govt spending, causing austerity, will somehow cause the economy to grow. Some go so far to believe that there must be considerable pain (notable to everyone but themselves and the interest that they represent - see 1%) - debt must be defaulted on, assets (homes) forked over to the financial elites, more people made jobless until wages are reduced enough to make the 1% feel even richer (as if they have some bounds) and that we return to the gold standard so that instead of having these contractions every 80 or so year, we instead return to those days of having them about every other decade. This would be the Austrian School that Paul represents, but you probable have guessed that its basic tenets have all been nearly completely adopted by the entire GOP of today.

Then on the Left, we have Obama and most Dems who also talk about federal deficits and debt as being the problem - they just want to deal with it by taxing the rich and pulling more money out of the economy. The best that I can say about this is that the rich are so rich you could probable tax them twice as much as anybody is suggesting and it won't make a bit of difference to the actual economy. At best the Dems' ploy is not as damaging to the economy as what the idiots on the Right want to do, but it is also completely unhelpful in reality.

And it is not just the Dem leaders that a lot of Progressives spend time moaning about being nothing more than the lessor evil, it is also nearly all Progressives themselves. Look at what the 99%ers say: you'll find the same horseshit about deficits being bad and particularly the need to make the top 1% pay because, well, they were bad. Making the rich pay won't do a frickin thing to get the economy rolling again, but it sure would make everyone but the 1% feel some good old fashioned revenge.

The political choices we have are exactly the choices we have wrought - with our ignorance and blinding obedience to a false mythology that we likely have no idea how we assumed it and certainly cannot rationally defend it.

We are a ship of fools.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For those of you wondering why the above exchange about macro economics I am having with Indy, and now Justin, is on this thread, please note that this started with my post concerning Ron Paul, one of the GOP candidates, and using a Paul Krugman column describing how Paul and the Austrian School of Economics have been so wrong for so long and yet people still listen to them.

Let me expand on that =

After the largest historical toxic debt in the private sector popped, we have a situation in which the household sector is furiously de-leveraging its debt. It is not spending enough to sustain aggregate demand at a level that can sustain anything close to full employment (which really is much less than actual full employment, but I'll save that for another time) and we have significant unemployment, people under-employed, and people who have given up. That, in turn, means there is no reason for the business sector to invest in anything on the supply side; they are not only forgoing taking out new loans to expand (i.e. employ more resources including labor), they are sitting on hoards of cash that is looking for safe, but unproductive havens (e.g. gold, T-bills).

There is only one economic sector that is in the position to net spend, to create demand, to keep the economy from contracting again and throwing more people into unemployment - that is the federal govt. What MMT tells us, that no one can refute, is that the federal govt can spend money to put everyone willing and able to work and do so without raising anyone's taxes. And, in our present economic situation, it can do this without causing harmful inflation.

What we have politically is a range of GOP candidates that instead believe that reducing federal govt spending, causing austerity, will somehow cause the economy to grow. Some go so far to believe that there must be considerable pain (notable to everyone but themselves and the interest that they represent - see 1%) - debt must be defaulted on, assets (homes) forked over to the financial elites, more people made jobless until wages are reduced enough to make the 1% feel even richer (as if they have some bounds) and that we return to the gold standard so that instead of having these contractions every 80 or so year, we instead return to those days of having them about every other decade. This would be the Austrian School that Paul represents, but you probable have guessed that its basic tenets have all been nearly completely adopted by the entire GOP of today.

Then on the Left, we have Obama and most Dems who also talk about federal deficits and debt as being the problem - they just want to deal with it by taxing the rich and pulling more money out of the economy. The best that I can say about this is that the rich are so rich you could probable tax them twice as much as anybody is suggesting and it won't make a bit of difference to the actual economy. At best the Dems' ploy is not as damaging to the economy as what the idiots on the Right want to do, but it is also completely unhelpful in reality.

And it is not just the Dem leaders that a lot of Progressives spend time moaning about being nothing more than the lessor evil, it is also nearly all Progressives themselves. Look at what the 99%ers say: you'll find the same horseshit about deficits being bad and particularly the need to make the top 1% pay because, well, they were bad. Making the rich pay won't do a frickin thing to get the economy rolling again, but it sure would make everyone but the 1% feel some good old fashioned revenge.

The political choices we have are exactly the choices we have wrought - with our ignorance and blinding obedience to a false mythology that we likely have no idea how we assumed it and certainly cannot rationally defend it.

We are a ship of fools.

We are a ship of fools. How Ron Paul is gathering the younger generation is beyond my total understanding. Other than a couple of major issues I agree with him on, for the most part, he is another pro-corporate conservative politician. But what do I know?

Originally Posted by playwrite

You may have missed the point of the discussion; you often do.

Indy was trying to assert that inflation is due to govt bond purchases and the resulting injection of currency into the system.

He used cherry-picked data set to show Fed purchases/injections coincided with commodity price increase, starting, of course, at the nadir of the recession and near financial collapse - well, because Indy is that kind of guy.

I have no problem with the conclusion that this monetary move had commodity prices moving up as a collateral effect from the Fed's objective of stabilizes the financial system after the biggest contraction since the 1930s. What I am pointing out is the typical Austrian fallacy that this results in inflation, particularly harmful inflation that you boneheads have been jumping up and down about for the last decade, if not the last 3 decades, and constantly proven wrong.

If you knew a damn thing about monetary systems in the first place (beyond your usual magical thinking, of course), you would know that inflation indeed follows bond purchases and injection of currency. But that inflation does not (nor can it) show up across an economy evenly all at once. Inflation occurs not as the money enters pockets (or bank accounts or stock prices or whatever have you), but as it enters circulation. Since the currency injections of the last decade have all found there way merely into the noncirculating balance-sheets of the politically-connected, it stands perfectly well to reason that it would not have made itself widely-felt. Nor that it would do so, until such time as the holders of those inflated balances start to use them to get real goods or labor or whatever. Once they actually start bidding for things with the inflated goods -- that is when the inflation moves out of their bank accounts and into the economy as a whole.

Even a cursory glance at history -- anywhere in history -- with the slightest inclination to think about what one observes is sufficient to provide all manner of demonstrations how this works.

-edit-
Oh, and:

It really came down to very simply MMT tenets that even you realized that you could not refute - the federal can spend to employ every unemployed person who is willing and able to work and that would not cost anyone any new taxes and one could only hope it would result in some honest-to-goodness real inflation.

Horseshit. Demonstrably so by looking back over the exchange. We break down on your faith that this time things can be managed correctly; that this particular manifestation of centralized management is immune to the fundamental weaknesses inherent in that model. You recognize the dangers of acting wrongly, but simply assume that this one particular system unique among all others in all times and all places can be made to not act wrongly.
I agreed right off in the discussion on MMT that the kinds of things you imagine being able to do might indeed be possible for an idealized infallible counterfactual. You refuse to recognize that we're talking about reality here, and not imaginary deities or supermen.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you knew a damn thing about monetary systems in the first place (beyond your usual magical thinking, of course), you would know that inflation indeed follows bond purchases and injection of currency. But that inflation does not (nor can it) show up across an economy evenly all at once. Inflation occurs not as the money enters pockets (or bank accounts or stock prices or whatever have you), but as it enters circulation. Since the currency injections of the last decade have all found there way merely into the noncirculating balance-sheets of the politically-connected, it stands perfectly well to reason that it would not have made itself widely-felt. Nor that it would do so, until such time as the holders of those inflated balances start to use them to get real goods or labor or whatever. Once they actually start bidding for things with the inflated goods -- that is when the inflation moves out of their bank accounts and into the economy as a whole.

Even a cursory glance at history -- anywhere in history -- with the slightest inclination to think about what one observes is sufficient to provide all manner of demonstrations how this works.

-edit-
Oh, and:Horseshit. Demonstrably so by looking back over the exchange. We break down on your faith that this time things can be managed correctly; that this particular manifestation of centralized management is immune to the fundamental weaknesses inherent in that model. You recognize the dangers of acting wrongly, but simply assume that this one particular system unique among all others in all times and all places can be made to not act wrongly.
I agreed right off in the discussion on MMT that the kinds of things you imagine being able to do might indeed be possible for an idealized infallible counterfactual. You refuse to recognize that we're talking about reality here, and not imaginary deities or supermen.

The whole MMT thing is mental masturbation anyway. As discussed elsewhere, the odds of getting the electorate in favor of such a plan, short of at gunpoint, are too long to be able to calculate. At least half the people in this country as so fearful of government enlargement through additional stimulus measures (although the same people have no issue with military expansion) that they support economic policies that are self-defeating. And that is with something as mild as a stimulus. Imagine the ruckus with a guaranteed jobs program managed by the government?!

Even if it is the right thing to do, I can't imagine a scenario where it would gain acceptance in the US. It's not in our DNA as a people.

Originally Posted by Deb C

We are a ship of fools. How Ron Paul is gathering the younger generation is beyond my total understanding. Other than a couple of major issues I agree with him on, for the most part, he is another pro-corporate conservative politician. But what do I know?

Pro-corporate? That might be accurate if the federal government was inherently antagonistic to (or even a moderating force against) corporate interests, but that is about the opposite of the situation we have today where the biggest corporations buy/rent government power to enrich themselves, crush competition, and shirk responsibility for the damage they cause.

Ron Paul on the BP oil spill:

News Anchor: How far do I take your argument of getting rid of the liability cap on oil companies?

Ron Paul: Well, people should be liable for the harm they cause. The question is who is going to pay? The people who were responsible, or the taxpayer who wasn’t responsible? So those are terrible choices. I would say it would easy to say, “Well, the people who were responsible, the oil companies should pay.” Because I think it’s terrible to limit their liability and dump it on the tax payers. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

On TARP and the bank bailouts:

PAUL: Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home.

On SOPA, Ron Paul and 9 Democrats signed a letter stating, in part:

Sopa is "overly broad and would cause serious and long term damage to the technology industry, one of the few bright spots in our economy." The representatives warned that SOPA would result in "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation."

On OWS:

It is unfair to dismiss the concerns that are being expressed by the protesters. He added that, much like the Tea Party, there are always individuals who make the movement look bad. While he supports public anger towards government and banks, Paul said that we should avoid blaming businessmen who have gained wealth honestly.

Hmmm, making companies clean up their own messes... not bailing out bad decisions... and not censoring the internet on behalf of copyright trolls. It is no wonder the Wall Street / K Street / Rockefeller Center establishment hates this guy.

He's definitely on the wrong side of the culture war, but I don't get the impression that he's really interested in fighting that battle any more when there are much more pressing issues facing us.

In very related news, PPP has released the results of a new Iowa primary poll:

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

If you hurry, you might be able to switch parties in time to vote for him. You can still vote for Obama again in the general election... but there's really no doubt left about what kind of president he is and who owns him.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Pro-corporate? That might be accurate if the federal government was inherently antagonistic to (or even a moderating force against) corporate interests, but that is about the opposite of the situation we have today where the biggest corporations buy/rent government power to enrich themselves, crush competition, and shirk responsibility for the damage they cause.

Ron Paul on the BP oil spill:



On TARP and the bank bailouts:



On SOPA, Ron Paul and 9 Democrats signed a letter stating, in part:



On OWS:


Hmmm, making companies clean up their own messes... not bailing out bad decisions... and not censoring the internet on behalf of copyright trolls. It is no wonder the Wall Street / K Street / Rockefeller Center establishment hates this guy.

He's definitely on the wrong side of the culture war, but I don't get the impression that he's really interested in fighting that battle any more when there are much more pressing issues facing us.

In very related news, PPP has released the results of a new Iowa primary poll:



If you hurry, you might be able to switch parties in time to vote for him. You can still vote for Obama again in the general election... but there's really no doubt left about what kind of president he is and who owns him.

Well, in terms of what the following author writes, Ron Paul is a lot more progressive than Obama.

EXCERPT:

As someone who sees the electoral process as primarily a distraction, something that diverts energy and attention from more effective means of reforming the system, I don’t much care if people don’t vote for Ron Paul. In fact, if you’re going to vote, I’d rather you cast a write-in ballot for Emma Goldman. But! I do have a problem with those who imagine themselves to be liberal-minded citizens of the world casting their vote for Barack Obama and propagating the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemenand Libya and still earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would, you know, not do any of that.


Let’s just assume the worst about Paul: that he’s a corporate libertarian in the Reason magazine/Cato Institute mold that would grant Big Business and the financial industry license to do whatever the hell it wants with little in the way of accountability (I call this scenario the “status quo”). Let’s say he dines on Labradoodle puppies while using their blood to scribble notes in the margins of his dog-eared, gold-encrusted copy of Atlas Shrugged.
So. Fucking. What.
Barack Obama isn’t exactly Eugene Debs, after all. Hell, he’s not even Jimmy Carter. The facts are: he’s pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause – from poisoning the Gulf to climate change – and mandated that all Americans purchase the U.S. health insurance industry’s product. You might argue Paul’s a corporatist, but there’s no denying Obama’s one.


And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There’d be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn’t be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.


Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.


Paul would also stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought. Obama, by contrast, is providing billions to coal companies under the guise of “clean energy” – see his administration’s policies on carbon capture and sequestration, the fossil fuel-equivalent of missile defense – and promising billions more so mega-energy corporations can get started on that “nuclear renaissance” we’ve all heard so much about. And if Paul really did succeed in cutting all those federal departments he talks about, there’s nothing to prevent states and local governments — and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion — from addressing issues such as health care and education. Decentralism isn’t a bad thing.

More: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/28/is-ron-paul-more-progressive-than-obama/

I will need to do more research on his votes and other positions but I do see from that article where the younger crowd is attracted to him.

Since he is a Libertarian, I have my reservations. But I do want to stay open to information about him.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs:

Yep, drug legalization. The most pressing domestic issue of the day.

Then this article gives me back my original concerns about Ron Paul. It was written in 2007.

No doubt, the hawkish and calculating Hillary Rodham Clinton and flaccid murmurings of Barack Obama, in addition to the uninspiring state of the antiwar movement that backed a prowar candidate in 2004, help fuel the desperation many activists feel. But leftists must unequivocally reject the reactionary libertarianism of this longtime Texas congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.Ron Paul’s own campaign Web site reads like the objectivist rantings of Ayn Rand, one of his theoretical mentors. As with the Atlas Shrugged author’s other acolytes, neocon guru Milton Friedman and former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, Paul argues, "Liberty means free-market capitalism." He opposes "big government" and in the isolationist fashion of the nation’s Pat Buchanans, he decries intervention in foreign nation’s affairs and believes membership in the United Nations undermines U.S. sovereignty.


Naturally, it is not Ron Paul’s paeans to the free market that some progressives find so appealing, but his unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq and consistent voting record against all funding for the war. His straightforward speaking style, refusal to accept the financial perks of office, and his repeated calls for repealing the Patriot Act distinguish him from the snakeoil salesmen who populate Congress.


Paul is no power-hungry, poll-tested shyster. Even the liberalish chat show hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar on "The View" gave a friendly reception to Paul’s folksy presentation, despite his paleoconservative views on abortion, which he-a practicing obstetrician-argues is murder.


Though Paul is unlikely to triumph in the primaries, it is worth taking stock not only of his actual positions, but more importantly the libertarian underpinnings that have wooed so many self-described leftists and progressives. Because at its core, the fetishism of individualism that underlies libertarianism leads to the denial of rights to the very people most radicals aim to champion-workers, immigrants, Blacks, women, gays, and any group that lacks the economic power to impose their individual rights on others.

Ron Paul’s positions:

A cursory look at Paul’s positions, beyond his opposition to the war and the Patriot Act, would make any leftist cringe.

For that cursory look: http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/12/12/why-the-left-should-reject-ron-paul/

I will continue to study the facts about each candidate.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep, drug legalization. The most pressing domestic issue of the day.

I like many of Ron Paul's postions, but do not agree with his view of Iran. I consider Iran much more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Originally Posted by radind

I like many of Ron Paul's postions, but do not agree with his view of Iran. I consider Iran much more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Yeah, after reading "Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul," I was greatly concerned about the majority of his positions. He may be progressive in his wanting to end foreign wars and the war on drugs, but his thoughts regarding other issues gives me grave concerns.

The bottom line as I see it right now, is that the main stream candidates are no where close to progressive. Including Obama.

Newt wants to arrest judges who make rulings he doesn't like. This guy has lost his marbles.

Originally Posted by Odin

Newt wants to arrest judges who make rulings he doesn't like. This guy has lost his marbles.

The exchange with Bob Shieffer was this:

"One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing ... how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?" Gingrich didn't back down, responding, "If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a US Marshal."

So really the question is what you would do with a judge who refused to respond to a subpoena. Keep in mind this is a congressional subpoena and not something a President could do on hir own. It is overly hot language, but when you get down to it, I don't think judges should be above the law. Do you?

Or to put the shoe on the other foot. If you asked Obama what should be done with people who fail to respond to congressional subpoenas, what do you think he should say?

Queue Wilfred Brimley in Absence of Malice -

Wonderful thing, a subpoena.

James50

Originally Posted by Deb C

We are a ship of fools. How Ron Paul is gathering the younger generation is beyond my total understanding. Other than a couple of major issues I agree with him on, for the most part, he is another pro-corporate conservative politician. But what do I know?

I think Mark Thoma sums it up well -

I really don't like that my choices in the upcoming election will be between one candidate who will betray the things I believe in, civil liberties, progressive taxation, etc., etc., etc., and a crazy person from the other side (take your pick) who will be even worse.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...irst-test.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think Mark Thoma sums it up well -



http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...irst-test.html

I really don't like that my choices in the upcoming election will be between one candidate who will betray the things I believe in, civil liberties, progressive taxation, etc., etc., etc., and a crazy person from the other side (take your pick) who will be even worse.

That pretty much sums it up for me too. (Heavy sigh)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you knew a damn thing about monetary systems in the first place (beyond your usual magical thinking, of course), you would know that inflation indeed follows bond purchases and injection of currency. But that inflation does not (nor can it) show up across an economy evenly all at once. Inflation occurs not as the money enters pockets (or bank accounts or stock prices or whatever have you), but as it enters circulation. Since the currency injections of the last decade have all found there way merely into the noncirculating balance-sheets of the politically-connected, it stands perfectly well to reason that it would not have made itself widely-felt. Nor that it would do so, until such time as the holders of those inflated balances start to use them to get real goods or labor or whatever. Once they actually start bidding for things with the inflated goods -- that is when the inflation moves out of their bank accounts and into the economy as a whole.

Even a cursory glance at history -- anywhere in history -- with the slightest inclination to think about what one observes is sufficient to provide all manner of demonstrations how this works.

This is either your complete refutation of the Austrian School's basic principle that FED actions alone cause inflation or it is just another one of those 'Zimbabwe is just around the next corner; no not this corner, the next corner, etc, ....' that we've been subjected to for the last 30-40 years.

I'm sure it's the latter, which would just bring me back to my question to you as to doesn't being so wrong and confused for so long ever get to you?

Wouldn't it be a tad more interesting to follow up on some of the nuisances of why the Austrian's FED action gets delayed (and more likely dissipated) in bringing about inflation? Or, is it just so much easier to just say, "hey, wait for the next corner" - even after walking countless blocks for the last several decades?

Why is it that the provision of substantial money stock and incredible money flow from the FED hasn't resulted yet in generalized price increases? Why is it that unprecedented bank reserves are not being lent out and circulated in the economy? Why is it that corporations are sitting on unprecedented cash reserves and not investing, not employing more resources particularly labor? Why is it that oil price surges and prices at the pump have leveled off and appear shaky let alone spread out to generalized price increases?

Is it really just a matter of time? It comes down to that the "politically-connected have taken really, really long lunches and just haven't put the time in walking the few short blocks to your Zimbabwe corner? Is that all you got that makes you so strident about your cause-and-effect that hasn't shown itself in decades? Couldn't there possible be something more going on? Are you really that satisfied with the answer that people are dawdling and just haven't gotten around to your inflation? Why are you so wedded to not even posing these questions? Is it just too easy not to ask, too busy, or does it feel like you're dying if do so?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-edit-
Oh, and:Horseshit. Demonstrably so by looking back over the exchange. We break down on your faith that this time things can be managed correctly; that this particular manifestation of centralized management is immune to the fundamental weaknesses inherent in that model. You recognize the dangers of acting wrongly, but simply assume that this one particular system unique among all others in all times and all places can be made to not act wrongly.
I agreed right off in the discussion on MMT that the kinds of things you imagine being able to do might indeed be possible for an idealized infallible counterfactual. You refuse to recognize that we're talking about reality here, and not imaginary deities or supermen.

If I understand you, I would boil this down to a statement that only political will stands in the way of the MMT solution of the federal govt issuing enough money to employ every unemployed person willing and able to work, and doing so without raising anyone's taxes and without unmanageable inflation.

I would agree.

For me, I see that as a challenge, particularly the aspect that the current state of political will is due to profound ignorance of not only current leaders but the vast majority of the general population - it's as if we are trying to move forward with modern society issues and not having a clue about how to do basic arithmetic.

On the other hand, as someone who desperately wants "the system" to fail, I can see how this really really scares the poop out of you. You're going to fight this tooth and nail no matter how much cognitive dissonance you barf up.

Originally Posted by James50

The exchange with Bob Shieffer was this:



So really the question is what you would do with a judge who refused to respond to a subpoena. Keep in mind this is a congressional subpoena and not something a President could do on hir own. It is overly hot language, but when you get down to it, I don't think judges should be above the law. Do you?

Or to put the shoe on the other foot. If you asked Obama what should be done with people who fail to respond to congressional subpoenas, what do you think he should say?

Queue Wilfred Brimley in Absence of Malice -


James50

This is the "Activist Judge" lie promulgated by the Far Right. Newt is saying that he wants to intimidate judges that protect people from corporations and the religiously insane.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

The whole MMT thing is mental masturbation anyway. As discussed elsewhere, the odds of getting the electorate in favor of such a plan, short of at gunpoint, are too long to be able to calculate. At least half the people in this country as so fearful of government enlargement through additional stimulus measures (although the same people have no issue with military expansion) that they support economic policies that are self-defeating. And that is with something as mild as a stimulus. Imagine the ruckus with a guaranteed jobs program managed by the government?!

Even if it is the right thing to do, I can't imagine a scenario where it would gain acceptance in the US. It's not in our DNA as a people.

I'm not sure if its because you can' live with the cognitive dissonance to refute the MMT solution on its merits or if you are just afraid to try, but you have arrived at its one barrier - political will. Congratulations on your brilliance!

Further, you've recognized the DNA aspect of it as well. I would argue, however, that is a trait not an absolute, and that it has and always will be in contention with other traits, many of which are the exact opposition. In particular, I suggest the trait of American Pragmatism (see William James) may likely come into play.

This lack of jobs, lack of living wages is a long-term trend that the latest failed solution of unsustainable household debt has greatly exacerbated, but perhaps muddied the waters to the fact that said trend is not going to go away. There is going to be a continuation of trend of the supply side of the production economy to need less and less people as its potential to over-supply becomes ever greater. The problem with that is that without income, there cannot be demand to buy that supply.

Yes, the gap between those still in, particularly at the top, of the production side and those increasingly being drop will get bigger, and many at the top will secretly, if not overtly, enjoy their relative richness over everyone else. However, even their richness will be eventually undermined as demand for their production from their capital begins to eat away at their bottom lines. How long do you think a $10 million per year quarterback is going to keep that salary when there is hardly anyone who can afford a ticket to the game or buy the products being advertised during commercial breaks on TV?

Long before that though, those being left out are going to refuse the status quo. They will want purchasing power.

Now tell me, how are you going to give that to them? Or, do you just see that question as mental masturbation not worthy of your obvious brilliance?

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is either your complete refutation of the Austrian School's basic principle that FED actions alone cause inflation or it is just another one of those 'Zimbabwe is just around the next corner; no not this corner, the next corner, etc, ....' that we've been subjected to for the last 30-40 years.

Neither. Try reading for comprehension next time.

If I understand you, I would boil this down to a statement that only political will stands in the way of the MMT solution of the federal govt issuing enough money to employ every unemployed person willing and able to work, and doing so without raising anyone's taxes and without unmanageable inflation.

Again, you refuse comprehension. "Political will" is nothing against reality. Political will cannot create a perpetual-motion machine, undo the conservation of mass-energy, or make voltage not proportional to resistance times current. The flaw in MMT boils down to it fundamentally assuming a system based on a thing which cannot exist. Kind of a big problem.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep, drug legalization. The most pressing domestic issue of the day.

Since it ties into asset forfeiture, law enforcement budgets, the prison-industrial complex, and no-knock raids in the night, one should think the issue had snowballed into something far more complex than whether or not someone should smoke a joint at home.

Totally! I kinda thought JPT would be on board. I see the war on drugs as a huge vehicle for state chicanery encroaching on citizens' rights.

And if we're worried about budgets, perhaps ending a welfare system based on locking up potheads is a good thing.

Assault? send them to jail!

Vice? send them a ticket.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is the "Activist Judge" lie promulgated by the Far Right. Newt is saying that he wants to intimidate judges that protect people from corporations and the religiously insane.

I will not deny that the threat of a subpoena is intimidating. However, if the question is simply "will I enforce a subpoena from the Congress"? The answer has to be yes.

This could be an addition to the three traditional controls on the judiciary: appointment, enforcement, and impeachment. Frankly, I am not sure what a judge would say to a congressional committee. He/she might simply refuse to answer based on some kind of separation of powers argument. But I doubt a judge would get away with refusing to appear.

EDIT: actually its four: appointment, enforcement, impeachment, and amendment.

James50

Looks like a roller coaster ride.

Paul takes lead as Gingrich collapses in Iowa


Raleigh, N.C. – Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now
taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10%
each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.


Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his
personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47).


Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as
being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong
principles,' while 43% think he does not.


Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican
contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.


Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...IA_1218925.pdf

Originally Posted by James50

I will not deny that the threat of a subpoena is intimidating. However, if the question is simply "will I enforce a subpoena from the Congress"? The answer has to be yes.

This could be an addition to the three traditional controls on the judiciary: appointment, enforcement, and impeachment. Frankly, I am not sure what a judge would say to a congressional committee. He/she might simply refuse to answer based on some kind of separation of powers argument. But I doubt a judge would get away with refusing to appear.

EDIT: actually its four: appointment, enforcement, impeachment, and amendment.

James50

No, the executive branch has no mandate to enforce subpoenas from the legislative branch, if you want to be totally libertarian about it. Let Congress enforce their own subpoenas if they wish to issue them. They have their own police to provide enforcement if it comes to that.

But we know that the intent is similar to the intent of the new Hungarian majority: to intimidate those not in their party.