Originally Posted by Deb C

May I interrupt this conversation for a thousand words through art?

not if your link doesn't work

From the horse-race perspective, here's an article about the pros and cons of Ryan as a VEEP pick for Romney. From today's Government Executive.

Paul Ryan isn't a two-fer in presidential politics. He's a ten-fer.

Not because it's convenient but because it's true, Ryan brings five potential advantages and five potential hazards to Mitt Romney. Unlike anyone else Romney could have picked, Ryan is multifaceted politically and genuinely memorable on the gritty substance of fiscal policy. Next to Romney, Ryan stands equally balanced between promise and peril.

The decisive factor in which way the Ryan factor tilts - toward advantageous momentum or disorganized defeatism - depends entirely on Romney. The nominee will determine what he makes of or what is made of Ryan.

Yes, Ryan is a big pick with risks and opportunities galore. But Ryan can't turn the epic battle with President Obama into victory or defeat. Only Romney can. Unlike any other potential running mate, Ryan gives Romney a wider array of ingredients for victory and defeat - and a more tuned-in public hungry to see what he makes of this audacious move.

For what the 5 pros and 5 cons are, you have to check the link.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

not if your link doesn't work

Oops, sorry about that! I'll try again later to post a link that works.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

The first idea is interesting (the Albus one), and, though not convinced that it will work, it might be worth a try, I'll have to read more about it. But I'm suspicious of the second one because "life service mandate" sounds like you're suggesting forced employment, though I'd have to read more about it to be sure. I have a major problem with forced employment, and would prefer not to go down that path. I think there is a lot of undue fear of an idle populace. People assume that if people aren't working they will do evil things (Idle hands as the saying goes). I don't agree with this line of thinking. The purpose of life is a life with purpose. Most people will find that purpose, and spend their time doing what they love even if it doesn't earn them much as long as their basic needs are provided for. For those who haven't found their purpose yet, they should have the choice of doing something like you are suggesting, but should never be forced. There will always be trouble makers who infringe on other people's liberties, and they should be punished for breaking those laws. But they shouldn't be forced to do anything because we fear what they MAY do if they're not working.

If we are to maintain the ruse that we are being productive, or are worthy of unearned income, there has to be a structure that we can point to as the reason. The distributed ownership model is one, and the faux public service job is another. The FPSJ has the advantage of also binding us into the community as a faux "productive member". That may be important, when it's the only reason for doing anything communal. We will need to maintain community to avoid degrading into a disordered aggregation of xenophobes.

Originally Posted by Ghw ...

The market will always automatically provide for a need that is profitable. But if there is an urgent need for something that is not profitable that no private business is willing to provide, than the government can and should fill that need provided we can afford it. But we shouldn't be too reliant on government services, since we may not always be able to afford it and we don't want to go back to a debt based economy. We should do our best to avoid relying too much on government and should allow the market and technology to move us forward as much as possible.

When almost nothing is profitable, because almost everything is available to all, the private for-profit economy will slowly disappear. There will still be a value in the rare and exotic, so there will be commerce and the need to maintain status. Personally, I don't compete in that arena now, so it wouldn't mater to me ... if I was still around to enjoy it.

I don't know if we will get to the point where the machines design, make, maintain, allocate, and operate themselves, all by themselves.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we are to maintain the ruse that we are being productive, or are worthy of unearned income, there has to be a structure that we can point to as the reason. The distributed ownership model is one, and the faux public service job is another. The FPSJ has the advantage of also binding us into the community as a faux "productive member". That may be important, when it's the only reason for doing anything communal. We will need to maintain community to avoid degrading into a disordered aggregation of xenophobes.

It is better than forcing people to work. If this disordered aggregation of xenophobes actually infringes on other people's liberties, then yes, they should be punished and could be stripped of their freedoms. But only after they have done so. No one should be enslaved as a preventative measure.

When almost nothing is profitable, because almost everything is available to all, the private for-profit economy will slowly disappear. There will still be a value in the rare and exotic, so there will be commerce and the need to maintain status. Personally, I don't compete in that arena now, so it wouldn't mater to me ... if I was still around to enjoy it.

That will not happen. There will always be scarcity of some resources, and there will always be profitable avenues to take in distributing scarce resources. People will find new things they want to do, and others will provide for others in exchange for something, whether it be for money,resources, capital or for an exchange of favors, or simply for prestige. An exchange of goods and services will always have its place and there will always be a free market no matter what the government does to try and control it. The free market will never go away no matter how automated we get. After all, someone will have to be around to build and program these robots. Also keep in mind I'm talking about solutions for today's problems. We're nowhere's near a fully automated economy, and I'm almost certain we won't reach one within any of our lifetimes. We still rely primarily on the free market and human labor and we will continue to rely on it well into the future. All I'm saying is that adjustments have to be made as we transition into an increasingly more technologically automated economy.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

The first idea is interesting (the Albus one), and, though not convinced that it will work, it might be worth a try, I'll have to read more about it. But I'm suspicious of the second one because "life service mandate" sounds like you're suggesting forced employment, though I'd have to read more about it to be sure. I have a major problem with forced employment, and would prefer not to go down that path. I think there is a lot of undue fear of an idle populace. People assume that if people aren't working they will do evil things (Idle hands as the saying goes). I don't agree with this line of thinking. The purpose of life is a life with purpose. Most people will find that purpose, and spend their time doing what they love even if it doesn't earn them much as long as their basic needs are provided for. For those who haven't found their purpose yet, they should have the choice of doing something like you are suggesting, but should never be forced. There will always be trouble makers who infringe on other people's liberties, and they should be punished for breaking those laws. But they shouldn't be forced to do anything because we fear what they MAY do if they're not working.



The market will always automatically provide for a need that is profitable. But if there is an urgent need for something that is not profitable that no private business is willing to provide, than the government can and should fill that need provided we can afford it. But we shouldn't be too reliant on government services, since we may not always be able to afford it and we don't want to go back to a debt based economy. We should do our best to avoid relying too much on government and should allow the market and technology to move us forward as much as possible.

If the roads and bridges and sewers and water pipes and grid get any worse, it won't be either the market or technology that move us forward, but individual, primitive work-arounds, since you can make a lot more money (at least on paper) in just about any other enterprise than the above - you can certainly make a lot more shuffling symbols of wealth at high speed on Wall Street than you can actually gettting your hands dirty (ugh) or hiring lots of laborers (cost centers all) to actually fix things.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

If the roads and bridges and sewers and water pipes and grid get any worse, it won't be either the market or technology that move us forward, but individual, primitive work-arounds, since you can make a lot more money (at least on paper) in just about any other enterprise than the above - you can certainly make a lot more shuffling symbols of wealth at high speed on Wall Street than you can actually gettting your hands dirty (ugh) or hiring lots of laborers (cost centers all) to actually fix things.

I've been working construction this summer and you'd be surprised how much some of the senior guys and contractors make. It's not a pittance. I just started and I'm earning more than I was making a teacher, or even as an entry level computer programmer.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I've been working construction this summer and you'd be surprised how much some of the senior guys and contractors make. It's not a pittance. I just started and I'm earning more than I was making a teacher, or even as an entry level computer programmer.

Good for you! Though if I were in any of those trades, judging from what I've been reading in the business news for the past 30 years, I'd spend my house money for a liveable RV and be ready to roll down the road to where the work is at any given time.

However, just try and tell anything like that to the generation who had "go to college, pile up huge student debts, then get a job in a field that will give you million dollar bonuses".

Depression-era people will report that those who studied for a profession were also advised to have a trade to fall back on. I think it's a good idea.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Inflating the currency to pay off our debts is the most dangerous form of taxation. It devalues the dollar and actually makes everyone the poorer for it. In the short term it does benefit the poor. It greatly benefits people in debt at the expense of people who are owed money, no doubt about that, which is one of the reasons Keynesians like the idea. But there are long term consequences for considerably debasing currency that greatly hurt the poor more than it benefits them. Wages don't rise fast enough to match the new inflated currency, and people out of work have little hope of keeping up with the newly inflated economy, especially if they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. It extends recessions rather than ends them and it could lead to a situation like we saw in Germany in the 1930s.

I'm not quite sure why you and Odin felt the need to resort to such condescending responses to my post. I'm a former economics teacher. I know what Keynesian economics is. I never said I agree with Ryan's plan nor do I agree with it. My initial post was poking fun at the fact that he was actually running his platform on admitting that gen xers won't get medicare or social security when they reach retirement age despite the money they put into it. I am completely against his plan. I'm a Gen Xer after all and I'm all for raising the taxes on the wealthy to pay what the government owes to us, and to the rest of the world for that matter. But I am also opposed to drastically inflating the currency as a means to solve this problem. I don't think Keynesian economics works very well and it leads to more problems than it solves, especially as we head towards a more technologically automated economy in which the majority of jobs will be replaced by machines and computers.

My purpose is not to be condescending, it is to get to the truth. My apologies if the tone was too much of the former.

Economic credentials don't account for much given that neo-liberal thought has basically captured the field since the 1980s and not only proven inept at foreseeing the PRIVATE debt bubble bursting but actually encouraged it. Now if you had studied Minsky or such that would be a different story.

M&L has done a pretty good job of outlining why the type of inflation, demand-pull inflation, posed by federal spending is very unlikely. I would just sum that up by pointing out you can't get that kind of inflationary bubble without first having an economic boom that includes essentially full employment. What's the likelihood of that any time soon? And you, yourself, have raised the issue of automation - that is highly deflationary because it impacts employment and wages significantly - that is happening now and it is only going to accelerate.

Just a few clarifications -

- We are not talking about the Austrian fallacy of monetary inflation. Austrians still believe in the myth of fractional reserve lending. Simply bank lending is no longer dependent on their reserves and barely related to even their deposits. The "pushing on the string" problem is much worse today than it was in the 30's - Bernanke, QEs and monetary policy are in reality of not much consequences except for getting inflationisties worked up enough to maybe put on risk; problem is that the inflationisties just inflate gold or other assets rather than actually invest in production.

- We instead are talking about the feds actually buying goods and services or marking up peoples' bank accounts (e.g. SS, Medicare) so that they can go buy goods and services. If that buying, when added to all other buying, exceeds the economy's ability to supply then we get demand-pull inflation. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

- We are also not going to get that demand-pull inflation mixed up with cost-push inflation like corn prices going to the moon because of the drought or gasoline prices going up because refineries coming off line or some Saudi prince had a bad lunch. Austrians tend to have a hard time with differentiating these things but I don't see you in that camp.

- Finally, translating to the micro, we know that where a successful businessman does what he absolutely hates to do, (i.e. hire someone and buy capital equipment to increase his capacity) is when his order book begins to exceed his ability to produce. That is also the place where demand-pull inflation threatens. A health growing economy needs a little demand-pull inflation. (Another reason is that if you have that it decreases the chances that much more harmful deflation is taking place).

So given all that reality, please explain why you are so afraid of inflation. You seem to fear it enough that it is okay to have about 12 million unemployed and at least that same number underemployed. How do you see that inflation coming about?

Also, you should know that there is a huge private debt overhang from the financial bubble and consumers are net savers. You also know that we still have a huge trade surplus which is essentially foreigners gaining and saving dollars. Businesses are not investing to as great an extent as needed (as evident by high unemployment) and are sitting on trillions in savings as well. In an economy, someone has to spend in order for someone to have income. If everyone is net saving, who is spending? You are familiar with this graph -



So, without federal deficits, how do we continue to have a trade deficit and private savings (which today is mostly debt de-leveraging)?

I would be very interested in someone telling me we can because otherwise ALL the conventional wisdom about the need to bring down federal deficits is surely going to keep us in a repress economy and possible tilt us into a depression.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if we will get to the point where the machines design, make, maintain, allocate, and operate themselves, all by themselves.

There is no reason why they can't, so I assume they will at some point. Of course, there is also no reason for humans and machines to be distinct entities either. Let's agree that the far future (>500 years) will be totally different. I doubt we could pop-up there and live ... unless the intelligent enitites of the time decided to adopt us.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

True enough ... and not. Right now, we have the tilt in the other direction, toward deflation. Interest rates can't be much lower, so borrowers should be having a field day, but they aren't. Lenders aren't much in a lending mood ... and why should they. The banks are fat and happy, borrowing from Uncle Sam and lending it right back at a profit. They see no growing economic demand, so they don't lend to businesses amd can't lend to consumers at anywhere near the real interest they think they need. Big businesses are stuffed with cash, and have no reason to borrow. So we're sitting in stasis ... and crises are looming. We aren't about to go out and shop anytime soon.

So the odds of inflation are as close to zero as they can be. Our problem is not money, it's demand. We can create demand by going on a spending binge, but the only shopper with money and a willingness to spend it is the one able to create it out of thin air. If we do that, and inflation resuls in a few years, then we can fix that problem then. Unlike PW, I have no faith that our politicians will do that, unless there is a non-political way to do it ... which means borrowing from the Fed, and praying that they call the notes later.


The excess capacity problem has no known solution at this point. We'll have to try a few things before that problem comes to heal ... but that's a future issue. Right now, we have a current mess to fix. Failure to spur growth and fix the maldistribution of wealth today, will virtualy guarantee a truly dismal future for our children and their children.

As noted to GHW, I think you've done a pretty good job here.

It's not that I have that much faith in politicians; I just see zero chance of demand-pull inflation emerging in our lifetimes. I see global supply being able to outpace US demand, and I believe that will become true for even energy with the occasional hits at the pump (most of which will be tied to the occasional Middle East craziness getting out of hand) becoming even less frequent.

Also, I think the demand-pull inflation is Central Bankers' kid to beat the snot out of and look all powerful ala Volker.

I would prefer some automatic tax rate changes based on inflation. Maybe it could come about in a grand bargain that would lower everyone's taxes (particularly zeroing out payroll taxes) now in exchange for automatic inflationary adjustment that would be damn hard to change (i.e. 2/3 vote in House and Senate). But, I would also like to have a magic pony that poops gold nuggets.

I'm not sure what you mean by -

"which means borrowing from the Fed, and praying that they call the notes later."

- what the FED does is pretty meaningless other than raising rates to deal with inflation. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors that doesn't really do anything except perhaps create enough hysteria for people to be emotionally manipulated to put on or take off risk. There's no real reason for the federal govt to even issue debt - it really is just a service to provide interest-bearing securities (which is just another expenditure) to people wanting to exchange their non-interest bearing securities (i.e. dollars).

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

It is better than forcing people to work. If this disordered aggregation of xenophobes actually infringes on other people's liberties, then yes, they should be punished and could be stripped of their freedoms. But only after they have done so. No one should be enslaved as a preventative measure.

H-m-m-m. You seem to have a low threshold definition of slavery. Being a part of something communal is not slavery ... especially if the demands made on you are so minimal that they barely exist. If I told you that you get you monthly pay if you attend at least one work session, which consists of getting together with a group of others at some convenient location, having your presence noted, probably by a smart machine, socializing for an hour or so, and leaving, would you consider that slavery? Would it be better if you could attend up to a years worth in a week, and not return until the credits were consumed?

I'm not considering this as more than a box-checking exercise, but it does require that you do something to get something. It may even make sense to offer opportunities to compete for more demanding work which will offer even greater rewards. Punishment may also be required, as you mentioned earlier. I'm not suggesting that the human condition will fade away, so slackers and superstars will need to be accommodated. What won't be needed is scarcity ... unless society decides to create some. In a world where the machines are self managing, self assigning and self replicating, there is no need to do less than the desired amount. The only physical limitation I can see is power consumption, which should have been solved by then.

Originally Posted by Ghw ...

That will not happen. There will always be scarcity of some resources, and there will always be profitable avenues to take in distributing scarce resources. People will find new things they want to do, and others will provide for others in exchange for something, whether it is for money, resources, capital or for an exchange of favors, or simply for prestige. An exchange of goods and services will always have its place and there will always be a free market no matter what the government does to try and control it. The free market will never go away no matter how automated we get. After all, someone will have to be around to build and program these robots. Also keep in mind I'm talking about solutions for today's problems. We're nowhere near a fully automated economy, and I'm almost certain we won't reach one within any of our lifetimes. We still rely primarily on the free market and human labor and we will continue to rely on it well into the future. All I'm saying is that adjustments have to be made as we transition into an increasingly more technologically automated economy.

In the near term, there will continue to be a social and economic structure similar to the one we have now, but the concept of limitations will decline quickly once we realize that most of them are artificial constructs. By the same token, we have real problems we are totally ignoring that will have to be addressed relatively soon. The climate is changing, whether we like it or not. Some resource limitations will be hard to overcome, like water availability where and when it's needed. Most of these issues are not private sector appropriate, but the ones that are should left to that domain.

By the time the intense automation arrives I'll be dead. I hope my children see it. I'm almost certain my grandchildren will. My lack of certainty aligns with the way we make progress ... in fits and starts. This is a next-saeculum issue to solve.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

You don't want to solve this problem with a solution that will dig us deeper into the hole we're in. We could keep artificially creating all sorts of BS jobs for people that there is no real need for and no one really wants so that we can continue extending this debt based economy to feed an ever increasingly bloated government until it's no longer sustainable. Or we can actually make some legitimate long term changes right now that will actually prepare us for this new technological and automated economy. Let's raise taxes on the rich, shrink government and cut useless programs that are just there for the sake of "creating jobs", kick corporate influence out of government and limit lobbying by special interest groups, pay off the debts we have, build a reasonable but modest and less costly safety net for those out of work and then we can lower taxes again and let the free market take care of the rest.

Okay, your slipping here.

Never include federal debt with any other debt unless you know of households, businesses or local/state govts that issue the currency that they owe their entire debt in (the FBI might be interested in that by the way). Federal debt is never actually repaid; it is rolled over. Or, you can look at it this way, the entire federal debt is completely paid off every 3 months or so and re-issued to willing bidders where for every successful bid 2-4 others go home empty handed.

Do you include in your "BS jobs" people who could be repairing our nation's degrading if not dangerous roads, bridges, water supply plants, sewage treatment plants, electric grid, communications grid, airports, rail stations; do you know that the US is becoming a laughing stock in the world in regard to infrastructure? How about teachers, firemen and police officers; do you realize that it is exactly the loss of these jobs that is keeping the unemployment rate stuck? Do you really think crowded classrooms and getting rid of music, PE, after school, etc is going to build a future? How about care for the elderly and the disabled is that just "BS jobs?" I think you have completely bought into the neo-liberal econ BS that the only valuable jobs are those that individuals can pay for and completely discounting or ignoring those social benefits from work that can only be supported collectively through the govt. That is probable the heart of what is wrong with our economy and society.

Its pretty clear that technological advancement, particularly beyond the lab, occurs within the context of an already growing, health economy. How do you get that growing healthy economy, particularly now with the issue is the lack of demand in the economy? As I responded to you earlier, every category of player in the economy is a net saver with the exception of the federal govt. You pull back on that net spending (i.e deficit spending) by the feds and you are removing the net spending that is keeping aggregate demand sufficiently high enough to allow the other sectors to net save and have an economy that is at least muddling along. Take that federal net spending away and you kill the economy - that means it is not very likely your going to get your desired investment in new technology.

I'm not keen on raising anyone's federal taxes right now; I'd rather see state/local taxes go up (they can't "print money"). However, rather than cut federal taxes more, I'd rather see more federal spending because that is more likely to result in money circulating in the economy than the alternative that results in it returning to being nothing but digits on the FED's spreadsheet - that's where it goes when rich people park their dollars in T-bills or the derived interest-bearing accounts at commercial banks.

Most basic econ. concept is not supply/demand; its one man's spending is another man's income - no spending, no incomes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can zero the debt problem away, by crediting everyone with a few hundred-thousand dollars, then taxing it back into the treausry the follwoing year. Would that be theft? In some cases, yes. In others, definitely not. But the debt prblem, if there really is one, will be resolved. This does nothing for the excess capacity problem.

Right now, the excesses are in the labor area. Should we allow "the market" to value everyone on a declining scale, until enough people decide working is a waste of time? And then, what do we do about them? They are not going to go into the woods and conveniently starve to death. In fact, that wouldn't work either, because removing the demand they create will reduce the need for workes, perpetuating the cycle. And what happens when all the jobs are taken by automation of some sort? We are a long way from that level today, but we're on track to get there. I may not see it, but my grandchildren certainly will see the first hurrahs of this glorious new age.

These are first generation issues. I guess the Luddites were roughly three centuries too early. Mechanization today can even displace mental work, so there are few enclaves of human effort left standing. In 100 years, the decision making function will be automated away as well, leaving humans nothing to do.

This is very much along the lines of my thinking.

Before we get anywhere near the "nirvana" of humans not having to work, we will have to figure out an entirely different way for the global economy to function with an increasing to majority of people without jobs (including self-employment) and thereby no income, and thereby insufficient demand to keep the whole thing from collapsing.

Further down the road, but certainly in the back of everyone's head in dealing with this initial issue, will be the eventual question of a human's purpose WITHOUT any job to do. I guess we could all employ each other as priests.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I'm not sure what you mean by -

"which means borrowing from the Fed, and praying that they call the notes later."

- what the FED does is pretty meaningless other than raising rates to deal with inflation. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors that doesn't really do anything except perhaps create enough hysteria for people to be emotionally manipulated to put on or take off risk. There's no real reason for the federal govt to even issue debt - it really is just a service to provide interest-bearing securities (which is just another expenditure) to people wanting to exchange their non-interest bearing securities (i.e. dollars).

If we plan to spend like drunken sailors, and we plan use borrowed money, then let's borrow from ourselves. We have the Geithner replacement call the Bernanke replacement (or maybe Bernanke stays), and have a round of you buy mine and I'll spend yours. Money arrives, the Fed holds the notes, and, if and when inflation arrives, the Fed waves their notes in the air, and the future politicians grimace and raise taxes to pay the bills. The Fed can even play nice and extend some of the notes for a whle at current rates, making the politicians into the heros they certainly aren't.

It's a bit fuzzy, but that's the plan in the rough.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

... There are better ways to solving the debt problem than just pressing the delete button ...

Again, you may come to some more interesting ways of looking at the problem, if you differentiate the debt of a currency issuer like the US govt from all other debtors that are currency users. There is no need for the former to ever hit the delete button; it can always handle it's debt. Remember all that debt the FED took on - has your taxes gone up, can you attribute any inflation to it, and where have interest rates gone since but down.

The only question is how much currency the currency issuer should issue (i.e. spend) and how much it should destroy (i.e. tax) to avoid demand-pull inflation AND deflation.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

The same thing will happen that happened during the neolithic revolution and the industrial revolution. New occupations will be created to fill the vacuum. The market will create these occupations automatically, there's no need for the government to artificially create them. Hopefully people will be fulfilling roles that are rewarding and will benefit us as a people. It's very likely we won't have to work nearly as many hours, but we will have to work smarter so as not to be replaced by a machine. It will be a glorious age if we can figure it out. Now's the time to start working towards it.

This assumption is based on looms replacing hand knitting labor. We are now talking about micro chips replacing synapses. The Luddite fallacy is not going to hold.

By the way, thanks for stimulating so much interesting exchange on what I believe are the most fundamental questions facing humanity at this time and for the foreseeable future. You've done it without the usual vitriol. I'm trying to response similarly.... but, it is hard for me - I'm a Boomer I'm trying.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we plan to spend like drunken sailors, and we plan use borrowed money, then let's borrow from ourselves. We have the Geithner replacement call the Bernanke replacement (or maybe Bernanke stays), and have a round of you buy mine and I'll spend yours. Money arrives, the Fed holds the notes, and, if and when inflation arrives, the Fed waves their notes in the air, and the future politicians grimace and raise taxes to pay the bills. The Fed can even play nice and extend some of the notes for a whle at current rates, making the politicians into the heros they certainly aren't.

It's a bit fuzzy, but that's the plan in the rough.

Okay I got it.

I still like that idea of the Treasury issuing a few $1T platinum (take that gold bugs!) coins and buying all those bonds from the FED and sending them back into the netherworld (the bonds that is, not Ben or Timmy!).

I understand now that for it to be completely legal, the Treasury would have to mint two coins for each $1T - one to deposit at the FED and the other to keep in case the FED ever comes knocking and wants to "cash in" it's $1T coin. Weird, but in a wonderful way!

And of course none of this would be inflationary because the $1T coin is not circulated and the $1T in bonds is shredded.

And then there's Lincoln's greenbacks option....

This is fun (okay I need to get out more) and could be a real eye opener for many -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102771844/...verything-Copy

This could change everything

Even if you don't get it or don't agree with it, it might be fun to pass it along to others and get their reactions.

yea, I'm trying to make it go viral - so sue me.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is fun (okay I need to get out more) and could be a real eye opener for many -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102771844/...verything-Copy



Even if you don't get it or don't agree with it, it might be fun to pass it along to others and get their reactions.

yea, I'm trying to make it go viral - so sue me.

Where his our friend Robert Reed when you need him??? He mentioned this a lot when he was still posting several years ago.

Oh, and I HATE the term "paradigm shift".

Originally Posted by Odin

Where his our friend Robert Reed when you need him??? He mentioned this a lot when he was still posting several years ago.

Oh, and I HATE the term "paradigm shit".

H-m-m-m. Other than the Freudian slip, I disagree. They happen from time to time. They are pervasive once they take hold; there is no going back. To pick a unrelated example from the past, warfare changed forever once aircraft were first used. WW-I was the last set-piece war we'll ever experience. It is literally impossible to fight a war that way any longer.

I would call that a paradigm shift. I guess we could agree on Banana, but it may take a while to sell it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I guess we could agree on Banana, but it may take a while to sell it.

If it means people would come to understand MMT, I'm all for calling it a banana!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Other than the Freudian slip, I disagree. They happen from time to time. They are pervasive once they take hold; there is no going back. To pick a unrelated example from the past, warfare changed forever once aircraft were first used. WW-I was the last set-piece war we'll ever experience. It is literally impossible to fight a war that way any longer.

I would call that a paradigm shift. I guess we could agree on Banana, but it may take a while to sell it.

Same with the way we do business now. When computers and robots took over on a large scale beginning in the mid-1980's it changed the way business is done worldwide. And yet a second paradigm shift occurred with the advent of the Internet a decade later. For this reason I feel we must be quite wary of those who tells us we can return to an era of full employment. With technology now doing what so many humans used to do, I feel more and more as though we may never see those days return, and other means are going to have to be found to generate income and purchasing power.

Similar pardigm shifts occurred following the advent of first the automobile and then the airplane. The former was a big factor is the unraveling of our large industrial cities including the one where the industry was founded(probably the most profound example of all), while the latter altered the way longer distance travel is done.

--Cross posted on the Which previous 4T election thread---


PA has long been considered a swing state. If Romney manages to win in PA this will likely be the reason why.

Originally Posted by Philly.com

A Commonwealth Court judge denied a bid by civil rights groups to block the new voter identification law from taking effect, delivering a first-round victory to Gov. Corbett and legislative Republicans who pushed the measure through this spring saying it was needed to prevent voter fraud...


...Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups seeking the injunction vowed to appeal the ruling.

"I just can't believe it," Viviette Applewhite, of Philadelphia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous."

Almost every state in which the Tea Party/GOP group scored a majority in 2010 passed similar laws. If the November election is anywhere near close it could make the whole Bush v. Gore fiasco look simple and reasoned. We may well have moved closer to 1860 today.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Other than the Freudian slip, I disagree. They happen from time to time. They are pervasive once they take hold; there is no going back. To pick a unrelated example from the past, warfare changed forever once aircraft were first used. WW-I was the last set-piece war we'll ever experience. It is literally impossible to fight a war that way any longer.

I would call that a paradigm shift. I guess we could agree on Banana, but it may take a while to sell it.

WHOOPS, fixed!!!