Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Another Brian Rush humpty dumpty definition.

Another complete Wallace failure to come to grips with an issue. What a surprise.

Arguments by definition are always fallacies, unless the subject under discussion is semantics and ONLY semantics. Which it's not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And that's the key there. Faith in the US dollar lasts exactly as long as faith in the US government's enforcement organs to kidnap and beat up with impunity people who don't do what they say. MMT deserves to be congratulated for finally getting around to openly recognizing this basic point.

Oer put another way, as long as people take the dollar seriously, which they won't under MMT.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, there was some good analysis last night on, I think, PBS as to when the Hispanic population growth will make Texas a swing state - some were putting it as early as 2016.

Romney's got a lock on TX in 2012 but watch the actual vote totals closely particular the Hispanic total and % register. Turnout is the issue with Hispanic today, but that would change in a heartbeat with a Hispanic on the ticket.

When TX goes to a swing state, it will become conventional wisdom that the GOP has downsized to a regional party with diminished influence (kind of hard to content in the Electoral College starting out with CA, NY, TX in the other column). From there, it may get real interesting as to how the Dem party could grow so large that a split would be inevitable - but, that would come much later.

You assume that Hispanics will keep voting democrat.

Originally Posted by playwrite

However, it is a fact that the denominator is ZERO, there has been NO real cost associated with those investments.

Other than the interest on the debt you rack up (or the diminish purchasing power of the currency if you directly print the money). For a sufficiently depressed economy the cost may be less than the gain, but this cannot be universally so, otherwise Revolutionary France (which tried this strategy) would have conquered all of Europe.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Lets see, you don't have the forces and the ability to round up several million ILLEGAL Mexicans but you think you have the forces and the ability to round up half of the American taxpayers. Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn about Americans. Lets see, a small scrap in rural Texas and another in rural Idaho resulted in the loss of a federal building. What do you think a big scrap is going to result in as far as losses? My only hope is that you're the tax collector and the Democrats are in full control. Oh, and if all the fiat money in great grandmas account and all your account were to vanish would you sell me your bades diamond ring or access to her body or opt to fly out a window and go splat?

Playwrite probably has his momney in gold. That's the real reason he pushes MMT!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Another complete Wallace failure to come to grips with an issue. What a surprise.

Arguments by definition are always fallacies, unless the subject under discussion is semantics and ONLY semantics. Which it's not.

You are the one arguing about the definition of "worker"?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Other than the interest on the debt you rack up (or the diminish purchasing power of the currency if you directly print the money). For a sufficiently depressed economy the cost may be less than the gain, but this cannot be universally so, otherwise Revolutionary France (which tried this strategy) would have conquered all of Europe.

That is why most debt (gov or otherwise) is often counter-productive.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You assume incorrectly. We meant Americans. All of us, together as an aggregate.

What do you think holds us together as an aggregate? It's not money.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You assume that Hispanics will keep voting democrat.

As long as the GOP continues to push nativism, they will.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

What do you think holds us together as an aggregate? It's not money.

It's also not relevant. Please remember the context.

I asserted that we (collectively) DO have the capital to do what's needed, it's just maldistributed and kept unavailable to do it with.

You came back by pointing out that I, personally, as an individual, all by myself, DON'T have the capital to do that.

In pointing out the difference between "I" and "we," I was only showing how silly you were being.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You are the one arguing about the definition of "worker"?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that someone was claiming membership in a class they don't belong to. I'm arguing that there is no significant community of interest between Exile and his employees. That's all. If you think this is about a definition of a word and nothing more, then you are, as usual, failing to understand what's being said.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You assume that Hispanics will keep voting democrat.

That's a pretty safe assumption for the time being. The GOP is full of anti-immigration types and is constantly pandering to racists. In order to court Hispanics, the GOP would have to change its policy positions and attitudes -- which is the point. The current GOP will very soon no longer be able to take Texas in Presidential races, which will require them to change course if they want to compete.

Now I know that people think "Hispanics are mostly Catholics, therefore social conservativism will make them Republicans." This is demonstrably false. Brazil is a Catholic country, and yet they have gay marriage and the right of transgendered persons to change their legal gender prior to full transition. The fact that many Hispanics are nominally Catholic means little, especially when you consider that the more conservative Hispanics tend to be rooted in their ways (i.e. not the ones who cross borders looking for work).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, there was some good analysis last night on, I think, PBS as to when the Hispanic population growth will make Texas a swing state - some were putting it as early as 2016.

Romney's got a lock on TX in 2012 but watch the actual vote totals closely particular the Hispanic total and % register. Turnout is the issue with Hispanic today, but that would change in a heartbeat with a Hispanic on the ticket.

A little bit ago C-SPAN hosted an interview of Julian Castro by some reporters from Univision. He more or less preicted that Texas would become a purple state around the year 2020. He did note that latino Texans were 25% less likely to vote than anglos within the state whereas in California the gap is only 10%. The overall tone of the interview was optimistic however. And I will add that Castro show excellent analyitical skills-the man knows his state. He is likely to be the first Democrat to contest Texas seiously whenever he does run statewide. He certainly gave me no impression of wasting campaign resources on a Quixotic early run.

Originally Posted by PW

When TX goes to a swing state, it will become conventional wisdom that the GOP has downsized to a regional party with diminished influence (kind of hard to content in the Electoral College starting out with CA, NY, TX in the other column). From there, it may get real interesting as to how the Dem party could grow so large that a split would be inevitable - but, that would come much later.

At 538.com there is a good article about my old home state of North Carolina and why it flipped from red to purple ahead of schedule.

As to the longer range trends it is evident that the real movers and shakers behind the GOP know that the southern strategy gig is just about up. They certainly featured as many speakers with high levels of melanin down in Tampa as they felt that their base could stomach. This is where I see the new concensus for the 1T coming from. Baring successful voter suppression efforts, it will be impossible for the Republicans to win a culture war campaign in 2016. If they go there with the type of demographics that we're headed for as a nation, then amongst other things, Mikebert will get his critical election, albeit a bit late, and resultingly we could be looking at a long pereriod inthe wilderness for the Republicans in the 2020's.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Playwrite probably has his momney in gold. That's the real reason he pushes MMT!

A) It's not even his money because it belongs to the family or something. (Code for saying the people who earned it are long dead, see: Bush, Rinehart, Walton, etc...)

B) He doesn't even decide where it goes, there's a "brilliant" manager for that

C) The "brilliant manager" knows whats up, because he did indeed transfer a large portion of it to commodities after the initial meltdown and talk of stimulus & bailouts got louder.

D) This increase in the cost of materials and doing business is not inflation because your wages and sales didn't go up to compensate. (Wait, what?)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As long as the GOP continues to push nativism, they will.

They don't. They just think that you should come here legally.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's also not relevant. Please remember the context.

I asserted that we (collectively) DO have the capital to do what's needed, it's just maldistributed and kept unavailable to do it with.

You came back by pointing out that I, personally, as an individual, all by myself, DON'T have the capital to do that.

In pointing out the difference between "I" and "we," I was only showing how silly you were being.

You never did get around to saying what would happen to a business owner who did not want his business socialized.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that someone was claiming membership in a class they don't belong to. I'm arguing that there is no significant community of interest between Exile and his employees. That's all. If you think this is about a definition of a word and nothing more, then you are, as usual, failing to understand what's being said.

Based on your humpty dumpty marxist definition.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Or put another way, as long as people take the dollar seriously, which they won't under MMT.

It's not the dollar people need to take seriously. MMT recognizes that the longevity of a fiat currency is wholly dependent on the currency-issuer's inclination and capacity to beat up and kill anyone who doesn't want to trade real value for their scrip.

While nobody disputes that inclination is limitless, MMT holds faith in the belief that capacity is similarly infinite. Time will tell, as it tends to.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

That's a pretty safe assumption for the time being. The GOP is full of anti-immigration types and is constantly pandering to racists. In order to court Hispanics, the GOP would have to change its policy positions and attitudes -- which is the point. The current GOP will very soon no longer be able to take Texas in Presidential races, which will require them to change course if they want to compete.

Now I know that people think "Hispanics are mostly Catholics, therefore social conservativism will make them Republicans." This is demonstrably false. Brazil is a Catholic country, and yet they have gay marriage and the right of transgendered persons to change their legal gender prior to full transition. The fact that many Hispanics are nominally Catholic means little, especially when you consider that the more conservative Hispanics tend to be rooted in their ways (i.e. not the ones who cross borders looking for work).

You are confusing anti-immigration with anti-illegal immigartion.

The reason legal immigrants will turn from progessives is that they did not come the America to live under progressivism. If they wanted that, they could have stayed where they were.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You never did get around to saying what would happen to a business owner who did not want his business socialized.

And you never answered the question of why you bugger tied up little boys, either.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Based on your humpty dumpty marxist definition.

It's not based on any definition at all. If you want to substitute a made-up word for "working folks," the argument will be unchanged.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

A) It's not even his money because it belongs to the family or something. (Code for saying the people who earned it are long dead, see: Bush, Rinehart, Walton, etc...)

B) He doesn't even decide where it goes, there's a "brilliant" manager for that

C) The "brilliant manager" knows whats up, because he did indeed transfer a large portion of it to commodities after the initial meltdown and talk of stimulus & bailouts got louder.

D) This increase in the cost of materials and doing business is not inflation because your wages and sales didn't go up to compensate. (Wait, what?)

Yeah, I forgot. His manager but it in gold, that's why he pushes MMT!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

They don't. They just think that you should come here legally.

No, that's a code for being against brown people coming here at all. You can tell the difference because "you should come here legally" is something EVERYONE believes. So what sets the Republicans apart from others, and turns Hispanics against them, ain't that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And you never answered the question of why you bugger tied up little boys, either.

I don't bugger tied up little boys. That's more of a progessive thing.

So, what will you do to a businessman who does not want his busioness socialized?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, that's a code for being against brown people coming here at all. You can tell the difference because "you should come here legally" is something EVERYONE believes. So what sets the Republicans apart from others, and turns Hispanics against them, ain't that.

It is only a code in your head.

If everyone believes that everyone should come here legally, then why do so many kleft wing lobbies spend their time covering for those who did not?