Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Odin's penchant for throwing negative labels at other posters here can be pretty funny.

Maybe, but that time he was dead-on the money. The Rani implied that Odin was a self-styled slacker, and aded a quote from a post he wrote. The context of his comment was a discussion of workaholism. Being a workaholic is not a preferred sate nor is slackerdom, but not being one does not imply you are the other. There is a vast middle ground where most of us actually operate.

FWIW, I find the old adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", no less compelling today than when it was first penned ... in 1659.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Right has given no reason to question that assumption.

It also puts the cart before the horse so to speak.
Simply put, if the Republicans want to compete in the 2020's and beyond the whole culture war/movement conservatism aura has to go.

Originally Posted by Outside the Beltway

Quote of the day honors go to Lindsey Graham: ”We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”...


...While I’m willing to dismiss Romney’s birther joke as hamhanded, the fact that an absurdly high percentage of the party believes against all evidence that our president was born in Kenya points to something rotten in the core. The notion that a black man named “Barack Hussein Obama” couldn’t possibly be American is worse than casual racism; it’s a fundamental misapprehension of what it means to be American. Similarly, the belief against all evidence that Obama is a Muslim—and thinking that, too, disqualifies him from the presidency—shows a stunning lack of tolerance.

You can't be against "the other" when the other is about half of your voting population. Lincoln ran against slavery in 1860. Reagan ran on welfare queens in 1980. The GOP can go into the 2020's as the party of Lincoln or the party of Reagan--they can't do both.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

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

Actually, much to my benefit, I've been under-allocated in gold since last summer.

However, as a trader in the markets, I certainly do not discount the level of ignorance of how our monetary system actually works and the likely behavior of markets accordingly. That is obvious from the FED's QEs which in the real world are deflationary but touch off nearly-hysterical inflationary-belief reactions and move markets accordingly. The markets can remain irrational long after the money in your wallet has disappeared from what should be rational calls on where the markets should have gone.

That, however, should not be mistaken for what is actually happening in the economy which will eventually become clear - and that poses even more ways to make money in the markets.

Like having any real truth when most are clueless, MMT is very profitable. Being in bonds alone when everyone was screaming hyperinflation could have made one rich. I know.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what I have seen at both conventions only reinforces what I have thought all along:

That the Republicans are the party of Spike TV, while the Democrats are the party of the Lifetime Channel.

Actually, this is an issue for me too. The Dems need to act more like real leaders rather than mere cheerleaders. It's good to be supportive, but we aren't electing a team of nannies and a counseler-in-chief. Obama needs to act a bit pissed-off. He's certainly been pissed-on, so the reaction is approriate. I doubt we'll see it though. In short, there needs to be a lot more red meat in their narative.

Crredit where it's due: Deval Patrick did a good job serving a portion during his turn at the podium.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Maybe, but that time he was dead-on the money. The Rani implied that Odin was a self-styled slacker, and aded a quote from a post he wrote. The context of his comment was a discussion of workaholism. Being a workaholic is not a preferred sate nor is slackerdom, but not being one does not imply you are the other. There is a vast middle ground where most of us actually operate.

FWIW, I find the old adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", no less compelling today than when it was first penned ... in 1659.

And of course the best use of those words of wisdom -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lQ_MjU4QHw

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I hear what you're saying. I'm sorry folks, we just don't have the capital, the courage or the clout to radically change AMERICA is something the blue tribe or cult doesn't want to hear coming out of the mouth of their chosen leader who is supposed to be the human with devine powers.

But we do have the capital and the clout. We need the courage, since the Reps aren't interested and the Dems are cowed. We just need to recognize it.

In you effort to convince KIA that the world is really and truly round, you wrote:

Originally Posted by playwrite

You come so close with the basics and yet you just can't put it together.

Of course interest on the federal debt will grow and part of it will not be offset by revenues; so what?

Those interest payments go to real people and real institutions that use it to create demand (including investing in economic growth). It still circles back to whether it creates too little or too much demand for the economy to supply - too little and you get deflation, too much and you get inflation.

Why are you so convinced it will be inflation? And exactly when will that occur? And why do you believe that if inflation becomes an issue it can't be addressed by increasing taxes, decreasing spending or raising interest rates?

This is the hard sell. It flies in the face of the tight fisted success story we hear from guys like, well, KIA, but ...

Originally Posted by more by PW

Why are you so afraid of something that you cannot predict will even happen - to the point where you accept TODAY 12 million unemployed, many more under-employed, crumbling infrastructure, economically-debilitating student debt, underfunded research and development, etc, etc. These are the things that will determine if the economy can meet future demand; if fully invested in, these are the things that will not only prevent inflation but allow for a prosperous economy for EVERYBODY. Why are you so willing to forgo that for the possibility, however remote, that there may be inflation some day?

You're no different than the kid who won't get out of bed because there might be a magical monster under his bed. Cute with a kid, but yea, it really is that asinine in an adult.

OK, so the hard sell may work. What if it does? Remember, these are binary thinkers; things are either good or bad. Telling someone with this mindset that inflation is not a worry, is fine ... unless they are also the ones doing the spending. Remember, Dick Cheney had no problem with the concept. He made sure the money got spread around. Of course, not everyone is entitled to a share, when the entitled are doing the doling.

We don't need another round of bubble blowing, but I see the Romney/Ryan phallange giving it a real go. Giving them an unlimited checkbook will make it much worse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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

...and contempt for education. Most Latinos know that without a sound education they will end up destitute in an economic order that offers them no breaks.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Taxes - You're right on the taxes - I am somewhat ambivalent. It doesn't make much sense to raise anyone's taxes in this economy right now. Taxes serve only to get people to use the currency and to control inflation. The former is not really an issue any more nor will it ever likely be (no matter how hysterical the Austrians may get) and the latter can only be something we can hope for given the high levels of unemployment and under-employment. However, if you are going to raise taxes on someone, doing so for the top 2% is best because it will have absolutely no impact on aggregate demand in the economy. My only fear is that raising such taxes will give the excuse to further cut federal spending which is about the stupidest thing we can do right now - but given how stupid Americans are about how their monetary system actually works, it is very likely we'll do the stupid thing.

Are you more finanicially tied to the government or the private sector economy or equally tied to both?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Spending to much - relative to what? As a self-professed successful businessman, you should know the correct measure is the ratio "return on investment" (ROI). We can argue about the 3 million jobs that were created or the infrastructure that was built or even Solyndra, whatever you want that goes into the numerator. However, it is a fact that the denominator is ZERO, there has been NO real cost associated with those investments. No one's taxes have gone up; in fact, total federal tax rates have gone down since Obama has taken office. There is very little generalized inflation, and what inflation there has been during that time can be attributable to cost-push inflation in food, energy, health care and higher education - not to federal govt expenditures or the FED's "printing money."

Are you familiar with adage, all good things eventually end. The housing/contruction boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. The tech boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. Guess what, the government boom is a good thing until it ends. According to Bill Clinton, it ended in 1994.

The costs are being passed on or passed down to future American generations. Which brings up a moral question, should we care about the future generations or not? Supposebly, you're a trust fund kid who should understand the benefits of passing on wealth. If what you say is true, why don't they just delete the debt and make it all disappear and eliminate our concerns? We don't have to be concerned about national debt that no longer exists or grows. I mean, you can delete it as it grows too.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If the denominator is zero, and it is, then the ROI is infinite. Do you know of ANY private business endeavor with a infinite ROI?

Sprinkling - you're sprinkling something alright. It's called silliness. You're not going to sprinkle money or generate business unless you too have income and that income comes from someone else spending. You want to reduce that spending by removing billions from the economy so that an electronic spreadsheet at the FED shows a smaller difference between revenues and spending. That is some pretty silly sprinkling.

Nope, I live in the real world. You know, the would without magic carpet rides, magic ponies that shit gold and magic trees that grow money.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you more finanicially tied to the government or the private sector economy or equally tied to both?

Does it matter? If so, why?

Are you familiar with adage, all good things eventually end. The housing/contruction boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. The tech boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. Guess what, the government boom is a good thing until it ends. According to Bill Clinton, it ended in 1994.

And as we all know, Bill Clinton is the soul of honesty and integrity whose word can be trusted without question. George Washington and his axe had nothing on Bill Clinton, nosiree.

The costs are being passed on or passed down to future American generations.

Actually, as Playwrite has convincingly pointed out, they're not. In fact, there are no costs, unless we see them in the here and now, and if we do they will take the form of either inflation or deflation.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

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 seriously whenever he does run statewide. He certainly gave me no impression of wasting campaign resources on a Quixotic early run.

Texas goes to President Obama only in the wake of a GOP collapse; it is probably the difference between 410 and 450 electoral votes.

The GOP in Texas is corrupt, extremist, insensitive, and stale. It gets away with what it does in part because the last era of political contest between Democrats and Republicans allowed some good government and providential planning. The question is when people tire of the current corporatist and Protestant fundamentalist ethos of the political leadership. Note well that Texas has some giant cities that have already gone blue or have remained blue -- Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and Beaumont -- and areas along the Mexican border other than El Paso. The difference between Texas being solidly R and being a swing state so far is that Democrats have yet to win in the suburbs of the giant cities. Maybe that is because Texas suburbs are comparatively new and can still act as if government is cheap. At that contrast northeastern New Jersey. When the suburbs start having problems with crime, educational decline, and environmental degradation they might go D.

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 period in the wilderness for the Republicans in the 2020's.

The culture wars are doomed to failure except in places with elderly (as of about 2016 that will be predominately Boomers) populations or those tied to right-wing interests as in the generation of fossil fuels. Anti-intellectualism within the GOP might not hurt middle-income white males who are either skilled workers or small-business owners but will hurt non-white and female members of the middle class who depend upon college degrees as credentials for their jobs. It is safe to assume that non-white people with middle incomes and women with professional-grade incomes are much more likely to have high levels of educational attainment. Anti-intellectualism is at best a slap in the face to such people... and at worst a cause for discrimination.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That level of ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The GINI coefficient in Mexico is 50+, making that country less progressive than this one -- and that's saying something.

[img=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg][/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg (in case the image does not appear)

The US and Mexico have practically caught up with each other in the Gini coefficient. As Mexico has become more of an industrial country and less a country of peasant agriculture the traditional disparities of income have abated some. In the United States, as bureaucratic elites and tycoons have gained while middle-income groups have been squeezed and marginalized, economic inequality has intensified.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Leftist polices are great at creating poverty. And genocide.

Right-wing policies, including the endorsement and enforcement of pre-modern norms of economic life, also create poverty or at the least preserve it long beyond its necessity and inevitability. Extreme leftist policies create poverty to the extent that they destroy the potential for entrepreneurial challenges to a failed economic system, as in the Soviet Union.

Social democracy depends upon a strong capitalist system to work well, as in Sweden.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In you effort to convince KIA that the world is really and truly round, you wrote:

This is the hard sell. It flies in the face of the tight fisted success story we hear from guys like, well, KIA, but ...


OK, so the hard sell may work. What if it does? Remember, these are binary thinkers; thinkgs are either good or bad. Telling someone with this mindset that inflation is not a worry, is fine ... nless they are also the ones doing the spending. Remember, Dick Cheney had no problem with the concept. He made sure the money got spread around. Of course, not everyone is entitled to a share, when the entitled are doing the doling.

We don't need another round of bubble blowing, but I see the Romney/Ryan phallange giving it a real go. Giving them an unlimited checkbook will make it much worse.

Yes, the spending on WHAT remains critically important. For example, if you think of tax cuts as spending, it is far better to spend by giving those cuts to the 99% than the 1% because it results in more demand, more jobs.

However, it should not be limited by the bullshit that the govt is going to run out of computer keystrokes. At best, it is as lazy as telling the kids that they have to do something because, well, I'm the adult. I think the kids learn more and will do the right thing when the adult is not around if you give them the real reason and it makes sense. Also, and more importantly, I think people are capable of acting as adults.

You see, I have faith. I believe KIA's intellectual potential to understand this is far, far beyond what is needed to understand this (I even came to understand it! ). I believe that is true for most people because it is not about intelligence; it’s about breaking through decades of brainwashing. It's like trying to explain what a sunset looks like to someone who refuses to open their eyes - once they open their eyes, very little explanation is actually needed.

MMT doesn't mean limitless spending; it means more spending under some situation and less spending under other situations. It means coming to understand that price control is now achieved by very purposeful, and completely unnecessary, large-scale unemployment and suffering. It doesn't mean we become mindless, it means we become much more mindful.

The thing that really drives me is what automation is going to do that will make the current situation of lack of demand due to un- and under- employed look like a cakewalk in probable less than a decade from now. We got to get this solved before the whole thing falls apart. Because falling apart is going to look nothing like what the magic pony people believe it will look like. I’ve actually been in a war zone – it’s neither pretty nor philosophical.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you more financially tied to the government or the private sector economy or equally tied to both?

Like with EVERYONE else, the answer is both.

It's like asking whether I'm more dependent on my heart's left atrium or right atrium. The trick is how do we once again come to understand the essential nature of the government in the economy without discounting the necessity of our entrepreneurial spirits. It's got to get to at least -

"Govt (or entrepreneurs, take your pick) - you can't live with them and you can't live without them."

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you familiar with adage, all good things eventually end. The housing/construction boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. The tech boom was a good thing to be in until it ended. Guess what, the government boom is a good thing until it ends. According to Bill Clinton, it ended in 1994.

This gets back to comparing the currency issuer to all the currency users. It's akin to comparing the Sun to the Moon. Yea, they're both in the sky but very fundamentally different things.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The costs are being passed on or passed down to future American generations. Which brings up a moral question, should we care about the future generations or not? Supposedly, you're a trust fund kid who should understand the benefits of passing on wealth.

What you are passing on (if you give your kids/grandkids T-bills) are claims on future production. If that future production falls short of those and all other claims AT THAT TIME then you will have price increases until demand is stifled. On the other hand, AT THAT TIME, if future production exceeds all future claims then prices will fall until they stimulate demand. The problem with the latter is people might just wait to see if prices will fall even further - that is very bad ju-ju - it leads to something called an economic depression – think soup lines.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

If what you say is true, why don't they just delete the debt and make it all disappear and eliminate our concerns? We don't have to be concerned about national debt that no longer exists or grows. I mean, you can delete it as it grows too.

Actually, from an economic standpoint, this is very possible. However, it would likely freak everyone out and we'd get those irrational market movements that, irrational or not, can devastate markets and then the economy. However, much of the debt could be soaked up without freaking the markets too much.

First, the Treasury could issue coins in the denomination of $1 Trillion and deposit that at the FED to buy up all the debt the govt owes itself (SS, Medicare, Highway Trust funds) - it would not be inflationary for the $1T coins would never be issued into the economy. And it would make NO difference in the ability of the govt to pay for those things. The added advantage is that it would finally put aside all the bullshit about SS and Medicare "running out of money."

Next, the Treasury could issue more such $1T coins to buy up all the securities that the FED has been buying from the banks under the QEs. Again, not inflationary because those $1T coins never see the light of day outside of the FED (maybe Bernanke could carry one around in his pocket to impress other central bankers).

I just cut the US total debt in half without any inflation. Which leads me to this -

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Nope, I live in the real world. You know, the would without magic carpet rides, magic ponies that shit gold and magic trees that grow money.

Hopefully, the above has given you the clue that you and most people are actually living in magic pony land and don’t know it. Maybe it's time for ALL of us to grow up?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But we do have the capital and the clout. We need the courage, since the Reps aren't interested and the Dems are cowed. We just need to recognize it.

What are the chances of you and me joining forces for a common cause? What's the chances of a Hilter showing up in America? Zero to none. What are the chances of a Russian/Chinese invasion? Zero to none.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

What are the chances of you and me joining forces for a common cause?

What you're not understanding here, predictably perhaps, is that you and people who agree with you constitute no more than 25% of the people. All it takes is a very strong majority, which 75% definitely constitutes, plus an honestly democratic (small-d) government that is not being bought, sold, and paid for by corporate interests. It does not require 100% universal agreement.

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.

Well, I don't have any problem with jailing tax evaders, especially the rich ones.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Man, Prince of Cats was just kidding, but I thought it would be funny. It is the sort of thing JDG 66 (Glick) is good at. And you bring it on yourself. You apologized in another thread, and I acceted, but I can see you were just playing for sympathy. I take back my acceptance of your apology.

I was getting after Rani for taking a post of mine out of context in order to play "gotcha". How does that make me a jerk?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You assume that Hispanics will keep voting democrat.

With how much the racists are driving away non-white voters from the GOP it is a valid assumption. You cannot have racists and minorities in the same party, which is why Southern racists bolted the Democratic Party after 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted. Most minorities, no matter how socially conservative they are, will not vote for Republicans as long as the GOP is full of racists.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

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.

I know plenty of people, mostly Republicans, RW "independents", and apolitical ignorants, who assume all Hispanics are illegal aliens. Hell, I've heard stories of Hispanics whose families have been in the SW since the 1600s get called illegal immigrants by bigots.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ever here of the USA 1946-1980? Or Europe post-WWII? After all, your entire point in citing the examples of the USSR or North Korea is to try to brand OUR sort of "leftist" politics with an inappropriate association, so it's worth taking a direct look at whether OUR sort of "leftist" politics produces poverty or not.

It doesn't.

Brian you are arguing with somebody who thinks the Contras and Pinochet were good guys.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... The thing that really drives me is what automation is going to do that will make the current situation of lack of demand due to un- and under- employed look like a cakewalk in probable less than a decade from now. We got to get this solved before the whole thing falls apart. Because falling apart is going to look nothing like what the magic pony people believe it will look like. I’ve actually been in a war zone – it’s neither pretty nor philosophical.

The old adage about extended periods of boredom punctuated by brief periods of abject terror are still pretty accurate ... even with the newest technological methods of mayhem.

BUBBA!!!

Nobody does it better.

Eviscerated the entire Republican argument.

Granted, easy to do when that argument is based on the increasingly obvious fact that the GOP now lies about everything, all the time.... and, that they don't know how to do arithmetic.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What you're not understanding here, predictably perhaps, is that you and people who agree with you constitute no more than 25% of the people. All it takes is a very strong majority, which 75% definitely constitutes, plus an honestly democratic (small-d) government that is not being bought, sold, and paid for by corporate interests. It does not require 100% universal agreement.

I disagree, I could easily identify with and represent about 70% of the population. How much non-partisan support do you or Eric have on relevant issues vs me?