Originally Posted by playwrite

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."

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.

I get the money flow part.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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.

I won't be passing on T-bills to kids/grandkids and I wasn't fortunate enough to have T-bills passed on to me. I assume the less fortunate will have debt passed on to them.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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 -

What good is a $1T coin if it can't be used to replenish the SS trust fund and then be distributed to SS recipients? No money = No Flow

Originally Posted by playwrite

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?

I grew up a long time ago. Reading it that way, I agree and I believe that it's time for all of us to grow up.

2012 Democratic Convention Vote on changes to their 2012 Platform.


Prince

PS: Can't. Stop. Laughing!

Ho hum, while we throw stones at one another and at each other's candidates, Wall Street runs away with our spoons. But what does it matter? After the election, no matter who wins, when the economy tanks again, politicians will be sitting pretty while *We The People* do all the sacrificing.

When will we ever learn?

Wall Street campaign donations

Wall Street is paying big time to influence this election.
The financial industry is on track to break its 2008 campaign spending record of $170 million, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics cited by CNNMoney. So far, Wall Street has spent $164 million donating to candidates and political groups, and CRP estimates the final tally of Wall Street cash will reach $2.5 billion.

The top eight companies with employees donating to Mitt Romney are banks, according to CRP data, while Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase made it into the top 20 firms with employees donating to President Obama's campaign.

Wall Street’s influence on politicians and regulators has come under scrutiny since the financial crisis and during recent election cycles, and the news that the financial industry is shelling out record cash probably won’t help.

Yet the amount of cash Wall Street is pouring into elections is poised to grow. The American Bankers Association is planning to set up a non-profit that would allow itsmembers to send money to pro-Wall Street super PACs anonymously, according to Bloomberg. The fund, which officials say will raise several million dollars, will focus on 12 key Senate races.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1353393

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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?

Of course you disagree, but that's an illusion. As for your question,

1) "non-partisanship" is irrelevant; and

2) don't lump Eric and me together.

The question before us is how much support there is for cutting out entitlements and social welfare programs among the people. The answer is: not nearly as much as you think, and "working people" are not, by and large, on your side of the question.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

By changing the laws that assign ownership of the product of business on the basis of capital rather than labor.

You would know that if you'd read the book.

Man, I know you have some sort of delusions of grandeur, but I have better things to do than read your book. The explanatory info on your book's website sort of goes into it, but did not explain how that should come about. Now you have.

"By changing the laws that assign ownership of the product of business on the basis of capital rather than labor."

That means you want to exproprite property from the owner and give it to people who happen to work there by law, backed up with guns. That is no different from what Stalin did to my granfather's family, or Mao or Castro did to others'.

FACEPALM!

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Right has given no reason to question that assumption.

If hispanics want to remain backward, they can keep voting for policies that keep them that way.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The interest on the debt is just another federal government expenditure that puts money in the hands of people/institutions to spend and create demand. Again, the real question circles back to whether the created demand is too much/little for the economy to supply resulting in either in/de- flation.

Diminish purchasing power is one outcome (inflation); the other is increased purchasing power that doesn't get spent (deflation). Nearly any economist, or policy maker who has faced both, will tell you they'd rather deal with inflation than deflation. One of the reasons you want inflation in a healthy economy is that it is the best sign you are not unknowingly, until too late, falling into the more scarier deflation.

I have not looked into Revolutionary France per se, but if you are referring to another case of hyperinflation, I can guarantee that it is just another example (as with Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, US Confederacy and the other usual suspects), of a non-monetary sovereign getting into problem that is not possible with the US, Japan, China or any other monetary sovereign entity.

Because the USA has never suffered from infaltion.

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.

I do not think that our boy odin is in danger of working too hard.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

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.




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.

Actually, they can.

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.

Yeah. Define "we."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...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.

I remember seeing a study that compared blacks and hispanics in Texas versus the blacks and hispanics in Wisconsin. Texas does a better job than Wisconsin. So it looks like the progressives are the ones with a contempt for educating students, as opposed to lining the pockets of the "education" unions.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

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.

I already know that socialist features only survive when they has a free market system to leech off.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Yeah. Define "we."

You're not part of the "we". You're part of the "Reps."

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

"By changing the laws that assign ownership of the product of business on the basis of capital rather than labor."

That means you want to exproprite property from the owner and give it to people who happen to work there by law, backed up with guns.

Personally I think capital has a valid role, but why should working and actually making the product not count in the value and ownership of a product?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I remember seeing a study that compared blacks and hispanics in Texas versus the blacks and hispanics in Wisconsin. Texas does a better job than Wisconsin. So it looks like the progressives are the ones with a contempt for educating students, as opposed to lining the pockets of the "education" unions.

When it comes to education, all the Democrats ever talk about is spending more money. We already spend more for less results than any other country in the world. They don't give a flying crap about educating kids, they're just funneling taxpayer dollars to the teacher's unions, which gets laundered and put right back into the pockets of Democrat politicians. They need to be called on it and exposed for what they're doing, because it really is that simple. It's a racket. Organized crime.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I get the money flow part.


I won't be passing on T-bills to kids/grandkids and I wasn't fortunate enough to have T-bills passed on to me. I assume the less fortunate will have debt passed on to them.

As currency users, yep, it is not good to pass on debt (however, if its mortgage/business debt that is far exceeded by your equity, then it will be welcome by your heirs).

However, the debt of a monetary sovereign (i.e. US govt) is not past on to anyone, it remains the debt of the monetary sovereign and he just rolls it over in its entirety about every 3 months - always has, always will. Of course, the monetary sovereign pays interest on that debt which is just another way for him to inject money into the economy - again, too much and it can be inflationary but too little and it can be deflationary - all depends on the economy AT THAT TIME.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

What good is a $1T coin if it can't be used to replenish the SS trust fund and then be distributed to SS recipients? No money = No Flow

Here's a picture of the file cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. Social Security office where the special Trust Fund bonds are kept -



My understanding is you can't get a picture of the bonds because that would be a facsimile of the govt's securities and that's a no-no counterfeiting thingee. However, I believe they look something like this -



I don't know about you, but I would prefer that the cabinet have nice shiny, perhaps platinum, $1T coins in there. That would be way cooler, no?

The point is that it makes no difference what is in that SS Trust Fund Cabinet when it comes time for the federal govt to use computer keystrokes to credit my bank account when I retire and credit your bank account when you retire; and that goes for everyone else. The only difference is that by having coins in there instead of special bonds the national debt goes down instantly by a few trillion dollars. How cool is that?!

Even cooler is that most T-bonds and mortgages that the FED has been buying under the QEs and Operation Twist don't really exist on paper anymore; they're just key-stroked digits on the FED's spreadsheet. Now wouldn't it give us all a more secure feeling if instead of key-stroked spreadsheet figures, that the Treasury gave the FED some platinum coins and retired all that debt to the ether from which it came?

Such exchanges between the FED and the Treasury really would make no difference on the FED balance sheet nor the Treasury and certainly not a ripple in the real economy. Sure the markets might get a little loopy for awhile but then settle down - and again, that would just be another opportunity for us MMTers to take some more money from the Austrians if they still have anything left by now (it's been like taking candy from babies the last few years with their hyperinflation hysteria going full tilt!). But again, the exchange for bonds with the platinum coins would reduce the mythical federal debt by a few trillion; hell, everyone would be so happy that maybe no one would even want a magic pony anymore!

I realize that this is mind-blowing to most people and very very difficult to accept. It's like springing Einstein's Theory of Relativity on a Newtonian world - just a hell of a lot simpler to intellectually grasp, BUT a hell of a lot more difficult to emotionally accept.

The federal government cannot run out of the money it issues - and that certainly includes SS, Medicare or whatever trust funds. And, the notion of federal debt is almost a useless construct. What is important is the dynamic of how much money the feds are injecting (deficit spending) and destroying (taxing) relative to the economy's ability to supply given all private and foreign (in US dollars) spending - again, too little, deflation; too much, inflation.

That understanding opens up a whole new world of possible. However, M&L is right - what to spend on and what not to spend on remains critically important. It's just with MMT, you come at it without the blind childish notions that we've been all brainwashed with for decades.

I don't know for sure, but I bet that, like me, you prefer being treated as an adult.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Because the USA has never suffered from infaltion.

From demand-pull inflation? No, not really.

There was a lot of possibility during WW2 but some of the strictest price controls in history made that near impossible. Then there was some during and after the Vietnam War that perhaps added to the inflationary problem of the mid to late Seventies. However, that was, by far, more a result of cost-push inflation cause by the oil cartel that was made further obvious and quickly broken by the deregulation of natural gas.

Every year, our GDP grows less dependent on global oil prices so unless we hit Peak Oil soon and hard, I kind of doubt will ever see anything like the 70s again. And while food, medical and higher education all have significant cost-push inflationary pressures, they're just not capable of having such a wide impact as energy prices.

But actually, all that has nothing to do with the demand-pull inflation that may come from too much spending (private and public combined) relative to the economy's potential to supply.

Life is a little more complex than black/white, up/down. College is supposed to help get you to see that.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Man, I know you have some sort of delusions of grandeur, but I have better things to do than read your book

Then you also have better things to do than comment on my ideas, since the one is a prerequisite for doing the other legitimately.

No reason why you should have to read the book, of course. You can shut up instead. Perfectly acceptable.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I already know that socialist features only survive when they has a free market system to leech off.

If you would just tone down the value judgement and change "leech off" to "support it," you might find more agreement.

Maybe with a few years more education, you would then be capable of presenting that other truism -

"I already know that a free market system only survives when it has socialist features to support it."

Then we can all forgo the magic ponies and have a rousing kumbaya moment.

Socialism is not in conflict with a "free market." Capitalism, on the other hand, is.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When it comes to education, all the Democrats ever talk about is spending more money. We already spend more for less results than any other country in the world. They don't give a flying crap about educating kids, they're just funneling taxpayer dollars to the teacher's unions, which gets laundered and put right back into the pockets of Democrat politicians. They need to be called on it and exposed for what they're doing, because it really is that simple. It's a racket. Organized crime.

This pretty much eviscerates this myth -

http://www.ascd.org/publications/edu...r-Schools.aspx

Debunking the Myths About Money for Schools

Just another confirmation of the now increasingly obvious fact that today's Republicans lie about everything all the time.

that's a plan!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

If hispanics want to remain backward, they can keep voting for policies that keep them that way.

I pray that you all keep that attitude; do that and Texas just might go Blue by 2016.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The interest on the debt is just another federal government expenditure that puts money in the hands of people/institutions to spend and create demand. Again, the real question circles back to whether the created demand is too much/little for the economy to supply resulting in either in/de- flation.

There's also the potential corruption that comes along with determining who gets the new money first. Yes, this is already a problem, but don't act like it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have not looked into Revolutionary France per se, but if you are referring to another case of hyperinflation, I can guarantee that it is just another example (as with Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, US Confederacy and the other usual suspects), of a non-monetary sovereign getting into problem that is not possible with the US, Japan, China or any other monetary sovereign entity.

How exactly was France not monetarily sovereign in the early 1790s? For that matter, how were the other three not either? All of these nations had control of a large amount of territory in which that government set the rules. If you argue that these countries had lots of foreign debt and thus weren't truly sovereign, well then you've just admitted that debt does matter (at least to some degree). At that point the argument is over how much debt matters, not whether it does at all.

This could be very good news -

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...a-pull-out.php

Romney, GOP Groups Pull Ads From Michigan and Pennsylvania

- less territory for Obama to defend. However, still early; Romney could pour money back in at later date if polls indicate he has a better chance.

Perhaps the bigger news not being covered well at the national level -

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/b...or-Romney.html

Ex. Va. congressman spells trouble for Romney

Here comes trouble for Mitt Romney.

A former congressman is running for president as a third-party candidate and may spoil the GOP’s chances for a win in Virginia.

Virgil Goode Jr., the conservative Constitution Party’s presidential candidate, will be listed on the Virginia ballot, ruled the state’s Board of Elections today, as will the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein and Libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson.

Goode, though unknown outside the Old Dominion, is an established political figure in that swing state. He served 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 24 years in the Virginia state legislature.

In two automated polls, Goode garnered 5 to 9 percent of the Virginia’s likely voters, which, if it came to pass, would siphon off votes from Romney and turn the traditionally red state blue. Goode’s campaign previously has referred to Romney as “Obama-lite.”


According to the Washington Post, Goode’s campaign submitted 20,500 signatures to the state elections board more than double the required 10,000. The Va. GOP, sensing a potential disaster, filed a challenge last week to keep Goode off the ballot, something the Pa. Republicans successfully did last month, the Post reported.

Goode, who has a law degree from the University of Va., shares several platforms with Romney: he is against gay marriage, against Obamacare, and against abortion.

But on other issues he is farther to the right: Goode is anti-NAFTA, does not want U.S. troops under U.N. command, demands that English be named the official language of the U.S., and wants an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He wants a moratorium on Green Cards, is adamantly against illegal immigration, and would eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, No Child Left Behind, and a slew of other federal programs.

He has repeatedly said that his campaign would take votes equally from both of the big party candidates, but few pundits are buying that. Goode has taken a circuitous route to becoming a third-party candidate.

He started his career as a Blue Dog Democrat, was briefly an independent after angering state Dems with his vote to impeach Bill Clinton, then fully converted to the Republican Party. In 2008, he lost his congressional seat and two years later joined the executive committee of the Constitution Party.

Virginia is a key swing state and most polls have it as a tossup. Goode taking just 2% could swing it to Obama; if the initial polls showing him taking 5 to 8% hold, then it would be curtains for Romney - watch in the next couple of weeks if Team Romney pulls out of Virginia.

For beyond 2012, what I highlighted in bold in the article might be a harbinger of the fall-out of what will come to the GOP should Romney lose. With all the second-guessing and soul-searching, I don’t want to jinx it, but we may finally just get that elusive splitting of the GOP and its downgrade to a regional party we've all so hoped for, for so long.