Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

How exactly was France not monetarily sovereign in the early 1790s? For that matter, how were the other three not either?

They were on the gold standard, which surrenders monetary sovereignty not to a foreign power but to a commodity.

However, I agree to this extent: a fiat currency can hyperinflate. This happens under essentially the same conditions as for a gold-standard currency to hyperinflate, which is to say, government expenses that exceed economic resources by several orders of magnitude and a resort to money-printing as a solution. The reason why expenses exceed resources by so much can be extraordinary expenses (e.g. Weimar Germany), a collapsed economy (the First Republic), or both (the Confederacy). (And when I say "collapsed economy," I mean a level of downturn that the U.S. has never experienced even in the 1930s.)

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

I know it exists, I’m just not foolish enough to think economics, however correct, ends corruption or for that matter premarital sex, lost homework, dogs fraternizing with cats, etc, etc.

On the other hand, maybe if we stop using mythical reasons (e.g. debt ceilings) why things can't be done, we can focus more on the real impediments?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

Again, I'm not that familiar with Revolutionary France, but I can give you the criteria for a monetary sovereign and maybe you can see if it applies.

A monetary sovereign issues its own fiat currency (not pegged to gold or any other resource), holds the power to tax economic production, holds all of its debt in its own currency, and allows it currency’s relative value to float on the global markets.

The basic problem with the three historic non-monetary sovereigns I mentioned that had hyperinflation was one way or another they owed much, if not most, of their debt in a foreign currency or where payment had to be in gold. There were other problems such as Germany losing its Rhine River Valley production (and thus taxation) to the French; likewise for Zimbabwe govt losing ability to tax its predominant farm production. However, it’s when you owe your debt in someone else’s currency that you are vulnerable to default. Unfortunately that is the case for you, me, every person, household, business, local/state government and, as they are now aware, EU countries from Greece to Germany. For those EU countries essentially owe their debt in a foreign currency issued by the ECB called the Euro.
MMTers called the now unfolded EU crisis back in the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They were on the gold standard, which surrenders monetary sovereignty not to a foreign power but to a commodity.

I suppose that would be true of the revolutionary livre, but what about the assignats (which also hyperinflated)? Those were backed by Church property seized by the government, which the state had full control over.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

However, I agree to this extent: a fiat currency can hyperinflate.

Right, I was just objecting to the "no limits" tone of MMT theory. There are limits -- there are always limits. The question is whether we are near them or not. And as I pointed out with the corruption remark, there are other potential pitfalls to a "spend into circulation" regime which have political, social and microeconomic effects that need to be considered.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They were on the gold standard, which surrenders monetary sovereignty not to a foreign power but to a commodity.

However, I agree to this extent: a fiat currency can hyperinflate. This happens under essentially the same conditions as for a gold-standard currency to hyperinflate, which is to say, government expenses that exceed economic resources by several orders of magnitude and a resort to money-printing as a solution. The reason why expenses exceed resources by so much can be extraordinary expenses (e.g. Weimar Germany), a collapsed economy (the First Republic), or both (the Confederacy). (And when I say "collapsed economy," I mean a level of downturn that the U.S. has never experienced even in the 1930s.)

I can't disagree; well stated. I could have saved the time on posting my response.

Inflation is the macro-economic issue, but so is deflation which is much more often overlooked even though most economists are more scared of it taking root than the former.

And again, my concern is longer-term of global supply continuing to far outpace demand as less and less humans are needed for production and fall out of the income stream. Most people don't understand what that means or can imagine what it might lead to.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Yeah. Define "we."

"We" is the collective "we": the commnoweal. We are able to do pretty much what we wish. We can make it up as we go (MMT), but even if we don't, we have trillions in traditional monetary assets sitting on the sidelines. We also have a tax code.

The elephant in the room, almost literally, remains almost unmentioned at the Democon.

It should be made crystal clear that our slow recovery, which Republicans blame on Obama, is entirely due to Republicans. Obviously there's little Obama can do with a congress specifically dedicated to no other purpose but to block and defeat him. Added to that is the effect on the economy of all the job losses in the public sector which Republicans have created on the state level, often negating job growth in the private sector.

Yet to almost totally emphasize the re-election of Obama, is to play the rankest defense. If that's all the Democrats can do, they will have accomplished nothing. The only way anything can be done by our government today, is if Republicans lose the House, and lose ground in the Senate; as well as lose elections on the state level. Yet I hear little about this. They need to shout it from the rooftops. Defeat the right-wing extremist, obstructionist Republicans in the House! Don't just complain about them, or try to persuade them to do business. Don't try to work with them. Defeat them. That is our only option if we wish to recover and move forward.

Unless we defeat them, there is virtually no use in re-electing Obama. We just continue as we are-- declining, stuck, and stalemated. That may happen, but at least the Democrats need to show some backbone and try to overturn the disasterous mistake voters made in Nov.2010, and call it what it was.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

... There are limits -- there are always limits. The question is whether we are near them or not...

Bingo!

But as I noted, there are limits to not spending enough as well. They are limits to employment, a vibrant economy, and the level of comfort in knowing your not falling into a deflationary abyse.

There are ways to deal with the other limits that you mentioned. For example, many in MMT world promote a Jobs Guarantee (JG) program that would provide a living wage to all who are willing and able to work. It could be done through block grants to existing local government, making any unit of potential corruption "small potatoes" and minimizing it with existing institutionalized anti-corruption measure (including voting the bastards out). It could also be done through the existing federal transfer programs like food stamps that have exemplary controls and which would be largely unneeded for their original purpose given what the JG would be providing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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

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

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.

Just a nit -- opposing NAFTA and wanting to get out of Afghanistan don't strike me as right wing positions -- some of those on the left support these.

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.

Just about any change other than drastic cuts will cost money. Drastic cuts, unless they successfully extricate the usually-legendary "waste and fraud" will impose costs in students through the debasement of the quality of education. I have my ideas of how to make education better (first, remove televisions; second, do less standardized testing) -- but that implies that teachers will have to be better just to avoid empty time.

Improvement of educational results implies three huge issues, two of which do not imply direct expenditures on education. One is mass poverty that manifests itself in chaotic family life and outright malnutrition. I have seen elementary-school kids who could tell me what they saw on Leno or Letterman. The problem isn't Leno or Letterman; it's that kids are staying up late enough (that's past midnight in the Eastern Time Zone) to watch Leno or Letterman. My Silent parents had me in bed at 8:30 PM so that I could be sure of ten hours of sleep before I woke up at 7 am to meet the school bus at 7:40 am after breakfast. It would have been the same with my Lost or GI grandparents.

Second is teacher preparation, largely a college activity. The best elementary teachers that I had had broad education in the liberal arts. The worst simply had graduated from a 'normal school' in the 1920s. Teachers should be introducing kids to concepts that they are likely to see in later grades. As a sub I try to drop names of some of the gems of literature. Teachers who lack the broad exposure to liberal-arts learning cannot do that; they are more likely to discuss current events... or worse, like their personal lives. Needless to say I believe that undergraduate education should go back to liberal arts as the objective for non-specialists such as engineers and scientists, as was the norm before the 1960s.

Of course it will be impossible to replace the educational preparation of existing teachers. I predict that we will need to change the objectives of undergraduate education so that it prepares those who get it come out better people at age 22 than they go in at 18. Basically, our future leaders, whether they are managers of a sales force or teachers (what I have learned as a salesman and office clerk I have been able to apply as a teacher... you do not sit on a desk in 'my' classroom, as such suggests that you have just won the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery and you don't care whether you have a job the next day) need to learn that there is more to life than hedonism, power, and luxury for the well-connected people that one aspires to join. But this 4T will almost certainly force huge reforms in our institutions even (and to the discomfort) of entrenched elites.

Third is the content of education. I have my wild suggestion -- a catch-up grade for K-12 students who fall behind the expected standards of reading. Yes, reading is everything... and it would be possible to engineer a grade-school year that is nothing but reading except for physical education and arithmetic. Even if the content is nominally science, social studies or history, the attention is on reading and responses in writing. I remember one 'geography' class that was designed not so much to get students interested in the rest of the world but was really remedial reading. This, I figure, would be an alternative to repeating years in school. The only way to avoid such a highly-structured schooling would be to read at or near grade level.

But educational reform of this kind requires fresh funding.

American kids watch to much TV and play too many video games. Even their use of the computer is typically far from educational. It's up to parents to ensure that their kids get their homework and household chores done before they watch any TV (broadcast or recorded), play video games, or use a computer for a non-educational purpose. The cultural environment for American kids is almost word-for-word out of Fahrenheit 451 except that the reading of books is not banned because such is subversive but held in contempt as obsolete. Wall-to-wall entertainment shrinks and debases the soul.

Ironically our educational system is one of the most efficient aspects of the American economy. Public-school bureaucracies are usually small for the number of teachers employed. Non-teaching personnel heavily include such people as school janitors, bus drivers, and cafeteria staff who really need unions to keep them from living in destitution. I can assure you that there are schools where I would need a union just to allow me to teach as I see fit -- by expecting high standards of effort from students without being called a racist for it. (If I were a real racist I would let kids get away with 'street behavior' which dooms them to be losers). As for higher taxes -- maybe it would be better if middle-class Americans paid more taxes so they couldn't let their kids become 'mall rats' who gravitate to the video store and buy R-rated movies (You do realize that kids under 16 should not be watching R-rated movies except with adult supervision? Bonnie and Clyde, Chinatown, and A Clockwork Orange are cinematic masterpieces, but they are not kid video) or doing one-upmanship by getting nicer clothes than their fellow students.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The elephant in the room, almost literally, remains almost unmentioned at the Democon.

It should be made crystal clear that our slow recovery, which Republicans blame on Obama, is entirely due to Republicans. Obviously there's little Obama can do with a congress specifically dedicated to no other purpose but to block and defeat him. Added to that is the effect on the economy of all the job losses in the public sector which Republicans have created on the state level, often negating job growth in the private sector.

My biggest problem with Clinton 42's speech last night was whether he left enough unsaid for 44. Still, the point you make above has an attack focus. It's beating on the other guy. One traditionally likes to have the candidate stay positive if possible.

I'd agree that the above point ought to be pressed home, and Clinton 42 did some of that last night, but I'm not sure who and how that ball should be picked up an run.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The elephant in the room, almost literally, remains almost unmentioned at the Democon.

It should be made crystal clear that our slow recovery, which Republicans blame on Obama, is entirely due to Republicans. Obviously there's little Obama can do with a congress specifically dedicated to no other purpose but to block and defeat him. Added to that is the effect on the economy of all the job losses in the public sector which Republicans have created on the state level, often negating job growth in the private sector.

I can cast blame upon the capital-devouring boom in real estate during the disastrous administration of George W. Bush. To be sure, real estate expenditures fostered some short-term expenditures to the benefit of suppliers to the boom -- such as the lumber, window-glass, drapery, and carpeting industries. The boom created short-term jobs that would vanish when the boom was no more. Maybe this covered the jobs lost to outsourcing that took away the old jobs in manufacturing, but only as a short-term stimulus that created jobs in 2004 at the expense of jobs in 2014.

Yet to almost totally emphasize the re-election of Obama, is to play the rankest defense. If that's all the Democrats can do, they will have accomplished nothing. The only way anything can be done by our government today, is if Republicans lose the House, and lose ground in the Senate; as well as lose elections on the state level. Yet I hear little about this. They need to shout it from the rooftops. Defeat the right-wing extremist, obstructionist Republicans in the House! Don't just complain about them, or try to persuade them to do business. Don't try to work with them. Defeat them. That is our only option if we wish to recover and move forward.

The GOP is stuck in the economic depravity and perverse culture of the 3T. Could there be anything good about such? If anything about the theory of cycles of generational history, then an attempt to return to the comfortable-but-outmoded assumptions of recent times ensures failure. If I cannot assume this then the entire Howe-Strauss enterprise is either theoretically wrong or obsolete.

Unless we defeat them, there is virtually no use in re-electing Obama. We just continue as we are -- declining, stuck, and stalemated. That may happen, but at least the Democrats need to show some backbone and try to overturn the disastrous mistake voters made in Nov.2010, and call it what it was.

Democrats must try at all levels. But if Howe and Strauss are at all right the Tea Party Movement and GOP corporatists are in deep trouble in November.

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.

I always wonder how the accounting is done when it is said that we spend more for less results in regards to education. Our education tax dollars don't only pay for the education, transportation, and feeding of children; but it also funds certain costs that would be (and is) regarded as healthcare in other countries. Our education tax dollars pay for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy for children between the ages of 3 and 21 whether it is provided at a school or an outside facility. Canada provides the same services for their children, but it is paid for by the healthcare system even when it is recommended by the teacher and provided in the school building (as it often is). These services are necessary and allow children to reach their full educational potential. But it's just a difference of accounting. Since other countries are not including the cost of these services when calculating the cost per pupil of education, and our country is, it is obviously not a fair comparison.

Originally Posted by B Butler

My biggest problem with Clinton 42's speech last night was whether he left enough unsaid for 44. Still, the point you make above has an attack focus. It's beating on the other guy. One traditionally likes to have the candidate stay positive if possible.

I'd agree that the above point ought to be pressed home, and Clinton 42 did some of that last night, but I'm not sure who and how that ball should be picked up an run.

How it should be picked up is crystal clear. At every opportunity, Obama and his surrogates should shout loudly and clearly to the voters, "give me a congress I can work with!!"

The most notable event of the DNC, by far, was the unscripted debacle over a simple reference to God and support for Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel that were taken out of the party platform. Trying to fix the public embarrassment of it, a voice vote was held on the floor in front of the TV cameras on adding back those two things. They ended up doing it three times, because they weren't getting the result they wanted. From the sound of it, at least half of the crowd yelled "NO!", maybe more. The 2/3s required was clearly not reached, but they declared "the yays have it" anyway. At which point boos and jeers rained down from the crowd.

I'm not sure which is more politically significant, the Democratic Party booing God, or booing Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The latter could be decisive in an important state like Florida. The former had to be disturbing to all of the black and Hispanic voters who ignore the Democrats' hatred for Christians and vote for them anyway.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Ironically our educational system is one of the most efficient aspects of the American economy.

Or, as foreign observers put it, "American schools use 12 years to achieve a thing we cannot in 10 (or 8, depending on the system). Less-than-90% literacy."

That's a hell of an efficient system you've got there.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The most notable event of the DNC, by far, was the unscripted debacle over a simple reference to God and support for Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel that were taken out of the party platform. Trying to fix the public embarrassment of it, a voice vote was held on the floor in front of the TV cameras on adding back those two things. They ended up doing it three times, because they weren't getting the result they wanted. From the sound of it, at least half of the crowd yelled "NO!", maybe more. The 2/3s required was clearly not reached, but they declared "the yays have it" anyway. At which point boos and jeers rained down from the crowd.

Notable to you...and easily forgotten because it is small stuff, except for Republicans desperate to use any material derogatory to Democrats. Most Democrats are religious believers, by the way. As for Jerusalem... that's touchy because there are now about as many Arabs as Jews in America and about as many Muslims as Jews.

You ignore these facts at a risk of being surprised at the results:

1. The Democrats had more effective jabs at GOP policies from more people. They are from all around the country (including such states as Montana and TEXAS that most have written off as Obama chances) and not all from ultra-liberals. Just think of Charlie Crist, former Republican Governor of Florida, who said (and he admits to adapting the line of Ronald Reagan) "I didn't leave the Republican Party... the Republican party left me!"

2. The Democrats incorporated their own political heritage far more effectively. The Republicans act as if everything that the GOP did between 1900 and 1980 is no longer relevant. Republicans used to need TR and Eisenhower; they have effectively cast those two off.

3. Mitt Romney never mentioned the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that he did not intend by default to endorse President Obama on foreign policy or military matters. But he effectively snubbed American active-duty soldiers and recent veterans. President Obama paid much attention to them... and he may have picked off a few hundred-thousand votes. In what has been projected to be a close election, any such shift of votes could be costly to the GOP. I think of North Carolina and Georgia -- maybe even Kentucky.

Foreign policy matters. Democrats effectively cast Mitt Romney as a reckless neophyte on foreign policy -- and thus dangerous.

4. President Obama left the partisan heavy hitting to others. If President Obama is to be the political tiger and the rest are political dogs ... four 80-pound dogs working together against a burglar are about as lethal as a 320-pound tiger. One of those attack dogs was the late, great Senator Ted Kennedy 'resuscitated' through video editing. "The hope still lives, and the dream will never die!"

5. President Obama threw the rhetorical equivalent of 100-mph junk to GOP pols whose idea of how to batters who think that all they have to do is to swing the bat hard straight down the middle of the strike zone. "Got an economic downturn? Give a tax cut. Got inflation? Give a tax cut. Got the common cold? Take two tax cuts and call the doctor in the morning." The Republicans may think that they are facing a punk kid who thinks that he is the new Randy Johnson. They now face Justin Verlander.

6. President Obama got to show his prime strengths as a leader -- his encyclopedic knowledge of history (consult Churchill to determine how important that is... Churchill replayed Cato and Cicero quite well in Wold War II) and his ability to get difficult concepts into small but complete expressions.

7. By the standards relative to this time the Democrats had a convention with excellent production values, and the Republicans failed. The one effort by Republicans to use anything related to Hollywood (the fine actor and director Clint Eastwood) was a disaster. Face it -- the Republican campaign is flush with cash, so it could at least have brought Vegas standards of production values to their convention... but didn't. By all accounts, Sheldon Adelson is good at that.

I'm not sure which is more politically significant, the Democratic Party booing God, or booing Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The latter could be decisive in an important state like Florida. The former had to be disturbing to all of the black and Hispanic voters who ignore the Democrats' hatred for Christians and vote for them anyway.

False dichotomy. What is more important is that the Democrats had a more entertaining and effective convention that more people watched. There's plenty of material for the Democratic campaign, and the Republican material is awful.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This pretty much eviscerates this myth -

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





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

Your lobbying group tiptoes around it, but they point out that much of our taxmoney does not got to teaching kids. It goes to union bureaucrats, although they can't come out and say it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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

That's why hispanics are flleing california for texas.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

"We" is the collective "we": the commnoweal. We are able to do pretty much what we wish. We can make it up as we go (MMT), but even if we don't, we have trillions in traditional monetary assets sitting on the sidelines. We also have a tax code.

Got yah. Individuals have it. "We" take it from individuals.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The elephant in the room, almost literally, remains almost unmentioned at the Democon.

It should be made crystal clear that our slow recovery, which Republicans blame on Obama, is entirely due to Republicans. Obviously there's little Obama can do with a congress specifically dedicated to no other purpose but to block and defeat him. Added to that is the effect on the economy of all the job losses in the public sector which Republicans have created on the state level, often negating job growth in the private sector.

Yet to almost totally emphasize the re-election of Obama, is to play the rankest defense. If that's all the Democrats can do, they will have accomplished nothing. The only way anything can be done by our government today, is if Republicans lose the House, and lose ground in the Senate; as well as lose elections on the state level. Yet I hear little about this. They need to shout it from the rooftops. Defeat the right-wing extremist, obstructionist Republicans in the House! Don't just complain about them, or try to persuade them to do business. Don't try to work with them. Defeat them. That is our only option if we wish to recover and move forward.

Unless we defeat them, there is virtually no use in re-electing Obama. We just continue as we are-- declining, stuck, and stalemated. That may happen, but at least the Democrats need to show some backbone and try to overturn the disasterous mistake voters made in Nov.2010, and call it what it was.

California plays by the Obama playbook and sucks. Texas ignores does the opposite of Obama, and does well. Yeah it must be repyblicans.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just a nit -- opposing NAFTA and wanting to get out of Afghanistan don't strike me as right wing positions -- some of those on the left support these.

A lot of libertartians oppose NAFTA because it is too cumbersome. If you want free trade, just do free trade.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How it should be picked up is crystal clear. At every opportunity, Obama and his surrogates should shout loudly and clearly to the voters, "give me a congress I can work with!!"

The democrtas have rejected ever one of his budgets, not just republicans.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or, as foreign observers put it, "American schools use 12 years to achieve a thing we cannot in 10 (or 8, depending on the system). Less-than-90% literacy."

That's a hell of an efficient system you've got there.

Wow. LMFAO!!!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

Mark Twain said that a man who cannot explain himself in one sentence is probably a crook. So I do not need to feed your ego by reading your book. But trying to get a straigtforward answer from you was like pulling teeth, and I suspected the reason. See Mark Twain. You tried to hide behind crap about "we'll figure it out when we get there. But now you admittedr that your aim is collectivization at the point of a gun. You complained of being "trapped." I guess it might feel that way if you have to say what you believe in plain English. So much for your "socialism does not mean Soviet tyranny" crap. It took a while to get you to admit it, but you finally did. I saved myself a lot of time, despite your evasions.

I looked for some reviews of your book. Could not find any. No wonder you want me to read it.

And you do not get to decide if I shut up, although it does tell me what your mentality is.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Mark Twain said that a man who cannot explain himself in one sentence is probably a crook.

Mark Twain wrote humor and should not be taken seriously. There are things that cannot be explained in one sentence. You do not seem to understand that, frankly.

If you do not want to understand what I am talking about, you have forfeited any right to talk about it. Read the book or shut up. Those are your only two legitimate options.

(It's only about thirty pages long anyway, and it's free, you twit.)

But now you admittedr that your aim is collectivization at the point of a gun.

I've admitted nothing of the sort. You'd know that if you'd read the book. Do so, or shut up.