C l u t c H 385
Banned
you are adorable.
The Fall of Empires
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
you are adorable.
thank you sir.
Ok, so what would you suggest for 2009 when federal receipts plunged? Adjust over the next how many years exactly? What exactly would you cut?
Self feeding liquidity trap, that's what.
No. I am asking and waiting for a complete thought that makes your balanced budget idea at least remotely plausible under the current monetary structure.
Again, you'll need sufficient countercyclical monetary policy to assure your budget cuts in drastic times don't pull revenue down more, which leaves you with, guess what, a budget deficit. Current monetary policy isn't exactly working.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
franklin... Of course when you cut spending dramatically, there have to be cuts to governmental programs. Of course when your income drops, your spending must drop in subsequent years to account for the decreased income.
If you want to know EXACTLY what I would cut if I were in charge, that would be a completely different conversation, involving my "38 point plan for America." Which, naturally, is too detailed for this conversation -- and also, naturally, is little more than a thought exercise. There is zero chance that my "38 point plan for America" will be implemented, and therefore, of course it is utterly impractical.
(A few highlights: prisons become traveling labor camps a little bit like a slave-labor CCC; many drugs legalized; traditional military eliminated and rolled into a civic improvement/defense force; drastically simplified legal code; new school system embracing apprenticeships, volunteer work, self-teaching, and allowing for individual paths through a wider variety of subjects; the establishment of a world-class, federally-funded National University where tuition is totally free and 20% of the student body is selected by lottery.... I could go on all day.)
We might be past the point in the history of our country when major changes such as balanced budgets are "practical."
If you want to know EXACTLY what I would cut if I were in charge, that would be a completely different conversation, involving my "38 point plan for America." Which, naturally, is too detailed for this conversation -- and also, naturally, is little more than a thought exercise. There is zero chance that my "38 point plan for America" will be implemented, and therefore, of course it is utterly impractical.
(A few highlights: prisons become traveling labor camps a little bit like a slave-labor CCC; many drugs legalized; traditional military eliminated and rolled into a civic improvement/defense force; drastically simplified legal code; new school system embracing apprenticeships, volunteer work, self-teaching, and allowing for individual paths through a wider variety of subjects; the establishment of a world-class, federally-funded National University where tuition is totally free and 20% of the student body is selected by lottery.... I could go on all day.)
We might be past the point in the history of our country when major changes such as balanced budgets are "practical."
Stickler
Well-Known Member
franklin said:
Honestly, what the devil are you talking about? You don't even think that balancing a budget is even remotely plausible under the current monetary structure? What is it about the current monetary structure that prevents a federally balanced budget? How has the current monetary structure changed since the last time we had balanced budgets? Balancing the federal budget is possible, franklin. Many times throughout our nation's history, the federal government has operated at a surplus. I can't fathom why you don't even think it's remotely plausible.
You keep tossing out things that are unrelated to the general idea -- things that literally have no relationship to the general idea -- of adding a constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced based on X criteria, and posing them as obstacles.
The fact that the government prints money is not an obstacle to a balanced budget. What's the connection?
You seem to not understand a key ingredient. Our monetary system requires continual money expansion. Optimally, as Milton Friedman put it, this would be somewhat stable and predictable. Going back a couple of steps, we went through a period when uncle Ben and Greenspan screwed the money supply calculations bad enough to allow rapid money expansion to be hidden in real assets. The bubble popped, and now we have this huge problem we keep referring to as deflation, d-process, liquidity trap, downward spiral, etc. That leaves a big ****ing question: What do you do when monetary actions completely fail to provide consistent, stable, and predictable monetary expansion? If you cannot do it with monetary policy, and you don't want to do it with fiscal policy, then how the hell do you offset the declining volume of money enough to stop a deflationary collapse?
It's not a magical constitution amendment bullet that you're hoping.
It's not a magical constitution amendment bullet that you're hoping.
larryselbows
Banned
here's an interesting perspective...
[video]https://bigthink.com/ideas/20071#ooid=80MGZlMTpEovOxdlThfJ09jlFihLIGb8
[video]https://bigthink.com/ideas/20071#ooid=80MGZlMTpEovOxdlThfJ09jlFihLIGb8
I've answered this at least a dozen times already.
And what exactly would using your preferred sentence to pigeonhole me into a position I haven't taken do for you? I've asked you multiple times what you'd do to counter the self-feeding effects of your precious balanced budget, but you ignore and sidestep every time. If you don't get it by what I've already spelled out numerous ways then I doubt one more try is all you're going to need. But whatever, here's one last try: In times when monetary tools fail to expand money supply, cutting federal spending will act as a feedback mechanism to lower federal revenue. Thus, your precious balance proposal will lead to a deficit as the lower spending results in lower revenue. You'll still have a deficit. Now going back way to the beginning--what do you plan on doing to offset the deflationary, budget deficit increasing effects of your spending cuts? Pretend the problem away? Assume a constitutional amendment will be a magical wand that makes the issue disappear?
Stickler
Well-Known Member
franklin said:
What? You did take that position.
Anyway...
The disconnect here is your assumption that the economy-at-large is so dependent upon Federal over-spending that cuts to the federal budget would result in devastation to the economy at large, thus resulting in continued reduction of federal revenue. You'd really have to demonstrate why you think that's the case, since the history of our country utterly does not support that assumption. Other than your baffling and repeated interjection of fiat, which is unrelated to the topic of the federal government spending responsibly, you haven't even established why you think that the economy-at-large is so dependent on federal over-spending.
Every proposal for a Constitutional amendment for balancing the federal budget that has ever been introduced has included the possibility for emergency exceptions and corrections.
You seem to think you're talking over my head, but for heaven's sake, franklin, you don't know how budgets work. You couldn't even puzzle out the basics of budgetary finance, and you're talking to me like I'm an *******.
I haven't side-stepped anything. The "problem" you think I'm side-stepping is a phantom. Balancing the federal budget would not kill the economy. It's been balanced many times, and it's never hurt the economy before.
Umm, no, I don't assume that. There has been 2 deflationary periods under the modern structure. You're applying inflationary history to deflationary periods and acting like it's all the same. That doesn't work. And are you really challenging the entire economic profession on the necessity of continual monetary expansion? Our system is built on that one requirement if nothing else.
First off, I asked for examples already. You rambled off some wierd 38 point plan that had nothing to do with all of this. Second, what makes you think these offsetting exceptions and corrections will work? This is what I've been asking for all along. If you believe they will then please, by all means, inform me.
Thank you for adding this. Really.
Really? 1937 ring a bell? You have no evidence from deflationary periods. Misusing inflationary recession data is a farce. Do you really believe allowing the monetary contraction in 2008 to continue unabated would have been a good thing? It would have found a bottom before the entire global system collapsed, right?
Stickler
Well-Known Member
This has literally nothing to do with requiring a balanced federal budget.
Yeah -- that was meant to illustrate the entirely hypothetical nature of my position. I thought that was pretty clear.
Of course exceptions and corrections can work. You're asking me to tell you how I would specifically correct problems that don't exist, without naming those problems. This isn't worth my time, or yours.
Oh, I didn't realize you'd been the example of maturity and self-restraint in this thread.
What?
This has literally nothing to do with requiring a balanced federal budget.
What's the connection, franklin? If the connection isn't that cutting federal spending would devastate the economy at large, what is the connection?
Stickler--That's not a problem.
Franklin--yes it is, and here's the example as proof.
Stickler--I'm going to continue to ignore what you say and pretend it is not a problem.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
franklin: I'm going to continue to interject unrelated issues into the conversation and behave as though they're relevant. Whenever I'm asked how they're related or why they're relevant, I'm going to deflect, dodge, and parrot the indefinite and imprecise talking points that I have, for some reason, settled upon as the bedrock of my "position" on this topic.
franklin: I'm going to continue to interject unrelated issues into the conversation and behave as though they're relevant. Whenever I'm asked how they're related or why they're relevant, I'm going to deflect, dodge, and parrot the indefinite and imprecise talking points that I have, for some reason, settled upon as the bedrock of my "position" on this topic.
Am I supposed to be amused you don't get that you don't get it? It's not my fault you don't understand the simple implications. I'll defer to every economist with a major impact over the last 90 years or so that says my points are highly relevant and intertwined. The scale may be close, but I think the balance weighs ever so slightly against your claims and favors the professional side. Do yourself a favor and start with the two historic camps: Monetarists and Keynesians. Guess what, they're both in agreement with the simple point you've required a couple dozen times, but still don't get.
One final question: Are you a hard money Mises type/gold bug? If not then you agree with me but don't know it. It's either that or incoherent and inept, and prefer to wave your magic wand rather than address reality.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Failed to grasp the implications....? That's just the problem. I've asked you, repeatedly, to do more than imply. You've had many opportunities to clearly state your case, and you've declined to do so. And while you've been declining to make any clear connections between my points and yours, you've been insulting, preening, and obnoxious.
We were never even having a debate.
I never understood what point you were trying to make because you never made one.
We were never even having a debate.
I never understood what point you were trying to make because you never made one.
And you've done nothing but imply your position. I'm not debating you, I'm asking questions. I've asked many. You've been on the defensive and I don't think you've answered a single one.
Are you denying this claim you're calling an implication? Are you claiming that monetary policy can't fail? I don't think you are, but if so then just say so. Why would I give a damn? If not then what would you do in times when monetary policy fails, as you don't want to utilize fiscal policy? This is all I've been asking since the beginning.
Yes, I think now is not the time for Hayek. I believe that would have crashed the system back in 2008. Do I have proof? Of course not. There's no control group to test things on. If we're going down that road then there's no point in discussing anything, as I can't prove something and you can't deny it. However, I've been clear that I trust modern economic theory in the belief that our system requires monetary expansion. If we cut out the fiscal debt tool then what else should we use?
Are you denying this claim you're calling an implication? Are you claiming that monetary policy can't fail? I don't think you are, but if so then just say so. Why would I give a damn? If not then what would you do in times when monetary policy fails, as you don't want to utilize fiscal policy? This is all I've been asking since the beginning.
Yes, I think now is not the time for Hayek. I believe that would have crashed the system back in 2008. Do I have proof? Of course not. There's no control group to test things on. If we're going down that road then there's no point in discussing anything, as I can't prove something and you can't deny it. However, I've been clear that I trust modern economic theory in the belief that our system requires monetary expansion. If we cut out the fiscal debt tool then what else should we use?