Republicans and Fascism

[silesian]

Twitter has competition for those who find it too restricting, and does also censor liberals.

I know we all hate "cancel" culture, but how would you feel about an "accountability" culture, where people who say things that a person considers vile would suffer from a lock of business from those who found it vile? How would that differ from "cancel" culture, as you see it?

Excellent Insightful questions.

1. Twitter: Agree but I do see an anti MAGA bias. And I’m extremely anti MAGA.

2. “Measured accountability” is how I would phrase it. We should not destroy someone based on their worst moment. Some extremists deserve to be destroyed, but sometimes people say an incredibly dumb thing that they don’t even believe. Measure the body of work and give decent people a second chance. There is a “herd hunt and destroy Red tooth and claw feeding frenzy” mentality that goes way overboard. okay

Also, some paint their opponents as evil over simple policy differences. I was against student loan forgiveness and got eviscerated about how much I hated poor college grads. Obama had a very nice speech on cancel culture that nailed the problem. The self righteous need to get off their high horses and treat people who think differently with empathy.

 

[Gameface]

AI-O doing that credibility building again

 

[silesian]

Congress does have the power to create assets that it does not have the power to revoke. It has to be that way in order for the debt to be salable. It is technically possible for Congress to undo their actions by defaulting on the debt, which is what the fight over the debt ceiling is about, but it ain't gonna happen. Congress created it and now the Fed is left to figure out how to mop up the damage in the currency, the solution to which is going to plunge the economy into recession.

Let’s unpack this paragraph because some of us are having trouble understanding.

Are you talking about cash assets, physical assets or intangible assets?

Which assets you believe are created by Congress?

How does one revoke an asset?

 

[Bawse Dawg]

I think the last half decade or so has shown that people can be way more 'mask off' than before and still have support. I don't think it's changed as much as it's been brought to the forefront. Now being a vile PoS is their entire platform.

 

[One Brow]

I have little doubt you are being honest about not being able to make sense of what I'm saying. How is your Geo Metro holding up? Still good and reliable? I'll bet it gets great gas mileage.

Most people don't advertise their impotence. Thank you.

 

[One Brow]

Excellent Insightful questions.

1. Twitter: Agree but I do see an anti MAGA bias. And I’m extremely anti MAGA.

2. “Measured accountability” is how I would phrase it. We should not destroy someone based on their worst moment. Some extremists deserve to be destroyed, but sometimes people say an incredibly dumb thing that they don’t even believe. Measure the body of work and give decent people a second chance. There is a “herd hunt and destroy Red tooth and claw feeding frenzy” mentality that goes way overboard. okay

Also, some paint their opponents as evil over simple policy differences. I was against student loan forgiveness and got eviscerated about how much I hated poor college grads. Obama had a very nice speech on cancel culture that nailed the problem. The self righteous need to get off their high horses and treat people who think differently with empathy.

I agree with measured accountability. However, I think you'll find few people get destroyed on one moment. They have the moment, and then they double down, triple down, and keep digging (such as the Bodega Bro).

I also agree there should be room for policy differences, and I hope I did not treat you that way on student loan forgiveness.

 

[silesian]

If you don’t want to be canceled, stay off social media a treat people better. Even those you don’t agree with. Still that won’t even come close to solving it.

Sometimes people who treat others nicely get cancelled.

 

[silesian]

I also agree there should be room for policy differences, and I hope I did not treat you that way on student loan forgiveness.

No you absolutely did not. Our disagreements that I can recall have been respectful. You present cogent arguments.

And by the way, I do see both sides of the student loan argument and I am happy for people whose lives are better because their loans are forgiven. It is a difference between personal feelings and public policy.

Peace brother.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Are you talking about cash assets, physical assets or intangible assets?

Which assets you believe are created by Congress?

The assets created by Congress is government debt in the form of bonds issued by the department of the treasury. Financial institutions taking that debt counts it as a reserve asset. It is an asset but it is not currency.

 

[silesian]

The assets created by Congress is government debt in the form of bonds issued by the department of the treasury. Financial institutions taking that debt counts it as a reserve asset. It is an asset but it is not currency.

I think the challenge we are having is that you are using unconventional terminology and usage, so it is hard to understand the substance of your argument.

When you say" "Congress does have the power to create assets" if you mean that "Congressional spending in excess of revenue necessitates the sale of bonds by the Treasury to fund the debt" then that is correct.

When you say "...that it does not have the power to revoke" now you've stepped into some tricky territory. Congress controls the purse strings and any year they could pass a budget that has revenue > spending, which would reduce the amount of money in circulation (e.g., M1) and reduce the number of financial assets (i.e., bonds). Bottom line: Congress has as much power to "create assets" as they do to "revoke assets" (increase revenue, reduce spending). This can also happen in the absence of Congressional action, in the case of economic growth that increases revenue. If you are saying that it is impossible to reduce the national debt, you may be suffering from a recency bias, but believe me, it has happened and it is not impossible.


Finally, you said: "Congress does have the power to create assets that it does not have the power to revoke. It has to be that way in order for the debt to be salable"

This has me scratching my heat. Why do you believe that the "revocability" is necessary for selling debt? The salability of Treasuries has to do simply with risk and reward, and if a government is stable and investors perceive the risks to be low, they are willing to invest at a low interest rate. Higher risk, higher required returns.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

When you say" "Congress does have the power to create assets" if you mean that "Congressional spending in excess of revenue necessitates the sale of bonds by the Treasury to fund the debt" then that is correct.

When you say "...that it does not have the power to revoke" now you've stepped into some tricky territory. Congress controls the purse strings and any year they could pass a budget that has revenue > spending, which would reduce the amount of money in circulation (e.g., M1) and reduce the number of financial assets (i.e., bonds). Bottom line: Congress has as much power to "create assets" as they do to "revoke assets"

I must be a masochist but nearly everything you wrote is wrong. First of all, M1 is not a measure of the money in circulation but rather the currency owned by foreign entities. M1 has more to do with exchange rates than inflation. The component you are likely thinking of is M2. The only reason M1 was brought up was because One Brow is completely out of his depth and likely read something on the internet that he didn’t understand.

Secondly, Congress passing a budget in which spending exceeds revenue does not necessarily cause M2 to rise. The Fed has been holding M2 almost dead flat since January and Congress isn’t anywhere close to spending less than it takes in. The reverse is also true in that M2 could rise even if Congress got crazy and passed a fiscally responsible budget.

I have no idea where you are going with bonds being revocable because I said the opposite, but wherever you were going with it doesn’t reduce the amount of Federal Reserve currency in circulation.

 

[The Thriller]

This is exactly what the working class wants and will definitely address issues such as gas prices and inflation…


View: https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1584576862767849472?s=46&t=42KBKsF16Sttn-8qnv2_Hg

 

[The Thriller]

It’s hard for a democracy to function when 30 percent of the country’s population lives in a fantasyland of grievance, paranoia, narcissism, and disinformation from conservative media.
The real tell is when the one Trumper says, “that officer who had a heart attack on Jan 6 maybe shouldn’t have been an officer.” That’s something you say when you know you’re wrong but don’t want to admit it. Further proof that Trumpers are either woefully and willfully ignorant and/or suffering from a severe character or anti-social flaws.

View: https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1584741095086645248?s=46&t=42KBKsF16Sttn-8qnv2_Hg

 

[Al-O-Meter]

This is exactly what the working class wants and will definitely address issues such as gas prices and inflation…

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate why democrats should all be voted out. The top three issues on the minds of voters are the economy, inflation, and crime. The only thing democrats and their supports have to offer is "hey, look over there". In this case you are pointing at outrage over someone who isn't even on the ballot and hasn't repented anyone on the ballot since 2016.

Democrats had their shot. The have majority control over the house, majority control over the senate, and the presidency. In the three issues most important to voters in 2022, democrats royally screwed up each and every one of those issues. They need to go. Those concerned about the state of the economy, inflation, or the rise in crime now gets to have their say.

 

[silesian]

First of all, M1 is not a measure of the money in circulation but rather the currency owned by foreign entities.

Let's see, do I believe you, or the Federal Reserve? Seriously, I've studied economics at the graduate level but this is stuff you need to know to pass high school econ.

"M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (3) other liquid deposits, consisting of OCDs and savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts). "

M1

View a measure of the most-liquid assets in the U.S. money supply: cash, checking accounts, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and other checkable deposits.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Wait, are you just trolling?

 

[silesian]

Congress passing a budget in which spending exceeds revenue does not necessarily cause M2 to rise.

Dude, the correlation between deficit spending and money supply is strong, axiomatic, based on economic theory and based on empirical evidence. This is elementary stuff, where did you study economics? You must be a troll.

https://www.cato.org/blog/menace-fiscal-inflation

 

[One Brow]

Wait, are you just trolling?

First, thank you for stepping into this discussion. While the material certainly seemed errant to me, I don't have the background to dispatch it with such ease and clarity.

I think @Al-O-Meter is very serious, and so not trolling in that sense. He seems to think he understands things better than he does. Frankly, our relationship is so poisoned that I don't care much to try anymore.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

This is elementary stuff, where did you study economics?

San Diego State University. At least you are now pointing to the correct statistics. As for the correlation over the past 8 years on your chart, it is by design. Try looking at M2 versus deficit spending during the dot-com boom years in the second half of the Clinton presidency. What I wrote was that Congress passing a budget in which spending exceeds revenue does not necessarily cause M2 to rise. I did not say they never track together but that there is regulatory gap between the two except for when the government uses the deficit to directly purchase Federal Reserve currency which it then blows into the economy. In that case, sure, when the debt is buying currency they will rise in lock step.

I don't care if you did study this at a graduate level or are only claiming you did to give yourself some credibility. Either way, what you wrote in your earlier post was wrong.

 

[silesian]

San Diego State University. At least you are now pointing to the correct statistics. As for the correlation over the past 8 years on your chart, it is by design. Try looking at M2 versus deficit spending during the dot-com boom years in the second half of the Clinton presidency. What I wrote was that Congress passing a budget in which spending exceeds revenue does not necessarily cause M2 to rise. I did not say they never track together but that there is regulatory gap between the two except for when the government uses the deficit to directly purchase Federal Reserve currency which it then blows into the economy. In that case, sure, when the debt is buying currency they will rise in lock step.

I don't care if you did study this at a graduate level or are only claiming you did to give yourself some credibility. Either way, what you wrote in your earlier post was wrong.

Deficit spending increases M2. It multivariate. Other things impact M2. You can say it is wrong all you like. The facts don’t care about your opinion.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Deficit spending increases M2. It multivariate. Other things impact M2.

I have no issues with this statement. What you wrote here is entirely correct.

Where you were talking out of your butt was when you wrote that any year in which Congress passed a budget that had revenue > spending would reduce the amount of money in circulation. Here is your exact quote:

Congress controls the purse strings and any year they could pass a budget that has revenue > spending, which would reduce the amount of money in circulation

...And here is the chart to show you were talking out of your butt:

This is the chart of M2 from 01/01/1998 though 12/31/2001. From 1998 though 2001 Congress passed budgets that had revenue > spending. What you wrote in the earlier quote that I took issue with was wrong. Those budgets demonstrably did not reduce the amount of money in circulation.