I'm no economist, nor do I play one on tv. With that said, anybody who thinks that we are in a good place or headed in the right direction (economically that is) needs to have their head examined. There is enough blame to go around to both parties. As for the original topic of the thread, I can actually understand where the Tea Party is coming from. I wish the government was held to some sort of accountability when it comes to spending my money.
The Tea Party Movement
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting
And while we are on the topic, go back and check the voting record of people aged (approximately) between 70 and 45. Awesome vision, dudes!
Because you don't know what you're talking about and can't tread water with big boys.
This is like Elmer Fudd giving vocabulary lessons. You wouldn't know a display of sufficient economic knowledge if is slapped you up the backside of the head. But blabber on hillbilly.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
From everything I've been hearing and reading, looks like we're going to have a double dip, eh?
in and of itself, this comment is amusing
Whe you call someone a "lefty fundamentalist", as franklin referred to me, the discussion is not intended to be civil. I felt no need to elevate it in my response to franklin. By contrast, I did not insult you, I merely commented on the ideas you presented.
However, I have no problem with or objection to being on your ignore list. Que sera sera.
Why, that must be it. Unless my answer was sardonic, and I am in fact known for producing paragraphs and pages of detailed responses, but you just too ignorant of the board history to realize that.
Looks like poor little franklin got his feelings hurt again. Still you may well be right that, if teh task were to distinguish genuine economic theory from well-constructed nonsense, I mightlack the background to successfully make the distinct. Fortunately, to properly place your level of economic knowledge, I only need to be able to identify certain kinds of incredibly inept displays of knowledge, the type of which you continually prattle off. Much like in chess, I can't always identify the error made the loser in a World championship game, but I know moving the queen on the third move of a Queens Gambit Declined identifies a patzer.
Last edited:
TheMulletMutilator
Member
These remarks I assume were your way of being cordial. Typical leftist. When you have nothing else you result to smearing. I would put you on ignore but I am not familiar enough with the forum to find it. Either way I am done with you and your cheerleading.
No, they were not cordial. "Cordial" and "civil" are not the same thing. My response to you was civil, but it was not cordial. My response to franklin was not even civil, but as I said, it was merely responding in kind.
I choose to respond as I see the befitting the post to which I am replying. I prefer not to characterize quickly, but when a characterization is appropriate, I am not shy to use it. Even then, you seem to be getting upset over my response to franklin. I will again point out that I did not insult you, as you have not descended to that level.
Click on "Settings" on the top of the page, then look on the left hand side under "My Account". You'll see an entry for "Edit Ignore List". You'll probably need to add the space in my name for it to work.
I didn't know calling you a lefty fundamentalist was an insult. I'm sorry you took it that way.
I actually feel sorry for you as I can see you don't know what you're talking about. You've acted like a know-it-all teenager. On things economic, you don't know enough to know you don't know. Ya know? I'll back up and give an example. You followed this:
"If you're a righty then go read Milton Friedman's views on counter-cyclical policy. If you're a lefty then read Keynes views on counter-cyclical policy."
With:
"Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss."
If you knew anything about economics then you would not have added this nonsense that is thoroughly discussed by both Friedman and Keynes. You completely missed the ball. You didn't foul it off, and it was nowhere near the strike zone, but you swung and missed anyway.
Then there's this:
"As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget."
That's nothing more than partisan nonsense that completely ignores then current conditions and what was going on in the private sector. Clinton didn't stop anything, and only a partisan ideologue would make the mistake of blabbering this partisan demagoguery.
Like I said. You're a lefty fundamentalist who isn't smart enough to get what you don't get. Sorry reality is so insulting to you.
I actually feel sorry for you as I can see you don't know what you're talking about. You've acted like a know-it-all teenager. On things economic, you don't know enough to know you don't know. Ya know? I'll back up and give an example. You followed this:
"If you're a righty then go read Milton Friedman's views on counter-cyclical policy. If you're a lefty then read Keynes views on counter-cyclical policy."
With:
"Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss."
If you knew anything about economics then you would not have added this nonsense that is thoroughly discussed by both Friedman and Keynes. You completely missed the ball. You didn't foul it off, and it was nowhere near the strike zone, but you swung and missed anyway.
Then there's this:
"As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget."
That's nothing more than partisan nonsense that completely ignores then current conditions and what was going on in the private sector. Clinton didn't stop anything, and only a partisan ideologue would make the mistake of blabbering this partisan demagoguery.
Like I said. You're a lefty fundamentalist who isn't smart enough to get what you don't get. Sorry reality is so insulting to you.
No one seriously believes that the U.S. government will be unable to make good on its T-Bills. That's why yield rates are so low presently.
For example see: https://www.cepr.net/index.php/blog...ditorial-section-in-attack-on-social-security
Except for the fact that there are significant differences between intragovernmental debt and public debt owed to outside actors. The most significant of these differences is that the government, through force of policy, can cancel intergovernmental debt at virtually any time. If the US were to enact benefit cuts in social security or to pass laws requiring the trust fund to surrender its debts that would wipe the intergovernmental debt away from the perspective of the mullet mutilator's analysis. Furthermore as the debt "matures" it's only going from one government body to another government body. The straight cash accounting method used by mullet ignores this flow and treats all social security funds as spent at all times. In essence, it is impossible for that debt to ever get "called."
Think of it as analogy: The Madame and I operate a joint bank account but in general we have rules about how much people can spend out of it that serves to keep our spending levels relatively equal. If we're out somewhere and I need cash, I can "borrow" $10 from her. That has created an intra-relationship debt from me to her of $10. However, all the money is coming from the same place. If I withdraw my own cash to pay her back all we've changed is the physical location of the money, rather than the actual ownership of the money. If she gets mad at me and demands her $10, I'm really paying her with her own money. She can't ever "call" the debt and try to get a lien because she has equal access. In point of fact, that $10 doesn't actually functionally exist, it can be cancelled at any time, and in reality it's a debt owed to ourselves.
Saying that there was never a balanced budget because intragovernmental debt increased while public debt declined is the accounting trick; the CBO method complies with GAAP. But Mullet has a particular belief about the govt, so he's latched on to an explanation that confirms previous ideology.
A fundamentalist is a person who adopts an ideology and seeks to promote, interpreting evidence to support their ideology. I'm a skeptic, and it is an insult to imply that I lean on the ideology as opposed to the evidence.
I accept your apology.
I didn't foul it so badly that I confused the use of a progressive tax structure, which is a Keynsian counter-cyclical prescription, with a small tax rate increase, which is what I discussed. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will only mariginally increase the already progressive tax system we have. If you have been reading counter-cyclical policy as saying something about the overall tax rate, as opposed to a marginal tax rate, then your comments can only strike me as high humor.
There are six levels of tax rates: 10-15-25-28-31-35. Back in 2000 it was 15-28-31-36-39.6. You are trying to argue that the counter-cyclical effects of gonig 15-28, as opposed to 15-25, or that of 28-31, as opposed to 31-36, will be economy changers. You don't really expect me to take that argument seriously, do you?
I was unaware the private sector controlled the government's "borrow and spend boom". More to the point, starting with Clinton's first budget, the deficit started to decrease, and it decreased every year until it was gone. That's not a partisan postion, it's the position of pretty much every non-partisan group and even a few right-wing partisan groups. There's even been a couple of links to that effect on this thread. You're just wrong here.
Reality is not at all insulting to me. When you have the capacity to bring reality into the discussion and understand the terms you are trying to throw around, you might even make the discussion interesting. Until then, it's really getting a little patheic to watch you flail about trying to use a foil on a battlefield.
You're reaching. Yields are low because 1. Fed purchases, and 2. there's nowhere else to park the money. Arguing that there isn't default risk because investors are fleeing Europe is a leap in logic. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that investors know that if the USD fails then the whole system will crash. So rather than buying dollars out of confidence, it's more of last resort purchasing. High gold prices support this theory, and are just as anecdotal as your low yields extrapolation. Besides, there are plenty of well respected economists who seriously question the future of the dollar. Paul Krugman has written there are limits to deficit spending. I haven't seen him define the limit, just that we haven't hit it yet.
No argument here. We used to call this Reagan's Voodoo, but this term has morphed through time. Another way to put what you're saying is the US balanced the budget under Clinton, while increasing the likeliness of defaulting on future obligations to the demographic that's most vulnerable. I thought almost everyone realizes this when we refer to "unfunded liabilities". Maybe it needs to be regurgitated every time the subject comes up.
Either way, it's accounting trickery that pushes the real effects onto the next generation of politicians. Voodoo.
You meet your own definition of a fundamentalist, but if you say you're not then I won't label you as such. It wasn't an apology. Everything else you wrote was just disingenuous rambling, and nothing more than putting words into my mouth. That's exactly why others don't treat you with respect and why I see you as a fundamentalist. Make a sincere argument and I'll take you seriously.
I expect you to declare that a very brief description of why your point was invalid as disingenuous rambling, without making the slightest effrot to demonstrate it. After all, any attempt to make such a demonstration would be even more embarrassing for you than the thread has already been.
I'm not the one that brought up counter-cyclical policies as a rebuttal to the idea that a minor tax increase would have almost no economic effect. That's your stupidity.
Some hold me with respect, some don't. Some have such respect for ideological reasons, other are more often on opposite side of the ideological spectrum. Some who lack respect do so for ideological reasons, some for other reasons (lack my tendency to argue with morons). You don't have the knowledge nor social insight to properly discuss how people on this board feel about me.
Given your general lack of comprehension, this barely registers enough to warrant a response at all.
I quite sincerely stated that the counter-cyclical effects of a progressive tax structure were not evidence that small tax increases would have a notable econimic effect. You took the argument so seriously that you bailed completely on it. There are few reactions more serious than "I'm going home, so I win".
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I still have yet to see Franklin provide a link or an argument. My mistake if I missed it... However, I have seen a few links from One Brow. I'm going to read them later after work.
You really think that there is a serious debate that the U.S. is likely to default on its treasury bills?
Public auction data available after securities auctions indicate that the Fed is not as large of a purchaser as the right-wing media likes to portray. It's presently spending $10 billion a month on Treasury Bills, compared to a pool well over $150 billion of T-bills sold per month.
Your second point actually makes my point: in an era of risky investments "there's nowhere else to park the money" because T-Bills carry the lowest risk of default. That means that the market is saying that there is no serious risk (given the near zero yields) that the government will not make good on those T-Bill debts.
It's also that they prefer it to all other investments with those particular dollars, for whatever their personal reasons.
Gold transactions have significantly less churn. That's a discussion for a different day, but there's some evidence that gold prices are part of a prolonged asset bubble.
I agree that there is a limit to deficit spending. I merely believe that in the current climate it's a secondary concern because not all deficit spending is created equal. Deficit spending in 2003 was a lot more unconscionable than deficit spending in 2009 because of the prevailing economic climate.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
And, (so long has he is labeling people "lefty") he's also doing something typical of the right wing: playing political football with terms that he refuses to take seriously/materially. He's completely shut down re:money. I guess it is just some natural, god-given thing..... like the free market.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
I dare you to short the gold ETF right now.
You and me both.