American Politics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943063]Elvis, The USA federal government is not always a force for good. I wonder if MMT's biggest fans in the political arena, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, have thought about what the effect would be if the American defense establishment had an endless supply of dollars. I don't believe that would last though. The Argentine military wasn't so fearsome during the Falklands conflict, after many years of ineptitude by its central bank and politicians.

It's possible that Kelton and Wray have some bells and whistles that would prevent the USA from going the way of other countries that fired up the printing press. I've got Kelton's book on my Kindle but have been too lazy to read it.[/QUOTE]And again mmt does not advocate for an endless source of dollars. That is a myth. And speaking of you really should read the deficit myth. The problems we have in the United States are a result of poor fiscal policy.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2942959]First thanks for the first thought provoking post in this thread in a long time.

As I understand it, Modern Monetary Theory, as promoted by Stephanie Kelton and Randall Wray, calls for massive deficit spending and injection of large amounts of base money into the economy by the central bank.

If a country implements MMT, why do you believe it wouldn't end up like Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe and other countries that effectively printed money to pay for government expenditures? That is, why do you believe inflation wouldn't get out of control and the currency wouldn't be massively devalued?

And most importantly, why wouldn't SubComdr move to Monaco and start banging the same Colombianas for $1000 a hour that he's paying $50 an hour for now, with all the coin he'll be making from crypto when the world loses faith in paper currencies?

The standard answer by MMT proponents might be you'll increase taxes to reduce demand, and inflation, but not enough so that you create unemployment. So presumably you keep spending all out on government programs, and drain money from the private sector (from individuals and businesses through taxation) to control inflation.

I don't think that's practically doable. With a few exceptions like Bernie Sanders, politicians aren't willing to raise taxes enough to make that work. And what if they did? You'd crowd out the private sector, which is what grows the economy. That's not to say it wouldn't look good in the early years. Venezuela and Argentina did very well when they were initially goosing the economy. But eventually you pay the piper, and perhaps not only end up with high inflation but high unemployment too.

Undoubtedly Kelton and Wray have addressed this. Your thoughts on why I'm wrong would be interesting.[/QUOTE]A couple of my favorites on hreat moments in hyperinflation are attached.

When it comes to the United States it is a country with boundless natural resources, a growing demographic, geographic isolation, and a blue water Navy that is able to project power around the world. Not only is it very well sorted for the era of deglobalization we are already in, but it's productive capacity and potential is great.

One of the points mmt economists make is that if the government is not running a deficit that burden will be placed on the private sector. The government can run deficits, the private sector cannot. I think the main point I want to make is that spending needs to be directed towards full employment which helps drive demand. We've already seen the failure of supply side economics. As I stated in the post below, the main problem is the fiscal.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943169]The problems we have in the United States are a result of poor fiscal policy.[/QUOTE]One of the beauties of crypto. Allows one to opt out of the fiat money ponzi scheme. Just like buying gold or silver except better because it is digital. [B]The candidate that supports crypto get my vote![/B].

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943047]That's a real stretch Tooms. You're blaming a pandemic that started in a Chinese city on Trump. The Vietnam war on Ike, when only ten servicemen died there on his watch. And considering Abraham Lincoln and his Democratic counterparts during that era emblematic of the modern day parties. And what do pandemic deaths, or deaths from cancer and heart disease for that matter, have to do with warmongering Democratic presidents anyway? Please stay on topic.

Lincoln is the most interesting. Democrats, except you, believe Lincoln would be a member of their party if he were alive today.

[URL]https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/lincoln-would-be-a-democrat-390846/[/URL]
[URL]https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/if-lincoln-were-alive-hed-be-a-democrat[/URL]
[URL]https://lithub.com/president-lincolns-republican-party-was-the-original-party-of-big-government/[/URL]

Congrats for thinking out of the box on that one. It takes some balls to say slavery wasn't worth fighting over. If you're going that far back, I guess you must also must think highly of these fine men, mostly Democrats:

[URL]https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/kkk-cross[/URL]

And Jim Crow laws, suppressing the black vote and racism practiced by Democrats up until the 1960's must go hand in hand with good economic policy.

The preceding is satirical Tooms, as you should well know. I honestly do not believe you have a racist bone in your body.

However, you must play by the rules. You ignored my explanations of why your correlations between modern day economic performance and the party of the president are spurious. So now I shall ignore your criticisms of my spurious correlation between the Democrat presidents and American military deaths.

This gentleman has it approximately correct, 626,761 soldiers killed under Democrat presidents and 26,895 killed under Republican presidents.

[URL]https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/letters/2016/03/15/which-party-responsible-most-war-casualties/81845842/[/URL]

He should have allocated 10 more military deaths during Vietnam to Ike and maybe another 5,000 to 10,000 to him during the first year of his presidency when the Korean war was winding down. And we should update his figures to include deaths under Trump and Biden. (Kudos to Biden by the way for taking us out of Afghanistan.) Anyway you end up with almost 20X more military deaths under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents during the 20th and 21st centuries.

And all that is mostly the luck of the draw. I'm not seriously going down your road and proclaiming the Democratic Party as the Party of War. The USA probably would have been drawn into World War II under a Republican president. And USA Employment and GDP damn sure would have plummeted under a president Hillary Clinton in 2020.[/QUOTE]Slavery not worth fighting for? Of course it was. But your boy Trump, the man your "wasted" vote on a nobody third party candidate is meant to help get elected has assured us he could have negotiated that "economic" dispute into peaceful resolution. You know, like his negotiation of a peaceful transference of power in the presidential election.

Not possible? Then you seem to be loosening your grip on the notion that wars that happened on Dem presidents' watch were somehow their fault and over issues "not worth fighting for. " Or is that softening notion only reserved for Repub presidents like Lincoln or Ike who fully committed America in word, deed and treaty to fighting the war in Vietnam even though he got out of Dodge City just before the real shit came down on it?

LOL. I wonder how many credible news organization reports of Trump's incomparable and disastrous decisions in 2018,2019 and all through 2020 with regard to leaving the world bare-ass naked to preventing or at least quickly and effectively responding to the earliest COVID cases being precisely why there was a Trump's Pandemic at all rather than a likely manageable epidemic confined to one region in China until better vaccines could be created and distributed around the world it will take to loosen the grip on the most virulent Trump supporters and apologists that his Trump's Pandemic was not predicted by anyone, nobody knew it could happen, be prevented or be prepared for and that it just happened "out of the blue"?

Apparently many, many more.

[QUOTE=Woodman09;2942923]Is this the beginning of the RedWave?[/QUOTE]Alan Lichtman, a historian with a stellar record picks Harris. He's left leaning but picked Trump in 2016 and other Republicans in the past.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2943202]Alan Lichtman, a historian with a stellar record picks Harris. He's left leaning but picked Trump in 2016 and other Republicans in the past.[/QUOTE]Yes, with 6 or more "False / Red" turns on those 13 Keys to the White House where the Party in the White House is predicted to lose, he has judged Harris to only have 3 real "False / Red" Keys and 1 semi or leaning "False / Red" Key. Which means the Keys say she will be elected President this November.

However, there is no Key to account for a possible STEAL of the election and putting the wrong person in the White House.

That has happened 3 times since 1860, as far back as the Keys could be applied; Twice in the 19th Century and in the 2000 election. In all three cases the result was skewed by some variation of race related Reconstruction Era / Civil Rights, voter Suppression or ballot denial violations.

Which there is no doubt the Repub Party has been trying to rig into the election process and system for decades.

Therefore, if, for example, Trump's MAGA state representatives refuse to certify the votes in battleground states where Harris won by a clear majority or merely question every insignificant detail in order to wreak havoc and create chaos, it can wind up before the Loony Repub MAGA 6 on the Supreme Court who WILL rule in favor of ChristoFascist Mike taking a Repub House of Representatives vote on who should be appointed president and, guess what, we will have another (minimum) 4 year shot at Trump's Pandemic 2 with all the closures and tariff inflation and skyrocketing prices that go with it.

And a Putin / Russia regime throughout Eastern Europe on its way to Western Europe while "Make sure I win" China gets the USA.

In which case, we could hardly claim Lichtman's Keys did not accurately predict the true winner in 2024.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2943185]One of the beauties of crypto. Allows one to opt out of the fiat money ponzi scheme. Just like buying gold or silver except better because it is digital. [B]The candidate that supports crypto get my vote![/B].[/QUOTE]It's a great investment. It'll never be widely accepted as a currency.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943269]It's a great investment. It'll never be widely accepted as a currency.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, who gives a fuck what you think the adoption of BTC is going to be worldwide? El Salvador already accepts it. The Central African Republic was going to until the International Monetary mother fuckers and the World Bitches pulled a straight gangster move and threaten them. [B]The Establishment dem mother fuckers be runnin scared brother[/B]!

It doesn't need to be accepted widely as currency. Gold and Silver are not longer accepted widely as a form of currency. Does not reduce its value. Besides mining asteroids might make gold like sand at the beach for all I know.

All over the world BTC is growing in adoption. No government can stop it. BTC is a store of value. And it is permission less. Try to send your USD sitting in a bank anywhere in the world without permission. You and many others do not understand that power. You and many others do not understand the DeFi infrastructure being built to serve the financial needs of crypto holders.

Crypto is going forward with or without the help of the United State of America. Ask [B]China if a government can stop BTC?[/B].

Holding USD is a bad investment. All the smart money puts USD into other assets in order to preserve value. The [B]Plutocracy[/B] in the United States of America has had a monopoly on financial affairs for far too long. Crypto is the tool that breaks that. Anyone with an internet connection and smart phone can buy crypto in 10 minutes. And I can show them how they can use that crypto to become their own bank. There is no reason for anyone to use a credit card ever again. By cooperating with fellow crypto holders to cut out the middle man. You can save, loan and borrow among peers in a pool backed up with over collateralization. Not the fucked up fractional reserve system that powers fiat currency around the world.

[B]Write off crypto at your own risk my man[/B] Same for the United States of America. And all the dumb ass politicians that do not recognize its value. Blackrock owns mother fucking BTC! The revolution is going on right now. And it is not being televised.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2943185]One of the beauties of crypto. Allows one to opt out of the fiat money ponzi scheme. Just like buying gold or silver except better because it is digital. [B]The candidate that supports crypto get my vote![/B].[/QUOTE]See attached meme. It's spot on.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943192]Slavery not worth fighting for? Of course it was. But your boy Trump, the man your "wasted" vote on a nobody third party candidate is meant to help get elected has assured us he could have negotiated that "economic" dispute into peaceful resolution. You know, like his negotiation of a peaceful transference of power in the presidential election.

Not possible? Then you seem to be loosening your grip on the notion that wars that happened on Dem presidents' watch were somehow their fault and over issues "not worth fighting for. " Or is that softening notion only reserved for Repub presidents like Lincoln or Ike who fully committed America in word, deed and treaty to fighting the war in Vietnam even though he got out of Dodge City just before the real shit came down on it?

LOL. I wonder how many credible news organization reports of Trump's incomparable and disastrous decisions in 2018,2019 and all through 2020 with regard to leaving the world bare-ass naked to preventing or at least quickly and effectively responding to the earliest COVID cases being precisely why there was a Trump's Pandemic at all rather than a likely manageable epidemic confined to one region in China until better vaccines could be created and distributed around the world it will take to loosen the grip on the most virulent Trump supporters and apologists that his Trump's Pandemic was not predicted by anyone, nobody knew it could happen, be prevented or be prepared for and that it just happened "out of the blue"?

Apparently many, many more.[/QUOTE]I don't believe Democrats are bigger warmongers than Republicans. My views are much closer to Progressives than, say, Lyndsey Graham's. That was a satirical post to highlight a spurious correlation.

As to the "Trump Pandemic," maybe we better throw in the towel, because you're not going to change my mind and vice versa.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943257]Which there is no doubt the Repub Party has been trying to rig into the election process and system for decades.

Therefore, if, for example, Trump's MAGA state representatives refuse to certify the votes in battleground states where Harris won by a clear majority or merely question every insignificant detail in order to wreak havoc and create chaos, it can wind up before the Loony Repub MAGA 6 on the Supreme Court who WILL rule in favor of ChristoFascist Mike taking a Repub House of Representatives vote on who should be appointed president and, guess what, we will have another (minimum) 4 year shot at Trump's Pandemic 2 with all the closures and tariff inflation and skyrocketing prices that go with it.

And a Putin / Russia regime throughout Eastern Europe on its way to Western Europe while "Make sure I win" China gets the USA.

In which case, we could hardly claim Lichtman's Keys did not accurately predict the true winner in 2024.[/QUOTE]You're starting to sound like the MAGA crowd. American institutions would prevent Trump or anyone else from stealing a presidential election. Harris will probably win but Lichtman's no more clairvoyant than you or me. He was wrong about the popular vote in 2016.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2943287]With all due respect, who gives a fuck what you think the adoption of BTC is going to be worldwide? El Salvador already accepts it. The Central African Republic was going to until the International Monetary mother fuckers and the World Bitches pulled a straight gangster move and threaten them. [B]The Establishment dem mother fuckers be runnin scared brother[/B]!

It doesn't need to be accepted widely as currency. Gold and Silver are not longer accepted widely as a form of currency. Does not reduce its value. Besides mining asteroids might make gold like sand at the beach for all I know.

All over the world BTC is growing in adoption. No government can stop it. BTC is a store of value. And it is permission less. Try to send your USD sitting in a bank anywhere in the world without permission. You and many others do not understand that power. You and many others do not understand the DeFi infrastructure being built to serve the financial needs of crypto holders.

Crypto is going forward with or without the help of the United State of America. Ask [B]China if a government can stop BTC?[/B].

Holding USD is a bad investment. All the smart money puts USD into other assets in order to preserve value. The [B]Plutocracy[/B] in the United States of America has had a monopoly on financial affairs for far too long. Crypto is the tool that breaks that. Anyone with an internet connection and smart phone can buy crypto in 10 minutes. And I can show them how they can use that crypto to become their own bank. There is no reason for anyone to use a credit card ever again. By cooperating with fellow crypto holders to cut out the middle man. You can save, loan and borrow among peers in a pool backed up with over collateralization. Not the fucked up fractional reserve system that powers fiat currency around the world.

[B]Write off crypto at your own risk my man[/B] Same for the United States of America. And all the dumb ass politicians that do not recognize its value. Blackrock owns mother fucking BTC! The revolution is going on right now. And it is not being televised.[/QUOTE]I'll weigh in with a third view. I don't use crypto as an investment. For me it's a great substitute for currency in the right situation. And I wouldn't have figured that out without insight from you. So thanks!

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]One of your points is correct and any mmt economist would agree with you. You cannot inject currency into the system if supply cannot keep up. Which is exactly what happened during covid. But of course now that supply has caught up, well except for companies who are artificially keeping their supplies low in order to drive prices higher, inflation should be coming down, but it's not simply because of corporate greed. Doesn't help that so many sectors in the United States are controlled by a few corporate giants, but that's the end result of corporate capitalism.[/QUOTE]Goatscrot, I really appreciate your bringing this completely batshit crazy monetary policy to my attention, and I am not being facetious. It is what I thought it is, a completely idiotic attempt to say the law of supply and demand do not exist.

The whole notion that the amount of money in the system can be doubled and not cause a doubling of prices on goods and services is batshit crazy. The notion that corporate greed caused inflation versus creating $10 trillion out of thin air with Covid is batshit crazy too. Why was inflation at 2% or less for decades? Corporations were not greedy back then?

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]Another tenant of mmt is keeping interest rates at their natural level which is zero.[/QUOTE]Bond rates are actually set by markets not by any one party. The Fed raises interest rates on the amount banks borrow from each other. Like with any offering, those selling bonds try to offer a rate that is attractive to investors but not so attractive as to put them in financial peril.

My favorite line from the Clinton White House was Bill Clinton saying, "You mean my whole financial package is based on what some fucking bond dealers think?" It showed he understood things.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]If you put more money into a system and that money is directed at employment in the production of more goods, you do not have inflation.[/QUOTE]If more money is put in the system, I. E. Increased supply, the value of said money goes down in value. And how does one direct money at something?

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]You are forgetting the key element of inflation and that is scarcity.[/QUOTE]Inflation can be caused by increased demand, decreased supply, or an increase in the money supply.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]You mentioned wanting demand to go down? Why in the world would you want that?.[/QUOTE]LOL. If I had a magic switch for demand, I would make certain demand for my services was infinite.

Like I just showed you, Starbucks is seeing a decline in demand as is McDonald's and they are lowering prices. Higher demand causes prices to go up. Lower demand causes them to fall. So what is going on? The consumer is stretched and they would rather make a cup of coffee at home for 50 cents than paying five bucks at Starbucks so Starbucks is seeing a decline in demand for its goods. Demand for food is about as inelastic a good as you can get, and it speaks volumes about how weak the economy is if restaurants are closing down and lowering prices.

If the government doubles the money supply or takes half my money, it is the same thing. If you think that the government can double money supply and buy things like bombs and it costs the taxpayer nothing. I am not going to change your mind on that so there is no point in debating. Yes, there are times you need to use money to buy things to blow shit up but for the most part, it is the worst use of tax dollars that there is.

That blurb on Venezuela is dead wrong. A lot of Arab countries are totally dependent on oil and gas and are filthy rich. The difference between those countries and Venezuela is in the Arab countries is if you steal, you get your hand cut off. In Venezuela, unlike any country I have ever been to, theft was applauded. What happened in Venezuela is Chavez filled the national oil company with his unproductive cronies and oil production went nowhere. He then started using foreign companies to produce and then he stole from them and they pulled out. His last resource after that was to print money and by over printing the money, he caused runaway inflation. Without a 4th amendment or other guarantee that your money is your money, a country's economy will go to shit for certain.

It is a lot easier to steal from your people by doubling the money supply than taking half of what they own, but the amount of theft is the same.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943171]A couple of my favorites on hreat moments in hyperinflation are attached.

When it comes to the United States it is a country with boundless natural resources, a growing demographic, geographic isolation, and a blue water Navy that is able to project power around the world. Not only is it very well sorted for the era of deglobalization we are already in, but it's productive capacity and potential is great.

One of the points mmt economists make is that if the government is not running a deficit that burden will be placed on the private sector. The government can run deficits, the private sector cannot. I think the main point I want to make is that spending needs to be directed towards full employment which helps drive demand. We've already seen the failure of supply side economics. As I stated in the post below, the main problem is the fiscal.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943169]And again mmt does not advocate for an endless source of dollars. That is a myth. And speaking of you really should read the deficit myth. The problems we have in the United States are a result of poor fiscal policy.[/QUOTE]You're right, I'm debating with one hand tied behind my back without reading her book. Yes, sanctions probably were a factor in inflation in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

I've followed a number of developing country economies through the years. Countries that continually run government budget deficits and run up national debt and set interest rates at low levels have problems. That's true of developed countries too. The only exception that comes to mind is Japan, and that may be because of the declining population. And its massive run up in the national debt hasn't been accompanied by good economic performance.

So what would the MMT proponents do differently? Two things that I'm aware of. First, they would only have governments borrowing in their own currency. And that's admittedly true of Japan, but not true of the other examples I've thrown out. I don't know if your example, Weimar Germany, borrowed in foreign currencies, but it certainly had a lot of foreign debt.

Second, they would jack up taxes to reduce demand.

Intuitively, I don't think this would work well. At some point people would get antsy about the debt and start moving to gold, crypto, stock, real estate, etc. , and abandon government debt. Interest rates go up, which makes it difficult for the private sector to raise capital. Or perhaps the central bank keeps rates at low levels, which results in high inflation. Foreign exchange controls are enacted to prevent money from leaving the country.

But that and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I need to take a look at the book and come back with you.

I actually am a believer in supply side economics. There's a correlation among developed countries between lower government revenues / expenditures and GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power. The countries with smaller government as a % of GDP, like the USA, Switzerland, Singapore and Ireland, outperform the ones with larger government. That doesn't mean that there's no place for the Keynesians. I hope Tooms doesn't read this, but I'd give FDR the edge over Herbert Hoover in his willingness to pump lots of money into the economy when it needed it. And I think that's what we have had in recent years, without MMT, and we've even gone overboard at times, like with the American Rescue Plan and other excessive spending legislated during 2021/2022. The Fed has a dual mandate to maximize employment and minimize inflation, and our politicians are not shy at all at using fiscal stimulus. We've been at full employment since 2018, except when COVID intervened.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943269]It's a great investment. It'll never be widely accepted as a currency.[/QUOTE]No, it depends on the timing. Bitcoin has a set amount of coins. If you can buy T bills with a 5% yield and prices are coming down, holding cash or buying T bills blows the bitcoin away. If the government is increasing the money supply, I. E. More supply which lowers price / value of a currency leading to inflation, bitcoin is great. It is the best alternative there is to the overprinting of dollars.

And no, it has no function as a currency. Before the Federal reserve was created, money supply was based on gold and a lesser degree to silver. The problem with their use is supply of money was based on the random events of finding a huge gold or silver find. The resulting booms and busts were way worse when what we have now. There are issues with the Federal Reserve for sure but having a non-political entity making decision as to when to raise or lower money supply based on data is a much more rational alternative to gold and silver. Without money supply growth, you will choke off economic growth. If the Fed lets money supply grow too much though, you run into inflation, so it is a very delicate balance.

No one is controlling money supply with bitcoin, so using it as a currency to base an economy on is foolish.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943168]Stupid wars? I'm amazed at how dovish the right wing has become in the past few years. Perfectly willing to cede Ukraine to Russia and then open up the baltics for Putin's advances and probably allow Xi to take Taiwan at his whim.

Donald Trump weakened alliances the United States has had for decades and emboldened dictators such as Putin and Xi. Of course Putin waited until after the election to invade because if the Donald would have been elected he would have been able to waltz right in and take what he wanted. The era of the United States is sole hegemon saw fewer war deaths than we've seen in many decades. Unfortunately that era is over and we will be seeing more and more proxy wars fought. Let's hope the United States maintains its strength as the strongest military in the world.[/QUOTE]If you take a look at North Korean missile launches after Trump's rapprochement with Kim, you'll see they went way, way down, then rebounded when Biden came to office. Kissing ass works, especially when it's the President of the United States doing the ass kissing. I don't think Russia would have moved into Ukraine if Trump had been president. If it started to, I bet Trump would have done what Bernie Sanders wanted to do.

[URL]https://jacobin.com/2022/07/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-ukraine-russia-putin[/URL]