Printable View
[QUOTE=BobNSuzy;2944253]Her whiny voice is a turn off to me. At least AOC is attractive. They should make her president.[/QUOTE]This post cracked me up. [B]I hope AOC runs and wins within my lifetime![/B]. Let us hope she does not forget her humble beginnings. That is the sort of POTUS we need. Not lifetime politicians or representatives of the [B]Plutocrocy[/B].
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2944184]Tiny, this is really complicated and it is hard to get into a short paragraph. It is well known if you increased money supply you cause inflation. What is not as well known, and the guys trying to hawk gold do not tell you, is the other side of the coin is consumer demand which is more important. People do not get that this causes inflation but on the demand side things are predictable based on the age of your population. In fact, you can plot inflation using the ages 18 and 65 since that is the date most enter the work place and when people retire. Typically, peak demand with age is 47 and then demand for goods and services goes down year after year (except for health costs).
Thing is that money is not really created by government. It is created by creditors. If you extend a loan to anyone, you are increasing money supply. The Federal Reserve's job is to print enough money to reflect that growth in the increase in credit. If the Fed does not print up enough money, you run into deflation and prices go down. The people who have the money, the famed "fucking bond dealers" as Bill Clinton said, have little incentive to lend. Their money gets more value just sitting there as with deflation prices are coming down. That is what the issue was when we relied on gold and silver and could not increase the money supply, and you were better off just holding your gold and silver than lending money. It caused economic growth to collapse as no money was available.
So in Japan, what did you have? A massive aging of the population leading to deflation. So Japan had to combat this massive decrease in demand by printing up money like never before. That and only that reason is they got away with it, but they sacrificed something. When you print up that much money and go into debt, you are constraining growth right? Growth causes inflation and with higher interest rates comes certain default. And that is the issue with Japan. They are not growing anywhere near like they were before. They also had strict immigration policies such that their population has been declining.
The reason MMT came into fashion is there was all this government debt being issued and inflation was not happening, but the academics who came up with the theory did not get why. First, you had the baby boomers getting older and demand going down. The second part was wage deflation as the massive Chinese workforce entered the world stage. Well, the second of those effects is gone now. The idiotic concept that Biden was pushing, a massive increase in spending at the federal level, does not cause inflation has been shown to be incorrect. Duh!
Increasing the money supply does not in and of itself do anything. If you print money and bury it in the ground, you do not cause inflation. The Fed prints the money, hands it to banks, and the banks lend it. That is what increases the money supply. Among the things that banks buy is government bonds. The banks or fucking bond dealers are going to put their money where it is treated best.
Thing is when you use the Federal Reserve to cheat and buy bonds. This is the equivalent of using a credit card to pay on your debt. It is not just banks that buy USA government bonds. It is individuals and foreign countries ETC. Whenever you lend money, you are looking at the ability of whomever is borrowing the money to repay. Putting debt on the federal reserve balance sheet is cheating in the sense that the USA government is trying to say that debt is not ours when it is.
Economic growth leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates, so that is the issue with this massive amounts of government debt. YOU CANNOT GROW! With the debt issued at these interest rate levels, the Federal reserve has to bring down interest rates eventually, or the USA will default. So how do they do that? Raise interest rates temporarily to decrease growth and then lower them once the growth / inflation cools off. That is what they are doing now.
The problem is we are not Japan. Japan did not have the huge surge of millennials and it did not have the huge amounts of immigrants. You can look at that and the housing market right now. There is not enough growth in the housing market for millennial or immigrants.
So that is why the USA is different. I am not sure which poison is going to be swallowed: decreased growth or default. But one of them is inevitable.
A lack of growth shows itself in many ways but one is the stock market. The Nikkei peaked in 1989. It may be higher now than then but for the most part, you either lost money or got no growth for 35 years if you bought Japan in 1989. So the days of high flying market gains are done if you have no growth. That is how Japan "got away with it".[/QUOTE]You understand this a lot better than I do Elvis. I don't have a good grasp on how money is created. I think through increases in high powered or base money and the multiplier effect from lending, you end up with a whole lot more money than what the Fed injected into the system. I'm reading that bank reserves are no longer required in the USA. Do you know if that means the Fed creates base money solely from buying government securities now?
During COVID a lot of people saved stimulus money. They weren't spending. So personal savings grew to huge levels, around $2. 5 trillion. Then they started spending, after the $1. 9 trillion dump from Biden's American Rescue Plan. Demand went up, inflation went up. That's what an economist friend told me anyway.
Interesting comments on gold and silver. Intuitively I always thought a gold backed currency would be asking for deflation. Also good analysis of the Fed's dilemma. What do you do when you have inflation, so you have to raise interest rates, but the national debt is bursting at the seems, so that the country can't afford the interest payments? I wonder if the scenario you described, you raise rates, dampen demand, inflation goes down so that interest rates can go down, could break down in the USA at some point because of excessive debt. I've seen that happen in other countries.
Obviously, as you say I think, if you have massive government spending and run the national debt way up, you're going to slow growth in the long term. You're starving the private sector relative to government. Yeah, spending on government will increase GDP, but it doesn't necessarily improve productivity. (There are exceptions though, for example with wisely-spent infrastructure spending.) And without improvements in productivity, I don't see how you have good long term growth in per capita GDP. As I've noted here more than once, among developed countries, smaller government is correlated with higher GDP per capita.
What do you think happened to all that excessive money that was created in Japan? I guess people saved it, and loaned it back to the Japanese government, so that you didn't have demand pull inflation, until recently?
Now that interest rates are no longer very low, do you think MMT will go out of fashion? In researching it as a result of being intrigued by Goatscrot's posts, I saw that a lot of the press was back around 2020 and prior years. There hasn't been so much since 2022, during the higher rate environment.
Thanks, great write up.
From trying to destroy Ohio's economy to exploiting the death of Ohio residents for craven political gain, why do Donald Trump and JayDee Vance hate one of their supposedly prized Red States so much?
[B]Trump cites debunked claims of pet-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio during presidential debate.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/ex-president-donald-trump-cites-debunked-claims-of-pet-eating-immigrants-in-springfield-ohio-during-presidential-debate.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]" Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic, said a statement city officials sent cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer on Monday.
......
After city official denied that immigrants have been stealing and eating pets, Vance posted on Tuesday that his office has received inquiries from Springfield residents who say their pets were taken by Haitian migrants.
Its possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false, he continued.[/QUOTE][B]Ohio dad begs Donald Trump, JD Vance and other Republicans to stop politicizing his sons death.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/ohio-dad-begs-donald-trump-jd-vance-and-other-republicans-to-stop-politicizing-his-sons-death.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]The father of an 11-year-old boy who was killed in a 2023 school bus crash denounced morally bankrupt politicians for using his sons death for political gain, and begged them to stop using his son as a political tool.
Speaking at a Tuesday night Springfield City Commission meeting, Nathan Clark said he wished the crash that killed his son, Aiden, had been caused by a 60-year-old white man instead of a Haitian immigrant because then the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone.
"The last thing we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces, Clark said. But even thats not good enough for them - they take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate ...And look what youve done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop. Using Aiden as a political tool, is to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose.[/QUOTE]The citizens of Ohio clearly do not want to be the target of Repub economic destruction, fear-mongering, racism and hate.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2944172]So much for that "closed mic" idea. They opened the mic for Trump any time he wanted to say something stupid even when it wasn't his turn. [/QUOTE]
What had me falling outta my chair laughing, was the line about losing the election "by a whisker", and that he was only kidding, reminded my of someone else also very adapt at backpedaling.
The backpedaling exchange of words with the Moderator:
• Moderator: [i]"Are you now acknowledging you lost the election, 'by a whisker?' " [/i]
• Trump: [i]"No, No, I don't acknowledge that at all...I said that [b]sarcastically, you know that![/b] Oh, he said we lost 'by a whisker'...that was said [b]sarcastically"[/b][/i]
Does Trump's backpedaling, remind you of anyone?
[QUOTE=Here's a HINT;2942616] [b]I sarcastically paraphrased[/b] Obama. [b] You...already knew that.[/b][/QUOTE]
(...kkkk!)
[QUOTE=Spidy;2944376]What had me falling outta my chair laughing, was the line about line about losing the election "by a whisker", and that he was only kidding, reminded my of someone else also very
adapt at backpedaling.
The backpedaling exchange of words with the Moderator:
Moderator: [i]"Are you now acknowledging you lost the election, 'by a whisker?' " [/i]
Trump: [i]"No, No, I don't acknowledge that at all...I said that [b]sarcastically, you know that![/b] Oh, he said we lost 'by a whisker'...that was said [b]sarcastically"[/b][/i][/QUOTE]Never mind that Trumpty-Dumpty assured us he doesn't kid back when it came to his singular, unrivaled contribution to creating and exacerbating Trump's Pandemic:
[B]'I dont kid: Trump says he wasnt joking about slowing coronavirus testing[/B]
[URL]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/23/trump-joking-slowing-coronavirus-testing-335459[/URL]
We had no idea Trump was so addicted to the low art of sarcasm.
Which now explains his baffling assertions that:
"We had the greatest economy ever"!
"I had the largest inauguration crowd ever"!
"I know all the best words, know and hire all the best people. ".
"Nobody predicted a Pandemic could happen"!
"We've got this under control! It is disappearing! It will go away without a vaccine"!
"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will pay for itself, increase Real Annual GDP Growth by 4%, 5% or maybe 6% and help make me The Greatest Job-Creating President ever"!
"If Biden wins, there will be a USA Stock Market Crash and Recession the likes of which no one has ever seen"!
"The election was rigged and stolen! I won, by a LOT"!
"If we don't Stop the Steal, you will lose your country"!
"I know you will fight like Hell peacefully and never give up at the Capitol to Stop the Steal so you don't lose your country."
"All over the country immigrants are stealing your pet dogs and cats and eating them but especially in Ohio"!
"Crime in this country today is through the roof"!
And so on.
He was only being sarcastic.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]Money is not created by creditors, the sole source of currency is the United States government.[/QUOTE]Well, the Europeans would have something to say about that. In fact, one of the threats to growth now is the yen carry trade. I know you are quoting others Goatscrot so I am not going to get personal, but the only reason MMT is being bought is because people in the USA are so geocentric. That the USA government is the only who can create currency is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]The United States government has no debt. The so-called debt can be erased with the stroke of a pen.[/QUOTE]Yes, it is called defaulting, and you pay for that. Every person holding dollars would see the value of those dollars significantly marked down. There are no free lunches.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]And let's be honest, nothing in nature even markets can grow continually. The problem with capitalism is it requires constant growth and is not focused on sustainability.[/QUOTE]Growth is fueled by younger populations. As people get older, they are content to sit on what they had. If you have a country with a million families and a million homes, you do not need to grow. When you go from a million to 4 million families, you do. Capitalism is the most successful system towards achieving that goal but socialist and communist require growth in that scenario as well.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]If we do not start looking at developing a new economic system we will have significant problems not the least of which is trying to sustain a maximum population of 11 billion on the planet.[/QUOTE]So the new number now is 11 billion? LOL. When Malthus predicted mass starvation as population growth was outstripping food growth, it was 1798. It is amazing a theory that has been wrong for over 200 years keeps getting recycled, but there is human desire that the future is doom and gloom and the past is always roses and sunshine.
For the record, when you switch from an agrarian society to an industrial or service one, the main incentive to have kids, free labor, goes down. In the developed world, children are more of a luxury item than economic necessity. In fact, you can see that change from an agricultural based economy in population charts due to women having fewer kids. In the world, the population tables currently are showing agrarian economies is pretty much limited to Africa. Bolivia was the last South American country to break out of the agrarian population pattern.
You need every woman to have like 2. 1 children or so on average to sustain the population. The entire Western world is behind that number, so if you want to decrease growth in a country, you just shut down immigration as Japan did.
The debate between Republicans and Democrats is not over immigration but legal versus illegal immigration. Both parties know for the USA to maintain growth, its population needs to grow.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]And yes banks are part of the problem. The FED should keep the interest rate at it's natural position zero.[/QUOTE]When the poor borrow, often they have to pay 30% rates on credit cards. Meanwhile, the banks and the rich pay 0%? It is hard to envision a better way for the rich to suck the poor dry than with 0% interest rates.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944283]We now of course know that supply side and nonsense is absurd and austerity does nothing but punish the poor in middle class just like higher interest rates.[/QUOTE]I think you are missing the point of what went on in 2000. The Federal budget was in surplus. Instead of focusing on balancing the budget, you have the Republicans racking up credit card debt by cutting taxes and the Democrats racking up debt by excessive spending. Or I should say that was what Republicans used to do. GW Bush and Trump amped up spending to compete with Democrats.
It is funny to hear all these Dems blasting Republican economic models. Dick Cheney said, "Deficits do not matter", and apparently this is the new mantra of the Democratic party. You even have Dick and Liz Cheney endorsing Kamala. In fact, Dems are lining up to repeat the Cheney / GW Bush economic model of huge debt and pointless foreign wars.
The problem with the Reagan tax cuts is they were sold on the fact that the tax cuts would spur such growth, that you could cut taxes and balance the budget from the growth spurred by tax growth. But the Reagan tax cuts did not balance the budget. In fact, the budget deficits exploded under Reagan showing once again there are no free lunches.
Thing about the Bush / Cheney economic plan that Dems are copying is that it led to the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, and it will this time too. Maybe Dems will say, "Yes, but we did not cut taxes on the rich. " That amount of tax changes very little when you are running deficits as high as they are now.
[QUOTE=Spidy;2944224]All good suggestions, and I can only hope someday soon!
[b]But what makes you think that one party in particular (the Repubs), would want you to vote,[/b] let alone make it easier for you to vote, with things like automatic registration, upon turning voting age, like most other G7 first world industrialized, democratic nations, when they don't need the popular vote to win?
Why on earth, would a party that has won 2x in the last 25 years, without wining the popular vote [i](and BTW a feat not seen since, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, also a Repub),[/i] would ever lead you to believe, that they want most Americans exercising their right to vote (easily and seamlessly), in a voting system (the EC) that props up, caters to and can win, with minority, culture-war and fringe issues, that the majority of Americans are antithetical towards?[/QUOTE]Gay Marriage.
Weed.
Voting rights.
Solar Power.
Wind Power.
Electectri cars.
I agree that it is very difficult, but it will always remain difficult if it is not discuss openly. I have hope for this country.
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2944230]I will use the term Presidential Candidate just for you spidy, even though its a pain the ass to type two words instead of one LOL. Presidential Candidates run on policy issues. National policy issues to be exact. If you change to popular vote, as I have been saying, the national policy issues will have to cater to the big urban masses. That will be the only way to win an election. The policy urban masses want are vastly different from the ones that suburban and rural voters want. [/QUOTE]
[b]First,[/b] your premise of wanting to compartmentalize, rural and suburban America, as somehow belonging exclusively to Republicans and urban America as exclusively to Democrats, is NEVER going to fly, as a base for your argument. And is folly!
[b]Partisanship in rural, suburban and urban communities[/b]
[URL]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-in-rural-suburban-and-urban-communities/[/URL]
So while roughly 60/40 voting splits (noted in link above) are mirror images of strength in urban areas for Dems, it is equally as strong for rural areas for Repubs. Suburban areas are roughly split 50/50. So no advantage for either party.
Again, this all goes to show that rural areas, would be equally served in a popular vote system, as suburban and urban areas.
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2944230]Suburban and Rural Voters / Republicans:
Border security
...
Fund Nato and Foreign Wars
[b]These issues have nothing to do with the swing states. These are national issues. [/b][/QUOTE]
[b]Second,[/b] I strongly disagree! This seems to be a very board sweeping and blanket list of issues, that I think are incongruent with your statements!
You do realize (whether you like it or not) a portion of your TAX DOLLARS, go towards funding these [i][b]"nothing to do with the swing states...",[/b][/i] national issues, right? Meaning, everyone has every right to petition (by vote or by other means) the federal gov't, as to where they want their TAX DOLLARS to go to work for them.
Likewise, you petition your state/local gov'ts, down-ballot politicians and candidates, hopefully running campaign platforms, that would typically address more "state and local specific issues" as to where to put your TAX DOLLARS, with the understanding that at times there can be overlap or intersection with "national issues".
[i]Also, ask yourself why are they heavily campaigning ONLY in these key battle ground swing states, and ignoring the rest of the country? [/i]Does that sound like the EC, best serves the other rural, suburban or urban communities, around the country?
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2944230]Switch to a popular vote and Presidential Candidates will be forced to appeal to urban masses which strongly favor the Democratic Party. As I have said, it will take away the voice and voting power from urban and suburban communities. This is exactly why in our constitution the founding fathers created the electoral college. They knew even back then that the values and policies of urban populations are vastly different from those of urban communities. They knew that a nation is more than its people and the land and resources of a nation must be protected and taken account for in an election. [b]Ok I am beating a dead horse[/b]. I have said my peace on the electoral college LOL.[/QUOTE]
[b]Third,[/b] I'm never gonna buy into the premise that rural, suburban or urban communities are going to be underserved, disproportionately, under a direct national election (or popular vote) system. It's clear that there is equal representation of Dems found in rural areas, as there are Repubs found in urban areas. So it would be incumbent and behoove a presidential candidate, or down-ballot politician, worth their salt, to campaign accordingly.
Unfortunately, I think the EC, makes politicians lazy where they don't have to work as hard for popular vote and are forced to campaign in equal parts of the country, states and local municipalities. Instead all the attention is focused on just a handful of states that can be manipulated, bullied, browbeaten, coerced and pressured into partisan service to find 11,780 votes, for a win, that was never earned.
[list][i]With a popular vote wins all system, can you imagine, Trump, even having the wherewithal to even know where to start cheating? Where does he disqualify/throw out votes and ask judges, courts and Congress [b]to overturn the will of 7 million voters[/b] (for example, in his loss to Biden), that are scattered around the country? [/i][/list]Among the many benefits of a popular vote system, would be the near elimination of, election cheating, tampering, fraud and voter suppression, which are all tougher, to politically or criminally organize, as a nationwide "steal".
[QUOTE=Spidy;2944499][b]First,[/b] your premise of wanting to compartmentalize, rural and suburban America, as somehow belonging exclusively to Republicans and urban America as exclusively to Democrats, is NEVER going to fly, as a base for your argument. And is folly!
[b]Partisanship in rural, suburban and urban communities[/b]
[URL]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-in-rural-suburban-and-urban-communities/[/URL]
So while roughly 60/40 voting splits (noted in link above) are mirror images of strength in urban areas for Dems, it is equally as strong for rural areas for Repubs. Suburban areas are roughly split 50/50. So no advantage for either party.
Again, this all goes to show that rural areas, would be equally served in a popular vote system, as suburban and urban areas.
[b]Second,[/b] I strongly disagree! This seems to be a very board sweeping and blanket list of issues, that I think are incongruent with your statements!
You do realize (whether you like it or not) a portion of your TAX DOLLARS, go towards funding these [i][b]"nothing to do with the swing states...",[/b][/i] national issues, right? Meaning, everyone has every right to petition (by vote or by other means) the federal gov't, as to where they want their TAX DOLLARS to go to work for them.
Likewise, you petition your state/local gov'ts, down-ballot politicians and candidates, hopefully running campaign platforms, that would typically address more "state and local specific issues" as to where to put your TAX DOLLARS, with the understanding that at times there can be overlap or intersection with "national issues".
[i]Also, ask yourself why are they heavily campaigning ONLY in these key battle ground swing states, and ignoring the rest of the country? [/i]Does that sound like the EC, best serves the other rural, suburban or urban communities, around the country?
[b]Third,[/b] I'm never gonna buy into the premise that rural, suburban or urban communities are going to be underserved, disproportionately, under a direct national election (or popular vote) system. It's clear that there is equal representation of Dems found in rural areas, as there are Repubs found in urban areas. So it would be incumbent and behoove a presidential candidate, or down-ballot politician, worth their salt, to campaign accordingly.
Unfortunately, I think the EC, makes politicians lazy where they don't have to work as hard for popular vote and are forced to campaign in equal parts of the country, states and local municipalities. Instead all the attention is focused on just a handful of states that can be manipulated, bullied, browbeaten, coerced and pressured into partisan service to find 11,780 votes, for a win, that was never earned.
[list][i]With a popular vote wins all system, can you imagine, Trump, even having the wherewithal to even know where to start cheating? Where does he disqualify/throw out votes and ask judges, courts and Congress [b]to overturn the will of 7 million voters[/b] (for example, in his loss to Biden), that are scattered around the country? [/i][/list]Among the many benefits of a popular vote system, would be the near elimination of, election cheating, tampering, fraud and voter suppression, which are all tougher, to politically or criminally organize, as a nationwide "steal".[/QUOTE]Not trying to sell you or anybody anything other than why the USA has the electoral college. I just offer my point of view and it's up to you and anyone who reads my posts to make up their own mind. As I stated previously I have said my peace on the EC and there isn't anymore significant arguments to make. , but here is one final parting message.
People have been making your arguments for decades and yet the Electoral College is still here. Our nation has some incredibly brilliant individuals working at all of levels of government and if it has been this long we have had the electoral college and we still have not replaced it with a popular vote, there has to be a good reason why. I am sure they have done study after study and both sides have probably always come to the same conclusion. The electoral college is better for Americans and the country than a popular vote.
[QUOTE=Sirioja;2944159]Harris seemed better than Trump yesterday. Maybe he will lead again to destroy capitol, when he really must be prosecuted for January 2021, when Harris would be better for our 7 billions people world. Wish for her success, for our world and for women rights, when Trump is dangerous and bullshit too much since too long time.[/QUOTE]In case you didn't know this is a thread for American Politics not Euro feminist cuckery, keep your nonsense in the Euro threads where it belongs (espec the Paris one lololol).
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2944230]I will use the term Presidential Candidate just for you spidy, even though its a pain the ass to type two words instead of one LOL. Presidential Candidates run on policy issues. National policy issues to be exact. If you change to popular vote, as I have been saying, the national policy issues will have to cater to the big urban masses. That will be the only way to win an election. The policy urban masses want are vastly different from the ones that suburban and rural voters want.
Suburban and Rural Voters / Republicans:
Border security.
Stop fentanyl at all costs.
Stop funding foreign wars.
Gender issues out of school sports / no trans men / women competing against women.
Fight inflation and government spending.
Strengthen economy.
Support Law enforcement and tough on criminals to increase saftey.
Personal gun ownership.
Protect domestic jobs.
Keep Healthcare private.
Urban Voters / Democrats:
Trans rights.
Limit gun ownership.
Increase government spending at cost of inflation.
Tax on Corporate America even if it drives jobs and American companies overseas.
Universal Healthcare.
Tax on Corporate.
Take away guns.
Eliminate racism at all costs.
Less rights for police even if citizens are less safe.
Lenient punishment for criminals.
More spending on social services.
Fund Nato and Foreign Wars.
These issues have nothing to do with the swing states. These are national issues. Switch to a popular vote and Presidential Candidates will be forced to appeal to urban masses which strongly favor the Democratic Party. As I have said, it will take away the voice and voting power from urban and suburban communities. This is exactly why in our constitution the founding fathers created the electoral college. They knew even back then that the values and policies of urban populations are vastly different from those of urban communities. They knew that a nation is more than its people and the land and resources of a nation must be protected and taken account for in an election. Ok I am beating a dead horse. I have said my peace on the electoral college LOL.[/QUOTE]Between a Soros prosecutor in Cook County and "guberment workers" like this and the sky high violent crime rate in Chicago?
BTW I know the answer very well.
[URL]https://www-fox32chicago-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.fox32chicago.com/news/chicago-aldermen-demand-mayors-aide-fired-alleged-controversial-comments.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID[/URL]#amp_tf=From%20%251%24's&aoh=17261717399499&csi=0&referrer=https%3 A%2 F%2 F [URL]www.google.com[/URL]&share=https%3 A%2 F%2 F[URL]www.fox32chicago.com[/URL]%2 Fnews%2 Fchicago-aldermen-demand-mayors-aide-fired-alleged-controversial-comments.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2944435]Well, the Europeans would have something to say about that. In fact, one of the threats to growth now is the yen carry trade. I know you are quoting others Goatscrot so I am not going to get personal, but the only reason MMT is being bought is because people in the USA are so geocentric. That the USA government is the only who can create currency is ridiculous.
Yes, it is called defaulting, and you pay for that. Every person holding dollars would see the value of those dollars significantly marked down. There are no free lunches.
Growth is fueled by younger populations. As people get older, they are content to sit on what they had. If you have a country with a million families and a million homes, you do not need to grow. When you go from a million to 4 million families, you do. Capitalism is the most successful system towards achieving that goal but socialist and communist require growth in that scenario as well.
So the new number now is 11 billion? LOL. When Malthus predicted mass starvation as population growth was outstripping food growth, it was 1798. It is amazing a theory that has been wrong for over 200 years keeps getting recycled, but there is human desire that the future is doom and gloom and the past is always roses and sunshine.
For the record, when you switch from an agrarian society to an industrial or service one, the main incentive to have kids, free labor, goes down. In the developed world, children are more of a luxury item than economic necessity. In fact, you can see that change from an agricultural based economy in population charts due to women having fewer kids. In the world, the population tables currently are showing agrarian economies is pretty much limited to Africa. Bolivia was the last South American country to break out of the agrarian population pattern.
You need every woman to have like 2. 1 children or so on average to sustain the population. The entire Western world is behind that number, so if you want to decrease growth in a country, you just shut down immigration as Japan did.
The debate between Republicans and Democrats is not over immigration but legal versus illegal immigration. Both parties know for the USA to maintain growth, its population needs to grow.
When the poor borrow, often they have to pay 30% rates on credit cards. Meanwhile, the banks and the rich pay 0%? It is hard to envision a better way for the rich to suck the poor dry than with 0% interest rates.
I think you are missing the point of what went on in 2000. The Federal budget was in surplus. Instead of focusing on balancing the budget, you have the Republicans racking up credit card debt by cutting taxes and the Democrats racking up debt by excessive spending. Or I should say that was what Republicans used to do. GW Bush and Trump amped up spending to compete with Democrats.
It is funny to hear all these Dems blasting Republican economic models. Dick Cheney said, "Deficits do not matter", and apparently this is the new mantra of the Democratic party. You even have Dick and Liz Cheney endorsing Kamala. In fact, Dems are lining up to repeat the Cheney / GW Bush economic model of huge debt and pointless foreign wars.
The problem with the Reagan tax cuts is they were sold on the fact that the tax cuts would spur such growth, that you could cut taxes and balance the budget from the growth spurred by tax growth. But the Reagan tax cuts did not balance the budget. In fact, the budget deficits exploded under Reagan showing once again there are no free lunches.
Thing about the Bush / Cheney economic plan that Dems are copying is that it led to the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, and it will this time too. Maybe Dems will say, "Yes, but we did not cut taxes on the rich. " That amount of tax changes very little when you are running deficits as high as they are now.[/QUOTE]And again all the problems you are fiscal decisions not monetary. Monetarism it's one of the main reasons we have the issues we do.
The US government is the sole source of dollars. I didn't say it was the sole source of the world's currency. EU countries made a mistake by giving up control of their own currency. Any country with a fiat currency that has productive capacity can inject money into the system.
And yes demographics matter.
No what I described is not defaulting. It's paying off the so-called debt. The United States does not need to sell bonds to fund the government. That should definitely cease.
And yes again, the developed world and many other nations are seeing a decreased demographic and aging population which will continue. Economic theories and ideals based on continuous growth will need to be tossed aside. I firmly believe that we are at a crossroads like we were when feudalism became mercantilism in mercantilism morphed into capitalism. I often like to describe it as we're having our Blade Runner Star Trek moment. And unfortunately I believe the former is going to win out if our governments don't begin acting in the interests of the masses as opposed to the interest of the corporations that donate the big bucks.
[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2944456][b]Change is inevitable[/b]
Gay Marriage. Weed. Voting rights. Solar Power. Wind Power. Electectri cars.
I agree that it is very difficult, but it will always remain difficult if it is not discuss openly. I have hope for this country.[/QUOTE]Absolutely, change is inevitable!
But the [B]direction of change[/B] (and speed to a lesser extent), is of key importance, if you wish to continue living in a true democratic society! As seen with Project 2025, our fragile democracy, could easily flip to fascism in the blink of Trump's eye.
[B]So imagine, if you will...[/B]Dems and Repubs, in a boat rowing in opposite directions. See what I'm getting at? Where one party wants to make it to shore, while the other is content to row in circles!
P.S.: Look at Roe v Wade, overturned after 50 years.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944284]The United States would absolutely have better political parties under a system that does away with the electoral college. Why? Because it would force both parties to campaign to the entire country not focus just on swing states. I think we would definitely see the Republican party come down it's christo fascist nonsense and the Democrats move away from some of the more ridiculous woke aspects of the platform.
[b]And along with ranked choice voting might other political parties stand a chance.[/b][/QUOTE]Ranked choice voting, is another good suggestion, towards a more democratic way of voting. But unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the EC voting problem.
What do you think about the [b]Interstate Compact Initiative?[/b] (When enough states join this compact and have 270 electoral votes or more, they'll vote as a block).
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2944520]Not trying to sell you or anybody anything other than why the USA has the electoral college. I just offer my point of view and it's up to you and anyone who reads my posts to make up their own mind. As I stated previously I have said my peace on the EC and there isn't anymore significant arguments to make. ,but here is one final parting message.
People have been making your arguments for decades and yet the Electoral College is still here. Our nation has some incredibly brilliant individuals working at all of levels of government and if it has been this long we have had the electoral college and we still have not replaced it with a popular vote, there has to be a good reason why. I am sure they have done study after study and both sides have probably always come to the same conclusion. The electoral college is better for Americans and the country than a popular vote.[/QUOTE]
Sure I get that!
But remember, whether it's yours, mine or anyone else's opinions, facts or reasons that are posted, they will debated, challenged, scrutinized, dissected, praised, glorified, and/or applauded. It's all good, and just a healthy part of having a debate, or giving thanks and gratitude for sharing ideas, info and viewpoints.
As for the your reasoning for the US having an EC, I just happen to disagree with your opinions on the matter. I think you're probably half right about the EC and have said as much, about it being an imperfect system. Historians have always understood that this was a poorly cobbled together section of the constitution, with not enough thought and time having gone into its construction.
If you're done making your case, that's okay, to take solace, in the knowledge, that you've made your case or put your best foot forward, for those to makeup their own minds. [b]I am happy to have exchanged, ideas and opinions.[/b]
I, however, will continue to make my case, just because I know history is not STATIC (ie. Roe v Wade) and there are many sides/holes to the EC, that are being exploited, where insidious and deceptive politics are at play, from Repubs to undermine the will of voters, as they look to supplant or fire election officials and overturn elections.
This is deeply distributing! But the flawed structure of the EC, makes it possible, for one party (the Repubs) to continually pervert democracy and debase the Constitution, for their own ends, because they are failing to win voters at the ballot-box, with their backwards politics and stupid culture-wars.
So no worries, I'll continue "the good fight" (as it were), and you feel free to rejoin the EC conversation at anytime.