Will America Go Communist?

[AzogtheDefiler]

Cali should raise its state tax to 50%

 

[Rambunctious]

Will America Go Communist?

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[georgephillip]

There's is only one reason Trump is in office... it's because of Hillary and Bernie. If your side wasn't progressing towards socialism, Trump would have never been elected.

I think you are making a mistake by equating Hillary and Bernie. Clinton is indeed a "New Democrat" who told working class Democrats "vote Republican if you don't like NAFTA."

Bernie may yet turn out to be another disappointment, but so far he has proven loyal to the same social Democratic values he's advocated for the last fifty years.

There's no doubt in my mind Democrats like Clinton and Obama put Trump in the White House, and Dems like Biden or "Wall Street Pete" will give him a second term.(although Democrats may control the House and Senate for at least the first two years)?

 

[Andylusion]

hat is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
You are telling me that you can lower prices by raising taxes? When has that ever happened in the entire history of the world. Detailed examples please.

I'm not sure I follow your logic of prices and taxes. As I understand MMT, it is possible to fight some kinds of inflation by raising taxes instead of interest rates.
A very detailed walkthrough of Modern Monetary Theory, the big new left economic idea

No. You are misled.

Inflation is the decline in the value of the dollar itself, caused by an increase in the number of dollars in circulation. When you create more money, (which has no real value other than what you can trade that money for), the result is that the value of each dollar is lower, because there are more dollars.

It's the same economic concept of supply and demand, applied directly to the money itself. As the supply of dollars goes up, the value of those dollars goes down, assuming the demand remains relatively the same.

Now some people get confused by this, because we measure the value of anything else applied to supply/demand ratios in dollars. The value of an Apple is the supply of Apples, relative to the Demand in Apples, results in $X dollars amount of value.

But in this case you are measuring the value of the dollars themselves, in term of what goods they can buy. So it is a little tricky.

Nevertheless, when we talk about inflation, we are talking about a change in values caused by the de-valuing of the money itself, caused by an increase in the supply of money.

When you say you can reduce inflation through taxation, that is not accurate, because what you are changing is not inflation. You are not changing the value of the dollar itself, but rather the demand for the product.

If the price of a car for example, goes down in value, that is not actually an example of deflation.

The drop in the price of that car, is not due to the value of the dollar increasing, it's because the demand in that car has gone down.

Equally, if you have a particularly hot car on the market, so that the price goes up, that is equally not due to inflation. That is because the demand for that particular car has increased.

Real monetary inflation and deflation, can only happen from a significant change in the supply of money. Not because of taxes.

Taxes can cause prices to go up and down, that's true. But those price changes are not because the value of the dollar has changed, but rather because the demand has been choked off through taxes. If I take half your income in taxes, naturally you are not going to be able to buy as much goods and services. Apply that effect to everyone across an economy with increased income tax on everyone, and prices will fall across the entire economy.

Again, the dollar didn't change in value. The demand was choked off, which with reduced demand, causing lower prices.

So I understand your confusion, but the VOX article is not accurate.

 

[Andylusion]

There's is only one reason Trump is in office... it's because of Hillary and Bernie. If your side wasn't progressing towards socialism, Trump would have never been elected.

I think you are making a mistake by equating Hillary and Bernie. Clinton is indeed a "New Democrat" who told working class Democrats "vote Republican if you don't like NAFTA."

Bernie may yet turn out to be another disappointment, but so far he has proven loyal to the same social Democratic values he's advocated for the last fifty years.

There's no doubt in my mind Democrats like Clinton and Obama put Trump in the White House, and Dems like Biden or "Wall Street Pete" will give him a second term.(although Democrats may control the House and Senate for at least the first two years)?

I don't know of a single time where anyone on the left, said "if you don't like NAFTA, vote Republican".

As long as the Democrats keep pushing socialism, the Republicans will keep opposing it, and likely winning.

Socialism has destroyed every country it has ever been tried. If Bernie is elected, and was able to push through every proposal he wants, we'd all be eating our pet cats and dogs.

Your system does not work. Never has. Never will.

 

[Andylusion]

Never! Before December 7th, 1941 I would have gladly served in the the German Army and killed as many communist as my rounds produced.

I'm sure you would have made a very good Nazi.
Does that make you feel proud?

Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia

"The German armies eventually captured some 5,000,000 Soviet Red Army troops,[24] a majority of whom never returned alive.

"The Nazis deliberately starved to death, or otherwise killed, 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war, and a vast number of civilians, as the 'Hunger Plan' worked to exterminate the Slavic population.[25]"

But the Soviets did the same thing, did they not? I remember reading about a German town, where nearly the whole town, walked off a peer, with women and babies, because the Soviets were raping and abusing the entire town.

I'm not sure that you pointing to the Nazis, is all that much of an argument, when the Soviets were just as bad.

 

[Andylusion]

The only way you lower prices with higher taxes, is if you raise taxes enough to flat out destroy the economy. When everyone is out of work, and has no money to buy anything, then yes prices will drop, along with the living standards of the entire country.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a fan of a geeky economic theory called MMT: Here's a plain-English guide to what it is and why it's interesting

• "MMT is a big departure from conventional economic theory. It proposes governments that control their own currency can spend freely, as they can always create more money to pay off debts in their own currency.
• The theory suggests government spending can grow the economy to its full capacity, enrich the private sector, eliminate unemployment, and finance major programs such as universal healthcare, free college tuition, and green energy.
• If the spending generates a government deficit, this isn't a problem either. The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus."

Right, and creating more money, has consistently resulted in destroying the economy.

"The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

A debt is a debt, and can crush an economy. If a government deficit is a private sector surplus, and this is somehow good...... can someone explain Venezuela and Greece to me? Because when half of Athens was burning twigs in the winter, because no one could afford natural gas, I don't remember seeing any economists in Greece, or anywhere else going

"... yeah but by definition this is a private sector surplus!"

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I've met Bernie

~S~

That stinks

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

hat is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
You are telling me that you can lower prices by raising taxes? When has that ever happened in the entire history of the world. Detailed examples please.

I'm not sure I follow your logic of prices and taxes. As I understand MMT, it is possible to fight some kinds of inflation by raising taxes instead of interest rates.
A very detailed walkthrough of Modern Monetary Theory, the big new left economic idea

Judging by your sources of information, you're guaranteed to get the biased, incorrect "facts" you are seeking.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Right, and creating more money, has consistently resulted in destroying the economy.

"The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

A debt is a debt, and can crush an economy. If a government deficit is a private sector surplus, and this is somehow good...... can someone explain Venezuela and Greece to me? Because when half of Athens was burning twigs in the winter, because no one could afford natural gas, I don't remember seeing any economists in Greece, or anywhere else going

"... yeah but by definition this is a private sector surplus!"

Andy,
I believe what it is supposed to mean is that when the government is forced to fall short (ie...revenue collections, regulations etc), then overall, that would indicate that the private sector "may" be doing better, having not had it's profits and means stifled by oppressive government.

Could be wrong....but I thought that's what it was supposed to mean.

I don't think in that context it overlays the bureaucracy of government with The People. But rather identifies government as an autonomous entity....so to speak.

It matters as suggestion that big government is bad government.

I tried

Of course, it is late...and I had a tall glass of red wine with dinner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts and Prayers with Rush Limbaugh tonight. Mostly a good man.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Will America Go Communist?

lol
Unfortunately, the Old Guard is slowly fading. This new generation of punks, metrosexuals and gender benders have no clue what they had.
They'll know soon enough once they toss away their liberties for the false promise of a bit of security.

There are a lot of little insignificant greaseball snowflakes that think slinking up a dictators rear end is the pinnacle of society and call it "Utopia".

They seriously need to go spend a month in Cuba or Venezuela. They'd come back spitting on Sanders and kissing the flag.

Our system is by no means perfect....but it's workable, unlike China's or Cubas.

 

[georgephillip]

Right, and creating more money, has consistently resulted in destroying the economy.

The outcome of creating money depends on what ends the money goes to. If it goes to speculation, bubbles result and economies collapse. If it goes into a Green New Deal jobs program, for example, the economy responds the way it did during WWII.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/118349-real-gdp-since-1930

 

[georgephillip]

The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

Alan Greenspan has some thoughts on the subject:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a fan of a geeky economic theory called MMT: Here's a plain-English guide to what it is and why it's interesting

"Alan Greenspan: 'There's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants'"

"In 2005, in testimony to the US House Committee on the Budget, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was asked by then-US Rep. Paul Ryan about the 'solvency' of the Social Security system, which Americans rely on for retirement payments. Many Americans worry that Social Security will become insolvent before they retire. Greenspan told him:

"'I wouldn't say pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants in payment to somebody.'"

"Helicopter Ben" expressed similar sentiments during capitalism's most recent spectacular failure:

"Ben Bernanke: 'It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing ... we need to do that, because our economy is very weak'

"Then, in 2009, former Fed chair Ben Bernanke was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes about the federal government's $1 trillion bailout of the banking system in the 2008 financial crisis.

"Bernanke was asked if the $1 trillion came from taxpayers. He said no. It was printed..."

 

[Andylusion]

Right, and creating more money, has consistently resulted in destroying the economy.

The outcome of creating money depends on what ends the money goes to. If it goes to speculation, bubbles result and economies collapse. If it goes into a Green New Deal jobs program, for example, the economy responds the way it did during WWII.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/118349-real-gdp-since-1930

So this is another commonly claimed statement, and it's not your fault. Even I believed this before I started researching it. More specifically I heard an economics professor which obliterated the claim.

In Economics we really don't have very many good ways of measuring "the economy". However, simply because we don't have a better measurement, does not mean the measurement we have are perfect, or even all that great.

GDP is a perfect example. While it is the best measurement we have, it is still fundamentally flawed. The calculation for GDP is "consumption + government spending + investment + net exports"

You'll notice that government spending, is calculated into GDP. This means that the government spending money.... just spending money.... results in higher GDP.

The problem is, government spending does not automatically improve the economy. It improves the GDP numbers... but those are just numbers. It doesn't actually mean the economy has actually improved. In fact in some cases, that government spending could be actually lowering GDP, while numerically it was increasing GDP.

A perfect example, would be that FDR spent millions of dollars, paying people to destroy food. This is well documented. Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell, page 56.

So the FDR government was spending money, that was calculated to increase GDP, in order to destroy domestic product, which in real terms reduced GDP.

A perfect modern example would be Cash for Clunkers under Obama, which was spending money calculated to increase GDP, to take perfectly running cars, and destroy them, which in real terms reduced GDP.

When you look at World War 2, you see two data points that suggest the economy recovered. Dropping unemployment, and high GDP numbers.

Both of those are entirely misleading. Unemployment did in fact drop, but that is because people were rounded up, and shipped to war. We can equally lower unemployment by simply making unemployment illegal, and shipping them to prison. Both will have the effect of lowering unemployment, and both will not actually be evidence the economy recovered.

Similarly, GDP numbers went up, but they did so because of government spending, not because the real economy improved. By any possible measure, the quality of life in the US during WW2 declined. Rationing of meat, rationing of sugar, price controls on housing causing a housing shortage, lack of new products, no automobiles, rationing of clothing even.
The quality of life during WW2 dropped by every possible measurement.

And the New Deal, honestly was horrific. There are endless stories of how the New Deal harmed far more people than it helped. But people never pay attention to who was harmed, only those it helped.

I'll give you a simple example: The Tennessee Valley Authority created by FDR, flooded 750K acres of land... namely land where people lived, and land where people farmed. During a time when people were starving, sometimes the only food available was the food you could grow on your own land. Some of the poorest people were left with no job, and no longer a place to even live, as their homes were underwater, so that rich people in the cities could smile at FDR's New Deal created cheap affordable power for them.

And you see the same thing today, by the way. The rich can afford to put up a wind mill, that gains them tax credits. Meanwhile the poor have to pay the higher prices of power generated by wind mills.

I'm always baffled by left-wingers promoting this. When a rich guy with a wind mill gets a carbon credit... who do you think is paying for that? The poor.

So, no I don't think the Green New Deal is going to boast the economy, just like the original new deal didn't boast the economy.

 

[Andylusion]

The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

Alan Greenspan has some thoughts on the subject:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a fan of a geeky economic theory called MMT: Here's a plain-English guide to what it is and why it's interesting

"Alan Greenspan: 'There's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants'"

"In 2005, in testimony to the US House Committee on the Budget, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was asked by then-US Rep. Paul Ryan about the 'solvency' of the Social Security system, which Americans rely on for retirement payments. Many Americans worry that Social Security will become insolvent before they retire. Greenspan told him:

"'I wouldn't say pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants in payment to somebody.'"

"Helicopter Ben" expressed similar sentiments during capitalism's most recent spectacular failure:

"Ben Bernanke: 'It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing ... we need to do that, because our economy is very weak'

"Then, in 2009, former Fed chair Ben Bernanke was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes about the federal government's $1 trillion bailout of the banking system in the 2008 financial crisis.

"Bernanke was asked if the $1 trillion came from taxpayers. He said no. It was printed..."

Right, and I disagree with both of them. There is not a single example in the world, where simply printing out money to pay the bills, did not result in a catastrophic disaster. There is no such example.

One of two things will happen. If you borrowed in foreign currency, like Argentina and Greece, then you end up in sovereign default. If you borrow in your own currency, and just print out money like Venezuela or Cuba or Zimbabwe, then you end up with hyper inflation.

Either way, the result is consistently utter destruction of the country.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

Alan Greenspan has some thoughts on the subject:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a fan of a geeky economic theory called MMT: Here's a plain-English guide to what it is and why it's interesting

"Alan Greenspan: 'There's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants'"

"In 2005, in testimony to the US House Committee on the Budget, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was asked by then-US Rep. Paul Ryan about the 'solvency' of the Social Security system, which Americans rely on for retirement payments. Many Americans worry that Social Security will become insolvent before they retire. Greenspan told him:

"'I wouldn't say pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants in payment to somebody.'"

"Helicopter Ben" expressed similar sentiments during capitalism's most recent spectacular failure:

"Ben Bernanke: 'It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing ... we need to do that, because our economy is very weak'

"Then, in 2009, former Fed chair Ben Bernanke was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes about the federal government's $1 trillion bailout of the banking system in the 2008 financial crisis.

"Bernanke was asked if the $1 trillion came from taxpayers. He said no. It was printed..."

Right, and I disagree with both of them. There is not a single example in the world, where simply printing out money to pay the bills, did not result in a catastrophic disaster. There is no such example.

One of two things will happen. If you borrowed in foreign currency, like Argentina and Greece, then you end up in sovereign default. If you borrow in your own currency, and just print out money like Venezuela or Cuba or Zimbabwe, then you end up with hyper inflation.

Either way, the result is consistently utter destruction of the country.

Correct. One has but to research the Weimar Republic

 

[bripat9643]

The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus"

I have spent years, trying to get one single person to explain what the hell that means, or why it would matter.

Alan Greenspan has some thoughts on the subject:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a fan of a geeky economic theory called MMT: Here's a plain-English guide to what it is and why it's interesting

"Alan Greenspan: 'There's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants'"

"In 2005, in testimony to the US House Committee on the Budget, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was asked by then-US Rep. Paul Ryan about the 'solvency' of the Social Security system, which Americans rely on for retirement payments. Many Americans worry that Social Security will become insolvent before they retire. Greenspan told him:

"'I wouldn't say pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government creating as much money as it wants in payment to somebody.'"

"Helicopter Ben" expressed similar sentiments during capitalism's most recent spectacular failure:

"Ben Bernanke: 'It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing ... we need to do that, because our economy is very weak'

"Then, in 2009, former Fed chair Ben Bernanke was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes about the federal government's $1 trillion bailout of the banking system in the 2008 financial crisis.

"Bernanke was asked if the $1 trillion came from taxpayers. He said no. It was printed..."

Right, and I disagree with both of them. There is not a single example in the world, where simply printing out money to pay the bills, did not result in a catastrophic disaster. There is no such example.

One of two things will happen. If you borrowed in foreign currency, like Argentina and Greece, then you end up in sovereign default. If you borrow in your own currency, and just print out money like Venezuela or Cuba or Zimbabwe, then you end up with hyper inflation.

Either way, the result is consistently utter destruction of the country.

Correct. One has but to research the Weimar Republic

Zimbabwe is a good current example.

 

[georgephillip]

GDP is a perfect example. While it is the best measurement we have, it is still fundamentally flawed. The calculation for GDP is "consumption + government spending + investment + net exports"

You'll notice that government spending, is calculated into GDP. This means that the government spending money.... just spending money.... results in higher GDP.

I agree GDP is fundamentally flawed as a measure of economic health:

Why GDP fails as a measure of well-being

"The textbooks generally point out five problems with using GDP as a measure of well-being:

• GDP counts 'bads' as well as 'goods.' When an earthquake hits and requires rebuilding, GDP increases. When someone gets sick and money is spent on their care, it's counted as part of GDP. But nobody would argue that we're better off because of a destructive earthquake or people getting sick.
• GDP makes no adjustment for leisure time. Imagine two economies with identical standards of living, but in one economy the workday averages 12 hours, while in the other it's only eight. Which country would you rather live in?
• GDP only counts goods that pass through official, organized markets, so it misses home production and black market activity. This is a big omission, particularly in developing countries where much of what's consumed is produced at home (or obtained through barter). This also means if people begin hiring others to clean their homes instead of doing it themselves, or if they go out to dinner instead of cooking at home, GDP will appear to grow even though the total amount produced hasn't changed.
• • GDP doesn't adjust for the distribution of goods. Again, imagine two economies, but this time one has a ruler who gets 90 percent of what's produced, and everyone else subsists -- barely -- on what's left over. In the second, the distribution is considerably more equitable. In both cases, GDP per capita will be the same, but it's clear which economy I'd rather live in.
  • 
    
  • "GDP isn't adjusted for pollution costs. If two economies have the same GDP per capita, but one has polluted air and water while the other doesn't, well-being will be different but GDP per capita won't capture it.

 

[georgephillip]

Quantitative easing is private industry literally walking into our (read-tax dollars) treasury, and walking off with whatever they wish

why? , because we have a failing economy, failing fiat system

Do you believe it's true a government that issues its own money can pay for goods and service and financial assets without collecting money in the form of taxes OR DEBT ISSUANCE in advance of such purchases?

Modern Monetary Theory - Wikipedia

Dumb.

Dumb.

Point out the flaws.

Modern Monetary Theory - Wikipedia

"Modern Monetary Theory or Modern Money Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly for the government and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desire."