Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Lurkio

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm seriously starting to think you're just posting as a caricature of privilege.

Now now. People don't make it on to the SCT unless they're leaders and movers.

Christy42

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You know, after seeing this, I think it's maybe already too late for 'The Left' to get their shít together, on economic issues:

"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-no-debt-default-222957
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/

If that isn't just another throwaway comment from him, then he's well on his way to defeating any potential for a Left-led effort at reforming economics in the US - because he's just nailed the most important issue for reforming economic policy: Having a proper understanding of how money works, and being willing to use it to its full potential.

Going to give any evidence as to why reducing the effective worth of everyone's wages and savings is a good idea (except the wealthy who can invest abroad before it happens and the very poor who had nothing to lose).
Printing more money reduces it's value which means that foreign products or products involving anything foreign in their construction will start costing more dollars. That is why it is carefully controlled. Unless your post was in jest?

KomradeBishop

That's one of the long-lasting economic myths that I was referring to: You don't devalue wages and savings (or rather, the value of a currency generally), if you grow the economy using newly created money - and as long as employment is below Full Employment, generally, newly created money grows the economy.

It's not a zero sum game, when you are below Full Employment - it is primarily a zero-sum game (newly created money, pushing against supply constraints and devaluing a currency), mainly when you are at Full Employment.

Of course, it's almost completely impossible to have a discussion about such things, because people just revert to repeating the same myths ad-nauseum, without engaging critically.

Christy42

Can you give us a chance to understand why that would be a good thing? I thought the printed money would go right to the creditors he borrows from as opposed to the economy.

recedite

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would specifically banning Muslims affect property rights?

Ok, so now you move to a different subject; before you were banging on about border control and Trump wanting to promote white heterosexual male privilege.

He suggested specific controls on muslims travelling into the US "until we figure out whats going on". Its a security issue in response to a known policy of Islamic militants to send terrorists on jihadist missions. Unless you have been living under a rock, you'll know there have been quite a few bombings and shootings in both the USA and EU carried out in the last year or two by Islamic fundamentalists. All Islamic fundamentalists have one thing in common; they are all Muslims. So until you can figure out a better way of identifying them...that's a good starting point.

Christy42 wrote: »

Printing more money reduces it's value

Not if you use it to buy back govt. debt at a discount. Think of it as writing an IOU for €9 and using that to buy back an IOU that you wrote last week for €10, which you then tear up.
Now you have €10 worth of goods or services and only owe €9. And €1 less money in circulation, so the money is worth more.

But if Trump is only a clown, and his supporters are only uneducated fools, maybe there was some mistake in the report, and it was actually Clinton who said that to her audience?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

He suggested specific controls on muslims travelling into the US "until we figure out whats going on".

I love how a blanket ban on all Muslims, including US citizens, is being spun as "specific controls". Yet again, when it's impossible to defend the things Trump says, some people will fall back on defending what it suits them to believe he meant. It's like the people who patiently explain that when he talks about building a wall, he actually means beefed up border patrols, all the while he himself is explaining that it will be made of concrete and rebar.

Its a security issue in response to a known policy of Islamic militants to send terrorists on jihadist missions. Unless you have been living under a rock, you'll know there have been quite a few bombings and shootings in both the USA and EU carried out in the last year or two by Islamic fundamentalists.

And unless you've carefully buried your head under a large rock made of undisguised islamophobia, you'll know that the number of shootings in the USA carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has been dwarfed, by several orders of magnitude, by the number of shootings carried out by non-Muslims.

Do yourself a favour: stop trying to make Trump's naked islamophobia look like something reasonable. Collective punishment is never right, and a stupid phrase like "until we can figure out what's going on" - what does that even mean? - barely counts as a figleaf.

All Islamic fundamentalists have one thing in common; they are all Muslims. So until you can figure out a better way of identifying them...that's a good starting point.

They have another thing in common: they're all human. Let's ban all humans!! Just until we can figure out what's going on, of course.

What's that, you say? That's a completely stupid ****ing argument? Why yes. Yes, it is. But if you think that banning seven billion people from entering the US because an infinitesimal percentage of them are terrorists is stupid, but that banning a billion and a half people from entering the US because an infinitesimal percentage of them are terrorists is a plan of the utmost brilliance... I don't know what to tell you.

I really wish people who defend that ridiculous plan would at least have the honesty to admit that it's informed by good old-fashioned islamophobia. I mean, as a plan it has nothing whatsoever going for it. It's unworkable, it wouldn't be effective, it could only possibly be counter-productive. Literally the only appeal it has is to the viscera of people who like the idea of collective punishment of all Muslims.

I know I'll get bombarded by the usual "I'm not islamophobic, but..." retorts. Save it. If you think that banning all Muslims from entering a country is a good idea, then you're islamophobic, whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it to yourself or not.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

And unless you've carefully buried your head under a large rock made of undisguised islamophobia, you'll know that the number of shootings in the USA carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has been dwarfed, by several orders of magnitude, by the number of shootings carried out by non-Muslims.

Is that in proportion to their respective populations?

Islamophobia itself is a curious term. Islam is widely regarded as the most resistant culture against Western, democratic values and its Judaeo-Christian heritage. This is where we get back to the cuckoo analogy. The cuckoo takes advantage of the stupidity of other birds; their inability to recognise their natural enemy, and their willingness to welcome him into their nest.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

Is that in proportion to their respective populations?

Islamophobia itself is a curious term. Islam is widely regarded as the most resistant culture against Western, democratic values and its Judaeo-Christian heritage. This is where we get back to the cuckoo analogy. The cuckoo takes advantage of the stupidity of other birds; their inability to recognise their natural enemy, and their willingness to welcome him into their nest.

Yeah, that's in no way a worrying view at all.

pauldla

recedite wrote: »

Is that in proportion to their respective populations?

Islamophobia itself is a curious term. Islam is widely regarded as the most resistant culture against Western, democratic values and its Judaeo-Christian heritage. This is where we get back to the cuckoo analogy. The cuckoo takes advantage of the stupidity of other birds; their inability to recognise their natural enemy, and their willingness to welcome him into their nest.

Really? Not from where I'm sitting...!

(Hint: rice for supper again this evening)

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Ok, so now you move to a different subject; before you were banging on about border control and Trump wanting to promote white heterosexual male privilege.

Not if you use it to buy back govt. debt at a discount. Think of it as writing an IOU for €9 and using that to buy back an IOU that you wrote last week for €10, which you then tear up.
Now you have €10 worth of goods or services and only owe €9. And €1 less money in circulation, so the money is worth more.

But if Trump is only a clown, and his supporters are only uneducated fools, maybe there was some mistake in the report, and it was actually Clinton who said that to her audience?

1) Indefinitely (temporary would have a more solid date in mind) banning all Muslims won't dispraportionally affect non white people? It isn't changing the subject and is rather relevant.

2) Yes that is a magic bullet to solve all financial problems the us has. It can't be used be used as a catch all for all debt he wants to build up. At some point in the loaning process more cash will be created (either by magically making debt or magically making money) which will drive inflation. Where in this system the inflation comes in depends on the accounting used. If it is a normal loan. I.e. I give the us 10 dollars that I had then there is 10 dollars in circulation. If it prints out 9 to buy back the debt then there is 19 as I have 9 and the us still has 10. There are other ways of doing it though and I can't cover all of them. Give a specific example and I can do it.

There may also be good reason for this if you feel you will generate enough wealth in the economy but that is on a case by case basis and not a I will borrow as much as I want and cover it by printing more and it'll be grand.

K-9

The problem with Trump's "no more Muslims until..." policy is it lets the US off the hook for Syria, it's simple as that for me.

The US wants to be the police and moral guardians of the world but not deal with the repercussions on its own door step, rather conveniently.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Really? Not from where I'm sitting...!

(Hint: rice for supper again this evening)

Oh, Dublin, is it? Flippin' jackeens and their fancy foreign food......

KomradeBishop

Christy42 wrote: »

Can you give us a chance to understand why that would be a good thing? I thought the printed money would go right to the creditors he borrows from as opposed to the economy.

In the context of what he was talking about, it shows the US can't ever go 'bankrupt' - that the whole controversy over the national debt is pretty much meaningless.

He doesn't take it further than that, but the logical conclusion from this is that the limits to government debt and spending, are not the traditional ones people assume they are - and it's only a short step away, from recognizing that you don't need to use public debt at all (public-debt/government-bonds, are actually an outdated gold-standard-era form of funding government spending - rendered obsolete in the switch to fiat currencies - yet our economics are still out of date by a century or more) - the real limit is the inflation target (which starts to get out of control, mainly when you are at Full Employment), not public debt levels.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In the context of what he was talking about, it shows the US can't ever go 'bankrupt' - that the whole controversy over the national debt is pretty much meaningless.

He doesn't take it further than that, but the logical conclusion from this is that the limits to government debt and spending, are not the traditional ones people assume they are - and it's only a short step away, from recognizing that you don't need to use public debt at all (public-debt/government-bonds, are actually an outdated gold-standard-era form of funding government spending - rendered obsolete in the switch to fiat currencies - yet our economics are still out of date by a century or more) - the real limit is the inflation target (which starts to get out of control, mainly when you are at Full Employment), not public debt levels.

what do you mean? if you are not the US you are subject to market forces that can take a country down very quickly, a country's currency and interest rates are "voted on" by the market every day.
Take countries like Spain , Italy and Greece, they have huge debts and nothing to show for them, at some stage they will hit a wall where their unproductive economy swamps their productive economy and the market will vote to get out of dodge.

KomradeBishop

Christy42 wrote: »

1) Indefinitely (temporary would have a more solid date in mind) banning all Muslims won't dispraportionally affect non white people? It isn't changing the subject and is rather relevant.

2) Yes that is a magic bullet to solve all financial problems the us has. It can't be used be used as a catch all for all debt he wants to build up. At some point in the loaning process more cash will be created (either by magically making debt or magically making money) which will drive inflation. Where in this system the inflation comes in depends on the accounting used. If it is a normal loan. I.e. I give the us 10 dollars that I had then there is 10 dollars in circulation. If it prints out 9 to buy back the debt then there is 19 as I have 9 and the us still has 10. There are other ways of doing it though and I can't cover all of them. Give a specific example and I can do it.

There may also be good reason for this if you feel you will generate enough wealth in the economy but that is on a case by case basis and not a I will borrow as much as I want and cover it by printing more and it'll be grand.

Skipping the details above: As long as new money is growing the economy (which is largely true when at less than Full Employment), then inflation will only get out of control if you hit a major supply shortage.

That's how it works - if you're 'growing the pie', then printing money is not just dividing up the same portions in smaller pieces, it's effectively leading to the production of new portions - it's not a zero-sum game, when the new money grows the economy.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

what do you mean? if you are not the US you are subject to market forces that can take a country down very quickly, a country's currency and interest rates are "voted on" by the market every day.
Take countries like Spain , Italy and Greece, they have huge debts and nothing to show for them, at some stage they will hit a wall where their unproductive economy swamps their productive economy and the market will vote to get out of dodge.

Euro countries aren't comparable - because they can't do what Trump was talking about, as they don't have control over their currencies.

Lets say we're talking about the UK though: If the UK stops using public debt in the manner I mentioned, then it doesn't matter to the UK if financial markets suddenly decides to only accept high-interest government bonds: The government will not be issuing them anymore anyway...

Ah. I see you're back to the old ways KomradeBishop.

You'll of course recall that Monetary Financing (which is exactly what Trump is talking about) is nothing new, and is quite well understood in terms of the effects it would have on the economy. Perhaps you're 100 years behind economics?

Trump is absolutely correct in saying "we write our own currency, we never need to default", however the consequences of writing currency to pay debts are well known to present day Zimbabweans and the people of the Wiemar Republic in the 1920s.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7028.cfm

Here's a good video to help explain Fiat and why printing your way out of debt is certainly possible, but is not a good idea...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EobPnLZiOo8

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Is that in proportion to their respective populations?

I don't know. You're the one who thinks collective punishment is a reasonable strategy: why don't you tell me what percentage of Muslims are terrorists, and what percentage of non-Muslims are terrorists. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain what percentage is a reasonable threshold for collective punishment, and why. For bonus points, you can explain why collective punishment of Muslims for terrorism is acceptable, while collective punishment of gun owners for mass shootings is off the table.

Islamophobia itself is a curious term.

It's pretty straightforward. It describes an overblown, irrational fear of members of a particular religion based on a caricature of its adherents.

Something like this:

Islam is widely regarded as the most resistant culture against Western, democratic values and its Judaeo-Christian heritage.

[weasel words] [citation needed]

This is where we get back to the cuckoo analogy. The cuckoo takes advantage of the stupidity of other birds; their inability to recognise their natural enemy, and their willingness to welcome him into their nest.

Wait, I see where I'm going wrong. I'm trying to have a rational conversation with someone who describes Muslims as our "natural enemy", all the while feigning puzzlement at the term "islamophobia".

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah. I see you're back to the old ways KomradeBishop.

You'll of course recall that Monetary Financing (which is exactly what Trump is talking about) is nothing new, and is quite well understood in terms of the effects it would have on the economy. Perhaps you're 100 years behind economics?

Trump is absolutely correct in saying "we write our own currency, we never need to default", however the consequences of writing currency to pay debts are well known to present day Zimbabweans and the people of the Wiemar Republic in the 1920s.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7028.cfm

Here's a good video to help explain Fiat and why printing your way out of debt is certainly possible, but is not a good idea...

Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany, both experienced massive industrial destruction (Zimbabwe agriculture, French confiscation of German industrial capacity), which led to the collapse of their currencies value - and then to printing/hyperinflation.

In the former cases, the 'size of the pie' was already shrinking, when money was being printed, so each unit of currency was just a smaller slice of the overall pie - it wasn't even a zero-sum game, it was a negative-sum game.

In the case of the US/UK, there is ample capacity for growing the economy, so the 'size of the pie' can grow from newly created money, effectively leading to production of new 'portions' of the pie - so this is not a zero-sum game, it maintains the value of the currency.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Euro countries aren't comparable - because they can't do what Trump was talking about, as they don't have control over their currencies.

Lets say we're talking about the UK though: If the UK stops using public debt in the manner I mentioned, then it doesn't matter to the UK if financial markets suddenly decides to only accept high-interest government bonds: The government will not be issuing them anymore anyway...

there is nothing stopping Britain doing a Zimbabwe , Britain will only tend to do what keeps it ticking along, if it overspends it will look to cut back on spending. If it borrows too much the interest rates will rise so will look to cut back. If it ignored the market signals its currency would drop because goods have to be traded for like value.

KomradeBishop

That's not a reply to what I said though, you just repeated what you said, without referring to anything in my reply.

My previous reply explained why the UK/US wouldn't have to care about interest rates that the market would accept for government bonds: The government wouldn't be issuing government bonds, so there would be no interest rate for the market to set.

The foreign exchange market and currency value, works based on supply and demand for a countries currency - i.e. in short, based on the imports/exports balance - yes, the UK/US would import more if they were growing the economy internally, but that's nothing to do with printing money, it's to do with economic activity, and would happen regardless of the source of funding for the growth boost.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany, both experienced massive industrial destruction (Zimbabwe agriculture, French confiscation of German industrial capacity), which led to the collapse of their currencies value - and then to printing/hyperinflation.

In the former cases, the 'size of the pie' was already shrinking, when money was being printed, so each unit of currency was just a smaller slice of the overall pie - it wasn't even a zero-sum game, it was a negative-sum game.

Fiat currencies are currencies of confidence. Printing money to pay for spending affects that confidence. Printing money to pay for spending promotes the 'negative sum' game that you talk about here. The underlying economy will suffer negatively in all cases.

Strange that you try to decouple the flaws of monetary financing from the two fantastic examples we have of it in the real world. Flaws that were hypothesised, envisioned, dissected and debated in academia long before they actually did occur.

'This time it will be different' I suppose?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In the case of the US/UK, there is ample capacity for growing the economy, so the 'size of the pie' can grow from newly created money, effectively leading to production of new 'portions' of the pie - so this is not a zero-sum game, it maintains the value of the currency.

Please show your workings.

Here is today's US M0 money supply - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
Here is their Government Debt - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt

KomradeBishop

You're appealing to an argument, about mass social psychology - which isn't a solid basis for an argument. For people to stop 'believing' in a currency, it has to already be well on its way to collapse - the collapse begins, before public opinion turns - not the other way around.

You have no justification for dismissing the industrial collapse that both Zimbabwe/Weimar-Germany experienced prior to their currencies collapsing - it discounts them as examples here.

In any case, I can see that replies with you are getting unproductive - you ignore the points I make, and I have past experience with this from you before, leading to very fruitless debates - so I'll be ignoring your future posts here; if anyone wants to take your arguments, own them themselves, and put them in their own words, I'll engage with them.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're appealing to an argument, about mass social psychology - which isn't a solid basis for an argument. For people to stop 'believing' in a currency, it has to already be well on its way to collapse - the collapse begins, before public opinion turns - not the other way around.

You have no justification for dismissing the industrial collapse that both Zimbabwe/Weimar-Germany experienced prior to their currencies collapsing - it discounts them as examples here.

In any case, I can see that replies with you are getting unproductive - you ignore the points I make, and I have past experience with this from you before, leading to very fruitless debates - so I'll be ignoring your future posts here; if anyone wants to take your arguments, own them themselves, and put them in their own words, I'll engage with them.

You have an utterly bizarre way of debating.

Steps:

• Fly a flag
• get called on it
• attack the person who is calling you to reason
• Disappear off into the night on some high horse
• Return again to another thread months later to repeat the cycle.

Perplexing stuff.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not a reply to what I said though, you just repeated what you said, without referring to anything in my reply.

My previous reply explained why the UK/US wouldn't have to care about interest rates that the market would accept for government bonds: The government wouldn't be issuing government bonds, so there would be no interest rate for the market to set.

The foreign exchange market and currency value, works based on supply and demand for a countries currency - i.e. in short, based on the imports/exports balance - yes, the UK/US would import more if they were growing the economy internally, but that's nothing to do with printing money, it's to do with economic activity, and would happen regardless of the source of funding for the growth boost.

if you are saying that they should not borrow and just print their deficit then there will be inflation and overspending on non productive areas. they might get away with it for a few years but the country would just go to pot along with their currency.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

if you are saying that they should not borrow and just print their deficit then there will be inflation and overspending on non productive areas. they might get away with it for a few years but the country would just go to pot along with their currency.

If they direct the money into areas of the economy, that have potential for growth, then the economy can grow rather than creating inflation.

You're right though, that money going into areas without potential for growth, would be inflationary for those sectors - that's a policy problem though, not a problem with the concept of funding in this way (and you can fix it by taxing those sectors more ).

If a country uses inflation targets (e.g. stop spending at 2-4% inflation), then that's all that's needed to stop the currency going to pot. You can keep the central bank in control of policing this and everything (they would be the source of the money, and can stop the flow).

This is pretty much what "Peoples QE" is, that has been in the news from the likes of Corbyn and such.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If they direct the money into areas of the economy, that have potential for growth, then the economy can grow rather than creating inflation.

You're right though, that money going into areas without potential for growth, would be inflationary for those sectors - that's a policy problem though, not a problem with the concept of funding in this way (and you can fix it by taxing those sectors more ).

If a country uses inflation targets (e.g. stop spending at 2-4% inflation), then that's all that's needed to stop the currency going to pot. You can keep the central bank in control of policing this and everything (they would be the source of the money, and can stop the flow).

This is pretty much what "Peoples QE" is, that has been in the news from the likes of Corbyn and such.

governments aren't great at picking winners , when do they ever invest in things and get their money back? that's not a government thing , they can build ports and airports and motorways but they cant go out and create the value that underpins it.

KomradeBishop

It's not about picking winners, it's about filtering money into the economy through public spending, including wages (while doing something productive with e.g. public infrastructure, at the same time), and letting the private economy get on with investing and creating the necessary value and such - as long as the economy is growing (effectively 'creating value', though I don't really like that way of framing it), without inflation getting beyond target, government is doing it right.

With the right policies, you can keep Full Employment this way, almost all of the time - even after a huge recession hits (you just invest in huge public capital spending, such as the ports/airports/motorways you mention - among way more - until the private sector picks up again, and takes back the workers) - all while staying within inflation targets.

Once a person 'groks' this, and gets a feel for how it works, it makes the way economies are run today, look outdated by more than a century.
Indeed, this is pretty much how things were done ~85 years ago - just funded differently - and it worked fantastically; the way economies are run today, really is archaic and depressingly backwards - we're still kind of in a 'mini-dark-age' when it comes to economic thought and practice.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not about picking winners, it's about filtering money into the economy through public spending, including wages (while doing something productive with e.g. public infrastructure, at the same time), and letting the private economy get on with investing and creating the necessary value and such - as long as the economy is growing (effectively 'creating value', though I don't really like that way of framing it), without inflation getting beyond target, government is doing it right.

With the right policies, you can keep Full Employment this way, almost all of the time - even after a huge recession hits (you just invest in huge public capital spending, such as the ports/airports/motorways you mention - among way more - until the private sector picks up again, and takes back the workers) - all while staying within inflation targets.

Once a person 'groks' this, and gets a feel for how it works, it makes the way economies are run today, look outdated by more than a century.
Indeed, this is pretty much how things were done ~85 years ago - just funded differently - and it worked fantastically; the way economies are run today, really is archaic and depressingly backwards - we're still kind of in a 'mini-dark-age' when it comes to economic thought and practice.

glorious

Christy42

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not about picking winners, it's about filtering money into the economy through public spending, including wages (while doing something productive with e.g. public infrastructure, at the same time), and letting the private economy get on with investing and creating the necessary value and such - as long as the economy is growing (effectively 'creating value', though I don't really like that way of framing it), without inflation getting beyond target, government is doing it right.

With the right policies, you can keep Full Employment this way, almost all of the time - even after a huge recession hits (you just invest in huge public capital spending, such as the ports/airports/motorways you mention - among way more - until the private sector picks up again, and takes back the workers) - all while staying within inflation targets.

Once a person 'groks' this, and gets a feel for how it works, it makes the way economies are run today, look outdated by more than a century.
Indeed, this is pretty much how things were done ~85 years ago - just funded differently - and it worked fantastically; the way economies are run today, really is archaic and depressingly backwards - we're still kind of in a 'mini-dark-age' when it comes to economic thought and practice.

It all depends on whether or not you can keep growth of the economy going at a certain rate. That will always be a game of lessening returns so you are going to hit that pretty quickly even if you invest wisely. You are also inflating the risk of not predicting a downturn as printing too much just as it hits would be the same as Germany/Zimbabwe.

I also find how convinced you are by a theory with no evidence backing it up. I can see advocating for a new way of doing things but you seem 100% convinced which is impossible.

As I said I remain open to evidence but the logic of the market makes your position seem unlikely from where I am sitting.