January 11, 2012
– Comments (7)
My Comment: The kid won't pay. Plan accordingly...
Nice, I would like to rise my dept limit as well then I can invest more in the market.
Like water guided by gravity, the path of least resistance will be followed. Our debt problem will be left for the next generation.
Obama - three budgeting rounds to make a difference. Still some hope, but no change so far.
Romney - Lots of status quo positions and with a background in private equity, the status quo is his friend. On the chance that some government departments could be targets of his cuts, federal worker votes stay with Obama.
Boehner, Pelosi - When in American history has it mattered so little who leads the House?
Bernanke - Oversees a private bank that has benefited from being able to move bad bank debt to the public. With banking nirvana in place there is absolutely no reason to expect any meaningful policy shift.
Ron Paul - "One of these things is not like the other." The only serious chance of a trend shift, rather than letting debt and over-printing complete their natural, historical progression. His solid, unshifting 20% support is enough to warrant a 3rd party run, but not enough to win. Reaching the debt ceiling again already this week will move public discussion toward his talking points, giving Dr. Paul some chance to make headway.
This video is probably correct. Most people do not really want change. In fact, they fear it, which makes it easy for supporters of the status quo to get traction with "dangerous policy" comments.
This is why elimination of estate tax is so important to those doing well today. The next generation will be saddled with the compounding of today's debt, and every parent will be working to pass assets to children to preserve that advantage. This will be a hot issue at election time 2012.
Hilarious video! Very well done. It's too bad it doesn't show the difference between a person with debt and a government that owns its own currency deficit spending, but I guess that's what makes it so funny. Just incase someone forgot the difference here it is.
If the government wanted, they could have the Fed print enough money to eliminate ALL the debt. This means that there is 0 chance of default. The man can only create money by working.
We need government debt! Nobody can have money unless the government gives it either directly or indirectly to them. This means that total savings = total (Federal) Government debt. Debt needs to grow with the economy so that people can save some of their money. The constraint is inflation and deflation NOT debt.
This is true because we have a fiat monetary system and are not linked to the gold standard.
Links to more information
Yeah Zack, we know your quack theory. Thanks for sharing.
DId you know that your sectoral balance equations work under any government controlled monetary system, even, gasp! The Gold Standard!!! Dum-dum-dum-dummmmmm...
That means MMT counter cyclical theory (which is some bizarre Minsky hybrid that pretends to pay homage to ABCT without understanding it) should make the same recomendations under gold standards that it does under non-gold standards...
That means no American recession could have ever ended previous to the MMT "revolutionary" discovery (which is just a rehashed version of a 1936 economics text written to urge FDR to keep spending because governments are sovereign yadda yadda yadda).
But the thing about MMTers. They have their little chant down, but outside of that, all of economic history is a mystery,.,,
David in Liberty
The book was called An Economic Program for American Democracy (1938, excuse me =D)
Try to find a copy at your local library and thumb through it. It's the MMT playbook written 65 years ago.
Edit: "This is true because we own our currency."
"DId you know that your sectoral balance equations work under any government controlled monetary system, even, gasp! The Gold Standard!"
Awesome! Either way it works for US the way the economy is set up :)
"That means MMT counter cyclical theory (which is some bizarre Minsky hybrid that pretends to pay homage to ABCT without understanding it) should make the same recomendations under gold standards that it does under non-gold standards"
OK so you are saying you agree with my comment if we were under a gold standard or fiat currency?
" That means no American recession could have ever ended previous to the MMT "revolutionary" discovery"
Where are you drawing this conclusion? People can easily do the right thing on accident or for flawed reasons. Like how the Government increased spending to fund WWII had the same effect as the Government putting people to work under a MMT theory.
You make a point that a book on MMT was written in 1938. Are you trying to say that because it is old it is it any less valid? So I should disregard E=MC^2 , the intelligent investor, or that the world isn't flat, because they were written a long time ago?
How about before calling a comment dumb you show that you actually understand it and then give specific examples of its flaws, so that you don't look like you're trolling :)