I agree in principle but a moderate by current definitions won't balance the budget.
Market just frontran the LA closure news
- Thread starter Suhrreal
- Start date
I agree in principle but a moderate by current definitions won't balance the budget.
I don't see why not. It's not that crazy of a concept to make enough small cuts in fiscal year budgets to at least not keep adding to the debt.
90% of the media would immediately label them as a right wing nut. Dont kid yourself they are that bad.
Bigger government = bigger corruption every damn time. Guess which is the party that controls the mainstream media. Guess which party is more corrupt by simple math.
In washington, balancing the budget is an antiquated idea. The vast majority (Trump included) would rather inflate our way out of the debt. In theory its actually not a terrible plan, but until we have an actual central bank it isn't possible and doing so would mean printing a heck of a lot more than 25 trillion. Either way, I wouldn't worry too much about the Federal debt now.
I disagree. Pretty much every American I know would be happy with a moderate, no matter which party they support. But neither party has the balls to try it.
I've gotten to the point of not really caring what they do and just observing the results. Watching politicians try to fight the basic tenets of supply and demand is a great learning experience for everybody. By the time this is all said and done, the Austrian school will be proven correct.
What the **** are you even talking about? This gibberish is a bunch of nonsense.
Amy Klobuchar is fairly close to that. Didnt get a sniff. Gabbard was probably there too.
Truth is by modern definitions trump is a moderate on the governance side. And most of us hate him. Me included.
No...the Austrian school sucks. Methodological individualism is not true, and rejecting econometric analysis in favor of ideology...sounds a lot like what you bootlickers do on this board all the time, so I'm not surprised you like that shit.
Trump isn't "anything" on the "government" side, other than corrupt and incompetent. I think what you're saying is, we're lucky he is as incompetent as he is, and that his attention span is so fried from syphilis, that he can barely get done the bullshit he used to vomit out on the campaign trail.
Look, he's a salesman. It's a lot of bluster, a lot of "believe me," but there is almost no follow-through because that is not how he thinks of himself. If he still even thinks of himself. Which I doubt.
I'm actually not a fan of the Austrian model, but its becoming more apparent that completely untethering from it was a bad idea. I think the Chicago school was probably the best long term approach. Let the market correct itself somewhat regularly but also have short term keynesian backstops.
Yep. Pretty much. Doesnt mean the other side wasn't worse.
And for future reference I've stopped voting because I feel like I'm consenting. Both sides are outright evil.
I mean, that's a lot more reasonable. I don't agree, but I understand the argument. The flaw there is, even Chicago school stuff doesn't often pan out. And you cannot divorce economics from politics. "Market corrections" can ruin people's lives. People demand action and protection from such things.
Fallacy of composition. No two things are the same. In this case, the "other side" was absolutely not worse than this jackass. I am really sorry you cannot see that, but I would recommend you think more deeply about the situation.
If a candidate ran on a two plank platform - balance the budget (or at least make progress on the debt) and leave me the hell alone (take social issues out of the hands of government) - they would only succeed in pissing both sides off. Although I would vote for them.
Bigger government = bigger corruption every time. Sometimes jackssses are the right way to go. And no I didn't vote for him
But I didnt vote for the one with the trail of bodies behind her either
Oh, PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT ALL OF THE BODIES!!!! Omg this is going to be great, hang on let me get my coffee.
Most social issues have to be ruled upon at some point by our judicial system, because most of them involve rights. Also, the government has an interest in alleviating poverty, addition, pollution, and corruption, because that yields a more stable and opulent society. So, what you "want" is a libertarian fantasy that actually yields worse outcomes for most people. You're just going to have to accept that.
You can't avoid market corrections forever though, and individualism leads to individual consequences. The less we intervene with monetary policy, the less we drag the collective into the poor decision making of a few. I think there is a place for fiscal policy to avoid total collapse in both the supply side and the the supply chain aspects of trade on a short term basis, but should not be used to completely avoid restructuring in the market. At some level, individual failure is good for the market as a whole.
The American people have no idea this is what is going on. Banks like the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and other mostly foreign owned banks are turning over their bad debts with the Fed repo market. The US nationalizing of foreign debt to protect the dollar is outrageous, but it's already happening. Foreign countries also buy US securities, so the Fed is already acting as the World Bank as far as I am concerned. The only benefit to this, is it cements the dollar as the reserve currency.
Yes, at some level, it is. I agree with that. By the way, my background is in political economy and economic development, so I tend to look at these things from a macro view, with a mind towards "what yields a stable and increasingly wealthy society?" One of my best friends in grad school was an economics grad student, and we used to argue a lot: I thought he was far too concerned with efficiency and tidy outcomes (in theoretical arguments), and he thought I was muddying economic discussions with political ones. *shrug*
I see some seriously bad things in the U.S. that have gone on for quite some time; capture of government by private interests, capture of one of the two political parties by extremism, economic illiteracy, dissolving of social welfare programs and refusal to get with the times on implementing new and better ones, the rise of a completely unhindered right-wing media machine...these things are horribly destabilizing.
Then why not just fire up the printing presses and give everybody a million dollars a month? Just because we are currently reaping the benefits of currency relativism while being the world reserve currency doesn't mean that it works indefinitely.
I mean that "only benefit" is the only reason why we're still the dominant world economy, and why so many bootlickers on this forum can believe infinite tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy don't actually destroy the economy, so it's kind of a big deal.
Dont need to. There's a reason it's become a cliche that people close to the Clintons disappear.
And there's a reason the Clinton foundation funding from overseas has disappeared when she didn't get elected. Gee. Ya think?
I hate trump. But the fact is he got elected to be an agitator snake in a snake pit. Until you look in the mirror and see what you're electing as an alternative you're going to keep getting guys like that who give conservatives what they actually want (judges in this case).
Biden is a corrupt POS as well... guess why trump still has a shot despite his being a moron?
Define "indefinitely?" You can certainly maintain your position of primacy as the reserve currency of the world AND be the world's largest consumer of stuff while also maintaining stable and sensible economic policy. Does this involve monetary policy in ways that sometimes veer into evil Chicago-school thinking? Yes, even I admit that it does. Does this mean our fiscal policy should be geared towards long-term investment in our people, INCLUDING protection of manufacturing jobs, making college affordable or free, and providing healthcare for all citizens? Sure as **** does!
Because too many people, you included, it seems, consume right-wing media nonsense.
I would say that the American market is still the largest economy in the world, so that also helps keep the reserve currency status, but by having all debts defined in US dollars, and the willingness to roll over say Chinese mortgage bad debt, makes it irresistible.
Ah, that makes sense why you have disdain for the austrian model. Personally, I think there is a lot of value that can come from drawing a corollary between macro- economics and micro-economics because as much as some want to ignore it, human nature does exist. Mises was far too basic and linear in this regard so the entire school of thought was easily disregarded, but it is a factor in the overall equation.
We're in danger of losing that status, and we have poor planning and an increasingly stupid society to blame for it.
Well said. The only problem with being the reserve currency is that the dollar is still based on "full faith and credit", which essentially means our production capacity paces or outpaces M1 and M2. That isn't possible at this point.
Yeah, it does, but you, nor anyone from Austria, actually knows what "human nature" is. It's kind of this catch-all term meaning "whatever I want it to mean to prove my point."
Case in point: that neat story that came out in the Guardian last week about the "real" "Lord of the Flies." We're all familiar with the William Goldman book, right? A bunch of kids get shipwrecked, and "human nature" comes out and they get pretty savage and hierarchical.
This actually happened to 6 kids from Tonga in the 1960's; they stole a boat, got wrecked on an island, and lived there for a year and a half. They actually did great and when they were rescued, their medical examiner was kind of surprised at how muscular and healthy they were. Now, they were lucky, because they wrecked on a previously-inhabited island that had bananas, birds, and fish around, and they were able to hollow out tree trunks to store water. But the other thing they did was, they didn't fight. They worked together, agreed not to resort to violence, and even splinted the leg of one kid who broke his leg doing something, and it healed perfectly.
So, "human nature" is...savage competition or cooperative, collective action? If the answer is even "it depends," then these models based on behavioral assumptions are meant to be taken with a GIGANTIC grain of salt.
People act as if what they do has no consequences, if they even do think. Funny that this charge has historically been leveled at the “hippy left”. Some folks on this board need a political economy firmware update.
Another problem I've had. John Kenneth Galbraith mentions in "The Affluent Society" (and that was written in like...the late 50's or early 60's) that one thing that shields Americans from realizing the economic problems foisted on them by their stupid leaders is our tremendous capacity to go into debt. Our entire society became structured around it post-WW2. Why? Well, there is a ton of money to be made on debt. And if you keep tweaking society to allow for more and more of it, people can go on living lives of tax cuts, increasing inequality, and less and less social services and not really "notice" because they just put it on a card. This is not possible in pretty much every other one of our peer countries. There are much, much more stringent limits on debt.
Talk about short-term thinking that will cause a collapse one day. We're already seeing that, and I would argue that is because the 2008 Crisis and this current crisis have shocked younger generations into noticing that a ton of debt only works if everything is rosy, and the older models of success (college, white collar job) seriously do NOT apply to "everyone," and they were never supposed to.
