|
RuanGacho posted:I'm really not sure what to make of the 2014 turnout since apparently it means all the liberals that exist at all didn't show up in the worst rate since I think someone said 1928 or something like that? Its because in the senate they got about the amount of victories that was expected. North Carolina was the only race that people can point to as having been won by the under-dog. The house had a lot of near misses and some legitimate victories but after 06, 08 and 10 it was an underwhelming gain. You can say "most seats since X" but reality is that 2010 and the subsequent redistricting did most of that work for them. Not to mention the fact that 2010 resulted in real changes in the direction of policy, if Obama makes use of his vetoes, or if moderates in the senate start poo-pooing legislation, 2014 won't really.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Remember in 2010 when McConnell said the main goal was to make Obama a one term President? The goal now is: Mitch McConnell posted:Mitch McConnell has an unusual admonition for the new Republican majority as it takes over the Senate this week: Don’t be “scary.” It seems like leadership wants to control the crazy as long as possible so people don't get the wrong idea about the Republican party. Even they know how precarious their position is, but they also know they have a 50/50 shot at winning everything in 2016 if they play their cards right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Vox discusses the potential ramifications of Senate Budget Committee ranking member Bernie Sanders's choice of Stephanie Kelton to be his chief economist. (TRIGGER WARNING: non-Keynesian economics) This is a great move for Sanders. Kelton is probably the most formidable advocate for MMT not named Galbraith, and hopefully it means that Bernie will sufficiently well-briefed to actually sustain a debate on these issues in the 2016 debates. This will have a nice trickle-down effect where other main stream economists like Krugman will have to explain the contours of the debate for their readers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Remember in 2010 when McConnell said the main goal was to make Obama a one term President? EDIT: Or the next debt ceiling fight? I predict disaster and stupid brinkmanship. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
McAlister posted:What's the biggest problem for democrats in elections? Yeah speaking as a young person who didn't vote in mid-terms because of how many hoops would have been involved I would call out of work and walk across hot coals to vote against Bush III. I gather that most of my age cohort has similar feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Does anyone really think that a Jeb Bush candidacy wouldn't be full of the same folks as the W Bush presidency? They will be pulling people from the same networks, and short of snubbing a lot of people which would cause its own set of problems, there will be plenty of familiar faces the Dems can point at to tie the two together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Having read a linked description of MMT linked in that post there's only one thing that I think they have right over the more common economists these days and that is that the behavior of banks borrowing from the government must be accounted for instead of ignored. They rightfully point out that banks just sat on the additional money the federal stimulus economic policy has generated but mainstream economists will never admit this as long as it might give credence to "surpluses are bad" and "defaulting is impossible!" *invests in Russia, loses 850 million and whines that it was Russia's fault for not being MMT enough* I won't deny that there are flaws in the Keynesian models, and Saint Greenspan and the neo monetarists are in disgrace after the financial collapse, but MMT largely sounds like an excuse to cut taxes and get more growth because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Does anyone really think that a Jeb Bush candidacy wouldn't be full of the same folks as the W Bush presidency? They will be pulling people from the same networks, and short of snubbing a lot of people which would cause its own set of problems, there will be plenty of familiar faces the Dems can point at to tie the two together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Let's see how long that lasts. When's the next CR coming up? March. The tea party wing has already started claiming the establishment plan as theirs so we will see how it shakes out
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I don't remember so well, but how did GWB respond to criticisms of his father when he was asked? I mean, the situation isn't the same since his father wasn't one of the worst presidents ever, but I'd like to know the tactics presidential candidates usually use in these family situations. Can you just say "I'm my own person, I don't represent my father/brother/husband" and they leave you alone? Surely not. The major criticism of HW's presidency was raising taxes though so it's doubtful that Democrats would attack GWB the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I don't remember so well, but how did GWB respond to criticisms of his father when he was asked? I mean, the situation isn't the same since his father wasn't one of the worst presidents ever, but I'd like to know the tactics presidential candidates usually use in these family situations. Can you just say "I'm my own person, I don't represent my father/brother/husband" and they leave you alone? Surely not. It won't be brought up directly much at all because that gives Jeb an opportunity to confront it. The smart players will maybe hint toward the issue a little, but mostly just let the perception people already have simmer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
sullat posted:Just what we need, another generation of voodoo economics. This time from the left. Did you ever see 'Wolf of Wall Street'? At the beginning Matthew McConaughey's character talks about how economic prosperity is largely driven by subjective optimism. MMT is interesting, and there is an argument to be made that as long as the dollar is the underlying global currency deficits don't necessarily matter. What matters is: 1) How the people feel - there is no reason shelves today should be bare in Venezuela or any other American market. Keeping them stocked benefits everyone, yes? 2) The development and implementation of new technologies (health, energy, communication) on an industrial scale. The US technological sophistication could maintain the dollar's status as an economic 'lingua franca' for a time as we move away from an oil-based economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Remember in 2010 when McConnell said the main goal was to make Obama a one term President? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
McAlister posted:What's the biggest problem for democrats in elections? Would gender help Hillary get out the vote? I don't know much about it on the whole, but anecdotally, I knew several women who were very excited about working hard to get Hillary elected in 2008. It seems like the Republicans have primed the electorate for a fight over women's issues in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
sullat posted:I won't deny that there are flaws in the Keynesian models, and Saint Greenspan and the neo monetarists are in disgrace after the financial collapse, but MMT largely sounds like an excuse to cut taxes and get more growth because reasons. It's pretty darn pro spending though, which is the important thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
sullat posted:I won't deny that there are flaws in the Keynesian models, and Saint Greenspan and the neo monetarists are in disgrace after the financial collapse, but MMT largely sounds like an excuse to cut taxes and get more growth because reasons. It doesn't sound like this is what the theory supports at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Can somebody who knows more about economics than me post a small MMT primer? I gathered some from googling but I am not sure if I'm correct on all of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I really hope that rear end in a top hat finally faces some consequences for being the kind of violent thug his victim was painted as. Even if he does it's just liberals trying to get him because he defended himself from super hulk thug Travon Martin because the idea Zimmerman is a dangerous and violent psycho who took a gun and followed a kid who he then murdered is clearly not possible as Zimmerman's got no history of such violence. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
If Zimmerman keeps up with this you'd imagine that the freeper crowd would just go "oh well he's not REALLY white, P.S. send all Spanish-speakers back to where they came from"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Arrested for standing your ground with a wine bottle. This drat country is going straight to hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Can somebody who knows more about economics than me post a small MMT primer? I gathered some from googling but I am not sure if I'm correct on all of it. Warren Mosler published a very easy primer on MMT some time back called The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. Warren Mosler posted:Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy You should be able to skim the first page of each chapter and get a general idea about most of these questions in ten minutes. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:It doesn't sound like this is what the theory supports at all. So yeah, they kind of are in favor of tax cuts, but not because low tax rates have much of anything important to do with growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Based on that summary (admittedly I'm not an economist) the idea is that taxes aren't a fundraising tool for the government, since the government doesn't really need to raise money via taxes. In tough times it says "hey, cut taxes and deficit spend like a motherfucker" apparently. This isn't because they think taxes are a bad thing, or have too much to do with economic growth or health, but because deficit spending is good (in all situations). Tax rates aren't there to raise money. They're there to regulate economic growth and keep people using the government currency. I'm not sure about the whole thing, but it's certainly a different take. It combines a real acknowledgement that money's just some poo poo we invented to keep track of things with the insight that government budgets have nothing in common with any other kind of budgets (because governments can print money). Based on that Mosler summary, it would seem less like they are in favor of tax cuts and more that they don't care about tax rates as an economic tool at all. And that's precisely the feel I got from the Vox piece as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Based on that Mosler summary, it would seem less like they are in favor of tax cuts and more that they don't care about tax rates as an economic tool at all. And that's precisely the feel I got from the Vox piece as well. EDIT: vvvv that's probably even more accurate. I don't know, I'm no expert. It sounds interesting and something I'd like to read a bit more about, thanks for the Mosler link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Based on that Mosler summary, it would seem less like they are in favor of tax cuts and more that they don't care about tax rates as an economic tool at all. And that's precisely the feel I got from the Vox piece as well. Tax rates are important for a host of reasons, including many of the conventional ones like wealth redistribution and encouraging or discouraging certain types of economic behavior. It's just that "funding the Federal Government" isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Warren Mosler published a very easy primer on MMT some time back called The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. This is one of the most  things I've ever read. Let's look at how successful pretty much purely printing currency to fund the government has worked out for Zimbabwe...
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
I don't think it's bad to had an alternative narrative to the neo-liberal Greenspan types but I would rather incrementally experiment with alternative theories than say toss out the whole of any given existing economic policy for something as unproven as Austrian economics. They made a correct observation in that the banks just sat on the money they made off the government policy and it didn't improve liquidity so we should investigate that further. I also think the general thrust of "banks need to be accounted for" is very good because our current system seems very specifically designed to keep banks able to siphon money out of the economy for their own enrichment to the detriment of society without it ever being part of the conversation. The finance industry doesn't want you to talk or think about them beyond the stock numbers. That is why when you're driving home with NPR on you get this surreal 1 minute summary where a calm voice tells you that things are looking up for the economy because job growth was the greatest it's ever been since 2008, but wages remained flat so that's kind of a problem huh? But onto the REAL economic news, the Down is down 200 points today! It's almost as if the stock market means jack poo poo except as a confidence measure for the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Tax rates are important for a host of reasons, including many of the conventional ones like wealth redistribution and encouraging or discouraging certain types of economic behavior. It's just that "funding the Federal Government" isn't one of them. It's certainly a novel idea. ThirdPartyView posted:This is one of the most They do make some extremely valid points, though. Debt (in theory) should have no bearing on anything since consumption is based upon a society's productivity, not on some nebulous currency concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:This is one of the most I am eager to hear your explanation for why Zimbabwe experienced hyperinflation along with your well-founded discussion on why the finances of a third world kleptocracy are totally the same as those of the richest country in the world whose currency is the reserve currency of all the others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:They do make some extremely valid points, though. Debt (in theory) should have no bearing on anything since consumption is based upon a society's productivity, not on some nebulous currency concept. That's because debt is a legal concept, and ask Argentina how well things went when they told creditors to gently caress off (on several occasions).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:That's because debt is a legal concept, and ask Argentina how well things went when they told creditors to gently caress off (on several occasions). You're mixing up the existence of debt with its payment. Debt doesn't matter if you're capable of making the payments, if you can't make the payments and tell investors to gently caress off then you're loving yourself over on future foreign investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Essentially what Raskolnikov said. Debt isn't a real concern for a country like the US, it only becomes a concern as a political bludgeon for austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You're mixing up the existence of debt with its payment. Debt doesn't matter if you're capable of making the payments, if you can't make the payments and tell investors to gently caress off then you're loving yourself over on future foreign investment. The real question is whether a sovereign currency issuer's debts are denominated in its own currency or in a foreign currency. In the case of the Argentinian default their long-time decision to rigidly peg their currency to the dollar left them with huge dollar-denominated debts. Paying these types of debts is very difficult and can constrain the real output of the economy. Default for any country is always a political decision. In the case of Argentina it seems to have been a good one, but it remains to be seen how the post-default restructuring of the Argentinian economy will turn out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, it's quite likely that primary voters would reject him for that reason. Dubya has been demonized on the Right as being a liberal who bailed out banks. Horseshit. There was a poll a little while back where teabaggers gave Bush a 90%+ approval rating. They may not approve of his alleged "liberal" deviations, but they mainly view him as the guy who treated the job creators with respect and kept us safe from Saddaam Hussein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that states can't file for bankruptcy but, Kansas is about to test the limits. Brownback had his chief of staff send up a trial ballon today saying that the Governor's proposed budget this week would include "proposals to increase tax revenue". quote:Although the budget will include what he called revenue enhancements, Hummel said the bulk of the administration’s proposals would focus on curbing spending. “It’s not so much cutting spending as limiting the growth in spending,” he said. It will be interesting to see if Brownback sticks with the idea of "increasing revenue" or if he claims his chief of staff misspoke and demands more tax cuts on top of education cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I'm pretty sure that states can't file for bankruptcy but, Kansas is about to test the limits. Brownback had his chief of staff send up a trial ballon today saying that the Governor's proposed budget this week would include "proposals to increase tax revenue". Changing to a completely new system always seems like a way to save money... at least if they're going to charter and private schools 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:The real question is whether a sovereign currency issuer's debts are denominated in its own currency or in a foreign currency. In the case of the Argentinian default their long-time decision to rigidly peg their currency to the dollar left them with huge dollar-denominated debts. Paying these types of debts is very difficult and can constrain the real output of the economy. Default for any country is always a political decision. In the case of Argentina it seems to have been a good one, but it remains to be seen how the post-default restructuring of the Argentinian economy will turn out. One of the author's personal anecdotes actually involves that as part of how he came to his current line of thinking. Basically the Italian government was offering 14% interest rates on its bonds due to perceived default risk while Italian banks were making loans at 12%. But since the lira wasn't pegged or convertible there was actually zero risk since they'd just print the money anyhow. So he borrowed huge amounts of lira from the banks, bought bonds with it and used the money from the matured bonds to pay back the banks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Horseshit. There was a poll a little while back where teabaggers gave Bush a 90%+ approval rating. They may not approve of his alleged "liberal" deviations, but they mainly view him as the guy who treated the job creators with respect and kept us safe from Saddaam Hussein. Post this poll. There's also a difference between "What do you think of Bush, given that we have Obama now" and "What do you think of Bush, given that his brother is running".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I'm pretty sure that states can't file for bankruptcy but, Kansas is about to test the limits. Brownback had his chief of staff send up a trial ballon today saying that the Governor's proposed budget this week would include "proposals to increase tax revenue". Wait, their supreme court just smacked down their budget because of its insufficient education funding, and so in response he is going to cut funding to education, and that is treated as some sort of blaze ho hum aside rahter than the core thrust of the article?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wait, their supreme court just smacked down their budget because of its insufficient education funding, and so in response he is going to cut funding to education, and that is treated as some sort of blaze ho hum aside rahter than the core thrust of the article? It's Kansas. Them farm boys don't need no educatin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:20
|
|