The Berniephobes are wrong

Makes one wonder what level of IQ believes something that silly?

 

In Australia some hapless students are learning "Aboriginal science" as some sort of
equivalency. The "argument" in part holds that the climate calamity, nuclear weapons
etc come from our science - peace and eco-harmony comes from Aboriginal science.
Of course, as the climate warmed the seas rose, so coastal Aborigines moved inland
and slaughtered the Aborigines in those areas.

Re Leviticus. We in the West don't live under Judaism but Christianity.
The equivalency with Islam is to put Mohammed on the same pedestal as Jesus -
though Jesus was not a world loving, conquering, killing warlord who loved small
girls.

 

We in Australia get this "Rainbow Serpent" stuff. It's held as equivalent to Christianity.
It's interesting - we can teach kids about romance, marriage and children, and in the
next sentence teach them about men sodomizing boys, lesbian women and how it's
okay to remove boys genitals over the objections of their parents.
That's about as "equivalent" as comparing rainbow serpents or Greek gods to the
bible.

 

If I go to college, work hard, live honestly, and earn $135K per year, I don’t want half of my income taken away in taxes for food, clothing, and shelter for someone who dropped out of high school and sits on his couch all day.

 

WITHOUT socialism there would be no college for you to go to!

WITHOUT socialism there would be no jobs for you to work at!

WITHOUT socialism there would be no income!

 

Of course you don't think it's relevant. That is the case likely for 2 reasons: 1) you have not looked up its definition in a dictionary, and 2) you don't want to think about your government and country being fascist.

 

19th century America didn’t have socialism. It hardly had any government. And the economy thrived!

How was that possible?!? I thought government was the beginning and end of all existence.

 

I'm not into identity/race politics. My aboriginal policy would be to

1. recognise prior occupation in the constitution (and that's all)
2. guarantee appropriate above poverty employment for all aboriginal people, including as much support (considerable at first for many individuals, given their present parlous circumstances) needed to ensure no-one fails.
3. Change 'land rights' into housing rights (including public housing where required).

I agree the Left is beset with a lot of 'cultural' garbage in regards to aboriginals, perhaps guilt- based, owing to the original invasion and destruction of the native culture, and also because the Left today doesn't know how to eliminate poverty, so they are diverted into identity/race politics.

[Meanwhile the Right aren't interested in any culture other than their own, and certainly have never been concerned to eradicate poverty- because they think it will involve a reduction in their own prosperity].

The savings from abolishing the poverty industry would be considerable, and any further funding required for a guaranteed employment program would be funded via the federal government's own currency issuing capacity (via treasury and central bank), since all the resources required for that program, largely educational and labour-based are available in excess supply. (BTW, the latest youth un- and underemployment figures in Australia are disastrous).

Ah...I see. .

But did you know one of the early compilers of the NT, Marcion, rejected the OT entirely, because of its portrayal of a genocidal god? He correctly saw it's impossible to conflate Jesus, the Prince of Peace, with Jehovah, the "man of war' (according to Moses).

Unfortunately Marcion's view was rejected as heritcal (though it had its adherents for several hundred years).

Hence it's a pity that Mohammed took the Christian Bible, including the Old Testament, as his source. History might have been very different if Marcion's NT had been Islam's source.

[Marcion did not need the Trinity nonsense because Marcion regarded Jesus as the One True God who appeared among men as an apparition; he saw Jehovah as an historical earthly demigod.
But Mahommed took Jehovah as the One True God and relegated Jesus to the status of Prophet, because he could not stomach the 3 gods in 1 nonsense (and Christians were still fighting over whether Jesus was co-eternal with God, or the Son created by God....).

So be wary of chucking the Koran under the bus, when the OT is no better (or worse: Allah doesn't actually authorise genocide, as does Jehovah...ie, according to the prophets Moses, Joshua and Samuel)

 

In a situation of virtual unlimited available land to the west (stolen and backed by superior arms), self-sufficiency was possible in a largely agrarian economy.

​

Who is saying that today, other than you?

A public sector operating alongside and complementing a private sector is not "government being the beginning and end of all existence".

 

Healthcare was SOCIALIZED back in the 19th century. You "paid" the doctor with eggs from the chickens you kept in the back garden and if you didn't have any eggs the doctor would probably do it for nothing.

Free public libraries are socialism and they existed in the 19th century.

The Shakers were an example of a socialist community in the 19th century.

It was the EXPLOITATION of CHILD LABOR in the 19th century that caused the thriving economy and that exploitation was STOPPED with socialist legislation regarding child labor.

Socialism is NOT what you have been misled to believe about it.

 

You called me a "mainstream neoliberal economist." Your "neoliberal" label is an absurd construct suggesting you're either uninformed about economics or propagandizing the forum.

MMT would greatly damage public faith in the currency as well as disconnect taxation from government services is supports.

Says the guy who called me a "neoliberal economist."

 

If you're paying half of your income in taxes, I suggest you fire your financial advisor.

 

Why so touchy about the name?

Neoliberalism:

"a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.
social and political issues surrounding neo-liberalism".

On reflection, since I have in the past liked some the 'socialist' flavour of your posts, perhaps you are not a neoliberal economist, ie, of the mainstream since Reagan and Thatcher.

But your blanket assertion that I was wrong about the GFC (and apparently my views on derivatives were like a red rag to a bull: "ideology alert" IIRC), and your refusal to enter into debate after I posted this:

"But others, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, have said the focus on Glass-Steagall is misguided. They argue other factors were more important in causing the 2008 crisis, such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy. All of that would have happened no matter the size of the big banks".

...all suggested to me a mainstream economist; and mainstream economists neither saw the GFC coming, nor understood the remedies, saying QE would cause runaway inflation and high interest rates, when in fact the opposite has occurred.

So can you say what caused the GFC?

That's what the mainstream would have us believe.

In fact the mainstream belief that sovereign currency-issuing governments are like households (users of the currency) and must first 'earn' the currency by taxing or borrowing (equivalent to earning an income and/or borrowing from private banks by households)......that belief is plain wrong - almost self-evidently when expressed in the above terms.

As for "public faith in the currency", a fiat currency has value because citizens need the currency to pay government taxes and fees; and said value is maintained ultimately by the productive capacity of the nation. Note: if the resources are available for sale in the nation's currency, the government can buy them, without impact on inflation. [The purpose of taxation is to clip any emerging overheating in the economy, not to raise funds].

And so you are content to hide behind my wrong ascription of your economic 'school', to avoid having to justify your assertion that "low interest rates are the problem", when the real problem is mainstream mythology re government deficits (see professor Stephanie Kelton on youtube).

But apart from all that, I presume you are in favour of Sanders' (or Warren's) tax proposals?

 

I'm not a "neoliberal economist."

I'm definitely not a socialist. BTW, redistributing income is not socialism.

I addressed two straightforward problems with your macroeconomic ideas, and derivatives play an important role in managing risk.

"Bad mortgage underwriting" was deliberate fraud. Rating agencies gave a lot of MBS crap a AAA rating. Also fraud. Secretary Tim acts like it was all a big mistake.

Read a famous Bernanke lecture from 2004. You could know what Bernanke would do five years later.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

Economists knew what was going on.

 

No, economists are aware government can manipulate the currency.

That's not the only reason people believe a currency has value.

They're associated with easy money and asset bubbles.

 

So you are in favour of the "progressive" tax policies of Sanders' and Warren? (You can say yes or no, it won't hurt...)

And yet millions were forced out of their homes, and governments around the globe were forced to bail out the private sector, so if these economists "knew what was going on", they should all be in prison now, for failing to alert the government (inc. treasury and central bank) of the emerging catastrophe.

True; and whenever the Fed tried to raise rates to more 'normal' levels, the share market made it known that the likely resulting collapse in asset values would destroy the ponzi asset-price economy.

Meanwhile most of the gains of the post GFC recovery have gone to the top, which is why Sanders is polling as well as he is.

So, we are stuck with low interest rates, high debt levels.....and austerity as governments try to rein in debt (but even so, and luckily for the US, Trump is not a fiscal conservative).

 

This video explains why the US no longer has Democracy. The same is true of the UK

 

But you have no objection to half your income given to the Pentagon to waste?

Strange priorities you have.

 

The defense budget is about 16% of the total budget, not 50%.

 

Hyperbole alert!

 

No, I'm in favor of VATs with rebates for taxes assessed on spending for basics like food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation. There are too many human beings on the planet consuming too many natural resources.

Not by economists.

Economists did tell the government. The overheated housing market was tracked by economists...



If housing prices were too high in 2008, how about now?

It's not a ponzi scheme. Please.

The question for the economy will be how we avoid a collapse in demand when asset values decline, likely with some speed.

This has been going on for 40 years. Wages are only 7.5% higher than they were in 1979.

No, we are not "stuck with low interest rates" or "high debt levels," public or private.

That said, what happens to the debt structure supporting overvalued assets when those asset values retreat rapidly? What about the $200,000 house with a $300,000 mortgage? Who will renew a five-year mortgage with payments based on 20-year amortization? What happens when we experience the reverse wealth effect of declining asset values?

 

How will VAT's eradicate poverty due to low minimum wages and high underemployment, even in the US ?

A quick google:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220388.2017.1400015

"The results reveal – in contrast to earlier work – that the revenue consequences of the VAT have not been positive. The results indicate that income-based inequality has increased due to the VAT adoption, whereas consumption inequality has remained unaffected."

And as for overpopulation, the way to deal with that is to eliminate poverty.

Note: The countries with the fastest growing populations (all in Africa) are also the poorest with highest poverty rates.
[If a person is guaranteed access to above poverty employment, that individual limits his/her procreation so as to avoid a drop in his own living standards]. That's why most 1st world countries have stable (or falling) population growth rates].

Housing prices were high in 2008 because of the housing Ponzi scheme - with prices expected to keep rising - fueled by subprime lending.

Fast forward to now (forecast for 2020) copy link wont work):

"On the other side, there's the problem of affordability, which will put the brakes on the housing market. The Case Shiller Home Price Index in the US reached an all-time high of 218.27 Index Points in September of 2019, making it difficult for first-time home-buyers to afford a home".

Most asset price booms are Ponzi schemes, requiring another idiot to buy in....just as most derivative trades are money shuffling scams - that if unregulated, can crash the real economy as happened in the GFC.

https://www.ft.com/content/482f7ba6-d884-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

Debt securitisation rebounds to pre-crash levels

....'debt securitisation', and its associated derivative plays....

Yes...and Powell knows it too, with Trump breathing down his neck, demanding still lower interest rates....

Courtesy of mainstream neoliberal economics, leading to the highest levels of inequality since before the Great Depression, which is why Sanders is being noticed by the electorate.

Yet that is exactly the situation at the present.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/rea...cking-2000percent-of-gdp-report-suggests.html

"Real US debt levels could be 2,000% of economy, a Wall Street report suggests"

Quite so....you tell me.

btw only MMT describes debt management without cyclical crashes.

 

And the percentage tax take of your income is...…?

 

VATs with a substantial rebate--probably $500/month with a 25% VAT--would make basic expenses tax free for taxpayers.

I wouldn't be in favor of a VAT without a rebate.

Home prices peaked in July 2006. The housing market is today reaching bubble territory.

You're misusing "Ponzi scheme."

Some complex derivatives were deliberately confusing, but most are pretty straightforward instruments.

Why are you blaming economists, whatever "mainstream neoliberals" are, when they don't set policy?

 

Because those f***wits run the Fed and the treasury.

And the concept of the independence of the Fed itself, jealously guarded by its members, is a denial of democratic policy making by elected governments......

but the same cyclical debt-induced disasters will continue anyway, as long as mainstream neo-Keynesian, neoliberal economic mythology holds sway over economic thought.

Jeffrey Schulze, puts the chances of a recession in 2020 at 50%, based in large part on the inversion of the yield curve earlier this year and the sharp slowdown in manufacturing. Nov 30, 2019

Disgraceful. At least this mainstream orthodox economic mythology, when the next recession does hit, will finally be discredited and deposed in favour of the MMT lens, since central bankers are aware of MMT and watching key indicators eg, low interest rates, low inflation, high debt, high under-employment, and low median wages growth, which are resistant to orthodox monetary policy - with interest rates already low and going negative in some countries.

Note: here is Professor Harvey's easy to read refutation of orthodox economists Krugman, Rogoff and Summers:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#69c200555852