Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy

[unbillievable]

2 hours ago, TPS said:

Obama increased the deficit by $7.3 trillion from 2009 to 2016. Do you know what the average rate of inflation was over this period?

You're still thinking in short term gains.

The price of keeping inflation low was to stagnate the economy into the slowest recovery in history.

...And the US still has a debt payment that will eat a large portion of the budget. We paid (and still paying) for that deficit spending, with interest.  

 

Confidence in the US dollar is steadily declining, (as instances of downgraded credit show), bringing us closer to the start of hyper-inflation.

 

I've read a few articles by "progressives" who believe that it's better to spend the money now, while the currency still has value. I think Obama even mentioned that it would easier to pay for his deficits as inflation increases.

 

This thinking seems to be the very core of you're argument. Deficit spending is great because it produces short term gains, and the "smart" people can just keep pushing the market corrections to the future indefinitely.

 

29 minutes ago, TPS said:

Government deficit spending is a mechanism that puts more labor and capital to use.  It's up to us to influence our politicians on how we want those resources used.

 

This is the false premise you've based you're entire viewpoint on that invalidates your argument.

 

Government deficit spending does not put MORE labor and capital into use, it merely moves it from the private sector, or borrows from future resources (which have to be paid back or risk collapse, GREECE/VENEZUELA). In the long term, their is a negative net gain, when you include the waste inherent with this type of manipulation. The only real effect it has is to give politicians the power to shape the economy towards a societal (hopefully beneficial) plan; ie alternative evergy. 

 

This is the same talking point we beat our heads against when idiots advocate for a $15/hr. minimum wage.

 

The argument you need to make about deficit spending isn't about improving the economy, but using it to enact social justice.

Edited January 17, 2019 by unbillievable

[TPS]

8 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You just can't get your head out of the class.  You are talking about the results of what happens in the private sector when the government allows people to keep more of their earnings and assets.  You are approaching it from the leftist perspective that the property belongs to the government and it's up to the Treasury's whims when to release it and how it gets deployed, therefore, the more that the government releases, the faster the growth.   If that were the case, Zimbabwe would be the envy of the free world, because with the government giving money away would not only drive supersized growth but would invite outside investment to partake in that government stimulous.

 

Our position is that the property belongs to the individual, and government's decision to allow the individuals to keep more of their property and have the people decide what to do with that property is really what makes the economy grow faster.   

 

This shouldn't even be up for a debate.

 

Government cannot create wealth.  Period.  It can only take it away or redistribute it

Please, let's not compare an underdeveloped country with a developed one. Zimb lacks capital;  The US uses about 80% of its capital capacity currently. 

 

It's not up to the Treasury to deploy funds, it has to be appropriated by Congress.  When congress passed Trump's spending Bills, that gave the Treasury the ability to spend, and it didn't need taxes to spend; in fact, Trump cut the revenues going to the Treasury with his other Bill. The private sector has more to spend and the government is spending more. The bigger deficits mean the Treasury also has to sell more bonds as the law requires.  The Fed coordinates the auctions using its Primary Dealers who are required to fill the auction, and they always have the funds because the government spent them into existence (see my example above). 

 

Regarding your inflation concern, the fact that the government is required to sell bonds = to its deficits ties soaks up the newly created funds from the spending.

As I said, the government is limited by the real resources available to produce real things, which is why Zimbabwe can't deficit spend and the US can, though we are getting closer to full employment, maybe...

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, TPS said:

Please, let's not compare an underdeveloped country with a developed one. Zimb lacks capital;  The US uses about 80% of its capital capacity currently. 

 

It's not up to the Treasury to deploy funds, it has to be appropriated by Congress.  When congress passed Trump's spending Bills, that gave the Treasury the ability to spend, and it didn't need taxes to spend; in fact, Trump cut the revenues going to the Treasury with his other Bill. The private sector has more to spend and the government is spending more. The bigger deficits mean the Treasury also has to sell more bonds as the law requires.  The Fed coordinates the auctions using its Primary Dealers who are required to fill the auction, and they always have the funds because the government spent them into existence (see my example above). 

 

Regarding your inflation concern, the fact that the government is required to sell bonds = to its deficits ties soaks up the newly created funds from the spending.

As I said, the government is limited by the real resources available to produce real things, which is why Zimbabwe can't deficit spend and the US can, though we are getting closer to full employment, maybe...

what does it say when the FED is the largest buyer of those bonds?

[TPS]

4 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

You're still thinking in short term gains.

The price of keeping inflation low was to stagnate the economy into the slowest recovery in history.

...And the US still has a debt payment that will eat a large portion of the budget. We paid (and still paying) for that deficit spending, with interest.  

 

Confidence in the US dollar is steadily declining, (as instances of downgraded credit show), bringing us closer to the start of hyper-inflation.

 

I've read a few articles by "progressives" who believe that it's better to spend the money now, while the currency still has value. I think Obama even mentioned that it would easier to pay for his deficits as inflation increases.

 

This thinking seems to be the very core of you're argument. Deficit spending is great because it produces short term gains, and the "smart" people can just keep pushing the market corrections to the future indefinitely.

 

 

This is the false premise you've based you're entire viewpoint on that invalidates your argument.

 

Government deficit spending does not put MORE labor and capital into use, it merely moves it from the private sector, or borrows from future resources (which have to be paid back or risk collapse, GREECE/VENEZUELA). The only real effect it has is to give politicians the power to shape the economy towards a societal (hopefully beneficial) plan; ie alternative evergy. 

 

This is the same talking point we beat our heads against when idiots advocate for a $15/hr. minimum wage.

 

 

Did the government deficits and debt accumulated from WWII cause the US economy to collapse?

Can you point to a site that shows the US debt has been downgraded?  Thanks.

 

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what does it say when the FED is the largest buyer of those bonds?

That the US economy was so weak, the FEd went to extremes to try to stimulate it.  Did it impact inflation? Are we Zimbabwe?

[GG]

3 minutes ago, TPS said:

Please, let's not compare an underdeveloped country with a developed one. Zimb lacks capital;  The US uses about 80% of its capital capacity currently. 

 

It's not up to the Treasury to deploy funds, it has to be appropriated by Congress.  When congress passed Trump's spending Bills, that gave the Treasury the ability to spend, and it didn't need taxes to spend; in fact, Trump cut the revenues going to the Treasury with his other Bill. The private sector has more to spend and the government is spending more. The bigger deficits mean the Treasury also has to sell more bonds as the law requires.  The Fed coordinates the auctions using its Primary Dealers who are required to fill the auction, and they always have the funds because the government spent them into existence (see my example above). 

 

Regarding your inflation concern, the fact that the government is required to sell bonds = to its deficits ties soaks up the newly created funds from the spending.

As I said, the government is limited by the real resources available to produce real things, which is why Zimbabwe can't deficit spend and the US can, though we are getting closer to full employment, maybe...

 

Again you come back with a textbook response which has a lot more to do with how the US government balances its accounts rather than how the funds are spent productively by private enterprises that leads to real economic growth.  The mechanism for clearing treasury auctions has zero correlation to private spending or investment decisions.  Economies grow when the private sector thinks it will get a better RoI through investing rather than hiding it under a mattress for a rainy day.  When the private sector thinks that a confiscatory period is coming, the capital hides under the mattress, no matter what the government does with deficit spending.

 

Zimbabwe's example is apt, because if your thesis was correct, a developing nation would attract foreign investment drawn by that magic RoI that government spending provides.  Except it doesn't.  That's also why deficit spending didn't produce real economic growth during the 7 summers of recovery during the golden child's era.

[unbillievable]

34 minutes ago, TPS said:

It's really straight-forward.  Unfortunately it's usually ideology that prevents using deficits to stimulate the economy more than if left alone, though republicans certainly realize "deficits don't matter."  For conservatives, it seems deficit spending is fine as long as it for a wall or a war.....

 

Your bias is showing.

 

Both parties use deficits to push their "plan". Republicans believe that the primary responsibility of any government is defense of its people (they aren't wrong). The only debate is the appropriate level of defense.

 

While you make fun of the right for prioritizing national defense, they're making fun of the left for wasting money on global warming, and  entitlements. 

 

Personally, the justification for deficit spending from the left is far more ridiculous than the right's... but that's my bias (and common sense) showing.

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, TPS said:

....That the US economy was so weak, the FEd went to extremes to try to stimulate it.  Did it impact inflation? Are we Zimbabwe?

that QE I, II, III or QE Infinity didn't/hasn't come home to roost definitely says something. what I am not exactly sure because i was almost certain that it would have by now. it doesn't mean that it isn't still coming however. i do know that banks are not passing the stress tests with the ease that they have been recently.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx

[unbillievable]

9 minutes ago, TPS said:

Did the government deficits and debt accumulated from WWII cause the US economy to collapse?

Can you point to a site that shows the US debt has been downgraded?  Thanks.

 

That the US economy was so weak, the FEd went to extremes to try to stimulate it.  Did it impact inflation? Are we Zimbabwe?

 

The us credit rating has been downgraded, then raised back the last few years. It's starting to fluctuate, when before it was solid. It made the news, how could you miss it?

 

You can't seriously believe that deficit spending and debt has no negative effects on the economy. This is like those people who think raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr doesn't increase prices because the graph has no spike, despite the fact that cost of living in blue states is ridiculously high.

 

The Fed can't go any lower than 0% interest rate and the economy still stagnated. Do you believe that the USA is somehow immune? What makes you think we can't become Zimbabwe?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

The Fed can't go any lower than 0% interest rate and the economy still stagnated. Do you believe that the USA is somehow immune? What makes you think we can't become Zimbabwe?

 

They can, actually.  They can impose a confiscatory negative rate, which acts as a tax on savings.

[unbillievable]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

that QE I, II, III or QE Infinity didn't/hasn't come home to roost definitely says something. what I am not exactly sure because i was almost certain that it would have by now. it doesn't mean that it isn't still coming however. i do know that banks are not passing the stress tests with the ease that they have been recently.

 

The message from the left has definitely changed since Obama's spending spree. I remember the excuse was that we aren't close to a tipping point, or that the US economy can absorb much more debt.

 

Now the talking point from the left is that deficits and debt doesn't matter at all, and as Rep AOC is fond of pushing: money doesn't matter, only social justice.

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

The Fed can't go any lower than 0% interest rate and the economy still stagnated. Do you believe that the USA is somehow immune? What makes you think we can't become Zimbabwe?

oh, the FED can most certainly go lower. if Japan can go NIRP, you can bet we can too.

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

They can, actually.  They can impose a confiscatory negative rate, which acts as a tax on savings.

 

Like they did in Greece.

I'm hoping the 2nd Amendment is a reason that scenario isn't possible. Because that only occured after the riots and mass exodus of the rich.

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

Like they did in Greece.

I'm hoping the 2nd Amendment is a reason that scenario isn't possible. Because that only occured after the riots and mass exodus of the rich.

right, just google 'Cypriot haircut' if anyone needs to learn more.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx

[TPS]

37 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Again you come back with a textbook response which has a lot more to do with how the US government balances its accounts rather than how the funds are spent productively by private enterprises that leads to real economic growth.  The mechanism for clearing treasury auctions has zero correlation to private spending or investment decisions.  Economies grow when the private sector thinks it will get a better RoI through investing rather than hiding it under a mattress for a rainy day.  When the private sector thinks that a confiscatory period is coming, the capital hides under the mattress, no matter what the government does with deficit spending.w

Not textbook at all. I'm simply describing how government spending and financing works in a modern economy that controls its own currency. Yes, the mechanism of fiscal policy does not influence ROI, but the impact on demand and sales does.  The most important factor for estimating ROI is Expected profitability which is a function of sales.  Anything form of demand that raises sales influences ROI. It's not the mechanism, it's the appropriation which directs new spending into the economy as long as it's not part of a paygo plan.

 

Zimbabwe's example is apt, because if your thesis was correct, a developing nation would attract foreign investment drawn by that magic RoI that government spending provides.  Except it doesn't.  That's also why deficit spending didn't produce real economic growth during the 7 summers of recovery during the golden child's era.

Not at all, and the fact that you don't understand it is an issue with your view.  Read what i wrote: underdeveloped countries are constrained by a lack of real capital to produce goods.  You can't add demand to a resource constrained economy.  I've said that a few times now, so hopefully you'll get it this time.

 

41 minutes ago, Foxx said:

that QE I, II, III or QE Infinity didn't/hasn't come home to roost definitely says something. what I am not exactly sure because i was almost certain that it would have by now. it doesn't mean that it isn't still coming however. i do know that banks are not passing the stress tests with the ease that they have been recently.

If you're expecting it to cause inflation but can't explain why it hasn't, then there must be a problem with your theory.  And that's a general you, not YOU.

[TPS]

33 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

The message from the left has definitely changed since Obama's spending spree. I remember the excuse was that we aren't close to a tipping point, or that the US economy can absorb much more debt.

 

Now the talking point from the left is that deficits and debt doesn't matter at all, and as Rep AOC is fond of pushing: money doesn't matter, only social justice.

So Dick Cheney is a leftist? I didn't know that....

One point we do agree on is that our spending priorities are different.  That's where the politics enters the discussion and is independent of how fiscal policy works.

37 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

They can, actually.  They can impose a confiscatory negative rate, which acts as a tax on savings.

Yes, Negative rates were applied in Europe by the ECB a so-called independent central bank...

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, TPS said:

 

If you're expecting it to cause inflation but can't explain why it hasn't, then there must be a problem with your theory.  And that's a general you, not YOU.

understood but if we use history as a guide, anywhere else money has been created out of thin air to the extent QE did, it has not just created inflation but rather hyperinflation.

[TPS]

44 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

The us credit rating has been downgraded, then raised back the last few years. It's starting to fluctuate, when before it was solid. It made the news, how could you miss it?

 

You can't seriously believe that deficit spending and debt has no negative effects on the economy. This is like those people who think raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr doesn't increase prices because the graph has no spike, despite the fact that cost of living in blue states is ridiculously high.

 

The Fed can't go any lower than 0% interest rate and the economy still stagnated. Do you believe that the USA is somehow immune? What makes you think we can't become Zimbabwe?

Oh, you're taking about the same ratings agencies that said subprime mortgages were AAA?  Hahahahahaha!!!!!

[unbillievable]

A good comparison of the effects of government deficit spending can be made with what occuring with student loans because of 2 similarities:

 

1)The debt can't be forgiven

2)There is an unlimited amount of time to pay it back.

 

#2 is actually the "benefit" many deficit spending advocates point to (including TPS) that makes it viable. Just keep paying the interest, doesn't matter if the principle ever goes down because you'll never be asked to pay it off completely.

 

Now ask someone with a large student loan how they feel about paying it back... and point out the fact that it can' possibly be affecting them negatively because the payments are based on how much they earn.

[TPS]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

understood but if we use history as a guide, anywhere else money has been created out of thin air to the extent QE did, it has not just created inflation but rather hyperinflation.

The impact is unique to each country depending upon its resources and current state of the economy.  If the Fed added another $6 trillion over the next four years, we'd see a significant jump in inflation given the current state of the economy, 3.7% unemployment currently.

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

A good comparison f the effects of government deficit spending can be made with what occuring with student loans because of 2 similarities:

 

1)The debt can't be forgiven

2)There is an unlimited amount of time to pay it back.

 

#2 is actually the "benefit" many deficit spending advocates point to (including TPS) that makes it viable. Just keep paying the interest, doesn't matter if the principle ever goes down because you'll never be asked to pay it off completely.

 

Now ask someone with a large student loan how they feel about paying it back... and point out the fact that it can' possibly be affecting them negatively because the payments are based on how much they earn.

Slight difference in cases: people die, government can exist forever...

People have to pay off their debts when they die, or their estate does.

When exactly will the US government die?

[unbillievable]

6 minutes ago, TPS said:

The impact is unique to each country depending upon its resources and current state of the economy.  If the Fed added another $6 trillion over the next four years, we'd see a significant jump in inflation given the current state of the economy, 3.7% unemployment currently.

 

Do you realize that you're only argument is that nothing can go wrong because everything is fine right now?

 

"This time it will work because we're special and no one did it correctly before".... where have we heard that before.

Edited January 17, 2019 by unbillievable