Debunking MMT

[James972]

This is not your argument. If you want to jump in, you are going to have to bring yourself up to speed.

so you cant say what your point is?? If it was a good one you'd be all too happy to state it'

 

[Critter7r]

so you cant say what your point is?? If it was a good one you'd be all too happy to state it'

JTFC ... You'll just have to read the thread ... jaeger has been trying to explain to John for two weeks now how it isn't possible that the country could increase the total amount of total savings of the total population because this one guy spent money out of his savings account the other day.

 

[James972]

JTFC ... You'll just have to read the thread ... jaeger has been trying to explain to John for two weeks now how it isn't possible that the country could increase the total amount of total savings of the total population because this one guy spent money out of his savings account the other day.

sounds like very very trivial debate????? Am I wrong??

 

[Critter7r]

You don;t seem to understand that corporations rarely produce up to demand in fact they tend to edge on the point of not oversupplying the market if they can.. and when they decrease supply in response to decreased demand or perceived decrease in demand they may cut production below demand.. thus supply becomes a problem.

When I saw this quoted by John, I had to go back and re-read the original post, because I thought for sure when I read it the first time, that James had written it.

That is the most circuitous argument I think I've ever read.

They only supply exactly as much as needed because they don't want to over-supply, so then demand drops and they supply a little less so as not to over supply amidst decreased demand but, whoopsie!! we supplied too little so now government should give us a tax break so we can produce more??

Where do you come up with this?

 

[Critter7r]

sounds like very very trivial debate????? Am I wrong??

For once, no.

 

[James972]

When I saw this quoted by John, I had to go back and re-read the original post, because I thought for sure when I read it the first time, that James had written it.

That is the most circuitous argument I think I've ever read.

They only supply exactly as much as needed because they don't want to over-supply, so then demand drops and they supply a little less so as not to over supply amidst decreased demand but, whoopsie!! we supplied too little so now government should give us a tax break so we can produce more??

Where do you come up with this?

The best way to think of supply side is to think of the supply of new inventions because new inventions made the economy grow from stone age to here

 

[James972]

For once, no.

ah, if conservatism is ever wrong about something substantive please say what it is. I realize I'm asking a guy who thinks oil and wind receive comparable subsidies.
Also notice that John is afraid to engage me in debate

 

[Critter7r]

The best way to think of supply side is to think of the supply of new inventions because new inventions made the economy grow from stone age to here

Yes, you've repeated that at least a hundred times now. It doesn't make your point any clearer than it did the first time.

 

[Critter7r]

ah, if conservatism is ever wrong about something substantive please say what it is. I realize I'm asking a guy who thinks oil and wind receive comparable subsidies.
Also notice that John is afraid to engage me in debate

I think John is taking a break from your incessant yipping.

 

[James972]

I think John is taking a break from your incessant yipping.

not a break he runs from questions he cant answer. ever see a conservative who has to run?

 

[Critter7r]

ah, if conservatism is ever wrong about something substantive please say what it is. I realize I'm asking a guy who thinks oil and wind receive comparable subsidies.
...

If conservatism is currently pushing SSE, then it's wrong right now. There's a time for SSE, but it's not now.

 

[Critter7r]

not a break he runs from questions he cant answer. ever see a conservative who has to run?

Well ... I've seen them jumping a lot ....

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Also notice that John is afraid to engage me in debate

Afraid in the same way that I'm "afraid" of stepping in dog poop.

 

[James972]

Afraid in the same way that I'm "afraid" of stepping in dog poop.

the economy grows when Republicans supply new inventions not when people buy existing goods and services. Now you understand supply side economics.

 

[James972]

If conservatism is currently pushing SSE, then it's wrong right now. There's a time for SSE, but it's not now.

you have to say exactly why its wrong now!!!!!!!!

 

[Moderate Right]

ALL that i asked was that you CONSIDER my hypothetical and CONSIDER what it could mean if it reflected reality in any meaningful way.

It seems you are incapable of that.

Well, we're making a little progress by you admitting it is hypothetical and not reality. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

 

[Moderate Right]

BTW- banks do NOT loan out deposits.

Try to understand modern banking- loans come out of thin air but are limited by capital and reserve requirements. This isn't a limit we're close to hitting, more generally, satisfying reserve requirements with deposits makes loans very profitable. The loans issued are bottlenecked by the available borrowers.

Again, it is just a shell game. Show me a bank that makes loans that does not take deposits from depositors. You can't because somewhere in that shell game, yes, money deposited in banks is used to make loans. I choose to look at reality while you are fooled by the shell game.

 

[James972]

Yes, you've repeated that at least a hundred times now. It doesn't make your point any clearer than it did the first time.

well then try to put into words where you get confused by it. You want to understand supply side economics don't you? You see the way John ran from the debate?

 

[Moderate Right]

Two reasons: it's not true, and it's irrelevant.

For someone that espouses individual freedom, why do you want to control what the little guy spends his money on? THE LITTLE GUY is the judge of when his needs are met, and if giving him more money allows him to save - GREAT!! But the fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that he will save much - or any - of any increase in his income until it passes HIS threshold for satisfying that his needs are met.

I can judge when it is partially my money that they get. It's like loaning a friend $1,000 for car repairs and then you find out he decided to just use the bus instead and blew your $1,000 on a gambling trip to Vegas. I didn't loan the damn guy a grand to fix his car and then have him gamble it away instead. If the poor get tax money then there should be limits and restrictions, just as there are limits as to how you can spend food stamp money. If they don't want any restrictions on how they spend money then they shouldn't accept money from me. As I said in another post we shouldn't have to dole out money to those whose buckets have so many holes that the money just leaks right back out. The holes in the bucket should be fixed before we just throw more money at them, just to leak out of all the holes. You lefties NEVER want to talk about the poor saving money, constantly dodging the question.

 

[Absentglare]

Well, we're making a little progress by you admitting it is hypothetical and not reality. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

I preempted the statement with such an admission. You are simply proving that you didn't bother to even try to understand what i was saying.

Again, it is just a shell game. Show me a bank that makes loans that does not take deposits from depositors. You can't because somewhere in that shell game, yes, money deposited in banks is used to make loans. I choose to look at reality while you are fooled by the shell game.

No, stop fooling yourself into thinking you can fit what banking really is into the box of what you think it is solely on the basis of your refusal to think critically about banking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

 

[Moderate Right]

ARRA was in large measure, @ 30%, a cut in taxes. The point remains, you understood the stimulus concerns job creation during depressed demand, supply-side stimulus does not work during periods of depressed demand. it is a "pushing on a string". I know the GOP wants cuts (so long as job creation spending is not attached), I know the GOP wants supply-side policy, it is nearly tautology. You have been running away from the point in every response, the GOP does not support demand side policy, even when it required. Tax cuts....are not deficit spending, and no amount of squirming or semantic gymnastics makes them so.

I think some lefties would argue that Reagan's tax cuts were actually deficit spending. Sure, it's all a shell game but if you cut taxes a bunch and then the deficit and debt swells up, you certainly can say they are deficit spending, and squirming or semantic gymnastics (AKA the shell game) makes them so. This detracts from our discussion but, let's face it, our brains are wired differently. The problem is you see no problem with deficit spending and national debt, no matter what kind of an economy we are in but you see it as a great scape goat to argue that whenever the economy is not perfect, deficit spending (stimulus) is the answer. Why don't you just admit that we should always pursue a policy of deficit spending and adding it onto the national debt and that we should be pursuing stimulus packages forever?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

you have to say exactly why its wrong now!!!!!!!!

Where did you learn English? From reading fortune cookies?

 

[James972]

Where did you learn English? From reading fortune cookies?

are you fooling yourself when you try to change the subject with violent personal attack?

the economy grows when Republicans supply new inventions not when people buy existing goods and services. Now you understand supply side economics.

 

[Critter7r]

I can judge when it is partially my money that they get. It's like loaning a friend $1,000 for car repairs and then you find out he decided to just use the bus instead and blew your $1,000 on a gambling trip to Vegas. I didn't loan the damn guy a grand to fix his car and then have him gamble it away instead. If the poor get tax money then there should be limits and restrictions, just as there are limits as to how you can spend food stamp money. If they don't want any restrictions on how they spend money then they shouldn't accept money from me. As I said in another post we shouldn't have to dole out money to those whose buckets have so many holes that the money just leaks right back out. The holes in the bucket should be fixed before we just throw more money at them, just to leak out of all the holes. You lefties NEVER want to talk about the poor saving money, constantly dodging the question.

Oh, look who's imposing his morals on others now. If you can't afford to lose $1000, you shouldn't loan it to a friend. You either want to help others or you dont.

And the poor can't save money until they first have enough to meet their needs.

 

[Critter7r]

Again, it is just a shell game. Show me a bank that makes loans that does not take deposits from depositors. You can't because somewhere in that shell game, yes, money deposited in banks is used to make loans. I choose to look at reality while you are fooled by the shell game.

Quicken Loans.