Debunking MMT

[James972]

. You either want to help others or you dont.
.

everybody want to help or bailout a bank or person in need,, but not cripple and destroy as liberals do!

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

Here we go again in that same circle. What proof do you have that their needs are not being met?

 

[Moderate Right]

Quicken Loans.

Quicken loans? I don't remember seeing one of their branches in my neighborhood. Is that really the best you can do?

 

[imagep]

Why on Earth do the banks want us to put money into their bank and why on Earth would they pay us interest to put money into their bank if they don't need it for anything because they have access to an unlimited amount of money anyway? That would be a stupid business practice. Are you saying that banks are good guys and even though they don't really need our money they want to pay us interest for it anyway? I guess Hillary and Bernie are all wrong about the banking system. Yet another post where the left states that they don't want the poor to save. They want the poor to spend all of their money because saving it can actually harm our economy by reducing demand.

Because they pay us less than other sources of money cost. Just because banks have unlimited access to funds to lend, doesn't mean that those funds are free.

 

[imagep]

supply creates demand so there never is a period of depressed demand unless there is a supply problem caused by liberal govt interference with the supply. Now do you understand?

I'm a printer. So are you telling me that I can just start printing all the boxes of business cards that I can produce and people will come in and buy them?

And how does that work with the barber shop? The barber hires a thousand other barbers and puts in a thousand barber chairs and suddenly his business cuts a thousand times more hair?

Every company that I have ever worked for scheduled it's production based upon either orders or projections of orders. What you are claiming is pure malarkey.

 

[Moderate Right]

Because they pay us less than other sources of money cost. Just because banks have unlimited access to funds to lend, doesn't mean that those funds are free.

So I guess they do want our deposits after all, so they can loan them out.

 

[Critter7r]

Quicken loans? I don't remember seeing one of their branches in my neighborhood. Is that really the best you can do?

Of course you didn't. They don't take deposits, so they don't need a branch location.

 

[Critter7r]

Here we go again in that same circle. What proof do you have that their needs are not being met?

They aren't saving any money!!

What metric are you using to show that their needs ARE being met?

 

[Moderate Right]

They aren't saving any money!!

What metric are you using to show that their needs ARE being met?

You're the one who said their needs are not being met. The burden of proof is on you, not me. According to your definition, their needs will never be met because they are pre-programmed to spend ALL of their money, no matter how much you give them. Their buckets are full of holes and the more money you throw at them the more will leak out of the holes. They need to be educated in money management and saving before we throw more money in their bucket to just leak out. But, that's exactly what you guys want. You don't want them to save a dime. You want the money to leak out of their bucket because all that leakage is good for the economy.

 

[Moderate Right]

Of course you didn't. They don't take deposits, so they don't need a branch location.

I have to admit you threw me a curve ball that I missed on the first swing. I don't know how Quicken Loans operate and right now I don't have the time to research it. Off the top of my head I would accuse you of being full of it. Just remember, I have two swings left before I strike out.

 

[Critter7r]

You're the one who said their needs are not being met. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Their needs are not being met BECAUSE they spend all of their money. They spend all of their money BECAUSE their needs are not being met. When people save money, we know that all of their needs are being met. Probably not the most efficient way to tell when one has the things they need, but it is without a doubt going to be true. I can count the starving, homeless people in the country that have enough money to meet all their needs on the third pinky of my left hand.

According to your definition, their needs will never be met because they are pre-programmed to spend ALL of their money, no matter how much you give them.

That's not true at all. They spend all their money because they have SO LITTLE OF IT. They don't have enough, of course they spend it all. And when you pour your pity on them and give them just a tiny morsel more, OF COURSE they're going to spend that too, because it's still not enough.

Their buckets are full of holes and the more money you throw at them the more will leak out of the holes. They need to be educated in money management and saving before we throw more money in their bucket to just leak out.

Yes!! Let's make a basic financial course a requirement for anyone receiving aid. Each month's check requires that another section of the course be completed.

But, that's exactly what you guys want. You don't want them to save a dime. You want the money to leak out of their bucket because all that leakage is good for the economy.

And we're back to the bull****.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I think some lefties would argue that Reagan's tax cuts were actually deficit spending.

Uh-huh, I suppose they are at a bar hanging out with those un-named righties who favor demand-side spending. You sure do deal in a LOT of fantasy when it comes to political reality.

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.

Why did you just do what I predicted you would do? Why did you consciously make my argument?

The problem is you see no problem with deficit spending and national debt,no matter what kind of an economy we are in but

False, straw argument, baseless nonsense.

you see it as a great scape goat to argue that whenever the economy is not perfect, deficit spending (stimulus) is the answer.

I think you have absolutely no idea what the meaning of scapegoat is, it doesn't apply at all in response. I think it is so revealing that you reject outright any and all debate on counter-cyclical policy. So far all I have seen from you is an inability to identify any GOP/"rightie" who favors demand-side counter-cyclical policy after you made noises that you think they exist, and this inability is explained by your absolute opposition to it. So then this begs the question: What motivated you to say it in the first place? Was it an attempt to appear reasonable, "fair and balance-y", "moderate-ly"? I don't get the act. I don't get why you would put on the act. I don't get the charade. Drop it and just be the the extremist you are, that your party is. It is a party of economic know-nothings who never saw a tax cut for the top they didn't like. This whole "I'm for the little guy" is completely revealed as BS by your absolute rejection of demand-side counter-cyclical policy.

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?

You want.....nay.....absolutely need that form of extremism from me to counterbalance your extremism, so that you can say "see, your'e just the same".....but.....I'm not, you won't get that same "tax tax tax" to your "cut cut cut", you're living in a fantasy, and I'm not part of it. My posting history is repleat with my beliefs on macro policy. It is all there to examine, you don't have to make up my position on the fly, if you want to counter something, go and find it.

The subject at hand is your statements, that you can't defend, and the noises you make to distract have only made the lack of defense worse.

 

[Critter7r]

I have to admit you threw me a curve ball that I missed on the first swing. I don't know how Quicken Loans operate and right now I don't have the time to research it. Off the top of my head I would accuse you of being full of it. Just remember, I have two swings left before I strike out.

you can start here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicken_Loans

 

[Moderate Right]

Uh-huh, I suppose they are at a bar hanging out with those un-named righties who favor demand-side spending. You sure do deal in a LOT of fantasy when it comes to political reality. Why did you just do what I predicted you would do? Why did you consciously make my argument?False, straw argument, baseless nonsense. I think you have absolutely no idea what the meaning of scapegoat is, it doesn't apply at all in response. I think it is so revealing that you reject outright any and all debate on counter-cyclical policy. So far all I have seen from you is an inability to identify any GOP/"rightie" who favors demand-side counter-cyclical policy after you made noises that you think they exist, and this inability is explained by your absolute opposition to it. So then this begs the question: What motivated you to say it in the first place? Was it an attempt to appear reasonable, "fair and balance-y", "moderate-ly"? I don't get the act. I don't get why you would put on the act. I don't get the charade. Drop it and just be the the extremist you are, that your party is. It is a party of economic know-nothings who never saw a tax cut for the top they didn't like. This whole "I'm for the little guy" is completely revealed as BS by your absolute rejection of demand-side counter-cyclical policy.You want.....nay.....absolutely need that form of extremism from me to counterbalance your extremism, so that you can say "see, your'e just the same".....but.....I'm not, you won't get that same "tax tax tax" to your "cut cut cut", you're living in a fantasy, and I'm not part of it. My posting history is repleat with my beliefs on macro policy. It is all there to examine, you don't have to make up my position on the fly, if you want to counter something, go and find it.

The subject at hand is your statements, that you can't defend, and the noises you make to distract have only made the lack of defense worse.

I never said cut, cut, cut. I'm not a Supply Sider but if I understand Supply Side Economics correctly, they don't even say cut, cut, cut at infinitum, just as you say MMT'rs don't say there are no limits.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I never said cut, cut, cut. I'm not a Supply Sider but if I understand Supply Side Economics correctly, they don't even say cut, cut, cut at infinitum,

Mostly, they do, since they are in opposition to New Deal economics....but then this is just another example of you walking away from your previous comments in just this thread, and attempt to once again put on the moderate mask....and to further not defend your original point. Are you ever going to concede that there are not "many" righties who favor demand side stimulus?

just as you say MMT'rs don't say there are no limits.

You have me confused with some fantasy you created since I have made few if any comments on MMT. This again is a diversion from our argument.

 

[imagep]

I never said cut, cut, cut. I'm not a Supply Sider but if I understand Supply Side Economics correctly, they don't even say cut, cut, cut at infinitum, just as you say MMT'rs don't say there are no limits.

Many of the more extreme righties that I know say that we shouldn't have ANY government spending outside of military spending. Of course thats not a majority of righties by any means.

 

[Moderate Right]

Mostly, they do, since they are in opposition to New Deal economics....but then this is just another example of you walking away from your previous comments in just this thread, and attempt to once again put on the moderate mask....and to further not defend your original point. Are you ever going to concede that there are not "many" righties who favor demand side stimulus?You have me confused with some fantasy you created since I have made few if any comments on MMT. This again is a diversion from our argument.

I'm not going to argue in favor of SSE because I don't believe in it. You are going to have to find someone else to debate with on that. James is a good choice. He is a diehard.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

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.

You still refuse to read the CNBC article I posted, you still refuse to accept the structure of the modern banking system. Why do you even try to have debate when your ideas have no grounding, no concept of the thing being discussed?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'm not going to argue in favor of SSE because I don't believe in it.

I'm not expecting any counterargument from you on anything, you cannot, will not defend your original argument, you have diverted from it in every single post, and will not concede to it being baseless. You can't even mention it any longer. It has gone through complete sublimation.

 

[jaeger19]

Their needs are not being met BECAUSE they spend all of their money. They spend all of their money BECAUSE their needs are not being met. When people save money, we know that all of their needs are being met. Probably not the most efficient way to tell when one has the things they need, but it is without a doubt going to be true. I can count the starving, homeless people in the country that have enough money to meet all their needs on the third pinky of my left hand.



That's not true at all. They spend all their money because they have SO LITTLE OF IT. They don't have enough, of course they spend it all. And when you pour your pity on them and give them just a tiny morsel more, OF COURSE they're going to spend that too, because it's still not enough.




Yes!! Let's make a basic financial course a requirement for anyone receiving aid. Each month's check requires that another section of the course be completed.



And we're back to the bull****.

Now lets inject a little reality. Yes.. there are people who don;t save because their needs are not being met. But there are a number of poor that don;t save even though their needs are being met. Go into a poor neighborhood on a Friday night after work and see the number of folks going into the local convenience story or mini mart, and coming out with beer, wine and cigarettes.
Its hard to argue that beer, wine and cigarettes are "needs".
Go into a poor section of town where the drugs are dealt and see the number of folks buying weed, or meth or crack. Its hard to argue that meth or crack are needs (a case could be made for weed).
Certainly rich people and middle class people have the same vices as well. this is not a "who has better morals" argument. Its simply an economic fact however, that people will choose to spend their money on things that they don;t truly need..

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Its hard to argue that beer, wine and cigarettes are "needs".

Since you are a doctor, I am very surprised that you appear to be unaware of the stress reducing characteristics alcohol.

 

[Moderate Right]

Many of the more extreme righties that I know say that we shouldn't have ANY government spending outside of military spending. Of course thats not a majority of righties by any means.

So why even mention it? There's nut cases on both sides. The right, generally speaking, is for the smallest amount of federal government possible while wanting state governments to be in charge of most government functions. The left twists this around in numerous ways for their political advantage.

 

[Moderate Right]

You still refuse to read the CNBC article I posted, you still refuse to accept the structure of the modern banking system. Why do you even try to have debate when your ideas have no grounding, no concept of the thing being discussed?

I did actually read your link and that's why I responded with the shell game rebuttal.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm not expecting any counterargument from you on anything, you cannot, will not defend your original argument, you have diverted from it in every single post, and will not concede to it being baseless. You can't even mention it any longer. It has gone through complete sublimation.

You keep on trying to trick me into defending SSE, which I will not, because I am not a believer in it. I can't get through to you so I don't even care to try any more. I have answered the original argument many times. It's not my fault that you refuse to accept anything other than your preconceived left wing propaganda talking points. If that's what you want to believe there is absolutely nothing I can do to change your mind.

 

[James972]

You keep on trying to trick me into defending SSE, which I will not, because I am not a believer in it..

if you don't believe its because you don't understand!


The economy grew from the stone age to here because Republican supply-siders invented or supplied new stuff. In short, supply created demand. After an invention is supplied, demand occurs naturally. When someone finally invented the plow, for example, and thus supplied food more cheaply, huge new demand was created and the economy grew.

So, if we want the economy to grow today we need to praise business and teach our children to heroically be in business, cut or eliminate business taxes, and subsidize most business activity!