Debunking MMT

[James972]

.
If we're talking about GDP, the government can and should increase GDP by taxing one group (the rich) and giving that money to another (everyone else).

Output or GDP grew from stone age to here when Republican supply siders invented new stuff not when govt taxed. Do you see why some are forced to conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? If another conclusion is possible please let me know what it is.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

so if you have no money you cant buy anything? I love a liberal who states that 1+1=2 and thinks he's Einstein!!

It needed to be said, because it's clear that you don't have a clue what "demand" actually means. It was in response to your mistake.

I really don't know why you are here on an economics debate board, James. You don't know the subject, and you debate like a child. If we weren't on computers, I would expect to see posts like yours written in crayon.

 

[Moderate Right]

Output or GDP grew from stone age to here when Republican supply siders invented new stuff not when govt taxed. Do you see why some are forced to conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? If another conclusion is possible please let me know what it is.

I really wish you would quit saying that Republicans invent stuff. You make some good points here and there but your credibility goes right out the window when you say Republicans invent things.

 

[James972]

I really wish you would quit saying that Republicans invent stuff. You make some good points here and there but your credibility goes right out the window when you say Republicans invent things.

Republicans invent or supply things and Democrats oppose the supply side process mainly because they lack the IQ to understand it.

 

[James972]

You don't know the subject,.

if so why so afraid to point out the most substantive error for the whole world to see?? What do you learn from your fear?

 

[Moderate Right]

Republicans invent or supply things and Democrats oppose the supply side process mainly because they lack the IQ to understand it.

It's a shame that you are not taken seriously because of how you post, such as saying only Republicans invent things and that Democrats have low IQ's. Anytime you say these kinds of things you have zero credibility to almost everyone and people just laugh you off. I'm trying to give you some constructive criticism here because some of the things you say are accurate but when you talk like this nobody will listen to anything you say. I'm a right leaning conservative myself but I know that all kinds of people invent things, not just Republicans, and just because the Democrats see the world differently than you and I doesn't mean they have low IQ's. Some of them are highly intelligent, just wrong. If you really want people to listen to what you have to say then you have to quit with the derogatory remarks and the wild claim that it is Republicans who invent things. There weren't even Republicans around when the wheel was invented, not to mention a million other inventions, some invented by diehard liberals.

 

[imagep]

It's a shame that you are not taken seriously because of how you post, such as saying only Republicans invent things and that Democrats have low IQ's. Anytime you say these kinds of things you have zero credibility to almost everyone and people just laugh you off. I'm trying to give you some constructive criticism here because some of the things you say are accurate but when you talk like this nobody will listen to anything you say. I'm a right leaning conservative myself but I know that all kinds of people invent things, not just Republicans, and just because the Democrats see the world differently than you and I doesn't mean they have low IQ's. Some of them are highly intelligent, just wrong. If you really want people to listen to what you have to say then you have to quit with the derogatory remarks and the wild claim that it is Republicans who invent things. There weren't even Republicans around when the wheel was invented, not to mention a million other inventions, some invented by diehard liberals.

Ditto.

 

[James972]

There weren't even Republicans around when the wheel was invented, not to mention a million other inventions, some invented by diehard liberals.

so there were liberals around who invented things long before the term liberal was common used but not Republicans before the term was commonly used!!? You defeated your own post which is not surprising from a guy who calls himself moderate but can't say after 10 tries what is wrong with thinking of non moderate righties.

 

[jaeger19]

It's a shame that you are not taken seriously because of how you post, such as saying only Republicans invent things and that Democrats have low IQ's. Anytime you say these kinds of things you have zero credibility to almost everyone and people just laugh you off. I'm trying to give you some constructive criticism here because some of the things you say are accurate but when you talk like this nobody will listen to anything you say. I'm a right leaning conservative myself but I know that all kinds of people invent things, not just Republicans, and just because the Democrats see the world differently than you and I doesn't mean they have low IQ's. Some of them are highly intelligent, just wrong. If you really want people to listen to what you have to say then you have to quit with the derogatory remarks and the wild claim that it is Republicans who invent things. There weren't even Republicans around when the wheel was invented, not to mention a million other inventions, some invented by diehard liberals.

Ditto x2

 

[Moderate Right]

so there were liberals around who invented things long before the term liberal was common used but not Republicans before the term was commonly used!!? You defeated your own post which is not surprising from a guy who calls himself moderate but can't say after 10 tries what is wrong with thinking of non moderate righties.

You're the one who has said more than 10 times how it is the Republicans who invent things. I'm just trying to give you some constructive criticism because I can't stand it when someone has enough knowledge to debate the left and then they turn around and act stupid, which defeats the cause instead of helping it. If you get too crazy you will never convince the middle of anything you say. The only ones who will agree with you are the ones who already agree with you. In other words, you aren't going to sway anyone's opinion by acting the way you do. In fact, it will turn the swayable people off to listen to the other side instead. If you really want to sway anyone's opinion who is on the fence you have to be more careful with your wording. I'm actually mostly on your side but it pains me to see you turning the swayable people off with ridiculous comments that completely reverse the progress you make with facts.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You're the one who has said more than 10 times how it is the Republicans who invent things. I'm just trying to give you some constructive criticism because I can't stand it when someone has enough knowledge to debate the left and then they turn around and act stupid, which defeats the cause instead of helping it. If you get too crazy you will never convince the middle of anything you say. The only ones who will agree with you are the ones who already agree with you. In other words, you aren't going to sway anyone's opinion by acting the way you do. In fact, it will turn the swayable people off to listen to the other side instead. If you really want to sway anyone's opinion who is on the fence you have to be more careful with your wording. I'm actually mostly on your side but it pains me to see you turning the swayable people off with ridiculous comments that completely reverse the progress you make with facts.

Don't worry; you guys aren't about to sway anybody anyway.

 

[jaeger19]

Don't worry; you guys aren't about to sway anybody anyway.

Actually.. I was thinking that same of MMT.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Actually.. I was thinking that same of MMT.

Look around, Jaeger. There are quite a few people arguing more or less on my side in these threads, and they all know their stuff.

Now look at your team - M.R., James, and the like. You guys are the Washington Generals of the economics forum.

 

[jaeger19]

Look around, Jaeger. There are quite a few people arguing more or less on my side in these threads, and they all know their stuff.

Now look at your team - M.R., James, and the like. You guys are the Washington Generals of the economics forum.

Look around John. Look at how even our liberal president has reduced deficit spending in responds to worries about deficit spending. And that's on the advice of a lot of people that have a lot more understanding on economics that MR james.

MMT isn't even in the same ballpark in swaying people. Heck.. its not even playing.

that's the reality John...


And come on... really... you think beating MR James in a debate bolsters your position? :doh

How desperate you are.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Look around John. Look at how even our liberal president has reduced deficit spending in responds to worries about deficit spending. And that's on the advice of a lot of people that have a lot more understanding on economics that MR james.

What? He's reducing deficit spending because he can't get a budget past the idiot Republicans in Congress, and because tax receipts are going up. And as we all know, politicians pander to voters, and most voters think that the deficit and the debt are bad things in and of themselves. Meanwhile, Krugman, who does not have to worry about getting re-elected, has called for larger deficits.

And come on... really... you think beating MR James in a debate bolsters your position? :doh

How desperate you are.

No, I don't think beating you guys in debates bolsters much of anything. But I'm not trying to bolster my position, as I'm pretty secure in my understanding of this stuff already.

 

[Moderate Right]

Don't worry; you guys aren't about to sway anybody anyway.

Neither are you.

 

[jaeger19]

What? He's reducing deficit spending because he can't get a budget past the idiot Republicans in Congress, and because tax receipts are going up. And as we all know, politicians pander to voters, and most voters think that the deficit and the debt are bad things in and of themselves. Meanwhile, Krugman, who does not have to worry about getting re-elected, has called for larger deficits.
No, I don't think beating you guys in debates bolsters much of anything. But I'm not trying to bolster my position, as I'm pretty secure in my understanding of this stuff already.

John..he is reducing deficit spending because that's what the economists around him are suggesting. Its the same policy that has been in place for years and years. Economists are concerned about the level of deficit spending and when levels get high enough it makes economists and most importantly the American consumer, then they reel it in.l

The facts are John.. that BECAUSE people think that deficits and debt are a bad thing.. is exactly WHY we need to treat deficits and debt as a bad thing,. Because its how people feel about government spending, which effects their behavior in the economy.,

And John.. you have not beaten ME in debate. You have lost steadily. Consistently.

Lets try again.

Okay.. you acknowledge that too much deficit spending can cause a catastrophic problem with the economy. Can you using MMT predict EXACTLY at what point that is? Do you know exactly where that number is?

No you can't predict that. So logically, knowing that knowledge it makes sense to spend cautiously. Enough to make sure that the economy in bad times can run without crashing..but cautiously enough in good times to avoid causing a catastrophic problem.

Further.. your whole use of MMT is to claim we need to run larger deficits to decrease unemployment... yet our unemployment is already roughly at is considered full employment.

Lastly.. we have been running large deficits for years.. and yet inequality has increased and wages have been stagnant. Now you claim more of the same will be better. Sorry but that's is the snakeoil salesmans favorite trick. If the medicine doesn't work.. its only because you didn;t take enough.. until it kills you.

 

[imagep]

... its how people feel about government spending, which effects their behavior in the economy...

You have a point there. Maybe the best answer is to educate the public, and let them know how reducing deficit spending reducing the size of our economy, reduces job opportunities, and reduces the private sector surplus. I really don't understand why pandering to ignorance is preferable to promoting knowledge.

 

[sookster]

You have a point there. Maybe the best answer is to educate the public, and let them know how reducing deficit spending reducing the size of our economy, reduces job opportunities, and reduces the private sector surplus. I really don't understand why pandering to ignorance is preferable to promoting knowledge.

That's never going to happen. Politicians don't further educate themselves, they are too busy with bribes. "It's global warming? Look at this snowball! Let's just carpet bomb em'" Quotes like that make me think the people in power are pretty dumb too. But even IF they agreed and figured this out, they don't WANT the people to know.

The people in power want as many people to work as possible. If things like education are being paid for, there isn't as much debt which doesn't drive as many people to work. Like in my case. I didn't finish college, I paid back all my debt, and now I am enjoying life with minimal work. People in power don't want that. Secondly, they would be afraid that everything would want to be printed for everybody. I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I do believe there is a purpose to paying back debt, and I do think resistances like interest rates and taxes are good. I think if we were to deficit spend to eternity at an extremely fast rate, there would be collapse. Which means, the government would have to select what gets printed or not, with the public knowing.

There are probably other reasons that I haven't thought of.

I think also from a revolution perspective, I think there would be risk of one if a massive amount of people learned about this. I'm used to the anger already, but it's bull**** we give corporations tax breaks when 2/3 of them don't pay any income tax, and we cut programs like nutritional programs for kids. To me that is morally disgusting. But that isn't where I am going. Seeing that we refuse to help any of the people of need out, and they were to learn that this whole time the government could of just helped them by printing money, all I'm saying if the Missouri militia started arms and started recruiting for a revolutionary cause, I would do it after learning how this works. My family struggled way too much, and apparently we are takers and not makers. We refuse to help one another, and it is apparent in these boards. I always bring this up on these boards because it was so MADDENING to me. We have spend close to 2 trillion dollars now on the YF-35 fleet alone. Imagine if that was spent on the people?

There are probably lots more of reasons as to why people won't be educated about this. OH YEAH. Colleges don't want to admit they ****ed up. Macroeconomics has been valued by that economist and that economist as worthless. And then to learn this is how **** works, schools don't want to look that dumb so they will defend macro. Same reason why that government agency won't remove weed as a class 1 substance, they don't want to admit they ****ed up for how many years, and sent to how many people to huge amounts of time in prison for dealing with pot.

I personally want to learn as much as I can about this system. That way I can derive a plan on how to change it without causing too much turmoil. My first idea is to use the printing power to start construction of the resource distribution system (RDS) for a resource based economy.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

John..he is reducing deficit spending because that's what the economists around him are suggesting. Its the same policy that has been in place for years and years.

And how's that working out?

The facts are John.. that BECAUSE people think that deficits and debt are a bad thing.. is exactly WHY we need to treat deficits and debt as a bad thing,. Because its how people feel about government spending, which effects their behavior in the economy.,

The confidence fairy strikes again. Confidence or not, people spend because they have to pay the rent and buy the groceries.

How do you think it affects people's confidence in the economy when they can't find a job?

And John.. you have not beaten ME in debate. You have lost steadily. Consistently.

Not being able to convince the most stubborn person I have ever encountered does not equal losing the debate. It just makes you stubborn.

Okay.. you acknowledge that too much deficit spending can cause a catastrophic problem with the economy.

Of course.

Can you using MMT predict EXACTLY at what point that is? Do you know exactly where that number is?

Of course not.

No you can't predict that. So logically, knowing that knowledge it makes sense to spend cautiously. Enough to make sure that the economy in bad times can run without crashing..but cautiously enough in good times to avoid causing a catastrophic problem.

The problem with your "logic" is that you think that the tipping point is a sharp, sudden thing, when it is not. You think that $1 is OK, but $1.01 would be catastrophic. And to top the whole thing off, you can't even explain in economic terms why you think that way, so you fall back on the irritatingly vague "confidence" b.s.

Further.. your whole use of MMT is to claim we need to run larger deficits to decrease unemployment... yet our unemployment is already roughly at is considered full employment.

Not in any sensible meaning of the word. If you are halfway aware of the world around you, yet you still claim that we don't have an unemployment problem in this country, you need to get back on your meds.

Lastly.. we have been running large deficits for years.. and yet inequality has increased and wages have been stagnant. Now you claim more of the same will be better. Sorry but that's is the snakeoil salesmans favorite trick. If the medicine doesn't work.. its only because you didn;t take enough.. until it kills you.

Well, we haven't been spending enough, and you basically concede that point when you state that the government is always trying to reduce deficit spending, even when the economy is flagging. I tried to explain, with numbers (that accounting stuff that you don't believe in), why it wasn't enough, using demand leakages and injections (another well-established economic idea that you reject in favor of "Jaegerlogic"). Are you aware that you never counter an economic argument with another economic argument? You just fall back on "common sense" economics - debt is bad, even though you can't explain why; deficits are bad, even though you can't explain why; etc. The debate just gets more and more tedious on my end.

 

[jaeger19]

You have a point there. Maybe the best answer is to educate the public, and let them know how reducing deficit spending reducing the size of our economy, reduces job opportunities, and reduces the private sector surplus. I really don't understand why pandering to ignorance is preferable to promoting knowledge.

Because its not ignorance. No offense but we have been deficit spending for years and years. And the middle class has shrunk. Wages have been stagnant. And inequality has increased.

you keep pandering to an ideology that deficit spending is going to improve things for the average American when the reality is that it has not.

 

[sookster]

Because its not ignorance. No offense but we have been deficit spending for years and years. And the middle class has shrunk. Wages have been stagnant. And inequality has increased.

you keep pandering to an ideology that deficit spending is going to improve things for the average American when the reality is that it has not.

That's too simplistic thinking for such a complex system. Couldn't there be other variables, and couldn't they interact in such a way to bring about that outcome? I think it has more to do with doing nothing with people that are less fortunate, because of greed and the perception that people who need help don't have ability so they are worth less as a human being.

 

[James972]

I think it has more to do with doing nothing

thats was so 100% incredible about liberals. They have increasingly done something for decades and decades, it is increasingly not working, and yet they lack the IQ to consider that their totally idiotic programs are making it worse. If a patient keeps getting worse under a doctor's care at some point you have to consider that the doctor is the cause of the sickness, if you are willing to think at all.

 

[James972]

you keep pandering to an ideology that deficit spending is going to improve things for the average American when the reality is that it has not.

but that leaves the liberal no choice put to blame liberalism for what is going wrong?

 

[jaeger19]

And how's that working out?.

Well.. being the premier economy in the world.. and the worlds reserve currency because of economic stability? Pretty darn good.

The confidence fairy strikes again. Confidence or not, people spend because they have to pay the rent and buy the groceries.

How do you think it affects people's confidence in the economy when they can't find a job?

Consumer confidence is a very important metric. Its certainly not a "fairy". People spend because of the confidence in they have in the economy and their situation. That's why the decide whether they pay rent.. or go buy that starter house. Very darn few people are at a true subsistence level of spending.
Your assumption that consumer confidence has no effect on the economy is a huge flaw in your premise.

The problem with your "logic" is that you think that the tipping point is a sharp, sudden thing, when it is not. You think that $1 is OK, but $1.01 would be catastrophic. And to top the whole thing off, you can't even explain in economic terms why you think that way, so you fall back on the irritatingly vague "confidence" b.s.

the problem with your "logic" is in assuming that the tipping point is not a sudden thing. When all evidence shows that it is. The economic evidence is everywhere from stock market crashes to mortgage bubbles to housing bubbles to recession caused by the Fed increasing rates. And there is no "irritatingly vague confidence bs". That's exactly what happens is that folks lose confidence and change their behavior.

Heck sir.. historically, recession were called "panics"... did you ever stop to think why that was? Wait.. obviously you have not.

Not in any sensible meaning of the word. If you are halfway aware of the world around you, yet you still claim that we don't have an unemployment problem in this country, you need to get back on your meds

.

Do tell. Look at our historical unemployment rate and todays rate.. and explain how we have a severe unemployment problem in this country.

Well, we haven't been spending enough, and you basically concede that point when you state that the government is always trying to reduce deficit spending, even when the economy is flagging. I tried to explain, with numbers (that accounting stuff that you don't believe in), why it wasn't enough, using demand leakages and injections (another well-established economic idea that you reject in favor of "Jaegerlogic"). Are you aware that you never counter an economic argument with another economic argument? You just fall back on "common sense" economics - debt is bad, even though you can't explain why; deficits are bad, even though you can't explain why; etc. The debate just gets more and more tedious on my end

.

OF course we have been spending enough. Crap man.. we have been spending record deficits. And no.. I don't concede that the government is "ALWAYS" trying to reduce deficit spending. That's certainly not the case. Generally government does understand that deficits do matter and move to curb deficit spending when it becomes worrisome.
Sometimes that's not always a good thing because there are times when deficits are indicated. The problem is.. that when deficits are not a concern of the government when times are good.. it often makes it more difficult to run a deficit when you should when times are bad or there is need.

I have explained why deficits matter, and have explained why your premise is incorrect in believing in "aggregate demand leakage" etc. You simply don't want to listen. Sure I have given you economic arguments. But the problem is.. your understand of demand, and understanding of the economy is based on incorrect assumptions.
Believe me.. you think its tedious? Its way more tedious for me to try and explain to someone who is minimally involved in the economy how the economy actually works. You still think that economics is accounting when its not.