MMT False Counterpoint #2 - Ceteris paribus with a perfect solution.

[pdog]

That's it? Japan's unemployment rate is all your proof? The fact that Japan is drowning in debt, stagnation, a gradually regressing standard of living, 3 times as many negative GDP quarters then America since 1991 and a stock market that has shrunk 50% compared to the DOW growing by over 600% since 1990...they all mean little/nothing to you?

Lol...noted.

Japan's unemployment rate is a major chink in your armor. It's pretty hard to outright say deficit spending doesn't work as you do when that statistic exists. I don't deny that any of those other statistics are not good. What I'll deny constantly is your certainty that those things are tied to deficit spending when it has been demonstrated to you COUNTLESS times that several other completely unrelated factors exist and your correlation in spite of that is unbelievebly absurd.

I never said - or even thought - that it was.

Really? You sure fooled me. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you acknowledge the other factors in the context of deficit spending.

Only an idiot would blame economic problems 100% on any one problem.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

Thank you for your answer.
Your mind is clearly closed on this issue and you obviously do not understand real world macroeconomics. Like Cleveland and mmi et al....you are apparently emotionally attached to a certain way of thinking on macroeconomics and rely on (no offense) simpleton economics and pie-in-the-sky theories that have NEVER been proven as effective.

B.S. I used to be a debt hawk. My early posts here prove it. I changed my views almost entirely. You can either blame that on better logic from your opposition or better debating skills. Either way, there’s a lot of people now minding the economics and government spending threads and plucking any weeds before they take root. It’s tough to say that this will take root in the general American public when the debt has been weaponized in order to have one more thing to blame by conservatives. But the debate here is over. All that’s left on your side are people that bail on the debate, people that can’t keep a straight thought in their head, and people that don’t even know what a debate is. Don’t get me wrong, there are many that keep a toe in Keynesianism (like me). But that side is entirely more unified than those that are preaching austerity, an isolated private sector, or “pure” capitalism.

Whereas I am attached to nothing (on this) but the truth and making money - for me and others. I don't care about macroeconomic theories or political partisanship.

Then you should stick to finance. Although it’s debatable that you’re interested in the truth. If you would, you’d stop this single variable correlation silliness.

Further discussion with you on this matter would be a waste of my time.

We are done here for now.

Good day.

DA, my post covered your correlation fallacy, your tired argument about the 1920 recession (again), your willful ignorance of the total picture in japan and what it is/isn't in terms of mmt and and success vs failure (again). You then cherry pick the very bottom of that post and then accuse ME of wasting time. Give me a break. You can "Good day" your way out of your thin argument all you want - it is what I have come to expect from you.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=DA60+"good+day"+site:debatepolitics.com+"pdog"

 

[mmi]

simpleton economics and pie-in-the-sky theories that have NEVER been proven as effective

The proof is obvious, but you refuse to accept it. Keynesian policies brought us out of both the GOP SSE Great Depression and the GOP SSE Great Recession.

>>Further discussion with you on this matter would be a waste of my time.

What makes you think a discussion of economic policy with you has ever been anything but a complete joke?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

...But the debate here is over. All that’s left on your side are people that bail on the debate, people that can’t keep a straight thought in their head, and people that don’t even know what a debate is. Don’t get me wrong, there are many that keep a toe in Keynesianism (like me). But that side is entirely more unified than those that are preaching austerity, an isolated private sector, or “pure” capitalism.

I was thinking the same thing. I haven't seen much in the way of substantial opposition for months now.

 

[Moderate Right]

For the same reason people talk about placing speed limits on roads ... because cars have the ability to drive 120mph, but there are roads on which it would be a bad idea to do so. Do YOU get the analogy? What's the point of your denying our ability to print endless dollars simply because we shouldn't? It's just a plain stupid statement.

My counter question is what point is there to saying we can have endless debt and endless printing of money when even you MMT'rs claim that you wouldn't want to do it anyway? You're right, what's the point of saying that you have the ability to drive at 120mph if there will be consequences for doing it and you wouldn't do it anyway? It's just a stupid argument to say that we can when you wouldn't do it anyway.

 

[Moderate Right]

Where in that post did I say any of that?



more opinion and conjecture ....

EDIT: Actually, it's not "more ...", it's the same points you've brought up in the same words you've brought them up in, a hundred times.

You're the one who brought up the gold standard. Just because we ditched the gold standard doesn't mean we're using MMT as an economic policy. And yes, I agree, understanding MMT is just an opinion, a liberal opinion. SSE is also an opinion of how things work. They're all opinions.

 

[Critter7r]

My counter question is what point is there to saying we can have endless debt and endless printing of money when even you MMT'rs claim that you wouldn't want to do it anyway? You're right, what's the point of saying that you have the ability to drive at 120mph if there will be consequences for doing it and you wouldn't do it anyway? It's just a stupid argument to say that we can when you wouldn't do it anyway.

Yet it still manages not to negate the fact that a car can drive 120mph. But you would pretend that a car CAN'T drive 120, simply because it shouldn't.

That's the argument. Acknowledge that it's possible, then let's discuss what is actually the best course of action. Because we all know it isn't printing $350T and giving every citizen a million dollars.

Your (and others') refusal to acknowledge this FACT of our economic system is the reason this thread (and others) never really get to a point where actual, meaningful discussion takes place.

 

[Absentglare]

You yourself say that we can but we shouldn't. That's my point and my point was also that I can print all the money I want too but there will be consequences for me doing it, just as there would be consequences for the US doing it. I think it is you who have problems reading English. Why would I want to say that I can pick weeds in my backyard forever if I really know that I can't or shouldn't do it (but I theoretically could)? Do you get the analogy? What's the point of saying we can print money forever if you acknowledge that there will be consequences for doing it, so therefore we shouldn't? It's just a plain stupid argument.

Because it completely rephrases the issue related to debt hysteria.

 

[Critter7r]

You're the one who brought up the gold standard. Just because we ditched the gold standard doesn't mean we're using MMT as an economic policy. And yes, I agree, understanding MMT is just an opinion, a liberal opinion. SSE is also an opinion of how things work. They're all opinions.

And while we ARE "using" MMT, I was not - in that post - doing anything more than responding to your question, which was ...

How is this possible that we have been operating under MMT since the 1930's? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things worked, not something you can operate under. Did things work differently before 1930 than after 1930? The way things work are just the way things work.

To which the answer is "YES", things DID work differently after the 1930s than before, because before then, we were strictly on the gold-standard, and afterward, we were in the beginning stages of creating a fiat-money system where the dollar wasn't pegged to gold, and the decoupling of dollars to gold was completed in '74 (I think), under Nixon.

 

[Moderate Right]

The proof is obvious, but you refuse to accept it. Keynesian policies brought us out of both the GOP SSE Great Depression and the GOP SSE Great Recession.

>>Further discussion with you on this matter would be a waste of my time.

What makes you think a discussion of economic policy with you has ever been anything but a complete joke?

Keynesian economics could be debated but MMT is not the same as Keynesian economics. They are two somewhat similar but different animals. You said before that you didn't really know that much about MMT but you sure seem to defend it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[pdog]

My counter question is what point is there to saying we can have endless debt and endless printing of money when even you MMT'rs claim that you wouldn't want to do it anyway? You're right, what's the point of saying that you have the ability to drive at 120mph if there will be consequences for doing it and you wouldn't do it anyway? It's just a stupid argument to say that we can when you wouldn't do it anyway.

our country could exist "endlessly". That said why can't something our country does also go on "endlessly"?

 

[Moderate Right]

Yet it still manages not to negate the fact that a car can drive 120mph. But you would pretend that a car CAN'T drive 120, simply because it shouldn't.

That's the argument. Acknowledge that it's possible, then let's discuss what is actually the best course of action. Because we all know it isn't printing $350T and giving every citizen a million dollars.

Your (and others') refusal to acknowledge this FACT of our economic system is the reason this thread (and others) never really get to a point where actual, meaningful discussion takes place.

Is it possible or is it not possible? Are there limits or are there not limits? You can't drive at 120 mph forever because at some point you would crash and die and then you would no longer be going at 120 mph anymore. Ditto the economy. There are consequences for driving at 120 mph nonstop, just as there are consequences for having no limits with MMT. It is actually NOT possible to spend and print money forever because at some point it will end, just as the driver who kept on driving at 120 mph eventually crashed and died, so will the economy. If you're best argument for the Great Depression is that we got through it and have been doing fine most of the time ever since, try telling that to the people who experienced the Great Depression firsthand. Try telling that to the dinosaurs when Earth had a cataclysmic event and wound up OK afterward anyway.

 

[Moderate Right]

And while we ARE "using" MMT, I was not - in that post - doing anything more than responding to your question, which was ...



To which the answer is "YES", things DID work differently after the 1930s than before, because before then, we were strictly on the gold-standard, and afterward, we were in the beginning stages of creating a fiat-money system where the dollar wasn't pegged to gold, and the decoupling of dollars to gold was completed in '74 (I think), under Nixon.

You're attempting to fill in a whole puzzle using just a few dots.

 

[Moderate Right]

our country could exist "endlessly". That said why can't something our country does also go on "endlessly"?

You're whole premise is wrong. Name one country on the planet that has been here since the dawn of humanity. History has shown that our country will NOT go on endlessly. Neither will the Earth itself and that's what's wrong with MMT. How long would MMT last? It could very well last all of our lifetimes but at some point it will end and it will end because of itself. I don't want my children or their children or even their children to pay for MMT's mistakes. It's kind of like a pyramid scheme and when it finally ends the people on the bottom are the ones who are the losers.

 

[Critter7r]

Is it possible or is it not possible?

It is

Are there limits or are there not limits?

There are

You can't drive at 120 mph forever because at some point you would crash and die and then you would no longer be going at 120 mph anymore. Ditto the economy. There are consequences for driving at 120 mph nonstop, just as there are consequences for having no limits with MMT.

I'm not saying we should not have limits

It is actually NOT possible to spend and print money forever because at some point it will end ...

What does that even mean to you? Because we CAN print it forever, and never run into economic problems. But we CAN'T print it in unlimited quantities without causing problems (it would be physically and operationally possible to print enough to give everyone that cool million, but it wouldn't be good policy to do so). I sincerely hope that you don't have the words "forever" and "unlimited" mishmashed in your brain to mean the same thing.

... just as the driver who kept on driving at 120 mph eventually crashed and died, so will the economy. If you're best argument for the Great Depression is that we got through it and have been doing fine most of the time ever since, try telling that to the people who experienced the Great Depression firsthand.

I've never made a Great Depression argument, but ok.

Try telling that to the dinosaurs when Earth had a cataclysmic event and wound up OK afterward anyway.

uhhhh ....

 

[Critter7r]

You're attempting to fill in a whole puzzle using just a few dots.

No, I was trying to answer your "were things different before the '30s than after" without explaining all of economic history to you.

 

[mmi]

It's kind of like a pyramid scheme and when it finally ends the people on the bottom are the ones who are the losers.

US GDP in 1970 was about $1.1 trillion, and the national debt was approaching $400 billion. The debt (including intergovernmental debt) is now close to $19 trillion. I think it's important to note in that context that our GDP is now more than $18 trillion.

We were in a better debt/GDP position forty-five years ago, but I'd say that as long as it doesn't get out of hand, we'll be OK.

And how did we go from a ratio of .36 to 1.04? Was it mostly "throwing money" at poverty? Or was it predominantly handing out big tax cuts to millionaires?

Well, the number was .31 in 1981 and had more than doubled to .64 by 1993. Which economic policy did we pursue during those years? SSE, wasn't it? The ratio fell back down to .54 by 2000, after those policies were discarded. We then went back to SSE, and not surprisingly the level rose to .92 by 2010. Obummer cautiously guided us back onto a path to prosperity, and we're now at 1.04.

Personally, I've had more than enough of SSE. I'd say it's the "pyramid scheme" that punishes the poor and the working-class stiffs like me that don't just lose some of their retirement savings, but instead lose jobs, homes, families, etc.

 

[pdog]

You're whole premise is wrong. Name one country on the planet that has been here since the dawn of humanity. History has shown that our country will NOT go on endlessly. Neither will the Earth itself and that's what's wrong with MMT. How long would MMT last? It could very well last all of our lifetimes but at some point it will end and it will end because of itself. I don't want my children or their children or even their children to pay for MMT's mistakes. It's kind of like a pyramid scheme and when it finally ends the people on the bottom are the ones who are the losers.

you're misunderstood what im saying. I said out country COULD go on for ever and with that so could its deficit spending. Im not saying we can deficit spend at any rate that we want but I am saying that YOUR premise is not true. We have been deficit spending for more than 100 years and we can continue to do so. If you disagree please say why.