Trump: U.S. will never default 'because you print the money'

[JohnfrmClevelan]

We understand completely how you want to create dollars. You want to keep the printing press working 24/7, the hell with how much debt we have or the other consequences of printing too much money. At some point the printing press breaks.

Don't even bother, MR. You understand nothing. You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.

Consider yourself lucky that other people are running the country for you.

 

[Moderate Right]

Don't even bother, MR. You understand nothing. You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.

Consider yourself lucky that other people are running the country for you.

There you go with the insults again. When you've run out of legitimate defenses insults are the only thing you have left. Just the fact that you feel the need to respond to my posts tells me that my common sense threatens your wacko philosophies.

 

[jaeger19]

The study disagrees with your cursory analysis. The disparity in administrator income is due to market's failure to appropriately price these services.

Poop. the indicators are not appropriate for the market. Its not a "cursory analysis". I understand the healthcare business.

 

[jaeger19]

Does that mean that the conservatives want the health care system to remain inefficient and overpriced?

In part.. yes. Because doing so leads to more choice for patients, better healthcare, and timeliness of care. It also leads to a better economy.. better wages for workers, and more jobs.

We could do as the liberals want for a number of industries. We could nationalize the oil industry. Reduce costs by consolidating administration, increase efficiency because a national oil industry would have economy of scale etc. Of course such would reduce jobs, reduce wages, probably have sever environmental issues etc.

We could nationalize all US manufacturing for that matter. Obviously doing such would reduce costs of administration. increase efficiency through economy of scale etc.

And the benefits would be that we could compete with China on their level. Of course we would define the middle class by how many times a month they can eat meat.. as they do in china. But hey... we would be more efficient and prices would be lower.

 

[jaeger19]

This sounds as if you don't care how a company comes to offer lower prices to its customers.

Wow.. that's a miss.

I do care. that's the point.

The liberals when it comes to healthcare don't care.. they just want lower prices...and if it hurts choice, the economy, wages and people have to wait for healthcare especially for specialists (as they do in most socialized medicine countries).. so be it.

 

[jaeger19]

No, I'm not stumped. Like Absentglare, I'm just tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

The overarching point, which I stand by, is that production does increase in response to increased demand, and prices generally don't increase. Is it perfect? Of course not, but that does not invalidate the point. If your team was right, then inflation is due to any increase in commerce, because when commerce increases, demand goes up. And when commerce increases, business investment goes up, so the money supply increases as well. Is that really the position you want to take? Increased economic activity is the cause of inflation?

There are sensible reasons for inflation - limited real estate, interest on loans, cartels, etc. There are far more than two reasons why prices go up or down.

But that's your problem John. You assume that prices WILL NOT go up. Your overarching assumptions it that prices can only go up when production has reached full capacity and there is " not enough things to buy".

But that assumptions is false.. as even today we have inflation. Your assumption is also predicated on the idea that production MUST go up in the face of increased demand to the point of keeping prices stagnant. but that is certainly not the case in the real world. Particularly when demand does not appear to be sustainable.

 

[David_N]

There you go with the insults again. When you've run out of legitimate defenses insults are the only thing you have left. Just the fact that you feel the need to respond to my posts tells me that my common sense threatens your wacko philosophies.

You're not even attempting to argue. Put something in your own words.

 

[jaeger19]

You're not even attempting to argue. Put something in your own words.

Please....:roll:

And Johns post was " attempting to argue?"

Don't even bother, MR. You understand nothing. You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.

Consider yourself lucky that other people are running the country for you.

Yeah.. no bias on your part right?

 

[David_N]

Please....:roll:

And Johns post was " attempting to argue?"



Yeah.. no bias on your part right?

MR is the one who started the nonsense. John and others are fed up, myself included. Follow the entire exchange going back to other threads.

 

[jaeger19]

MR is the one who started the nonsense. John and others are fed up, myself included. Follow the entire exchange going back to other threads.

Please. I have followed the thread.

Any objective person can see that what you and John are fed up with is having your premise be debunked. At the end of the day.. you cannot get past the simple facts:

Even John admits that injecting too much money into the system can cause catastrophe.
John and you and fellow MMTers.. have no idea how much money will cause catastrophe. But yet.. "lets do it"
John's premise assumes that production will always increase if demand goes up. (which is obviously not the case.. )
john's premise assumes that inflation will only occur when there is not enough production to meet demand (which is obviously not the case since we have inflation even right now)

and here is the kicker.. you have no clear idea of what you want to accomplish with this money in the first place. You want "growth".. but for what purpose?
You and John claim decreasing unemployment.. yet unemployment is at about historical levels.
Increase wages? Wages have been stagnant even through periods of growth and lower unemployment.

So at the end of the day.. you want to risk catastrophe.. and have no clear idea when this would occur, and for what? No clear benefit.

You and John have no clear idea what you even want to accomplish with adding this money into the system

 

[David_N]

Please. I have followed the thread.

Any objective person can see that what you and John are fed up with is having your premise be debunked. At the end of the day.. you cannot get past the simple facts:

Even John admits that injecting too much money into the system can cause catastrophe.
John and you and fellow MMTers.. have no idea how much money will cause catastrophe. But yet.. "lets do it"
John's premise assumes that production will always increase if demand goes up. (which is obviously not the case.. )
john's premise assumes that inflation will only occur when there is not enough production to meet demand (which is obviously not the case since we have inflation even right now)

and here is the kicker.. you have no clear idea of what you want to accomplish with this money in the first place. You want "growth".. but for what purpose?
You and John claim decreasing unemployment.. yet unemployment is at about historical levels.
Increase wages? Wages have been stagnant even through periods of growth and lower unemployment.

So at the end of the day.. you want to risk catastrophe.. and have no clear idea when this would occur, and for what? No clear benefit.

You and John have no clear idea what you even want to accomplish with adding this money into the system

It's not just this thread. MR continually appeals to authority and has never tried to argue in his own words.
I'll get to the rest of your post later.

 

[David_N]

Please. I have followed the thread.

Any objective person can see that what you and John are fed up with is having your premise be debunked. At the end of the day.. you cannot get past the simple facts:

Even John admits that injecting too much money into the system can cause catastrophe.
John and you and fellow MMTers.. have no idea how much money will cause catastrophe. But yet.. "lets do it"
John's premise assumes that production will always increase if demand goes up. (which is obviously not the case.. )
john's premise assumes that inflation will only occur when there is not enough production to meet demand (which is obviously not the case since we have inflation even right now)

and here is the kicker.. you have no clear idea of what you want to accomplish with this money in the first place. You want "growth".. but for what purpose?
You and John claim decreasing unemployment.. yet unemployment is at about historical levels.
Increase wages? Wages have been stagnant even through periods of growth and lower unemployment.

So at the end of the day.. you want to risk catastrophe.. and have no clear idea when this would occur, and for what? No clear benefit.

You and John have no clear idea what you even want to accomplish with adding this money into the system

Even John admits that injecting too much money into the system can cause catastrophe.

And...? John and other MMTERS have never inflation can't be a problem.

John and you and fellow MMTers.. have no idea how much money will cause catastrophe. But yet.. "lets do it"

When high inflation begins to occur.

John's premise assumes that production will always increase if demand goes up. (which is obviously not the case.. )

Not true. His premise is that we have plenty of unused resources/supply. In a 101 model where everything is severely limited, you'd have a point.

john's premise assumes that inflation will only occur when there is not enough production to meet demand (which is obviously not the case since we have inflation even right now)

We're talking about actual, noticeable inflation. Has the fed been meeting inflation targets?

and here is the kicker.. you have no clear idea of what you want to accomplish with this money in the first place. You want "growth".. but for what purpose?

Employment + Helping the poor/defense/etc..

You and John claim decreasing unemployment.. yet unemployment is at about historical levels.

And how many people are long term unemployed? Stuck in part time jobs?

So at the end of the day.. you want to risk catastrophe

:lamo

 

[jaeger19]

It's not just this thread. MR continually appeals to authority and has never tried to argue in his own words.
I'll get to the rest of your post later.

He presented an economic authorities critique of MMT.

Whether or not he "used is own words" is irrelevant.

 

[Absentglare]

He presented an economic authorities critique of MMT.

Whether or not he "used is own words" is irrelevant.

It is relevant because MR doesn't even formulate an argument.

 

[jaeger19]

And...? John and other MMTERS have never inflation can't be a problem.
:lamo

Exactly.

When high inflation begins to occur.

Exactly again. so when you know that you have done too much... its when we are in catastrophe. Great. that makes a lot of sense.

Not true. His premise is that we have plenty of unused resources/supply. In a 101 model where everything is severely limited, you'd have a point.

Totally true. He has stated that production will always increase if demand increases and prices therefore won't rise and that simply is not true.

We're talking about actual, noticeable inflation. Has the fed been meeting inflation targets?

We have actual, noticeable inflation.

Employment + Helping the poor/defense/etc..

1. We are already at historic employment levels. We have already went through periods where unemployment was even lower.. and yet wages stagnated, inequity increased, social mobility decreased and the middle class shrunk. So again.. what do you plan to do with your unemployment that has not been tried already. How is it going to be different " this time".

2. Helping poor and defense is not an argument for more spending.. its an argument for wiser spending.

And how many people are long term unemployed? Stuck in part time jobs?

There is no evidence that suggests its significantly different than other periods in history of the same unemployment and yet the middle class was growing and wages weren;t stagnant.

in addition.. unemployment has been much lower recently.. and yet the middle class still did poorly as did the poor. The rich did get richer however.

that's the major problem with your premise.

 

[jaeger19]

It is relevant because MR doesn't even formulate an argument.

Of course he did. He presented as an argument the critiques of economic authorities.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Totally true. He has stated that production will always increase if demand increases and prices therefore won't rise and that simply is not true.

No, I have stated that production increases in response to demand as long as it is able - when the labor, materials, and capacity is there to do so. And it does. We don't have many shortages in this country, unless you count not being able to get the newest iPhone on launch day. And of course, you always manage to disregard inventory.

I have said, over and over, that there are many reasons why prices go up and down. Which makes your continued mischaracterization of my position yet another example of your dishonest debating. Prices rise, and prices fall, but 2% inflation is NOT due to excess money floating around. You keep on yammering about catastrophic inflation due to too much deficit spending, then you point to our minuscule 2% as evidence? And you want me to take that argument seriously?

We have actual, noticeable inflation.

Yeah, and it's damn near "hyper" level. We better cut back on spending, because there is no telling when it will push us over the edge into 3% inflation, or even 4% inflation. :roll:

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Of course he did. He presented as an argument the critiques of economic authorities.

Really? You agree that this passes for debate now?

Well, fine. I have another subject for debate, but I'm just going to leave it to the experts. Read and discuss! (I'll read it later, just like MR claims he did). It's a critique by a very respected authority on medicine - you can tell, because he has his own blog.

Doctors: The bane of our existence

 

[jaeger19]

No, I have stated that production increases in response to demand as long as it is able - when the labor, materials, and capacity is there to do so. And it does. We don't have many shortages in this country, unless you count not being able to get the newest iPhone on launch day. And of course, you always manage to disregard inventory.

I have said, over and over, that there are many reasons why prices go up and down. Which makes your continued mischaracterization of my position yet another example of your dishonest debating. Prices rise, and prices fall, but 2% inflation is NOT due to excess money floating around. You keep on yammering about catastrophic inflation due to too much deficit spending, then you point to our minuscule 2% as evidence? And you want me to take that argument seriously?



Yeah, and it's damn near "hyper" level. We better cut back on spending, because there is no telling when it will push us over the edge into 3% inflation, or even 4% inflation. :roll:

John we have had inflation without shortages. And production does not always increase in response to demand. And there is no "forgetting inventory". It seems you forget inventory..

John.. you state that prices go up and down for "many reasons"... only when your feet are held to the fire.

And exactly John.. 2% inflation is NOT due to excess money floating around. THATS THE POINT. You appear to think the only thing that can increase inflation is money supply.

That's right.. I point to catastrophic inflation due to too much deficit spending and point to 2% as evidence. YOU SHOULD take that argument seriously... because its proof there is other factors other than money supply that can increase inflation.

You don't seem to have thought out the realities John. What if you inflate the money supply.. which causes inflation.. and THEN have an event outside of the money supply that causes us to go into hyperinflation?

If we had not artificially inflated the money supply... we would have had less inflation and weathered it better... but because we artificially increased the money supply and caused inflation, the other invent had a much greater effect.

OR.. there is a process going on that's leading to inflation.. and then you artificially add more money and tip the scales toward catastrophe. The point is.. unless you can adequately control all the factors leading to inflation.. you have to be very thoughtful of how you deficit spend.

And the fact is.. you don't even have a handle on what factors cause inflation... much less have the ability to control the other factors.

Yeah, and it's damn near "hyper" level. We better cut back on spending, because there is no telling when it will push us over the edge into 3% inflation, or even 4% inflation

Well first we are talking about deficit spending.

However, yes.. we have been cutting back on deficit spending.. and the Fed even raised interest rates to make sure we don't head toward a problem...

Tell me John... give me the exact percentage of inflation that's leads to catastrophe. Please back it up with research. I would like to know exactly at what percentage inflation the middle class suffers.

 

[jaeger19]

Really? You agree that this passes for debate now?

Well, fine. I have another subject for debate, but I'm just going to leave it to the experts. Read and discuss! (I'll read it later, just like MR claims he did). It's a critique by a very respected authority on medicine - you can tell, because he has his own blog.

Doctors: The bane of our existence

Well if you wish to discuss it, start a new thread in the medicine section.

However, after reading it.. I would say that there are several very good points the author makes. Particularly about the medical professions willingness to listen. And in a way its obvious that the person is correct because he/she displays some ignorance of medicine which frankly is proof positive that the medical profession has failed to educate them on the disease and treatment options.

If you would like to continue to discuss.. please post a thread in the healthcare section.

see.. not so hard. And look.. no personal attacks necessary.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well if you wish to discuss it, start a new thread in the medicine section.

However, after reading it.. I would say that there are several very good points the author makes. Particularly about the medical professions willingness to listen. And in a way its obvious that the person is correct because he/she displays some ignorance of medicine which frankly is proof positive that the medical profession has failed to educate them on the disease and treatment options.

If you would like to continue to discuss.. please post a thread in the healthcare section.

see.. not so hard. And look.. no personal attacks necessary.

The difference is that you actually read the (short) piece, understood it, and put it in your own words. Like a real debater. MR did none of that. (Did you read his link, btw? You commented on it, so I have to assume that you read and understood it.) And that was my whole point - simply standing by and pointing at links is not participating in a debate. And as he has brought absolutely zero to the table since he's been here, yes, personal attacks are absolutely the way to go.

 

[Moderate Right]

You're not even attempting to argue. Put something in your own words.

The "argument" has long been over. There is a reason why MMT only has a very small minority following - because even the experts in the know the world over, the ones with the most education, realize that MMT is flawed. Trying to resurrect it by a small handful of hobbyists on a debate forum with no real credentials of any kind only makes you feel better about yourself and gives you justification for your liberal fantasies. It doesn't change the reality that it has been found to be bunk by every single country in the entire world.

 

[jaeger19]

The difference is that you actually read the (short) piece, understood it, and put it in your own words. Like a real debater. MR did none of that. (Did you read his link, btw? You commented on it, so I have to assume that you read and understood it.) And that was my whole point - simply standing by and pointing at links is not participating in a debate. And as he has brought absolutely zero to the table since he's been here, yes, personal attacks are absolutely the way to go.

too funny. You get the irony I hope.

YOU presented a position the way you felt Moderate Right did.

and what did I do? Read the article, and respond to it like an intelligent person.. with no personal attacks.

THATS debate.


YOU SIR.. were presented with linked articles that critiqued your position... but rather than reading them and debating their merits or lack thereof.. you went a different direction.

including personal attacks. And then complain about debate?

Again.. I hope you see the irony of your post.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course he did. He presented as an argument the critiques of economic authorities.

No, that's pointing to someone else's argument.

 

[jaeger19]

No, that's pointing to someone else's argument.

And that's part and parcel of debate.