Maybe Trump (Mnuchin?) is manipulating the market so rich people can get some discount stock and widen the wealth disparity. Because Trump hates poor people.
Maybe Trump (Mnuchin?) is manipulating the market so rich people can get some discount stock and widen the wealth disparity. Because Trump hates poor people.
Ample evidence already that massive portions of the tax cuts are being used for stock buy-backs. This serves one purpose, and it isn't investment in new jobs or technology. It's to pad the wallet of top executives:
Warren Mosler's comments on the tariffs (no big surprises here).
"Yes, when we buy imports jobs are lost, just as when we replace workers with machines, including lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, and power washers, jobs are lost. And yet somehow we’ve survived all that. We went from needing 99% of the people working to grow our food to less than 1%, and manufacturing jobs are down to only 7% of the labor force. And yet the remaining 90% of us are not all unemployed, as jobs have proliferated in the service sector, where most of those jobs are now considered to be better jobs than the lost agricultural and manufacturing jobs. Nor has a trade deficit necessarily resulted in higher unemployment or lower pay. In 1999, for example, we had record imports with unemployment under 4% and inflation under 2%, and students were getting recruited for good paying jobs well before graduation. The answer to sustaining high levels of employment and pay is fiscal policy. If for any reason, including more imports, weak demand at home is keeping unemployment too high or wages too low, the appropriate policy response is fiscal relaxation- either a tax cut or spending increase, even if that increases the public debt- and not to tax or otherwise drive up the cost of imports. Unfortunately however, the policy that allows all of us to pay the lowest prices for imports and have good paying jobs to replace those lost because of imports has been taken entirely off the table by both Republicans and Democrats. Consequently a very good thing for America- lower prices of imports- has been turned into a very bad thing- unemployment, and all because of the fake news about the public debt that is supported by Republicans and Democrats. The US public debt is nothing more than the dollars spent by the federal government that have not yet been used to pay taxes. Those dollars spent and not yet taxed sit in bank accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank that are called ‘reserve accounts’ and ‘securities accounts’, along with the actual cash in circulation. Treasury securities (bonds, notes, and bills) are nothing more than dollars in securities accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank, functionally the same as dollars in savings accounts or CD’s at commercial banks. Think of it this way- when the government spends a dollar, that dollar either is used to pay taxes and is lost to the economy, or it’s not used to pay taxes and remains in the economy. Deficit spending adds to those dollars that were spent but not yet taxed, which is called the public debt. And what’s called ‘paying off the debt’ (as happens to 10’s of billions of Treasury securities every month) is just a matter of the Fed shifting dollars from securities accounts to reserve accounts- a simple debit and a credit- all on its own books. (No tax payers or grand children required…) The ‘ability to pay’ is always there- it’s just a debit and a credit to accounts on the books of the Federal Reserve Bank. The fear mongering about the US running out of money or constraints by foreigners is simply not applicable to today’s monetary system. And if you are worried about inflation, our proposal works to lower prices for all of us, while the Presidents direct policy is to raise the prices we all pay. And if the concern is national security, the policy response that best serves public interest is to order the defense department to require domestic sourcing of what they consider strategically important, and let the rest of us continue to shop for the lowest possible prices. Point is, once it’s understood that 1) the public debt is nothing more than what can be called the net money supply 2) there is no risk of default 3) there is no dependence on foreign or any other lenders 4)there is no burden being put on future generations the President will be free to make us all winners by being our shopper in chief who works to get us the lowest possible prices. "
So let's get this straight: to increase the prospects of a steel industry that employs about 140,000 people in this country, we are going to make it harder for American companies to sell products such as jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and fruit juice to Europe. It's going to become more expensive for Americans to buy foreign-made cars. It's going to make it harder for US car manufacturers to obtain the materials they need to keep THEIR cars cheap. Meanwhile raising the price of everyday items such as canned soup and soda for every American in the country. Furthermore, alot of those European cars are actually made in the US. On top of all that, this is a fight he is starting with our ALLIES. Just randomly throwing molotov cocktails into international trade policy on a Saturday morning. When those against Trump in the 2016 election said he didn't have the temperament to be President, THIS entire situation is exactly why. This is the behavior of an infant, but behavior that could potentially alter the pocket books of millions upon millions of people. And every adult leader in Europe, North America and Asia is looking at this country like we have lost our goddamn minds. Hope everyone is content with the couple hundred dollars they may have gotten from the tax cut (if even that). Because it is going to get swallowed up in Trump's "trade war", which he actually WANTS to have. But, I suppose we shouldn't fret. Because they are easy to win.
So let's get this straight: to increase the prospects of a steel industry that employs about 140,000 people in this country, we are going to make it harder for American companies to sell products such as jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and fruit juice to Europe. It's going to become more expensive for Americans to buy foreign-made cars. It's going to make it harder for US car manufacturers to obtain the materials they need to keep THEIR cars cheap. Meanwhile raising the price of everyday items such as canned soup and soda for every American in the country. Furthermore, alot of those European cars are actually made in the US. On top of all that, this is a fight he is starting with our ALLIES. Just randomly throwing molotov cocktails into international trade policy on a Saturday morning. When those against Trump in the 2016 election said he didn't have the temperament to be President, THIS entire situation is exactly why. This is the behavior of an infant, but behavior that could potentially alter the pocket books of millions upon millions of people. And every adult leader in Europe, North America and Asia is looking at this country like we have lost our goddamn minds. Hope everyone is content with the couple hundred dollars they may have gotten from the tax cut (if even that). Because it is going to get swallowed up in Trump's "trade war", which he actually WANTS to have. But, I suppose we shouldn't fret. Because they are easy to win.
I Strongly agree. Protectionism is terrible. During the "great deal", agriculture protectionism almost killed USA exportation. Almost all rich countries have few barriers like Singapore.
Did I somewhat earlier reflect the often harsh and way too frequent negative rhetoric I observe all the time about the poor in the "welfare state" of Finland media to misinterpret the fora member whom posted about income differences by race in the US?
If so, I am sorry.
If not, mind your confirmation bias.
Only today, the very politically chosen head of Finnish welfare bureaucracy came out to media to point out that the most desperate welfare measure is "lifestyle" for some.
Would you Elli have those said persons resort to criminality, as "lifestyle"? And would you have frankly supported neutral selection process?
So let's get this straight: to increase the prospects of a steel industry that employs about 140,000 people in this country, we are going to make it harder for American companies to sell products such as jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and fruit juice to Europe. It's going to become more expensive for Americans to buy foreign-made cars. It's going to make it harder for US car manufacturers to obtain the materials they need to keep THEIR cars cheap. Meanwhile raising the price of everyday items such as canned soup and soda for every American in the country. Furthermore, alot of those European cars are actually made in the US. On top of all that, this is a fight he is starting with our ALLIES. Just randomly throwing molotov cocktails into international trade policy on a Saturday morning. When those against Trump in the 2016 election said he didn't have the temperament to be President, THIS entire situation is exactly why. This is the behavior of an infant, but behavior that could potentially alter the pocket books of millions upon millions of people. And every adult leader in Europe, North America and Asia is looking at this country like we have lost our goddamn minds. Hope everyone is content with the couple hundred dollars they may have gotten from the tax cut (if even that). Because it is going to get swallowed up in Trump's "trade war", which he actually WANTS to have. But, I suppose we shouldn't fret. Because they are easy to win.
I Strongly agree. Protectionism is terrible. During the "great deal", agriculture protectionism almost killed USA exportation. Almost all rich countries have few barriers like Singapore.
This is, in fact, the main issue I have with the far-left Bernie-wing of the party. Their views on trade are just as unrealistic as the nationalist right. Beyond that, one of the unseen benefits of the free trade we have seen in modern times is that, frankly, it prevents wars. Countries that are engaged in mutually beneficial trade deals aren't likely to start firing guns or dropping bombs on one another. That isn't to say there are NO adverse side-effects to these policies. For certain industries, in certain sectors of the economy, they have not been helpful (though I would argue many of those industries, like, for instance, American steel, had problems to begin with). But in the aggregate, the vast majority of people are paying less for their consumer goods, and (at least in the United States and Europe, as well as our relationship with a very powerful China) we live in what can only be considered relative peace compared to the first half of the 20th century. That trade-off is worth it at any monetary cost.
I would disagree with that broad brush. Of course, it also depends if those supporters know who Stephanie Kelton is I guess. A lot of Sanders supporters still believe we need to raise taxes to pay for things too- making them as silly as the neoliberal Clintonites.
Or have I misread you and you are saying Mosler, Kelton, Wray et al are who you consider unrealistic? Perhaps you prefer hacks like Paul Krugman?
It is true that the Greens are economically illiterate though, I grant you that much. "Democratizing the dollar' or 'greening the dollar' etc... all nonsense. That has to do with party leadership though (David Cobb in particular), many Greens know better and refer to themselves as 'MMT Greens'.
Just do tell, you that posted the earnings graph by race (in the US probably, because this sort of profiling is slightly uncomfy elsewhere in the west)- showing blacks at the lower end.
Which is logical, because social mobility is rather imperfect. Existing money accumulates.
Did you do it to highlight inequality, or to imply a segment in society that is less deserving, because they are not rich or less likely to earn well?
I thought the latter because of the nature of the current public discussion, in Finland even.
So let's get this straight: to increase the prospects of a steel industry that employs about 140,000 people in this country, we are going to make it harder for American companies to sell products such as jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and fruit juice to Europe. It's going to become more expensive for Americans to buy foreign-made cars. It's going to make it harder for US car manufacturers to obtain the materials they need to keep THEIR cars cheap. Meanwhile raising the price of everyday items such as canned soup and soda for every American in the country. Furthermore, alot of those European cars are actually made in the US. On top of all that, this is a fight he is starting with our ALLIES. Just randomly throwing molotov cocktails into international trade policy on a Saturday morning. When those against Trump in the 2016 election said he didn't have the temperament to be President, THIS entire situation is exactly why. This is the behavior of an infant, but behavior that could potentially alter the pocket books of millions upon millions of people. And every adult leader in Europe, North America and Asia is looking at this country like we have lost our goddamn minds. Hope everyone is content with the couple hundred dollars they may have gotten from the tax cut (if even that). Because it is going to get swallowed up in Trump's "trade war", which he actually WANTS to have. But, I suppose we shouldn't fret. Because they are easy to win.
I Strongly agree. Protectionism is terrible. During the "great deal", agriculture protectionism almost killed USA exportation. Almost all rich countries have few barriers like Singapore.
This is, in fact, the main issue I have with the far-left Bernie-wing of the party. Their views on trade are just as unrealistic as the nationalist right. Beyond that, one of the unseen benefits of the free trade we have seen in modern times is that, frankly, it prevents wars. Countries that are engaged in mutually beneficial trade deals aren't likely to start firing guns or dropping bombs on one another. That isn't to say there are NO adverse side-effects to these policies. For certain industries, in certain sectors of the economy, they have not been helpful (though I would argue many of those industries, like, for instance, American steel, had problems to begin with). But in the aggregate, the vast majority of people are paying less for their consumer goods, and (at least in the United States and Europe, as well as our relationship with a very powerful China) we live in what can only be considered relative peace compared to the first half of the 20th century. That trade-off is worth it at any monetary cost.
Mercantilism, Isolationism, Protecionism is terrible. Doesn't matter if is made by right or left wings. Yes, free trade prevent wars and help the nations. For example, lets suppose that China make very good cars. Put barriers to stop Chinese cars will be good for the national automobile industry? Yes, but all other business that will have less efficient cars will be less competitive. Free trade allow your national companies to have access to the best in world and nobody talk about that.
Also, as you have said, free trade prevent war and prevent wars in a world with nuclear weapons is much more important than in past. War is not CoD. War is terrible.
I would agree, but that statement is misleading and inaccurate. One only needs to look at who Bernie Sanders' economic advisor was (and now, founding fellow at The Sanders Institute) for proof. Many of his supporters are still economically illiterate, yes, but I would place more blame on the Democratic Party for that. I mean, at least they aren't Paul Ryan or Austrian-gold-bug Rand Paul illiterate lol.
It's hard to say somebody is "economically illiterate" just because they disagree with the majority of economists, especially considering how immensely divided economists are when it comes to all but the most basic of theories.
That's true, I suppose saying Austrian economics being illiterate isn't fair. In other cases it truly is a matter of not understanding basic fundamentals of how our monetary system operates. This is not opinions or ideology, but rather operational facts. I suppose you could say that Austrians base ideas off of models at least, but there is still a lack of fundamental understanding (Austrian School is based on fixed exchange, finite, pegged ideology inapplicable to modern reality). Facts v opinions. Or in some cases, like the Green Party, we're talking straight up Alex Jones style conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and a non-existent fractional reserve system. Please also note, that I am ironically replying to you from the heterodoxy of economic thought.
Did I somewhat earlier reflect the often harsh and way too frequent negative rhetoric I observe all the time about the poor in the "welfare state" of Finland media to misinterpret the fora member whom posted about income differences by race in the US?
Just do tell, you that posted the earnings graph by race (in the US probably, because this sort of profiling is slightly uncomfy elsewhere in the west)- showing blacks at the lower end.
Which is logical, because social mobility is rather imperfect. Existing money accumulates.
Did you do it to highlight inequality, or to imply a segment in society that is less deserving, because they are not rich or less likely to earn well?
I thought the latter because of the nature of the current public discussion, in Finland even.
I posted it to highlight inequality.
I appreciate the apology and the clarification. I was very confused by your reaction before.
Here are your "reasonable and sane" Blue Dog and centrist Democrats hard at work...
"A bill that began as a well-intentioned effort to satisfy some perhaps legitimate community bank grievances has instead mushroomed, sparking fears that Washington is paving the way for the next financial meltdown. Congress is unlikely to pass much significant legislation in 2018, so lobbyists have rushed to stuff the trunk of the vehicle full. “There are many different interests in financial services that are looking at this and saying, ‘Oh my God, there’s finally going to be reform to Dodd-Frank that may move, let me throw in this issue and this issue,’” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., in an interview. “There are a dozen different players who decided this is the last bus out of town.” And Coons is a co-sponsor of the bill. A hopeful nation — and the president himself — expected that the Senate would begin debate on major gun policy reform next week, but instead a confounding scenario has emerged: In the typically gridlocked Congress, with the Trump legislative agenda mostly stalled, members of both parties will come together to roll back financial rules, during the 10th anniversary of the biggest banking crisis in nearly a century. And it’s happening with virtually no media attention whatsoever."
Here's the money quote:
"But that a populist Democrat feels they can sponsor such a bill and see political benefit — or at least not face much pain — represents a stark failure on the left to adequately frame and define the conversation around banking, Wall Street, inequality, and the economy."
Here are your "reasonable and sane" Blue Dog and centrist Democrats hard at work...
"A bill that began as a well-intentioned effort to satisfy some perhaps legitimate community bank grievances has instead mushroomed, sparking fears that Washington is paving the way for the next financial meltdown. Congress is unlikely to pass much significant legislation in 2018, so lobbyists have rushed to stuff the trunk of the vehicle full. “There are many different interests in financial services that are looking at this and saying, ‘Oh my God, there’s finally going to be reform to Dodd-Frank that may move, let me throw in this issue and this issue,’” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., in an interview. “There are a dozen different players who decided this is the last bus out of town.” And Coons is a co-sponsor of the bill. A hopeful nation — and the president himself — expected that the Senate would begin debate on major gun policy reform next week, but instead a confounding scenario has emerged: In the typically gridlocked Congress, with the Trump legislative agenda mostly stalled, members of both parties will come together to roll back financial rules, during the 10th anniversary of the biggest banking crisis in nearly a century. And it’s happening with virtually no media attention whatsoever."
Here's the money quote:
"But that a populist Democrat feels they can sponsor such a bill and see political benefit — or at least not face much pain — represents a stark failure on the left to adequately frame and define the conversation around banking, Wall Street, inequality, and the economy."
The usual suspects among the Blue Dogs. Tester, Heitkamp, and Machin leading the charge. They are essentially worthless on both this issue AND on guns. In fact, the only benefit they have to Democrats is as numbers in the caucus if they take back the Senate to form the majority. But that article's title is farcical. Democrats can't "take on" anything in the Senate right now. And, as I said, there is little chance those 3, from solidly red, excessively rural states, are going to offer anything more on gun control than Manchin/Toomey. Which may pass in the Senate, and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in the House. But, again, I don't have the first clue what the gun control debate has to do with these banking regulations.
But yeah, the Democrats frequently have this problem in the House and the Senate. About 20% of them are, in many ways, just Republican-light. The Republicans have nowhere near that percentage who tilt towards the other side on so many issues.
Yes the headline was pointing out the irony, I mean why do we need an actual opposition party anyway right? I guess they can still "take on" banking deregulation though while calling the left crazy Russian trolls.
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business.
Why don't we ask for permission to exist while we're at it
Licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous, to the point where states are requiring two year degrees to be a hair braider. This is pure protectionism, and it keeps people who wish to work in a state of poverty by creating further barriers to entry.
Plus, as we see by jjstraka34's argument, many people view this as an excuse for the state curtailing further liberties, as if people should be grateful for being granted the right to earn an honest living. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is horrifying. You should not have to trade in your religious or moral beliefs just to put food on the table.
So Pharmacists should not have to fill prescriptions for birth control, a doctor should not have to treat someone whose "lifestyle" they disagree with, and funeral homes should be allowed to turn away bodies based on whether the deceased was a homosexual?? Forget the gay wedding cakes issue, these 3 examples are a totally different ballgame. Are we suggesting that people in these positions (pharmacist, doctor, mortician) have NO responsibility to the general public in carrying out the duties of their job?? Especially since finding some way to dispose of a body is a public health issue. Maybe soon a trans person will really hit the lottery on this issue, dying because a doctor refuses to treat them, and then refusing to be embalmed and buried by the local funeral parlor. You know, like Jesus would do. Where is the freedom for that person??
And, quite honestly, ALL businesses must be licensed by the government, which is in the business of serving everyone. No one is entitled to such licenses. If someone isn't interested in serving the public, they should find something else to do with their life rather than run their own business.
Why don't we ask for permission to exist while we're at it
Licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous, to the point where states are requiring two year degrees to be a hair braider. This is pure protectionism, and it keeps people who wish to work in a state of poverty by creating further barriers to entry.
Plus, as we see by jjstraka34's argument, many people view this as an excuse for the state curtailing further liberties, as if people should be grateful for being granted the right to earn an honest living. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is horrifying. You should not have to trade in your religious or moral beliefs just to put food on the table.
So Pharmacists should not have to fill prescriptions for birth control, a doctor should not have to treat someone whose "lifestyle" they disagree with, and funeral homes should be allowed to turn away bodies based on whether the deceased was a homosexual?? Forget the gay wedding cakes issue, these 3 examples are a totally different ballgame. Are we suggesting that people in these positions (pharmacist, doctor, mortician) have NO responsibility to the general public in carrying out the duties of their job?? Especially since finding some way to dispose of a body is a public health issue. Maybe soon a trans person will really hit the lottery on this issue, dying because a doctor refuses to treat them, and then refusing to be embalmed and buried by the local funeral parlor. You know, like Jesus would do. Where is the freedom for that person??
1. No, pharmacists should not have to fill out a prescription for birth control unless the prescription is for reasons other than pregnancy prevention if they have moral objections. It would severely disadvantage them when being hired by the major pharmacies, but again, people can go elsewhere. 2. For the physician: Yes, simple objection to a lifestyle is not a valid reason for an exemption to anti-discrimination law, unless they are being forced to support that lifestyle. However, you already don't care about that since you presumably wouldn't force any physician to provide sex transition surgery. 4. Funeral homes should serve homosexual individuals (or, in this case, homosexual deceased individuals and their loved ones) unless they are associated with a certain religion. I was not objecting to that, I was objecting to your far more sweeping statement that because licenses are required for certain jobs, then any amount of regulation that intrudes on an individual's personal moral principles is justifiable. You already demonstrate the extremity of that position by correctly noting that almost every job requires a form of license nowadays (which, in my opinion, is a tragedy).
The line I would draw: anti-discrimination laws should have religious exemptions (as RFRA laws provide) with the exceptions being for necessary services, which are defined by statute. Of course, if you are in a monopolized market you'd also have to serve the general public without exemptions, since what would normally be mere offensive behavior would be converted into real harm.
I wish we could have a general conscientious objector law, but I fear that might be too sweeping so I'm undecided on it. This still leaves the vast majority of services under the scope of anti-discrimination laws, as they should be.
Known reality is that cake bakers who need money more than a monopoly that flows in profits didn't seem to care about just getting paid. Can you seriously not imagine a scenario where gays or Muslims might be denied these services?
Not from large corporations, no, but we aren't talking about large corporations--the business owners in these sorts of cases are small and local. Individual business owners have the right of refusal. No one has to like that situation but that is simply how it is.
Does a Muslim restaurateur have to serve me a non-halal meal because I showed up and ordered it? If he doesn't ,then he is refusing service to me based on my religious beliefs (since I am not Muslim and can eat whatever I want). According to the logic being used, he *must* serve me such a meal even if that would cause his kitchen to become out of compliance with *his* religious beliefs.
While I agree with your general point, non-halal meals wouldn't be on the menu and therefore you would not be turned away from a service they willingly provide to the public.
The more factually analogous hypothetical would be if a Muslim baker was asked to make a cake depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
My track record is one of arguing *for* the rights of *all* people--I was advocating for full marriage rights for everyone and decriminalizing marijuana before they were "cool" or mainstream ideas, just like I advocate for full amnesty and auto-citizenship for all people currently under the DACA program.
And it continues to be evident that Trump holds no actual political beliefs at all, not does he seem to understand even the rudimentary concepts of nearly any issue. He will sometimes take every conceivable position on an issue (this week it was guns) over the course of 3 or 4 days. He has gone from wanting to arm teachers, to proposing a literal gun grab that, if uttered by any liberal President, would cause every conservative in America to have their head spontaneously explode, to having it reported less than 24 hours later that NRA lobbyists have been assured Trump isn't serious about anything he proposed in that meeting. So who the hell knows?? By tomorrow, he may be claiming he never even made the declaration about the tariffs.
Again, true on the vast majority of issues but not this one. Only thing Trump has been consistent on is bad trade policy.
Here is him on Oprah in 1988, bemoaning the trade deficit.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I have a massive trade deficit with Beamdog. I have purchased five of their games, yet they have bought nothing from me. Sad!
1. No, pharmacists should not have to fill out a prescription for birth control unless the prescription is for reasons other than pregnancy prevention if they have moral objections. It would severely disadvantage them when being hired by the major pharmacies, but again, people can go elsewhere.
It's not the pharmacist right to know what the medication is for. That is between the patient and her doctor.
The pharmacists role is to make sure the patient knows how to take the drug and that there won't be any side effects with other medication or allergies.
1. No, pharmacists should not have to fill out a prescription for birth control unless the prescription is for reasons other than pregnancy prevention if they have moral objections. It would severely disadvantage them when being hired by the major pharmacies, but again, people can go elsewhere.
It's not the pharmacist right to know what the medication is for. That is between the patient and her doctor.
The pharmacists role is to make sure the patient knows how to take the drug and that there won't be any side effects with other medication or allergies.
True enough, but this shouldn't even be an issue. Almost every birth control should be available over the counter as they do in many Asian nations. The AMA already supports this.
I've pointed out many times in this thread that birth control is in no way limited in use to preventing pregnancy. Including extremely common conditions such as helping regulate heavy menstrual cycles or simply treating acne. Taking it for long periods of time can also cut the risk of certain types of cancer by over 50%. But I don't see how the REASON the birth control is prescribed would ever be the business of the pharmacist, or, for that matter, employers who don't want to cover it in employee health plans. And making women provide PROOF of what they are using it for is akin to a certain Nathaniel Hawthorne novel about Scarlet Letters. No man would ever be expected to provide a pharmacist or his employer a valid reason for taking a medication. Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
Also Planned Parenthood isn't just for women. The paradox though, is that they supported Hillary because Bernie would have put them out of business with M4A. Life is full of ironies and conflicts of interests.
It appears my post was deleted that contained MMT vs Austrian debate and other info. Can someone confirm? I have no interest in a censored discussion and would appreciate a reason to determine if this is worth any time?
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
Well, if they weigh the same as a duck, there's no escape for them!
Comments
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02?mg=prod/accounts-mw
"Yes, when we buy imports jobs are lost, just as when we replace workers with machines, including lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, and power washers, jobs are lost. And yet somehow we’ve survived all that. We went from needing 99% of the people working to grow our food to less than 1%, and manufacturing jobs are down to only 7% of the labor force. And yet the remaining 90% of us are not all unemployed, as jobs have proliferated in the service sector, where most of those jobs are now considered to be better jobs than the lost agricultural and manufacturing jobs. Nor has a trade deficit necessarily resulted in higher unemployment or lower pay. In 1999, for example, we had record imports with unemployment under 4% and inflation under 2%, and students were getting recruited for good paying jobs well before graduation.
The answer to sustaining high levels of employment and pay is fiscal policy. If for any reason, including more imports, weak demand at home is keeping unemployment too high or wages too low, the appropriate policy response is fiscal relaxation- either a tax cut or spending increase, even if that increases the public debt- and not to tax or otherwise drive up the cost of imports. Unfortunately however, the policy that allows all of us to pay the lowest prices for imports and have good paying jobs to replace those lost because of imports has been taken entirely off the table by both Republicans and Democrats. Consequently a very good thing for America- lower prices of imports- has been turned into a very bad thing- unemployment, and all because of the fake news about the public debt that is supported by Republicans and Democrats.
The US public debt is nothing more than the dollars spent by the federal government that have not yet been used to pay taxes. Those dollars spent and not yet taxed sit in bank accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank that are called ‘reserve accounts’ and ‘securities accounts’, along with the actual cash in circulation. Treasury securities (bonds, notes, and bills) are nothing more than dollars in securities accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank, functionally the same as dollars in savings accounts or CD’s at commercial banks.
Think of it this way- when the government spends a dollar, that dollar either is used to pay taxes and is lost to the economy, or it’s not used to pay taxes and remains in the economy. Deficit spending adds to those dollars that were spent but not yet taxed, which is called the public debt. And what’s called ‘paying off the debt’ (as happens to 10’s of billions of Treasury securities every month) is just a matter of the Fed shifting dollars from securities accounts to reserve accounts- a simple debit and a credit- all on its own books. (No tax payers or grand children required…) The ‘ability to pay’ is always there- it’s just a debit and a credit to accounts on the books of the Federal Reserve Bank. The fear mongering about the US running out of money or constraints by foreigners is simply not applicable to today’s monetary system.
And if you are worried about inflation, our proposal works to lower prices for all of us, while the Presidents direct policy is to raise the prices we all pay.
And if the concern is national security, the policy response that best serves public interest is to order the defense department to require domestic sourcing of what they consider strategically important,
and let the rest of us continue to shop for the lowest possible prices.
Point is, once it’s understood that 1) the public debt is nothing more than what can be called the net money supply 2) there is no risk of default 3) there is no dependence on foreign or any other lenders 4)there is no burden being put on future generations the President will be free to make us all winners by being our shopper in chief who works to get us the lowest possible prices. "
http://moslereconomics.com/2018/03/02/light-vehicle-sales-trump-tariffs/
So let's get this straight: to increase the prospects of a steel industry that employs about 140,000 people in this country, we are going to make it harder for American companies to sell products such as jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and fruit juice to Europe. It's going to become more expensive for Americans to buy foreign-made cars. It's going to make it harder for US car manufacturers to obtain the materials they need to keep THEIR cars cheap. Meanwhile raising the price of everyday items such as canned soup and soda for every American in the country. Furthermore, alot of those European cars are actually made in the US. On top of all that, this is a fight he is starting with our ALLIES. Just randomly throwing molotov cocktails into international trade policy on a Saturday morning. When those against Trump in the 2016 election said he didn't have the temperament to be President, THIS entire situation is exactly why. This is the behavior of an infant, but behavior that could potentially alter the pocket books of millions upon millions of people. And every adult leader in Europe, North America and Asia is looking at this country like we have lost our goddamn minds. Hope everyone is content with the couple hundred dollars they may have gotten from the tax cut (if even that). Because it is going to get swallowed up in Trump's "trade war", which he actually WANTS to have. But, I suppose we shouldn't fret. Because they are easy to win.
If so, I am sorry.
If not, mind your confirmation bias.
Only today, the very politically chosen head of Finnish welfare bureaucracy came out to media to point out that the most desperate welfare measure is "lifestyle" for some.
Would you Elli have those said persons resort to criminality, as "lifestyle"? And would you have frankly supported neutral selection process?
Or have I misread you and you are saying Mosler, Kelton, Wray et al are who you consider unrealistic? Perhaps you prefer hacks like Paul Krugman?
It is true that the Greens are economically illiterate though, I grant you that much. "Democratizing the dollar' or 'greening the dollar' etc... all nonsense. That has to do with party leadership though (David Cobb in particular), many Greens know better and refer to themselves as 'MMT Greens'.
Which is logical, because social mobility is rather imperfect. Existing money accumulates.
Did you do it to highlight inequality, or to imply a segment in society that is less deserving, because they are not rich or less likely to earn well?
I thought the latter because of the nature of the current public discussion, in Finland even.
Also, as you have said, free trade prevent war and prevent wars in a world with nuclear weapons is much more important than in past. War is not CoD. War is terrible.
On point: https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a34n54/modern-monetary-theory-explained?__twitter_impression=true
MMT vs Austrian School debate:
I appreciate the apology and the clarification. I was very confused by your reaction before.
"A bill that began as a well-intentioned effort to satisfy some perhaps legitimate community bank grievances has instead mushroomed, sparking fears that Washington is paving the way for the next financial meltdown. Congress is unlikely to pass much significant legislation in 2018, so lobbyists have rushed to stuff the trunk of the vehicle full. “There are many different interests in financial services that are looking at this and saying, ‘Oh my God, there’s finally going to be reform to Dodd-Frank that may move, let me throw in this issue and this issue,’” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., in an interview. “There are a dozen different players who decided this is the last bus out of town.”
And Coons is a co-sponsor of the bill.
A hopeful nation — and the president himself — expected that the Senate would begin debate on major gun policy reform next week, but instead a confounding scenario has emerged: In the typically gridlocked Congress, with the Trump legislative agenda mostly stalled, members of both parties will come together to roll back financial rules, during the 10th anniversary of the biggest banking crisis in nearly a century. And it’s happening with virtually no media attention whatsoever."
Here's the money quote:
"But that a populist Democrat feels they can sponsor such a bill and see political benefit — or at least not face much pain — represents a stark failure on the left to adequately frame and define the conversation around banking, Wall Street, inequality, and the economy."
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/crapo-instead-of-taking-on-gun-control-democrats-are-teaming-with-republicans-for-a-stealth-attack-on-wall-street-reform/
But yeah, the Democrats frequently have this problem in the House and the Senate. About 20% of them are, in many ways, just Republican-light. The Republicans have nowhere near that percentage who tilt towards the other side on so many issues.
2. For the physician: Yes, simple objection to a lifestyle is not a valid reason for an exemption to anti-discrimination law, unless they are being forced to support that lifestyle. However, you already don't care about that since you presumably wouldn't force any physician to provide sex transition surgery.
4. Funeral homes should serve homosexual individuals (or, in this case, homosexual deceased individuals and their loved ones) unless they are associated with a certain religion. I was not objecting to that, I was objecting to your far more sweeping statement that because licenses are required for certain jobs, then any amount of regulation that intrudes on an individual's personal moral principles is justifiable. You already demonstrate the extremity of that position by correctly noting that almost every job requires a form of license nowadays (which, in my opinion, is a tragedy).
The line I would draw: anti-discrimination laws should have religious exemptions (as RFRA laws provide) with the exceptions being for necessary services, which are defined by statute. Of course, if you are in a monopolized market you'd also have to serve the general public without exemptions, since what would normally be mere offensive behavior would be converted into real harm.
I wish we could have a general conscientious objector law, but I fear that might be too sweeping so I'm undecided on it. This still leaves the vast majority of services under the scope of anti-discrimination laws, as they should be.
Do you need to be Minsc for your political outlook to have legitimacy?
We all know Boo is the wiser one, and he is miniature.
The more factually analogous hypothetical would be if a Muslim baker was asked to make a cake depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
Here is him on Oprah in 1988, bemoaning the trade deficit.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/29/donald_trump_to_oprah_in_1988_america_a_debtor_nation_something_is_going_to_happen.html
PS: Wow, this thread took a long time to catch up on. I took just two days away from it and there are like 50 posts I had to catch up on. Keep it up!
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I have a massive trade deficit with Beamdog. I have purchased five of their games, yet they have bought nothing from me. Sad!
The pharmacists role is to make sure the patient knows how to take the drug and that there won't be any side effects with other medication or allergies.