The Fall of Empires

[Stickler]

No. I am asking and waiting for a complete thought that makes your balanced budget idea at least remotely plausible under the current monetary structure.

Honestly, what the devil are you talking about? You don't even think that balancing a budget is even remotely plausible under the current monetary structure? What is it about the current monetary structure that prevents a federally balanced budget? How has the current monetary structure changed since the last time we had balanced budgets? Balancing the federal budget is possible, franklin. Many times throughout our nation's history, the federal government has operated at a surplus. I can't fathom why you don't even think it's remotely plausible.

You keep tossing out things that are unrelated to the general idea -- things that literally have no relationship to the general idea -- of adding a constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced based on X criteria, and posing them as obstacles.

The fact that the government prints money is not an obstacle to a balanced budget. What's the connection?

 

[franklin]

You seem to not understand a key ingredient. Our monetary system requires continual money expansion. Optimally, as Milton Friedman put it, this would be somewhat stable and predictable. Going back a couple of steps, we went through a period when uncle Ben and Greenspan screwed the money supply calculations bad enough to allow rapid money expansion to be hidden in real assets. The bubble popped, and now we have this huge problem we keep referring to as deflation, d-process, liquidity trap, downward spiral, etc. That leaves a big ****ing question: What do you do when monetary actions completely fail to provide consistent, stable, and predictable monetary expansion? If you cannot do it with monetary policy, and you don't want to do it with fiscal policy, then how the hell do you offset the declining volume of money enough to stop a deflationary collapse?

It's not a magical constitution amendment bullet that you're hoping.

 

[Stickler]

I understand what you are saying. Why would that prevent the balancing of a budget? What's the connection?

 

[larryselbows]

here's an interesting perspective...
[video]https://bigthink.com/ideas/20071#ooid=80MGZlMTpEovOxdlThfJ09jlFihLIGb8

 

[franklin]

I understand what you are saying. Why would that prevent the balancing of a budget? What's the connection?

I've answered this at least a dozen times already.

 

[Stickler]

I don't actually think you have. Would you care to take one more try? In a clear, cogent way. Start it like this: "Our current monetary system makes the balancing of a federal budget utterly implausible in the following way: ____________"

Thanks.

 

[franklin]

I don't actually think you have. Would you care to take one more try? In a clear, cogent way. Start it like this: "Our current monetary system makes the balancing of a federal budget utterly implausible in the following way: ____________"

Thanks.

And what exactly would using your preferred sentence to pigeonhole me into a position I haven't taken do for you? I've asked you multiple times what you'd do to counter the self-feeding effects of your precious balanced budget, but you ignore and sidestep every time. If you don't get it by what I've already spelled out numerous ways then I doubt one more try is all you're going to need. But whatever, here's one last try: In times when monetary tools fail to expand money supply, cutting federal spending will act as a feedback mechanism to lower federal revenue. Thus, your precious balance proposal will lead to a deficit as the lower spending results in lower revenue. You'll still have a deficit. Now going back way to the beginning--what do you plan on doing to offset the deflationary, budget deficit increasing effects of your spending cuts? Pretend the problem away? Assume a constitutional amendment will be a magical wand that makes the issue disappear?

 

[Stickler]

And what exactly would using your preferred sentence to pigeonhole me into a position I haven't taken do for you?

What? You did take that position.

Anyway...

The disconnect here is your assumption that the economy-at-large is so dependent upon Federal over-spending that cuts to the federal budget would result in devastation to the economy at large, thus resulting in continued reduction of federal revenue. You'd really have to demonstrate why you think that's the case, since the history of our country utterly does not support that assumption. Other than your baffling and repeated interjection of fiat, which is unrelated to the topic of the federal government spending responsibly, you haven't even established why you think that the economy-at-large is so dependent on federal over-spending.

Every proposal for a Constitutional amendment for balancing the federal budget that has ever been introduced has included the possibility for emergency exceptions and corrections.

You seem to think you're talking over my head, but for heaven's sake, franklin, you don't know how budgets work. You couldn't even puzzle out the basics of budgetary finance, and you're talking to me like I'm an *******.

I haven't side-stepped anything. The "problem" you think I'm side-stepping is a phantom. Balancing the federal budget would not kill the economy. It's been balanced many times, and it's never hurt the economy before.

 

[franklin]

What? You did take that position.

Anyway...

The disconnect here is your assumption that the economy-at-large is so dependent upon Federal over-spending that cuts to the federal budget would result in devastation to the economy at large, thus resulting in continued reduction of federal revenue. You'd really have to demonstrate why you think that's the case, since the history of our country utterly does not support that assumption. Other than your baffling and repeated interjection of fiat, which is unrelated to the topic of the federal government spending responsibly, you haven't even established why you think that the economy-at-large is so dependent on federal over-spending.

Umm, no, I don't assume that. There has been 2 deflationary periods under the modern structure. You're applying inflationary history to deflationary periods and acting like it's all the same. That doesn't work. And are you really challenging the entire economic profession on the necessity of continual monetary expansion? Our system is built on that one requirement if nothing else.

Every proposal for a Constitutional amendment for balancing the federal budget that has ever been introduced has included the possibility for emergency exceptions and corrections.

First off, I asked for examples already. You rambled off some wierd 38 point plan that had nothing to do with all of this. Second, what makes you think these offsetting exceptions and corrections will work? This is what I've been asking for all along. If you believe they will then please, by all means, inform me.

You seem to think you're talking over my head, but for heaven's sake, franklin, you don't know how budgets work. You couldn't even puzzle out the basics of budgetary finance, and you're talking to me like I'm an *******.

Thank you for adding this. Really.

I haven't side-stepped anything. The "problem" you think I'm side-stepping is a phantom. Balancing the federal budget would not kill the economy. It's been balanced many times, and it's never hurt the economy before.

Really? 1937 ring a bell? You have no evidence from deflationary periods. Misusing inflationary recession data is a farce. Do you really believe allowing the monetary contraction in 2008 to continue unabated would have been a good thing? It would have found a bottom before the entire global system collapsed, right?

 

[Stickler]

Umm, no, I don't assume that. There has been 2 deflationary periods under the modern structure. You're applying inflationary history to deflationary periods and acting like it's all the same. That doesn't work. And are you really challenging the entire economic profession on the necessity of continual monetary expansion? Our system is built on that one requirement if nothing else.

This has literally nothing to do with requiring a balanced federal budget.

First off, I asked for examples already. You rambled off some wierd 38 point plan that had nothing to do with all of this.

Yeah -- that was meant to illustrate the entirely hypothetical nature of my position. I thought that was pretty clear.

Second, what makes you think these offsetting exceptions and corrections will work? This is what I've been asking for all along. If you believe they will then please, by all means, inform me.

Of course exceptions and corrections can work. You're asking me to tell you how I would specifically correct problems that don't exist, without naming those problems. This isn't worth my time, or yours.

Thank you for adding this. Really.

Oh, I didn't realize you'd been the example of maturity and self-restraint in this thread.

Really? 1937 ring a bell? You have no evidence from deflationary periods. Misusing inflationary recession data is a farce. Do you really believe allowing the monetary contraction in 2008 to continue unabated would have been a good thing? It would have found a bottom before the entire global system collapsed, right?

What?

This has literally nothing to do with requiring a balanced federal budget.

What's the connection, franklin? If the connection isn't that cutting federal spending would devastate the economy at large, what is the connection?

 

[franklin]

I haven't side-stepped anything. The "problem" you think I'm side-stepping is a phantom. Balancing the federal budget would not kill the economy. It's been balanced many times, and it's never hurt the economy before.

Stickler--That's not a problem.

Really? 1937 ring a bell? You have no evidence from deflationary periods. Misusing inflationary recession data is a farce. Do you really believe allowing the monetary contraction in 2008 to continue unabated would have been a good thing? It would have found a bottom before the entire global system collapsed, right?

Franklin--yes it is, and here's the example as proof.

This has literally nothing to do with requiring a balanced federal budget.

What's the connection, franklin? If the connection isn't that cutting federal spending would devastate the economy at large, what is the connection?

Stickler--I'm going to continue to ignore what you say and pretend it is not a problem.

 

[Stickler]

franklin: I'm going to continue to interject unrelated issues into the conversation and behave as though they're relevant. Whenever I'm asked how they're related or why they're relevant, I'm going to deflect, dodge, and parrot the indefinite and imprecise talking points that I have, for some reason, settled upon as the bedrock of my "position" on this topic.