The Tea Party Movement

[franklin]

I didn't know calling you a lefty fundamentalist was an insult. I'm sorry you took it that way.

I actually feel sorry for you as I can see you don't know what you're talking about. You've acted like a know-it-all teenager. On things economic, you don't know enough to know you don't know. Ya know? I'll back up and give an example. You followed this:

"If you're a righty then go read Milton Friedman's views on counter-cyclical policy. If you're a lefty then read Keynes views on counter-cyclical policy."

With:

"Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss."

If you knew anything about economics then you would not have added this nonsense that is thoroughly discussed by both Friedman and Keynes. You completely missed the ball. You didn't foul it off, and it was nowhere near the strike zone, but you swung and missed anyway.

Then there's this:

"As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget."

That's nothing more than partisan nonsense that completely ignores then current conditions and what was going on in the private sector. Clinton didn't stop anything, and only a partisan ideologue would make the mistake of blabbering this partisan demagoguery.

Like I said. You're a lefty fundamentalist who isn't smart enough to get what you don't get. Sorry reality is so insulting to you.

 

[sirkickyass]

You're making the circular argument that government borrowing from itself is not actually debt because it purchased marketable securities from itself that are only valuable if it can redeem them sometime in the future.

No one seriously believes that the U.S. government will be unable to make good on its T-Bills. That's why yield rates are so low presently.

For example see: https://www.cepr.net/index.php/blog...ditorial-section-in-attack-on-social-security

Or in other words, it's not debt as long as we, the US, can raise the promised money in the future by taxing. We borrow from ourselves, spend the money, and you're telling TMM that factcheck dispelled this "myth"? That's pretty damned circular.

Except for the fact that there are significant differences between intragovernmental debt and public debt owed to outside actors. The most significant of these differences is that the government, through force of policy, can cancel intergovernmental debt at virtually any time. If the US were to enact benefit cuts in social security or to pass laws requiring the trust fund to surrender its debts that would wipe the intergovernmental debt away from the perspective of the mullet mutilator's analysis. Furthermore as the debt "matures" it's only going from one government body to another government body. The straight cash accounting method used by mullet ignores this flow and treats all social security funds as spent at all times. In essence, it is impossible for that debt to ever get "called."

Think of it as analogy: The Madame and I operate a joint bank account but in general we have rules about how much people can spend out of it that serves to keep our spending levels relatively equal. If we're out somewhere and I need cash, I can "borrow" $10 from her. That has created an intra-relationship debt from me to her of $10. However, all the money is coming from the same place. If I withdraw my own cash to pay her back all we've changed is the physical location of the money, rather than the actual ownership of the money. If she gets mad at me and demands her $10, I'm really paying her with her own money. She can't ever "call" the debt and try to get a lien because she has equal access. In point of fact, that $10 doesn't actually functionally exist, it can be cancelled at any time, and in reality it's a debt owed to ourselves.

Saying that there was never a balanced budget because intragovernmental debt increased while public debt declined is the accounting trick; the CBO method complies with GAAP. But Mullet has a particular belief about the govt, so he's latched on to an explanation that confirms previous ideology.

 

[One Brow]

I didn't know calling you a lefty fundamentalist was an insult. I'm sorry you took it that way.

A fundamentalist is a person who adopts an ideology and seeks to promote, interpreting evidence to support their ideology. I'm a skeptic, and it is an insult to imply that I lean on the ideology as opposed to the evidence.

I accept your apology.

If you knew anything about economics then you would not have added this nonsense that is thoroughly discussed by both Friedman and Keynes. You completely missed the ball. You didn't foul it off, and it was nowhere near the strike zone, but you swung and missed anyway.

I didn't foul it so badly that I confused the use of a progressive tax structure, which is a Keynsian counter-cyclical prescription, with a small tax rate increase, which is what I discussed. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will only mariginally increase the already progressive tax system we have. If you have been reading counter-cyclical policy as saying something about the overall tax rate, as opposed to a marginal tax rate, then your comments can only strike me as high humor.

There are six levels of tax rates: 10-15-25-28-31-35. Back in 2000 it was 15-28-31-36-39.6. You are trying to argue that the counter-cyclical effects of gonig 15-28, as opposed to 15-25, or that of 28-31, as opposed to 31-36, will be economy changers. You don't really expect me to take that argument seriously, do you?

That's nothing more than partisan nonsense that completely ignores then current conditions and what was going on in the private sector. Clinton didn't stop anything, and only a partisan ideologue would make the mistake of blabbering this partisan demagoguery.

I was unaware the private sector controlled the government's "borrow and spend boom". More to the point, starting with Clinton's first budget, the deficit started to decrease, and it decreased every year until it was gone. That's not a partisan postion, it's the position of pretty much every non-partisan group and even a few right-wing partisan groups. There's even been a couple of links to that effect on this thread. You're just wrong here.

Like I said. You're a lefty fundamentalist who isn't smart enough to get what you don't get. Sorry reality is so insulting to you.

Reality is not at all insulting to me. When you have the capacity to bring reality into the discussion and understand the terms you are trying to throw around, you might even make the discussion interesting. Until then, it's really getting a little patheic to watch you flail about trying to use a foil on a battlefield.

 

[franklin]

No one seriously believes that the U.S. government will be unable to make good on its T-Bills. That's why yield rates are so low presently.

For example see: https://www.cepr.net/index.php/blog...ditorial-section-in-attack-on-social-security

You're reaching. Yields are low because 1. Fed purchases, and 2. there's nowhere else to park the money. Arguing that there isn't default risk because investors are fleeing Europe is a leap in logic. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that investors know that if the USD fails then the whole system will crash. So rather than buying dollars out of confidence, it's more of last resort purchasing. High gold prices support this theory, and are just as anecdotal as your low yields extrapolation. Besides, there are plenty of well respected economists who seriously question the future of the dollar. Paul Krugman has written there are limits to deficit spending. I haven't seen him define the limit, just that we haven't hit it yet.

Except for the fact that there are significant differences between intragovernmental debt and public debt owed to outside actors. The most significant of these differences is that the government, through force of policy, can cancel intergovernmental debt at virtually any time. If the US were to enact benefit cuts in social security or to pass laws requiring the trust fund to surrender its debts that would wipe the intergovernmental debt away from the perspective of the mullet mutilator's analysis. Furthermore as the debt "matures" it's only going from one government body to another government body. The straight cash accounting method used by mullet ignores this flow and treats all social security funds as spent at all times. In essence, it is impossible for that debt to ever get "called."

No argument here. We used to call this Reagan's Voodoo, but this term has morphed through time. Another way to put what you're saying is the US balanced the budget under Clinton, while increasing the likeliness of defaulting on future obligations to the demographic that's most vulnerable. I thought almost everyone realizes this when we refer to "unfunded liabilities". Maybe it needs to be regurgitated every time the subject comes up.

Either way, it's accounting trickery that pushes the real effects onto the next generation of politicians. Voodoo.

 

[franklin]

A fundamentalist is a person who adopts an ideology and seeks to promote, interpreting evidence to support their ideology. I'm a skeptic, and it is an insult to imply that I lean on the ideology as opposed to the evidence.

I accept your apology.

You meet your own definition of a fundamentalist, but if you say you're not then I won't label you as such. It wasn't an apology. Everything else you wrote was just disingenuous rambling, and nothing more than putting words into my mouth. That's exactly why others don't treat you with respect and why I see you as a fundamentalist. Make a sincere argument and I'll take you seriously.

 

[One Brow]

Everything else you wrote was just disingenuous rambling,

I expect you to declare that a very brief description of why your point was invalid as disingenuous rambling, without making the slightest effrot to demonstrate it. After all, any attempt to make such a demonstration would be even more embarrassing for you than the thread has already been.

and nothing more than putting words into my mouth.

I'm not the one that brought up counter-cyclical policies as a rebuttal to the idea that a minor tax increase would have almost no economic effect. That's your stupidity.

That's exactly why others don't treat you with respect

Some hold me with respect, some don't. Some have such respect for ideological reasons, other are more often on opposite side of the ideological spectrum. Some who lack respect do so for ideological reasons, some for other reasons (lack my tendency to argue with morons). You don't have the knowledge nor social insight to properly discuss how people on this board feel about me.

and why I see you as a fundamentalist.

Given your general lack of comprehension, this barely registers enough to warrant a response at all.

Make a sincere argument and I'll take you seriously.

I quite sincerely stated that the counter-cyclical effects of a progressive tax structure were not evidence that small tax increases would have a notable econimic effect. You took the argument so seriously that you bailed completely on it. There are few reactions more serious than "I'm going home, so I win".

 

[Deleted member 365]

I still have yet to see Franklin provide a link or an argument. My mistake if I missed it... However, I have seen a few links from One Brow. I'm going to read them later after work.

 

[sirkickyass]

You're reaching.

You really think that there is a serious debate that the U.S. is likely to default on its treasury bills?

Yields are low because 1. Fed purchases, and 2. there's nowhere else to park the money.

Public auction data available after securities auctions indicate that the Fed is not as large of a purchaser as the right-wing media likes to portray. It's presently spending $10 billion a month on Treasury Bills, compared to a pool well over $150 billion of T-bills sold per month.

Your second point actually makes my point: in an era of risky investments "there's nowhere else to park the money" because T-Bills carry the lowest risk of default. That means that the market is saying that there is no serious risk (given the near zero yields) that the government will not make good on those T-Bill debts.

Arguing that there isn't default risk because investors are fleeing Europe is a leap in logic.

It's also that they prefer it to all other investments with those particular dollars, for whatever their personal reasons.

This line of reasoning ignores the fact that investors know that if the USD fails then the whole system will crash. So rather than buying dollars out of confidence, it's more of last resort purchasing. High gold prices support this theory, and are just as anecdotal as your low yields extrapolation.

Gold transactions have significantly less churn. That's a discussion for a different day, but there's some evidence that gold prices are part of a prolonged asset bubble.

Besides, there are plenty of well respected economists who seriously question the future of the dollar. Paul Krugman has written there are limits to deficit spending. I haven't seen him define the limit, just that we haven't hit it yet.

I agree that there is a limit to deficit spending. I merely believe that in the current climate it's a secondary concern because not all deficit spending is created equal. Deficit spending in 2003 was a lot more unconscionable than deficit spending in 2009 because of the prevailing economic climate.

 

[NAOS]

I still have yet to see Franklin provide a link or an argument. My mistake if I missed it... However, I have seen a few links from One Brow. I'm going to read them later after work.

And, (so long has he is labeling people "lefty") he's also doing something typical of the right wing: playing political football with terms that he refuses to take seriously/materially. He's completely shut down re:money. I guess it is just some natural, god-given thing..... like the free market.

 

[The Pearl]

I dearly wish there was an inexpensive, liquid, and easy vehicle to take the other side of the trade from the "US is going to default crowd"

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I dearly wish there was an inexpensive, liquid, and easy vehicle to take the other side of the trade from the "US is going to default crowd"

I dare you to short the gold ETF right now.

 

[sirkickyass]

I dearly wish there was an inexpensive, liquid, and easy vehicle to take the other side of the trade from the "US is going to default crowd"

You and me both.