US Politics Mega-thread - Page 20

On December 03 2012 00:13 oneofthem wrote:
mainstream analysis does not take into account private money contraction/expansions. if the private sector is trying to pay down their debts at the same time as the government doing the same (or at least reducing spending) then whatever modifier you calculate isn't going to be meaningful since it does not account for the other part of the economy.

but yea, government spending in the present juncture is extremely effective, because government is the only player that can spend, besides the extreme rich anyway. (speculative spending is not spending in the real economy)

On December 02 2012 16:30 paralleluniverse wrote:

When did the right start quoting Ezra Klein?

The debt ceiling is a completely arbitrary and pointless limitation. The article you've quoted already gives heaps of reasons why it's economically bad. But here's a few more.

Firstly,while debt can decrease as a % of GDP, it will virtually always increase in nominal terms, so even if we are being fiscally responsible and shrinking debt to GDP, the debt ceiling will still need to be continuously raised. Secondly, removing the debt ceiling isn't taking away any powers from Congress, because Congress approves spending. So it makes no sense for Congress to simultaneously approve spending while threatening that the US will default because of the spending it already approved. Lastly, no other country that I'm aware of has this artificial limitation and no economic theory says that it is good policy to have a debt ceiling.

You say that Obama's proposal adds to much spending. But the spending it adds, which is for infrastructure, is a tiny fraction to the overall deficit reduction of the plan. For example, there's $50 billion in infrastructure spending, but compare this to extending the Bush tax cuts for families over 250K which will cost $1 trillion according to the CBO.

There's so much hypocrisy against increasing spending, when it's actually the cuts to spending through the fiscal cliff that's part of what's going to put the economy back into recession. Then there's the utter hypocrisy of extending $1 trillion of tax cuts to the rich, people who would likely save most of that money, while talking about the deficit as if it is apocalyptic for the economy.

You've dismissed raising taxes on the rich, because of it's growth effects in a weak economy. What about the growth effects of the proposed infrastructure spending? For some numbers, the CBO estimates that extending the middle class Bush cuts will add $0.5 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit over the next 2 years. Also extending them for the rich will add an additional $0.1 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Compare this to cuts on the spending side of the fiscal cliff: the defense spending as part of the sequester would add $1.2 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit, and the nondefense spending with the medicare cuts would add $0.9 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Extending unemployment benefits (which I believe is also in Obama's proposal) would add $1.1 to GDP per $1 increase in the deficit for 2013 according to this very recent report.

On December 03 2012 04:10 sam!zdat wrote:
what does "tax cuts don't cost anything" mean?

explain it in small words and I'll try to be convinced

On December 03 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, this is that "it was my money already" argument. how nice

On December 03 2012 04:31 kmillz wrote:


Yes, what is wrong with wanting your money? I've said this so many times but I'll say it again, why is that greedy? Why is wanting someone else's money NOT greedy?

On December 02 2012 14:44 paralleluniverse wrote:

Another point worth considering:

On December 03 2012 04:41 sam!zdat wrote:


Because it's the commodity fetish. You are transforming a social relationship between people into a relationship between things. Money doesn't exist prior to society; it's therefore an error think that money can always-already belong to an individual.

edit: the only thing which always-already belong to YOU is labor-power.

On December 03 2012 04:42 farvacola wrote:

Because the pronounced emphasis on individual sovereignty a la "everything that is mine is mine and was never anyone elses nor do I owe anything to anyone" discounts the very basis with which our society is founded. You are not merely the sum of your own accomplishment as much as you are the byproduct of a society that provides its constituent members with a variety of tools, tools that can be implemented in the pursuit of whatever (un)reasonable ideal one might want to pursue. These tools require upkeep so that everyone might call upon them, and accordingly those who get the most out of these tools have the best ability to keep them healthy (insert diminishing marginal utility of income here). Now, you could shirk these "responsibilities" in the name of indifference, but to presuppose that "possession" of goods/capital overrides the societal dynamics of "access" and "enabling" in terms of primacy or importance is willful ignorance.

On December 03 2012 04:54 kmillz wrote:


Can you measure labor-power in dollars?

On December 03 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:


No. You can however measure the market value of socially-necessary abstract labor time in dollars, as under capitalism labor is treated as a commodity.

edit: you COULD treat labor-power as a commodity and measure it in dollars - that would be the case in a slave system.

On December 03 2012 05:30 kmillz wrote:


Why does the person have to be a slave in order for you to measure their labor power?