On February 10 2012 12:52 aksfjh wrote: Santorum reminds me of the preacher aspect of Huckabee, without the tone of respect and kindness in his voice. He seems like a "fire and brimstone" preacher more than a politician.
He's basically the dick version of Huckabee who hates everyone. I also think Rachel Maddow hit the nail in the head comparing the Republicans from 2008 to 2012:
On February 10 2012 12:52 aksfjh wrote: Santorum reminds me of the preacher aspect of Huckabee, without the tone of respect and kindness in his voice. He seems like a "fire and brimstone" preacher more than a politician.
He's basically the dick version of Huckabee who hates everyone. I also think Rachel Maddow hit the nail in the head comparing the Republicans from 2008 to 2012:
The only thing I would contrast with that segment (which is actually just a pictoral demonstration of Weigel's own musings) is that Santorum is doing better than Huckabee did. However, that could just be a sign that even the "establishment" Republicans aren't exactly fond of Romney either.
On February 10 2012 12:52 aksfjh wrote: Santorum reminds me of the preacher aspect of Huckabee, without the tone of respect and kindness in his voice. He seems like a "fire and brimstone" preacher more than a politician.
He's basically the dick version of Huckabee who hates everyone. I also think Rachel Maddow hit the nail in the head comparing the Republicans from 2008 to 2012:
Huckabee is a lot smarter (and cunning, as wealthy Christians generally are) than most people give him credit for. He decided not to make a run for President as he believes Obama will be a two-term President (as most Presidents generally are). As a result he's waiting for Mitt to take the fall this time, to then make a run for the campaign in 2016.
Universities being a bastion of liberalism isn't exactly untrue. Its pretty well known that most fields of academia, with the possible exception of business faculties are decidedly to the left of the national median, across the western world. On the other hand, the private sector is decidedly towards the right of the median, again, throughout the west.
Hey, ron paul is not stupid!
He isn't stupid, but he is definitely idealistic, especially with the desire to minimise government and balance budgets, though thats a major failing of all political parties.
Another name for budget surplus is "private sector wealth destruction". If someone wants a proof, I will show you the math.
I would love to see the math on this
GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports.
Y= C + I + G + (X - M)
An equivalent way of expressing GDP = consumption + taxes + savings.
Y = C + T + S
C + T + S = C + I + G + (X-M)
T + S = I + G + (X-M) (S - I) = (G-T) + (X-M)
(S - I) = net savings. If positive, then net private sector wealth is increasing.
(G - T) = government deficit
(X - M) = net exports.
Therefore, in order for the private sector to accumulate financial wealth, the government must run a deficit equal to the desired private sector savings rate minus net exports.
Let us assume that the private sector wants to be a net saver at 3% of GDP, and net imports are running at 5% of GDP.
Therefore, the government needs to run a 8% deficit in order to satisfy the private sectors desire for accumulation of financial assets. If net exports are at 5%, then the government needs to run a 2% surplus.
A few things.
1. You are calling (S-I) private sector wealth. I'm not sure why you are doing that. S is domestic savings. I is domestic investment. I can be very high with a low S as long as we have foreign countries investing in our country (which we DO and have always had) which is maintained by a TRADE DEFICIT, not necessarily a GOVERNMENT deficit.
In order for us to maintain a high level of business investment in the face of a low domestic savings rate, we are required to have a trade deficit.
2. "S" is domestic savings only. That is why it fits into our GDP equation. I is domestic investment. S would equal I if we did not trade with the rest of the world. If I is greater than S (which it is), then we are running a trade deficit. If S is greater than I then we are running a trade surplus.
So I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe you were confusing your "government deficit" with "trade deficit". There is nothing that says that we must run a government deficit in order to have significant domestic investment in our country. In fact we had a government surplus for much of the 90's but we still had a trade deficit because we need it to maintain our domestic investments.
(S - I) is net private sector savings. Basically, its the change in the amount of cash that the private sector is hoarding. If its positive, then the stock of non-circulating money is increasing. If its negative, then the stock of non-circulating money is decreasing.
Second, if I > S, that does NOT mean that we are running a trade deficit. A trade deficit only occurs when M > X.
(S - I) = (X - M) + (G - T)
No doubt, you are thinking of the equation in the form of I = S + (T - G) + (M - X). However, the causation runs the other way. Investment is not financed by saving. Its financed by profits and borrowing (which doesn't come from savers. the money is created by the banks). Investment determines whether there will be a government surplus, permits the level of savings to increase (due to more income flowing through the system), and the trade deficit is determined solely by the exchange rate and competition.
(and the exchange rate, should in theory be determined by relative interest rates and inflation. LOL.)
...Where it is hypothesized that government deficit can crowd out investment. But you've downplayed the role of the trade deficit. The wikipedia article has the full derivation and explanation.
Meaning if the Budgetdeficit increases then either savings must go up (unlikely in America), the trade deficit goes up (very likely), or investment must go down (also could happen).
But it's not like all the brunt is carried by a drop in inventment. You can't ignore the trade deficit and you shouldn't treat it as if it is a constant. It is probably the most flexible of any of the variables we are dealing with. If the trade deficit goes up by the same amount as the budget deficit then investment doesn't have to drop. But ya, it is theoretically possible that the government can "crowd out" domestic investment by holding a budget deficit.
I'm in favor of eliminating the budget deficit. I think that would be good. But if I hear anyone complaining about the trade deficit, I just facepalm and move on. There is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit...in fact in the US, it is necessary to maintain our investment levels as we have shown.
EDIT: Also note that the MAIN outcome of the Twin Deficit Theory is not that investment drops with a governement deficit, but "the understanding of why an increased budget deficit goes up and down in tandem with the Trade Deficit. This is where we derive the appellation the Twin Deficits: if the US budget deficit goes up then either household savings must go up, the trade deficit must go up, or private investment will decrease."
The thing is, I'm not talking about the twin deficit hypothesis. I consider budget deficits (for a government that issues its own fiat currency) and trade deficits to be a good thing. Despite monetarism being complete bunkum, I'm going to give this one to Friedman: trade deficits are a good thing, as what you exchange is bits of paper you can print at any time, for real, actual things. China holding a trillion in securities is actually a good thing, because otherwise they'd be using the USD to buy US assets.
No, what I am refering to is the desire by companies and households to accumulate net financial wealth. The private sector can only increase its net financial wealth by obtaining currency. It cannot create it, as money creation by the private sector is accompanied by an equal liability. The desire to accumulate net financial wealth, when private debt exists, can also be given another name: deleveraging.
S - I represents the change in net financial wealth over the period.
Savings and investment aren't determined by budget deficits/surpluses, or trade deficits/surpluses. Rather the desired level of savings and investment determine the state of the trade deficit and budget.
I'd say that savings/investment are the easiest for the private sector to alter. The private sector cannot control the budget, nor can they control the trade deficit. However, they can control how much they save (if they consume less, they save more), or how much they invest (put all projects on hold).
What about the loss of confidence in the currency, and its devaluation?
If you're trading paper for real stuff, then to avoid inflation you're relying on whoever is providing you the stuff to consistently devalue their currency.
Inflation doesn't necessarily occur when there is an increase in the money supply. Rather, inflation happens and the money supply is increased to compensate for it, to maintain the target interest rate.
Generally, deficit spending will not cause inflation when the demand for goods and services is less than supply (which is the case in all industrialized economies).*
As for currency getting devalued. It is not something to be feared, since we let the free market decide the exchange rate, if it goes down, its no big deal. You'd get some price inflation, but a boost in exports. It nets out.
*if you give a trillion in hot money to investment banks who then use it to speculate on oil . . . then you will get inflation. If the fed wants to print a few trillion, they should just distribute it to households rather than to the banks. Hello, the banks aren't lending because they don't have creditworthy customers, not because they don't have enough reserves...
On February 09 2012 09:34 vetinari wrote: (S - I) = (G-T) + (X-M)
(S - I) = net savings. If positive, then net private sector wealth is increasing.
(G - T) = government deficit
(X - M) = net exports.
Therefore, in order for the private sector to accumulate financial wealth, the government must run a deficit equal to the desired private sector savings rate minus net exports.
On February 09 2012 09:34 vetinari wrote: Another name for budget surplus is "private sector wealth destruction". If someone wants a proof, I will show you the math.
Something tells me you just disproved your own point and you realized it at the last moment. And that's even assuming full output. What you can do to the equation changes if full employment isn't true.
Just in case I'm wrong, if A+B=C, if A increases, is the only way for the equation to be balanced is for B to decrease? + Show Spoiler +
This is rhetorical, in case you haven't caught it.
On February 09 2012 16:08 vetinari wrote: Savings and investment aren't determined by budget deficits/surpluses, or trade deficits/surpluses. Rather the desired level of savings and investment determine the state of the trade deficit and budget.
You just spent an entire post deriving the twin deficits hypothesis, and you're going to claim that exactly one of the relationships in the hypothesis is the independent variable? Seriously? Are you really claiming that if the US government passes a trillion dollar tax cut, it's going to act on the equation through private savings and investment, not through government savings? How about if China buys up a trillion dollars worth in Treasuries?
On February 09 2012 16:08 vetinari wrote: The thing is, I'm not talking about the twin deficit hypothesis. I consider budget deficits (for a government that issues its own fiat currency) and trade deficits to be a good thing. Despite monetarism being complete bunkum, I'm going to give this one to Friedman: trade deficits are a good thing, as what you exchange is bits of paper you can print at any time, for real, actual things. China holding a trillion in securities is actually a good thing, because otherwise they'd be using the USD to buy US assets.
1: Something tells me Friedman didn't say this the way you're putting it. Capital and current accounts reach an optimal equilibrium in the long run, regardless of what kind of thing you're using as a currency (admittedly, the long run is much longer with gold than it is for normal currency)(assuming Mundell's impossible trinity is being held with lack of currency control as the freed variable [other stuff changes for equilibrium if this isn't true]). The only quote I can find that remotely matches what you're saying has to do with the circulation of foreign US dollars, and he's right on that one. 2: I don't think you quite understand why China holding a trillion in securities is a good thing if we're at full output. I don't think you understand that the Chinese buying US stocks and bonds isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. See Friedman for details.
Mitt Romney met quietly with a small group of conservative leaders in Washington on Thursday in an effort to reassure Republicans who remain skeptical about his candidacy, CNN has learned.
The Romney campaign arranged a "mix and mingle" session for the candidate to meet with conservatives Thursday afternoon at the Marriott Wardman Park, where the annual Conservative Political Action Conference is being held.
The war on drugs, especially marijuana is a complete joke. It's fueled by the private prison industry and it's an injustice against the low income urban population who inevitably find themselves in perpetually negative circumstance due to the war on drugs.
Coombs, who came to the U.S. legally from Jamaica as a child and enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20, served six years in the military. Eventually, he settled in Tustin and figured he was a U.S. citizen because he'd gone to war for his country.
He was wrong. Like hundreds of other men and women who served in the U.S. military, Coombs faces deportation and banishment from the country he went to war for after being arrested. In his case, he was arrested several times on charges of possession for use or sale of marijuana.
On February 10 2012 16:25 LaLLsc2 wrote: The war on drugs, especially marijuana is a complete joke. It's fueled by the private prison industry and it's an injustice against the low income urban population who inevitably find themselves in perpetually negative circumstance due to the war on drugs.
Coombs, who came to the U.S. legally from Jamaica as a child and enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20, served six years in the military. Eventually, he settled in Tustin and figured he was a U.S. citizen because he'd gone to war for his country.
He was wrong. Like hundreds of other men and women who served in the U.S. military, Coombs faces deportation and banishment from the country he went to war for after being arrested. In his case, he was arrested several times on charges of possession for use or sale of marijuana.
Except for the part where he was arrested "several times." One would think after the first time, he would have learned not to do that. I won't argue that our drug laws could use reforming, but to say that somebody who can't follow the same law after being caught "several" times deserves leniency is a little ridiculous, regardless of their service.
The biggest story from the article is that serving in the military doesn't make you a citizen. That's something easy we should correct soon.
On February 10 2012 16:25 LaLLsc2 wrote: The war on drugs, especially marijuana is a complete joke. It's fueled by the private prison industry and it's an injustice against the low income urban population who inevitably find themselves in perpetually negative circumstance due to the war on drugs.
Coombs, who came to the U.S. legally from Jamaica as a child and enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20, served six years in the military. Eventually, he settled in Tustin and figured he was a U.S. citizen because he'd gone to war for his country.
He was wrong. Like hundreds of other men and women who served in the U.S. military, Coombs faces deportation and banishment from the country he went to war for after being arrested. In his case, he was arrested several times on charges of possession for use or sale of marijuana.
Except for the part where he was arrested "several times." One would think after the first time, he would have learned not to do that. I won't argue that our drug laws could use reforming, but to say that somebody who can't follow the same law after being caught "several" times deserves leniency is a little ridiculous, regardless of their service.
The biggest story from the article is that serving in the military doesn't make you a citizen. That's something easy we should correct soon.
Good point, I definitely demagauged the issue a bit.. I wish more people payed attention to issue demagauging.. The televised debates would be the comedy events of the year.
On February 10 2012 16:25 LaLLsc2 wrote: The war on drugs, especially marijuana is a complete joke. It's fueled by the private prison industry and it's an injustice against the low income urban population who inevitably find themselves in perpetually negative circumstance due to the war on drugs.
Coombs, who came to the U.S. legally from Jamaica as a child and enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20, served six years in the military. Eventually, he settled in Tustin and figured he was a U.S. citizen because he'd gone to war for his country.
He was wrong. Like hundreds of other men and women who served in the U.S. military, Coombs faces deportation and banishment from the country he went to war for after being arrested. In his case, he was arrested several times on charges of possession for use or sale of marijuana.
Except for the part where he was arrested "several times." One would think after the first time, he would have learned not to do that. I won't argue that our drug laws could use reforming, but to say that somebody who can't follow the same law after being caught "several" times deserves leniency is a little ridiculous, regardless of their service.
The biggest story from the article is that serving in the military doesn't make you a citizen. That's something easy we should correct soon.
Good point, I definitely demagauged the issue a bit.. I wish more people payed attention to issue demagauging.. The televised debates would be the comedy events of the year.
I really wish some debate moderator would just lay into them when they get off topic. For example, instead of John King backing off and apologizing to Gingrich, he should have pushed the issue and stood firm by asking the question. Stuff like cutting off mics, instead of the stupid passive "red light" or whatever. I would watch a debate like that.
On February 10 2012 16:25 LaLLsc2 wrote: The war on drugs, especially marijuana is a complete joke. It's fueled by the private prison industry and it's an injustice against the low income urban population who inevitably find themselves in perpetually negative circumstance due to the war on drugs.
Coombs, who came to the U.S. legally from Jamaica as a child and enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20, served six years in the military. Eventually, he settled in Tustin and figured he was a U.S. citizen because he'd gone to war for his country.
He was wrong. Like hundreds of other men and women who served in the U.S. military, Coombs faces deportation and banishment from the country he went to war for after being arrested. In his case, he was arrested several times on charges of possession for use or sale of marijuana.
Except for the part where he was arrested "several times." One would think after the first time, he would have learned not to do that. I won't argue that our drug laws could use reforming, but to say that somebody who can't follow the same law after being caught "several" times deserves leniency is a little ridiculous, regardless of their service.
The biggest story from the article is that serving in the military doesn't make you a citizen. That's something easy we should correct soon.
Good point, I definitely demagauged the issue a bit.. I wish more people payed attention to issue demagauging.. The televised debates would be the comedy events of the year.
I really wish some debate moderator would just lay into them when they get off topic. For example, instead of John King backing off and apologizing to Gingrich, he should have pushed the issue and stood firm by asking the question. Stuff like cutting off mics, instead of the stupid passive "red light" or whatever. I would watch a debate like that.
1.) give each candidate 5 minute block 2.) 1 hour 20 minute open discussion with little moderator intervention 3.) ????????? 4.) Profit
Washington legalizes gay marriage and Santorum surges forward. Every time I think tolerance in America may be improving, something drags me back to cynicism.
The candidates are not there to discuss. They are there to promote themselves before an audience.
Which makes it offensive to label it as a 'debate' in that case. There is no clashing.
I'd love to see an actual Debate where candidates argued against each other rather than preaching to the choir.
But even "competitive debates" these days aren't about combating one another, but rather spitting out facts. Debates as people would like to envision them don't really exist.
EPT
