|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 22:24 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:15 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 18:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 18:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 28 2018 18:24 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 18:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 28 2018 14:39 KwarK wrote:
Liberalism doesn't actually have a stance on forest fires, as far as I know. I'm at least partly liberal and I would like to say now that I am absolutely against forest fires. If I was in charge I would definitely try to avoid forest fires. The worst thing about Trump for me is all the forest fires. (I have no context for this discussion this comment was just at the top of the current page) Ironically, that is part of the problem. Long term effects of fire suppression have left our great Sequoias unable to reproduce. The estimate is that we are missing 2 or 3 generations of them. This is why I shouldn't speak on stuff I have absolutely no idea about. It seems like an interesting topic though I might go read about it, thanks. I thought this was a well written article, except the end where they talk about "taxpayer dollars". But the point being made was still relevant and they are ecologists and not economists heh. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_war_against_wildfire/ You're still on with this pedantry, referring to government spending as 'taxpayer dollars' is perfectly fine even though it's only indirectly true from an operational point of view. Economists use it as well when writing op-eds for example, because colloquially is how we collectively agreed to communicate with eachother in day to day life in order for non-technical discussion to not be a drag. This is akin to feeling smug when correcting someone for using poisonous instead of venomous, even though the former is also true despite being less precise. Yes. Because that type of rhetoric is cancerous and creates a lot of unnecessary problems. It also promotes bigotry and xenophobia, as we all know what a "taxpayer" is supposed to look like. It is an inaccurate description that misleads people into thinking that "their money" is being used for things that they don't appreciate. Or, conversely, think that it is used for programs they feel entitled to- such as Social Security. People do not understand that FICA is a tax, and that SS payments are newly created dollars. "Taxpayer dollars" is not fine whatsoever- not even in an indirect method, because operationally, taxation has nothing to do with federal spending. Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year. It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation. That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it.
That all can be true and yet an uncomplicated use of the term "taxpayers' dollars" can still deserve criticism when utilized as a descriptor. The US is a battleground when it comes to tax politics and it shouldn't be surprising to hear that a particular subset of special interests benefit greatly from hand waving away the problems inherent to nakedly referring to government expenditures as taxpayer money.
Even though I'm definitely not sold on MMT, its attempt to change economic reference points and conceptualize things in a different way is laudable and an important part of good political change imo.
|
On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will.
Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy.
If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply.
|
On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply.
The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money.
Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint.
|
United States42004 Posts
On July 28 2018 17:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 04:45 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly dealing with Germany Pre world war 2 only looks awful in hindsight. Honestly? No, it doesn't. If you look at it in context, Hitler was a world leader who had taken a broken country and made it proud again. There was no reason not to deal with Hitler Germany at that time. What looks awful in hindsight is choosing to stay out of the war forever even when it was clear what was going on to all involved, then rampaging in at the end for a victory lap and recasting it as American heroism, carefully editing out the contributions of basically everyone else to that war in media etc. If Japan hadn't decided to attack Pearl Harbour there's a reasonable chance Britain would have fallen. We were on the brink.
Hitler wrote a book saying what he planned to do, and then did those things.
|
On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint.
Wouldn't you say that the US is currently at full employment?
|
On July 29 2018 00:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. Wouldn't you say that the US is currently at full employment?
Quick googling says we're overemployed, but that doesn't magically mean the other half of his statement is fulfilled too.
|
On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint.
I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment.
|
On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint.
By usual suspects, you mean excluding all the examples of increased money supply to stimulate the economy leading to hyperinflation, to talk about the ones caused by resource shortages or debt in foreign currency.
China was the first country to switch to paper money, it worked well until they stopped enforcing strict control on the supply. The ROC's uncontrolled printing of money lead to hyperinflation and them losing support of the middle-class against the communists.
Rome was unable to create more money to finance public projects due to a shortage of gold and silver, their solution was to make their currency using less of those materials and more of materials with no intrinsic value so they can make more of it. Prices skyrocketed.
Iraq printed too much money in the early 90s, same result. In many post-communist countries and post-war countries, high inflation happened due to public institutions running at a loss rather than their spending being adjusted to match tax revenue.
Your description of what happened to the Spanish empire is incorrect, their currency was made of gold. They weren't unable to print money, they had boatloads of gold to make coins with. That was the problem, they introduced too much gold to the economy, lowering its value.
If you double the amount of dollars in circulation tomorrow, prices will follow suit. The value of the pack of gum won't magically double itself, what we empirically know will happen is that the value of the dollar will lower. Not necessarily by 50%, depending on the public's panic or confidence in it, it may be more or less than half but it will lower.
Now I don't disagree that printing money is necessary sometimes, either to fight deflation or to pay debt in your own currency, but the whole point of that is intentionally lowering the value of your currency, though that's not what we're discussing. Right now, spending in the US is for the most part based on tax, in order to maintain the value of your currency.
|
On July 29 2018 00:15 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 00:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. Wouldn't you say that the US is currently at full employment? Quick googling says we're overemployed, but that doesn't magically mean the other half of his statement is fulfilled too.
I think giving a bunch of corporations tax breaks to buy back their own stock is chasing goods and services already in use, but I'm open to other opinions.
|
On July 28 2018 21:34 Silvanel wrote:
Are earthquakes and hurricanes conservative? Afterall they strike same locations over and over.
Hell yes. They're all like "You building shit here? FUCK THAT *smash*"
Seems pretty conservative to me.
|
On July 29 2018 00:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 17:34 iamthedave wrote:On July 28 2018 04:45 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly dealing with Germany Pre world war 2 only looks awful in hindsight. Honestly? No, it doesn't. If you look at it in context, Hitler was a world leader who had taken a broken country and made it proud again. There was no reason not to deal with Hitler Germany at that time. What looks awful in hindsight is choosing to stay out of the war forever even when it was clear what was going on to all involved, then rampaging in at the end for a victory lap and recasting it as American heroism, carefully editing out the contributions of basically everyone else to that war in media etc. If Japan hadn't decided to attack Pearl Harbour there's a reasonable chance Britain would have fallen. We were on the brink. Hitler wrote a book saying what he planned to do, and then did those things.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-jews-couldnt-care-less-about-mein-kampf-when-it-first-came-out/
Nobody took Mein Kampf particularly seriously at the time. They should have... but they didn't. I'M SURE EVERYONE LEARNED THEIR LESSON.
|
Since nothing is really being discussed, here is a picture for your viewing pleasure. I imagine that Jr. almost shit his pants.
"What are you up to Eric?"
"Going hunting."
"Me too, Eric. Me too.
I'm assuming Mueller has a security detail as well. No way he is unprotected...
|
That's a great picture lol, what a world.
|
Mueller: How I wish I dressed when I fly.
Don Jr: How I actually dress when I fly.
|
Why do you want to dress in a suit when you fly?
|
On July 29 2018 06:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why do you want to dress in a suit when you fly?
Was more of a joke than anything. But we are a slovenly bunch of flyers. Sweatpants as far as the eye can see lol. I wouldn't mind looking nice while I travel. Alas, I'm as bad as the rest of them.
|
Trump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-war
I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. Can't be too "chicken-chested" when it comes to foreign policy!
As you know, the US continues to spend too much on the military & not enough on public infrastructure projects & healthcare programs
|
Except he didn’t do anything yet. Europe isn’t going to just buy more soy beans tomorrow. It took years upon years to create the buyers for the current overseas soybean markets.
Believing Trumps victories is like pre-ordering video games based on the CGI E3 trailers.
|
I wasn't gonna get into it, but of course that's right.
Nothing was agreed on. Juncker said some shit, Trump said some shit. That's it. Literally nothing happened, and possibly will happen. To call that "a trade deal" is monumentally stupid.
So who won then? Nobody, really - except maybe germany (and US car manufacturers), because obviously, raising tariffs on cars now is kinda impossible, because the EU would simply leave the table.
|
On July 29 2018 08:32 Plansix wrote:
Except he didn’t do anything yet. Europe isn’t going to just buy more soy beans tomorrow. It took years upon years to create the buyers for the current overseas soybean markets.
Believing Trumps victories is like pre-ordering video games based on the CGI E3 trailers.
Of course we are, we're gonna change our tariff on American soy beans from 0% to -5%, Trump's limitless charisma and business sense convinced us to subsidize American farmers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
