Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn’t Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into

[Flopper]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Apparently you don't consider carpentering, teaching, being a mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or the Senate a job.

 

[Iceweasel]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

Author tries to talk about russia. We're not russia.
Cutting the debt is hurtful:
Think big deficits cause recessions

 

[Windship]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Ok, well, when did george bush 2 get HIS first paycheck....just b4 he send 5,000 troops to their death with another 30,000 maimed so the 5 american oil companies could start pumping, KBR, Halliberton and a few other companies can get rich on no bid contracts all the while telling us it was where the terrorists came from so we can get even MORE porked at the gas pump. Yeah, gb had a better idea. Wanna talk about living off the taxpayers? U moron, Tax dollars paid for all that. Dope.

 

[Windship]

Do yourself and you other brainwashed ignorant ppl that vote, a favor,...look up the stats on entitlement program spending and corporate welfare stats. Then get back to me...

 

[Windship]

...another thing...when our gov sends our jobs away, theyd fucking BETTER take care off the ppl that they they sold out to corporate america to.

 

[Iceweasel]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

Author tries to talk about russia. We're not russia.
Cutting the debt is hurtful:

He mentioned an example of state controlled money. Which is how the state controlled money ends up. Bankrupt.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ok, well, when did george bush 2 get HIS first paycheck....just b4 he send 5,000 troops to their death with another 30,000 maimed so the 5 american oil companies could start pumping, KBR, Halliberton and a few other companies can get rich on no bid contracts all the while telling us it was where the terrorists came from so we can get even MORE porked at the gas pump. Yeah, gb had a better idea. Wanna talk about living off the taxpayers? U moron, Tax dollars paid for all that. Dope.

When did we acquire Iraqi oil?

 

[BluesLegend]

Wow what a loser, but then many of these liberals turn out to be moochers and losers so no surprise.

 

[oreo]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Apparently you don't consider carpentering, teaching, being a mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or the Senate a job.

I don't know what world you came from, but when I was 18 years old, I was out of mommy & daddies house and earning my own living. In my day anyone that was 21 and still in their parents home and living off of them was a looser.

Someone like Bernie Sanders who did that crap until he was 40 YEARS old is a very lazy, unmotivated person, living off of anyone that will put up with him. He's a TAKER. He doesn't bother to participate in taking care of himself--because of the way he was raised, and he knew that others would take care of his crap for him. Someone was always there holding his hand, and patting him on the back, telling him it wasn't his fault he was a LOOSER, it was the WORLD'S fault.

Now he's preaching it to the Millennials in this country with promises of free shit from everyone. Free college tuition for underwater basket weaving classes. Of course it will be paid for off of the backs of working motivated American citizens.

Socialism

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

 

[Flopper]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Apparently you don't consider carpentering, teaching, being a mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or the Senate a job.

I don't know what world you came from, but when I was 18 years old, I was out of mommy & daddies house and earning my own living. In my day anyone that was 21 and still in their parents home and living off of them was a looser.

Someone like Bernie Sanders who did that crap until he was 40 YEARS old is a very lazy, unmotivated person, living off of anyone that will put up with him. He's a TAKER. He doesn't bother to participate in taking care of himself--because of the way he was raised, and he knew that others would take care of his crap for him. Someone was always there holding his hand, and patting him on the back, telling him it wasn't his fault he was a LOOSER, it was the WORLD'S fault.

Now he's preaching it to the Millennials in this country with promises of free shit from everyone. Free college tuition for underwater basket weaving classes. Of course it will be paid for off of the backs of working motivated American citizens.

Socialism

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

Looking back at our presidents for the last 25 years, they have all basically lived off the government or their families money.
What jobs did Obama have other than political office, teaching and a community organizer.
What jobs did George Bush have other than political office and working for his daddy in politician campaigns, and investing daddy's money in a baseball team and oil leases.
How about Bill Clinton? I don't think he has every work anywhere other than in political campaigns and public services.
H.W. Bush after getting out the military used his daddy's connections to work in sales and the oil business and then it was 30 years of government service and political office.

People that become presidents today are career politicians. I'm not saying that is necessary bad. It's just the truth.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

Author tries to talk about russia. We're not russia.
Cutting the debt is hurtful:

He mentioned an example of state controlled money. Which is how the state controlled money ends up. Bankrupt.

Hilarious! Our money has virtually always been state controlled.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

 

[Stephanie]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Ok, well, when did george bush 2 get HIS first paycheck....just b4 he send 5,000 troops to their death with another 30,000 maimed so the 5 american oil companies could start pumping, KBR, Halliberton and a few other companies can get rich on no bid contracts all the while telling us it was where the terrorists came from so we can get even MORE porked at the gas pump. Yeah, gb had a better idea. Wanna talk about living off the taxpayers? U moron, Tax dollars paid for all that. Dope.

LOL, you are one nasty person. does it make feel better?

 

[Iceweasel]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

Author tries to talk about russia. We're not russia.
Cutting the debt is hurtful:

He mentioned an example of state controlled money. Which is how the state controlled money ends up. Bankrupt.

Hilarious! Our money has virtually always been state controlled.

It said complete control over valuation. Laughing about just proves you're an idiot running your keyboard. The market sets value, the government doesn't decide what your car is worth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

 

[Toro]

That's "President Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck ... "

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

I'm most excited about getting my new FREE knee replacements