How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

I love this thread.

Austerity in Europe means cutting the pensions of people who are already retired while increasing taxes on the underemployed.

What we are talking about in the U.S. is slowing down the rate of growth of government.

Even under the Ryan plan (about which the moonbats have the vapors), federal spending is planned to grow at 3.4% a year, with entitlements modified for those 55 and below.

These are hardly equivalent scenarios...and the sooner we enact the latter, we'll be able to avoid the former.

So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending. Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high. Unless, of course, you lower taxes on the poor or the middle class. Which is not what the Ryan plan is about. So, can you show a general income tax decrease during high unemployment that helped the economy??? Or, even more importantly, a case where decreasing gov spending during high unemployment helped?? Cause I can show where it did damage. So, surely you must have an example where income tax decreases helped. Or are you just pushing con dogma???

 

[Rshermr]

You're trying to help me understand monetary operations by giving me one of the most non-sensical analogies I've ever heard? What does a football stadium and points on a scoreboard have to do with how our Federal Government creates the money it uses to operate? The person who is trying to feed me "misinformation" about our monetary system is you! You're the one who seems to believe that the Federal Government has the ability to simply print whatever money it wants in order to pay it's debts. I'm sorry but THAT is misinformation if not an outright lie. How much money is created is the domain of the Federal Reserve Bank...not the Federal Government.

Spending starts with Congressional Appropriations, sorry. If I'm the federal government, and I take in one trillion in taxes, for example, but I need four trillion, where do I get the additional three trillion? It's done through deficit spending. Government spending creates reserves balances, while taxes and bond destroy them. If we apply some accounting logic to the FED's balance sheet, we see that any changes to the Treasury's balance sheet effect the quantity of reserve balances in circulation. The very act of government spending creates reserve balances under out fiat system.

The US is obligated to pay all debts as they come due. Period. Nevertheless, the national debt cannot be a burden for the federal goverment or its citizens. The US has an unlimited credit card which enables it obtain new debt at interest rates it sets. It can also create any amount of money it needs to pay off debt at whatever limit without increasing its debt, unless the government voluntarily does so by taxing more than it spends.

I'm not saying the federal government should always spend simply because it has the operational ability to do so, that would be insane. Basically, there's no such thing as the federal government not being able to afford to put some idle capacity to work. It's pretty obvious not all fiscal actions are equally efficient or the same.

As to who I learned about economics from? One person was Thomas Sowell, whom I had as a professor at Amherst College. Between you and me? I'm quite certain that Doctor Sowell would get a laugh out of your football stadium and points analogy.

Actually, I've kept my posts quite elementary, without delving into too much technical detail. However, print out my posts and show them to any economist. They'll tell you my explanations are correct from the monetary and operational side. Guaranteed.

So you had Thomas Sowell for some classes? So what? I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univeristy, which probably has one of the best econ departments on the Continent. I also received my MBA from the Stern School of Business. My econ professors in Italy read like a Who Who's list of economists. What the does that mean? Nothing. Does that make me special? Not in the least.

Damn, You don't seriously believe this do you?

Sounds like economic school of "free stuff".

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...


I can continue your line of thinking with government without a printing press. Instead of printing money they can just default, their debt account goes to zero, and people's govt debt assets account go to zero as well. NO PROBLEMO. It's this simple! WHAA! All we need to do is alter some accounts and that will cure cancer as well!

Thing is, the debt needs to be paid, and you need taxes to pay it. So people will have to pay more taxes either through inflation, or just normal taxes. No way around it. Even if you print the debt, then you can't print to spend then so you lose that, so you WILL have to pay for the debt. There is no free lunch I am afraid.

Your argument is spacious. First, no one is suggesting that printing money is the singular answer. In fact, it is the answer of last resort.
Relative to taxes being the answer, you have that CORRECT. But the whole answer seems to be beyond your thought process. You may want to look at history. Always, in every single case, when the UE rate is high, the deficit increases. And for really, really obvious reasons. It is because the unemployed do not pay taxes. And they do get unemployment comp. So, you see the deficit increase. Go back to Reagan's term after his tax decrease, and you will see the UE rate raise constantly for over 19 months. And the deficit increase. Because, you see, tax revenues DECREASED.

And, in every case where the deficit has increased during these times of high unemployment, the deficit did not decrease until unemployment was back under control.


So, the Ryan concept is backwards. It is great for the rich because it decreases taxes. But for the economy it would be a disaster. You would see revenue decrease, the deficit increase, and unemployment increase. Simple in theory, and in history. You cut spending, then you cut jobs. Which leads to more cuts in jobs as the unemployed reduce spending. Which then increases the deficit. And if you follow the Ryan logic, you would then decrease taxes and spending again. And, you have the flush effect until someone gets a clue. If you walk away from the political concept of decreasing taxes, which politicians push because the folks that fund them are wealthy and want tax decreases, and look at what has ever, ever worked when unemployment is high, then you will start trying to find a way to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending. You will increase the deficit some, but as unemployment increases, those increases will become decreases. As they always have.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The gold standard gave us the Great Depression.

dear, according to Milton Friedman, not following the rules in place at the time for the gold standard caused the Depression! Do you disagree? Yes or No?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...

yes he says $17 trillion is not a problem and neither would be $100 trillion. The more debt the stronger the economy is, in effect, his insane claim!!


I

 

[Oldstyle]

Spending starts with Congressional Appropriations, sorry. If I'm the federal government, and I take in one trillion in taxes, for example, but I need four trillion, where do I get the additional three trillion? It's done through deficit spending. Government spending creates reserves balances, while taxes and bond destroy them. If we apply some accounting logic to the FED's balance sheet, we see that any changes to the Treasury's balance sheet effect the quantity of reserve balances in circulation. The very act of government spending creates reserve balances under out fiat system.

The US is obligated to pay all debts as they come due. Period. Nevertheless, the national debt cannot be a burden for the federal goverment or its citizens. The US has an unlimited credit card which enables it obtain new debt at interest rates it sets. It can also create any amount of money it needs to pay off debt at whatever limit without increasing its debt, unless the government voluntarily does so by taxing more than it spends.

I'm not saying the federal government should always spend simply because it has the operational ability to do so, that would be insane. Basically, there's no such thing as the federal government not being able to afford to put some idle capacity to work. It's pretty obvious not all fiscal actions are equally efficient or the same.



Actually, I've kept my posts quite elementary, without delving into too much technical detail. However, print out my posts and show them to any economist. They'll tell you my explanations are correct from the monetary and operational side. Guaranteed.

So you had Thomas Sowell for some classes? So what? I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univeristy, which probably has one of the best econ departments on the Continent. I also received my MBA from the Stern School of Business. My econ professors in Italy read like a Who Who's list of economists. What the does that mean? Nothing. Does that make me special? Not in the least.

Italian economists? Since Italy's economy has been in the shitter for so long Mr. Whipple should be running things, I'm not sure I'd be using THAT as a testimonial for your economic chops, Kimura! If Italy has such great economists then why is the country perpetually facing bankruptcy?

Funny. Oldstyle, being a con tool, uses Sewell as his source over and over. Sewell is a libertarian, closely related to a number of conservative nut case web sites, among others. But mostly, Sewell is related to CATO, todays version of the John Birch Society. And the primary "think tank" for the libertarian point of view. Oddly enough, the source of payment to many willing to push their libertarian thinking. If you want to make big bucks, coming out of college with a grad degree in, say, economics, like oh, say, Sewell, then all you have to do is push their agenda. Which is, of course, the agenda of the Koch brothers, who FOUNDED and have RUN CATO.

So there you have it. Oldstyle's source for economic thought. An economist from the ragged edge of the far far far right wing. Who is unable, of course, to provide a single successful example of the economic agenda which he pushes, as there are no successful libertarian economies. Yet Oldstyle pushes this clown's economic theories. Funny. Sad, but funny.

But what is really sad is that Oldstyle has the complete ignorance needed to say that Italian economists must be stupid since the Italian economy, in his learned opinion, is not doing well. Apparently, he thinks that economists, not politicians, make the decesions that determine the economic wellbeing of a nation.

And, what is really, really funny is that Oldstyle, having had two whole classes in economics, can criticize the economic thoughts of anyone. Oldstyle, who claims to have a history degree, but has spent his years in the "food services" business. Never used his degree. Total waste of time. But has a job so important that he is allowed to post his conservative dogma all day on this board. Anyone else out there that was allowed to post on a political or economic site all day while he is on the clock??

What is really, really funny is you, pretending that you taught economics at the college level while you were an undergrad, Tommy...when you were so ignorant about the subject you thought I was referring to an actual college campus when I mentioned different economic schools of thought.

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...

As for how I use my college education? My history degree comes in handy when I interact with others either in person or on a forum such as this. You see, I don't have to have to blame the lack of a ficticious "private secretary" for my eighth grade level spelling and grammar. I actually come across as someone who HAS a college degree...unlike yourself.

 

[Oldstyle]

Spending starts with Congressional Appropriations, sorry. If I'm the federal government, and I take in one trillion in taxes, for example, but I need four trillion, where do I get the additional three trillion? It's done through deficit spending. Government spending creates reserves balances, while taxes and bond destroy them. If we apply some accounting logic to the FED's balance sheet, we see that any changes to the Treasury's balance sheet effect the quantity of reserve balances in circulation. The very act of government spending creates reserve balances under out fiat system.

The US is obligated to pay all debts as they come due. Period. Nevertheless, the national debt cannot be a burden for the federal goverment or its citizens. The US has an unlimited credit card which enables it obtain new debt at interest rates it sets. It can also create any amount of money it needs to pay off debt at whatever limit without increasing its debt, unless the government voluntarily does so by taxing more than it spends.

I'm not saying the federal government should always spend simply because it has the operational ability to do so, that would be insane. Basically, there's no such thing as the federal government not being able to afford to put some idle capacity to work. It's pretty obvious not all fiscal actions are equally efficient or the same.



Actually, I've kept my posts quite elementary, without delving into too much technical detail. However, print out my posts and show them to any economist. They'll tell you my explanations are correct from the monetary and operational side. Guaranteed.

So you had Thomas Sowell for some classes? So what? I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univeristy, which probably has one of the best econ departments on the Continent. I also received my MBA from the Stern School of Business. My econ professors in Italy read like a Who Who's list of economists. What the does that mean? Nothing. Does that make me special? Not in the least.

Damn, You don't seriously believe this do you?

Sounds like economic school of "free stuff".

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...


I can continue your line of thinking with government without a printing press. Instead of printing money they can just default, their debt account goes to zero, and people's govt debt assets account go to zero as well. NO PROBLEMO. It's this simple! WHAA! All we need to do is alter some accounts and that will cure cancer as well!

Thing is, the debt needs to be paid, and you need taxes to pay it. So people will have to pay more taxes either through inflation, or just normal taxes. No way around it. Even if you print the debt, then you can't print to spend then so you lose that, so you WILL have to pay for the debt. There is no free lunch I am afraid.

Your argument is spacious. First, no one is suggesting that printing money is the singular answer. In fact, it is the answer of last resort.
Relative to taxes being the answer, you have that CORRECT. But the whole answer seems to be beyond your thought process. You may want to look at history. Always, in every single case, when the UE rate is high, the deficit increases. And for really, really obvious reasons. It is because the unemployed do not pay taxes. And they do get unemployment comp. So, you see the deficit increase. Go back to Reagan's term after his tax decrease, and you will see the UE rate raise constantly for over 19 months. And the deficit increase. Because, you see, tax revenues DECREASED.

And, in every case where the deficit has increased during these times of high unemployment, the deficit did not decrease until unemployment was back under control.


So, the Ryan concept is backwards. It is great for the rich because it decreases taxes. But for the economy it would be a disaster. You would see revenue decrease, the deficit increase, and unemployment increase. Simple in theory, and in history. You cut spending, then you cut jobs. Which leads to more cuts in jobs as the unemployed reduce spending. Which then increases the deficit. And if you follow the Ryan logic, you would then decrease taxes and spending again. And, you have the flush effect until someone gets a clue. If you walk away from the political concept of decreasing taxes, which politicians push because the folks that fund them are wealthy and want tax decreases, and look at what has ever, ever worked when unemployment is high, then you will start trying to find a way to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending. You will increase the deficit some, but as unemployment increases, those increases will become decreases. As they always have.

I think the word your looking for is "specious", Tommy...not "spacious". Duh? You make a box of rocks look intelligent.

 

[Rshermr]

Damn, You don't seriously believe this do you?

Sounds like economic school of "free stuff".

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...


I can continue your line of thinking with government without a printing press. Instead of printing money they can just default, their debt account goes to zero, and people's govt debt assets account go to zero as well. NO PROBLEMO. It's this simple! WHAA! All we need to do is alter some accounts and that will cure cancer as well!

Thing is, the debt needs to be paid, and you need taxes to pay it. So people will have to pay more taxes either through inflation, or just normal taxes. No way around it. Even if you print the debt, then you can't print to spend then so you lose that, so you WILL have to pay for the debt. There is no free lunch I am afraid.

Your argument is spacious. First, no one is suggesting that printing money is the singular answer. In fact, it is the answer of last resort.
Relative to taxes being the answer, you have that CORRECT. But the whole answer seems to be beyond your thought process. You may want to look at history. Always, in every single case, when the UE rate is high, the deficit increases. And for really, really obvious reasons. It is because the unemployed do not pay taxes. And they do get unemployment comp. So, you see the deficit increase. Go back to Reagan's term after his tax decrease, and you will see the UE rate raise constantly for over 19 months. And the deficit increase. Because, you see, tax revenues DECREASED.

And, in every case where the deficit has increased during these times of high unemployment, the deficit did not decrease until unemployment was back under control.


So, the Ryan concept is backwards. It is great for the rich because it decreases taxes. But for the economy it would be a disaster. You would see revenue decrease, the deficit increase, and unemployment increase. Simple in theory, and in history. You cut spending, then you cut jobs. Which leads to more cuts in jobs as the unemployed reduce spending. Which then increases the deficit. And if you follow the Ryan logic, you would then decrease taxes and spending again. And, you have the flush effect until someone gets a clue. If you walk away from the political concept of decreasing taxes, which politicians push because the folks that fund them are wealthy and want tax decreases, and look at what has ever, ever worked when unemployment is high, then you will start trying to find a way to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending. You will increase the deficit some, but as unemployment increases, those increases will become decreases. As they always have.

I think the word your looking for is "specious", Tommy...not "spacious". Duh? You make a box of rocks look intelligent.

Wow, Oldstyle. I make a typo, and you correct it. Must be nice to have nothing important to do in your tiny little life.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, being a congenital idiot, says:

What is really, really funny is you, pretending that you taught economics at the college level while you were an undergrad, Tommy...when you were so ignorant about the subject you thought I was referring to an actual college campus when I mentioned different economic schools of thought.

So you have said what, now, me boy, 30 or 40 times. As you said you would not once I gave you the particulars. But then, what the hell, me boy, you lie continually. And have no integrity at all.

I only mentioned Thomas Sowell because Kimura asked what my background in economics was. He asked...I told. You'll notice that I didn't try and embellish my background as you are so prone to doing "Professor Rshermr"! You might learn from that...

Perhaps you would like to show where I ever said I was a professor. As you know, I did not. Which makes you a liar. Again. But, Oldstyle, what I said is that you claim a bachelors degree in history, but you are in the food services business, with a job so insignificant that nobody cares if you are posting on this board. I did not know that anyone could be that unimportant. And relative to embellishing my background, I have never done so. Which is why you keep making things up. Poor little man.

As for how I use my college education? My history degree comes in handy when I interact with others either in person or on a forum such as this. You see, I don't have to have to blame the lack of a ficticious "private secretary" for my eighth grade level spelling and grammar. I actually come across as someone who HAS a college degree...unlike yourself.

So, relative to the fictitious secretary, me boy. This shows how insignificant that you really are, doesn't it, Oldstyle. After 20 or 30 years of working, out of college, I had a private secretary, which I mentioned as a simple matter of fact. And you are so impressed with the concept that you call me a liar. Sorry, me boy. I do not lie. Never have. And, of course, I have offered to pay you if you want to come on out and prove it. $10K if I can not prove what you say are lies. But then, what the hell, Oldstyle, you just run your mouth with personal attacks because you can not prove anything, and you know I am not lying about anything.
So, lets see if you lied lately. How about a week or so in December, when you asked the same question over and over. And I answered it over and over. And you pretended that you did not ever get an answer. Here you go, oldstyle. Proof that you lie. And, if you don't like that one, I can provide another example easily: (your questions are in quotes, with my response after. Simple copy and paste, me boy)

12-19-2012, 08:52 PM Post 314

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

12-20-2012, 12:15 PM Post 413

Substance? Dude, I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?

I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.

12-26-2012, 09:28 AM Post 402

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
You and I have many, many posts back and forth. And I have told you this many, many times. I have also explained the following:
The basic belief by most economists is that tax decreases to the wealthy do no real good as far as stimulus is concerned. As reagan learned, across the board tax cuts are a really, really bad idea, because most of the tax reduction goes to the wealthiest taxpayers.
So, you see, oldstyle, it is not that tax decreases can not be stimulative, it is that tax decreases to the wealthy are not. Because, as I have told you before, they do not spend the money. Now, tax idecreases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money.
Here is an article that explains this, again. I used this link before, and you seem to have ignored it.\\

DailyFinance - News and Advice for a Lifetime of Financial Decisions

So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax increases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

So, oldstye says:
Quote:
Desperate? LOL

I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 404
Quote:

It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.

I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM Post 405
Quote:

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand???

So, there you go, oldstyle. And that was just a few of over 20 posts asking the same question, and pretending that I had not answered the question. Funny. I kept answering to see how many times you would play your little childish game, and how many times you would try the same lie. Want more, Oldstyle. Or more examples of you lying. And, of course, you can not provide a single case in which I have lied. Because I never do. Because this post is not nearly important enough to loose integrity over, me boy. Assuming that you had any, which you do not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending. Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high.

Econ 101 for you: actually its the only thing that can work since the government does not invent new products and so cant make the economy grow. In sum, the less money the government has the better, and the more the private sector has the better.

Don't ever forget your Econ 101. The economy grew from the stone age to here because the private sector invented new stuff, not because libturd soviet Solyndra bureaucrats taxed money away from, say, venture capitalists so they could then fund fewer new ventures like Amazon Microsoft Google Apple.

Not so hard is it

 

[Rshermr]

So, I think that we can all agree that the Ryan plan is about lowering taxes and cutting gov spending. Which has never, ever, in our history, worked when unemployment was high.

Econ 101 for you: actually its the only thing that can work since the government does not invent new products and so cant make the economy grow. In sum, the less money the government has the better, and the more the private sector has the better.

Don't ever forget your Econ 101. The economy grew from the stone age to here because the private sector invented new stuff, not because libturd soviet Solyndra bureaucrats taxed money away from, say, venture capitalists so they could then fund fewer new ventures like Amazon Microsoft Google Apple.

Not so hard is it

Yup. It is simple. Totally untrue. But for you, simple is key.

Lets see. What did the gov. invent.
1. The internet.
2. Jet aircraft
3. Computers
4. Radar technology
5. GPS Systems

We could go on for a couple of hours. So, you are wrong again, as usual.
And, as usual, your response to my post had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

So, Ed, is ignorance bliss?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lets see. What did the gov. invent.
1. The internet.

too stupid. If they have an idea for space travel or something and then hire private companies to make it possible you'd hardly say libturd bureaucrats invented space travel. Republican capitalist companies did!!

Lets take the internet:telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

 

[Kimura]

You're trying to help me understand monetary operations by giving me one of the most non-sensical analogies I've ever heard? What does a football stadium and points on a scoreboard have to do with how our Federal Government creates the money it uses to operate? The person who is trying to feed me "misinformation" about our monetary system is you! You're the one who seems to believe that the Federal Government has the ability to simply print whatever money it wants in order to pay it's debts. I'm sorry but THAT is misinformation if not an outright lie. How much money is created is the domain of the Federal Reserve Bank...not the Federal Government.

Spending starts with Congressional Appropriations, sorry. If I'm the federal government, and I take in one trillion in taxes, for example, but I need four trillion, where do I get the additional three trillion? It's done through deficit spending. Government spending creates reserves balances, while taxes and bond destroy them. If we apply some accounting logic to the FED's balance sheet, we see that any changes to the Treasury's balance sheet effect the quantity of reserve balances in circulation. The very act of government spending creates reserve balances under out fiat system.

The US is obligated to pay all debts as they come due. Period. Nevertheless, the national debt cannot be a burden for the federal goverment or its citizens. The US has an unlimited credit card which enables it obtain new debt at interest rates it sets. It can also create any amount of money it needs to pay off debt at whatever limit without increasing its debt, unless the government voluntarily does so by taxing more than it spends.

I'm not saying the federal government should always spend simply because it has the operational ability to do so, that would be insane. Basically, there's no such thing as the federal government not being able to afford to put some idle capacity to work. It's pretty obvious not all fiscal actions are equally efficient or the same.

As to who I learned about economics from? One person was Thomas Sowell, whom I had as a professor at Amherst College. Between you and me? I'm quite certain that Doctor Sowell would get a laugh out of your football stadium and points analogy.

Actually, I've kept my posts quite elementary, without delving into too much technical detail. However, print out my posts and show them to any economist. They'll tell you my explanations are correct from the monetary and operational side. Guaranteed.

So you had Thomas Sowell for some classes? So what? I received my undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univeristy, which probably has one of the best econ departments on the Continent. I also received my MBA from the Stern School of Business. My econ professors in Italy read like a Who Who's list of economists. What the does that mean? Nothing. Does that make me special? Not in the least.

Damn, You don't seriously believe this do you?

Sounds like economic school of "free stuff".

It's pretty alarming that you have a PHD, and think debt can't be a burden cause you can just print money. As if that's no problem at all...


I can continue your line of thinking with government without a printing press. Instead of printing money they can just default, their debt account goes to zero, and people's govt debt assets account go to zero as well. NO PROBLEMO. It's this simple! WHAA! All we need to do is alter some accounts and that will cure cancer as well!

Thing is, the debt needs to be paid, and you need taxes to pay it. So people will have to pay more taxes either through inflation, or just normal taxes. No way around it. Even if you print the debt, then you can't print to spend then so you lose that, so you WILL have to pay for the debt. There is no free lunch I am afraid.

I never said I have a Phd in economics. I have a Bachelors in Economics and Finance from Bocconi and my MBA from Stern.

You keep repeating these talking points, even though I've done my best to educate you on the operational realities of our monetary system. The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.

Taxes function to regulate aggregate demand and drive money, there's only so many examples I can give you. I also tried to clear up the 'inflation' and 'money printing' memes to no avail. Whether you like it or not, under a fiat system, government spending precedes taxes and borrowing. Any taxes and borrowing are done with money that has already been spent. The government creates money ex-nihilo, we're no longer on a gold standard. This is why money creation is a balance sheet operation at the end of the day.

In terms of inflation, I also tried to give detailed historical examples, and attempted to explain the differences between demand-pull and cost-push inflation. If the economy was at full capacity and we were at full employment, I would also worry about inflation, but we're nowhere near that metric. We have all this excess capacity and high unemployment, yet people are babbling about inflation in a very incoherent and ignorant fashion. If you believe inflation is simply an increase in the supply of money, you we're paying attention in any of your economic classes, I'm sorry to say.

I also tried to point out how every liability has a corresponding asset. This is basic double-entry bookkeeping, forget about economic concepts. The US debt, as a liability of the government, is an asset to the the public, which is why the US debt is nothing more than the total net holdings of the US economy, in the form of Treasuries (savings accounts), at the FED. Hence, why it reflects the private sector's desire to save. This is nothing more than real world accounting logic. What's so confusing about accounting identities?

Lastly, where did I ever mention a free lunch? Money is essentially a social unit of account, correct? The Dollar derives its value from a combination of seigniorage, production, taxes, regulations and legal tender laws. There's nothing mystical or esoteric about this.

A part of me wants to get into much more detail, but I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. Economics is a social science at best, people can debate and formulate macro concepts, micro concepts, labor concepts, and trade concepts indefinitely, but the operational nature of our monetary system is set in stone, because it's based on real world accounting logic and accounting identities.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.

Tell us genius is there an Econ 101 text that realizes it?? Do you still say the higher our debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living???

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??

 

[Kimura]

The thing is, 99% of people who work on the bond side of the business realize many of these things, minus Rick Santelli, who probably suffered brain damage as a small child.

Tell us genius is there an Econ 101 text that realizes it?? Do you still say the higher our debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living???

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??

Jesus H Christ.

What part of 'for every liability there must be a corresponding asset' don't you understand?

Deficit spending, under our fiat system, creates net financial assets for the 10,876th time.

The public debt is basically private wealth and the interest payments should be viewed as private income. The 'US debt' is really just the accrued budget deficits from years past. The various budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector, which creates the demand for real goods and services that have enabled Americans to see continued income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to accrue financial assets at far quicker pace than we would have been possible without deficits. So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.

so are you saying that the more deeply we go in debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living will be??? Yes or No. Would 100 trillion be optimum or still higher?

 

[Rshermr]

Lets see. What did the gov. invent.
1. The internet.

too stupid. If they have an idea for space travel or something and then hire private companies to make it possible you'd hardly say libturd bureaucrats invented space travel. Republican capitalist companies did!!

Lets take the internet:telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

Jesus, you are stupid. The internet was based on Arpanet. Plain and simple. Funny, me boy, how you never provide links. Could it be because you are posting dogma from a conservative source? And, me boy, you just posted half truths. No one ever said the gov launched the internet, you twit. Nor did anyone say that there were not inventions necessary for development of the internet that may not have been gov financed. Arpanet, me poor ignorant con, as even you should know, was never the internet. It was, however, the infrastructure that provided the majority of the initial work to produce and launch the internet. Damn, you are a con tool with a total lack of any integrity. Dipshit.
Here. This is an actual link. You know, a link, which you do not provide. To an actual nonpartial source. And this source provides actual true information about the development of the internet, and DARPA and ARPANET. Even you should be capable of followint the history. Though I know you do not care. You simply want to do what you are paid to do, which is post libertarian dogma. God, you are dumb.

A Brief History of the Internet
A Brief History of the Internet

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lets see. What did the gov. invent.
1. The internet.

too stupid. If they have an idea for space travel or something and then hire private companies to make it possible you'd hardly say libturd bureaucrats invented space travel. Republican capitalist companies did!!

Lets take the internet:telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

Jesus, you are stupid. The internet was based on Arpanet. Plain and simple. Funny, me boy, how you never provide links. Could it be because you are posting dogma from a conservative source? And, me boy, you just posted half truths. No one ever said the gov launched the internet, you twit. Nor did anyone say that there were not inventions necessary for development of the internet that may not have been gov financed. Arpanet, me poor ignorant con, as even you should know, was never the internet. It was, however, the infrastructure that provided the majority of the initial work to produce and launch the internet. Damn, you are a con tool with a total lack of any integrity. Dipshit.
Here. This is an actual link. You know, a link, which you do not provide. To an actual nonpartial source. And this source provides actual true information about the development of the internet, and DARPA and ARPANET. Even you should be capable of followint the history. Though I know you do not care. You simply want to do what you are paid to do, which is post libertarian dogma. God, you are dumb.

A Brief History of the Internet
A Brief History of the Internet

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

99% of new products come from the private sector and yet liberals want to chock the private sector to expand the economy!!
Would you choke a man to help him breath, a liberal would!!

 

[Rshermr]

too stupid. If they have an idea for space travel or something and then hire private companies to make it possible you'd hardly say libturd bureaucrats invented space travel. Republican capitalist companies did!!

Lets take the internet:telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

Jesus, you are stupid. The internet was based on Arpanet. Plain and simple. Funny, me boy, how you never provide links. Could it be because you are posting dogma from a conservative source? And, me boy, you just posted half truths. No one ever said the gov launched the internet, you twit. Nor did anyone say that there were not inventions necessary for development of the internet that may not have been gov financed. Arpanet, me poor ignorant con, as even you should know, was never the internet. It was, however, the infrastructure that provided the majority of the initial work to produce and launch the internet. Damn, you are a con tool with a total lack of any integrity. Dipshit.
Here. This is an actual link. You know, a link, which you do not provide. To an actual nonpartial source. And this source provides actual true information about the development of the internet, and DARPA and ARPANET. Even you should be capable of followint the history. Though I know you do not care. You simply want to do what you are paid to do, which is post libertarian dogma. God, you are dumb.

A Brief History of the Internet
A Brief History of the Internet

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

99% of new products come from the private sector and yet liberals want to chock the private sector to expand the economy!!
Would you choke a man to help him breath, a liberal would!!

As I said, you are a dipshit. TCP/IP is simply a protocal for packaging data. It is not, you twit, the internet.
Go look up hyperlinks. And come back and tell us what it has to do with the internet. You are truly a congenital idiot. I gave you a nice simple source to learn something. Obviously you did not bother reading it. But, nice job of showing that you are an idiot.

 

[Kimura]

So yeah, a higher standard of living is the understatement of the year, Ed.

so are you saying that the more deeply we go in debt above $17 trillion the higher our standard of living will be??? Yes or No. Would 100 trillion be optimum or still higher?

It's like a religion with you.

Budget goals should never be a policy target. What the federal government should be focused on is real goals, which I would define as an increase in GDP anchored by full employment.

If we look at this from a macro angle, the spending and tax decisions of the federal government should be that spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output at which firms will employ the total available labor force. Any budget plans should work to serve this goal.

I'm not saying budget deficits don't matter, but the only risk of budget deficits is inflation, not any insolvency or talk of such nonsense. The goal of government should be that spending is enough to employ all productive capacity at the end of the day.

Lastly, I would like to point out that inflation is a risk with any type of overspending, whether it be the federal government, export, investment, or even consumption. Any part of aggregate demand could tilt the economy to that precipice where we see inflation. Increased government spending is not always to the culprit.

 

[Kimura]

Here are some sources that say that Austerity is NOT working. And they say that Austerity is making things worse where it is being used. These sources are all economists, and well respected in the field. They are not politicians. Here is a short list:

Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Oxford University Press: Austerity: Mark Blyth

Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong!
Paul Krugman: Austerity Is So Wrong! - The Daily Beast

Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says
Joseph Stiglitz, Europe Pushed to ‘Suicide’ on Austerity, Stiglitz Says

Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies
Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies - Bloomberg

An amazing mea culpa from the IMF’s chief economist on austerity
An amazing mea culpa from the IMF?s chief economist on austerity

Austerity in theory and in practice
Fiscal policy: Austerity in theory and in practice | The Economist

Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity
Why Politicians Ignore Economists On Austerity

European, US Austerity Drive is Suicidal: Nobel Economist Stiglitz
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/27-1

Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer
Voters, Economists Agree: Austerity Not The Answer : NPR

This list is simply a short list of economists, and took a few minutes to put together. I did not find an economist who believes that austerity is a successful strategy. So, can anyone post some economists who believe that Austerity is working, or that it will work???

Good links...

Austerity won't work in the the United States, because of surpluses, which are defined as tax revenues that exceed spending, actually destroy net financial assets in the domestic private sector. It will inevitably cause labor and capital to atrophy, sort of like what's happening in Europe.