TPS

Oh, you're taking about the same ratings agencies that said subprime mortgages were AAA? Hahahahahaha!!!!!

So Dick Cheney is a leftist? I didn't know that.... One point we do agree on is that our spending priorities are different. That's where the politics enters the discussion and is independent of how fiscal policy works. Yes, Negative rates were applied in Europe by the ECB a so-called independent central bank...

If you're expecting it to cause inflation but can't explain why it hasn't, then there must be a problem with your theory. And that's a general you, not YOU.

Did the government deficits and debt accumulated from WWII cause the US economy to collapse? Can you point to a site that shows the US debt has been downgraded? Thanks. That the US economy was so weak, the FEd went to extremes to try to stimulate it. Did it impact inflation? Are we Zimbabwe?

Please, let's not compare an underdeveloped country with a developed one. Zimb lacks capital; The US uses about 80% of its capital capacity currently. It's not up to the Treasury to deploy funds, it has to be appropriated by Congress. When congress passed Trump's spending Bills, that gave the Treasury the ability to spend, and it didn't need taxes to spend; in fact, Trump cut the revenues going to the Treasury with his other Bill. The private sector has more to spend and the government is spending more. The bigger deficits mean the Treasury also has to sell more bonds as the law requires. The Fed coordinates the auctions using its Primary Dealers who are required to fill the auction, and they always have the funds because the government spent them into existence (see my example above). Regarding your inflation concern, the fact that the government is required to sell bonds = to its deficits ties soaks up the newly created funds from the spending. As I said, the government is limited by the real resources available to produce real things, which is why Zimbabwe can't deficit spend and the US can, though we are getting closer to full employment, maybe...

The issue is that Tasker and GG think that government can only redistribute income, which has no impact on growth/wealth. In the case of a balanced budget that is true. With deficit spending, that's not the case. Government stimulates demand via deficits which causes the private sector to produce more output--wealth. From 1935 to 1940, RGDP grew by about 6% annually vs 12 % during the war. The average deficit in the first period was just under 3%/year; the average deficit in the second period was 17%/year. The impact of deficits of course depends on what's happening in the other sectors. Usually they go up when the private sector (C+I) is contracting, so higher deficits are associated with lower growth (as in Obama's first term). However, if the economy is growing and you juice it with deficits, it will juice the economy, just as we saw last year. It's really straight-forward. Unfortunately it's usually ideology that prevents using deficits to stimulate the economy more than if left alone, though republicans certainly realize "deficits don't matter." For conservatives, it seems deficit spending is fine as long as it for a wall or a war..... The only thing that limits us from producing more wealth is labor and capital as Tasker stated. Government deficit spending is a mechanism that puts more labor and capital to use. It's up to us to influence our politicians on how we want those resources used.

The other way around. For those who say government doesn't create growth/wealth, then what was the cause of the rapid expansion of output during this 5-year period? Where did the funding come from? I would never say the public sector drives economic growth; it can stimulate growth just as Trump has done with increased spending and cutting taxes. It does so by injecting additional demand into the economy, NOT by redistributing income.

In a few mocks they have them trading up. It got me wondering how many QBs will go in the top 10? I think CBS' new mock has 2, but then 2 more after #9. The more demand for QBs, the better for the Bills. Either someone is willing to trade for #9, or it will push other high quality players available at their pick.

If they liked someone that much, then why not take at 4? Also, I don't think they would pay a premium for anyone but a QB.

Obama increased the deficit by $7.3 trillion from 2009 to 2016. Do you know what the average rate of inflation was over this period?

From 1940 to 1945 real GDP grew by 75% or 12% annually. Did the private sector cause that growth? if so, how?

We agree on the first and last points. The dollar is simply the unit of account which is "good for all debts public and private." Physical dollars or Demand Deposits expressed in $s are wealth in that they can purchase physical things, but all financial assets have that same quality--they are pieces of paper that can be converted to a means of payment which can then be used to buy things. If financial assets are wealth, then so are physical $s and deposits. But this isn't what we really disagree on. The question is how does new money get injected into the economy? There are two sources: 1. If the private sector wants to spend more than it receives in income, then it borrows from the private banking system. Expanding businesses require lines of credit to fund production; or a family can buy a new house by obtaining a mortgage. In each case, Deposits go up on the banks liability side and loans go up on the asset side. In the aggregate, the money supply goes up when net loan creation is positive. Physical $s depend on the public's desire to hold cash or DD. The more we desire to hold cash, the more in circulation. 2. What I've described. Here's a micro example. When government spends, the Fed credits the DD of (say) Halliburton and simultaneously credits the reserve account of (say) B of A. If the spending occurred without increasing taxes, then government has to sell a bond as the law requires. BofA uses the additional reserves to purchase the bond, so it now has a t-bond instead of reserves (its reserve account at the Fed reduced by same). The end result: Halliburton's revenue is higher by the value of its DD, and BofA has a new interest earning treasury bond. This is how it works. The government's deficit has created an asset for BofA and higher revenue for Halli. As for the debt, the government never has to pay it off. It has to make the interest payments and then it rolls over maturing debt as it always has. Another example for you. Suppose we balance the budget for the next 25 years and keep rolling over the debt. If GDP grows at its historical norm of 3%, the in will double over this period. The Debt-GDP ratio will be halved, from 100% to 50%. Now, go another 25 years.... Absolutely wealth is created by capital labor, but money puts both of them to work. Unfortunately, too much has been directed at creating wealth in the form of factories that produce means of destruction not production....

You should be more clear. Starting from G=T, there are three ways: 1) Increase G; T constant; 2) G constant, decrease T; 3) change both, as Trump did. In cases 1 and 2, if G and T are changed by an equal amount, the impact on the deficit in year one is about he same. In both cases, the deficits increase demand in the economy stimulating growth. You believe the supply side argument the lower taxes will create an incentive for businesses to expand independent of the expansionary impact of deficits. The evidence I as I recall shows that effect is insignificant.

I will gladly entertain attempts to prove that proposition wrong. No, only the portion that's taxed is a redistribution. As I said, deficit spending injects new money/spending into the economy. The government is required by law to sell bonds equivalent to the difference, but the "money" available to buy those bonds was created when the government FIRST spent out of its account held by the Fed. Government spends and the FED credits the DD account of the payee as well as the reserve position of the bank. The bank now has additional reserves to buy government bonds.

It's not a ruse, it's a fact. By spending in excess of taxes the government increases spending/demand in the private sector which builds private sector wealth. The government can do this because it is the issuer of its own currency. You can bluster all you want, but that is how the actual mechanics of fiscal policy works. Apparently AOC knows more than you do on this...?

You may be right, indirectly. It is inequality that causes the rise in populism (just as it did over 100 years ago, just as it's doing in France), and rising inequality means more people at the bottom who don't pay taxes while those at the top pay a greater share of income taxes. However, the bottom tends to pay "their fair share" in the form of other taxes--when ALL forms of taxation are considered, the tax rate differential is not too significant. As I've said in the past, Taxes are mainly a redistributive mechanism, which is why inequality remained relatively stable from post WWII to 1980--high marginal tax rates help reduce the "natural" increase in the concentration of wealth that occurs via compounding. And, Concentrated wealth tends to destroy democracy as wealth means power which buys the legislation it wants--just as the "Robber Barons" influenced government so have many of today's billionaires. As Kevin Phillips detailed in his book Wealth and Democracy, something like 50% of accumulated wealth in the US could be attributed to spending on wars (this was pre-1990s and the technology wealth boom). Yes, government does not produce wealth, but its spending increases private sector wealth. Taxes redistribute income from payers to payees, and spending beyond taxes creates new "wealth" for the payees--the federal government's annual deficit creates an annual surplus for the private sector. The $21 trillion debt is the private sector's asset (including foreigners). The way government "financing" works is that it borrowers what it has already spent. The spending in excess of taxes creates the funds available to purchase the debt it's required to sell. This is what the emergence of MMT is bringing to light, and AOC understands this. It's also the reason Trump can raise spending while simultaneously reducing taxes, which was the underlying cause of faster growth in 2018. So, if a government creates wealth via deficit spending, then is it "confiscating" that wealth when it taxes it? Have at it....

Sounds like you support a wealth tax then....?

They did this for their QB of the future (boy, did theirs come early!). I really don't think there's anyone at 9 the Raiders will want. If anything, I could see Gruden trading the Cards for the #1 pick to get Bosa.

This is a good piece on the cluster fack Syria policy of the Obama Admin.... https://harpers.org/archive/2019/02/american-involvement-in-syria/

Yes, we've gone over this. Just pointing out the acceptance in one thread vs the other. though the bit about transferring public assets to private accounts is intriguing...

I read the MSM with the understanding that the message is to generate a particular view, like the NYT and WMD in Iraq. Most investigative reporting is done through alternative news outlets as well as former reporters via twitter. I try to read as many views as possible to form opinions. Take the time to read the Deep State thread if you haven't.

Didn't people here label AOC a kook when she mentioned the missing $21 trillion?

Controlling the media controls the message. There have been exposes of CIA plants in the media, Operation Mockingbird for on that Carl Bernstein provided.

So it’s a pink new deal?

I emailed and said it's not enough! why build a wall on only one side of your yard? Build the northern wall! because Winter is coming....