Neoliberal Economics is DEAD

TheHermit · Mar 24, 2015

Fogdog said:
I gave you too much credit and did some fact checking. Not again. For people like you, facts are an inconvenience.

The video that you dismissed because the author was a fiction novelist? Umm this is who JD Alt is: "J.D. ALT is an architect and author in Annapolis, Maryland. He became interested in understanding—and explaining—Modern Monetary Theory in 2011 while researching a strategy for implementing affordable housing on a national scale. " The blog that he works on "New Economic Perspectives" lists 16 members. Most including Alt are much more than SF authors. One member unconnected with the video is the SF author you refer to. I will figuratively not literally shoot you with my stupid guy bullet sir. pew pew pew

Taxation as a control of inflation? Read this from an address the Treasury Dept, Division of Tax Research, by Roy Blough, 1944: http://www.taxhistory.org/Civilization/Documents/Fiscal/hst29026.htm This is not a new theory. Too bad you weren't around in 1944, you might have learned something. pew pew pew

edit: I deleted some stuff that I wrote and I later changed my mind about. It was a bit over the top. Sorry about that.

Since facts are an inconvenience to me, can you point anything out in my post that is not a fact?

At the end of the video, it states that it is inspired by dollars and diagrams by J.D. Alt. His writing inspired the video but he has no connection to it? Writing on a blog hardly makes one an expert, although I will admit I did not bother to research who he was any further after clicking on a link that led to his fiction novel.

Taxation as a hedge against inflation does work in theory, that it hardly news to me, but the video was supposedly about how the money supply works. Can you provide an example of the federal government ever adjusting taxes as a hedge against inflation. I will sit patiently while you look. Taxes are collected to pay for government spending. Interest rates are what the government uses to control inflation.

I missed the part that you deleted out because I was taking a nap, but I am not easily offended and can back up anything I say. I would suggest you pick up a few books on economics.

TheHermit · Mar 24, 2015

ttystikk said:
Bullshit. Of COURSE we have the money- we just shovel it at politically connected multinationals in the form of endless tax breaks, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare at the expense of the average taxpaying citizen.

Since unlimited spending on campaigns was legalized by Supreme Court fiat, the people have been usurped by wealthy donors and corporations. That's what has to change. If/when it does, the rest will fall in line as well.

I don't think you fully realize how much it would cost or the negative effects it would have. I agree with the rest of your post.

Rob Roy said:
Why do you say "we" don't have the money? Just curious who you are referring to and why.

The money would have to come from somewhere, most likely taxes, unless you can think of somewhere else to come up with 5-6 trillion a year. Add that to the 4 billion or so we already spend, and it would require nearly all money made in the economy to be taken in tax. Some money could be saved by cutting other government programs, but not as much as most think. They could just print the money. Governments have done that in the past, but it has never turned out well historically. I doubt the dollar would remain the world currency if we printed that much money every year.

Rob Roy · Mar 24, 2015

@Fogdog

You said- "Rob, your utopia runs off these axioms:Everybody in the world is born with an equal chance at a good life. Property is the single most important right that a person has. This right takes precedence over the life and liberty of others (although that's important too, just not so important).The govmint can do nothing good. Collective action can do nothing good. Only individual action is good."

My philosophy runs off the idea that individuals should interact on a peaceful and consensual basis and people have the right to defend themselves and their justly acquired property. No single person or collection of people has a higher claim on your life than you do. We all "own" ourselves and none of us "own" others.

The government is systemically flawed as it's existence is based in coercion. I reject systemic coercion.

I never said collective action can do no good either, stop spinning yarns please. Collective actions wherein the participants are voluntarily aligned can do lots of good. The means is part of the process, your dismissal of a coercive means to an end brings unintended consequences.

Which of the statements that I made above do you disagree with or refute or not embrace in your core philosophy?

Fogdog · Mar 24, 2015

Rob Roy said:
@Fogdog

You said- "Rob, your utopia runs off these axioms:Everybody in the world is born with an equal chance at a good life. Property is the single most important right that a person has. This right takes precedence over the life and liberty of others (although that's important too, just not so important).The govmint can do nothing good. Collective action can do nothing good. Only individual action is good."

My philosophy runs off the idea that individuals should interact on a peaceful and consensual basis and people have the right to defend themselves and their justly acquired property. No single person or collection of people has a higher claim on your life than you do. We all "own" ourselves and none of us "own" others.

The government is systemically flawed as it's existence is based in coercion. I reject systemic coercion.

I never said collective action can do no good either, stop spinning yarns please. Collective actions wherein the participants are voluntarily aligned can do lots of good. The means is part of the process, your dismissal of a coercive means to an end brings unintended consequences.

Which of the statements that I made above do you disagree with or refute or not embrace in your core philosophy?

umm well rejecting reality is a hard thing for me to agree with, so I guess I'll just have to say that you have a right to your own internal dialogue sir.

overgrowem · Mar 24, 2015

ttystikk said:
Bullshit. Of COURSE we have the money- we just shovel it at politically connected multinationals in the form of endless tax breaks, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare at the expense of the average taxpaying citizen.

Since unlimited spending on campaigns was legalized by Supreme Court fiat, the people have been usurped by wealthy donors and corporations. That's what has to change. If/when it does, the rest will fall in line as well.

RIGHT ON!

overgrowem · Mar 24, 2015

Fogdog said:
I gave you too much credit and did some fact checking. Not again. For people like you, facts are an inconvenience.

The video that you dismissed because the author was a fiction novelist? Umm this is who JD Alt is: "J.D. ALT is an architect and author in Annapolis, Maryland. He became interested in understanding—and explaining—Modern Monetary Theory in 2011 while researching a strategy for implementing affordable housing on a national scale. " The blog that he works on "New Economic Perspectives" lists 16 members. Most including Alt are much more than SF authors. One member unconnected with the video is the SF author you refer to. I will figuratively not literally shoot you with my stupid guy bullet sir. pew pew pew

Taxation as a control of inflation? Read this from an address the Treasury Dept, Division of Tax Research, by Roy Blough, 1944: http://www.taxhistory.org/Civilization/Documents/Fiscal/hst29026.htm This is not a new theory. Too bad you weren't around in 1944, you might have learned something. pew pew pew

edit: I deleted some stuff that I wrote and I later changed my mind about. It was a bit over the top. Sorry about that.

The Gov.had int. rates for the wealthy and emerging upper middles set at up to 90% Which was a, for show, threat of income confiscation, the aim was to steer the investment money to certain sectors of the economy, oil , mining, RR's Farms etc.To build the country as the Gov't saw fit..

ttystikk · Mar 24, 2015

TheHermit said:
I don't think you fully realize how much it would cost or the negative effects it would have. I agree with the rest of your post.

The money would have to come from somewhere, most likely taxes, unless you can think of somewhere else to come up with 5-6 trillion a year. Add that to the 4 billion or so we already spend, and it would require nearly all money made in the economy to be taken in tax. Some money could be saved by cutting other government programs, but not as much as most think. They could just print the money. Governments have done that in the past, but it has never turned out well historically. I doubt the dollar would remain the world currency if we printed that much money every year.

It's already costing this country an astounding sum, both in terms of economic activity measured in dollars and list print for our people. Your suggesting that more corporate welfare is the way forward. I disagree- it got us into the mess we find ourselves in and more of it won't solve the problems we face.

Corporate personhood is a threat to the very survival of this nation.

Fogdog · Mar 24, 2015

ttystikk said:
So now what? The informal surveys I take of friends, acquaintances and near strangers in my life all seem to point to a general feeling of malaise and disappointment- which is exactly what those IN power want to see, so they can continue manipulating things to their own ends unmolested.

What will it take to break through and galvanize the population currently being screwed so badly- that's most of us- into meaningful and effective action?

At this point, there are more people who would blame those worst off in our economy for their troubles than take the larger view that any American that's suffering is one too many- and that it's everyone's responsibility- even the zillionaire's- to do something about it.

No one needs to sleep in their car, yet one if the only effective things being done for them are along the lines of giving them a secure parking lot. That's amazingly shortsighted from a nation building point of view.

Meanwhile, more corporate pork is proposed and passed in Congress every day. Then they talk about ethics and morality as if they have any idea what it means.

I hear the same discontent. I don't think the blinders are on as skywalker said, people see, hear and feel the discontent. The video from Richard Wolf that Padawon put up (see his posting a few replies up from this one) described what Wolff thought was going to happen (I paraphrase):

What we are going to have to face is that there is no margin in our system. We can’t borrow more or work longer hours. An American working class is going to rediscover “class”, and realize that they have to question our system. As they do they will rediscover the language of class and it will re-enter the discourse and debates of society with a vengeance.

I think he's saying that there is a struggle coming over the redistribution of wealth.

TheHermit · Mar 24, 2015

Where exactly did I suggest more corporate welfare? Where did I mention anything remotely like that? In fact, I said I agreed with most of what you were saying. I simply asked how such a program would be paid for. Instead of getting any sort of answer, I just get people putting words in my mouth that I never said, and get accused of ignoring facts while not having any sort of example pointed out of how I am doing so.

TheHermit · Mar 24, 2015

overgrowem said:
The Gov.had int. rates for the wealthy and emerging upper middles set at up to 90% Which was a, for show, threat of income confiscation, the aim was to steer the investment money to certain sectors of the economy, oil , mining, RR's Farms etc.To build the country as the Gov't saw fit..

True, the top tax bracket was 90% until the 1980's, but with the amount of loopholes and exemptions, no one was actually paying that.

Fogdog · Mar 24, 2015

overgrowem said:
The Gov.had int. rates for the wealthy and emerging upper middles set at up to 90% Which was a, for show, threat of income confiscation, the aim was to steer the investment money to certain sectors of the economy, oil , mining, RR's Farms etc.To build the country as the Gov't saw fit..

Thanks, that was about the time Truman said he wanted to find a one armed economist so that he didn't have to hear "on the other hand".

overgrowem · Mar 25, 2015

overgrowem said:
The Gov.had int. rates for the wealthy and emerging upper middles set at up to 90% Which was a, for show, threat of income confiscation, the aim was to steer the investment money to certain sectors of the economy, oil , mining, RR's Farms etc.To build the country as the Gov't saw fit..

Fogdog said:
Thanks, that was about the time Truman said he wanted to find a one armed economist so that he didn't have to hear "on the other hand".

I messed up. my post should have said Income Tax rates instead of Int. rates.

overgrowem · Mar 25, 2015

Fogdog said:
Thanks, that was about the time Truman said he wanted to find a one armed economist so that he didn't have to hear "on the other hand".

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, 2 or 3 other Hollywooders invested in a "speculative" oil well in the early 50's, because of the tax break. Crosby had been making and investing money for years. Hope was more like a man on an annuity, cash flow, guaranteed income, but no real chunks of money he could lay his hands on. The well came in. The rewards were substantial. Hope was able to become the Hollywood mogul he was.

Rob Roy · Mar 25, 2015

Fogdog said:
umm well rejecting reality is a hard thing for me to agree with, so I guess I'll just have to say that you have a right to your own internal dialogue sir.

Nice diversion.

Which "reality" have I rejected when I state that people should interact on a consensual basis?

That things founded in coercion are systemically flawed?

That some acts when you or I do them are termed "murder" or theft" but when other self appointed "authority" people do similar acts they are magically transformed into something else?

Terms like "reality" and "normal" don't ascribe good or efficacy to an act do they? It used to be "normal" to throw witches into fires.

Fogdog · Mar 25, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Nice diversion.

Which "reality" have I rejected when I state that people should interact on a consensual basis?

That things founded in coercion are systemically flawed?

That some acts when you or I do them are termed "murder" or theft" but when other self appointed "authority" people do similar acts they are magically transformed into something else?

Terms like "reality" and "normal" don't ascribe good or efficacy to an act do they? It used to be "normal" to throw witches into fires.

RR, I believe you have good intentions. That's not necessarily true or real but that's what I infer from your postings.
Otherwise, your dialogue is hopelessly entwined with convictions, philosophy and metaphysics. Words or statements like: "Should", "I believe", or statements about morality are the main body of your postings. From what I've seen, you hang onto your beliefs with total conviction, so why should we talk about them? You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I'm not going to argue with a catholic about their belief and I'm not going to argue with you about yours. There are plenty of other people on this site for you to argue with.

Fogdog · Mar 25, 2015

overgrowem said:
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, 2 or 3 other Hollywooders invested in a "speculative" oil well in the early 50's, because of the tax break. Crosby had been making and investing money for years. Hope was more like a man on an annuity, cash flow, guaranteed income, but no real chunks of money he could lay his hands on. The well came in. The rewards were substantial. Hope was able to become the Hollywood mogul he was.

Hmm, I wonder....

naaaaw

Fogdog · Mar 25, 2015

TheHermit said:
Since facts are an inconvenience to me, can you point anything out in my post that is not a fact?

At the end of the video, it states that it is inspired by dollars and diagrams by J.D. Alt. His writing inspired the video but he has no connection to it? Writing on a blog hardly makes one an expert, although I will admit I did not bother to research who he was any further after clicking on a link that led to his fiction novel.

Taxation as a hedge against inflation does work in theory, that it hardly news to me, but the video was supposedly about how the money supply works. Can you provide an example of the federal government ever adjusting taxes as a hedge against inflation. I will sit patiently while you look. Taxes are collected to pay for government spending. Interest rates are what the government uses to control inflation.

I missed the part that you deleted out because I was taking a nap, but I am not easily offended and can back up anything I say. I would suggest you pick up a few books on economics.

Ok, lets try this again. JD Alt is not a SF author. Architect equals not SF Author. Architect equals not Economist so the laugh is on me too for spending time to defend him.

When I posted that link, I wasn't defending the theory that taxation can control inflation. Our experience in the late 1970's should end that discussion before it starts. I was pointing out that its been one of the tools that the US treasure can use to control money supply and its an old theory to boot.. Don't jump the gun and start replying yet, please read on.

Heckler posted the video with the words: "Starting point." That's how I see it too. Simply saying "its wrong!" isn't useful. Why is it wrong. Where is there better information. Its not on a pot forum, that's for sure.

You say: "You should pick up a few books on economics." Maybe I should. That's up to me. That said, if you are such a big time expert in economic theory, what good is being a big time economic expert if you can't explain anything to somebody willing to listen?

ttystikk · Mar 25, 2015

Sometimes wisdom comes from unexpected places. @Fogdog, I'm discussing this here because I'm tired of the usual well trodden paths of argument from the learned elite- they're stuck in their ivory towers and both generally unaffected by the real world and simultaneously out of touch with it.

I'm here because the cross section of people and their opinions are at least real; as in real people hold these beliefs, whether they're correct or not.

Therefore, I'm engaging with people here because I believe that if I can develop an argument or line of reasoning that affects and sways people here, that it will hold that power in a larger audience- better than that of ivory tower academics, anyway.

TheHermit · Mar 25, 2015

Fogdog said:
Ok, lets try this again. JD Alt is not a SF author. Architect equals not SF Author. Architect equals not Economist so the laugh is on me too for spending time to defend him.

When I posted that link, I wasn't defending the theory that taxation can control inflation. Our experience in the late 1970's should end that discussion before it starts. I was pointing out that its been one of the tools that the US treasure can use to control money supply and its an old theory to boot.. Don't jump the gun and start replying yet, please read on.

Heckler posted the video with the words: "Starting point." That's how I see it too. Simply saying "its wrong!" isn't useful. Why is it wrong. Where is there better information. Its not on a pot forum, that's for sure.

You say: "You should pick up a few books on economics." Maybe I should. That's up to me. That said, if you are such a big time expert in economic theory, what good is being a big time economic expert if you can't explain anything to somebody willing to listen?

We are closer to agreeing than you may think. I wasn't stating the theory was flawed, I was simply stating that it was not something the US does. I guess my main point of contention of the video was that it was more about how they think it should work instead of how it actually works in reality. It did make a few good points. The point about national debt being different than household debt seems to go over most people's head. I felt I pointed out what I considered incorrect in my original post, so no need to repeat myself.

I would hardly consider myself an expert, but I do feel I have a better understanding than the average person on the street. I have taken more finance and economic courses than I can count and have had the basic theories pounded into my head ad nauseam. I felt I explained my position and if there is something I said that you feel is incorrect, feel free to point it out. Maybe I did say something stupid or incorrect. I am not right all the time about everything.

Fogdog · Mar 25, 2015

TheHermit said:
We are closer to agreeing than you may think. I wasn't stating the theory was flawed, I was simply stating that it was not something the US does. I guess my main point of contention of the video was that it was more about how they think it should work instead of how it actually works in reality. It did make a few good points. The point about national debt being different than household debt seems to go over most people's head. I felt I pointed out what I considered incorrect in my original post, so no need to repeat myself.

I would hardly consider myself an expert, but I do feel I have a better understanding than the average person on the street. I have taken more finance and economic courses than I can count and have had the basic theories pounded into my head ad nauseam. I felt I explained my position and if there is something I said that you feel is incorrect, feel free to point it out. Maybe I did say something stupid or incorrect. I am not right all the time about everything.

"...not right all the time about everything" Hooboy, you've described the human condition, Hermit. I've made a career out of being wrong and then working my way out of it. Its late and I don't have the energy to renew the discussion right now but I'd like to go over what's been written and think about it. I'm not harboring grandiose ideas about my own understanding of the world, I just want to hone my thinking a bit more. Anyway , thanks for the reply. And thanks Tystikk for keeping this thing on track.

Neoliberal Economics is DEAD

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member