Trump: U.S. will never default 'because you print the money'

JohnfrmClevelan · May 16, 2016

jaeger19 said:
John we have had inflation without shortages. And production does not always increase in response to demand. And there is no "forgetting inventory". It seems you forget inventory..

Link, please.

jaeger19 said:
John.. you state that prices go up and down for "many reasons"... only when your feet are held to the fire.

Jaeger, your posts don't warm my feet in the least. I haven't changed a word of my position in response to anything you have ever said, because there is no need. YOU are the one who took my statement that "increases in demand do not lead to inflation as long as there are no shortages" and misinterpreted it as "inflation never occurs unless there are shortages." That's either your mistake, or your dishonesty. (I'll let you choose between being wrong or being a liar.)

jaeger19 said:
And exactly John.. 2% inflation is NOT due to excess money floating around. THATS THE POINT. You appear to think the only thing that can increase inflation is money supply.

See above. Also try to keep in mind that the conversation surrounding deficit spending - including YOUR conversation - has always been about HYPERinflation; going over some figurative cliff in your imagination. 2% is not what anybody would call bad - unless they were being ridiculous.

jaeger19 said:
That's right.. I point to catastrophic inflation due to too much deficit spending and point to 2% as evidence. YOU SHOULD take that argument seriously... because its proof there is other factors other than money supply that can increase inflation.

Well, which is it, Jaeger, you are claiming two different things here. First, you are pointing to 2% inflation as your "evidence" of deficit spending causing inflation, then in the next breath you use it as proof that there are other factors that are causing inflation. Get your argument straight.

jaeger19 said:
You don't seem to have thought out the realities John. What if you inflate the money supply.. which causes inflation.. and THEN have an event outside of the money supply that causes us to go into hyperinflation?

Why wouldn't that outside event cause hyperinflation in either case? If we have the kind of blow to our productive capacity that would trigger hyperinflation, it wouldn't matter how many dollars were floating around.

jaeger19 said:
If we had not artificially inflated the money supply... we would have had less inflation and weathered it better... but because we artificially increased the money supply and caused inflation, the other invent had a much greater effect.

"Artificially" inflated the money supply? What measure of "money supply" are you even using? And what is the "natural" level, anyway?

jaeger19 said:
OR.. there is a process going on that's leading to inflation.. and then you artificially add more money and tip the scales toward catastrophe. The point is.. unless you can adequately control all the factors leading to inflation.. you have to be very thoughtful of how you deficit spend.

Well, you seem to have adopted every possible argument as your own, Jaeger. Which one am I supposed to argue against? I don't think even you know what the hell you are talking about anymore. That's what changing your position so often does to you, I guess.

jaeger19 said:
And the fact is.. you don't even have a handle on what factors cause inflation... much less have the ability to control the other factors.

I think I have a pretty good idea about what can cause inflation. Once again, you are talking out of your ass.

jaeger19 said:
However, yes.. we have been cutting back on deficit spending.. and the Fed even raised interest rates to make sure we don't head toward a problem...

We have cut back on deficit spending? Really? Or are receipts just going up again?

jaeger19 said:
Tell me John... give me the exact percentage of inflation that's leads to catastrophe. Please back it up with research. I would like to know exactly at what percentage inflation the middle class suffers.

That's a stupid line of argument, Jaeger. Normally this is where I would add, "and you should know that," but I really don't think you do. You are fully into MR territory with this line of idiotic reasoning. Why don't YOU give me the absolute number of government spending at which our economy would be best off, and back it up with research? Huh? Where's my answer? C'mon, I thought you know something about economics, and you can't even come up with the exact number of dollars the government should spend to fully maximize the country's production.

Absentglare · May 16, 2016

jaeger19 said:
And that's part and parcel of debate.

Not necessarily. If only one person is articulating arguments, it is not debate.

You don't understand what debate is if you think it amounts to googling links and assigning others to understand them.

Moderate Right · May 16, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
The difference is that you actually read the (short) piece, understood it, and put it in your own words. Like a real debater. MR did none of that. (Did you read his link, btw? You commented on it, so I have to assume that you read and understood it.) And that was my whole point - simply standing by and pointing at links is not participating in a debate. And as he has brought absolutely zero to the table since he's been here, yes, personal attacks are absolutely the way to go.

The debate is about MMT. You have no response to those like Roche and Krugman (and many others) because you know you have no response. So, you try to deflect the argument, thinking you have a better chance of outdebating me, again, because you know you can't outdebate those that know MMT better than all of us here on DP added together. Again, the debate is about MMT, not about which one of us knows more than the other and the debate is already over. MMT is only accepted by a very small minority and not used as an economic guide by even one country in the entire world. It kills you to know that you can't even debate that simple fact. By the way, those are my own words and you have no response to even that. I bet you really are an attorney because when an attorney knows they have no leg to stand on they resort to attempting to win by intimidation, your exact MO.

Absentglare · May 16, 2016

Moderate Right said:
The debate is about MMT. You have no response to those like Roche and Krugman (and many others) because you know you have no response. So, you try to deflect the argument, thinking you have a better chance of outdebating me, again, because you know you can't outdebate those that know MMT better than all of us here on DP added together. Again, the debate is about MMT, not about which one of us knows more than the other and the debate is already over. MMT is only accepted by a very small minority and not used as an economic guide by even one country in the entire world. It kills you to know that you can't even debate that simple fact. By the way, those are my own words and you have no response to even that. I bet you really are an attorney because when an attorney knows they have no leg to stand on they resort to attempting to win by intimidation, your exact MO.

You keep regurgitating the same logical fallacies- it is humiliating. You are undermining your whole entire side of the argument by providing such pathetically weak debate.

JohnfrmClevelan · May 16, 2016

Moderate Right said:
The debate is about MMT. You have no response to those like Roche and Krugman (and many others) because you know you have no response. So, you try to deflect the argument, thinking you have a better chance of outdebating me, again, because you know you can't outdebate those that know MMT better than all of us here on DP added together. Again, the debate is about MMT, not about which one of us knows more than the other and the debate is already over. MMT is only accepted by a very small minority and not used as an economic guide by even one country in the entire world. It kills you to know that you can't even debate that simple fact. By the way, those are my own words and you have no response to even that. I bet you really are an attorney because when an attorney knows they have no leg to stand on they resort to attempting to win by intimidation, your exact MO.

Actually, when we come up against somebody mentally incompetent to stand trial, so completely unable to understand what is going on around them, there is no trial at all; the incompetent person is basically ignored and sent on their way. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy.

Moderate Right · May 16, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Actually, when we come up against somebody mentally incompetent to stand trial, so completely unable to understand what is going on around them, there is no trial at all; the incompetent person is basically ignored and sent on their way. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy.

I have my own analogy. You remind me of a college professor I used to know. He was extremely smart and knew a lot of stuff. Back then I was the manager of a convenience store in this college town where he was a professor at the college. One day he came in after buying a new car with a gas tank on the opposite side of what he had had before. He pulled up to the pump on the wrong side, realized his mistake, and got back in the car and pulled it up to another pump, still on the wrong side. He scratched his head, and drove the car around two more times, still yet again pulling his car up on the wrong side, scratching his head two more times. I believe it was the fifth try by the time he finally figured it out. The guy had zero common sense. This reminds me of you because you always want to debate the minutia of the microeconomics on a theory (MMT) that doesn't make any sense in the first place. That's why it has such a small following and why not one country in the world uses it as an economic guide and almost all mainstream economists find it flawed. I see it for what it is (and my opinion is in tune with the huge majority of all the economists in the entire world) and yet you would rather debate the micro economic details of something that doesn't even make any sense. Obviously if the end result of MMT is flawed, so are the minutia details as well. I can see the forest through the trees while you are still trying to figure out which side of the gas pump to drive up to.

Absentglare · May 16, 2016

Moderate Right said:
I have my own analogy. You remind me of a college professor I used to know. He was extremely smart and knew a lot of stuff. Back then I was the manager of a convenience store in this college town where he was a professor at the college. One day he came in after buying a new car with a gas tank on the opposite side of what he had had before. He pulled up to the pump on the wrong side, realized his mistake, and got back in the car and pulled it up to another pump, still on the wrong side. He scratched his head, and drove the car around two more times, still yet again pulling his car up on the wrong side, scratching his head two more times. I believe it was the fifth try by the time he finally figured it out. The guy had zero common sense. This reminds me of you because you always want to debate the minutia of the microeconomics on a theory (MMT) that doesn't make any sense in the first place. That's why it has such a small following and why not one country in the world uses it as an economic guide and almost all mainstream economists find it flawed. I see it for what it is (and my opinion is in tune with the huge majority of all the economists in the entire world) and yet you would rather debate the micro economic details of something that doesn't even make any sense. Obviously if the end result of MMT is flawed, so are the minutia details as well. I can see the forest through the trees while you are still trying to figure out which side of the gas pump to drive up to.

And i saw a fly land on the same piece of **** a half a dozen times.

Thanks for bringing as much to the debate here as the fly.

jaeger19 · May 17, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Link, please.
. YOU are the one who took my statement that "increases in demand do not lead to inflation as long as there are no shortages" and misinterpreted it as "inflation never occurs unless there are shortages."

\

Back to the personal attacks. sorry sir but you do change your position when your feet are held to the fire. You assume that inflation can;t occur without shortages.. you have made that abundantly clear several times... and then have to backtrack and admit that well it occurs from other reasons.

And by the way.. increases in demand do increase prices John. without shortages in production. We have been over that and everyday evidence proves you wrong.

; going over some figurative cliff in your imagination. 2% is not what anybody would call bad - unless they were being ridiculous.

No one.. and certainly not me said 2% was bad.

First, you are pointing to 2% inflation as your "evidence" of deficit spending causing inflation, then in the next breath you use it as proof that there are other factors that are causing inflation. Get your argument straight.

Well the problem here is that you apparently are not capable of understanding common sense logic.

I'll try to dumb it down.

1. Inflation happens for all sorts of reasons, not related to deficit spending.
2. Deficit spending can also increase inflation
3. Since there are multiple factors, one cannot assume that x deficit spending combined with other factors will not push you into dangerous inflation.

Your predicated only on deficit spending.. and not seeing the bigger economic picture.

Why wouldn't that outside event cause hyperinflation in either case? If we have the kind of blow to our productive capacity that would trigger hyperinflation, it wouldn't matter how many dollars were floating around.

First off.. inflation doesn't just occur because of "a blow to our productive capacity".

See John.. you say that "other factors cause inflation" .. and then you immediate go a " blow to our productive capacity".

I think you are only fooling yourself John here.

Second: Yes.. obvious other things independent of money supply can cause catastrophic inflation. However, catastrophic inflation could also occur from a cumulative effect from multiple factors with an increase in deficit spending/money supply being one of them. Which means it certainly matters "how much money is floating around.

Artificially" inflated the money supply? What measure of "money supply" are you even using? And what is the "natural" level, anyway?

Deficit spending / helicopter money for purposes of "maximizing productive capacity"... is not sustainable. Its based on political whim, and influenced by the willingness of the public and other countries to finance that debt. It an artificial increase in the money supply. Not based on real need/demand.. but on political philosophy. and as such, the business community knows it for what it is. Which is in part why production will likely NOT increase or increase very slowly under your premise. Because businesses will not undergo the cost of increasing production dramatically when they know that the demand is very temporary.

jaeger19 · May 17, 2016

Well, you seem to have adopted every possible argument as your own, Jaeger. Which one am I supposed to argue against? I don't think even you know what the hell you are talking about anymore. That's what changing your position so often does to you, I guess.

No John.. my argument has been consistent from day one. You have been busy making up and arguing against positions I don't have. That's why you are confused.

there is no change in position here.
I'll make it easy again for you.

1. You admit that too much deficit spending will cause catastrophic inflation
2. You grudgingly admit that other factors cause inflation (though we all know that really you only think decrease production does)
3. You have no idea how much deficit spending will cause catastrophic inflation
4. Thus.. you are espousing more deficit spending even when unable to determine how much, or when or by how it will cause catastrophe.

In a nutshell.. you are willing to risk catastrophe.. that you have no idea how to control for or even the factors involved.. for some nebulous benefit that you can;t even articulate well.

I think I have a pretty good idea about what can cause inflation. Once again, you are talking out of your ass.

That's the problem.. you think you do.. when all your posts indicate that you do not.

We have cut back on deficit spending? Really? Or are receipts just going up again?

Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.

View attachment 67201484

I thought you know something about economics, and you can't even come up with the exact number of dollars the government should spend to fully maximize the country's production.

that's easy.. the number that the government should spend to fully maximize the countries production is zero.

Because spending money simply to "maximize production".. is a fools game.. and I am not a fool.

Moderate Right · May 17, 2016

Absentglare said:
And i saw a fly land on the same piece of **** a half a dozen times.

Thanks for bringing as much to the debate here as the fly.

Just returning the favor to those who started it.

Trump: U.S. will never default 'because you print the money'

Attachments