-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Connecticut Is Going Under
- Thread starter Moderate Right
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What evidence do you have to support that? I can claim that most widely respected macroeconomists accept the validity of much of the underpinnings of MMT. How can you refute that?
>>0% of the countries on the entire planet using it as an economic guide
So we're back to this again. How would we know if a country is using MMT as "an economic guide"? You might say that we'd know it if a country was running huge deficits of wasteful spending. But of course that's yer uninformed misrepresentation of MMT.
>>Krugman … finds it flawed himself.
How does he regard SSE? Which theory does he think is more useful in understanding the way modern capitalist economies operate?
There ya go, MR. There are still people around who think the world is flat.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,347
- Reaction score
- 38,889
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Many people post portions of the article.
That may / should include your observations as is done in MSM-Non MSM.
That can drive discussion Eh
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
This is from one of your very own:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...-gaining-converts.html?highlight=mmt+minority
This is the link he provided in the OP:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...a-radical-economic-theory-is-gaining-converts
These are snippets from the article:
"a Radical Economic Theory" - radical doesn't mean widely accepted
"A school of dissident economists" - again, it doesn't imply very many
"on the fringes of economic thought" - not much accepted
"The long-run implication of that approach has many economists worried" - hardly a ringing endorsement that MMT is mainstream
“They’re shut out of the central banks, the finance ministries, the Treasuries of the world,” said Joe Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington and former Federal Reserve Board economist. Gagnon doesn’t subscribe to all MMT arguments." - Wait a minute, I thought MMT was just a description of how things worked, so how could someone not subscribe to all MMT arguments?
"If MMT seems marginal now, Randy Wray, an economics professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and one of the doctrine’s founders, recalls a time when it barely registered at all." What's this? Randy Wray, one of the founders of MMT himself calls MMT "marginal NOW"
"Wray, who wrote “Understanding Modern Money” in 1998, says he used to meet with like-minded colleagues and count how many people understood the theory. “After 10 years, we had to go a little beyond two hands -- we had to use a few toes,” he said." So, as of 2008 you could count MMT'rs as less than 20!
"So even a left-leaning candidate (Bernie Sanders) with MMT economists on staff shies away from endorsing the doctrine -- an indicator of what a hard sell it is" -Do I really even need to make a comment on that?
"Those who push back sometimes argue that money-printing puts countries on a path that eventually leads, in a worst-case scenario, to Zimbabwe -- where money-printing debased the currency so badly that all the zeros could barely fit on banknotes. Or Venezuela, whose spending spree helped push inflation to 180 percent last year. Japan’s a more mixed picture: years of deficits haven’t scared off borrowers or unleashed inflation, but haven’t produced much growth, either." - Not a ringing endorsement of MMT either
"Small businesses and families are tightening their belts,” President Barack Obama said in 2010 as he announced a pay freeze for government workers. “Their government should, too.” - This comes from El Presidente himself, hardly a ringing endorsement of MMT
"Wray says he’d expected attitudes to start shifting after the last downturn, just as the Great Depression gave rise to Keynesian economics and the New Deal, but “it really didn’t change anything, as far as the policy makers go.” - So, none of the policymakers subscribe to MMT, NONE! But wait, I thought MMT was just a descripion of how things worked? Even Wray admits those making the decisions haven't changed much. Could it possibly be because they all know Wray is nuts? Even Bernie the Democratic socialist thinks he's nuts.
This post is not to open up discussion about the merits of MMT as that has been debated a zillion times already and decided by the fact that the huge majority of economists find it flawed. This post is merely to point out how the MMT'rs themselves even acknowledge what a very small following MMT has.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Here, let me help ....
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
This paper sums it up nicely (at least, I think it does, I've only gotten thru about 8 pages so far, but so far it sounds pretty reasonable). Let me know when you have gotten thru all 50-ish pages and get back to me and tell me what you think is flawed about this paper.
I still haven't had to time to read it yet, although I did skim through this quite a while ago. I do intend on reading it but forgot to mention that my thread "MMT Has No Clothes" is Thomas Palley's response to your link http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/macro_theory/mmt_response_to_wray.pdf . He knows much more than I, but I still intend to read through your link anyway. I hope you will read through mine as well. This is all my point where these economists know much more than any of us here on DP do so putting things in our own words does absolutely zero to add to the arguments of the real experts on the real subject. All it does is give bragging rights to those that outdebate the others, which really has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. This is why John and some of you would rather debate with me in my own words, because they know they have no standing or credentials to offer up a valid debate against the professionals who do this stuff for a living so they want to prove their point by debating me instead of the experts.
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 4,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Both Cullen's and Palley's papers "criticized" MMT in a strange way - by agreeing that it was mostly correct. Cullen had some issues with the emphasis on vertical over horizontal money, while Palley was mostly cranky because he thought that most of the big points had already been established earlier, and he thought the MMT guys were wrongfully taking credit for them.
But the big points - that the government can create as much money as it wants; that the government can never be forced into default on debts in its own currency; that banks create M1 dollars out of thin air, and are not reserve-constrained in doing so, etc.; the VAST majority of economists do agree on those things. Including Roche and Palley.
p.s. - you still haven't read any of these articles, and you wouldn't understand them if you did.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Both Cullen's and Palley's papers "criticized" MMT in a strange way - by agreeing that it was mostly correct. Cullen had some issues with the emphasis on vertical over horizontal money, while Palley was mostly cranky because he thought that most of the big points had already been established earlier, and he thought the MMT guys were wrongfully taking credit for them.
But the big points - that the government can create as much money as it wants; that the government can never be forced into default on debts in its own currency; that banks create M1 dollars out of thin air, and are not reserve-constrained in doing so, etc.; the VAST majority of economists do agree on those things. Including Roche and Palley.
p.s. - you still haven't read any of these articles, and you wouldn't understand them if you did.
I DID read the articles (haven't got around to Critter's yet but I will). Your problem is you mistakenly believe that if you don't believe in MMT then it is because you don't understand it. Well, there are one hell of a lot of economists all over the world that find MMT flawed, and they understand it perfectly and several of them are liberal economists. What I don't understand is that you guys continually keep on saying that we can do this stuff but we shouldn't. Well, what difference does it make if we CAN, when you yourself say that we SHOULDN'T? That finds MMT flawed right there by itself if you say that we SHOULDN'T, so what difference does it make if we can? If we can then you should be saying that we should but you don't.
How about MMI's request? Could you please state for the record that you are concerned about wasteful government spending and that you do not advocate lots of very big deficits? You've had me on the edge of my seat for a few days now just dying to hear your answer. Please clear this up one way or the other without any gobbledygook please. The simple request should have a simple answer without evasively trying to dodge the request with a bunch of mumbo jumbo that doesn't mean anything.
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 4,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Not true at all. If somebody puts forth a reasonable ECONOMIC argument and DOES NOT misrepresent MMT, I would have no problem with that. But you have never put forth any kind of economic argument, and you constantly misrepresent MMT (as mmi has repeatedly pointed out). So your problem is that you simply don't know enough about economics to know what you don't know about economics.
Again, you don't know enough about economics to know if their criticisms are fair, or valid. You admit that you don't know anything about economics, but you ironically think that you are able to make a determination about who is making a valid criticism and who isn't.
I advocate for whatever deficits are called for under the circumstances. And "waste" is in the eyes of the beholder. These are positions I have held, and defended, for as long as I have been here. But in all that time, you have given me zero reason to believe that you are capable of having a reasonable, non-stupid debate on the subject.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Talk about misrepresenting. I have never once said that I don't know anything about economics, merely that the experts know more about economics than I do (and you certainly don't qualify in that regard), something that you arrogantly refuse to acknowledge yourself. You have zero standing or credentials to critique anything an expert economist says. Funny how most of the best economic experts in the world agree with my take on MMT, not yours.
You conveniently dodged MMI's request by giving more evasive gobbledygook so let's try again. Are you concerned about wasteful government spending? Are you able to unequivably state that you do not advocate lots of very big deficits? If you can't come out and answer the questions directly then it is a given that you are not concerned about wasteful government spending and do advocate lots of very big deficits because it is your opinion that our economy can handle them.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2016
- Messages
- 12,130
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- Charleston, SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Median Annual Household Income | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Connecticut has the 4th highest median income of any state in the country. In case you didn't realize this(which you obviously didn't) your post is an opinion column written by an obvious right wing nut who has no clue what he's talking about.
In fact Connecticut actually has lower income taxes than South Carolina one of the most conservative states in the country. LOL!!!
Connecticut Income Tax Brackets 2016
Good lord man....CT is doing just fine. What's the matter did California's recent good outlook send you desperately looking for another liberal state that's struggling? Might want to keep looking CT as with pretty much all of New England has a very bright future. The same cannot be said for Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and pretty much every other conservative state that isn't sitting on a giant reserve of Oil....in fact even the states that do have oil reserves are headed in the wrong direction now that Oil prices are plummeting.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
By definition, government spending is a component of aggregate demand. The most basic understanding of logic and arithmetic lead inevitably to the conclusion that a fiscal stimulus provided by increased public expenditures increases aggregate demand. I'm not surprised to find that yer not capable of comprehending this fundamental reality.
What does "gaining converts" mean? What happens when orthodox theory starts to become obsolete?
>>"A school of dissident economists" doesn't imply very many
Nevertheless enough to establish "a school."
And then there's this excerpt you passed over:
Calls for governments to take over the relief effort are growing louder. Plenty of economists have joined in, and so have top money managers.
How is "plenty" equal to "a very small minority"?
>>"on the fringes of economic thought" [means that it is] not much accepted
That sentence goes on to say that MMT "is getting a hearing." As I recall, you have repeatedly said that it is rejected by mainstream economists.
>>"The long-run implication of that approach has many economists worried" [is] hardly a ringing endorsement that MMT is mainstream
Again, yer being very selective, and end up being misleading. That section continues with:
"I have no problem with deficit spending, … ut this idea of the government printing money — unlimited amounts of money — and running unlimited, infinite deficits, that could become unhinged pretty quickly."
To which MMT replies: No one's saying there are no limits.
To which MMT replies: No one's saying there are no limits.
Takes care of that concern, wouldn't you say?
>>Wait a minute, I thought MMT was just a description of how things worked, so how could someone not subscribe to all MMT arguments?
In this context, someone who doesn't "subscribe to all MMT arguments" agrees with most of them. So Mr Gagnon is of MANY mainstream economists who agrees with most MMT arguments. Is that correct?
>>Randy Wray, one of the founders of MMT himself calls MMT "marginal NOW"
That's not true. He said, "If MMT seems marginal now, …." He goes on to claim that "thousands [of economists] around the world" have come to understand and accept MMT in recent years.
>>So, as of 2008 you could count MMT'rs as less than 20!
And if you want to travel back in time and join the very large percentage of economists who rejected MMT between 1998 and 2008, you'd fit right in. But this is 2016, and things have changed.
The validity of a variety of economic theories has been tested over the years. Analyses of the effects of the differing policy responses taken by gubmints (stimulus, austerity, whatever), combined with lessons learned from failing to predict the financial crisis, have led economists to view MMT with greater acceptance.
>>Bernie Sanders … shies away from endorsing the doctrine — an indicator of what a hard sell it is." Do I really even need to make a comment on that?
No, but I will. Selling an economic theory to the American electorate in the presidential campaign is not the issue here.
>>"Those who push back sometimes argue … Zimbabwe, … Venezuela, … Japan" Not a ringing endorsement of MMT either
Are those examples comparable to the US?
>>"Small businesses and families are tightening their belts. Their government should, too." Hardly a ringing endorsement of MMT
A political statement used to sell the gubmint pay freeze. (Cheap bastard!) He had signed a stimulus bill the year before that contained a half a trillion dollars in new spending.
>>none of the policymakers subscribe to MMT, NONE! … Could it possibly be because they all know Wray is nuts?
Possibly, yeah, I suppose. But I'd say my forty years of being around policymakers has led me to conclude that they're like Hollywood film producers — they wanna do what's worked before and are very reluctant to operate outside "the box." Wray notes that "I think it did change things as far as the population goes."
>>the merits of MMT [have] been debated a zillion times already and decided by the fact that the huge majority of economists find it flawed.
Nah, it's not decided along those lines, not even close. A large and increasing number of economists agree with a lot of MMT.
>>MMT'rs themselves even acknowledge what a very small following MMT has.
Yer putting words in their mouths. "Gaining converts" seems to be more like it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
You asked for proof, I gave you proof but now you are stuck in your usual defense mode. Instead of listening you spend 100% of your energy defending. Even Wray himself acknowledged that MMT followers are "marginal now". This stuff I presented didn't come from FOX News, it came from the MMT'rs themselves and JP's thread, where even he admits that it only has a minority following. I didn't deny that they are gaining converts, but they are still a very small minority and they openly admit it. Just because the Earth was eventually proven to not be flat can't be equated to MMT eventually proven to be correct, unless you have a crystal ball that I don't know about. At this point in time it is not accepted by the huge majority. If Wray can admit that then why can't you guys? Another interesting thing from the article is their admission that both Bernie Sanders and US policy makers don't subscribe to the MMTheory. How can they have this admission if MMT is not a theory but merely a description of how things work? Apparently most economic experts, except for this small "school", believe it is a FLAWED description of how things work.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
BS. You did a clumsy job of misrepresenting that article. Yer bias could not be more clear.
>>you are stuck in your usual defense mode.
Remember, between you and me, yer the one with a dog in this fight. You are determined to convince yerself and others of yer claim that MMT has a very small minority following.
>>Instead of listening you spend 100% of your energy defending.
I'm in fact not defending anything. It wouldn't make any difference at all to me if every economist in the world rejected MMT. Fwiw, I don't focus on economic theory, at least not in that broad sense. Otoh, you see MMT as some kind of threat, a framework that lends support to very large deficits and wasteful gubmint spending. You want to undermine it.
In my little policy world, no theory makes much of any difference. Keynesian stimuli, SSE tax giveaways to fat cats, and MMT "high-leverage" borrowing are undertaken not because economists agree with and argue for them, but rather because hardball political influence gets them enacted. SSE was an abject failure in the 1980s, but that didn't stop it from being tried again in the 2000s, and it still gets passionate support today.
>>Even Wray himself acknowledged that MMT followers are "marginal now".
As I already said, he did not say that.
He said, "If MMT seems marginal now, …." He goes on to claim that "thousands [of economists] around the world" have come to understand and accept MMT in recent years.
>This stuff I presented didn't come from FOX News
No, but you absolutely played the role of a Murdoch minion in yer presentation of it.
>>JP … admits that it only has a minority following.
And you add the words "very small." A very heavy bias.
>>they are still a very small minority and they openly admit it.
That's simply not true. Yer basically wasting time repeating that over and over. You have no evidence that MMT supporters see their group as a "very small minority."
>>At this point in time it is not accepted by the huge majority.
Again, "huge" is BS. It's what YOU think, not what "the huge majority" of economists think.
>>If Wray can admit that then why can't you guys?
He never said it. Why can't you admit that?
>>Bernie Sanders and US policy makers don't subscribe to the MMTheory. How can they have this admission if MMT is not a theory but merely a description of how things work?
What difference does it make what some politician thinks?
>>Apparently most economic experts, except for this small "school", believe it is a FLAWED description of how things work.
Many economists question some elements of MMT. You can't go any further than that without exaggerating.