Financing the Green New Deal

[Conaeolos]

The sum total of government deficit spending over our history is held by the private sector as savings. That's not debt in any meaningful sense of the word.

You almost get it although you don’t seem to get banks or how they manage liabilities. Now what happens to those savings if the rate of increased money supply (inflation) doesn’t approximately match increases in economic activity? That’s right: that makes those savings toxic - worth significantly less over time.

So your plan is to tax private savings and significantly weaken credibility of American debt causes future governments to have to offer higher interest rates (higher cost of servicing the loans) in order to obtain deficit spending oftentimes necessary in downturns in economic activity. Great plan.

If we have enough doctors, nurses, and hospitals to administer healthcare to all Americans, then we can "afford" universal healthcare, because the government can come up with as many dollars as they need. (We do have enough healthcare resources to cover everybody, btw.) If we have enough colleges and professors, then we can "afford" government-provided college.

That has been tried many times, productivity always falls. It doesn’t matter if we have enough healthcare resources and I am not sure why you think we have enough colleges and professors. The reason we have the amount we do is the incentives we currently have. Lets use food as an example as this is the most tested.

You have enough production to meet demand. The government decides there are too many staving due to affordability so they implement price control or buy mass amounts food at a controlled price. Food production falls as the incentives weaken and risks(losing wealth) increase.

But, you might say universal single payer isn’t the same look at Canada. Indeed, look at Canada. She rations care everyday. Go look at regions where they don’t offer private MRIs, then look elective MRI wait times (you can even look at public option in the ones that do). Etc etc etc

So sure one could argue care might be more assessable in about half of cases and definitely more affordable but it comes at a heavy cost of quality. Our current system is least affordable(outside the highest risk groups covered by medicare/medicaid), is more assessable in other half of areas and can be shown to be better quality. Some argue it’s impossible to have all 3, I personally am more hopeful as I think if you allow two systems one affordable and a higher quality one you’d get the best of both worlds for everyone including universal care. And just to be clear, this is not two systems for different class - I may be wealthy but I am also cheap so I’d use an affordable system 80% of the time. The point of two isn’t to slit people by class but to be sure we are maximizing all three measures: quality, accessibility & affordability.

This brings us to our biggest issue with your green new deal financing plan. Your not taking into account current underfunded liabilities. In proper accounting we already have 120+ trillion in unfunded obligation on the books which is plenty in terms of future deficit spending. We’re already getting closer to the point of not meeting servicing levels(without major impacts). So the added 120+ Trillion more underfunded liabilities plus whatever capital overages might even be doable if we didn’t already have 120+ trillion mostly in the form of pensions and healthcare obligations.

Tax revenue by gdp meanwhile should not encourage one to think tax hikes outside significant ones on those working and middle class would do anything to alleviate that with new tax revenue.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

My interpretations? Really? The Constitution is easy to "interpret" because if it isn't there in writing it doesn't exist. You have never offered what you call interpretation but have promoted what isn't there over and over again which is the socialist utopia being promoted along with a massive central gov't to provide for personal responsibility issues. Marriage, Healthcare aren't in the Constitution thus are state issues not federal ones.

There are large sections of law libraries filled with books interpreting that little document. 200+ years of interpreting laws in relation to the Constitution mean that there is more nuance there than you are aware of. Your high school civics class doesn't even come close.

 

[VanceMack]

Love to have the debate. Lets start with the basics. Someone please give me the no bull**** cost on how much it will take to build the power grid and to provide the electricity and utility support for New York City year round. Just one city. Start there. That includes new land purchases, factual presentation of operational power plants...the works.

Go.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You almost get it although you don’t seem to get banks or how they manage liabilities. Now what happens to those savings if the rate of increased money supply (inflation) doesn’t approximately match increases in economic activity? That’s right: that makes those savings toxic - worth significantly less over time.

You could have just said, "inflation."

So your plan is to tax private savings and significantly weaken credibility of American debt causes future governments to have to offer higher interest rates (higher cost of servicing the loans) in order to obtain deficit spending oftentimes necessary in downturns in economic activity. Great plan.

How would taxing savings weaken the "credibility" of U.S. debt? Credibility comes from the U.S. meeting its bond obligations.

Now - give me an example of a time when the govt. had to pay more than the rate set by the Fed in order to sell a bond. You don't seem to get how this stuff really works.

That has been tried many times, productivity always falls. It doesn’t matter if we have enough healthcare resources and I am not sure why you think we have enough colleges and professors. The reason we have the amount we do is the incentives we currently have. Lets use food as an example as this is the most tested.

Really? When have we ever tried universal healthcare or free college? Or any similar program?

You have enough production to meet demand. The government decides there are too many staving due to affordability so they implement price control or buy mass amounts food at a controlled price. Food production falls as the incentives weaken and risks(losing wealth) increase.

We have enough production to meet demand, yes. But demand is almost always the limiting factor in developed economies. If the demand (money) was there, we could produce far more, while employing more people. The rest of your sentence is pure fantasy.

But, you might say universal single payer isn’t the same look at Canada. Indeed, look at Canada. She rations care everyday. Go look at regions where they don’t offer private MRIs, then look elective MRI wait times (you can even look at public option in the ones that do). Etc etc etc

Find me two Canadian citizens that would trade their system for ours. And the myths about Canadian (or U.K., etc.) wait times are just that - myths. Objectively measured results in other developed countries (and a number of underdeveloped countries) show better results - for less money - than the U.S. system.

So sure one could argue care might be more assessable in about half of cases and definitely more affordable but it comes at a heavy cost of quality.

This is simply false. You talk as if they don't have excellent healthcare in Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Israel, etc. That's simply ridiculous. I will never understand why anybody tries to defend our system; the only reason I can think of is that those defenders have been greatly misled about healthcare in other countries. I wonder what group would have a reason to do such a thing? Perhaps some group is profiting handsomely from our present system and doesn't want to rock the boat? Nah.

Our current system is least affordable(outside the highest risk groups covered by medicare/medicaid), is more assessable in other half of areas and can be shown to be better quality....

Healthcare is the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy in this country. That doesn't happen in any country with universal healthcare. Slice our system any way you want, but it still stinks. If you are wealthy, our system will drain you of as much of your wealth as it can before you die.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

This brings us to our biggest issue with your green new deal financing plan. Your not taking into account current underfunded liabilities. In proper accounting we already have 120+ trillion in unfunded obligation on the books which is plenty in terms of future deficit spending. We’re already getting closer to the point of not meeting servicing levels(without major impacts). So the added 120+ Trillion more underfunded liabilities plus whatever capital overages might even be doable if we didn’t already have 120+ trillion mostly in the form of pensions and healthcare obligations.

Tax revenue by gdp meanwhile should not encourage one to think tax hikes outside significant ones on those working and middle class would do anything to alleviate that with new tax revenue.

"Unfunded" and "underfunded liabilities" are a silly thing made up by deficit hawks to scare people who don't know better. You know another "unfunded liability"? Defense. Why isn't that ever included? It's like saying that I am thousands in debt because of my future liabilities - future electric bills, future cable bills, future grocery bills, etc.

Things are paid for in real time. Production happens at that point. A country cannot "save up" for future healthcare obligations the way you or I would save money for later. What makes us able to meet our future healthcare needs is the availability of sufficient hospitals, doctors, and nurses in the future. By the same token, what makes us able to produce cars in the future is not some sort of savings, it is the ability to produce the parts, the metal, the rubber, the labor, etc. in the future. And the best way to do that is to preserve (use) our productive capacity right now, by using our resources and keeping our factories open.

 

[Conservative]

So you can't counter my point, then.

You can't counter my argument that we are able to afford these programs, so now your argument against everybody having healthcare (and saving money in the process) and everybody having access to college (and staying out of debt in the process) is that these are commie ideas, and leave America and its patchy, expensive healthcare and wildly expensive colleges and belching smokestacks alone!

You are not just an uneducated guy spouting right-wing garbage and waving an American flag around, you are an absolute caricature of one, a walking, talking MAGA hat with a tiny body underneath.

I have absolutely no interest in countering your point as it appears to me you live in the wrong country and have no business here. Love the personal attack so let me counter, I have a better resume, better life, and better understanding of the private sector and the U.S. economy and civics than you will ever have. I am so sorry you are miserable and clueless of makes this country great and bet you had parents who taught you the current values you have that someone else should provide all that you want and need. I love the country and the opportunities we have but maybe you would find Venezuela a better place for you although I believe you are closer to being a Communist vs. socialist

 

[Conservative]

There are large sections of law libraries filled with books interpreting that little document. 200+ years of interpreting laws in relation to the Constitution mean that there is more nuance there than you are aware of. Your high school civics class doesn't even come close.

A true waste of time dealing with someone who believes that being book smart is a value in our private sector economy. Your arrogance is second to your ignorance of the foundation upon which this country was built and the true meaning of the Constitution. Stick to your books and I will continue to celebrate the successes being generated by our private sector economy and individual wealth creation.

 

[VanceMack]

.

Hey John....

How much?

How much will it cost to run JUST NEW YORK CITY? How much will it cost to completely convert New York City to renewable energy, what is the technology you will use, and how will you implement it...just in New York City alone? Where will the renewable energy sources come from? Where will the renewable energy power plants be placed and how will the locations accommodate the utilities transfer throughout the region? You cant use natural gas...you cant use nuclear energy...so...really basic and simple. How are you going to make NYC green...and how much will it cost?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Hey John....

How much?

How much will it cost to run JUST NEW YORK CITY? How much will it cost to completely convert New York City to renewable energy, what is the technology you will use, and how will you implement it...just in New York City alone? Where will the renewable energy sources come from? Where will the renewable energy power plants be placed and how will the locations accommodate the utilities transfer throughout the region? You cant use natural gas...you cant use nuclear energy...so...really basic and simple. How are you going to make NYC green...and how much will it cost?

Jeez, Vance, now that you put it like that, why should we even try? There's no way to move forward, it's just too expensive, too complicated. Too many people bitching about the cost. Maybe if we just stuck with coal we'd be better off. No way is America even capable of figuring out how to implement renewable energy. Thanks for setting us all straight.

 

[VanceMack]

Jeez, Vance, now that you put it like that, why should we even try? There's no way to move forward, it's just too expensive, too complicated. Too many people bitching about the cost. Maybe if we just stuck with coal we'd be better off. No way is America even capable of figuring out how to implement renewable energy. Thanks for setting us all straight.

Jeez, John...do you wonder why your ideas and rhetoric sound so stupid? You have no idea what you are asking or what it would cost or even if or how it could happen but we could hire people and spend trillions doing...something...

How many of the green energy companies Obama threw money at are still operational? Would it be fair to say that ALL of them failed?

And that just one city John.

 

[Conaeolos]

You could have just said, "inflation."

Your trouble isn't with understanding that inflation is neutral and a tool of economic stability. You seem to fail to seem how this plays in real world implications and what the practical limitations of that mean for prudent public spending.

How would taxing savings weaken the "credibility" of U.S. debt? Credibility comes from the U.S. meeting its bond obligations.

First, that not what I said and no it doesn't.

The value we extract by servicing our debt by inflation is coming out of the value of private savings/holdings. So you're simply suggesting taxing peoples savings/holdings by lowering the real world value of their bond assets. At the level of the GND deficient spending such that those would in fact be toxic.

The second part was an "and" and it relates to how bonds are preceived as an asset for holding wealth. When you lower the future value of any asset, you lower demand for that as vehicle to hold value. The result is higher interests rates. There is no way around that. Investors are always going to weigh projected inflation in comparison to that rate.

Now - give me an example of a time when the govt. had to pay more than the rate set by the Fed in order to sell a bond. You don't seem to get how this stuff really works.

You seem confused as to methodology of how a rate is set. You can set it at 0% or 100% for all it matters if you ignore that. It matters a lot in terms of desirability and who is taking on that debt. Almost like the difference between high risk credit and low risk credit.

When have we ever tried universal healthcare or free college? Or any similar program?

Just to clarify I am not against universal healthcare, only a shift to universal single payer(uk/canada).

We have the data of other countries who've tried many different types of public programs on similar methodology.

If the demand (money) was there, we could produce far more, while employing more people. The rest of your sentence is pure fantasy.

Money is a relative measure to value. You need actual demand increase by value, you can't just stimulate it.

You can, in the short-term boost demand via public induction, we use it all the time when we have economic downturn. The value though catches up and corrects, in order-words, we can do stimulus since overall the economic activity does grow and this growth makes up the difference. In math it's a curve that bounces with inflation as an averaged strait line. It has a stabilizing effect.

The incentive are effected by any stimulus. The health resources of today are based on our current incentives. The food production today the same. If the government started or stopped interfering even more by regulation or monetarily, those are going to change. I am not sure how you find that fantasy. So suppose, we pull a full soviet union and increase our doctors output. You just find the shortages in equipment and supplies. You get why right?

You need an increase of production[incentives] to match your increase in demand. In a relatively free market as money increases so does incentives, so thus so does production. No single actor can manufactor that. Only many actors.

Find me two Canadian citizens that would trade their system for ours. And the myths about Canadian (or U.K., etc.) wait times are just that - myths. Objectively measured results in other developed countries (and a number of underdeveloped countries) show better results - for less money - than the U.S. system.

I grew up on Canadian single payer, employ people in both countries. My statement it is more assessable (taking both wait-times and cost considerations) 50% of the time is more than generous. If someone tells you otherwise watch their methodology especially when they apply it comparing public system to private system. Both US and Canada are highly regulated with different outcome goals.

This is simply false. You talk as if they don't have excellent healthcare in Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Israel, etc.

That not what lower quality means in that context. Cuba I would say has lower quality. That doesn't mean they couldn't cure you or if the circumstance is right be a better experience.

It looks false because you're looking at overall instead of apples to apples. You have to measure affordability, accessibility and quality separately. They all factor into outcomes, which then can be compared to sustainability.

Yes, all western countries have relatively high quality. They are also all highly publicly subsidized including the US.

Slice our system any way you want, but it still stinks.

Yes, it does be careful though to think the grass is greener….

 

[Conaeolos]

"Unfunded" and "underfunded liabilities" are a silly thing made up by deficit hawks to scare people who don't know better. You know another "unfunded liability"? Defense. Why isn't that ever included? It's like saying that I am thousands in debt because of my future liabilities - future electric bills, future cable bills, future grocery bills, etc.

Things are paid for in real time. Production happens at that point. A country cannot "save up" for future healthcare obligations the way you or I would save money for later. What makes us able to meet our future healthcare needs is the availability of sufficient hospitals, doctors, and nurses in the future. By the same token, what makes us able to produce cars in the future is not some sort of savings, it is the ability to produce the parts, the metal, the rubber, the labor, etc. in the future. And the best way to do that is to preserve (use) our productive capacity right now, by using our resources and keeping our factories open.

By deficit hawks I think you mean sane public actors.

Yes war could finacial trouble for the country however that's a risk cost which would be accounted for differently and rarely on the normal books. As yes it's wrong when people speak of it as equivalent to current debt, there is a difference. There is a reason though in business this would be on the normal books and it has nothing to do with saving for the future and everything with the cost of servicing the debt.

As cost of servicing the debt go up, real taxes trend up unless serious cuts, equal economic growth rate or price savings in promises. You don't see how that factors majority into an equation to the affordability of the GND? You do know for every dollar in capital spending in such an undertaking comes with far more in unfunded liability. You do see how staring down massive unfunded liability means we are in the worst position to be deficit spending on anything including important things like the milltary, right?

 

[Kushinator]

Trade policy that shut down small business manufacturing and processing and an illegal immigration policy that pushed wages downward. Meanwhile, high property tax policy subsidized by the Feds.

Yep... that damn trade policy targets only poor red states. Your opinion has been rejected for partisan nonsense.

 

[Kushinator]

You do see how staring down massive unfunded liability means we are in the worst position to be deficit spending on anything including important things like the milltary, right?

Given the rest of your post is just misguided partisan nonsense, i decided to focus strictly on the misunderstanding. You are trying to use scare tactics via large numbers when citing unfunded liabilities.

What is an unfunded liability? A mortgage... a lease... you get the idea. I'm not afraid of your predictions.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The value we extract by servicing our debt by inflation is coming out of the value of private savings/holdings. So you're simply suggesting taxing peoples savings/holdings by lowering the real world value of their bond assets. At the level of the GND deficient spending such that those would in fact be toxic.

You are making a bunch of assumptions here. 1. Paying interest on the debt leads to inflation. Where? Where is all of this inflation? You mainstream guys toss these little theories around as if they are rock solid truth, when in fact there is very little to support them. "Create more money, and the value goes down." Well, no it doesn't, so stop leaning on that point until you can show me some data that backs you up.

2. "The level of GND deficit spending..." We don't even know that level yet, but that's not stopping you from calling it toxic. And even that is based on your unsupported theory that more money = less value. Maybe universal healthcare will save people a bunch of money, and their extra pocket money will boost the economy. Maybe relieving recent grads of crushing college debts would allow them to spend their incomes on cars and houses. Maybe renewable energy will bring the price of energy down, allowing people to spend more money on other things. You don't know yet.

The second part was an "and" and it relates to how bonds are preceived as an asset for holding wealth. When you lower the future value of any asset, you lower demand for that as vehicle to hold value. The result is higher interests rates. There is no way around that. Investors are always going to weigh projected inflation in comparison to that rate.

Again - the Fed sets the rates where they see fit. Good luck finding a Treasury that pays higher interest than all the others.

You seem confused as to methodology of how a rate is set. You can set it at 0% or 100% for all it matters if you ignore that. It matters a lot in terms of desirability and who is taking on that debt. Almost like the difference between high risk credit and low risk credit.

There is no confusion on my part.

Just to clarify I am not against universal healthcare, only a shift to universal single payer(uk/canada).

We have the data of other countries who've tried many different types of public programs on similar methodology.

I don't know what data you are looking at, but everything I have seen says that universal single payer is far superior to our system. I regularly talk to people from the U.K., Australia, and Canada, and they all think we are insane.

Money is a relative measure to value. You need actual demand increase by value, you can't just stimulate it.

Your sentence here wasn't clear, but I can guess what you are saying. You don't think that government spending is capable of growing the economy, that it will always fall back to some natural equilibrium of production and consumption. Am I close?

You can, in the short-term boost demand via public induction, we use it all the time when we have economic downturn. The value though catches up and corrects, in order-words, we can do stimulus since overall the economic activity does grow and this growth makes up the difference. In math it's a curve that bounces with inflation as an averaged strait line. It has a stabilizing effect.

Demonstrate that the value catches up and corrects. This is pure conservative dogma.

You need an increase of production[incentives] to match your increase in demand. In a relatively free market as money increases so does incentives, so thus so does production. No single actor can manufactor that. Only many actors.

Why do you believe that?

Yes, it does be careful though to think the grass is greener….

You are comparing apples to apples, but I am looking at a large percentage of Americans who have no apples to compare, and another large chunk of Americans who had to declare bankruptcy because of the cost of their apples.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

By deficit hawks I think you mean sane public actors.

Yes war could finacial trouble for the country however that's a risk cost which would be accounted for differently and rarely on the normal books. As yes it's wrong when people speak of it as equivalent to current debt, there is a difference. There is a reason though in business this would be on the normal books and it has nothing to do with saving for the future and everything with the cost of servicing the debt.

As cost of servicing the debt go up, real taxes trend up unless serious cuts, equal economic growth rate or price savings in promises. You don't see how that factors majority into an equation to the affordability of the GND? You do know for every dollar in capital spending in such an undertaking comes with far more in unfunded liability. You do see how staring down massive unfunded liability means we are in the worst position to be deficit spending on anything including important things like the milltary, right?

You are still basing your answers based on your understanding of economics. Which is a real problem if your understanding isn't correct.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Instead of screeching about AOC, Republicans should view the GND as their opportunity too.

“The Green New Deal gives Republicans and conservatives space so that they can maneuver and pivot, so that they can point to a solution that they can support.”

While broad-based Republican support for such a proposal has been slow to build, the idea has won the endorsement of both leading conservative economists and large corporations, many of which have powerful constituencies in Congress. Both ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have lobbied in favor of a proposed carbon tax known as the Baker-Shultz plan, after former GOP Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz.

 

[Conservative]

You are still basing your answers based on your understanding of economics. Which is a real problem if your understanding isn't correct.

And what happens if this Green Deal is a failure? First time I ever heard a liberal talk about someone else failing but never themselves or their programs. There are consequences for failure what are the consequences of throwing so much money at the Green New Deal?

 

[OrphanSlug]

"Unfunded" and "underfunded liabilities" are a silly thing made up by deficit hawks to scare people who don't know better. You know another "unfunded liability"? Defense. Why isn't that ever included? It's like saying that I am thousands in debt because of my future liabilities - future electric bills, future cable bills, future grocery bills, etc.

Things are paid for in real time. Production happens at that point. A country cannot "save up" for future healthcare obligations the way you or I would save money for later. What makes us able to meet our future healthcare needs is the availability of sufficient hospitals, doctors, and nurses in the future. By the same token, what makes us able to produce cars in the future is not some sort of savings, it is the ability to produce the parts, the metal, the rubber, the labor, etc. in the future. And the best way to do that is to preserve (use) our productive capacity right now, by using our resources and keeping our factories open.

By deficit hawks I think you mean sane public actors.

Yes war could finacial trouble for the country however that's a risk cost which would be accounted for differently and rarely on the normal books. As yes it's wrong when people speak of it as equivalent to current debt, there is a difference. There is a reason though in business this would be on the normal books and it has nothing to do with saving for the future and everything with the cost of servicing the debt.

As cost of servicing the debt go up, real taxes trend up unless serious cuts, equal economic growth rate or price savings in promises. You don't see how that factors majority into an equation to the affordability of the GND? You do know for every dollar in capital spending in such an undertaking comes with far more in unfunded liability. You do see how staring down massive unfunded liability means we are in the worst position to be deficit spending on anything including important things like the milltary, right?

My friends, "unfunded liabilities" has a specific economic meaning that has been amplified to make a political point... that ironically tends to discard the point of that economic definition.

In this case all we are talking about is a future debt obligation that does not have sufficient funds or assets set aside now to pay for that debt later. But depending on a few economic indicators and the outlook of economic growth that is not a problem, because current aggregate demand supplement wins out over treating the federal government like a household. John is right about current production, current spending, and current influences. We are at a specific point in the economic cycle now, our current spending policy should reflect that.

In some ways it is preferable this way because there is little reason for the government, who has influence on its money supply regardless, to do anything but continue to participate in the active economy. The economy expands, and we have not defaulted on an obligation because of how we treat servicing debt at present.

Again, government spending now is part of the GDP math now and is the one area of the math that can go up and down to handle aggregate demand needs.

We already have a means to deal with future obligations all without harming the present economy to do so.

The idea of weaponizing the definition of unfunded liabilities is of the same set of ideas that push for balanced budget amendments, but they all ignore modern economic principles and fiat money systems... all of which suggests using government spending as a means to reduce the amplitude of the economic cycle. Treating the government like a household will end up amplifying the economic cycle to all kinds of widespread pain now and in the future.

Sustainable growth is the method to deal with unfunded liabilities, not savings accounts in the household sense.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yep... that damn trade policy targets only poor red states. Your opinion has been rejected for partisan nonsense.

Small industry gets hit harder by trade policies when foreign competition undercuts. Small towns, by their own nature, tend to have mostly smaller companies.

Quit snarking, use your head.

 

[Conaeolos]

Despite previous request, I am going to combine these as your basically on the same page:

What is an unfunded liability?

It is a quantifiable future deferment not dependant on risk.

If I make an agreement with people that since they are paying x they will receive y at some future date. I can project the costs over time and project my funding based on what i am collecting. If those costs do not match projected funding that is a long-term liability I would report on my books. That is not the same as a current debt but that is not meaningless nor a scare tactic.

You shouldn't be afraid of it. You should see it means current tax levels are artificially low for the current promises. That is all. There are plenty of ways to pay for any long-term liability.

based on your unsupported theory that more money = less value.

Be careful, I said where there is more money over economic growth equals less value. You are correct, the GND could work if the economic growth equaled the inflationary costs. Why I called it a gamble that doesn't account for mispredicting an unlikely unknown.

You don't think that government spending is capable of growing the economy, that it will always fall back to some natural equilibrium of production and consumption.

Not quite, lots of governments have successfully stimulated growth in their economy. There are countering effects to inflation, when those effects unweight benefits. There is a market correction. If you want to use money to measure demand, you have to also be reflected changes in value.

Demonstrate that the value catches up and corrects. This is pure conservative dogma.

Your honestly arguing: if economic growth does not outpace inflationary growth overtime there isn't a downward correction? If true eace

The idea of weaponizing the definition of unfunded liabilities is of the same set of ideas that push for balanced budget amendments, but they all ignore modern economic principles and fiat money systems... all of which suggests using government spending as a means to reduce the amplitude of the economic cycle. Treating the government like a household will end up amplifying the economic cycle to all kinds of widespread pain now and in the future.

Sustainable growth is the method to deal with unfunded liabilities, not savings accounts in the household sense.

No one is weaponizing anything and the government very much should be run like a sustainable household or corporation. Based on averages, the problem is you likely don't run sustainable household or corporation. How is retirement looking? How able are you deal with a financial crisis? Lifestyle/prospects get better year to year?

The point of highlighting the unfunded liabilities is to reflect the ability of government to deficit spend same as it would a private entity. The greater the ability the more a government is able to absorb risk. That is it. They can run deficits to the cows come home as long as the cost to servicing that debt is in control. That true of any private entity as well.

No one is suggesting we should pay off 120+ Trillion or even 22 T to be financially stable. We are relatively financially stable but worsening. We do however need modest reductions in spending and promises so that we are better able to absorb risk as that has been in a free fall for awhile and are risk tables increasing. Demographics presents some real challanges starting in about 2030.

 

[jaeger19]

First, the money from Bush was a loan to GM. When Obamafail took over he bailed out GM from bankruptcy by owning shares of GM, we then owned stock in GM. Fact.



Second you can find a 100 links proving you wrong, when Obamafail sold the stock we owned, he lost 11.2 billion on the sale. That was taxpayer money. Fact.

GM'''s Bailout Cost Taxpayers $11.2 Billion | Time

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters

GM bailout cost taxpayers $11.2 billion, report says - CSMonitor.com

right... which means that under Obama... the taxpayer fared a heck a lot better than they would have under the Bush bailout.

 

[jaeger19]

The Green New Deal: How We Will Pay For It Isn't 'A Thing' - And Inflation Isn't Either



The rest of the article makes a pretty convincing case that the GND is very feasible.

The author of this piece, Robert Hockett, is a respected professor of law who has previously worked for the IMF and the NY Fed. You may have seen him making the rounds on the news shows lately.

So if anybody would like to argue against the Green New Deal, here is your chance. (Please take the time to read the article first.)

Good luck, and leave your strawmen at home.

Well.. I read the article.. and largely its a load of horsecrap.

Because the article assumes the usual BS.... which is that dollar spent in the economy has the same effect no matter how its spent.

So.. 1000 dollars spent to help a person get an education... is the same as 1000 given to a rich person as a tax break.

And that assumption is wrong. Money spent on an education has a lot more chance of having a multiplier effect.. than money spent on a tax break.

So the real question here... is exactly HOW does the green deal work... and not just how much it costs.

And the 14 page resolution is short on details and long on promises... such as veering from green energy to guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States \

or "providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature"

A bunch of promises with no actual plan on how to get there. or even what "there" is.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well.. I read the article.. and largely its a load of horsecrap.

Because the article assumes the usual BS.... which is that dollar spent in the economy has the same effect no matter how its spent.

So.. 1000 dollars spent to help a person get an education... is the same as 1000 given to a rich person as a tax break.

And that assumption is wrong. Money spent on an education has a lot more chance of having a multiplier effect.. than money spent on a tax break.

Not only does Robert's article not say anything like that, you have also (continued to) misinterpret the point I made so long ago - money spent wisely is obviously more effective in the long run, BUT FOR THE CURRENT CALCULATION OF GDP, $1000 IS $1000.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No one is weaponizing anything and the government very much should be run like a sustainable household or corporation.

OK, here is the problem.

Governments Are Nothing Like Households

A government is not a household | New Economics Foundation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog.../13/AF21jOjD_blog.html?utm_term=.6c5854be9183

Why the federal budget can't be managed like a household budget | Money | The Guardian

The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here's Why - Roosevelt Institute

There's a whole bunch of articles explaining the same thing that I have been trying to explain to you - that governments sovereign in their own currency do not borrow private sector assets to pay their bills, they simply create and spend their own currency.