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

[jaeger19]

I'm still trying to understand yer argument, a gallon of gas in real terms has decreased in price since 1950. Why are you demanding that a prices never increase in nominal amounts? That would require zero inflation, zero population growth, zero money growth, the means to totally control supply/production of gasoline...a whole host of inputs never changing.

Because you are using "relative terms"... and its relative because we have inflation. which is a price increase.

I am not the one demanding that "prices never increase"...

I was arguing that prices most definitely increase.

the argument was made by a poster that "prices will not increase with increased demand because production will increase" or some such.

I pointed out accurately that and prices do increase because increased demand does not mean that production will increase.

 

[jaeger19]

i didn't know hospitals sold beds, i thought they were primarily a service provider.

the number of hospital beds is a metric of the available supply of those services.

 

[jaeger19]

Can we stop referring to the entire medical industry as a product?. There are hundreds of products in that industry that you could choose from. Bedpans? Ultrasound machines? Anything.

the number of hospital beds available is a metric of the supply of services in a hospital. that's because all those products and services.. from soap, to bedpans and ultrasound machines must be available to service the needs of the people in those beds.

 

[austrianecon]

View attachment 67201217

You should check between April and May (so far).. it's up.

 

[Critter7r]

You should check between April and May (so far).. it's up.

That's no different from saying you've proven global warming is happening because this month is warmer than last month.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[austrianecon]

Ok, so the limit is 80%. Noted. The point is that on the aggregate over multiple competitors and industries, supply is flexible. The argument he is making now is oversimplified and flies in the face of capitalism. Even if I conceeded a short term pressure on prices, there would be a vacuum on the other end with capacity expanded.

No, it's not just the limit being 80% (your not even close btw). It's also about monetary policy as well, meaning uncle sam can't just dump extra dollars into the economy to pay for something without removing dollars (US Government creates a debt obligation borrows from whoever and those dollars are removed), it's a 1 for 1 trade. If Government just print to pay it's bills, inflation will creep higher at lower Capacity utilization levels.

I don't care what argument's he's making. He's on the right track but fails to grasp long term effects.

Your issue and many MMTers is the believe capacity will expand at a rate to off set it. If your premise was correct there would be 0% inflation (all the time). That's just not the case as supply is NOT flexible as you think especially in a human worker driven economy. Maybe in a world of 100% automation but then that would make MMT 100% useless as everybody would be Technological unemployed yet still wealthy via "social transfers" and that day will come at some point.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Supply of services (beds) in hospitals has outstripped the demand... hence empty services (beds) in hospitals. Yet prices are increased. the price increase is not due to demand increasing relative to supply (of services/beds).

i didn't know hospitals sold beds, i thought they were primarily a service provider.

the number of hospital beds is a metric of the available supply of those services.

Well...an oversupply of "services" would mean we have an oversupply of medical workers, tech's, nurses, doctors.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You should check between April and May (so far).. it's up.

Um, open yer eyes:

up...and down.....and what is the trend over the last year...5 years...10 years?

 

[austrianecon]

Businesses grow. Only a crazy person would deny that. And when do they grow? In response to greater demand. This is the simple truth of the matter that you need to admit before we can move forward with the debate. But no, you sit back with silly exceptions that you think invalidate the overarching truth. Do you really think that we don't understand that there are cases where businesses might not expand? Of course we do, but it's a waste of time to dwell on crap like that. That is not where the insight is. As a general rule, businesses increase production to meet increased demand, period. They'd be dead in the water if they didn't.

Yes, but business growth falls into two categories. 1) Increased market share 2) increased demand via population growth. With #1 that means some other company is getting SMALLER and nothing in the Net changed. Think switching from Colgate to Aquafresh. #2 is split between the market players. So growth is limited and actually managed very well. Massive problems arise when unforeseen growth takes place.. in production and logistics. These fixes take time, sometimes even years if you have to build a new plant and by the time you build that new plant, demand might have fallen by then. So companies are typically hesitant to jump in on short term demand increases.

Also in monopoly industries.. there is little fat chance demand is met 100% of the time but these industries are heavily regulated. Think your power and cable/internet providers.. in which cost increase all the time despite very little improvement.

If we were wrong and prices always rose in response to increased demand, prices would be a hell of a lot higher than they are today. There would also be no economies of scale.

Well, prices are a hell of a lot higher when compared to previous decades. Think gas prices, postage stamp, a car, and a house (ironically, house building out supplied demand yet prices rose). So you have either two choices here.. increase of the money supply cause inflation (which you deny) or prices do rise despite increases due to demand.

 

[DA60]

The notion that America can never go bankrupt is totally false. If the dollar becomes totally unwanted then creditors can literally take America to court and force it to declare bankruptcy. If the court decides that U.S. dollars are worthless, the court could theoretically force America into bankruptcy so that it's creditors can get paid through the liquidation of other assets. You cannot just stiff the entire world by giving them worthless money and expect the world to go 'okay'. That is ridiculously naive.
Anyone who says that it is impossible for America to go bankrupt simply does not know what they are talking about.
It is extremely unlikely, but it IS possible - even though she can print all the money she wants.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

how much has Obama added to the debt?

 

[BelieveNU]

how much has Obama added to the debt?

16 trillion or so. Depending on who ya blame for what policy.

 

[Moderate Right]

MMT cannot realistically work and it never has worked.

If you print tons of money, one of two things happens:

- people use it all and inflation rises which forces central banks to raise rates to stop inflation which is rather to MMT as it cannot even begin to work with high interest rates.

- the alternative is that the money just sits there and is not used (as is happening now as demonstrated by record low M2 Money velocity - and still falling fast). The money is not used, the economy stagnates and the central bank/government scratches it's head wondering what to try next.
And, of course, the problem is that if that money starts to be used then inflation will rise and that will be that.

It is a doomed plan that has never worked in history to stimulate an economy to a strong, growing, self-sustaining point.

MMT not only has never worked - it cannot work over the long run. It is little more then a moocher's paradise.

And until MMT'ers can show historical proof that it works (the 'fiat money worked after WW2 for America' nonsense is just that since America had the world economy to itself for almost a generation after WW2), their pie-in-the-sky theory remains just that.

What they do not seem to realize is how the whole theory is not even logical.


Also, the notion that America can never go bankrupt is totally false. If the dollar be ones totally unwanted then creditors can literally take America to court and force it to declare bankruptcy to collect owed monies in the form of liquidation of it's other assets.
Anyone who says that it is impossible for America to go bankrupt simply does not know at they are talking about.
It is highly unlikely, but it IS possible - even though she can print all the money she wants.

Unfortunately, it is very logical to them. They have conjured up a justification to spend, spend, spend, not worry about deficits or the national debt, and can print as much money as they want on a whim. They even call doing it good and necessary for the economy to grow. It's not a moocher's paradise, it is their liberal paradise (same thing).

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The notion that America can never go bankrupt is totally false. If the dollar becomes totally unwanted then creditors can literally take America to court and force it to declare bankruptcy. If the court decides that U.S. dollars are worthless, the court could theoretically force America into bankruptcy so that it's creditors can get paid through the liquidation of other assets. You cannot just stiff the entire world by giving them worthless money and expect the world to go 'okay'. That is ridiculously naive.
Anyone who says that it is impossible for America to go bankrupt simply does not know what they are talking about.
It is extremely unlikely, but it IS possible - even though she can print all the money she wants.

What court are you talking about? And what liquidatable assets are U.S. bonds backed by?

Don't bother answering. You are completely wrong here.

 

[jaeger19]

i didn't know hospitals sold beds, i thought they were primarily a service provider.
Well...an oversupply of "services" would mean we have an oversupply of medical workers, tech's, nurses, doctors.

Actually technically we do have an oversupply of medical workers. Its in part why we pay more for medical services in this country. The flip side is that we have a lot of choice in where we want to have medical services, and don't have to wait for weeks or months for an MRI, or to be seen by a specialist.

In regards to your graph.

1. Your graph only calculates physicians not other medical workers. And in this country.. we have multiple facilities in which physicians work.. which gives americans more choice and timeliness of care, but is less efficient since 8 physicians in one network is more efficient and need less support staff then those 8 physician spread out over 4 facilities. (of course lowering reimbursement is currently causing consolidation)

2. We don't know the details of your graph but it would not surprise me if that graph was on general practitioners.. which I could believe we have a supply problem with. but we are technically oversupplied with specialists (which again raises the cost of healthcare in the US, its why other countries control the number of specialists they have)

3. We don't know the details of your graph in regards to what constitutes demand/supply.

Does it calculate that care COULD be provided by alternate providers such as Physician assistants, nurse practitioners and therapists (in some countries and even in the US military, physical therapists are often the first to see many orthopedic injuries rather than have a physician see them and turn around an order physical therapy)

How does the graph calculate demand? Is that demand that a person needs to see physician in 1 day.. or within 1 week, or for a specialist 1 month? Etc.

The technical fact is that our healthcare system is less efficient than other countries medical systems and that means that technically we have an overabundance of medical services. It also means that we don't wait as long, have more choices in who we want to see, and more choices in the types of procedures we have available to us.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Actually technically we do have an oversupply of medical workers. Its in part why we pay more for medical services in this country.

Uh-huh, and in markets with an oversupply, prices increase. Interesting.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

We don't know the details of your graph but it would not surprise me if that graph was on general practitioners.. which I could believe we have a supply problem with. but we are technically oversupplied with specialists (which again raises the cost of healthcare in the US, its why other countries control the number of specialists they have)

The Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Work Studies projected that by the year 2020, the U.S. will have a shortfall of over 130,000 physicians, 45,000 of whom are primary care doctors. This would mean that in the next 5 years, patients could have a harder time booking appointments, finding a general practitioner accepting patients, spend more time in waiting rooms, and less time with their providers. A survey conducted by AMN Healthcare found that nearly 37% of U.S. hospital executives reported that doctor shortages have compromised access to care among their patients.

2014 Public Health Year-in-Review: Part 1 - PublicHealth.org

 

[jaeger19]

Uh-huh, and in markets with an oversupply, prices increase. Interesting.

Absolutely. That's the point.

Each facility has overhead. Each hospital has electric. floor space, MRI, staff, laundry so on and so forth.

If you have four facilities in an area... that's a lot of cost. Because they have to duplicate all the services. That cost has to be made up in insurance cost.

IF the number of facilities is reduced.. and the supply is reduced.. then the system becomes more efficient. Less nurses needed, less receptionists.. fewer MRI. labs etc. Which means less cost and potentially lower prices.

Its in part why other countries pay less in healthcare than we do.

the caveat being less choice, greater wait times, etc.. in addition to the what it does to the wages and the economy when the number of good paying jobs is reduced.

 

[David_N]

how much has Obama added to the debt?

Not enough.

 

[David_N]

The Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Work Studies projected that by the year 2020, the U.S. will have a shortfall of over 130,000 physicians, 45,000 of whom are primary care doctors. This would mean that in the next 5 years, patients could have a harder time booking appointments, finding a general practitioner accepting patients, spend more time in waiting rooms, and less time with their providers. A survey conducted by AMN Healthcare found that nearly 37% of U.S. hospital executives reported that doctor shortages have compromised access to care among their patients.

2014 Public Health Year-in-Review: Part 1 - PublicHealth.org

Sounds like we need to spend money training people/educating people to prevent this from happening.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Absolutely. That's the point.

Each facility has overhead. Each hospital has electric. floor space, MRI, staff, laundry so on and so forth.

If you have four facilities in an area... that's a lot of cost. Because they have to duplicate all the services. That cost has to be made up in insurance cost.

IF the number of facilities is reduced.. and the supply is reduced.. then the system becomes more efficient. Less nurses needed, less receptionists.. fewer MRI. labs etc. Which means less cost and potentially lower prices.

Its in part why other countries pay less in healthcare than we do.

the caveat being less choice, greater wait times, etc.. in addition to the what it does to the wages and the economy when the number of good paying jobs is reduced.

So you are saying then that healthcare is a non-competitive market, the number of doctors, facilities does not effect price....unless you reduce supply....then price will reduce.

 

[pdog]

.

But an increase in demand will not necessarily cause an increase in production.

But it can, yes?

 

[jaeger19]

The Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Work Studies projected that by the year 2020, the U.S. will have a shortfall of over 130,000 physicians, 45,000 of whom are primary care doctors. This would mean that in the next 5 years, patients could have a harder time booking appointments, finding a general practitioner accepting patients, spend more time in waiting rooms, and less time with their providers. A survey conducted by AMN Healthcare found that nearly 37% of U.S. hospital executives reported that doctor shortages have compromised access to care among their patients.

2014 Public Health Year-in-Review: Part 1 - PublicHealth.org

Sure.. but there is a saying: "Statistics don't lie but statisticians do".

Again.. it depends on how you calculate demand.

the general practitioner? I could see that. Our system tends to push physicians out of general practice

But "longer waiting times" for a specialist is relative. and how they define that demand makes a difference in their statistics. Is it seeing a doctor that day.. or one two days, a week or a month or longer.
Other countries do tend to have longer wait times for most specialties than the US, without too much change in long term outcomes.

Plus the question is whether they figure in that fact that patients could be seen by alternate providers such as nurse practioners or physicians assistants.

 

[jaeger19]

But it can, yes?

... asked and answered...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sure.. but there is a saying: "Statistics don't lie but statisticians do".

Again.. it depends on how you calculate demand.

the general practitioner? I could see that. Our system tends to push physicians out of general practice

But "longer waiting times" for a specialist is relative. and how they define that demand makes a difference in their statistics. Is it seeing a doctor that day.. or one two days, a week or a month or longer.
Other countries do tend to have longer wait times for most specialties than the US, without too much change in long term outcomes.

Plus the question is whether they figure in that fact that patients could be seen by alternate providers such as nurse practioners or physicians assistants.

But if you are arguing that we have an "over-supply" of doctors, why would we need NP/AP's?

If the argument from you is that healthcare is monopolistic, then you should not be using it in discussions of markets since we are not discussing monopoly markets.