Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   (news.investors.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 08:48:50 PM  

MattStafford: ps69: Right? People are starting to actually acknowledge how the economy works instead of pretending that self flagellation and belt tightening and an austerity fairy will make the economy god fix things that aren't actually broken.

Yes, the solution to our economic problems is money printing via debt creation and the printing press. It is completely absurd that these ideas have any traction in this day and age.


M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.
 
2012-11-27 08:59:32 PM  

Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.


I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...
 
2012-11-27 09:02:37 PM  

Zasteva: M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.


The real question about printing money is what you do with it. If you print money to pay off debts, and then no longer run a deficit, it may not be a bad idea. I've suggested in the past that perhaps the quickest way to extricate ourselves from this situation is to cancel debts and pay creditors 50% via freshly printed currency (or something along those lines).

The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.
 
2012-11-27 09:07:37 PM  

o5iiawah: If you have an unsustainable lifestyle, and cant afford a $25,000 car, spending $20,000 on a car instead is not a spending cut.


Your value judgments about what is and isn't "unsustainable" doesn't magically change the definition of the word "cut".
 
2012-11-27 09:19:18 PM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-27 09:25:33 PM  

qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.


Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.
 
2012-11-27 09:35:24 PM  
Mandate, motherf*ckers.
 
2012-11-27 09:48:59 PM  
The President can sit on his hands and all of the Bush tax cuts expire.

That's why the Republicans have to argue a strong position that would provide a rationale for the totality of said tax cuts to continue.

Question answered?
 
2012-11-27 09:54:08 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mandate, motherf*ckers.


Enjoy your mandate! Conservatives will ALWAYS have more money than you, more resources at their disposal, more travel, more leisure, more work ethic, more intellect, more steak, more bacon, more land and more influence. You will ALWAYS be subservient and eat their crumbs when they share their crumbs. You will ALWAYS resent it and covet other's possessions, and you will ALWAYS blame them for your inadequacies. Enjoy your power trip, and the next 4 years of crumbs. Or, you can be industrious, get into fracking and make some serious coin - poor victim!
 
2012-11-27 10:23:27 PM  

SunsetLament: Good luck holding 18 of 23 seats next go-round.


Hey buddy! Long time no see!

And thanks for that "good luck" way back when, it worked! (highfive)
 
2012-11-27 10:33:33 PM  

fatassbastard: Good luck holding 18 of 23 seats next go-round.


Keep hunting around the same time ... you'll find me saying, repeatedly, that the only way the Republicans could lose the Presidency and the Senate was if they nominated Romney. Tada!

/Not my fault establishment Republicans are stupid.
 
2012-11-27 10:34:19 PM  

TheBigJerk: qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.

Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.


Did you biatch and moan when the courts forced legislatures to gerrymander districts so blacks would win congressional seats ... or is that considered "good" gerrymandering?
 
2012-11-27 10:38:22 PM  
i.imgur.com

Weird...
 
2012-11-27 10:59:39 PM  

fatassbastard: [i.imgur.com image 707x398]

Weird...


Same search for me came up with 803 hits. Happy hunting.
 
2012-11-27 11:03:02 PM  

SunsetLament: TheBigJerk: qorkfiend: SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.

Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.

Naw, see his point is that Demmycrats are dummies for not using large amounts of out-of-state money to buystrategizing around winning state and local legislatures. It's the old, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I mean, clearly when you commit a sin, it is the fault of others for allowing you do commit it.

If you're a Republican.

Did you biatch and moan when the courts forced legislatures to gerrymander districts so blacks would win congressional seats ... or is that considered "good" gerrymandering?


Republicans should consider it a "good" kind of gerrymandering because it allows them to crowd even more Democrats into Democrat districts. In VA, Bobby Scott won with over 80% of the vote. The next biggest margin of victory was 20% less.
 
2012-11-27 11:16:12 PM  
Do we still have to subsidize the shenanigans of homosexual pedophile PBS puppeteers?
 
2012-11-27 11:18:28 PM  

OneBrightMonkey: The President can sit on his hands and all of the Bush tax cuts expire.

That's why the Republicans have to argue a strong position that would provide a rationale for the totality of said tax cuts to continue.

Question answered?


^THIS

He wants tax hikes for everybody - he's a tax and spend liberal, the more money and power that gets transferred to the federal government, the better he likes it.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for a guy him to get exactly what he wants and blame it ALL on the other party.

Come back afterwards a toss a few sheckles to his minions. Like stealing four hubcaps and giving back one.
 
2012-11-27 11:47:23 PM  
Because austerity ends up costing more by collapsing the economy than you save in spending cuts?
 
2012-11-28 01:40:55 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Do we still have to subsidize the shenanigans of homosexual pedophile PBS puppeteers?


Yes.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:01 AM  

incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...


And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.

Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).
 
2012-11-28 02:50:26 AM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: M3 stands at a little less than $16 trillion dollars. If we were to print a trillion dollars more then the value of all the money in the system would be about 1/16 less, equivalent to a 6.5% flat tax on all liquid assets. Really though, a change in the value of the dollar represent as change in the value of all wealth. In 2009 that was estimated at $54.2 trillion, so it's really more accurate to say that all wealth is reduced by 1.8% in value. That would make a substantial dent in our national debt.

There are lots of ways this could be handled, but the simplest way, economically speaking, would be for the Federal Reserve to acquire buy external debt with newly created money.

Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

The real question about printing money is what you do with it. If you print money to pay off debts, and then no longer run a deficit, it may not be a bad idea. I've suggested in the past that perhaps the quickest way to extricate ourselves from this situation is to cancel debts and pay creditors 50% via freshly printed currency (or something along those lines).

The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.


Yep... if we just do the same thing all over then it's not much help.
 
2012-11-28 06:43:34 AM  

Zasteva: And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.


Given the choice, I wouldn't hesitate. Even if it came as a surprise, I'd probably be extremely happy, especially if I was in the sort of financial situation that leads one to get payday loans in the first place. I guess my unease with the idea stems from my years in the military - if you owed the government there, they will take it from your paycheck at an arbitrary time determined by how fast the bureaucracy has been moving lately, which will inevitably be the worst possible time for you personally. It probably works a bit differently when they're not the ones cutting your paycheck.

In short, I agree, but I've got some unjustified paranoia.
 
2012-11-28 09:45:28 AM  

MattStafford: The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.


What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"? It seems to be a basic assumption of yours. Are you assuming that spending growth rates must always increase, and/or that tax rates may never ever increase?

I'm not sure who is advocating never ever decreasing the deficit (it never has to decrease to 0 or go into surplus, only to be less than the growth in the economy). Are you assuming (I've seen this from other Farkers but not IIRC from you) that US taxes can never ever be more than X% of GDP because they haven't gotten higher than that before? If that were true, what's different about America that makes it impossible when other countries do just fine with higher taxes?

Health care cost growth is clearly unsustainable, and that's what drives our projected long-term Federal budget problems. But simply chanting "cut cut cut" (that is, have the Federal government just stop paying for anybody's health care) isn't a solution at all. The same problem would apply, just to States and individuals. (A voluntary-suicide movement as you hint at upthread is unlikely to take off).

The best way to but health care costs is to have the government take it over. I know the solution "solve the problem of government spending too much by having them take on more spending responsibility" lacks appeal to your intuition, but it works. (See: everywhere else).

If you think everyone else's health care costs are low because the rest of the world is free-riding on our innovative-y-ness, run the numbers. Check out theincidentaleconomist.com. In pharma in particular there's a lot of low-hanging fruit; the much-vaunted high R&D costs are a small fraction of the US total expenditure on drugs (not to mention the rest of the world).
 
2012-11-28 09:51:36 AM  

Zasteva: incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...

And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.

Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).


There is a downside to owing the government money, you can't escape it. Like Federal student loans: they're not dischargeable in bankruptcy. On the other hand that may well be worth the reduced interest rates, forbearances, etc.

I've though such a model might work well for post-crisis underwater-homeowner rescue. The government refinances the mortgage for the amount owed at low interest rates, with the caveat that the debt follows you forever until paid off (like student loans) even if you walk away from the house. A nice dose of "personal responsibility" to go with the macroeconomy-friendly bailout.
 
2012-11-28 10:56:17 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?


Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.
 
2012-11-28 11:30:52 AM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?

Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.


OK, where are we heading? Yes, I'm asking serious questions, trying to illuminate where your thinking may be muddy on these issues.

For one example, ponder what devaluation of the dollar does to trade deficits. (This helped me a lot; I used to be absolutely convinced that free trade could never lead anywhere but the whole world having Third World standards of living, with no chance for improvement. Learning some actual geography-of-trade and international-finance concepts has refuted that.)

For another example, what's bad about basing an economy on consumption? Instead of "it makes me feel icky and it should make you feel icky too", try to explain what "should" be different, how that would affect the world, and why it's better.

If (to pick a common example) you're concerned that "too much" of our economy is in services vs. manufacturing (I used to believe this too), keep in mind that there's not any big philosophical divide between those two. If I make pasta and serve it to you on a plate, that's services. If I make pasta, freeze it and put it in a box, that's manufacturing.

/Yes, I get a lot of this from Matt Yglesias, I find him enlightening
 
2012-11-28 11:45:21 AM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?

Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.


Trade deficits are a result of being wealthy. There is nothing you can do about them, and, really, there's nothing you WANT to do about them.
 
Displayed 27 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report