News liberals probably don't want to hear

Trump lowered the national debt in his first month as president.
http://washingtonevening.com/u-s-debt-19947304555212-jan-20th-wont-believe-now/

Horse manure. The fiscal year runs through September. Trump did nothing to lower the national debt, but his policies and scandals are tanking the stock market.

Waiting wrote:Trump lowered the national debt in his first month as president.
http://washingtonevening.com/u-s-debt-19947304555212-jan-20th-wont-believe-now/

What a stupid and unpatriotic thing to be proud of. Public debt is Private savings. That's like being proud of the fact that he reduced Private savings by $12billion.

It's obvious that you're completely ignorant about the way money works, understandable considering your age and immaturity, but here's a little primer:

https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/deficits-are-our-saving/

When you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, it's probably best to just STFU. You'll learn this as you get older.

Floridatexan wrote:
Horse manure.  The fiscal year runs through September.  Trump did nothing to lower the national debt, but his policies and scandals are tanking the stock market.

You either cannot read or didn't read the article.

del.capslock wrote:

Waiting wrote:Trump lowered the national debt in his first month as president.
http://washingtonevening.com/u-s-debt-19947304555212-jan-20th-wont-believe-now/

What a stupid and unpatriotic thing to be proud of. Public debt is Private savings. That's like being proud of the fact that he reduced Private savings by $12billion.

It's obvious that you're completely ignorant about the way money works, understandable considering your age and immaturity, but here's a little primer:

https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/deficits-are-our-saving/

When you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, it's probably best to just STFU. You'll learn this as you get older.

Public debt is private savings ? That's rich, then show me where savings is rising for any demographic but the extremely rich? Oh, just blew up your thought process there.

Waiting wrote:

Public debt is private savings ? That's rich, then show me where savings is rising for any demographic but the extremely rich? Oh, just blew up your thought process there.

Read the link, sonny boy. Educate yourself so you don't sound so blisteringly ignorant.

Here is is again: https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/deficits-are-our-saving/

This whole thread is ignorant. Modern monetary theory is not a solution. I'm a fan of Keynes, but his economic theory was useful only in times of trouble and was not meant for prosperity. If our currency is to remain viable, there has to be strong economic activity to back it up.

Floridatexan wrote:
This whole thread is ignorant.  Modern monetary theory is not a solution.  I'm a fan of Keynes, but his economic theory was useful only in times of trouble and was not meant for prosperity.  If our currency is to remain viable, there has to be strong economic activity to back it up.  

Modern Monetary Theory is not a solution. It's a description of empirically observable facts, akin to Galileo's theory of planetary motion.

Keynesian economics is irrelevant to the current situation where many nations are Monetarily Sovereign. For the United States that only happened when Nixon ditched Bretton Woods in '72. Before that Keynes still had some relevance. Now his notions are equivalent to saying "Sorry Mr. Galileo but it's the Sun going around the Earth."

The thread isn't ignorant but some of the posters, who shall remain nameless, certainly are.

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
This whole thread is ignorant.  Modern monetary theory is not a solution.  I'm a fan of Keynes, but his economic theory was useful only in times of trouble and was not meant for prosperity.  If our currency is to remain viable, there has to be strong economic activity to back it up.  

Modern Monetary Theory is not a solution. It's a description of empirically observable facts, akin to Galileo's theory of planetary motion.

Keynesian economics is irrelevant to the current situation where many nations are Monetarily Sovereignty. For the United States that only happened when Nixon ditched Bretton Woods in '72. Before that Keynes still had some relevance. Now his notions are equivalent to saying "Sorry Mr. Galileo but it's the Sun going around the Earth."

The thread isn't ignorant but some of the posters, who shall remain nameless, certainly are.

It's "monetarily sovereign", or "have monetary sovereignity", not that jumble you just wrote. And economics is not science, but APPLIED mathematics. Keynes is still relevant; Adam Smith is still relevant; Karl Marx has some great insights as well. Friedman, Laffer, Reagan, Greenspan and the Austrians are full of it.

LABOR + MATERIALS = REVENUE
REVENUE - EXPENSES = CAPITAL

Floridatexan wrote:

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
This whole thread is ignorant.  Modern monetary theory is not a solution.  I'm a fan of Keynes, but his economic theory was useful only in times of trouble and was not meant for prosperity.  If our currency is to remain viable, there has to be strong economic activity to back it up.  

Modern Monetary Theory is not a solution. It's a description of empirically observable facts, akin to Galileo's theory of planetary motion.

Keynesian economics is irrelevant to the current situation where many nations are Monetarily Sovereignty. For the United States that only happened when Nixon ditched Bretton Woods in '72. Before that Keynes still had some relevance. Now his notions are equivalent to saying "Sorry Mr. Galileo but it's the Sun going around the Earth."

The thread isn't ignorant but some of the posters, who shall remain nameless, certainly are.

It's "monetarily sovereign", or "have monetary sovereignity", not that jumble you just wrote.  And economics is not science, but APPLIED mathematics.  Keynes is still relevant; Adam Smith is still relevant; Karl Marx has some great insights as well.  Friedman, Laffer, Reagan, Greenspan and the Austrians are full of it.  

LABOR + MATERIALS = REVENUE
REVENUE - EXPENSES = CAPITAL

Thanks for pointing out my typo. How delightfully chickenshit. I corrected it as soon as I noticed it. I will most certainly now take the opportunity to point out every mistake you make.

I have never said Economics is a science, I made an analogy to an event in scientific history. Economic thought is going through a great change, a shifting of the tectonic plates--if you will forgive me for another metaphor without accusing me of equating Economics with Geology.

You can educate yourself about this stuff, of course, but I'll try to break it down for you in as simple terms as possible.

The United States is the only source of US Dollars. They can create them at will. They can never run out of them or go bankrupt.

Federal taxes DO NOT fund Federal spending. The US could stop collecting taxes tomorrow and still pay every bill denominated in US Dollars. Forever. Taxes do, however, provide other valuable benefit. For one thing, the create demand for US Dollars.

The United States does not need to issue Treasury Bonds or Bills to fund spending. The US could never issue another one and the Federal government would still be able to pay all its bills. T-Bills and their various cousins do provide a way to inject money into the economy.

For the economy to grow, the money supply must grow with it. Deficit spending is how new money is injected into the economy. Every time in the last hundred years that there has been significant deficit reduction that has always been followed by a recession.

Deficit reduction is a really dumb idea because it starves the private economy of the one resource it needs to grow, Dollars. There are other factors of course but that relationship is ironclad: If the money supply is constrained or shrinks, the economy cannot expand.

Fear of deficits is and always has been a Republican fear tactic. It's the rankest kind of horseshit.

If you want to increase your understanding, start here: https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/

Equating economics to any science is asinine.

Equating economics to any science is asinine.


I would not try to equate it to any particular science, but it uses scientific methods, and certainly a majority of economics is in fact a science. The components of human choice and free will certainly make good arguments that in fact economics cannot be equated with other scientific approaches. How do you weigh the politics of a person defying the science of economics to make a choice which is counter to economic self interest which is theoretically certain only to find out the human element blows the science out of the water.

PkrBum wrote:Equating economics to any science is asinine.

Oh, look. little PkrBoy wants to tell the grown-ups something. Isn't he just the cutest little thing.

If you wait long enough he'll start calling people "wittle snowflakes" and then get all upset when anyone returns the favor. What a sissy boy, he is.

Isn't he the silliest little thing? Poor little PkrBoy, he's so pitiful.

2seaoat wrote:Equating economics to any science is asinine.


I would not try to equate it to any particular science, but it uses scientific methods, and certainly a majority of economics is in fact a science.  The components of human choice and free will certainly make good arguments that in fact  economics cannot be equated with other scientific approaches.  How do you weigh the politics of a person defying the science of economics to make a choice which is counter to economic self interest which is theoretically certain only to find out the human element blows the science out of the water.

Astrology uses scientific methods so I guess you'll be calling that a science next. Of course, you're a big fan of those diploma mills around Chicago so that wouldn't be surprising.

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
This whole thread is ignorant.  Modern monetary theory is not a solution.  I'm a fan of Keynes, but his economic theory was useful only in times of trouble and was not meant for prosperity.  If our currency is to remain viable, there has to be strong economic activity to back it up.  

Modern Monetary Theory is not a solution. It's a description of empirically observable facts, akin to Galileo's theory of planetary motion.

Keynesian economics is irrelevant to the current situation where many nations are Monetarily Sovereignty. For the United States that only happened when Nixon ditched Bretton Woods in '72. Before that Keynes still had some relevance. Now his notions are equivalent to saying "Sorry Mr. Galileo but it's the Sun going around the Earth."

The thread isn't ignorant but some of the posters, who shall remain nameless, certainly are.

It's "monetarily sovereign", or "have monetary sovereignity", not that jumble you just wrote.  And economics is not science, but APPLIED mathematics.  Keynes is still relevant; Adam Smith is still relevant; Karl Marx has some great insights as well.  Friedman, Laffer, Reagan, Greenspan and the Austrians are full of it.  

LABOR + MATERIALS = REVENUE
REVENUE - EXPENSES = CAPITAL

Thanks for pointing out my typo. How delightfully chickenshit. I corrected it as soon as I noticed it. I will most certainly now take the opportunity to point out every mistake you make.

I have never said Economics is a science, I made an analogy to an event in scientific history. Economic thought is going through a great change, a shifting of the tectonic plates--if you will forgive me for another metaphor without accusing me of equating Economics with Geology.

You can educate yourself about this stuff, of course, but I'll try to break it down for you in as simple terms as possible.

The United States is the only source of US Dollars. They can create them at will. They can never run out of them or go bankrupt.

Federal taxes DO NOT fund Federal spending. The US could stop collecting taxes tomorrow and still pay every bill denominated in US Dollars. Forever. Taxes do, however, provide other valuable benefit. For one thing, the create demand for US Dollars.

The United States does not need to issue Treasury Bonds or Bills to fund spending. The US could never issue another one and the Federal government would still be able to pay all its bills. T-Bills and their various cousins do provide a way to inject money into the economy.

For the economy to grow, the money supply must grow with it. Deficit spending is how new money is injected into the economy. Every time in the last hundred years that there has been significant deficit reduction that has always been followed by a recession.

Deficit reduction is a really dumb idea because it starves the private economy of the one resource it needs to grow, Dollars. There are other factors of course but that relationship is ironclad: If the money supply is constrained or shrinks, the economy cannot expand.

Fear of deficits is and always has been a Republican fear tactic. It's the rankest kind of horseshit.

If you want to increase your understanding, start here:  https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/

I started out in banking at the age of 17. By 24, I was proofreading quarterly and annual reports prior to printing and submitting corporate news releases to Reuters and UPI. Please don't try to tell me that a country can run without a strong economic basis.

Floridatexan wrote:
I started out in banking at the age of 17.  By 24, I was proofreading quarterly and annual reports prior to printing and submitting corporate news releases to Reuters and UPI.  Please don't try to tell me that a country can run without a strong economic basis.

You started out in banking? You mean the industry that pushed the economy from the brink into the abyss in 2008, that banking? The industry that gave us synthetic CDOs and NINJA loans, that banking? The industry that employed the fraudulent signing of various mortgage documents--the robo-signing mess--so they could foreclose on home owners, that banking? And you imagine that experience in that industry gives you the least particle of understanding of how an economy works?

Banking is Finance which is a field separate from the study of Economics. You seem to have an extremely closed mind on this subject, as if your experience with corporate reports has told you all you need to know.

What do you mean by a  "strong economic basis"? Is it allowing financial intermediaries like banks and insurance companies to grow so large they become "too big to fail"? Is a "strong economic basis" having a segment of the economy so powerful that they control the very regulators designated to watch over them?

Claiming that experience in the banking industry grants you any understanding of Economics is like saying that being a purse-snatcher entitles you to opine on the entire criminal justice system.

Modern Monetary Theory is actually pretty simple to understand. All you have to do is spend a couple hours reading about it and the correctness of its precepts will be apparent. Until you do that, until you take a little time to read about it, you will remain in the dark about nature of money.

The death of Bretton Woods in '72 changed the nature of money in the modern era. Money was no longer tied to a commodity like gold but was backed solely by the "full faith and credit" of the nation that issued it. The study of Economics is only now beginning to understand how profound that change was. The center of that new understanding is the Economics Department at the University of Missouri-Kansas City with Stephanie Kelton and William Black.

Take the time to google those names as well as "modern monetary theory" and spend some time reading. At some point a light will go on and you'll go "Oh, yeah, I get it now".

Until then you're still going to believe it's sun going around the earth...  metaphorically speaking, of course.

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
I started out in banking at the age of 17.  By 24, I was proofreading quarterly and annual reports prior to printing and submitting corporate news releases to Reuters and UPI.  Please don't try to tell me that a country can run without a strong economic basis.

You started out in banking? You mean the industry that pushed the economy from the brink into the abyss in 2008, that banking? The industry that gave us synthetic CDOs and NINJA loans, that banking? The industry that employed the fraudulent signing of various mortgage documents--the robo-signing mess--so they could foreclose on home owners, that banking? And you imagine that experience in that industry gives you the least particle of understanding of how an economy works?

Banking is Finance which is a field separate from the study of Economics. You seem to have an extremely closed mind on this subject, as if your experience with corporate reports has told you all you need to know.

What do you mean by a  "strong economic basis"? Is it allowing financial intermediaries like banks and insurance companies to grow so large they become "too big to fail"? Is a "strong economic basis" having a segment of the economy so powerful that they control the very regulators designated to watch over them?

Claiming that experience in the banking industry grants you any understanding of Economics is like saying that being a purse-snatcher entitles you to opine on the entire criminal justice system.

Modern Monetary Theory is actually pretty simple to understand. All you have to do is spend a couple hours reading about it and the correctness of its precepts will be apparent. Until you do that, until you take a little time to read about it, you will remain in the dark about nature of money.

The death of Bretton Woods in '72 changed the nature of money in the modern era. Money was no longer tied to a commodity like gold but was backed solely by the "full faith and credit" of the nation that issued it. The study of Economics is only now beginning to understand how profound that change was. The center of that new understanding is the Economics Department at the University of Missouri-Kansas City with Stephanie Kelton and William Black.

Take the time to google those names as well as "modern monetary theory" and spend some time reading. At some point a light will go on and you'll go "Oh, yeah, I get it now".

Until then you're still going to believe it's sun going around the earth...  metaphorically speaking, of course.

Do not condescend to me. I only gave you the tip of the iceberg. I know what MMT is about. Money is only a conveyance. When you say "full faith and credit", it means economic viability. Economics doesn't exist in a vacuum.

is like saying that being a purse-snatcher entitles you to opine on the entire criminal justice system.

So the summoner snatched a few purses. His understanding of economics is simply more sophistry. I could spend twenty minutes and once again skew his ignorance, but then Linda would say that it is mean picking on invalids. Our sock troll has established that he like the summoner uses a little Latin to disguise his utter ignorance. I doubt he ever took graduate level economic courses , but then again he wrote a 35 page essay on Orwell and admitted he does not know chit...like we already had not reached that conclusion. His economic sophistry has put a smile on my face this morning.

Floridatexan wrote:
Do not condescend to me.  I only gave you the tip of the iceberg.  I know what MMT is about.  Money is only a conveyance.  When you say "full faith and credit", it means economic viability.  Economics doesn't exist in a vacuum.  

Economic viability means economic growth. Reducing the deficit inhibits rather than stimulates economic growth. The economy needs money to grow. The only place it can come from is the government. Deficit reduction is just another fear tactic conservatives use to reduce social spending.

Government debt is private sector surplus. It's a direct correlation. Reducing government debt is the same thing as taking money out of the economy. It's economic bloodletting.

2seaoat wrote:is like saying that being a purse-snatcher entitles you to opine on the entire criminal justice system.

So the summoner snatched a few purses.  His understanding of economics is simply more sophistry.  I could spend twenty minutes and once again skew his ignorance, but then Linda would say that it is mean picking on invalids.  Our sock troll has established that he like the summoner uses a little Latin to disguise his utter ignorance.  I doubt he ever took graduate level economic courses , but then again he wrote a 35 page essay on Orwell and admitted he does not know chit...like we already had not reached that conclusion.  His economic sophistry has put a smile on my face this morning.  

Go for it, sparky.

del.capslock wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Equating economics to any science is asinine.

Oh, look. little PkrBoy wants to tell the grown-ups something. Isn't he just the cutest little thing.

If you wait long enough he'll start calling people "wittle snowflakes" and then get all upset when anyone returns the favor. What a sissy boy, he is.

Isn't he the silliest little thing? Poor little PkrBoy, he's so pitiful.

ROFLMAO!

PANHANDLER! Please don't laugh at him. He gets all upset and pouts. He's still a child and deserves our unconditional love.

Just like a puppy when he wets himself.

Lol... i normally skip over your posts... as i had the one above. What are you... like 12?

You can act childish all by yourself... enjoy.

PkrBum wrote:Lol... i normally skip over your posts... as i had the one above. What are you... like 12?

You can act childish all by yourself... enjoy.

Oh, listen, little PkrBoy is having a tantrum! He's just so cute when he gets angry. '

Oh, look, now he's holding his breath and puffing out his cheeks. He's just so cute you want to give him a hug and spank his little bottom at the same time. Too bad his diaper is full.

Poor little PkrBoy, he just can't admit calling people "wittle snowflakes" was a bad thing to do and promise to never, ever do it again.

Little PkrBoy, he's just such a pathetic mess.

trump also sent Coal Flavored Water stock into the stratosphere.