Bernie Sanders: An Agenda for 2019

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:All the while grandparents wonder why empty boxes of rat poison keep turning up and grand kids smile knowingly. Don't ask for whom the rat poison pours, it pours for thee.

HUH???

Don't worry you are not a 45  supporter. The torture and agony soon to sweep over the country will quietly pass over you.

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:You can stuff it, lunatic dim bulb.  The only thing tha's going to fix our economy is a more equal distribution of income and assets.  Please buy a damn clue.  

I repeat,  go to:    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
and spend and hour or two familiarizing yourself with the basic tenets of the theory--it might take you a little longer since you don't strike me as a particularly fast reader--then explain where this simple macroeconomic theory is wrong.

Just because you spent thirty years as a bank teller or a bookkeeper doesn't mean you know fuck-all about macroeconomics.

There's NOTHING in MMT that suggests or even hints that it's a "fix" for a broken economy. It merely uses sectoral analysis to describe money flows in a monetarily sovereign national government.

Your idiotic suggestion that MMT is some kind of proposed action plan is like saying a blueprint for a house is an instruction manual for a residential construction project. DUH!

You use a lot of posts to tell everyone else what they should read--what with you being so much smarter than the rest of us and all--so maybe it's time for you to do a little reading yourself. Your simplistic notion that there's "only" one needful thing to fix our economy is particularly worrisome. A "more equal distribution of income and assets" is a goal not a plan. DUH!

If the site I suggested is too perplexing or confounding for you, I'm sure you can find a Little Golden Book that'll break it down for you with small words and neat little pictures and suchlike.

Floridatexan wrote:You really are incapable of discussing anything without being insulting.  I have read extensively on this subject and we have been over this before.  I also have a business degree and years of real world experience.  You have a theory  and an obvious gender bias that prohibits any rational exchange of ideas.  Pathetic.

PkrBum wrote:

bigdog wrote:I'm just amazed that every time we have a period of economic prosperity, like under Clinton and pretty much under Obama's last few years, a Republican president comes along later and screws it all up.
Then the Republicans always blame it on Whatever democrat came before them, no matter what the reality was. Whatever Bill Clinton did during his presidency could have been corrected under George W Bush's 8 years, couldn't it have, Deus? Instead he hid money for his wars outside the budget and ripped up the surplus Clinton left him.
The truth is, the economy does not do better under Republican presidents.  That's a historical fact.

We owe our nation to the Chinese right now. If you think deficits don't matter, try and explain that to your banker when you've bought something and can't afford to pay for it.  Then you borrow the money from a loan shark "the Chinese" and see how much damage they can do to your face  when you can't repay it.  Government deficits aren't private savings, they are public debts.
I didn't bother reading your article either because if it starts out with an inane argument like that one, it's not worth my time or anyone elses.

Two thoughts can live in one brain Deus: Deficit spending is bad and extreme income inequality is also bad. Both are dangerous. One can lead to selling your country out to another nation and the other can lead to a revolution from within. 
I don't want Bernie Sanders to run either, btw. HIllary would be POTUS if he hadn't run last time and she'd be a damn good one.

Guess how much money and then interest we'd owe if not for the private federal reserve creation under Wilson?

And under Obama there was 40B "digitalized" and injected into the system a month... for years. There's certainly going to be an accounting for that... the market is overvalued. I'd guess the Dow's real value closer to 20k or under... maybe 18 or 19. A much better solution (from a progressive point of view... which is the only Keynesian game in town) would've been to run the "free air dollars" against the underwater mortgages. The banks get the money but lose the inflated values that were artificially set by lax lending policies. Instead the little guy still got stuck and the banks were made whole. Further... we still don't know what real value is. We'd have been much better off knowing real value rather than some bs encouraging manipulated "numbers" that gave a pretence of normalcy or even a recovery. The entire monetary policy was botched for political expediency. There's still a price to be paid.

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:You really are incapable of discussing anything without being insulting.  I have read extensively on this subject and we have been over this before.  I also have a business degree and years of real world experience.  You have a theory  and an obvious gender bias that prohibits any rational exchange of ideas.  Pathetic.

You call me a "lunatic dim bulb" then accuse ME of gender bias, that's rich!

I repeat: EXPLAIN THE FLAW IN THE THEORY!  If you can explain any flaw in the theory, I will apologize, put on a dress and come over to your house, mow your lawn and kiss your ass at high noon!

Just saying "We're sorry Mr. Copernicus, no matter what you say it's STILL the Sun going around the Earth" doesn't make me wrong.  Your having a business degree is completely irrelevant, this is not Business, it's Macroeconomics, a different subject entirely. The heavyweights in the Modern Monetary Theory field--L. Randall Wray, William Mitchell, James K. Galbraith (son of the famous John Kenneth Galbraith), Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler--all have PhDs in Economics which kinda trumps a Business Degree from Podunk College and Storm Door Company!s

EXPLAIN THE FLAW IN THE THEORY!

Floridatexan wrote:

Deus X wrote:EXPLAIN THE FLAW IN THE THEORY!

I've already explained the flaws.  Sorry you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.  And don't come over to my house.  Ever.  I guess it's safe to assume that you have no higher education in business, or you would know that economics is a huge part of that curriculum, both macro and micro.

2seaoat wrote:bernies time has passed, there are plenty of young progressives without the baggage and unlimited enthusiasm.......Bernie is an old man.

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Deus X wrote:EXPLAIN THE FLAW IN THE THEORY!

I've already explained the flaws.  Sorry you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.  And don't come over to my house.  Ever.  I guess it's safe to assume that you have no higher education in business, or you would know that economics is a huge part of that curriculum, both macro and micro.

Calling the theory "pie-in-the-shy" is not the same as examining the theory and pointing out the errors.

You seem to be suffering from some cognitive difficulties, FT.

Here, maybe this will help:

https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/do-it-yourself-alzheimers-test-reveals-early-disease/

By the way, a few threads back, you claimed to have a degree in Marketing, so which is it, Business or Marketing.

What kind of degree is it, Associates or Bachelors?

Which cheesy Community College awarded this "degree"?

You're an ignorant fraud, FT.

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:All the while grandparents wonder why empty boxes of rat poison keep turning up and grand kids smile knowingly. Don't ask for whom the rat poison pours, it pours for thee.

HUH???

Don't worry you are not a 45  supporter. The torture and agony soon to sweep over the country will quietly pass over you.

Hokay...so I'll presume you've been speaking figuratively.

Besides, I don't have any grand kids.    

Floridatexan wrote: You are dumb as a brick.

PkrBum wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/06/13/12-trillion-of-qe-and-the-lowest-rates-in-5000-years-for-this.html

The numbers are daunting if not shocking: $12.3 trillion of money printing, nearly $10 trillion in negative-yielding global bonds, 654 interest rate cuts since Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.