tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post1273282258237175445..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: "Make America Solvent Again"Stuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-41011503442327907912016-04-30T05:21:41.059-07:002016-04-30T05:21:41.059-07:00Sam L,
It does seem that Krugman's economic p...Sam L,<br /><br />It does seem that Krugman's economic philosophies change as his personal politics change. I am still trying to figure out how economics became a science. At best it is an art. Rational buyer and rational seller seem not to work when dealing with human beings. Cabbage Patch doll anyone.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962996070458991675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-67781743179425790962016-04-29T17:14:37.442-07:002016-04-29T17:14:37.442-07:00Paullie "The Beard" Krugman has probably...Paullie "The Beard" Krugman has probably said at some time that government spending is bad (he has been self-contradicting before), but he usually says it's good and he does get big bucks from the NYT, so I'm going with Paullie's being wrong.Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-85639127217939703142016-04-29T06:48:36.667-07:002016-04-29T06:48:36.667-07:00JPL17: [Nongrowth economics] been tried and replac...JPL17: [Nongrowth economics] been tried and replaced, though it may be making a comeback. It's called feudalism.<br /><br />I agree. It is hard to imagine how we keep complexity on less energy. But unless we find a sustainable source of cheap energy outside of fossil fuels, some form of lower-tech feudalism is our future. As is, all economics is just head-faking ourselves with asset and debt bubbles.<br /><br />Nuclear power is the primary general bet for more sustainable electricity at least, while specific locales with hydroelectric and geothermal can also thrive, at least if they can build Trump's walls around them, and keep their populations within their means.<br /><br />Facing inequality has much easier while we could imagine all boats are rising, but harder when your comforts are the difference on someone else's survival. That's where idealistic libertarian arguments break down for me.Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-6824993731474111412016-04-29T05:14:12.265-07:002016-04-29T05:14:12.265-07:00"This nongrowth economics apparently hasn'...<i>"This nongrowth economics apparently hasn't been invented yet."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. It's been tried and replaced, though it may be making a comeback. It's called feudalism.JPL17https://www.blogger.com/profile/10649330420822802850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-83192924162147566492016-04-29T04:55:02.609-07:002016-04-29T04:55:02.609-07:00p.s. Curious who James Grant was, I found a wikibi...p.s. Curious who James Grant was, I found a wikibio:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grant_(finance)<br />-------<br />James Grant (born 26 July, 1946) is an American writer and publisher. Grant served as a Navy Gunner's mate, graduated from Indiana University, and received a master's degree in International relations from Columbia University. He is founder of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, a twice-monthly journal of the financial markets.<br />... [In the 2012 election] Ron Paul named Grant as his likely candidate for Chairman of the Federal Reserve to replace Ben Bernanke whose term expired in 2014.<br />-------<br /><br />So we perhaps can call James Grant a Libertarian along with Ron Paul. Ron Paul long attempted to get an audit for the Federal Reserve.<br /><br />It would certainly have been interesting if Paul was elected and named Grant as Chairmen for the Fed.<br /><br />Perhaps President Trump has Libertarian leanings, and not quite a flat tax, but much lower tax rates. Maybe Trump can get Grant to replace Yellen, and then we can make sure the Fed doesn't create $50 trillion in the next financial crisis, and then we can let the free market "find a bottom" and let all the cash-flushed billionaires buy up the economy on the cheap, as it should be.<br />http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-bold-income-tax-proposal-this-is-a-big-deal/<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-80587895792901635942016-04-29T04:10:21.694-07:002016-04-29T04:10:21.694-07:00Oh, James Grant is a dingbat. It's easy enough...Oh, James Grant is a dingbat. It's easy enough to say we have a long term insolvency problem, but the idea that a flat tax is going to solve it is a joke.<br /><br />We might as well say we have a "growth problem." We're like a child growing up on McDonalds who weighs 400lbs and we've determined we have to pack on another 50lb every year to be able to avoid destroying jobs for McDonalds employees.<br /><br />The truth I think we have to accept is that economic growth is special period, like adolescence, and the rules of economics have to be different in a growth period than that of a mature economy. We've side-stepped that problem by using globalization to keep our growth going. We've allowed our debt and money supply to grow without inflation by the deflationary forces of globalization.<br /><br />And actually that might be the key point in our current predicaments, and why Paul Krugman can self-righteously declare our ability to create unlimited debt at low interest rates without inflation.<br /><br />How is it that the total money supply can keep growing exponentially with low inflation? Globalization is the answer, but its just a delay of our problems rather than a solution.<br />http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-the-black-hole-of-deflation-is-swallowing-the-entire-world-even-after-central-banks-have-pumped-trillions-into-the-economy/5503494<br /><br />Japan is also insolvent, with the highest government debt in the world, 250% of GDP, and who knows how many more years it can continue?<br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/28/japans-abenomics-dead-in-the-water-after-us-currency-warnings/<br /><br />Chris Martenson's Crash course talks about our insolvency, the fact that future liabilities far outstrip projected revenues. He also notes that debt is evaluated in relation to asset wealth, while asset wealth is inflated in value, so when there's a market crash, and asset values plummet, when there's more sellers than buyers, then people with debt can go from positive to negative net worth in a very short period.<br />http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse<br /><br />But in all scenarios its private debt, personal and corporate that's at threat, while public debt can be "bailed out" by money printing. And such times it doesn't even create inflation, but its fighting deflation, because that money has already been integrated into the economy from past debt.<br /><br />So we can be sure at some future crisis central banks are going to create $50 trillion in new money out of nothing, and some lucky people with the right connections will be "bailed out", while others won't be, and this may or may not work.<br /><br />Its a mess, and it all gives little incentive to invest or save anything, like a game of musical chairs, everyone is either afraid of delusional or both.<br /><br />But somehow in 10-50 years globalization will be history, and growth economics will be history by natural limits, and we'll have some other economic system that doesn't require a continual growth of new debt to avoid collapse. This nongrowth economics appparently hasn't been invented yet.Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-14838796933786241882016-04-28T13:43:39.445-07:002016-04-28T13:43:39.445-07:00"In this Sunday’s New York Times, President O..."In this Sunday’s New York Times, President Obama will proclaim that the economic recovery he engineered is the greatest the world has ever seen—or something close to it."<br /><br />President Obama says a lot of things. He's still campaigning after 7 years, after 7 years of abysmal economic performance. Is he entirely responsible for it? No, he is not. But is his predecessor entirely responsible for it? No way. Obama pursued the big prize, and won it twice. He owns it, but he claims no responsibility for anything, save good news... which is scant.<br /><br />The Left lives in an economic fantasyland akin to Santa Claus. They believe they can create something from nothing. The government is a full-fledged economic competitor with the private sector. If you account for the national debt and overall government liabilities for public employee pensions, Social Security, Sallie Mae, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., the roots of government's economic activity go deep, and they are a net drag on any economic performance in the future. Yet we continue to spend, people continue to blame the spending on past presidents, ignoring the fact that Obama has ballooned these figures/factors into the stratosphere, while collecting record tax receipts. Even with this "stash," we continue to borrow and borrow and borrow more money. Those that fund the borrowing expect to be paid back. We require enormous influxes of revenues from bond/T-bill sales, and if that spigot suddenly turns off... lights out.<br /><br />The Fed prints more money to protect Obama and the Democrats. Consider that there's more than just financial issues...<br /><br />Justice won't indict Hillary for obvious crimes to protect her and the Democrats.<br />Mortgage loan standards are drifting into dangerous territory, benefitting the Democrats.<br />We have endlessly delayed the full implementation of ObamaCare for many years to benefit Democrat political careers.<br />Student loan debt balloons as the price of tuition rapidly outpaces inflation to fund Leftist seminaries, producing more Democrats.<br />Hoards of immigrants have come into our country unchallenged, creating pressure for amnesty, yielding more Democrat voters.<br />We vote to send women into combat and be eligible for the draft to stupidly pander to a key Democrat constituency.<br />We have invented a new right to homosexual "marriage" to appease a key Democrat constituency (and 10% of the DC population).<br />We will have transgender bathrooms and onerous accommodations to comfort and legitimize a sliver of a Democrat micro-constituency.<br />We will not utter the words "Islamist terrorism" to make a Democrat constituency feel better.<br />We blame the police for violence in urban America to disguise the reality of thugs running whole neighborhoods.<br />We expand direct grants to major urban centers in the form of HUD graft to help a key Democrat constituency.<br />We ignore the failure of our public schools to insulate a key Democrat constituency from accountability.<br /><br />Best of all, we spend the vast majority of the federal budget on transfer payments that yield no assets... few improvements in infrastructure that will go on long past the time the debt it incurred. We're effectively borrowing enormous sums to pay salaries to people because they are entitled to it as citizens -- and more and more for non-citizens.<br /><br />The list could go on... those are some of the highlights. None of this is accidental. Who does this country exist for? One party?<br /><br />Floating currency values benefit one economic actor: government. Grant is sounding the alarm, but everyone is around the punch bowl, blotto drunk and having a great time... enjoying Paul Krugman's signature cocktail.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-87055066785814791552016-04-28T13:27:16.177-07:002016-04-28T13:27:16.177-07:00The public's and media's indifference to t...The public's and media's indifference to the 20 trillion dollar federal debt stems partly from their innumeracy. Because if they were numerate, they'd react to the 20 trillion number with horror and rage, if not pitchforks and torches.<br /><br />Perhaps they'd be convinced if someone actually stacked 20 trillion pages of everyday photocopy paper. Stacking the papers vertically, the stack would be about 126,262 miles high -- i.e., halfway to the moon. And stacking them horizontally, they'd stretch from New York City to Los Angeles -- 42 times.<br /><br />Maybe that's why they don't teach math rigorously in public schools any more.JPL17noreply@blogger.com