An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
1. Obama loses 2. Republicans return to "deficits don't matter" mode 3. Massive fiscal loosening (tax cuts AND spending) 4. increased aggregate demand leads to more hiring. :o) The only mystery is why Democrats haven't figured out the only time anyone really cares about deficit reduction is when they want to handcuff their policy agenda.
J Galbraith himself is going around talking up deficit reduction every chance he gets... there is one of the leading Democrat economists with a "deficits matter" message even right now, who is Obama supposed to listen to?
Did Galbraith run over your dog? There are few economists who understand MMT better and and even fewer (if any) who understand politics better than he does.
If he's talking about deficit reduction, its to garner the support for a political issue (say, The American Conservative publisher Ron Unz's higher minimum wage proposal) from people who might otherwise disagree with him by pointing out that the policy is in congruence with a political belief they already hold (e.g. 'this policy will advance your goal of deficit reduction'). In politics, you don't win votes by convincing people to change their minds, but rather by convincing them that YOU agree with something they've believed all along.
And its a nice touch that "one of the leading Democrat economists" gave credit for the idea to the publisher of the magazine Pat Buchanan founded. Come on Matt, what more do you want from that guy? That last dog whistle was for you!
Beo, The time honored technique of getting someone to do something by making it seem like it was their idea. And not being afraid to give them credit. Obama and his advisors do not understand this. The Gipper did. We'll see how it shakes out.
To get someone with highest clout to come forward and directly challenge the macro economic orthodoxy I believe would help advance the debate to the true academic level that Tom has been looking for.
Tom has asked: When will MMT get respect and acknowledgement and engagement via the established methods of the academy? Krugman wants to debate Cullen, Wray's and Mitchell's true academic challenges to Krugman have gone unanswered. He's a phony. Sumner, DeLong and the others are like ostriches with heads in the ground.
Someone in academia with high clout has to do this. And I dont see what he has to lose as I dont think Galbraith ever worked in macro/monetary systems so it's not like he will end up with egg on his academic face. He could just challenge his associates (like Krugman who he calls "Paul") and tell them he believes they have it all wrong every chance he gets, and point them to the MMT academic body for further information... now that would have to start a truly edifying academic debate.
Maybe they dont want Obama to win this time? I guess we dont know what is really going on inside high level Democrat political circles.
Look, I am a GOPer and am going for Romney, but if I was an in paradigm Dem and saw JG going around advocating deficit reduction as much as he does, I'd have to be pissed and wonder what was really going on.
Dont rock the boat now, bet on the GOPer to self-destruct and Obama wins by default, then Obama is a lame-duck with nothing to lose and THEN try to push the MMT politically?
Something tells me that if Rick Santorum makes the ticket--perhaps to burnish Romney's conservative credentials--that Republicans will find themselves having a John Kerry moment; as in, "what the f6 did we just do?" Personally, I could vote for Romney, but Romney/Santorum? Never.
If you work in a variety of industries, Obama policies are pretty hostile and irrational. I could understand why people employed in finance, oil, manufacturing, agriculture, coal, electric, transportation, nuclear, construction and a half a dozen other industries would expect better results under another less ideologically driven administration.
Santorum iced any chance for VP with his recent "black people" comment . Romney needs someone p!oular with social conservatives, but who won't freak out the rest of the country....in other words, Mike Huckabee.
I'm sorry, but as good copy as that may make, it is a dangerous thing to tell elephants a lie. Those people will remember and demand satisfaction on the deficit front. I would not play with that fire. It also personally makes no sense to me, as Obama's strategy has been and remains getting out the popular vote. Democrats don't want to turn anybody away, but they don't need to pander dishonestly on that issue.
Matt Franko: How seriously am I supposed to take your claim that the Democrats don't want to win? Well, I suppose four more years of another Hoover might help, but by the time we were through people might be wistful for the days of Hoover and his misplaced volunteer ideals. In any case, he spent his later years in part futilely rallying against the evils of the New Deal. Unfortunately, that's the kind of direction the GOP candidates seem to have in mind at the present. This definitely ain't Reagan's party no mo'.
TomatoBasil: Did you miss all the ire Obama has been getting from leftists over broken campaign promises on regulations? He agreed to roll back proposed EPA rules on ozone recently.
I was pleased that this Administration has enacted limits on mercury (for 2014). This will have a public health benefit, not least for small children who are particularly vulnerable. Yet the "pro-business" candidate Senator Santorum thinks that the balance here should be found in favor of business - apparently ignorant, or even dismissive, of the fact that the benefits for private investors will be vastly outweighed by the ongoing health impacts of mercury, including to intelligence.
I will readily agree with you (as, on paper, does the President) that regulations should be useful and not so many stacks of paper. But I have to say that industries should be accountable for any "exernalities" they impose on the rest of the public.
mitt "corporations are people to my friend" i wonder how corporations feel about losing their social security and medicare? oh yeah, they are all for it. didnt mike norman have an article on here recently about how well bussiness is doing under the "dreaded obama socialist commy anti-christ administration"? corporations are parasites my friend, not people
16 comments:
1. Obama loses
2. Republicans return to "deficits don't matter" mode
3. Massive fiscal loosening (tax cuts AND spending)
4. increased aggregate demand leads to more hiring.
:o)
The only mystery is why Democrats haven't figured out the only time anyone really cares about deficit reduction is when they want to handcuff their policy agenda.
J Galbraith himself is going around talking up deficit reduction every chance he gets... there is one of the leading Democrat economists with a "deficits matter" message even right now, who is Obama supposed to listen to?
How can Americans be optimistic of Obama's defeat given the candidates the Republican party is considering?
Romney is their only hope.
Did Galbraith run over your dog?
There are few economists who understand MMT better and and even fewer (if any) who understand politics better than he does.
If he's talking about deficit reduction, its to garner the support for a political issue (say, The American Conservative publisher Ron Unz's higher minimum wage proposal) from people who might otherwise disagree with him by pointing out that the policy is in congruence with a political belief they already hold (e.g. 'this policy will advance your goal of deficit reduction'). In politics, you don't win votes by convincing people to change their minds, but rather by convincing them that YOU agree with something they've believed all along.
And its a nice touch that "one of the leading Democrat economists" gave credit for the idea to the publisher of the magazine Pat Buchanan founded.
Come on Matt, what more do you want from that guy? That last dog whistle was for you!
Beo,
The time honored technique of getting someone to do something by making it seem like it was their idea. And not being afraid to give them credit.
Obama and his advisors do not understand this. The Gipper did. We'll see how it shakes out.
i would never vote for any of these republicans, the country would crash and burn first for all i care
Beo,
To get someone with highest clout to come forward and directly challenge the macro economic orthodoxy I believe would help advance the debate to the true academic level that Tom has been looking for.
Tom has asked: When will MMT get respect and acknowledgement and engagement via the established methods of the academy? Krugman wants to debate Cullen, Wray's and Mitchell's true academic challenges to Krugman have gone unanswered. He's a phony. Sumner, DeLong and the others are like ostriches with heads in the ground.
Someone in academia with high clout has to do this. And I dont see what he has to lose as I dont think Galbraith ever worked in macro/monetary systems so it's not like he will end up with egg on his academic face. He could just challenge his associates (like Krugman who he calls "Paul") and tell them he believes they have it all wrong every chance he gets, and point them to the MMT academic body for further information... now that would have to start a truly edifying academic debate.
Maybe they dont want Obama to win this time? I guess we dont know what is really going on inside high level Democrat political circles.
Look, I am a GOPer and am going for Romney, but if I was an in paradigm Dem and saw JG going around advocating deficit reduction as much as he does, I'd have to be pissed and wonder what was really going on.
I try to "call 'em as I see 'em".
GO MITT!
Resp,
its a sham, they are all liars cheats and thieves, remove all big money from politics, they really should be ashamed of themselves
Beo,
maybe he's looking at it this way:
Dont rock the boat now, bet on the GOPer to self-destruct and Obama wins by default, then Obama is a lame-duck with nothing to lose and THEN try to push the MMT politically?
Really? That is the kind of thing that makes you lose votes, not win them!
Something tells me that if Rick Santorum makes the ticket--perhaps to burnish Romney's conservative credentials--that Republicans will find themselves having a John Kerry moment; as in, "what the f6 did we just do?" Personally, I could vote for Romney, but Romney/Santorum? Never.
If you work in a variety of industries, Obama policies are pretty hostile and irrational. I could understand why people employed in finance, oil, manufacturing, agriculture, coal, electric, transportation, nuclear, construction and a half a dozen other industries would expect better results under another less ideologically driven administration.
Santorum iced any chance for VP with his recent "black people" comment . Romney needs someone p!oular with social conservatives, but who won't freak out the rest of the country....in other words, Mike Huckabee.
@beowulf:
I'm sorry, but as good copy as that may make, it is a dangerous thing to tell elephants a lie. Those people will remember and demand satisfaction on the deficit front. I would not play with that fire. It also personally makes no sense to me, as Obama's strategy has been and remains getting out the popular vote. Democrats don't want to turn anybody away, but they don't need to pander dishonestly on that issue.
Matt Franko:
How seriously am I supposed to take your claim that the Democrats don't want to win? Well, I suppose four more years of another Hoover might help, but by the time we were through people might be wistful for the days of Hoover and his misplaced volunteer ideals. In any case, he spent his later years in part futilely rallying against the evils of the New Deal. Unfortunately, that's the kind of direction the GOP candidates seem to have in mind at the present. This definitely ain't Reagan's party no mo'.
TomatoBasil:
Did you miss all the ire Obama has been getting from leftists over broken campaign promises on regulations? He agreed to roll back proposed EPA rules on ozone recently.
I was pleased that this Administration has enacted limits on mercury (for 2014). This will have a public health benefit, not least for small children who are particularly vulnerable. Yet the "pro-business" candidate Senator Santorum thinks that the balance here should be found in favor of business - apparently ignorant, or even dismissive, of the fact that the benefits for private investors will be vastly outweighed by the ongoing health impacts of mercury, including to intelligence.
I will readily agree with you (as, on paper, does the President) that regulations should be useful and not so many stacks of paper. But I have to say that industries should be accountable for any "exernalities" they impose on the rest of the public.
mitt "corporations are people to my friend" i wonder how corporations feel about losing their social security and medicare? oh yeah, they are all for it. didnt mike norman have an article on here recently about how well bussiness is doing under the "dreaded obama socialist commy anti-christ administration"? corporations are parasites my friend, not people
Post a Comment