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.
You got Miller to literally admit that he doesnt understand what is going on...
I think his exact words were:
"I find this altogether confusing and a lot of gobbledegook (metaphor)" ... (here we go with the metaphor again...) and then he changes to subject to tax rates or something...
You were stating the mathematical relationships to them and they simply didnt/dont get it... it then has to become "fight or flight" for them and they have no option but "flight" to metaphorical references or some sort of appeal to authority...
At one point when your statements revealed that the host was confused, the host went "appeal to authority" via his hasty overture to cut over to Miller for potential "help", then Miller hits him with the metaphor "gobbledegook" and the host subjects himself to Miller's authority and believes Miller's words here...
.. once you have them exposed as stupid, they immediately try to cut away from you rather than engage to try to understand you and learn something ...
Interesting.... We're going to have to break this down like NFL coaches watching game film on opponents...
"We're going to have to break this down like NFL coaches watching game film on opponents…"
Matt, good analogy. The hard part is keeping people's attention. If they aren't curious to begin with they will bail from the discussion as fast as possible. Next comes the restraining order…
the guys wouldn't let you talk! somebody needs to ask these guys what is the difference between cutting taxes by $X for everybody and giving everybody a check for $X. When they admit as any person with a brain would that there is no difference, to explain that the former is called a "tax cut" and the latter a "spending increase". You tried to do that, but the idiot host wasn't listening and wasn't letting you talk...
I don't like it when you're too aggressive, but if it's a right-wing show that's fine.
Please do more shows. I'd love to see you on Current TV or MSNBC.
Poor Reagan budget chairman. Thankfully he's too old and senile to matter. He still believes in trickle-down bullshit, but in a marvelous moment at the end claims increasing taxes on the rich is "ideological".
So, after you were in a heated interview were you continually mocked, dismissed and talked over both Lauren and the other guy as well as his arguments, instead of moderating your tone, your doubling down on being a condescending jerk? Good luck with that.
Alan, exactly what is Obama's proposed tax increase other than ideological?
Big difference. Trickle down, euphemistically called supply side economics, was at the time and is now supposed to be economic science rather than political ideology, which the Reagan people knew at the time was just BS, as David Stockman later admitted.
usually watch mikes interviews more than once, couldn't this time. Host's ramblings was physically painful. Whats the point of having guests if you're just gonna run your mouth.
Tom, I'm sure you would be fine with supply-side economics if it was to decrease the cost of labour (through a payroll tax holiday of course), but on the tax increase ideology, you have hacks like Robert Reich making a nonsensical connection between the Clinton tax rates and the boom economy. He's try to make that an economic science/
Reich perhaps, but I think that the president is emphasizing fairness rather than economics, excepting, of course, the whole context of deficit reduction, which is economically fallacious.
There is no doubt that many liberals and progressives are wedded to the Clinton surpluses as economic drivers and try to defend them in terms of supposedly non-ideological economics.
"I'm sure you would be fine with supply-side economics if it was to decrease the cost of labour "
Supply-side economics requires a suspension in the belief in arithmetic - it's impossible for business investment to be a driver of growth if companies earn a profit in the aggregate. If they didn't earn a profit, they wouldn't bother to invest. Kind of like the current environment.
"hacks like Robert Reich making a nonsensical connection between the Clinton tax rates and the boom economy"
Why does that claim make Reich a hack? Clinton raised tax revenues between 1992 and 2000 by 70%, while increasing overall spending by 35%.
The increased spending created a kind of boom although the resulting surpluses drained savings and eventually led to a recession.
Exactly what we would expect from MMT analysis.
Taxing the rich and super-rich does not hurt growth, and in fact helps it if we increase spending by an equivalent amount, up to a point, which we are nowhere near.
I don't care at all that Lauren Lyster's followers criticized or mocked me.
This is how I am going to proceed. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They don't respect you for that either. Warren Mosler, the nicest, most respectful guy in the world, is mocked all over the place.
I'm wielding these ideas with a bullhorn and a stick. No one will shut me up. I am not afraid of criticism or a good fight. Bring it on.
Mike, no need to be nice but you are not winning these debates. By talking over somebody, even if you are right, you lose: the content is lost and what remains is bad impression only. Start slow and talk calmly: a deficit is not out of anyone's pocket, it is a *permanent* increase in the money stock that the govt issues out of thin air and diesn't tax back. People don't get that, shouting it out over someone else talking is useless.
17 comments:
Mike,
You got Miller to literally admit that he doesnt understand what is going on...
I think his exact words were:
"I find this altogether confusing and a lot of gobbledegook (metaphor)" ... (here we go with the metaphor again...) and then he changes to subject to tax rates or something...
You were stating the mathematical relationships to them and they simply didnt/dont get it... it then has to become "fight or flight" for them and they have no option but "flight" to metaphorical references or some sort of appeal to authority...
At one point when your statements revealed that the host was confused, the host went "appeal to authority" via his hasty overture to cut over to Miller for potential "help", then Miller hits him with the metaphor "gobbledegook" and the host subjects himself to Miller's authority and believes Miller's words here...
.. once you have them exposed as stupid, they immediately try to cut away from you rather than engage to try to understand you and learn something ...
Interesting.... We're going to have to break this down like NFL coaches watching game film on opponents...
rsp,
"We're going to have to break this down like NFL coaches watching game film on opponents…"
Matt, good analogy. The hard part is keeping people's attention. If they aren't curious to begin with they will bail from the discussion as fast as possible. Next comes the restraining order…
Paul,
This whole thing is like a "Free Safety over the top"... or "2 on 1" NBA fastbreak... if you pardon the metaphor ;)
The numerical matchup is stacked against Mike...
rsp,
the guys wouldn't let you talk!
somebody needs to ask these guys what is the difference between cutting taxes by $X for everybody and giving everybody a check for $X. When they admit as any person with a brain would that there is no difference, to explain that the former is called a "tax cut" and the latter a "spending increase". You tried to do that, but the idiot host wasn't listening and wasn't letting you talk...
I don't like it when you're too aggressive, but if it's a right-wing show that's fine.
Please do more shows. I'd love to see you on Current TV or MSNBC.
Poor Reagan budget chairman. Thankfully he's too old and senile to matter. He still believes in trickle-down bullshit, but in a marvelous moment at the end claims increasing taxes on the rich is "ideological".
So, after you were in a heated interview were you continually mocked, dismissed and talked over both Lauren and the other guy as well as his arguments, instead of moderating your tone, your doubling down on being a condescending jerk? Good luck with that.
Alan, exactly what is Obama's proposed tax increase other than ideological?
Big difference. Trickle down, euphemistically called supply side economics, was at the time and is now supposed to be economic science rather than political ideology, which the Reagan people knew at the time was just BS, as David Stockman later admitted.
usually watch mikes interviews more than once, couldn't this time. Host's ramblings was physically painful. Whats the point of having guests if you're just gonna run your mouth.
Tom, I'm sure you would be fine with supply-side economics if it was to decrease the cost of labour (through a payroll tax holiday of course), but on the tax increase ideology, you have hacks like Robert Reich making a nonsensical connection between the Clinton tax rates and the boom economy. He's try to make that an economic science/
Reich perhaps, but I think that the president is emphasizing fairness rather than economics, excepting, of course, the whole context of deficit reduction, which is economically fallacious.
There is no doubt that many liberals and progressives are wedded to the Clinton surpluses as economic drivers and try to defend them in terms of supposedly non-ideological economics.
Mike, what did the host say to you after the show?
"I'm sure you would be fine with supply-side economics if it was to decrease the cost of labour "
Supply-side economics requires a suspension in the belief in arithmetic - it's impossible for business investment to be a driver of growth if companies earn a profit in the aggregate. If they didn't earn a profit, they wouldn't bother to invest. Kind of like the current environment.
"hacks like Robert Reich making a nonsensical connection between the Clinton tax rates and the boom economy"
Why does that claim make Reich a hack? Clinton raised tax revenues between 1992 and 2000 by 70%, while increasing overall spending by 35%.
The increased spending created a kind of boom although the resulting surpluses drained savings and eventually led to a recession.
Exactly what we would expect from MMT analysis.
Taxing the rich and super-rich does not hurt growth, and in fact helps it if we increase spending by an equivalent amount, up to a point, which we are nowhere near.
Y:
The host shook my hand, said "thank you" and that was it. But there was revulsion in his eyes.
Veritas:
I don't care at all that Lauren Lyster's followers criticized or mocked me.
This is how I am going to proceed. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They don't respect you for that either. Warren Mosler, the nicest, most respectful guy in the world, is mocked all over the place.
I'm wielding these ideas with a bullhorn and a stick. No one will shut me up. I am not afraid of criticism or a good fight. Bring it on.
The Blaze's host: "Mr Miller can you help me out???" ... revealing!!
Implied: "Can you throw me a bullshit metaphor so I can remain a moron???"
rsp,
Mike, no need to be nice but you are not winning these debates. By talking over somebody, even if you are right, you lose: the content is lost and what remains is bad impression only. Start slow and talk calmly: a deficit is not out of anyone's pocket, it is a *permanent* increase in the money stock that the govt issues out of thin air and diesn't tax back. People don't get that, shouting it out over someone else talking is useless.
alternative version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcXwcpnfx-4
other clips with the host, willow, who blazes a hole in his pants each time he is on the air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quBRD8c38So
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urg6cps5PuM
bonus track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FKCu5qtwcU
Post a Comment