Yes, let's keep the rates at zero permanently so local tax revenues can go to make up the shortfall for retirees and less is available for social services and policing.
Chicago Murders Up 72 Percent In First Three Months Of Year https://t.co/mOVBI0f2OZ
— KDKA (@CBSPittsburgh) April 1, 2016
17 comments:
As long as we are just making thinks up matt, Trump is responsible for the increase in murders in Chicago. See, I can do it too, murders go up and I attribute it to whatever something is that I dont like.
Murders are up, thanks inequality
There's plenty of other ways to fund the retirees Matt if ZIRP was introduced.
It's just a reserve add after all.
"thanks inequality "
Auburn "inequality" is a result of a subtraction.... like "the deficit!"... it only exists ex post...
So hence a subtraction CANNOT be causal...
The rate we set to pay savers is NOT an ex post result, hence it CAN be causal...
Matt-
The deficit is the difference between two flows, negative (taxes) and positive (spending) You and mike completely ignore the negative flow with all your excitable comments about spending flow uber alles.
Nothing else you said in this comment has any relevance whatsoevver to anything. Your causal ex post thing doesnt say anything meaningful about economics.
Inequality is just as likely to be the cause the murder increase as ZIRP.
You are having some trouble with the time domain in your analysis...
"You and mike completely ignore the negative flow"
If you eat and shit in the same day do you think you are starving? c'mon....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_domain
MMT: "taxes function to decrease demand..."
OK perhaps assume that.... but then only if they exceed govt spending ex post?
Whhaaaaaaaatttttt?????
Do they decrease demand or not?
You cant say "taxes act to decrease demand!" and then say "but only if they exceed spending ex post!"
Govt spends FIRST and THEN collects the taxes... (time domain coming in here....)
People eat FIRST and THEN take a shit.... we eat to provision our bodies FIRST and THEN have to take a shit as a result of the eating...we dont take a shit just to make room for more food... c'mon....
That is a truly stupid analogy.
Why are you so confused about something so simple?
I honestly dont know how to repsond to anything you've written. Like I literally cant understand what it is you think you are saying. I dont know why you think your comment is insightful, I dont know how or why you think its relevant.
Taxes decrease demand
"only if they exceed spending ex post" has nothing to do with it
Steady guys we are all on the same side here.
Don't let them use the old divide and conquer on us guys.
We need a united front !
""only if they exceed spending ex post" has nothing to do with it"
THEY ARE the ones saying "deficit spending" NOT me ?!?!?!?!
"united front" ... well a "united front" getting NOWHERE...
Murders are up because the cops have been literally handcuffed from doing their job. Cops are going fetal, because no matter how they police the nutter BLM movement goes apeshit crazy along with the ACLU's contact card bullshit. Thus gangbangers are running rampant on south and west sides of town. What's sad about all this is that 95% of those living in the ghetto like the coppers--want them to police.
Also, once Rham threw coppers under the bus crime soared. Easily worst mayor in my 40 plus years here.
"all your excitable comments about spending flow uber alles"
Seriously, Auburn?
I can say the same about you and your Mosler worship/cheerleading. The guy is a) wrong, b) has been wrong for a long time, c) is stubborn as hell d) has been a very ineffective "leader" e) prone to preaching.
"makes euro harder to get?" That personally DESTROYED ME, listening to that stupid shit. And what's more bizarre is, it's a statement from a guy who SAYS, "it's all about price, not quantity."
It's not about the deficit. It's about the flows. The deficit is whatever it is. As Matt states, the deficit is "ex-post." Nobody even knows what the deficit is going to be until after all the spending takes place.
And guess what that spending is called? It's called THE ECONOMY!!
Believe what you want to believe Auburn. I'll just keep making money with my excitable comments.
First of all mike i don't make market predictions like you so i haven't been all wrong. I don't worship warren so that's misleading. I don't invest off of warren's advice either so im not sure what your comments is supposed to mean.
Taxes are a flow
Spending is a flow
The deficit is the difference between the two
You and Matt continue to focus on only the spending flow. Which is just half the equation so to speak.
I honestly don't know what you guys are talking about
I have the impression that the comments about (in effect) the primacy of federal spending are more about a short-to-medium-term trading strategy, rather than a long-term concern over full resource utilization (ie, full employment). That is, there is no disagreement with Godley oover the long-term.
Mike & Matt, If you are no longer in agreement with Godley over the long-term, I'd be interested in knowing why.
The way I think of it is that most all the government spending ends up getting spent by the recipients - directly boosting the economy. Changes in tax receipts are importantly a function of how the strong the economy is, how strong the markets have been (capital gains, etc). So, in part an effect not a cause and after the fact - as noted. And, to the extent that higher tax receipts are coming from "the rich", there is not close to a 1-1 reduction in private spending. So, overall, tracking changes in spending makes more sense to me at this juncture in the cycle.
Thanks.
Post a Comment