Thursday, May 5, 2016

Trump: "I Love Debt"


Quick hit from Trump on the subject of 'debt'.  Does not evidence a knowledge of the differences between govt and non-govt forms of 'debt' and the relationship with non-govt savings.

Makes the "govt as firm" analogy.

Seems to be suggesting that seeking a particular outcome for "the deficit!" would be a preferred policy.  Not encouraging in this regard AT ALL.





45 comments:

Bob said...

I'm not sure if he's advocating a 'hair cut' to the creditors or forcing Puerto Rico to re-enact the Greek Tragedy.

Matt Franko said...

Bob right what is he considering writing down the US 'debt' or something????

Uh oh....

MRW said...

You just noticed?

Bob said...

Pom-poms were in the way?

Matt Franko said...

Stay tuned....

Malmo's Ghost said...

Trump is out of paradigm and always has been.

At the same time he's not going to let the sick poor die in the streets absent government assistance, nor will he gut social security. He's going to have to run a deficit to accomplish that end.

He needs a serious sit down with Ichan to help set him straight..

Malmo's Ghost said...

I'll tell you one thing for certain. If trump claims deficits don't matter then he'll lose all 50 states to Clinton. Unfortunately the political thing to do is say one thing and do another. In other words talk about how deficits are bad and then when president pull a Cheney.

Dave said...

There are people on this blog who know WAY more about this than me. Admittedly I am an amateur, but I think one of the main tenets of MMT theory is that deficits really don't matter, and that government spending often stimulates rather than contracts the economy, if the government has a monopoly on the currency. So I would assume this means Trump is a classical economist?

Another question, refusing to bail out Puerto Rico would likely cause a mass exodus of people and capital from the country. I assume they are American citizens by default. Would that constitute a refugee crisis here in the mainland?



Schofield said...

Trump is a dinosaur he's going to pay off the national Debt in eight years. Most Americans like most Brits seem to love dinosaurs largely because they are clueless about money systems too and how such monetary ignorance can wreak immense economic damage!

Ryan Harris said...

I think Trump is a pragmatic politician and talks about problems he thinks needs to be addressed. He usually throws out the 'common sense' ideas held by average Americans as a starting point in the debates then walks everyone through to a solution by forcing the media to follow the ruckus as various interests get riled over 10 foot walls and such. It is illuminating to watch from the outside because it shows which special interests are pushing and pulling in which directions and shines the light of day onto problems that are usually assumed to be too complicated or difficult to explain to the stupid masses (The Harvard/Princeton view from the top down) where debates have already been settled before they've been had because they've been discussed by academics in peer reviewed journals and policy positions refined on K-street. So from that perspective, I don't think he really follows any economic school. He is a moderator of the issues of the day, the star of the reality tv episode "Real Politics". It is the modern day fireside chat. It uses social media and old media to build understanding and consensus on issues that gets everyone involved. Yves at Naked Cap posted this from our old pre-trump version of Krugman and today's post-trump Krugman. The Ivy League hand wave of disdain, doesn't fly anymore. The idea that having a wide public debate that starts from an obviously wrong position, is OK, even if it hurts feelings initially.

Yves at Naked Cap posted this:

Krugman, in 1997:

But even if the global economy matters less than the sweeping assertions would have us believe, does this ”globaloney,” as the cognoscenti call it, do any real harm? Yes, in part because the public, misguided into believing that international trade is the source of all our problems, might turn protectionist — undermining the real good that globalization has done for most people here and abroad.

Krugman, today:

But it’s also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven’t done any of that; I think I’ve always been clear that the gains from globalization aren’t all that (here’s a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization — only part of which can be attributed to policy — that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation); and I think I’ve never assumed away the income distribution effects.


The academic simpleton models and ideas don't fly at all.
Similarly the debates on immigration after Trump's Wall have moved the right and left closer together with more realistic and less ideological positions that threaten to up-end the comfortable positions of Demo-Repubs that loved the issue to be divided and never find solution to keep people at odds while causing enormous chaos and suffering to everyone across the nation, native and immigrant alike.

Tom Hickey said...

With Trump the presumptive nominee, the question now is what his administration would look like. The only choice that candidates have to announce before the election is the VP candidate, but it would be nice to know who Trump is considering for various cabinet posts.

I am not going to call HRC the presumptive nominee yet though.

MRW said...

The beauty part about what Trump is doing is he’s Pied Pipered over 1/3 of the electorate into thinking this is their guy. That he will protect their jobs and eliminate interlopers. Erect walls, whatever.

If he gets in, they’ll all calm down. No rushing to Walmart in Feb 2107 to buy lawn chairs, straw hats, and tea bags. Whitey will be back in the White House. Hallelujah and dinner on Sunday.

So if he reverses course, and explains it, he already has their buy-in. FDR did it; he reversed course in his first year, changed the basis of the currency by executive order incurring the eternal wrath of the elites. But the public loved him.

Trump has already talked his way into the nomination. The public believed him. They will have elected this guy in the General this November. So they are invested. He’ll be golden for at least two years. And the novelty of a President half-swearing and doing his best ‘give ‘em hell, Harry’ routine domestically and on the world stage will be riveting and engaging. Not to mention what it’s going to do to the campaign styles of every House Rep and Senator from here on out. We’re witnessing a quiet revolution.

MRW said...

but it would be nice to know who Trump is considering for various cabinet posts.

If I’d known who Obama was going to pick between Nov 2008 and Jan 2009, I would never have campaigned for him. Pretty fucking impressed that Mike was that prescient in 2008.

Malmo's Ghost said...

I think Trump will be ambushed by those in his own party before or during the GOP Convention. These power brokers are not going to go away quietly.

Tom Hickey said...

The tell with Obama was his appointing (anointing) Rahm Emmanuel his White House chief of staff (gatekeeper of the bubble).

It was all downhill from there.

Tom Hickey said...

I think Trump will be ambushed by those in his own party before or during the GOP Convention. These power brokers are not going to go away quietly.

It's pretty much do or die for them. Desperate people do desperate things.

MRW said...

The tell with Obama was his appointing (anointing) Rahm Emmanuel his White House chief of staff (gatekeeper of the bubble)

No fucking shit, sherlock. I remember the crestfallen feeling I had.

Why didn’t I see that coming in May 2008? The time I wasted on that salesman.

Ryan Harris said...

HRC's lead could be diminished if she doesn't do well in California. And then all she has left is leading by super-delegates and super-delegates could turn and support Bernie too if he is the stronger candidate that is getting more votes and motivating the base. He is persuading more younger people to turn out to vote in the primary. Hillary needs to redefine herself, so she doesn't stand for the past and everything that is wrong with the world today. It's the only chance against Trump. The usual predictable attempts to define Trump as a racist and unenlightened repub clinging to god, guns and hatred for gays doesn't work like it did for O. Fear of Trump isn't a winnable strategy.

MRW said...

I think Trump will be ambushed by those in his own party before or during the GOP Convention. These power brokers are not going to go away quietly.

Of course not. You think trump doesn’t already know this.

He’s being pretty cagey with the money lenders even now. He’s directing that the fund-raising for the general be done through PACs. The moment one of those rich donors gets a check directly accepted by Trump, the fix is in. He’s been saying that since Day One. I love the little factoid that Bush spent something like $1100 or $1500 a vote in New Hampshire. Trump spent $40.

Dave said...

Ryan I am not sure how anyone can call Trump a pragmatic politician. Seems to me that's Hillary. Trumps perceived strength is his maverick, non politically correct approach to politics. He just says shit. That's far from pragmatic, but it's a wining strategy during the fall of the American empire. He's the right man for the wrong times.

The establishment is not desperate at all. They are depressed, pissed off, and they further distrust the working/ middle class, but they are not desperate. These people are professional power brokers, and they know how to deal with Trump. Ask David Petreaus about what can happen when you get out of line. These people spy on email, cell phone calls, and they will find something to attack him with.

And for those who think Trump can't be beat, check out the documentary about the golf course he tried to build in Scotland. A Scottish farmer managed to single handedly defeat him, and get him to give up on the deal.

If Trump wants to win, he needs to present a bold and different vision for America. America first, fine, but at the end of the day Globalism isn't going anywhere. America still needs to lead. He needs to stop pandering to the nativist bullshit and act like the leader of the free world. If he does that, he will diffuse any strengths Hillary has, and sweep to victory. If he doesn't, it's going to be a battle, and I am not sure he wants it bad enough to do what it's going to take.

Ryan Harris said...

Agree with all. Maybe populist would be better than pragmatic.

MRW said...

If Trump wants to win, he needs to present a bold and different vision for America.

Really? He just won the nomination without doing that.

And since when does one guy’s “vision” take precedence over the will of the people? That is such a late-20th C idea. So Clintonian.

It’s what the people want that matters. And they want jobs. The economy is here to serve the people, not some elite version of what the future should be, or some financial index. Didn’t you learn that from the last 10 months? Didn’t you hear that in what the “little people” said? Trump played to their fears to get them to listen, like a Daddy telling his kid that the boogeyman is going to get him unless he behaves. But that was not the underlying message.

Hillary’s “I will fight for you” message is so off the planet it’s laughable. America still needs to lead. What? what does it need to lead? And says who? It ain’t in any copy of the US Constitution I’ve ever read.

MRW said...

America needs to provide. For its citizens. Period.

Dave said...

MRW you have to admit the republican candidates were lightweights. Total losers. Trump was right about them.

How will he do against seasoned political operatives, while also fighting his own party?

Tom Hickey said...

If Trump wants to win, he needs to present a bold and different vision for America. America first, fine, but at the end of the day Globalism isn't going anywhere. America still needs to lead. He needs to stop pandering to the nativist bullshit and act like the leader of the free world. If he does that, he will diffuse any strengths Hillary has, and sweep to victory. If he doesn't, it's going to be a battle, and I am not sure he wants it bad enough to do what it's going to take.

Trump is already formulating a new vision for America and its role in the world on the fly, testing it step by step. It's working for him, even though t's piecemeal and the details are still murky.

It's the global left that needs to fashion a new vision for a nation and the world that is suitable for the challenges of the 21st century, as well as presenting a plan for getting from neoliberalism to there.

I would propose a plan that proceeds from neoliberalism to social democracy to democratic socialism in a way that is compatible for each country.

The global left doesn't need a monolithic comprehensive vision and plan, but it does need coordinated visions and plans to shift direction and get the ball rolling forward as fast as practicable in way that nobody gets crushed.

A major problem that the left has to confront presently is that the world is now largely neoliberal, and it is very difficult for individual nations to pursue policy that doesn't mesh with neoliberalism. Abandoning it excludes the nation from the existing world order. From the POV of neoliberalism, any deviation is regarded as confrontation and challenge.

The challenge is to change the world order from one that prioritizes "capital," that is ownership over "labor" (people) and "land" (the environment) to a world order that prioritizes people and the environment over ownership.

What's needed is government of, by and for the people based on ecology. This is simply an interaction of the historical quest of social and political thought, the fundamental question of which is what it means to live a good life in a good society. It is about unfolding human potential given the opportunities and challenges of the times.

Tom Hickey said...

How will he do against seasoned political operatives, while also fighting his own party?

Trump's political operatives are Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, two of the most seasoned on the block. He is out in front on this score and the Dem nominee is on notice that it will be a bitterly fought cage match with no rules.

Dave said...

That's the challenge Tom, no doubt. Well said.

MRW said...

The challenge is to change the world order from one that prioritizes "capital," that is ownership over "labor" (people) and "land" (the environment) to a world order that prioritizes people and the environment over ownership.

Reversing today will not produce a new tomorrow worth having.

What’s wrong with capital? Who says it has ownership over labor and the environment? In a limited world view maybe.

Re: the environment. As I’ve written here before, I don’t buy the CO2 is poison argument. I certainly don’t buy that 10 gigatons (per the models, OK make it 30 gigatons, for shits and grins) of fossil fuels out of the 460+ gigatons of naturally occurring CO2 annually is wreaking havoc on the world. If anyone could really prove the difference between fossil fuel CO2 and naturally occurring CO2: (1) there would only be ONE MODEL (singular, like gravity), not 102 (fucking plural), and (2) that person would have an instant Nobel. That’s not to say that fossil fuels combined with a doubling of the world population since 1967 hasn’t increased CO2. (Each of us breathes out 40,000 PPM every three seconds.) So I’ll stay away from this to reduce a ‘hate-on’ zooming at me, or Ben Johannsen (Sp?) will call me depraved, an idiot, and stupid again. And since I like him, I want to reduce his slings and arrows.

Since when does capital have ownership over labor? That is a neoliberal claim par excellence. And you perpetuate myths by spouting it as a truism. Capital was a partnership with labor. Capital did not increase without labor participation. That was the deal that the Reaganites wiped out, or diminished, or made insignificant. Corporations were started and allowed to exist way back when because they agreed to act in the public purpose. That’s why they were called public companies. That is the damn genesis of pubic companies. And everyone was to benefit. Not claim ownership or control over one part or the other.

As for the environment, I disagree vehemently with rich guys (outsiders) rolling into some state with massive resources, buying the land, then plundering the resources and destroying the landscape based on some fucking ‘property rights’ notion, and taking the profits. Then leaving the land denuded. Call me a closet commie, as my friends have done, because I believe (as an arbitrary matter) that the resources in the ground per state belong, intrinsically, to the people who live in that state, and that the people should be getting the royalties. Yeah, the opportunistic interloper ‘property owner’ can get his cut. But the people of the state own the water and mineral rights. Period. And they get to dictate how the developer cleans up (which I think should be 100% or you go to jail) and they get to dictate what the royalties are.

MRW said...

But I’m not a ‘closet commie’. And I hate the word ‘progressive’ and I recoil at ‘the Left’.

MRW said...

Corporations were started and allowed to exist way back when because they agreed to act in the public purpose.

19th C.

Matt Franko said...

Well even the Chinese have seen the value of these western corporate institutions and are seeking to buy/acquire them... seemingly unable to figure out how to hack them per their usual disgraced second rate approach...

MRW said...

Matt, your disdain for the Chinese is displaced. We’re the fucking idiots. They ANNOUNCED--fucking announced--over Xmas 1979/1980 that they were going to take the US manufacturing base away from the Americans and destroy it. It was their 25-year-plan.

And what did our august group of US journalists do? Writhe in disdain. But the Chinese brought it in and under deadline.

MRW said...

I meant misplaced.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Both Bush's and Paul Ryan not supporting Trump. Pretty unheard of stuff at this level. Makes me like Trump more than ever.

Tom Hickey said...

McCain is spewing reasons to fear Trump becoming president and why he is "not someone you would want to live next door to."

Malmo's Ghost said...

Tom,

Did Goldwater get this type of treatment from Republicans in his day? This has to be unprecedented.

Tom Hickey said...

Did Goldwater get this type of treatment from Republicans in his day?

Worse back then.

TPM, Why GOPers Won't Do To Donald Trump What They Did To Barry Goldwater In '64, Tierney Sneed.

Ignacio said...

Call me a closet commie, as my friends have done, because I believe (as an arbitrary matter) that the resources in the ground per state belong, intrinsically, to the people who live in that state, and that the people should be getting the royalties.

Right, we live in perverted times when this is not what the majority thinks. The logic is actually quite simple: both the state and previous generations (which include your parents) have created a situation when you were born were you don't have the resources to feed yourself unless someone put you into that situation.

We created this situation with artificial laws and social conventions which don't exist in the natural world. Hence we are obliged to provide the resources the state and society stole from us artificially.

Yeah, I'm a closet communist too.. so what?

Malmo's Ghost said...

Thanks, Tom.

Any old timers here will know that Trump's views were articulated 30 years ago and beyond and no different than most American labor leaders of that time and earlier. Walter Reuther wasn't to the left of Trump when it came to workers rights, and I know that for a fact. To the neocons Trump is a commie. Well fuck them!

I've been a union man for 40 years, and my grandfather was a Wharton grad, General Manager of Wheeling Steel, Nelson Rockefeller supporter, friend of Walter Reuther, member of Eisenhower's inaugural civil rights commission and a champion of labor in America and he would love Trump I'm sure.

Trump, Trump, Trump!!!!

Malmo's Ghost said...

...oh, and he died in his 90's as a board of Legg Mason...

Malmo's Ghost said...

..member

MRW said...

Malmo: as you said:

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/graphs/2013/09/labor-day.png

Matt Franko said...

Remember the Checker's Speech: "Pat doesnt have a fur coat... she has a nice respectable Republican cloth coat..."

MRW said...

Remember the Checker's Speech: "Pat doesnt have a fur coat... she has a nice respectable Republican cloth coat..."

Which means what?

MRW said...

Dave,

"Another question, refusing to bail out Puerto Rico would likely cause a mass exodus of people and capital from the country. I assume they are American citizens by default. Would that constitute a refugee crisis here in the mainland?"

It could. There’s no reason why they US couldn't afford to help without any debt to stateside children or grandchildren.