Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Sputnik — UK Lawmaker Says Russia's Interference in Brexit Referendum 'Highly Probable'


The "Putler did it" meme is going viral. This is becoming more and more hilarious. The Western elite is completely losing it. They just can't take responsibility. And when you can't take responsibility, you don't deserve it either. What a sorry bunch of losers trying to convince themselves that they didn't actually lose, you see. It was Putler that did it.
UK Labour lawmaker Ben Bradshaw said that it was "highly probable" that Russia had interfered in the referendum on United Kingdom's exit from the European Union (Brexit).
"Not only their interference, now proven, in the American presidential campaign, [but] probably in our referendum last year. We don’t have the evidence for that yet. But I think it’s highly probable," Bradshaw said as quoted by the Independent newspaper on Tuesday.

19 comments:

GLH said...

Tom Hickey: This is off subject but refers to an older post where Six asked "So Matt, do you agree with Mosler that imports are a positive and exports are a negative or are you more aligned with China on this issue?" What do you think about that?

Matt Franko said...

I dont agree with that as we can see the results here in the US today with mass UNDER employment in certain cohorts that want to and are trained in producing material products...

imo this is a statement where Warren is trying to apply a rote method to dumb it down for people who are having trouble understanding the international transaction accounting who have never been trained in accounting.... same for "deficit is too small!" that is trying to use a rote method... use of rote is inappropriate here...

imo rather than trying to apply a rote method for the unqualified, the better solution would be to tell these people to take Accounting 101 and 102 where they would experience ACTIVE methodology in the teaching which is ideal for reaching the best understanding of material systems...

We shouldnt attempt to dumb it down for people imo you should challenge them/motivate them to train harder....

Matt Franko said...

"What a sorry bunch of losers trying to convince themselves that they didn't actually lose"

Right they have to challenge themselves to get better... and btw dumbing it down isnt challenging anybody either...

But as we can see from the leaks they were also cheating during the game... so they were cheating and now they are blaming others for the loss ... its pretty bad...

but I would point out that at least so far Bernie isnt doing this he is pretty much back on the real issues...

Ignacio said...

This is reaching new heights of stupidity, soudns desperate by establishment parties.

Matt Franko said...

Ignacio,

Here this is what I am thinking lately:

Both the teacher and the student should be aware of the different teaching methodologies. AND... teachers should be continuously pointing out to students WHICH method they are using and when AND... students should make sure they are aware of which method is being used and when...

I dont think this is commonly done...

Penguin pop said...

Matt Franko:

I think what you have said about requiring people to take basic accounting classes to understand MMT rings true. As someone who took both Accounting 101 and 102 in college, the difference between these classes and even the Corporate Finance course I took compared to the Macroeconomics and Microeconomics classes was like night and day with what kind of level of thinking would be required to gain an understanding of the material. I was thinking of going back and taking even more accounting classes in the future.

The professors in the economics courses emphasized IS-IM models and all the usual crap you'd find right out of a Greg Mankiw textbook. It was all rote learning in action and memorizing "facts" and getting into a dogmatic mindset. In contrast, both the accounting courses I took were much more challenging, but much more rewarding in the long-term in a way I didn't fully appreciate at the time. I actually had to read deeper and discuss the material with other students to really understand what happens on a balance sheet, statement of cash flows, etc. I couldn't just walk in, take those exams and expect to pass only by memorizing a bunch of facts without the full picture.

Similar concepts were used in the Finance class as well, which I also got a lot out of and enjoyed despite the bemoaning of some who just wanted an easy grade. I got the same feeling out of an introductory programming course too where you actually had to be able to understand how each smaller concept builds on another overtime or when I studied how computer networks operate with the OSI Layer allowing me to have a representation of how it works on a larger-scale. There's a specific kind of hierarchy and structure one would need to understand as they continue to build on their foundation.

Anyway, I've been lurking on this blog for a while, but decided to pop in and leave a comment. I think what you're saying holds so true when it comes to the quality of education in this day and age. Too many stupid, ignorant people out there and dumbing down everything hasn't helped. Having basic accounting knowledge and critical thinking skills goes a long way in understanding MMT quicker.

Ignacio said...

Matt this is kind of like treatment of drug abuse pathologies: the first requirement to cure is the real willingness of the patient to be cured. Without that there is no cure possible.

If one does not want to "get educated", he won't be educated. Huge cognitive biases prevent education as we are not close to critical mass on acknowledging reality, so echo chambers are preferable.

You can try to explain something but if the person in front is just not interested it will fall on deaf ears.

Ignacio said...

Some things have to be taught at very early age or the difficulty to overcome is increased several orders of magnitude.

Critical period is during puberty up until young adult period. If the people in charge of designing what has to be taught is ignorant, or unwilling to change position based on evidence, they should be fired up from those positions of authority.

Lawyers, politicians, "think-tanks" should never ever be anywhere close to those positions either.

Well check how it currently works: all the wrong things are done.

Ignacio said...

The professors in the economics courses emphasized IS-IM models and all the usual crap you'd find right out of a Greg Mankiw textbook. It was all rote learning in action and memorizing "facts" and getting into a dogmatic mindset.

I remember having a discussion once with an econ graduate: it didn'0t matter if I even quoted the Bank of England on how credit is created etc. he kept repeating to me the money multiplier bullshit. It was all rote hopeless learning.

Talking to a wall would make more sense. Is brain had been corrupted and repairing it would be too much effort. This is how 90% of humans operate, so go figure...

Tom Hickey said...

This is off subject but refers to an older post where Six asked "So Matt, do you agree with Mosler that imports are a positive and exports are a negative or are you more aligned with China on this issue?" What do you think about that?

Why Warren says is usually pithy and needs be understood. He and the MMT economists have broken it out.

All economists agree that imports are a real benefit because the importing country is getting real goods consisting of materials and embedded labor. This is unquestionable and trivial.

However, embedded labor is like actual immigration that competes with domestic workers and lower cost goods compete with domestic producers.

So there are likely to be knock on effects like businesses shutting down and workers losing their jobs.

According to MMT, a currency sovereign has the ability to address this using fiscal policy.

There is actually an opportunity here because the first businesses and jobs to go are low on the scale and the goal should be to use fiscal policy to replace those businesses and jobs with higher quality jobs than have been lost.

This should be no problem if the currency issuer has ample resources and technological capability since a currency sovereign can always afford to put available resources to use.

Do I agree. Yes, in principle. But putting this in practice in a nation of morons may prove difficult to impossible.

Tom Hickey said...

While I agree that the educational system is a shambles in that it is the same system essentially that has been in place for hundreds of years without substantial modification other than to add new knowledge and even new subjects. But the methods are largely the same.

The reason that this persists in not only education in general but in the various disciplines is tradition and custom generate a culture that perpetuates itself. There is a tradeoff here. Then positive side is that complex things get transmitted across generations pretty seamlessly. The negative thing is that the system is highly resistant to change, especially reform, owing to the large investments and endowments involves, both individually and institutionally.

The educational system is therefore not only change quickly enough to address pressing problems. That means that qualified people need to take the initiative and persuade the masses that the course of action they propose will generate the best outcomes in relation to the proposals on the table.

The is basically a question of qualification, initiative, and persuasion. There are few qualified people. Few of the qualified are taking the initiative. And persuasion is an art, that has become mostly a black art.

Penguin pop said...

I remember having a discussion once with an econ graduate: it didn'0t matter if I even quoted the Bank of England on how credit is created etc. he kept repeating to me the money multiplier bullshit. It was all rote hopeless learning.

Talking to a wall would make more sense. Is brain had been corrupted and repairing it would be too much effort. This is how 90% of humans operate, so go figure...


I used to be a follower of Peter Schiff and all those "we're out of money" morons. It took some tough love from critics who were pointing out how out of paradigm their analyses were and how they were frankly garbage. That's when the light bulb in my head went off and I started to take MMT seriously after exploring other economic schools of thought and seeing how flawed the methodologies used were. Try to explain anything MMT-related to a Schiffbot and they were deflect with all their might. They refuse to challenge their own cognitive biases and prefer to stick with dumb talking points that aren't applicable in the real world.

Off topic: I have a question about countries have savings accounts at the Fed and how one would go about proving this along with explaining the difference between time deposits and demand deposits. I'm asking because someone who is sympathetic to MMT asked a question about the evidence for this and while someone did answer the question in that comment section, the person wasn't satisfied with the answer they got and had a big caveat with the way it was explained. He thought the explanation was disingenuous and reminded him of Muslims and Christians trying to prove that God exists. I wanted to be much more prepared next time I see someone ask this question. I offered my take for this person and linked to pie charts and other data to no avail and a few links to some MMT-related websites. It's been bothering me ever since.

Tom Hickey said...

MMT economists Eric Tymoigne produced an excellent series on one & banking that is posted a New Economic Perspectives and can be accessed in the nav bar at the top. Here is the link.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/money-banking

It's probably better to say that banks' settlement balance accounts at the Fed and Treasury bonds held by nongovernment function like demand deposit accounts and time deposit accounts at the commercial banks on the respective balance sheets.

This is made clear in Eric's M&B series, which distinguishes carefully between the government' accounting records (Treasury and central bank) and the private sector's accounting records, which are divided into bank and non-bank accounting records.

Most people are clueless about this, so they have no idea of actually accounting or operations. They just make stuff up in their heads.

However, it is difficult to convince most people because they would actually have to think and that hurts most people's heads too much.

In addition, a lot of people refuse evidence to the effect that the Fed is not privately owned by the banks.

Ignacio said...

However, it is difficult to convince most people because they would actually have to think and that hurts most people's heads too much.

Yes, this is the main problem. Sounds elitist and even disrespectful, but those are the facts, and that's how we have to deal with them.

In my experience, most people don't know what they are talking about most of the time, and are unwilling to listen even though.

Paradoxically, the more expertise you have in a subject, the most likely you have insight of your own knowledge limitations or are willing to change on face on evidence. However, this does not seem to apply to economics, probably because is deeply politicised and an ideological/moral battleground aka clusterfuck blackhole.

Ignacio said...


All economists agree that imports are a real benefit because the importing country is getting real goods consisting of materials and embedded labor. This is unquestionable and trivial.


Is it though? This is a poilitically naive assumption, so we are back to the: "in a perfect world where we are all friends and humans are rational..."

Well, it doesn't work like that, so don't assume a wrong assumption as true?

Tom Hickey said...

It's not an assumption but an accounting identity.

The importing country credits real asset accounts ("stuff") while the exporting country credits financial asset accounts ("money".

So the importing country benefits in real terms of trade and the expiring country in financial terms of trade.

I don't think anyone questions this.

Ignacio said...

What is an assumption is that this is "always good" I mean. or that's what you imply when you say: importing - benefit / exporting - lose.

Or more than "always good", inconsequential. Which ain't true.

Tom Hickey said...

It is "good" in the economic sense, as in goods. There are many senses of "good."

Importers get real goods while exporters give up real goods for financial assets. So importer benefit in real terms of trade = get a credit in terms of real goods. Those real goods are given up by the exporter as counterparty, who people cannot enjoy the real goods they produced. The real goods exchanged for financial assets benefit the people of the importing nation.

This doesn't imply that is there is a benefit overall, that is, considered in terms of the whole system. But that is a different issue.

Tom Hickey said...

Similarly, "what's good for business is good for America" is true in the sense of increased GDP is an increase in growth.

But it doesn't follow that what's good for America (growth) is good for all or most Americans, which is fallaciously implied, owing to distributional effects.

Economics is tricky that way.