Friday, May 18, 2018

Bloomberg — Leading Democrats Are Backing One of the Most Radical Economic Plans in Years

About what one would expect from Bloomberg.

Leading Democrats Are Backing One of the Most Radical Economic Plans in Years 
Katia Dmitrieva with assistance by Sahil Kapur, and Jordan Yadoo


Konrad said...

Is it possible that the Democrats finally realize that Russia-gate, gun grabbing, and political correctness will not bring them any wins in November?

Is it possible that the Democrats realize that unless they change, they will be wiped out?

Is it possible that Democrats realize that if they don’t at least pretend to make a gesture toward helping the masses, they are finished?

You know I’m not a big fan of JG (because I think the word “guarantee” is politically untenable) but I support any talk about creating jobs.

This must be done carefully, or else job creation will cause school tuitions, property rents, and housing prices to rise even higher and faster.

BLOOMBERG: “The job guarantee plan would be among the most expensive and disruptive, particularly for business, in years.”

Typical Bloomberg bullshyte. The U.S. government can create infinite money out of thin air, even if federal taxes fall to zero.

Regarding “disruptive,” this means that if more jobs become available, workers will not have to submit to so much abuse and exploitation. Order fillers at Amazon will not need to have pee bottles by their sides in order to avoid being punished for visiting the restroom. To keep workers, regular employers might have to share some of their mountains of accumulated wealth. (Oh the horror!)

I’m waiting for Bloomberg to start spouting the usual neoliberal scare tactics.. “If you are granted a job guarantee, the government will take away your Social Security! The national debt will destroy us! North Korea will nuke us!”

[[[ “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.” ]]]

Trump-bots like Fatt Stanko call any federal program that helps average people “Communism,” and the corporate media outlets help them. If all else fails, there is always the nuclear option (“How will you PAY for it?”)

BLOOMBERG: “Funding would come from the federal government, but jobs would be assigned locally. There’d be a part-time option, and benefits including health care.”

I can hear the Trump-bots crying. “That’s soshializm! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN?"

BLOOMBERG: “There are practical questions -- how to find useful work for millions of workers -- and philosophical ones about the government’s role in the economy.”

Useful work? For fifteen bucks an hour plus benefits, I’d be willing to spend every day collecting trash in city parks and along highways.

Think of the armies of homeless people we could put to work. No wonder Bloomberg and the Trump-bots hate this whole idea.

BLOOMBERG: “It’s usurping the market.”

You mean it’s usurping oligarch CONTROL of the market.

BLOOMBERG: “But unemployment was already under 5 percent.”

Tell that to the ever-expanding sea of homeless people in the USA. Have you been to L.A. or Seattle lately? My GOD.

BLOOMBERG: “Three-quarters of Americans worry about federal spending and increased deficits, according to Gallup.”

Three-quarters of Americans are morons.

BLOOMBERG: “Support was highest among the young, the poor, and people of color.”

People of color????? In that case we DEFINITELY hate this idea, right Fatt Stanko?

Andrew Anderson said...

The U.S. government can create infinite money out of thin air, ... Konrad

Yes, but the government-privileged lending cartel can also produce vast amounts of new deposits. And these deposits, when spent, deplete acceptable price inflation space that might otherwise be used for US Government spending on the general welfare.

Now if banks were 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors, they STILL could create SOME deposits safely but not nearly as much as now (genuine liabilities tend to make lenders sober, fancy that.)

Therefore with 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors, the US Government could spend much more for a given amount of price inflation than is now the case.

I've never heard any of the MMT folks say that government-privileged banks LIMIT how much the monetary sovereign can spend safely.