tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post6371929502974894586..comments2024-03-29T09:32:34.853-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: 2005 Video of Greenspan Admitting Social Security Can't Go Brokemike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31364130663904507942012-09-11T11:48:48.388-04:002012-09-11T11:48:48.388-04:00This is something that I find queer about critique...<i>This is something that I find queer about critiques of MMT. Yes, the MMTers typically ignore the rest of economics outside part of macro, but that's because their own critique is more or less oriented toward that particular part of macro.</i><br /><br />The MMT economists emphasize that they are only a handful so far and they have only been around since the late 90's, Randy Wray and Bill Mitchell hooked up with Warren Molser based on Warren "Soft Currency Economics." <br /><br />They are working in an area that not many economists in the past have developed and they ave specialized in this field. They presuppose a lot of work in economics that has gone before and is being done now, chiefly Post Keynesian. MMT economists and Circuitists are not working toward common ground based on the matters about which they agree.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-47835140748600621802012-09-11T11:40:58.884-04:002012-09-11T11:40:58.884-04:00That's the big question your silly MMT cannot ...<i>That's the big question your silly MMT cannot answer, isn't it?</i><br /><br />I think in pretty much the same way realistic growth models suggest, but reconciled with the financial sectoral balances that they typically ignore.<br /><br />This is something that I find queer about critiques of MMT. Yes, the MMTers typically ignore the rest of economics outside <i>part</i> of macro, but that's because their own critique is more or less oriented toward that particular part of macro.<br /><br />MMT doesn't mean the rest of economics goes away. If you add other things that some MMTers like - Wray's all about the Financial Instability Hypothesis - other parts of economics do go away, but not all of it. If you give no normative weight to the Welfare Theorems, or get rid of general equilibrium, or even get rid of all equilibrium, there's still a lot of economics left. Even if you think equilibrium doesn't exist, it might be an appropriate and tractable tool to think about certain phenomena.Edmundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83144583468209433922012-09-10T14:00:56.578-04:002012-09-10T14:00:56.578-04:00Bob,
"have been simplified by capitalism to ...Bob,<br /><br />"have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost, till they have become the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording and issuing receipts, "<br /><br />Now what? Are you telling us you are against capitalism????<br /><br />If so, what are you FOR???Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11082502216984169113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31833359379690575942012-09-10T13:35:15.723-04:002012-09-10T13:35:15.723-04:00"Everyone knows" Lenin = Keynes. All Aus..."Everyone knows" Lenin = Keynes. All Austrian-Libertarians, that is.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68977760369752210402012-09-10T13:31:08.715-04:002012-09-10T13:31:08.715-04:00From “Trotsky: The Ignorance and the Evil” by Ralp...From “Trotsky: The Ignorance and the Evil” by Ralph Raico:<br /><br /><i>In State and Revolution, written just before he took power, Lenin wrote, <br /><br />“The accounting and control necessary [for the operation of a national economy] have been <b>simplified</b> by capitalism to the utmost, till they have become the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”</i><br /><br />http://mises.org/daily/4515<br /><br />Lenin. The original MMTer.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-13391554086451221452012-09-10T12:39:13.110-04:002012-09-10T12:39:13.110-04:00Got ya Tom, and I agree.
Got ya Tom, and I agree.<br /><br /><br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29784394640880018612012-09-10T12:39:06.267-04:002012-09-10T12:39:06.267-04:00@Dan Kervick
"The real questions are (i) How...@Dan Kervick<br /><br />"The real questions are (i) How big are the federal government's total tax revenues? (ii) How is the total bill of tax obligations distributed among the different members of the taxpaying population,(iii) Is the total tax bill the appropriate size for the size government we have, and in light of prevailing macroeconomic conditions? and (iv) What share of our total national output should go to retirees?"<br /><br />Dan, I think you're getting subtly but dangerously off target here. It is NEVER a question of tax revenue. Taxes are only one of our superficial, automatic stabilizers for controlling inflation. We should make it more, not less, automatic.<br /><br />Simpler to say "What share of our total national consumption should go through retirees?"<br /><br />Excessive or insufficient hoarding of static, financial assets, unused or poorly used are the simple tolerance limit we're tasked with avoiding. That's completely tangential to deciding how to value the impact of keeping older people in fruitful contact with younger generations.<br /><br />Better to think in terms of parallel "knowledge inflation" and knowledge transmission, alongside "currency inflation."Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-81202540987690540132012-09-10T12:36:48.663-04:002012-09-10T12:36:48.663-04:00Oh and BTW Bob
"The question is, how do you...Oh and BTW Bob<br /><br /><br />"The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase.”<br /><br />That's the big question your silly MMT cannot answer, isn't it?"<br /><br /><br />How do YOU answer this? A system based on payments in non funny gold backed money makes people more productive? Are we really lacking productivity on this planet? Are there a lot of things we need and cant have? What are they? Seems to me we are currently producing more crap than we can consume right now and any drop in production of late is tied directly to the fact that "producers" see fewer and fewer customers with "funny money" coming to their doors! The producers are wanting more funny money not less! They just cant will customers into existence no matter what kind of supply side remedies get tried.<br /><br />We are NOT an unproductive planet. We produce more food with less than one tenth of the people working on it then 75 years ago. Manufacturing capacity could fill every house on the planet with stuff in about 2 weeks.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-63326278832852717592012-09-10T12:29:36.866-04:002012-09-10T12:29:36.866-04:00Not disagreeing with you, Gregg. Just saying that ...Not disagreeing with you, Gregg. Just saying that the rationale for privatization is the old supply side "saving = investment" interpreted to mean that saving funds investment argument.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73923496686460944782012-09-10T12:27:19.998-04:002012-09-10T12:27:19.998-04:00Tom
Im unclear on the nature of your criticism. ...Tom<br /><br />Im unclear on the nature of your criticism. DO you disagree with my description of what a privateized account is versus a SS payment.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82385142435757726692012-09-10T12:24:03.796-04:002012-09-10T12:24:03.796-04:00Bob
" If you have your own account, someone ...<br />Bob<br /><br />" If you have your own account, someone (you and/or your boss) engaged in productive activities which others found valuable and you engaged in fruitful an profitable exchange. Then, you saved your earned money. Then, there was a foregoing of the use of those resources."<br /><br /><br />Everyone receiving SS worked and had income removed form their checks. Thus they were engaged in productive activities AND were forgoing from using resources as well. In fact in most cases, according to the privatizers, SS recipients are getting a raw deal and could get better returns if invested in the market, so they would actually have a claim to MORE resources now!<br /><br /><br />"Since people don’t actually “pay in” to a government program like social security, the earlier recipients were not engaged in production or exchange."<br /><br /><br />FALSE<br /><br /><br /><br /> "They were just taking someone else’s purchasing power. If you were to now receive a government check, you too would just be taking someone else’s purchasing power."<br /><br /><br />FALSE, its not just a simple transfer. You are misrepresenting it for idelogical purposes.<br /><br /><br /><br />"MMT depends upon being oblivious to the nature of human action, real savings, economic calculation, production and voluntary exchange while mindlessly asserting that these essential processes can be easily replaced simply by bureaucrats creating and squirting new fiat funny money around society. Like Lenin."<br /><br /><br />YAAAAAAWNNN ! Get a new schtick Bob. This one is really wearing thin<br /><br /><br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-18799322815239671002012-09-10T12:05:14.979-04:002012-09-10T12:05:14.979-04:00"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Unite..."I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."<br /><br />Ha Tom! you read my mind!<br /><br />Ive been reciting that to myself lately and looking at the words and right there it is...<br /><br />And these morons all go around with their lapel flag pins and they dont even know what the hell it all stands for!<br /><br />What a disgrace they all are....<br /><br />Good one... rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11082502216984169113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-76990259473941223962012-09-10T11:50:04.153-04:002012-09-10T11:50:04.153-04:00"Which, of course, is violated along with due..."Which, of course, is violated along with due process of law ab initio with every squirt of fiat funny money in the process of the government creating money and purchasing power by spending here but not there."<br /><br />No, that's just what ignorant worshippers of Moron Rothbard believe. Because shiny bits of metal get you hard and you don't understand the first thing about money. <br /><br />Slobby Blobbisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-76728343113218001082012-09-10T11:44:24.488-04:002012-09-10T11:44:24.488-04:00The Austrian school depends upon being oblivious t...The Austrian school depends upon being oblivious to the nature of economics, economics, economics, economics and economics while mindlessly asserting that economics can be easily replaced by gold. Like a bunch of complete fuckwits.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tobby Nobbisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32765379394185946582012-09-10T11:25:47.708-04:002012-09-10T11:25:47.708-04:00A fundamental principle of liberal democracy is th...<i>A fundamental principle of liberal democracy is the rule of law and equal application of justice.</i><br /><br />Which, of course, is violated along with due process of law <i>ab initio</i> with every squirt of fiat funny money in the process of the government creating money and purchasing power by spending here but not there.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-74168530465000007682012-09-10T11:16:18.644-04:002012-09-10T11:16:18.644-04:00I can't make an argument that getting rid of f...<i>I can't make an argument that getting rid of frauds will make things worse. Quality of life isn't measured in dollars</i><br /><br />I can. A fundamental principle of liberal democracy is the rule of law and equal application of justice.<br /><br />I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-37844973916210709132012-09-10T11:08:30.089-04:002012-09-10T11:08:30.089-04:00Greg, If the government is sending me 2000 month f...Greg, <i>If the government is sending me 2000 month for 20 years (which I "paid into")or I have a nest egg of a half million at Morgan Keegan with which I can remove at what ever rate I wish, how am I better off in real terms with my privatized account? The second scenario does not magically make our production improve nor does it make any goods cheaper for me, its a simple change in name at top of the statement</i><br /><br />The idea is supply side, Say's law, saving equals investment, which is to say that the monies saved will be allocated to productive investment rather than govt use. <br /><br />False conclusion, since the assumptions are wrong.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7905715410271185812012-09-10T10:20:43.964-04:002012-09-10T10:20:43.964-04:00If the government is sending me 2000 month for 20 ...<i>If the government is sending me 2000 month for 20 years (which I "paid into")or I have a nest egg of a half million at Morgan Keegan with which I can remove at whatever rate I wish, how am I better off in real terms with my privatized account? The second scenario does not magically make our production improve nor does it make any goods cheaper for me, its a simple change in name at top of the statement.</i><br /><br />If you have your own account, someone (you and/or your boss) engaged in productive activities which others found valuable and you engaged in fruitful an profitable exchange. Then, you saved your earned money. Then, there was a foregoing of the use of those resources. <br /><br />Since people don’t actually “pay in” to a government program like social security, the earlier recipients were not engaged in production or exchange. They were just taking someone else’s purchasing power. If you were to now receive a government check, you too would just be taking someone else’s purchasing power.<br /><br />MMT depends upon being oblivious to the nature of human action, real savings, economic calculation, production and voluntary exchange while mindlessly asserting that these essential processes can be easily replaced simply by bureaucrats creating and squirting new fiat funny money around society. Like Lenin.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-65017115421016741042012-09-10T09:25:29.825-04:002012-09-10T09:25:29.825-04:00MMT is not about uncontrolled fiat money creation....MMT is not about uncontrolled fiat money creation. It's about real constraints, not imaginary constraints. <br /><br />Yes, MMT is not the same thing as Austrian school theory. So what? <br />ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-74537190183058768942012-09-10T09:18:08.259-04:002012-09-10T09:18:08.259-04:00I guess I ll have to say it again in slightly diff...I guess I ll have to say it again in slightly different words<br /><br />Please explain to me how, in a world of scarce real resources, (the world that Austrians claim we always are living in) changing the name of ownership on your retirement account gives you more access to real goods?<br /><br />If the government is sending me 2000 month for 20 years (which I "paid into")or I have a nest egg of a half million at Morgan Keegan with which I can remove at what ever rate I wish, how am I better off in real terms with my privatized account? The second scenario does not magically make our production improve nor does it make any goods cheaper for me, its a simple change in name at top of the statementGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22560994055159621792012-09-10T09:01:27.545-04:002012-09-10T09:01:27.545-04:00The real resources will be available if the econom...<i>The real resources will be available if the economy operates optimally in resolving the trifecta of growth (production) employment, and price stability. MMT shows how to accomplish that.</i><br /><br />No. The real resources will not be available. The economy will not operate "optimally" under a regime of unconstrained fiat funny money creation. MMT never even touches upon the subject of real economics, that is real savings, production and voluntary human exchange.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15734715740967002522012-09-10T08:20:34.258-04:002012-09-10T08:20:34.258-04:00I think Greenspan believes that interest rates wil...I think Greenspan believes that interest rates will have to continuously rise, eventually resulting in accelerating inflation or higher taxes, with higher taxes damaging the economy, leading to lower production and investment, leading to higher inflation, etc. ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64407516521059901372012-09-10T08:11:27.981-04:002012-09-10T08:11:27.981-04:00Two moron Ayn Rand lovers here talking past each o...Two moron Ayn Rand lovers here talking past each other, sort of reminds me of watching the old so-called "midget wrestling"...<br /><br />So how does one reconcile this statement from Greenspan with his more recent statements that the US faces a future fiscal crisis?<br /><br />Or even back then around the time he had this exchange w/ Ryan here is some other testimony:<br /><br />"It's the principle that I think is involved here, namely that you cannot continuously introduce legislation which tends to expand the budget deficit," Mr. Greenspan said"<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03deficit.html?_r=1<br /><br />This is a serious question...<br /><br /><br />rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-89550726961040842892012-09-10T08:07:56.582-04:002012-09-10T08:07:56.582-04:00Bob,
MMT policies are about achieving price stabi...Bob,<br /><br />MMT policies are about achieving price stability with full employment. <br /><br />They are not about creating runaway inflation.<br />ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-6055654302462988732012-09-10T07:46:04.655-04:002012-09-10T07:46:04.655-04:00" With scale, we end up in the disastrous pos...<i>" With scale, we end up in the disastrous position of being afraid to jettison known frauds, <b>for fear that the future might be worse!"</b></i><br /><br />So now we're at the point we believe (or fear) that we need frauds for the economy to be healthy?<br /><br />I can't make an argument that getting rid of frauds will make things worse. Quality of life isn't measured in dollars.paul melihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04604543110795683837noreply@blogger.com