No, this won’t be on the table until 2021 at the earliest. But the party’s candidates need to offer some solutions.Bloomberg Opinion
The Democrats’ Options for Repealing the Trump Tax Cut
Stephanie Kelton | Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Stony Brook University, formerly Democrats' chief economist on the staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and an economic adviser to the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders
20 comments:
The link has an extra letter “v” on its end.
Corrected link…
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-05/democrats-options-for-repealing-trump-s-tax-cuts
The article doesn’t say much, but it's good to see Stephanie Kelton continue to widen her audience.
-- OFF TOPIC –
The National Nuclear Security Administration maintains the USA’s nuclear weapons. It wants another $91 billion to start developing at least nine new weapons systems. (That’s just to start.)
And no one ever asks, “How will you pay for it?”
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/2018/11/02/heres-when-all-of-americas-new-nuclear-warhead-designs-will-be-active-and-how-much-theyll-cost/
“Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont doesn’t believe that ship has sailed. Citing concerns over projected budget deficits, Sanders called on Congress to “repeal all of President Trump’s tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.” ”
Nice....
"$91 billion to start developing at least nine new weapons systems. "
They probably need more options in the arsenal... selection of yields, delivery techniques, etc...
I think N Korea situation revealed a lack of options...
N Korea options were probably "kill them all" or effectively "do nothing"...
Probably need some options in between there...
“repeal all of President Trump’s tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.”
Yeah give the corporations their $358B back that Trump "cut" (gotta love Economist applied math...)
market will immediately rally 5%+
And no one ever asks, “How will you pay for it?”
I always used to ask that. But that was before I understand that modern money has abolished scarcity. Of everything. The government, using its sovereign powers and control over our marvelous fiat money supply, can easily triple the defense budget and buy every US citizen a McMansion plus two US built SUVs. It's only those mean-spirited libertarians that are holding us back.
Bob Roddis,
The question is "does the polity want it and do we have enough resources to do it?". If the answer is yes, then the government can and should do it.
It may seem similar to "do we have enough currency to do it?" (or, as you put it, "how will you pay for it?") for the layman, but the real economist should know that those two questions are very different. "Do we have enough currency to do it?" is the wrong question and many people will make the mistake of believing that it makes sense and trying to answer it - a very unproductive endeavour.
“It's only those mean-spirited libertarians that are holding us back.”
It is... I don’t know if I’d call them ‘mean spirited’ tho but they are stupid for sure...
The question is "does the polity want it and do we have enough resources to do it?". If the answer is yes, then the government can and should do it.
Government is nothing but the initiation of violence. If people want to do something, they can just do it if there is a consensus. If there is no consensus, they create a government, their gang captures it and they use violence to coerce everyone else to do what they think must be done.
Three levels of cooperation and consensus:
1. Voluntary cooperation. aka Libertarianism.
2. A lack of a total consensus. The majority or the dictator decides what they want to be done and extract resources via taxes with violence to accomplish their goal. aka Democracy.
3. A total lack of consensus. There is not even a consensus among a majority of voters for doing a project. The thugs that run the government just emit fiat funny money and buy stuff. aka MMT.
I don’t know if I’d call them ‘mean spirited’ tho but they are stupid for sure...
Matt Franko, why haven't you submitted an essay to my contest?
https://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2018/02/fran-boait-uks-misguided-obsession-with.html?showComment=1517624092650#c3971914268565732514
Bob Roddis:If people want to do something, they can just do it if there is a consensus.
If they are doing something cooperatively, how will they organize the cooperation through time? Any project is going to have various aspects completed at different times. Won't some end up owing others for a time, the others who take the "somes" future cooperation on trust?
Any project is going to have various aspects completed at different times.
The fact that large projects take time is a main reason why people require property and contract rights, along with sound money that maintains its value over time. You should enter my essay contest.
Ive been trained to operate via functional equations in material matters... not words...
You can keep your “essay” waste of time...
Similar to Taleb: “idiots think in words...”
Bob Roddis,
And how would "property and contract rights" be enforced? Through "voluntary cooperation"? I guess that even libertarians understand that this is impossible. If not, then we are really living in different universes. A state with monopoly over violence is what enforces "property and contract rights".
In a perfect democracy, the society chooses what to do with the state's monopoly of violence. It may even choose to keep a small state with the sole function of enforcing "property and contract rights". Or it may choose to do more.
Even if the decision is a small state, "sound money" (gold?) is the guarantee for disaster, unfairness, and inefficiency.
Of course, every organization, small or big, public or private, rich or poor, may be subjected to corruption and may be hijacked by criminals or a small group of people who do not represent the interests of its stakeholders (the entire society, in the case of government). Perfect democracies are rare but achievable. But it seems to me that your solution is to abolish organizations altogether... (except maybe by a state that uses its power to guarantee property rights?)
Noah you and your weak ilk wouldn’t make it thru the first two weeks....
Bob what if somebody else initiates the violence?
Can a proper libertarian strike back?
Hey André,
Bill Mitchell here today: “settlements for cross-border transactions are often in local currencies, because the exporter desires local currencies to reduce risk exposure“
You think he botched this? Iow How would the possession of foreign currency assets reduce risk?
Iow The exporters possession of currency of the (home) reporting jurisdiction would be non risk assets and the foreign currency would be risk assets... ie “currency risk”...
Matt,
Huh? I guess you are confusing me with another person... I don't remember talking anything about "cross-border transactions", and I don't now exactly what you are talking about...
But I don't now, I can tell you my opinion nonetheless...
In many countries, settlements for cross-border transactions are made in foreign currencies (dollar or euro usually), so I don't think it is precise to claim that "settlements for cross-border transactions are often in local currencies". However, local importers or exporters usually will want to exchange the foreign currency for local currency at some moment, and they may even make a FX transaction even before exporting/importing as an hedge strategy - so, for them, the risk would be transformed to the local currency.
"How would the possession of foreign currency assets reduce risk?"
I don't now exactly what you are talking about...
"The exporters possession of currency of the (home) reporting jurisdiction would be non risk assets and the foreign currency would be risk assets... ie “currency risk”..."
Risk in what sense? Holding foreign currency exposes the holder to market risk (the market price - FX rate - is at risk). To reduce or eliminate risk, the company must hold something offsetting such exposure - maybe a liability denominated in foreign currency, a FX contract, or a derivative, I don't know...
For equity requirements purposes, however, the main requeriment for banks is about credit risk, not market risk. Usually most currencies, foreign or local, recieve a risk weight of 0%, so they are considered without credit risk. For market risk purposes (trading or banking book) banks need to hold some equity if they have FX exposure...
But again, I don't think you were talking to me, and I don't know what you were talking about with the other person...
Post a Comment