There is no plausible model under which the amount of additional interest paid by government would overcome the effects of higher interest rates on borrowing for the rest of the economy.
Jesus Christ.
Yes, exactly!!
Yes there is. The most obvious being gov is paying interest.
Blah blah blah.
Dunning Kruger anyone?
Go look at the polls. Sanders...
Again, there's no evidence that hypothetical polling matchups are at all predictive. You never listen, haha.
I seriously don't know what you're even trying to argue here.
Lol, my reasoning is entirely consistent, unlike yours.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Just admit you were wrong about what I support as no reasonable person could have read my posts to imply support for that. You either aren't reading them or you're so invested in arguing now that you feel the need to invent new positions to argue against.
Wang's never would have looked better than Silvers as it implied a level of certainty unsupported by the data, principally because he wrongly assumed that polling errors were not correlated.
It is a pretty hilarious statement to say that it's dumb to rely on the election result to measure the quality of a model when that is the literal point of the model.
Either you think he is a source worth citing or you don't. What other people think is irrelevant.
Uhmm, because there is a point at which you run out of the ability to use money for purchasing goods or services, which for all intents and purposes means you ran out of money. Venezuela is rapidly approaching that point, for example. Inflation obviously has to do with funding.
There is no plausible model under which the amount of additional interest paid by government would overcome the effects of higher interest rates on borrowing for the rest of the economy.
Jesus Christ.
Yes, exactly!!
Clinton is not running for anything.Since modern polling began, no president has been as unpopular at this point in his first term as Donald Trump is today. So should Republicans worry that Trump will hurt their prospects of keeping control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections? In a word, “yes” — if Trump remains as unpopular on Election Day 2018 as he is now.
You've never cited anything ever to me when we discussed, so why not? It doesn't even make sense that just because you lost, it's not accurate.
I don't get your "framework" argument either. lol It's just BS. Hillary just attacked Trump in the election. She stood for nothing.
No, no you're not. You also suggested to me that Krugman agrees with you, but he has amended his beliefs and makes contradictory statements in his articles all the time. How could you possibly say he does unless motivated reasoning? It's obvious to me you just want to declare mainstream econ is behind you.
Republicans get even Democrats to agree with fiscal conservatism. Balanced budget amendment is a part of that.
At the end he posted past results and suggested 80's the floor. Nate's model isn't transparent and mashes a ton of stuff.
It's one election.
He's the kind of source you would look to. That's why I bring him up. He's still obviously worthwhile to look at. It's not like someone has to agree 100%
Yes, but the conditions necessary for that to happen won't happen in the US.
Jesus Christ indeed!
You realize that the burden of evidence is on you, right? Non-candidates or non-frontrunners almost always poll better than candidates or frontrunners and this is not a new phenomenon. When you have a political system governed by negative partisanship this result is obvious.
More random ranting. I have totally lost track of whatever argument you're trying to make here.
Anyone who writes as much as he does is likely to make contradictory arguments from time to time but his overall position on deficits is very clear and it agrees with me. He supports large scale deficits in economic downturns and a reduction of debt/GDP ratio during good economic times. His supposed 'hypocrisy' has to do with his evaluation of what constitutes good economic times, not the underlying principle.
Why are you having so much trouble admitting you said something dumb? Just apologize and move on.
A model's predictive quality doesn't depend on its transparency. I agree it is only one election but it is frankly bizarre to argue that a model is superior when it offered an EXTREMELY certain estimate of an outcome that turned out to be wrong because it made an entirely foreseeable mistake which was pointed out well in advance.
So again, you consider him a valuable source and a hypocrite who changes his mind all the time. lol.
Well that's a well thought out rebuttal: I'm right because the thing that proves me wrong won't ever happen here.
(hint: it literally happened here twice in the past during the Articles of Confederation period and in the Confederacy)
Oh good, more YouTube videos. I can also find a YouTube video 'proving' how the earth is flat.
Show me peer reviewed research that backs up with you're saying.
Gee, why does it work for Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio then? Besides, if you want, I'll go find an article where Sabato said it was unknown whether Bernie would tank or not. You and Jhhnn have insisted repeatedly that he would without a doubt.
If Bernie couldn't convince a majority of Dems it seems unlikely that he'd have convinced the broader electorate. All your going on about early polling doesn't change that at all.
Gee, why does it work for Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio then? Besides, if you want, I'll go find an article where Sabato said it was unknown whether Bernie would tank or not. You and Jhhnn have insisted repeatedly that he would without a doubt.
As I told you, he has shifted his positions more to MMT since the Great Recession. He doesn't agree with you. Prior, many like him would have argued to go to surplus like the Clinton days, yet he was telling Clinton to go on a spending spree.
What did I say that was dumb? I just said you might be one to support balanced budget amendment. Balanced budget amendment is popular because of similar arguments you are making to me.
I'm right because you don't run out of money and any problem in the long-term would be stupid easy to fix before you got inflation rates that are detrimental to growth.
LOL That's one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while. WTF does that have to do with the economy at the present or a hypothetical one with single payer and free tuition?
lol Mosler, Kelton, et al. aren't nobodies.
Let me google that for you.
https://www.google.com/#q=low+interest+rates+are+deflationary
She was like an incumbent. The other side had an issue as well. The rules on the Republican side made it so Trump could win with a strong minority, but polls showed he would get crushed one-on-one if there wasn't the establishment/insider logjam.
Interesting. So before his matchups show he would have done better and now you're saying you don't know if they would. Oops.
More BS arguing. It's easy to just claim you don't know what someone is talking about.
No, his opinion on this issue has been there for a long time since his examination of Japan.
He most certainly agrees with me, lol. (Although really it's me agreeing with him)
Yes and saying that is dumb because it would be impossible for any rational person to read my posts and think it would be likely that I support it.
People who support balanced budget amendments do not argue for deficit spending.
Damn, I almost wrote that I was sure you would ignore cases of the thing you said would never happen here happening here by saying they magically don't count. I was so right.
I'll take that as an admission that you can't find any actual peer reviewed research to back up your point. Thanks for that.
So what? You addressed the logic I offered not in the slightest. Part of the reason Bernie polled well early on is that his image was different than his reality.
Reality Might Topple a Beloved Economic Theory
What a bullshit article. Inflation is a demand driven phenomenon. High interest rates reduce demand because America operates on the installment plan.
Incumbents or incumbent-like candidates (those starting with significant advantages) can make better candidates lose. So I do think it addresses it. Bernie btw was polling well even nearing the conventions. He was around ~12% average against Trump when he was a household name and people knew he was a self-proclaimed socialist.
Uh, no. My position has been that I believe it's more unlikely that Bernie would drop so much that he would lose even worse than Hillary. That combines the candidate Bernie (not as articulate as others, etc.). I do think Hillary could 100% do better with more progressive positions.
Bull****! Man, I should dig up some of his past articles. lol
Many I've seen who want balanced budget amendment would want some kind of mechanism to spend more during recession/depression.
You're being ridiculous. It's like saying because lots of depressions happen in the past, they should occur in modern economies.
LOL
Reality Might Topple a Beloved Economic Theory
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-11-04/reality-might-topple-a-beloved-economic-theory
Here's another one to chew. LOL
Neo-Fisherism: A Radical Idea, or the Most Obvious Solution to the Low-Inflation Problem?
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...obvious-solution-to-the-low-inflation-problem
And again, your position has now changed to 'I don't know'. Lol.
By all means do so! Krugman's thinking came to basically this place back in 1998 when he studied Japan's lost decade. Since then he's been an advocate for aggressive fiscal and monetary expansion in response to liquidity traps. The whole point is to push these things so hard that you create credible expectations for future inflation.
If anything the MMT people are aping Krugman, not the other way around.
Haha, so by this standard your cohort of 'suspected balanced budget amendment people' encompasses about 99% of the people in the US. What a great heuristic.
One of us is being ridiculous, that's for sure. You said it wouldn't happen here and I showed how it literally did, twice. What was your response to learning you were wrong? Furiously hand-wave things away. Again you went from 'funding doesn't matter' to 'okay I admit inflation matters' to 'funding doesn't matter' to 'hyperinflation can never happen in America' (meaning inflation doesn't matter).
lol, did you even read your own linked article?
1) It's saying that those people are way out of the mainstream and that the overwhelming majority of the economics literature shows otherwise.
2) ***It says that their theory is low interest rates cause long term DEFLATION.***
If they were right and that is the case the result would be even MORE disastrous for your '0% interest rates all the time' policy as deflation is much, much worse than inflation.
Why would you link to people proposing a theory that, if correct, utterly decimates your policy preference? You're so desperate to find a way to escape your disastrous arguments that you're linking to people arguing against the policy that you said was the answer.
lol. Do you even remember what you're trying to argue anymore?
It's not as simple as "I don't know"? My educated guess is it favors Bernie. You claim an asinine absolute position without evidence.
Yeah, I don't think you've read his articles for years. You're just making and assuming ****.
No, they routinely mock him for being almost at MMT. Like "you just need to get rid of austerity later".
99% of pop? Bull*** Many deplorables want to shed spending like crazy and get rid of Fed spending completely.
Moreover, what specifically have you said that would make someone think you don't believe in balanced budget amendments? Mainstream has been spend now, austerity later.
It's frankly retarded to compare Articles of Confederation and Confederacy to the economy today. You haven't even begun to show how single payer would result in that. Quit being so stupid. It's like Wiemer Republic, Greece comparisons that have their causes founded in nothing related to a developed country going single payer.
Do you know what also wasn't mainstream? Realizing sovereign free floating currencies couldn't default.
Hey moron, fiscal policy overpowers monetary policy.
Yeah, coming from a guy who is acting like Articles of Confederation period has anything in common to today. Fucking idiot
Hey moron, fiscal policy overpowers monetary policy
So you deny the DNC donor class gathered in the Hamptons to start the anointing process?
And again, your position has now changed to 'I don't know'. Lol.
By all means do so! Krugman's thinking came to basically this place back in 1998 when he studied Japan's lost decade. Since then he's been an advocate for aggressive fiscal and monetary expansion in response to liquidity traps. The whole point is to push these things so hard that you create credible expectations for future inflation.
If anything the MMT people are aping Krugman, not the other way around.
Haha, so by this standard your cohort of 'suspected balanced budget amendment people' encompasses about 99% of the people in the US. What a great heuristic.
One of us is being ridiculous, that's for sure. You said it wouldn't happen here and I showed how it literally did, twice. What was your response to learning you were wrong? Furiously hand-wave things away. Again you went from 'funding doesn't matter' to 'okay I admit inflation matters' to 'funding doesn't matter' to 'hyperinflation can never happen in America' (meaning inflation doesn't matter).
You are a very, very confused person when it comes to economics, haha. It seems like you're flailing now just trying to find an argument that has purchase.
lol, did you even read your own linked article?
1) It's saying that those people are way out of the mainstream and that the overwhelming majority of the economics literature shows otherwise.
2) ***It says that their theory is low interest rates cause long term DEFLATION.***
If they were right and that is the case the result would be even MORE disastrous for your '0% interest rates all the time' policy as deflation is much, much worse than inflation. Why would you link to people proposing a theory that, if correct, utterly decimates your policy preference? You're so desperate to find a way to escape your disastrous arguments that you're linking to people arguing against the policy that you said was the answer.
lol. Do you even remember what you're trying to argue anymore?
OK, here we see your conviction that you are right but right along side it we see you casting aspersions on somebody who disagrees with you. How can you truly be convinced you are right and at the same time display all the signs of somebody who is insecure in what he believes. Do you see that the intent of the put downs is to weaken the credibility of the person with opposing views. Why would you need to do that if you are right? You need, in my opinion, to examine the link between how your self esteem is linked to what you believe.
If you define your worth with the valued accuracy of your opinions, you will become welded to them so that you and your opinions are one and the same thing. That will make you completely blind to a different and possibly even better or more accurate assessment of reality when it comes along. You can only hear if you haven't surrounded your ears with armor so thick no sound can penetrate. Just something to think about if you wish. These are just things I've noticed about myself and don't like about myself because it makes me unfair and closed minded to the other person. Not a trait I am especially able to take much pride in.
Ah, WTF happened to this thread?
Don't argue with eski Re: Krugman. He will hand you your ass.
_______
Anyone claiming Bernie would have definitely done this or that in the GE is full of it. It's opinion, we all have ours and that's what it's worth.
He was never really vetted or tested, he certainly made a number of strange past comments regarding Castro and other socialists that could have lit him up as a cartoon commie Democrat.
Otoh.. Trump won. He's a race-baiting, pussy grabbing con artist with long standing ties to the mafia. His plans were even more paper thin and fiscally unsound than Bernie's, yet he got dopes to buy his stupid hats and show up to the polls.
Who really knows WTF would have happened.
Ah, WTF happened to this thread?
Don't argue with eski Re: Krugman. He will hand you your ass.
_______
Anyone claiming Bernie would have definitely done this or that in the GE is full of it. It's opinion, we all have ours and that's what it's worth.
He was never really vetted or tested, he certainly made a number of strange past comments regarding Castro and other socialists that could have lit him up as a cartoon commie Democrat.
Otoh.. Trump won. He's a race-baiting, pussy grabbing con artist with long standing ties to the mafia. His plans were even more paper thin and fiscally unsound than Bernie's, yet he got dopes to buy his stupid hats and show up to the polls.
Who really knows WTF would have happened.
It's just more of the usual concern trolling- "Bernie was so cheated! He woulda won! Democrats are so stupid!"