Ok let's deal with what will affect us in a few days.
These Republicans do not want and I repeat do not want to raise taxes!
Ok let's deal with what will affect us in a few days.
These Republicans do not want and I repeat do not want to raise taxes!
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Fiscal cliff for 2 weeks and then they will strike a deal.
This is 'Merica.
In 2 years plenty of them will get vote out, let them try playing with the taxpayers.
Both parties agree that we must accelerate the Wall Street bailout and impose austerity on lower income people. The Obama administration wants to camouflage its intention, so they make a deal behind the scenes with the Republicans to simulate a big battle over the tax increase. I predict that the Republicans will agree to a token increase, which will help both parties dupe the voters as they proceed with a major redistribution of wealth from lower income Americans to higher income Americans.
I tell you Henry is no wonder Guyana is in such a financial state. People like you know more about thieving than about balancing the books.
Both parties agree that we must accelerate the Wall Street bailout and impose austerity on lower income people. The Obama administration wants to camouflage its intention, so they make a deal behind the scenes with the Republicans to simulate a big battle over the tax increase. I predict that the Republicans will agree to a token increase, which will help both parties dupe the voters as they proceed with a major redistribution of wealth from lower income Americans to higher income Americans.
Henry like you reading up on a different conspiracy angle? The fiscal cliff is just an ants mound.
I tell you Henry is no wonder Guyana is in such a financial state. People like you know more about thieving than about balancing the books.
Mr. T, I take this to mean that you oppose an FDR-style solution where the government would move to dry up the financial speculation and restore physical productivity. Apparently you would prefer what they are doing in Greece (I have heard that the AFC fellows like the Greek way.)
I have a gut feeling that we will not ride off the Cliff, the politicians will arrive at some form of agreement.....if not trouble for the small man.
I tell you Henry is no wonder Guyana is in such a financial state. People like you know more about thieving than about balancing the books.
Mr. T, I take this to mean that you oppose an FDR-style solution where the government would move to dry up the financial speculation and restore physical productivity. Apparently you would prefer what they are doing in Greece (I have heard that the AFC fellows like the Greek way.)
When you cut the amount of disposable income tax payers have left they'll spend less on non-essential goods and services. That in turn means less money in the economy, which leads to a collapse in the jobs market.
The Republican model is currently being used in the UK and people are feeling the pain. Many businesses have gone bankrupt since those measures came into place and households started feeling the pain.
Greece has a different model. They have increased taxes to such an extent that many Geeks are fleeing if they have any money left to flee with.
When you cut the amount of disposable income tax payers have left they'll spend less on non-essential goods and services. That in turn means less money in the economy, which leads to a collapse in the jobs market.
This is monetarist bull crap. The Fed is presently pumping $85 Billion a month into the banking system to bail it out, and it is doing absolutely nothing to create jobs. When you impose austerity on the public by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and all the other stuff that both Obama and the Republicans want to cut, you are also reducing the amount of money in the economy. But all this misses the point. If you want to create jobs, you must channel credit to the sectors which will actually employ people, particularly construction, manufacturing, and agriculture. And you must amputate the cancerous growths in the financial sector which are presently sucking up capital like black holes, without employing anyone.
When you cut the amount of disposable income tax payers have left they'll spend less on non-essential goods and services. That in turn means less money in the economy, which leads to a collapse in the jobs market.
This is monetarist bull crap. The Fed is presently pumping $85 Billion a month into the banking system to bail it out, and it is doing absolutely nothing to create jobs. When you impose austerity on the public by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and all the other stuff that both Obama and the Republicans want to cut, you are also reducing the amount of money in the economy. But all this misses the point. If you want to create jobs, you must channel credit to the sectors which will actually employ people, particularly construction, manufacturing, and agriculture. And you must amputate the cancerous growths in the financial sector which are presently sucking up capital like black holes, without employing anyone.
That's why I say you are a useless economist. Trying to channel credit into sectors that can employ people has not worked in Europe, and neither has pumping money into the banking system. If you can't manufacture goods that can be exported you won't bring in new money to fill the empty coffers. By building roads etc you are only keeping some people in a job, but you are not generating extra income. The salaries of the workers is paid with money that is either already in the economy or has been freshly printed.
That's why I say you are a useless economist. Trying to channel credit into sectors that can employ people has not worked in Europe, and neither has pumping money into the banking system. If you can't manufacture goods that can be exported you won't bring in new money to fill the empty coffers. By building roads etc you are only keeping some people in a job, but you are not generating extra income. The salaries of the workers is paid with money that is either already in the economy or has been freshly printed.
Perhaps you were born yesterday. For evidence of the success of the American System, you don't look at Europe. You look at the US, during periods where it was in use, such as the early years of the nation, or the Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt administrations. Your blockheadedness is most in evidence when you say that " By building roads etc you are only keeping some people in a job, but you are not generating extra income." You could not be more wrong. By upgrading transportation infrastructure, you increase the overall efficiency of the economy; every business of every size must buy and sell physical goods, which must be transported. By increasing the speed and decreasing the cost of transportation, you increase the profitability of each individual business, as well as that of the economy as a whole. The same applies when you upgrade the infrastructure for energy production and transmission; for water and waste management; for communications; and so on. If you upgrade the infrastructure for health care, education, and scientific research, you increase the productivity of the labor force, which also increases the profitability of the economy as a whole.
Face it: monetarism is a disease which has crippled much of the world's economy.
You are relying on the service sector which is exactly the sector that the UK relies on. But once the roads are built the workers are back on the street. You need manufacturing jobs to keep the economy going and expanding. Just look at Brazil, China, Germany, etc. They have a service sector like everyone else, but the real wealth comes from sending goods abroad and bringing in foreign currency. The US has sent most of its industries abroad. You won't find service sector jobs to replace manufacturing jobs.
So your strategy is doomed to fail. No matter how good an infrastructure you have, it won't solve the problem of lack of jobs to go round.
You are relying on the service sector which is exactly the sector that the UK relies on.
Mr. T, it ought to be obvious that roads, dams, canals, power plants, etc. are not built by the service sector. You want to created millions of jobs? Build this. China's success is not based on sweatshop assembly plants. It is based on things like the Three Gorges Dam.
Everyone now agrees that the so-called "fiscal cliff" is a stupid policy that threatens our economy and our people. Everyone agrees why the "fiscal cliff" is stupid -- it inflicts austerity at a time when it is likely to throw the nation into a gratuitous recession. Causing a recession leads to increased unemployment and a larger budget deficit. We have all seen austerity force the Eurozone into a gratuitous recession in which Italy, Spain and Greece have Great Depression levels of unemployment.
Here's the short version of why austerity is a self-destructive response to the Great Recession. A recession occurs when demand to purchase goods and services falls and the economy contracts, causing increased unemployment. This simultaneously causes tax revenues to fall and government expenditures for programs like unemployment compensation to increase. The fall in revenues and increase in expenses causes the federal budget deficit to grow rapidly.
Austerity is a policy of raising taxes and/or cutting governmental spending for the purported purpose of cutting the deficit. If one raises overall taxes in response to the Great Recession the result is a reduction in private sector demand. If one cuts governmental spending the result is a reduction in public sector demand. The result of reducing private and public sector demand in the recovery phase from the Great Recession, where overall demand is already grossly inadequate, is to throw the nation back into recession or even a depression. That causes the budget deficit to grow. A policy of austerity undertaken under the claim that it will reduce the deficit causes a gratuitous recession that leads to a massive loss of wealth, far higher unemployment, and in increased deficit. That is why austerity is a policy that is the self-destructive economic analogy to the medical insanity of bleeding patients.
We have known that austerity is an idiotic response to a severe crisis for 75 years. The U.S. was in the midst of a strong recovery from the Great Depression until FDR's neo-liberal economists convinced him in 1937 that is was essential that the U.S. adopt an austerity program to reduce the federal deficit. Austerity forced our economy back into a Great Depression.
It was only the stimulus of federal spending in World War II that brought the U.S. out of the depression. During World War II and for the remainder of that decade the ratio of debt-to-GDP was at or near historically record levels. The result was the greatest industrial expansion in history, full employment (including a massive influx of women), strong economic growth, and sharply declining deficits and debt-to-GDP ratio because the growth led to large increases in revenue and the low unemployment greatly reduced spending on the unemployed. We also defeated the Axis powers, created Social Security and the GI Bill, and began an extraordinary expansion of our housing stock to house the baby boom.
We learned many lessons from the catastrophic failure of austerity and the extraordinary success of stimulus in this era. The U.S. adopted a fiscal system of "automatic stabilizers." These are counter-cyclical (they push in the opposite direction of the business cycle) fiscal effects that are designed into the system and do not require new legislation once the recession or inflation begins. The result of these automatic stabilizers has been to reduce the severity and duration of recessions. Indeed, studies show that the larger the national governmental role in the economy, the less volatile the economy. This makes sense because the stabilization function should be more effective if the stabilizers are larger relative to the economy.
Unfortunately, these sensible counter-cyclical policies that make theoretical and common sense and have repeatedly worked in the real world were forgotten by many due to a campaign of deficit hysteria funded by Pete Peterson, a Republican billionaire financier who has made it his mission in life to destroy the safety net. His ultimate goal is to privatize social security so that Wall Street can receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees investing our retirement funds.
I've explained in a prior column how the fiscal cliff was created through an insane bipartisan deal in August 2011. The fiscal cliff was always a terrible job-destroying idea that also began to unravel the safety net by cutting Medicare. Everyone involved in creating the fiscal cliff acted irresponsibly and inhumanely in seeking to inflict austerity, cause a recession, and unravel the safety net.
What is forgotten, however, in discussions of the idiocy of creating the fiscal cliff is that it was part of a broader bipartisan deal intended to inflict even more self-destructive austerity and even greater damage to the safety net. The fiscal cliff was an act of idiocy in pursuit of a policy of depravity called "the Grand Bargain" that was actually the Grand Betrayal.
The bipartisan madness has increased since the August 2011 budget deal. Today, the parties are simultaneously screaming (1) that the fiscal cliff is a disaster because it imposes austerity and will cause a recession and (2) that it is essential that we agree to a Grand Betrayal that will inflict even greater austerity and cause an even more severe recession. Indeed, the Grand Betrayal mandates austerity over a decade so it is likely to cause and/or deepen multiple recessions. The Republican and Democratic variants of the Grand Betrayal are doubly destructive and inhumane because they cut the safety net. President Obama wants to begin to unravel the safety net and cut social programs even though an overwhelming majority of Democrats oppose it and even though doing so will inflict even greater austerity. That will cause a deeper recession and likely make the deficit larger, so it is as nonsensical as it is cruel.
During this this entire financial farce I have been unable to get the dominant media to make the most obvious point. Since we all agree that austerity (the fiscal cliff) is a terrible idea that will cause a recession and likely increase the deficit, we must logically conclude that all variants of the Grand Betrayal are austerity programs that must be defeated in order to prevent a recession that is likely to increase the deficit. We should all be opposing any cuts in the safety net because they would inflict austerity. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans also oppose cuts in the safety net as inhumane.
So why don't the Democrats and Republicans stop trying to do a deal that will inflict austerity? Why not simply repeal the Budget Act of August 2011? That would kill the fiscal cliff. Repeal would kill austerity, prevent the recession, save the safety net, increase growth, and shrink the deficit. All versions of the Grand Betrayal (Republican and Democratic) inflict austerity, are likely to cause a recession, begin to unravel the safety net, destroy growth, and increase the deficit.
Under the same logic we should be able to agree on two related actions -- renew the extension of long-term unemployment compensation and renew the moratorium on collecting the payroll tax. These policies are superb counter-cyclical programs and have the added advantage of reducing human misery and inequality. Republicans and Democrats have agreed in the past on the desirability of both actions.
Henry please define monetarism.
This will do: "The theory or practice of controlling the supply of money as the chief method of stabilizing the economy." The pernicious aspect of this doctrine in practice is that its practitioners stubbornly refuse to differentiate between productive investment, and unproductive, parasitical speculation. In practice, therefore, they favor speculation, because it produces a faster short-term profit (up until the point where it causes a systemic collapse.) This is generally a problem with "free market" ideologues. Anyone who can see beyond his own nose will acknowledge that to ensure the long-term success of an economy, government intervention is necessary, both in the form of regulation of those sectors which are essential to the overall performance of the economy, and in the selective use of credit generation and taxation (respectively) to foster production and penalize speculation.
This will do: "The theory or practice of controlling the supply of money as the chief method of stabilizing the economy." The pernicious aspect of this doctrine in practice is that its practitioners stubbornly refuse to differentiate between productive investment, and unproductive, parasitical speculation. In practice, therefore, they favor speculation, because it produces a faster short-term profit (up until the point where it causes a systemic collapse.) This is generally a problem with "free market" ideologues. Anyone who can see beyond his own nose will acknowledge that to ensure the long-term success of an economy, government intervention is necessary, both in the form of regulation of those sectors which are essential to the overall performance of the economy, and in the selective use of credit generation and taxation (respectively) to foster production and penalize speculation.
===
This is a very old definition of monetarism. It goes back to the 1970s. It has been updated. Nobody controls the money supply because it is well known that doing so is impossible. What you do is target the benchmark interest rate instead. Thus modern monetarism has been updated. Nevertheless one aspect is true. Old monetarists and new monetarists believe in the omnipotence of free markets. You and I know that is at the root of the sub-prime crisis and has no basis for small economies with persistent FX constraints.
Access to this requires a premium membership.