Ocasio-Cortez Makes Cuomo Look Dumb For 'How Do You Pay' Question, 8 min. - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14978049
XogGyux wrote:"They use the EURO" is the shittiest, laziest excuse I have heard in a long time.

It seems to me that there you insulted me.
Then later you complain that we have reached the point where we trade insults.

Also, both of your examples of how the US could go bankrupt ignore the fact [that even you seem elsewhere to accept] that the US Gov. can just create dollars to pay the bills you said it can't pay. So, it will not go bankrupt.

BRW, which is worse in you mind, a] or b]?
a] The US goes bankrupt and so defaults on all it debt.
b] The US dumps a trillion dollars into the economy to pay off the bills that it can't otherwise pay.

To me the answer is obvious.

Going bankrupt is totally different from there not being enough resources and labor to provide for all the people. You said "bankrupt", maybe you meant some other word. If so, I'm sorry; but you must understand that I can only reply to what you write and not what you meant to write or should have written.
#14978050
@Crantag,
I agree that the US Gov. should not just deficit spend without any regard for the possible bad effects.
However, there is a huge gap between that level of crazy spending and the current economic theory's idea that the deficit must be eliminated and the debt paid down some. Somewhere between those 2 extremes is where I want the Gov. to aim for.
Paying down the debt any at all is a very bad idea in almost every situation. Only if hyperinflation got started should such a thing be done.
#14978053
Peter Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73 percent. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80 percent.

Where do these numbers come from? Underlying the Diamond-Saez analysis are two propositions: Diminishing marginal utility and competitive markets.

Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.

What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.

Here’s where competitive markets come in. In a perfectly competitive economy, with no monopoly power or other distortions — which is the kind of economy conservatives want us to believe we have — everyone gets paid his or her marginal product. That is, if you get paid $1000 an hour, it’s because each extra hour you work adds $1000 worth to the economy’s output.

In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income of everyone else doesn’t change, does it? Ah, but it does — because he pays taxes on that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort — and conversely the cost of their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay.

Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.

:hmm:
#14978062
Steve_American wrote:@Crantag,
I agree that the US Gov. should not just deficit spend without any regard for the possible bad effects.
However, there is a huge gap between that level of crazy spending and the current economic theory's idea that the deficit must be eliminated and the debt paid down some. Somewhere between those 2 extremes is where I want the Gov. to aim for.
Paying down the debt any at all is a very bad idea in almost every situation. Only if hyperinflation got started should such a thing be done.

As I've said before, what mainstream economic theory actually says is that there is an ideal level of debt, i.e. that some debt is good because it enables growth.

The rise of debt over recent years is startling in it's scale and rate, and it is clearly like a snowball as of now.
#14978064
jimjam wrote:America's greatest myth is that people deserve what they get and get what they deserve. That is why progressive taxation and civic generosity is the only way to craft a truly civil society.

We still have a progressive federal income tax system. There is no federal income tax at all up to a certain income level, unless you include social security and medicare taxes. No one has been able to figure out how a progressive tax system could even be implemented on sales taxes and all the other types of taxes that are levied by federal, state, and local governments.

jimjam wrote:Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.

There is no such tax theory. The rich do not pay low taxes because of the current progressive tax system that requires the rich to pay more. They apparently just don't pay as much as you would like them to pay. Ocasio-Cortez is simply a economic idiot. She is just another socialist dingbat that believes they should have the right to redistribute the wealth.
#14978068
Crantag wrote:As I've said before, what mainstream economic theory actually says is that there is an ideal level of debt, i.e. that some debt is good because it enables growth.

The rise of debt over recent years is startling in it's scale and rate, and it is clearly like a snowball as of now.

I totally agree with the above, except maybe are you sure debt alone enables growth? IStM, that it might be more the deficit spending that enables growth in the GDP.

IMHO, *ALL* of that 'snowballing' growth in the debt is caused by just one thing. Taxing the rich and big corps. at way too low of an actual final rate.
#14978072
Steve_American wrote:I totally agree with the above, except maybe are you sure debt alone enables growth? IStM, that it might be more the deficit spending that enables growth in the GDP.

IMHO, *ALL* of that 'snowballing' growth in the debt is caused by just one thing. Taxing the rich and big corps. at way too low of an actual final rate.

Sure, defecit spending leads to growth, and also leads to debt. But also, a bit of debt may widen the trunk of the economic tree.

Anyway no disagreement from me.
#14978075
@Crantag,
Am I missing something here?
You said debt enables growth.
Growth is an ongoing process. Do you mean that a given level of debt enables continuous growth?
Or is it that a level of debt enables a level of GDP, but not more growth forever?

You are aware that it is possible for the US to deficit spend and not borrow the dollars to do it. It can just create the dollars if that is seen as a better way to do it in the situation that we are in at that time.
. . . So, deficit spending need not add the the debt. It can add to the money supply instead.
#14978077
Steve_American wrote:@Crantag,
Am I missing something here?
You said debt enables growth.
Growth is an ongoing process. Do you mean that a given level of debt enables continuous growth?
Or is it that a level of debt enables a level of GDP, but not more growth forever?

You are aware that it is possible for the US to deficit spend and not borrow the dollars to do it. It can just create the dollars if that is seen as a better way to do it in the situation that we are in at that time.
. . . So, deficit spending need not add the the debt. It can add to the money supply instead.

Government spending is a component of GDP, which is the conventional proxy for growth.

Sure there's that technicaly viable method of printing money but in general analysis deficit spending is conflated with debt, and in practice this is largely a realistic precept, as far as I can tell.

Although, conventional mainstream analysis deals less with the topic of the US position of exhorbatant privilege. As for myself, I see fault with the assumption that this position of exhorbatant privilege can continue over the long horizon, which seems to be an assumption of MMT (that it can).
#14978080
Steve_American wrote:You are aware that it is possible for the US to deficit spend and not borrow the dollars to do it. It can just create the dollars if that is seen as a better way to do it in the situation that we are in at that time.
. . . So, deficit spending need not add the the debt. It can add to the money supply instead.

That results in the devaluation of the dollar and inflation. That is, everything we buy will cost more dollars because the purchasing power of the dollar decreases. This has been proven by history and does not help the lower income people at all. Don't you liberal/progressive types want to help the lower income among us?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, prices in 2019 are 2,936.60% higher than prices in 1860. The dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 2.17% per year during this period.

In other words, $1 in 1860 is equivalent in purchasing power to $30.37 in 2019, a difference of $29.37 over 159 years.

The 1860 inflation rate was 0.00%. The current inflation rate (2018 to 2019) is now 2.18%

U.S. Inflation Rate Calculator from 1665 through 2018
http://www.in2013dollars.com/1860-dolla ... 7?amount=1
#14978082
@Hindsite,
And this is bad because ____________________?
From 1946 until 1973 inflation was not that bad and then came OPEC and a lot of inflation.
In those years that I lived thru the people lived much better than they did from 1866 until 1893.
So, all the inflation you pointed to didn't cause the people to live worse off.
Explain why all that inflation was a bad thing. Even the OPEC inflation didn't hurt me any, because my wages went up with it.
Last edited by Steve_American on 07 Jan 2019 06:21, edited 1 time in total.
#14978084
Steve_American wrote:
@Crantag,
Am I missing something here?
You said debt enables growth.
Growth is an ongoing process. Do you mean that a given level of debt enables continuous growth?
Or is it that a level of debt enables a level of GDP, but not more growth forever?

You are aware that it is possible for the US to deficit spend and not borrow the dollars to do it. It can just create the dollars if that is seen as a better way to do it in the situation that we are in at that time.
. . . So, deficit spending need not add the the debt. It can add to the money supply instead.

Crantag wrote/replied:
Government spending is a component of GDP, which is the conventional proxy for growth.

Sure there's that technicaly viable method of printing money but in general analysis deficit spending is conflated with debt, and in practice this is largely a realistic precept, as far as I can tell.

Although, conventional mainstream analysis deals less with the topic of the US position of exhorbatant privilege. As for myself, I see fault with the assumption that this position of exhorbatant privilege can continue over the long horizon, which seems to be an assumption of MMT (that it can).

I think that MMTers would claim that the free floating exchange rate of the dollar means that currently the world is happy with the strong dollar.
. . . If this situation changes then the dollar will be weaker. This will make imports more expensive and exports less expensive. MMT sees this as a self stabilizing process. Do you disagree?
. . . What will happen IYHO if the dollar loses its privilaged position?

See also my new thread in Economics about the 4 errors of economic theories.
#14978085
Steve_American wrote:@Hindsite,
And this is bad because ____________________?
From 1946 until 1973 inflation was not that bad and then came OPEC and a lot of inflation.
In those years that I lived thru the people lived much better than they did from 1866 until 1873.
So, all the inflation you pointed to didn't cause the people to live worse off.
Explain why all that inflation was a bad thing. Even the OPEC inflation didn't hurt me any, because my wages went up with it.

As long as wages go up for everybody and the dollar remains strong worldwide it does not matter.
#14978100
One Degree wrote:If individuals are charged different rates then it is unequal and therefore unfair. You justifying the inequality does not eliminate it. You are simply saying you are okay with taxing people unequally. Yes, the wealthy use more luxury resources but income tax is not used to provide luxury resources.
Yes, the poor can be said to be unfairly taxed on sin taxes,sales tax, fuel tax etc. It can also be argued they are fair because everyone pays the same, but most believe this should be judged by income. Of course, there is no way to adjust them by income so it is irrelevant unless you intend to eliminate them.

As I explained before. People are not being taxed unequally. ALL OF US are getting taxed at the same rate, just that not all of us are making income past certain threshold as to trigger the higher brackets. For instance, if your income only triggers the 22% bracket, you can see it as paying EQUAL amount of taxes up to that bracket compared to bill gates and then paying 24%, 32%, 35% and 37% on $0 dollars made after that point. 37% of $0 dollars is 0$, you are still paying those $0, it just happens you don't see it on your bill because it is a waste of ink. We are taxed equally, we simply do not make equal money to trigger ever higher brackets. Like I said before, when a poor guy that was in the lowest bracket all of the sudden wins the lotery, he still pays the highest bracket (assuming jackpot is larger enough).
Look at it in this way. In a flat rate system, if my total income is $0, and the flat rate is 20%, i am still paying 20% of $0 which is $0. If you see progressive taxation as unequal, you must also see flat rate taxation as unequal. Either way you are wrong because neither one is unequal. Income is unequal. And like I said, I don't have any grudge against unequal income. The guy that busted his balls building and business or going to school for 10 years intead of partying with his buddies through highschool and beyond should get a larger payoff at the end simply because he put unproportionate amount of effort.
Steve_American wrote:It seems to me that there you insulted me.
Then later you complain that we have reached the point where we trade insults.



You are mistaken (and again saying that you are wrong/mistaken is not an insult). I called your ideas and statement shitty/stupid, which is different from calling yourself stupid.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what insults come my way anyways :lol: That simply means you are getting emotional and don't have rational points to make. Just wanted to point it out.

Also, both of your examples of how the US could go bankrupt ignore the fact [that even you seem elsewhere to accept] that the US Gov. can just create dollars to pay the bills you said it can't pay. So, it will not go bankrupt.

BRW, which is worse in you mind, a] or b]?
a] The US goes bankrupt and so defaults on all it debt.
b] The US dumps a trillion dollars into the economy to pay off the bills that it can't otherwise pay.

And that is not a way to get out of debt. Creating money devalues existing money via inflation. Paying the debt in that way is the same as taxing people and businesses as essentially you are dropping their purchasing power.
Here, if you need some visual aid.

Think about it, if you could just print money without repercussions, why bother borrowing money, to begin with? Just print it at the start and save yourself the interest rate. :lol: Or better yet, why bother collecting taxes at all to fund the government, after all, taxation has 100% disapproval rate :knife:
To me the answer is obvious.

Yeah, obviously wrong.
Going bankrupt is totally different from there not being enough resources and labor to provide for all the people. You said "bankrupt", maybe you meant some other word. If so, I'm sorry; but you must understand that I can only reply to what you write and not what you meant to write or should have written.

LOL?
#14978126
@XogGyux,
I knew it. I had no doubt at all. You dodged the question. Which is better the US defaulting on its debt or kicking the can down the road by printing dollars? Which may cause inflation. And you would not answer it.

Also, Neo-liberal economics equates increasing the money supply by Gov. action with inflation while ignoring increasing the money supply by letting banks make crazy loans. You believe them and call me stupid. Well, try to explain why there has been so little inflation since 1990 while about $13T of deficit spending happened. And don't tell me there is a big difference between printing money and deficit spending with borrowed money. Both increase the money supply. You do know that QE is just like printing money, right?
#14978128
Steve_American wrote:@XogGyux,
I knew it. I had no doubt at all. You dodged the question. Which is better the US defaulting on its debt or kicking the can down the road by printing dollars? Which may cause inflation. And you would not answer it.

Both options are just as bad. The precarious situation of finding the US defaulting is not just because we would get some kind of "warning" or a note saying "you misbehaved" but rather it would send our economy down the drain, basically the exact same effect that hyperinflation would have.
#14978140
Steve_American wrote:I think that MMTers would claim that the free floating exchange rate of the dollar means that currently the world is happy with the strong dollar.
. . . If this situation changes then the dollar will be weaker. This will make imports more expensive and exports less expensive. MMT sees this as a self stabilizing process. Do you disagree?
. . . What will happen IYHO if the dollar loses its privilaged position?

See also my new thread in Economics about the 4 errors of economic theories.

I think if the dollar were to somehow suddenly lose its privileged position, through some kind of extreme cataclysm, the value of the dollar would plummet. I see a gradual weakening of the position of the dollar more likely. I don't know what this will lead to.

I almost see a potential reality where the US sort of drifts in the way of Russia. I suppose that the eventual undermining of the US dollar will by a symptom of the decline of US hegemony. Just like Russia is a post-empire, the US faces a possible post-empire future typified by decline and decay. It's been suggested that Great Brittan successfully avoided such a fate. Will the US be able to? I see the US being more like Russia. But, the US is still the US, so things will play out in a unique fashion.

I should have just stuck with I don't know, hah.
#14978145
Hindsite wrote:
Ocasio-Cortez is simply a economic idiot. She is just another socialist dingbat that believes they should have the right to redistribute the wealth.

She's in good company …. apparently Dwight D. Eisenhower was also an idiot. We certainly could use more idiots like her and Ike in the government.

During the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from 1953 to 1961, the top income bracket in the United States climbed to a marginal tax rate of 91 percent. Taxes on corporate profits were two times as great as they are in 2017, and that's before the current proposal to cut that rate to 21 percent

wealth redistribution? US income inequality, already at its worst levels since the 1920s, is likely to get worse because of President Donald Trump's economic policies, including a tax-cut program that was heavily tilted toward the wealthy. US inequality statistics have been so startling in recent years that they have almost ceased to shock — but they could undergird America's next financial crisis.

That's because consumers' increasing reliance on debt in an environment of stagnant wages is leaving more American families financially insecure, to the point where even minor setbacks can be devastating.
#14978168
Steve_American wrote:I knew it. I had no doubt at all. You dodged the question. Which is better the US defaulting on its debt or kicking the can down the road by printing dollars? Which may cause inflation. And you would not answer it.


Print!

inflation is crazy low. The interest rate lever that the fed has used doesn't seem to do much anymore anyway.
#14978256
Capitalism (money and markets) can be structured numerous ways. There is not just one form of capitalism. Progressive capitalism is structured to make it so everyone can secure their food, lodging and other necessities and still be alloted time and resources for themselves, their family and community.

"Free-market" capitalism of low tax rates and captured markets exists to drive small businesses and family farms into bankruptcy while pushing the middle class into the lower class and the lower class into wage slavery. Free market capitalism is structured to make sure the majority of workers never get the time, education or the resources they need to protest their desperate situation. Free market capitalism seeks to destroy any attempt at creating a social safety net.

People who subscribe to "Free-market" capitalism think of a world divided into who is "deserving" and who is "undeserving." On the political spectrum that reaches from Generosity to Genocide, they fall on the side of Genocide. They need to step back from their "life isn't fair" mentality and reframe their perspective by first defining what it is everyone should be deserving of.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]