Feeling Biden's inflation yet? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228962
pugsville wrote:Health is a investment in the people of the country. Republicans are perfectly willing to spend money, there not much difference in the parties on the spending part. It'ss just the Democrats try more often (not always successfully, but neither side is that sucesfull ) to help improve people's lives,.


Then you "invest" in your health. Don't demand others "invest" in your health.
#15228963
BlutoSays wrote:Then you "invest" in your health. Don't demand others "invest" in your health.


They do by voting in governments to do so.

Universal Government Healthcare is much cheaper than the American system (generally about half as much money spent) for much better outcomes.
Socialized Heath care is much better than Capitalists privatized healthcare.

You got a problem with democracy Bluto?

If people are healthier, better educated, society is more productive and everyone benefits.

You got problem with society Bluto?

You just want your own way and stuff everyone else. Well you should move to somewhere else.
#15228975
Istanbuller wrote:A lot of what happened *IS* still the effect of government interventions. Biden told the federal reserve to print tons of money. So the result is 40 years high inflation.

He intentionally makes you poorer.

In a later post he added:
He {Biden] did it completely by himself. He is the one in charge so he should take the responsibility.


Forty years ago Biden was running for Vice Pres. with Clinton to replace Bush I.
It is totally ignorant or stupid for you to claim that Biden told the Fed. to do anything 40 years ago.

Then, after a recession in the early 90s inflation moderated until after the GFC/2008. IIRC, inflation only got high after covid caused lockdowns and supply bottlenecks that caused shortages.
Sir, the Cato Institute is a tool of the Koch brothers, well known extremist neo-liberals. A few years ago it published a report that I have linked to 3 times here already. It said that every case of hyper inflation it could find data on in all of history happened after 1900. It also said that every case the inflation was started by shortages of critical stuff, like food and oil. It said that the money supply had zero to do with the start of the inflation. It said that the inflation continued because the shortages continued. It said that it got hyper because the Gov. printed money, true.
My point is that your post is totally factually wrong. Biden didn't tell the Fed to print money 40 years ago. So, Biden has not intentionally made Americans poorer.
You seem the think that all the money that Biden proposed to spend with Build Back Better, but didn't spend because Congress didn't pass it; is somehow causing inflation.
Biden is not "in charge" of the US economy. If he was in charge, then his programs would have passed Congress. They didn't. So, how is he in charge?

BTW -- Repuds like you don't seem to remember that Reagan increased the national debt by 289% (if you don't count the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund, SSTF). If all things like the SSTF are included, Reagan increased the debt by over 290%. In his 8 years the 'grand total' debt went from $1 T to $4 T. He increased the debt more percentagewise than any modern president. If Obama had done the same the debt IIRC would have gone from about $10 T to $40 T in his 8 years. IIRC it only went up to about IIRC $22 T. [These number are from my memory and are certainly not exact.]
.
#15228990
BlutoSays wrote:Then you "invest" in your health. Don't demand others "invest" in your health.


Bluto, you and I totally disagree about how the US Gov. funds its spending.
1] Deficit spending will never cause taxes to be raised to pay off or pay down some of the debt. Never.
. . . If the Repuds raise taxes it will be for some other reason, not to pay down the debt. Ray Dalio said that trying to pay down the debt has "always caused a depression."

2] The UK, aka England, has had a national debt for 328 years, starting in 1694. During most of those years it was on the gold standard and it lost its Empire, too. Yet it didn't need to pay down its debt. Why can't the US, which is off the gold standard, grow its debt like the UK has for 328 years (starting counting from 1839). And this is just the least amount of time, the UK will not be paying off its debt in the next 10 years. It seems like there is no limit on the time a nation can have a debt or on the size of its debt, as long as 100% of its debt is in the currency that it issues.
. . . The problems that Turkey and many other poor nations are having is because their debt is in dollars, not its own currency.

3] Tax revenues don't fund the Gov.
. . . In Colonial Virginia the Gov. issued newly printed "Virginia Pounds" and also imposed a new tax to pay them off. Then as those new pounds were paid to Virginia to pay taxes, the Gov. burned them. Yes, it burned perfectly good Virginia Pounds. If it burned them that is proof that it didn't need them to fund future spending.
. . . In the same way today, when you pay your taxes with a check. The Gov. deposits it into its account at the Fed so that the check is cleared by the banking system so that your account is reduced by that amount. However, when the Gov. spends money it has directed the Fed to always pay the checks to the corps or people, etc. The Gov. account at the Fed can go negative. When it does the Treasury announces that it is selling more bonds. At that instant the Fed credits the Gov. account with the full amount of the announced bond sales. It doesn't wait until they are sold. As the bonds are sold, the buyers' accounts are reduced, but the Gov. account is not increased because it has already been increased.
. . . Frankly, I doubt that the Repuds here, like Bluto, will believe my assertions. I'm basing it on what I've been told by MMTers, like Warren Mosler, over many years. I hope that the Lurkers will try to google it for themselves.
. . . So again, tax revenues don't fund the Gov. spending. The Gov. creates dollars with key strokes on its computers as it spends dollars. It doesn't care how much is in its account when it spends. It has another guy/gal who takes care of that at the end of the day.

4] The money supply is increased by every loan that a bank makes (and reduced by every payment the borrower makes). In boom years this totals far more than the Gov's deficit spending. Only in downturns, recessions, and depressions when banks massively reduce lending and the Gov. increases deficit spending does bank lending fall below Gov. deficit spending. Over every decade, so far since 1914, bank loans have added much more to the money supply that Gov. deficits have. It is just that Neo-liberalism was created for the bankers, so the effects of banker actions are never to be talked about, because the masses might get mad at the bankers if they knew the truth.
. . . Bluto, et all, are going on about the Gov. deficit and ignoring the effect of bank loans on the money supply.
. . . Neo-liberalism is trying to hide this from its students and the mass of the people. It does this by falsely assuming that banks lend out their depositors' deposited money. This assumption was proven false in 2014 by an experiment involving 200,000 euros being loaned to a Professor while his students looked over the shoulders of all the bank's employees to see if they did something to move money from an account of the depositors' money to the new account of the Professor. It didn't do that. The loan officer just added 200K euros to the Prof's account and over night (about a week later) another officer made sure that it borrowed from another bank if necessary to meet its "reserve requirements". So, loans are deposited and these deposits soon move to another bank to be loaned back to the 1st bank to meet its reserve requirements.
. . . I have linked to this report 3 times in the past. Google it.

.
#15230526
Face it, Biden's policies as well as the war in Ukraine caused the inflation. Food prices are skyrocketing, and so does gas. The price of gas is now around $4.60/gallon, and it will get worse, possibly topping $5 by the middle of June. This is all because of Biden's energy policies that are unacceptable for many Americans. Yet, he kept releasing the emergency oil reserves TWICE, but did not lower the price of gasoline. And with his energy secretary running her mouth over how gas prices are blamed on the supply and demand issue related to the pandemic as well as the war, she has done absolutely nothing to stabilize prices. She has got to be the worst energy secretary this country has ever have and needs to be replaced. What Biden should do is to replace her with someone who has experience in the oil and gas industry and has a financial background.

Also, Biden's foreign policy sucks, which also explains why inflation is running rampant.
#15230745
Elizabeth Warren Desperately Seeks "More" Inflation

Gas Gouging

Big oil companies are making out like bandits. Our plan would crack down on their price gouging, tax their windfall profits, and send four rebate checks a year to American consumers:https://t.co/EH147IeQpC
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 24, 2022

Elizabeth Warren Flashback

On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 6, 2019

"On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere."

Thank you Elizabeth Warren for another "Hoot of the Day".

She is a multiple time winner.

More Free Money

As a country, we shouldn’t crush people with debt for trying to build a better future. Technical schools, community colleges, and public universities should be tuition-free. And to start righting this wrong, President Biden must #CancelStudentDebt. https://t.co/cHl9197vYc
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 24, 2022

Warren's plan to tamp down inflation includes more free money.

"As a country, we shouldn’t crush people with debt for trying to build a better future. Technical schools, community colleges, and public universities should be tuition-free. And to start righting this wrong, President Biden must #CancelStudentDebt."

Why stop there?

Free Universal Child Care

Let’s take this vision nationwide with my plan for universal child care and pre-k.https://t.co/cL2fhrxgpC
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 29, 2022

"Let’s take this vision nationwide with my plan for universal child care and pre-k."

Yeah, that'll sure fix inflation.

To put things politely, Elizabeth Warren is an economic moron.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/elizabet ... -inflation
#15231306
Puffer Fish wrote:Are you feeling Biden's inflation yet?
There are many people suffering under it. The inflation is inflicting extra suffering than people would otherwise be experiencing. Not everyone in society has lots of money to easily be able to afford price increases.

Democrats are in DENIAL that Democrat policies are to blame.
If all this inflation really is just caused by temporary supply chain issues, as is claimed, then shouldn't we see prices begin to drop back down soon?
China and India are beginning to buy oil from Russia, which should cause oil prices on the world market to drop back down.

I suppose that will be the test, won't it? If prices drop back down to what they were, then we will know that the inflation was just caused by supply chain issues. If, on the other hand, they don't, if prices don't start falling back anywhere near what they were, then we will know for certain that this inflation was caused by an increase in the amount of money the government has printed.

And why are there so many on the Left who pretend rising prices don't really matter, that all the focus should just be on raising worker wages? (I suppose the difference between Supply-side and Demand-side economics)
You do realize that even if wages rise, that itself will contribute to higher inflation, and wages will have to rise again to compensate? (This will happen until they finally settle at some point, but by that time the inflation rate will have risen some more, even after the original cause. Unfortunately what we are seeing is the inflation rate continuing to increase faster than wages, so that cannot be the explanation for what is happening)

The government seems to just want to print themselves more money to spend, because actually trying to increase taxes to pay for all this extra spending would be political suicide. Inflation is like an "invisible tax", harder to see what's actually going on.

Inflation also makes the debt easier to pay down in the very near short-term, but much harder to pay down in the long-term when interest rates shoot up in response to worries about inflation. (Were interest rates to shoot back up to the historical average level of 5%, then 23% of the government's revenue would be consumed just paying interest payments to service the national debt) So once again the current government seems to be trying to kick the can down the road to the next government, refusing to take responsibility now and let them worry about it.


80% of all USD in existence have been created in the last 2 years. M1 chart below. Time to put the brakes on.

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
#15231312
Patrickov wrote:I am only interested to know whether @BlutoSays and @Puffer Fish believe Biden or the Democrats intentionally rump up the inflation, and why they think yes or no.


Yes, intentional because you leftists are ideologically driven with no common sense. You don't establish facts and then write policy around facts. You create "beliefs" and then write your policy around those beliefs regardless of the outcomes. You leftists aren't thinkers, you are believers. You fools are worse than theocrats!


#15231333
BlutoSays wrote:Yes, intentional because you leftists are ideologically driven with no common sense.


Stop throwing me into the mix. You are overestimating my ability to destroy, and I hate leftards as much as you do if not more.

As I said, I just want to know what exactly Biden and the leftards' conspiracy behind this inflation is. At least answer something that, as I understand, is a fact as you perceive.
#15231341
@BlutoSays It's the right driving inflation. No left exists in USA, you dumb fuck. :knife: :lol:
#15231561
BlutoSays wrote:Yes, intentional because you leftists are ideologically driven with no common sense. You don't establish facts and then write policy around facts. You create "beliefs" and then write your policy around those beliefs regardless of the outcomes. You leftists aren't thinkers, you are believers. You fools are worse than theocrats!


https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=qyMSc97UksM


Lurkers, this assertion is a classic example of Repuds and Trumpers projecting their own methods and aims on to everyone else, while denying that they are their own methods and aims.

An example being spending like drunken sailors.
#15231566
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, this assertion is a classic example of Repuds and Trumpers projecting their own methods and aims on to everyone else...


While you may be right on the denial part, I am afraid I see this in Democrats and leftards too or even instead, including some of the more progressive ideas. I am just to weak or stupid to set up a good rebuttal.
#15231594
BlutoSays wrote:80% of all USD in existence have been created in the last 2 years. M1 chart below. Time to put the brakes on.

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL


Lurkers, Bluto just shows his inability to understand the things that he posts.

If you look closely at the fine print under his graph and just under where it says "Frequency: monthly", you can read where the next paragraph starts with "Before May 2020 ... " and the paragraph under that starts with "Beginning May 2020 ... ". Here the "... " refer to the definitions of M1 used to create the graph. Only a few words were changed, but they had a huge impact, as you can clearly see.

This means that in May 2020 while Trump was President, the Fed redefined (slightly) what was included in M1. So, the graph shows a huge jump in May 2020, and then a new slope up after the jump.

All this graph shows us it the effect of changing the definition of what is included in M1. Because the definition was changed, we can't deduce anything from the graph other than that changing the definition had a large effect. Well, if you look very closely, you can see that the last small bit curves to a less upward slope, so M1 is increasing slightly slower under Biden for the last few months.

Also Lurkers, please note that both definitions include 'demand deposits at banks and savings and loans', etc. Now, I have explained that every time a bank makes a loan, it creates dollars out of thin air using the ability that the law gave them in 1913 when the Fed was established. The bank just deposits the money into the borrower's account. The money in this account is included in the M1 figure with both definitions, as is the money in the accounts of all American people's and corps' accounts when the borrower spends the money of loan with a check or checks. Only if the check is to a foreigner, who deposits it in a foreign bank, is the amount not still included in M1.

Because the Fed did this in May 2020 before the election, Bluto is just wrong to be blaming Biden for this, if he is blaming Biden, which is not clear.

What is clear is that Bluto wants us to slow the growth in M1. This growth appears to be faster now, solely because of the change in the definition of M1. The growth in M1 is a result of loans made by banks and of deficit spending by the US Gov. All mainstream economists blame it on deficit spending and ignore the effect of bank loans on M1, so it isn't surprising that Bluto does this also. So Bluto, do you wants banks to make fewer and smaller loans?

.
#15231595
Patrickov wrote:While you may be right on the denial part, I am afraid I see this in Democrats and leftards too or even instead, including some of the more progressive ideas. I am just to weak or stupid to set up a good rebuttal.


So Patrickov, as a Progressive I have decided that the evidence indicates that MMT is a better theory of economics than either Neo-Keynesinaism or Neo-liberalism. Just one example of the failure of those 2 mainstream theories is the fact that from 2001 until 2019 the national debt increased a huge amount, but inflation was very low. The theories both assert the large deficit spend is the cause of inflation all by itself as well as adding to the debt. OTOH, MMT asserts that Gov. deficit spending will cause inflation only when the economy is already using all the available resources and labor (in the economy). Because from 2001 to 2019 unemployment was never close to 1% and there were unused resources that could be mined or bought, there was little inflation.

So, why are you sure that my beliefs are not the true beliefs?

.
#15231598
Steve_American wrote:So Patrickov, as a Progressive I have decided that the evidence indicates that MMT is a better theory of economics than either Neo-Keynesinaism or Neo-liberalism. Just one example of the failure of those 2 mainstream theories is the fact that from 2001 until 2019 the national debt increased a huge amount, but inflation was very low. The theories both assert the large deficit spend is the cause of inflation all by itself as well as adding to the debt. OTOH, MMT asserts that Gov. deficit spending will cause inflation only when the economy is already using all the available resources and labor (in the economy). Because from 2001 to 2019 unemployment was never close to 1% and there were unused resources that could be mined or bought, there was little inflation.


Admittedly I did not notice that you are debating with BlutoSays from a economic rather than social aspect. Apologies for this.

My point is more about your accusation of Republicans and Trumpists "projecting their own methods and aims on to everyone else", which I see Democrats and progressives do in area other than or in a scope wider than economy.

Some of the progressive ideas enabled enhancement of interests which are not necessarily mine, and for that I resent the progressives more than the conservatives, and I consider myself a conservative, even though most conservative think like the people I hate at my place.

Economy-wise I care much less as I think it's much more personal, and on my side of the world it's more about nation-states actively stealing money from ordinary people by dubious legislations or policies, rather than actually having a whole framework of (false) economic theory (other than socialism).
#15231615
Patrickov wrote:Admittedly I did not notice that you are debating with BlutoSays from a economic rather than social aspect. Apologies for this.

My point is more about your accusation of Republicans and Trumpists "projecting their own methods and aims on to everyone else", which I see Democrats and progressives do in area other than or in a scope wider than economy.

Some of the progressive ideas enabled enhancement of interests which are not necessarily mine, and for that I resent the progressives more than the conservatives, and I consider myself a conservative, even though most conservative think like the people I hate at my place.

Economy-wise I care much less as I think it's much more personal, and on my side of the world it's more about nation-states actively stealing money from ordinary people by dubious legislations or policies, rather than actually having a whole framework of (false) economic theory (other than socialism).


OK. But, this is the "Economics" page on this site, so focusing on economics seems normal.
By the sound of your reply, you don't think that economics matters much. You say it is "personal".

I note (for the 1st time) that you live in Hong Kong under the thumb of the CCP and PRoC.

I assert that you have no skin in the game about social issues in the US. Why do you care what we do?
I have never seen you talk about the social issues/policies in Saudi Arabia. Surely you care about the people there living under those social policies. Yet, you only get involved in American social policies. Why?

OK, on social issues/policies =>
Can you and I agree that most if not all social issues/policies are just based on preexisting beliefs?

This seems obvious to me. Here in the US we asserted in 1776 that all men (later expanded to humans) are created equal and so are equal under the law. That all are the be treated with respect. Most nations and societies disagree. They think some humans are higher and some lower. Take India as an example.
. . .We asserted equality in 1776, I take it that we meant that, because in Jan. 1863 we freed the slaves, and then amended the Constitution to make them equal under the law to people who had never been slaves, (and then gave women the vote). Most Repuds and Trumpers disagree with me on this point. They think that white people are higher than all other people and the law can and should reflect their belief, am I right (in your opinion)?

So, I've said enough to make my position clear. It is up to you to reply. Do you think that social issues/policies are based on something other than preexisting beliefs? Maybe beliefs one learns from their religion?

.
#15231637
Steve_American wrote:I assert that you have no skin in the game about social issues in the US. Why do you care what we do?


With the influence of the United States, what happens there does not just make a difference there.

And frankly I would be a bit disappointed if you do think "an outsider is not entitled to comment on the matters happening in the United States", although I understand that I deserve being unwelcomed if I (apparently) take a position not in your country's interest (at least if you perceive as such).


Steve_American wrote:I have never seen you talk about the social issues/policies in Saudi Arabia.


Actually yes I had, just that it's such a pariah state that I don't (have to) do much except by referencing it as a negative example.


Steve_American wrote:Can you and I agree that most if not all social issues/policies are just based on preexisting beliefs?

This seems obvious to me. Here in the US we asserted in 1776 that all men (later expanded to humans) are created equal and so are equal under the law. That all are the be treated with respect. Most nations and societies disagree. They think some humans are higher and some lower. Take India as an example.
. . .We asserted equality in 1776, I take it that we meant that, because in Jan. 1863 we freed the slaves, and then amended the Constitution to make them equal under the law to people who had never been slaves, (and then gave women the vote). Most Repuds and Trumpers disagree with me on this point. They think that white people are higher than all other people and the law can and should reflect their belief, am I right (in your opinion)?



My two cents (or even less).

1. The Republican Party would always see itself as the one doing all those anti-slavery and equality stuff, and objectively it's more or less the case until the 1960s when the United States changed their alignment. I did not do research on this matter so I don't know how rapid this change was, but from what I understand I won't say the Republicans in the 2010s are what they were in the 1860s. Same applies to the Democrats.

2. From what I experienced since I was small and till now (I think I am technically middle-aged) I actually agree with Republicans and Trumpists that the Whites are superior, or at least they are more capable in administration than most other races / nations, at least on the Eurasian continent. By extension, I genuinely agree the concept of MAGA. However, they failed to address at least two aspects.
a. White superiority comes from non-assertion, and what (as you call) Repuds and Trumpers did the other way round. That makes them closer to CCP supporters than what they should actually be.
b. It's actually the system and the prosperity of the likes of you, @late, Politics_Observer, etc. which make the White, and / or the United States, great. If one thinks like what a White should then the person is White, if you know what I mean.

3. More about my view on social policies.
a. I generally oppose differential treatment among races, sex, orientation, etc. unless the case can be presented with absolute necessity, and so far I fail to see any, other than (for example) sex crime laws must "bias" towards females and / or minors since they are by default in a weaker position to defend themselves.
b. On the other hand, I also don't like the over-assertion of more "special" groups of people like, say, LGBTQ+, nowadays. Many think doing something against discrimination against these people are necessary, but to me it creates an atmosphere that even criticizing the movement can be toxic and bring adverse consequences to the said critic. And as things go, more often or not these critics will find themselves siding with or even being useful idiots of ultra-conservative control freaks (i.e. those who lead Repuds and Trumpers).
c. This may be seen as a conspiracy theory, but I admit that I somewhat share Bluto's (paranoid I must say) fear that governments restricting people's rights to, say, arm, would lead to excessive government control, as happened on my side of the world. However, while the likes of Trump called for mental healthcare, in practice they call for nothing to be done, and I had already expressed my disapproval elsewhere by stating something like "they should have a taste of their own medicine".


Steve_American wrote:So, I've said enough to make my position clear. It is up to you to reply. Do you think that social issues/policies are based on something other than preexisting beliefs? Maybe beliefs one learns from their religion?


"Preexisting beliefs" is an all-encompassing term. There has to be someone thinking up something before something is done.
It's, at least to me, logically impossible to argue against that.

But more importantly, what I said had led you to think I have a perception against this statement?
#15231783
Patrickov wrote:Admittedly I did not notice that you are debating with BlutoSays from a economic rather than social aspect. Apologies for this.

My point is more about your accusation of Republicans and Trumpists "projecting their own methods and aims on to everyone else", which I see Democrats and progressives do in area other than or in a scope wider than economy.

Some of the progressive ideas enabled enhancement of interests which are not necessarily mine, and for that I resent the progressives more than the conservatives, and I consider myself a conservative, even though most conservative think like the people I hate at my place.

Economy-wise I care much less as I think it's much more personal, and on my side of the world it's more about nation-states actively stealing money from ordinary people by dubious legislations or policies, rather than actually having a whole framework of (false) economic theory (other than socialism).


See also your/his next reply.

OK, why did I believe that you don't think the social issues/policies are all based on preexisting beliefs?
I guess it was the part in yellow above. You didn't specify what ideas you object to. But, they seemed like social ideas. If you want to be understood you ought to say the details. I don't think POFO will ban you for being anti gay, but I could be wrong.

You don't care about economics. So, that just leaves social issues to separate Dems from Repuds. I, OTOH, mostly care about economics, and not much on wokeness. I do care about abortion and birth control and keeping the Gov. out of my bedroom.

You wrote: "Preexisting beliefs" is an all-encompassing term. There has to be someone thinking up something before something is done.
It's, at least to me, logically impossible to argue against that.


Yes, someone had to think up every new idea. However, that always happened a long time ago. It takes time for a *new* idea to spread enough for it to be considered as true by enough people to get it to a place where it might be the basis of a policy change. When the policy change is being debated, it is already a preexisting idea.

I don't get you. Why do you care about social issues in the US. I don't think you're an American, and I don't know what race you think you are. So, why do you support a Party that intends to steal the next election, is crushing the American people by refusing to deficit spend on social programs that Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, Norway, etc. all accept as normal programs, and is openly racist? What social policies are so important to you that you would want a Fascist (aka Nazi) Gov. to take over the US which has the world's strongest military and a many nuclear weapons?

What is it that you like about MAGA? I agree that we ought to want to make America great again in my terms. A great place for the workers to raise a family with 1.5 earners. In the 60s 1 earner could support a spouse and 2 kids. Now 1 earner can barely support him/her self. It takes 3 earners to support 2 adults and 2 kids, but no family can have 3 earners until the oldest kid is 16 years old. It is a Catch 22. [To get B you must 1st have A, but to get A you must 1st have B. And you don't have A or B to start.] This is why the US is not great. Also, because it refuses to accept science, so covid has killed 500K too many, and we do nothing about climate change. A great nation would be leading the world on climate change.

You say you don't care much about economics. Why? Is it that you are so sure that there is just 1 correct economic theory and everyone agrees with that? Everyone who isn't a socialist or communist, that is. Well if that is your belief, then I have totally failed in my goal of at least communicating with you that there is an alternate economic theory being pushed toward public awareness. At least, I want people to know there is a new theory out there, even if they reject it.

.

He went from doing what was politically convenien[…]

workers paradise Also, why the slight at ant[…]

To quote a true visionary: The Universe is a very[…]

When you're a permanent "good guy," eth[…]