Completely serious. Did you even read your own article, Brainy?

Here, let me give another choice quote from your own article...

With my graphic post I wasn't serious, but this tripe should offend you for the simple fact that you posted it. Or are you admitting that you were trolling with that crap?

Here's two much more serious links for you to peruse at your leisure on the topic.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2009.html

But you won't like it. At all. The reality is that our national debt situation is bipartisan. It's not the fault of Obama, Bush, Clinton, the House, or the Senate, or any single politician in the past 20 years.

It's the fault of all of them. Unfortunately, it also leads to the conclusion that the Republicans tax shennanigans, minus Pauls, have specific political intent that ***** most of the US. And, guess what? So do the Democrats plans.

 

Still unsure what to make of what you're saying.

 

.....---- it, you know that the article that you linked excluded the costs of wars in Bush's term (Bush classified it as "emergency expenditure") whereas it is on the books for Obama's terms?

You do understand this is why Bush looks so peachy in comparison, right? Any source that tries to ignore that is immediately suspect. It's like Paul Ryan's plan that he was touting - he removed the cost of the wars in his plan (It's where almost all of the savings came from) but left them in Obama's plan for comparison purposes. We the people are being fucked without lube in a bipartisan fashion. What makes it even worse? Some people don't even want a reacharound or so much as a "thank you", believing this ------- is in their own best interest.

 

He's saying we are all fucked unless Ron Paul wins.


RP2012.

 

Basically, ^This

(Edit to not double post) http://www.alternet.org/story/153869...ote_abortions/ - backfiring? Yes, I think so.

Related to the above, and illustrates the point oh-so-well with a large dose of hilarity:

 

Should be aborted just for that crap.

 

I don't have time to go through the last few posts individually, but there is some confusion (or slips of the fingers) regarding deficits vs debt.

Also, regarding the nature of the debt. The majority of the "debt" is either a savings vehicle for the US non-government sector or is debt the government owes to...


... the government.

 

 

I want protection from paying child support. I don't want to suffer the consequences of sex. I demand equal rights.

 

So why did you post the first chart? I don't remember ever defending anyone, in fact I do remember saying the data is accurate (except mislabeled) but has no merit without comparative context...And that the quote you pulled out of the article I lined is exactly the point I was making?

 

Not a slip of the fingers, I want to see which Congresses are voting to deficit-spend, and by how much, rather than just looking at the total amount of existing debt year by year.

 

like this?



still doesn't really paint a real picture.

 

I need to find more pictures with Sesame Street characters, I guess... :-/ The US "debt" picture is so muddled and confused.

~70% of Federal securities outstanding are either savings instruments for US citizens (pension funds, Grandma's savings bonds, etc) or is debt the government owes itself. "Oh no! How will we ever pay ourselves back?!"

Deficits and debt outstanding without context (e.g. employment levels, inflation levels, etc) is really not very useful. That is to say, high deficit spending with low unemployment is not equal to high deficit spending with low unemployment (especially combined with a household balance sheet recession).

 

This is the problem I have with MMT theory. The structure of the system is used to disguise the actual cost of government spending.

Yes, the continuing debt and the annual budget deficits are not "burdensome" in the same way that my mortgage and my monthly mortgage payments are burdensome.

However, concluding that because it's not "burdensome" in a cashflow/accounting sense it must not also be burdensome to the American economy and the American people because of Say's Law, opportunity cost, and government consuming scarce resources seems a bit premature to me.


EDIT:

I'm still working through all this. I've been reading and rereading this post and the following discussion in the comments since yesterday.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012...en-dialog.html

 

Grandma cannot buy savings bonds any more without setting up an account at Treasury Direct for every recipient. Fu__ing Geitner

 

Here's a fun one.

 

Because you are misunderstanding it. Students of the operational realities of the modern monetary system do not say "debt doesn't matter" or "deficits don't matter." I'm going to keep this short because it really belongs in the "Let's Bore Each Other to Death" thread, but give this a try.


I'll try to look at that when I have more time. He lost me with the space-laser asteroid example. Is that the same "Crusoe Island" Bob Murphy? Has he ever recognized that, in order for Crusoe to net save in coconuts, the coconut tree has to deficit spend them in to existence?

How is that a problem? I really hadn't considered it before, so I am legitimately asking. Inconvenience for seniors that are not computer savvy?

What kind of debt is that? Government, non-government or both?

 

I know they are (to smaller or greater degrees) concerned over the risk of excessive inflation as a result of budget deficits, but even those who emphasize this risk seem only to be concerned with nominal inflation, not the actual inflation (ie, both the nominal inflation above 0% and the inflation that cancels out whatever natural deflation might exist).

Moreover, the emphasize on inflation as the only real risk of budget deficits ignores the mechanics of government spending -- namely, malinvestment, bubble propagation, reduction in economic liberty, and the loss of scarce resources that would have been available for productive purposes.

Am I underestimating real concern on the chartalists over deficits?

 

I suppose that depends. I do think some of the prescriptive elements of some of the "Neo-Chartalists" or "MMTers" underestimate the effects of the things you mentioned, like malinvestment. A lot of that depends on the individual's stance on the prescriptive elements.

For example, some proponents believe it's inefficient to use an unemployment buffer stock and would prefer a counter-cyclical employment buffer stock. I think the actual implementation of that process (aka Job Guarantee) would be rife with problems.

Others believe that, rather than increasing direct government spending in a balance sheet recession it would be better to reduce taxation and let the private sector and household direct the spending. My understanding is that, to a student of modern money, increased direct government spending or decreased taxation are operationally the same.

I don't want to de-rail this thread too much. If you are really interested and have read Cullen Roche's intro piece on modern money at least twice, this is the next place to go:

Mosler's 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy

It's his book as a free PDF download. Mosler is some kind of savant. If the name sounds familiar, yes, he is the same guy that designed the MT-900S. He made his fortune trading fixed income markets.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thebogle...vings-bonds/3/

And you cannot just go buy them without setting up an account for the person and putting all that information(if you have it) on line.