As a person who leans left, Yes, the surplus under Clinton was a disastrous economic move. The problem is what I call neo-democrats who are sell-outs to wall street, but that's a convo for another thread. The connection between the surplus and the dot.com rise and fall, isn't a straight line, that is, there is a series of events that cascaded to contribute to the dot.com and GFC, but I admit, the line of causation is murky and hard to attribute in the A+B=C fashion.
The surplus was pure accident. It is easy to prove by looking at Clinton's actual budgets vs the revenues actually received. Clinton got caught by surprise.
That may or may not be true, but the Dems still touted it as an accomplishment. It wasn't. It was terrible economic policy.
That may be why I'm not familiar with the argument that balanced budgets equal recessions and depression. I've not heard that as part of any regular economic theory. Is this a Krugman thing? What school of economics supports the deficits forever concept?
I took too long. Anyway, I wasn't arguing the intention, I was saying that Clinton and the Dems touted the surplus as an accomplishment. On a side note. I seem to recall the huge Krugman and Riech don't understand banking and as a result, their policies result in greater peaks and troughs. Here are some articles on the subject. https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/deficits-are-our-saving/ http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=381 And if you can get past the juvenile theme, there is some good info in this video:
Your posted articles are pure bull with no basis in reality. As to your video, that woman is a total blithering idiot, but Bernie Sanders likes her.
Stephanie Kelton is one of the world's leading economists, she represents MMT which is an economic movement that understands fiat money and is not tied to the archaic regimes of the gold standard. If you want to know where the field of economics is headed, you should listen to her. Another economist in her camp is Steve Keen. I doubt if you have the chops to refute them.
It is important to clarify this point about "choice". Of course the only species that can choose its social/economic organisation is the human species. A species needs a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex and the resulting self-awarenesss, to enable non-instinctive choice between alternative methods of scarce resource-allocation between individuals. [And in fact humans can potentially (with developing AI and automation) abolish resource scarcity itself]. That's because other species are limited to instinctive behaviour, and do not develop concepts of fairness or justice, or rule of law. You appear to erroneously conflate instinct with choice, and therefore fail to see that collective security, achieved by rule of law, requires a degree of limitation of individual freedom/choice. Care to name another species that chooses to subject itself to "rule of law"?
So I'm safe to assume this isn't any sort of mainstream economics or largely accepted economic theory?
I didn't mock, I downright stated that what you posted was trash, pure trash. The mockery lies with you trying to assert that what you posted has any basis in reality, much like Sanders himself which loves that little idiot with a Phd from the "New School of Social Research". I fully understand trash when I see it and file it right in the trash where it belongs.
Don't kid yourself, she represent a collectivist socialist agenda that has been responsible for corrupting what little minds all of these progressive liberal thought they had. Listen to her, I do and that is how I know she is full of crap. Steve Keen, if he is another MMT proponent is full of crap also.
If you mean Bernie Sanders chief economic advisor when you refer to mainstream then yes, otherwise no.
It is not an Orthodox theory, that is true, however, given the disdain for "academic" theories of economics, it may interest you to know the Warren Mosler, a man that worked in banking for 20ish years, ran a hedge fund and was/ is a successful businessman who, himself, does not possess academic economic credentials is widely regarded as the founder of the concept. Since the concept was founded, it's been adopted and taught in several academic institutions. There is also a text that covers the concept, CLICK HERE The concept relies on facts. It's not a prescription on how to run the economy. It is a factual description on how sovereign money economies actually work. The key to understanding is to have a very strong understanding of modern banking. If you are the least bit serious about being able to evaluate the ideas I'm offering, I recommend this course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/money-banking The course is given by Perry G Mehrling of Bard College. Incidentally, he has not embraced Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), though he, as far as I know, does not strictly disagree with it.
This is where your world view based on pure self-interest breaks down. Collective economic and social security, achieved through rule of law, requires a degree of limitation on individual freedom. Otherwise you are committed to maintaining your own individual security, in an environment of anarchy.
Let's look at some of the vagueness in the concept of spiritual deism, to which you hold allegiance. A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation I would say rationally comprehensible moral laws only appeared in nature with the evolution of the human cerebral cortex, though I do not know why God took so long to introduce the concept of moral law into our universe, so to speak. As to natural law, God determined that individuals of all species are driven firstly by the instinct for self-preservation. God also knew that E=mc(squared) long before Einstein, so what exactly is natural law? In any case, none of this requires that humans must be subject to nature's anarchy, or absence of man-made law manifested by justice and rule of law.
While it is true that the human species is capable of defining a much larger set of choices than other species, the primary objective in making any choice is/should be the benefit both short term and long term resulting from the choice made. Would you not agree that survival is an 'instinctive behavior'? I'm unsure what you mean by a non-instinctive choice. The term 'collective security' to me implies protection of all individuals or groups of individuals from threats or harm by other individuals or groups of individuals. Essentially, the taking of legally acquired possessions or the life or well being of individuals without acceptable remuneration. Did I claim any other species subjected itself to "rule of law"? Has any other animal species had as great a negative impact on the environment and natural resources as have the human species? Conflate instinct with choice? No, just rational reasoning resulting in making a choice. But you, on the other hand, do seem to be erroneously conflating collective security with being achieved by the creation of laws which result in greater equality where none exists.
So the dung goes deeper and deeper but still the same dung with the same smell. As to Mehrling, I think his papers should be put into a comic book but then that is the world of economics, a comical subject. But by your statement, because I do not embrace Modern Monetary Theory then I could be seen as not strictly disagree with it, you're wrong as I do strongly reject the whole sorry theory as being a total conspiracy in support of collectivism.
Of course he doesn't, Bernie just needed a collectivist point of view so he hired a collectivist point of view that he doesn't embrace. Makes about as much sense as this whole MMT conspiracy theory.
And just how does this apply to the subject at hand? Is it that you understand nothing about almost everything?
I appreciate everyone that joins the conversation and offers their input, even yours, despite the vitriol and the fact that you've offered nothing but your opinion and either will not or cannot offer any facts to substantiate your claims. Having said that, anytime you want to debate facts, let me know. I'll be here.