OK, so I should have said most derivatives trading is parasitic with no benefit to the real economy - as confirmed by Buffet who said "derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction" . "properly regulate them" ...exactly, and that is still NOT happening at present, and was certainly the cause of the GFC. Like I said, Sanders is still a fiscal conservative, so MMT is not part of his platform. ..the Fed is keeping interest rates low to stop the economy going into recession. The problem is neoliberal dogma itself, not low interest rates. The GFC was caused by banksters juggling UNREGULATED derivatives in a casino solely designed to make money, as opposed to derivatives SOLELY designed to insure against losses caused by unforeseen events (weather etc) which is the proper function of derivatives
Obama was the spendiest POTUS in history. Trump would have to spend a lot more to cumulatively touch the amount of deficits Obama ran up.
Er...Obama was faced with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He was forced to deficit spend, in order to avoid another Great Depression. But you can see from the graph that Trump has now reversed the unwinding of debt that Obama had achieved by 2013.
Also, Trump can easily rack up 10 trillion in debt if he gets another term at the pace we're going. That would put him right up there with Obama. Past Obama, I think. The deficit's only going to get worse. And he didn't even inherit an economy in free fall. You should hear Steve Bannon talk about the scene: I was hoping we could talk about the legacy of the financial crisis. How would you characterize it? The legacy of the financial crisis: Donald Trump. The legacy of the financial crisis is Donald J. Trump. And I can give you the specific moment: When they put Lehman in bankruptcy, and the geniuses didn’t understand that it was inextricably linked to the commercial paper market. Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, they went to see Bush three days later. They told him, ‘We need a trillion dollars in cash, and we need it by five o’clock.’” And in a profile of courage, President Bush says, “Not my problem. You gotta go to Capitol Hill.” They go up to Capitol Hill, they put everybody in a room. They make them all put their BlackBerrys outside, and they walk in, and Bernanke, who’s not an alarmist, says, “If we don’t have a trillion dollars by today, the American financial system will melt down in 72 hours. The world financial system will melt down in two weeks, and there will be global anarchy.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...lanted-the-seed-for-the-trump-presidency.html That's what was handed off to Obama. Everyone always seems to forget that.
Loony as it may be - it is reality. What is lunacy - is the right claiming to be fiscal conservatives. Where do you think all that money that Trump is spending comes from .. Santa ? of course not - it comes from our pockets - via wealth redistribution = "Socialism" No idea what Bernie would spend - but compared Trump - Obama was a fiscal conservative.
When I went through a divorce and two homes were taken from me, I had $36,000 in negative equity. All credit card debt from paying $3,000 per month in child support for 15 years. But I never wanted to destroy “the rich” because they had more than what I had.
The national polls had Hillary winning the popular vote by 3.3% and she actually won by 2.1%. There was the last minute email disclosure that was not fully reflected in some of the polling. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
LOL! In fact,Trump won the election. The Clintons lost. The polls were just a phony political show designed raise money and support for one side and suppress the support and fundraising effort of the other side. This time it was not subtle. Even in the last days of October 2016, the Real Clear Average showed Clinton leading Trump by 7.1%. IOW, half of the polls showed an even greater lead for Clinton. Hence the post election Shock Awe and Tears from The Clintons' base. REAL CLEAR POLITICS, General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (2-Way Race), 11/8/16. https://realclearpolitics.com/epoll...ump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html#!
I completely agree with all of this, so I will only consider your final sentence, namely And this is the result of our present neoliberal financial system...half a trillion a year of public money going to the already wealthy, as you say. But apart from waste associated with the military industrial complex, funding on a large scale is still required to improve poorly maintained infrastructure, and to eradicate poverty and underemployment. The point is: if the public sector has to go the private sector to raise funds, then we are faced with permanent 'austerity' in which the public cannot have good infrastructure and zero underemployment with above poverty wages. To solve this problem MMT heterodox economists have explained the policy options open to sovereign currency issuing governments. Note: money is created in private banks when credit worthy customers are granted loans, in order for those customers to spend; likewise currency issuing government can create deposits via treasury and central bank in order to spend, so long as the resources are available for the government to purchase. [Private sector players - users of the currency - have to earn or borrow before they spend; sovereign governments - issuers of the currency - can spend before taxing or borrowing, as outlined above]. I know you didn't comment on MMT and probably don't want to; but nevertheless I need to point out the consequences of your "fiscal conservatism", which are "austerity" ie, cutting of social (public) services.......because you are confined to raising taxes (which the Right don't want) or reducing social expenditure which hurts the Left (ignoring for the moment the savings available from cutting back on the bloated military industrial complex).
Emerson's latest has Trump beating everyone BUT Sanders. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Even the Poynter Institute has admitted that the pollsters blew it. "Each election cycle there tends to be one pollster over whom the media fawns. We love glamorizing tacticians and consultants far more than, say, assessing actual policy. Somebody whom we deem prescient often gains a following, chummy reporters on his speed dial, clients and fat speaking fees. One beneficiary of the press spotlight has been Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight. Tuesday they concluded that Clinton had a 72 percent likelihood of winning. Not close. “Bye, Nate,” says Howard. Well, maybe. We’ll see if his all-knowing aura is deflated. Sometimes, failure seems no impediment to success in the polling and pundit rackets." POYNTER.ORG, As election polling blows it, press self-flagellation begins, https://www.poynter.org/newsletters...ling-blows-it-press-self-flagellation-begins/ I am amazed that the DP core base keeps believing the advisors, strategists and pollsters who have misled them about political reality and brought them to tears. Fake Polls = MSM = FAKE NEWS. When will they ever learn?
There are a lot of other useful derivatives. Buffet is pointing out the need for regulation. Derivatives were not the cause of the 2008-2009 recession. The problem is the low rates.
Bernie says he will end fracking via an executive order. If this happened it would have a very real impact on the economy.
The point is you had an above poverty income that enabled you to work your way out of that indebtedness. No one wants to "destroy the rich"; I have to doubt the veracity of the above story when you conclude with such an ideologically charged and meaningless statement. Gates and Buffet themselves have said they should be paying more in taxes.
That just proves that pollsters, at this point, favor Sanders. Nevertheless, I think Sanders is by far the strongest DP candidate for obvious reasons unrelated to the political entertainment offered by public polling.
After the Hillary debacle one would figure that even Dem Party loyalists would rethink the nature of polling companies blowing skirts up the lunatic rumps of leftist politicians.