With the possibility of a recession who would you want in charge?

That mainstream view of yours is THE problem.

Therefore anything you have say about how to manage the present situation is wrong.

btw, seen in an MMT blog, comments section today:

"Trump has gone communist!!!" (as demonstrated by Trump assuming command of production at GM, and his belittling a REPUB member of congress for daring to ask (albeit mistakenly, like you): "how will we pay for" the $3.5 trillion rescue package....)

Capice?

 

Trump: "we can handle that easily, because of who we are....its our money, its our currency".

https://twitter.com/i/status/1243674759201796098

(….though he's still hesitant, trying to get his head around it....what he's trying to say is: our constraint is resources, knowhow and labour, not money

That's Bernie's policy, but the Dems have rejected Bernie….so now Trump - our "stable genius", might actually win the election....though Biden tried to say the same thing the other day ie "the treasury will pay".

We will see how this MMT insight plays in the electorate, in the coming months, as we "do whatever we have to do". I wonder if Obama is watching....

 

Are you denying that the Democrats inherited a $161B deficit from the Republicans FY2007 and two years later it was $1,400B and stayed over $1,000B for the next three and with all that "stimulus" we had the worst and most anemic recovery in modern history?

Why all the dancing and dodging? If I am "wrong" about everything then refute what I post and reply with something of merit.

 

The GFC - like the present crisis - needed multiples of $trillions of 'stimulus' (more accurately, rescue of the neoliberal trickle down economy)….the anaemic recovery after the GFC was the result of an egregiously TOO SMALL injection of funds into the economy.

Your belief in mainstream deficit mythology is THE PROBLEM; fortunately Trump, unlike Obama, is showing signs of understanding that treasury is NOT limited by false considerations of the size of the deficit, but by the availability of real resources.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1243674759201796098

 

It was Obama's "trickle up" that was a total failure compared to the "supply-side" policies used in 2001 recession that helped mitigate the recession and get us into a full robust recovery with full employment and soaring tax revenues and a deficit of a measly $161B. Then the Democrats took back the Congress, how did their policies work out after that in the 2008 recession? Those policies were also used by Gingrich and Kasich in the 1990's and again the economy was rock solid, full employment (their welfare reform also helped get people back to work) and they balanced the budget and produced surpluses. When has "trickle up" ever worked?

Are you denying that the Democrats inherited a $161B deficit from the Republicans FY2007 and two years later it was $1,400B and stayed over $1,000B for the next three and with all that "stimulus" we had the worst and most anemic recovery in modern history?

 

Meaningless nonsense. Note: "trickle down" economics refers to the neoliberal engendered transfer of wealth from wages to profits that has been occurring for the last 5 decades.

Supply side economics is responsible for the massive increase in wealth inequality over the last 5 decades.

Wrong analysis, as addressed above.

Addressed in my previous post.

In 2008, the Dems were hit with the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, resulting in a $trillionplus deficit.

Your mainstream neoliberal economics crimped the recovery, through insistence on keeping the deficit as low as possible during the crisis and the recovery;
in fact the deficit should have been increased to of the order of $3 trillion or more, to have enabled people to remain in their homes.....

This time around, Trump is talking about $ 6trillion, to keep people in their homes.....

https://twitter.com/i/status/1243674759201796098

So give it up. Your OP thread is based on obsolete mythology -- as obsolete as classical liberalism - and classical economics - itself.

Try following Thomas Paine: "the world is my country, all men are my brethren, to do good is my religion".

It's a pity you libertarians (or whatever the form of your self-interested individualism) can't join in the spirit of that enlightened credo.

 

You brought up trickling not me and now the dodges and diversions it's a pity you can't address the facts as presented or give a straight answer to what is asked. In 2008 the Democrats had controlled the Congress for a year inheriting a strong economy and an almost balanced budget. They had the chance to help mitigate a slowdown and the mortgage collapse just as the Republicans had their chance in the HUGE Dot.com stockmarket collapse recession and then 9/11. The fact is you don't want to discuss it because clearly the Republican policies produce FAR better results. They helped to mitigate the depth and length of the 2001 recession and get us into a full recovery. By Obama's own measure the "trickle up" policies were a bust and produced the worst recovery in modern history

So again

So who would you rather have in charge now facing a slowdown and possible recession?

The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11
The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

Which economic policies should we follow and why?

 

cancel

 

Notice you omitted the word "down" in the phrase "trickle down" economics, which is a common term applied to supply-side, neoliberal economics that has been responsible for ever increasing inequality since the 80's. Your "trickle up" terminology is merely your own diversion to hide the fact of this increasing wealth inequality - so please look in the mirror regarding "dodges and diversions".

[A detour for the moment, to understand what is happening in this debate:
Your world view is based on classical liberalism positing extreme conceptions re the capacity of the individual..... which were a reaction to the Divine Right of Kings whose supremacy was finally swept away during the French Revolution. Classical economics is the theory associated with classical liberalism. But the assignment of an unrealistically large capacity for self-rule by the individual contains the seeds of the demise of classical economics with its "invisible hand" theory, including in its current neo-liberal, neo-Keynesian form (which btw has nothing to do with Keynes).

While you likely won't understand any of this, others reading it might.
It's a bit like trying to explain to a devout Muslim that the Koran is not the Final Perfect Word of God (nor is the Old Testament)......but the economy is a more tangible thing than a relationship with God, so the task of approaching reality is perhaps more open to success, in the study of macroeconomics than with religion].

OK, back to the issue at hand.

See above, your "facts" in as much as they are based in an erroneous world view, are wrong.

.

I will accept that on face value (since it's irrelevant anyway; public deficits need NOT be inversely related to a 'successful' economy, that's just your mainstream economic mythology).

BUT, in 2008, PRIVATE DEBT had skyrocketed on the back of subprime lending, fuelling an economic boom.

The two recessions are not comparable. The Dot com bust was based on the demise of imaginary wealth in dot.com companies.

The subprime collapse was caused by banks issuing mortgages that it was later determined could not be serviced...but the housing was a real asset. The resulting 2009 recession could have been handled in an entirely different manner, with direct government support of mortgage repayments on real assets (houses).

But your mainstream deficit mythology crippled Obama's capacity to support the economy by permitting PRIVATE DEBT to be wound back in an orderly fashion. (via treasury support for mortgage holders).
So public borrowing sky-rocketed, entirely unnecessarily, as the government sold bonds in an mostly unsuccessful effort to restore demand in the private sector. (QE - increasing bank reserves - is largely ineffective if people don't want to borrow).

Wrong, and discussed above.

Already disproved above.

Neither Repubs or Dems, obviously.....so you will have to find mainstream Repubs or Dems with whom you can argue in your little irrelevant debate.....I'm here to educate the public about the policy capacity of the sovereign currency issuing government, which is limited by resources on which the money can be spent, not by money itself.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

Meanwhile Trump is actually showing the way in the present emergency, though it remains to be seen whether the current $3 trillion rescue package is going to be paid for by the treasury, at NO COST to the nation, or by (interest bearing) "treasuries" which - as always - amount to "welfare for the wealthy", and WILL be a burden on future generations........

 

Trickle up trickle down if you are going to use layman's terms so will I. Quite frankly I reject the trickle down supply side as that is not what is supply side while trickle up is the liberal policy as none other than the darling of the left Paul Krugman proclaims it and the Democrats tried and failed.

Let's stipulate we will not use those terms, fine with me and back to the question

So who would you rather have in charge now facing a slowdown and possible recession?

The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11
The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

Which economic policies should we follow and why?

No need just try to concentrate on our current economic situation and the recent history of the Democrats and the Republicans and their policies and the up coming election.

Try to get snarky gets you nowhere.

I've asked you to focus there.

Feel free to refute them how are they wrong?

.

We're talking public debt and public policy and what that additional debt do to help mitigate the length and depth of a recession and get us into us into a full recovery.

So was the mortgage bust and they are not comparable in part because of the policies in which the government engaged. That is what we are discussing.

My ownership in a company is an asset and the ball was in the Democrats court to deal with that and the business slowdown as it was in the Republicans in 2001.

Mortgages were refinanced through Obama's program to do so, yes some were lost just as businesses went bankrupt in the dot.com bust. But the fact remains his stimulus failed by his own measure and we had the worst recovery and the worst employment situation in modern history which was far beyond the residential housing market which is a realitively small part of our economy.

Historically correct. During the slowndown/dot.com/911 unemployment hit a peak of 6.5% and then rapidly fell, the LFPR remained realitively stable, the deficit hit a one peak of $400B and then rapidly fell to a measly $161B due to SOARING taxe revenues, incomes grew. The Democrats didn't come close.

Refuted above.

Well who else stands a chance at winning the elections this fall?

To get through the government shutting down commerece in a global health emergency but we will turn the corner and then the question remains, which party, which policies best to get us back into a full recovery and thriving economy.

I think the answer is quite clear based on the historical record.

 

Trump Nailed It!

BUT ORANGE MAN BAD! Italy and France are now prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as treatments for coronavirus patients.

​

Dr Didier Raoult, a professor of infectious diseases who works at La Timone hospital in Marseille, after completing an amazingly effective study declared in a video on YouTube that chloroquine was a cure for Covid-19 and should be used immediately.

Dr. Raoult walked out of the scientific advisory committee advising the government because the government was being influenced by the big pharmaceutical companies which wanted to block hydroxychloroquine because it was cheap, being out of patent.

So there's the problem and the reason for the Fake News Propaganda, the Fake News Clowns and the anti-Trumpers are in the hip pocket of Big Pharma who are looking at this pandemic with $$$ signs in their eyes, only to find out that great long time in use expired patent drugs available in generic form were potential game changers?

Horrible!

France now allows drug chloroquine to be given to coronavirus patients with extreme case of the disease. Health Minister Olivier Veran said on Monday,

“The anti-malarial drug chloroquine can be administered in France to patients suffering from the severest forms of the coronavirus but only under strict supervision.” Veran also cautioned: “The high council recommends not to use this treatment… with the exception of grave cases, hospitalized, on the basis of a decision taken by doctors and under strict surveillance.”​

Italian government also announced on Friday that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be used to treat all coronavirus patients. Italian government also said the payment will be paid for entirely by the Italian national healthcare system.

It works best when used early and there is evidence it even PREVENTS infection, so, could be quite useful for our front line medical warriors.

 

$5.30/dose in the US.

 

republicans caused the housing bust, republican can't even have an honest poll..sad!

lack of regulations? Bush did not want the regulations....

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

"From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

"Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership" March 26, 2004

https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership

"Late last year, Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act (search) to help families that can afford monthly mortgage payments but not the down payment or closing costs associated with buying a house. The legislation authorizes $200

 

when you play the slots sometimes you win, gambling peoples health is always risky

trump nailed nothing, the scientists figured it out, Trump just tried to claim it his early - just like he did with the vaccine and any other drug that shows promise... all so he can try to steal the credit if it works out

 

What does the first paragraph of your source say?

 

Don't be obtuse. If you have a point to make, strap on a set and make it.

HOW MANY LIVES DID HER POLITICALLY INSPIRED OBSTRUCTION COST? Dangerous Moron Gov. Whitmer reverses course on coronavirus drugs, is now asking feds for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine.

“Gov. Gretchen Whitmer drew fire after the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) sent a letter last week threatening ‘administrative action’ against doctors who prescribed two experimental drugs that could potentially help coronavirus patients. The Whitmer administration has since removed the language threatening doctors from the letter and is now asking the federal government to send shipments of the drugs.”​

If her Pelosian level vile ignorance cost lives, may she be buried in wrongful death lawsuits. These anti-Trumpers have gone from just foul and annoying to deadly and dangerous.

 

Whitmer's Statement has been Completely MISCHARACTERIZED by RW Propaganda Outlets.

Very surprised to see you repeating these Bogus Characterizations.:smh:

 

Yes Bush pushed for DOWN PAYMENTS so people would be protected from price drops and have an investment in the house. He was trying to FIX the problem going back to Clinton. That did not cause the mortgage collapse. Not subprime loans. Freddie and Fannie who operated under the protection of Barney regulated it. And the Democrats ran on and won the Congress on the promise they would fix it and were better at the economy than the Republicans................that was proven NOT to be the case. We see the worst recovery and worst unemployment in modern history.

 

"In November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate". Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008".

So.…. both Clinton and Bush, who did not reinstate G-S as he should have, must bear some of the blame for the GFC.

Proving once again unregulated capitalisn is a disaster waiting to happen, as shown in the GFC.

 

No it started with Clinton and Bush tried to fix by supporting more responsible homeownership and lending, you do know what is a down payment? And the financials are one of the MOST regulated and it was the quasi government agencies and government intervention into the market that caused it.

 

Two horrible choices

 

I've been hearing for years that the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the financial crisis, but I've never been given a clear explanation how.

 

We don't have the Republicans of the pre-2001 recession or the democrats of the pre-2008 recession. We have Republicans of 2020 and the democrats of 2020. I myself am not sure who I want in charge, but I will outline what I am looking for.

Economists estimate that this crisis could last months, maybe up to half a year. It is almost certain that unemployment will rise about 10%, and could rise above 30%. 30% or even 35% unemployment is looking more and more plausible and we lose millions of jobs every single week.

I am looking for leadership that is decisive. Either give up on quarantines and social distancing to save the economy and let millions die and our healthcare system be completely overwhelmed, or lock everything down.

If we choose the lock down route, lock down the border, enforce stay at home policies, stop airports, etc. In places that are hard hit like New York, we need a complete ban on going out and we need to enforce and punish violators. China and South Korea fought this virus very effectively while our response has been slow and weak.

We need a government that is effective in pushing for more testing, pushing for producing more supplies and helping our healthcare system cope with covid. That means using wartime powers to order private industry to come together and produce.

We also need a government that is willing to go into a lot more debt to save the economy. That means extending unemploment benefits a very long time, giving people covid healthcare cost relief, rent and mortgage relief, and bailouts for industries that are on the verge of collapse. We need a big expensive plan to get people spending again that involves giving people money, infrustructure, and much more like the Marshall Plan. The 2 trillion bailout is just the beginning.

We also need common sense, and understand that now itsn't the time to give money to people and corporations who don't need it. And that now isn't the time to give money to wind power, or fuel standards, or the arts, or other pork. We need to focus on getting our current economy working again before we can make it greener.

Once we are well on the road to recovery we need leadership that is willing to make hard choices to prevent another crisis like this. This means no more trillion dollar deficits during a good economy, and we need surpluses instead. We need to cut wasteful spending on all the government stuff that doesn't matter. Its time to cut the military a lot.

That also means fixing our over-priced healthcare system that is charging covid patients tens of thousands of dollars to be treated. Other developed nations have universal healthcare and cost half as much as ours, and we need to fix this big waste of money.

We need laws that discourage people and businesses from getting into excessive debt. Our government is going to be in a lot of debt, and will need to get out of it. This requires raising taxes on everyone, especially the wealthy. The government will need to increase inflation for a while to pay for the debt and devalue the debt.

We need a stockpile of medical equipment in case another crisis like this happens again and agressive quaratine measures ready when something like this hits again. The government needs to be able to quickly enforce stay-at-home orders and national shutdowns. We need a lot more funding into research into vaccines and expediting getting these drugs testing and out.

We should encourage work from home jobs and using machines for people to deliver things to people. We need to automate the economy as much as possible. We need to stop outsourcing our production and need our production here at home. Automation will kill jobs, but that is what progressive taxation, benefits for the unemployed will help fix, and diverting education funding to marketable job education.

 

We have what we have as we had what we had then the problem of the economy recovery remains the same. It's not stockpiling medical equipment, that's another matter, it's not about how to prevent the next global pandemic, it's not about, it's not about locking down to stop the virus. It's about when we get through the virus and the economy is in ruins which policies do you want to use to get us back into a full recovery. Get the economy through a recovery and back on track and everyone back to work like we have had that last several years and then we can talk your GRAND policies for the future.

So which policies to get us into a full recovery and thriving economy, which has the better track record?

The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11
The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

So last time for an answer I've got 4 pages of dances and dodges and obfuscations I don't need a 5th.

 

The stuff about stockpiling medical equiment and the like were measures when we were on our way to recovery. Locking down is just as important for the recovery as the recovery itself. The way that handle this virus will determine what the economy will be like in the next 20 years. And what we do after the recovery is just as important as what we do during.

But lets talk about what we do for the economy to get it back running. The policies of the past and the parties of the past aren't going to help us. I am interested in decisive, painful, but necessary policies we can do to save our economy. This requires taking ideas from all parts of the political spectrum, bipartisanship like we have never seen before, and the bravery to do unpopular things.

We need to go into a lot of debt and we need more stimulus packages that dump trillions more into the economy. We need a long-term plan on the scope of our post-WWII efforts to transform the economy and get everyone back to work. We need to shift government spending from the military or the arts, and spend it on things that really matter. We need to transform our regulations and tax code to be less complicated and more business friendly. We need to give tax cut to those who are most likely to spend that money and bailouts for the businesses that need it most. We need relief for healthcare costs, rent, mortages, and extended unemployment benefits.

I'll support any party that can enact an effective program that gets our country back to work.