OT - Colbert Disses Austerity

[IanG]

I thought this was funny, and you might too if you have been following
the Rogoff-Reinhart Excel error, and its part in fuelling austerity
mania worldwide:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-error?xrs=share_copy

Ian

[John Oliver]

or you might try

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576362-seminal-analysis-relationship-between-debt-and-growth-comes-under

--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au

[IanG]

On 4/24/2013 10:44 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

> I loved the last two sentences of the Economist article:
>
> "The relationship between debt and growth is a politically charged
> issue. It is in these areas that economists must keep the most
> rigorous standards."
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if rigorous standards were maintained right across
> the board?
>
> Mique
>

The article clearly wants to continue to claim there is a threshold
effect, when clearly there is not. Debt levels can go way over 90%
without any particular sudden negative consequences.

Ian

[Mary]

On Apr 24, 9:44 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:07:13 +1000, John Oliver
>

> <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:49:21 -0400, IanG <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>
> >>I thought this was funny, and you might too if you have been following
> >>the Rogoff-Reinhart Excel error, and its part in fuelling austerity
> >>mania worldwide:
>

> >>http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-2...

>
> >>Ian
>
> >or you might try
>

> >http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576362-seminal-...

>
> I loved the last two sentences of the Economist article:
>
> "The relationship between debt and growth is a politically charged
> issue. It is in these areas that economists must keep the most
> rigorous standards."
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if rigorous standards were maintained right across
> the board?

What, in economics? Good luck with that.

Mary

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 4/25/2013 10:26 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

> Seems to me nobody really knows.
>>
> But there will be long-term adverse effects eventually, mostly on our
> children who get to pay for our often self-indulgent profligacy.
>
> Of course, if the short term fix adopted is "quantitative easement",
> as seems to be the case in the US, then we ourselves will get to pay
> for it sooner rather than later as inflation strips the value of our
> "wealth".
>
> Deliberately running up the national debt is stupid policy whichever
> way you cut it, particulary when it affects a nation's credit rating
> adversely, causing the cost of borrowed funds to rise. And when much
> if not most of that debt is owned by a major historically hostile
> nation, the risk is exacerbated.
>
> Mique
>


Hi Mique,

Not all debt is bad debt. Those in favor of austerity around the world
(e.g., Conservatives in England, Republicans in America) have now proven
Keynes to have been correct. I refer you to the following article by
Paul Krugman in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/krugman-the-one-percents-solution.html?_r=0

His thesis is thus stated: "Economic debates rarely end with a T.K.O.
But the great policy debate of recent years between Keynesians, who
advocate sustaining and, indeed, increasing government spending in a
depression, and austerians, who demand immediate spending cuts, comes
close � at least in the world of ideas. At this point, the austerian
position has imploded; not only have its predictions about the real
world failed completely, but the academic research invoked to support
that position has turned out to be riddled with errors, omissions and
dubious statistics."

The problem the US has faced is that in the good times, the Republicans
did not continue the policy of Clinton to accrue surpluses for th4 bad
times. Instead, they lowered taxes and raised the deficit - still in
the good times. So when the bad times came, there was no surplus on
which to draw. And the austerity minded, wealthy Republicans wanted to
keep their precious tax breaks and take the deficit out on the backs of
the poor by reducing or eliminating benefit programs.


Francis A. Miniter

[IanG]

On 4/25/2013 10:26 PM, Mike Burke wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:22 -0400, IanG <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>

> Seems to me nobody really knows.

As Francis says, we do know. There are no signs of any 'threshold
effect' of nationl debt, at the 90% or any other mark.

The trope about dumping debt on our kids is wrong too. When all taxes
are counted, meaning federal, state and local, kids recieve as much as
the elderly in benefits. Furthermore, borrowing can fuel a permanently
higher level of growth, resulting in more wealth and tax receipts for a
country, which helps to pay down debt.

The other thing I was thinking about in generational terms is how much
we have inherited from all those who have gone befoe us, and how much of
that we will bequeath to those who come after us - a vibrant culture of
laws and rules that broadly works. Cities, highways, rivers, incredible
amounts of infrastructure will be here long after we are all gone. I
don't believe we are stinting the next generations at all.

The cost of funds in America is near zero, with no short-term signs that
it will rise. Now would be a cheap time to repair our bridges and fix
our highways. As Krugman has shown, we are in a liquidity trap, where
monetary policy can't help because interest rats can't be lowered below
zero. The only effective way to escape the trap is with a big stimulus,
which our politicians are too cowardly to do.

It doesn't matter who owns our debt, whether foreign or domestic, since
we print our own money.

Ian

[IanG]

On 4/26/2013 9:15 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

>> close — at least in the world of ideas. At this point, the austerian

>> position has imploded; not only have its predictions about the real
>> world failed completely, but the academic research invoked to support
>> that position has turned out to be riddled with errors, omissions and
>> dubious statistics."
>>
>> The problem the US has faced is that in the good times, the Republicans
>> did not continue the policy of Clinton to accrue surpluses for th4 bad
>> times. Instead, they lowered taxes and raised the deficit - still in
>> the good times. So when the bad times came, there was no surplus on
>> which to draw. And the austerity minded, wealthy Republicans wanted to
>> keep their precious tax breaks and take the deficit out on the backs of
>> the poor by reducing or eliminating benefit programs.
>

> I agree entirely that not all debt is bad. Borrowing for
> infrastructure (sharing the load across multiple future generations
> who will be the greatest beneficiaries) is clearly good policy -
> although at least here in Oz it seems to have gone out of fashion.
> Borrowing to "buy" votes for forthcoming elections - another favourite
> of Oz, and US, politicians is bad.
>
> One example down here that is topical is the "promise" of Tony Abbott,
> likely the next conservative Prime Minister here after the September
> election, to pay women earning up to $150,000 a year their full wages
> for six months. "The policy is aimed at increasing female workforce
> participation by allowing new mothers to take a long break from work
> to look after their newborn without sacrificing their career." (That
> last bit from The Australian.) No doubt many (including my very own
> good self) will think that's a noble cause. But running up the budget
> deficit is not the way to pay for it.
>
> As for taxes, there are oodles in print about the Laffer Curve and the
> eventual counter-productivity of higher taxes, including form Keynes
> himself. Here's just one site (of many) that demonstrate the
> apparently paradoxical fact that revenue rises as income tax rates
> fall:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
>
> As I said earlier, governments do not create wealth - private
> enterprise creates wealth and people create private enterprise. Some
> of those people are among the 1%. Most, however, are ordinary working
> people whose savings are invested in private enterprises.

Government creates wealth too. Building a new highway from A to B that
increases the efficiency of geting a product to market certainly
produces new wealth, for example.

>
> Those One Percenters, not being stupid, will invest their capital when
> and where they perceive a profit. Lift their taxes to a level where
> it is no longer profitable for them, and they will withdraw their
> capital and place it elsewhere - often in tax free areas. Jobs will
> disappear and the only people to suffer will be the 99% who will be
> forced to withdraw their savings from profitable private enterprises
> simply to live. This will cost more jobs and so on down the spiral
> slippery slide.

The level of taxes the rich will pay has been historically far higher
than it is currently in the US. I think it is laughable to suggest that
the 1% will down tools if they only get $25 million a year instead of
$50 million.

Tax increases on the rich have NOT caused migration to other states or
other countries to any significant extent.
>
> Short of sheer highway robbery, where the government imposes stringent
> controls on the movement of private capital, and uses force majeure to
> strip the 1% of their wealth, that 1% have the ability and resources
> to minimise their taxes no matter what laws the government passes.
> Given that all politicians rely on the 1% for their political
> survival, including Democratic politicians and particularly President
> Obama who reportedly eschewed public electoral funding to raise much
> of his campaign funding from the robber barons in Wall Street, there
> is absolutely no chance of Congress passing _effective_ tax laws
> impacting on the rich while their proverbial derrieres point to the
> ground.
hard to quibble with this:(

[IanG]

On 4/26/2013 9:26 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

> I can't remember arguing that there was such an effect. I just
> wouldn't know.

No - you said nobody knows, and people DO know.

>>
>> The trope about dumping debt on our kids is wrong too. When all taxes
>> are counted, meaning federal, state and local, kids recieve as much as
>> the elderly in benefits. Furthermore, borrowing can fuel a permanently
>> higher level of growth, resulting in more wealth and tax receipts for a
>> country, which helps to pay down debt.
>

> Not borrowing to buy votes, which is effectively what big government
> expenditure on "captive" groups, eg welfare beneficiaries, teacher
> unions and the like are. Kids who aren't born yet shouldn't have to
> have their "rights" curtailed because _their_ government has to
> allocate

I disagree with the 'givers and takers' view of society, and don't view
helping the less able as buying votes.

>>
>> The other thing I was thinking about in generational terms is how much
>> we have inherited from all those who have gone befoe us, and how much of
>> that we will bequeath to those who come after us - a vibrant culture of
>> laws and rules that broadly works. Cities, highways, rivers, incredible
>> amounts of infrastructure will be here long after we are all gone. I
>> don't believe we are stinting the next generations at all.
>

> As I said in my earlier message to Francis, I agree that not all
> borrowing is bad. Infrastructure projects with a multi-generational
> life-span are "good".

>>
>> The cost of funds in America is near zero, with no short-term signs that
>> it will rise. Now would be a cheap time to repair our bridges and fix
>> our highways. As Krugman has shown, we are in a liquidity trap, where
>> monetary policy can't help because interest rats can't be lowered below
>> zero. The only effective way to escape the trap is with a big stimulus,
>> which our politicians are too cowardly to do.
>

> Why are interest rates so low?

Because we are stuck in a liquidity trap, where demand is so low that
lenders can't charge anything for lending money.

>>
>> It doesn't matter who owns our debt, whether foreign or domestic, since
>> we print our own money.
>

> Huh? There's a scoop.

See
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/thinking-straight-about-debt/

As he says "Yes, we have run trade deficits and moved from being a net
creditor to being a net debtor, but it’s not that big a deal (and we
still earn more on our foreign assets than we pay on our foreign
liabilities). So the surge in debt reflects a surge in money Americans
owe to other Americans.".

Ian

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 4/26/2013 9:15 PM, Mike Burke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:08:43 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> close — at least in the world of ideas. At this point, the austerian

>> position has imploded; not only have its predictions about the real
>> world failed completely, but the academic research invoked to support
>> that position has turned out to be riddled with errors, omissions and
>> dubious statistics."
>>
>> The problem the US has faced is that in the good times, the Republicans
>> did not continue the policy of Clinton to accrue surpluses for th4 bad
>> times. Instead, they lowered taxes and raised the deficit - still in
>> the good times. So when the bad times came, there was no surplus on
>> which to draw. And the austerity minded, wealthy Republicans wanted to
>> keep their precious tax breaks and take the deficit out on the backs of
>> the poor by reducing or eliminating benefit programs.
>

> I agree entirely that not all debt is bad. Borrowing for
> infrastructure (sharing the load across multiple future generations
> who will be the greatest beneficiaries) is clearly good policy -
> although at least here in Oz it seems to have gone out of fashion.
> Borrowing to "buy" votes for forthcoming elections - another favourite
> of Oz, and US, politicians is bad.

Borrowing to keep people healthy also has a return on investment.

>
> One example down here that is topical is the "promise" of Tony Abbott,
> likely the next conservative Prime Minister here after the September
> election, to pay women earning up to $150,000 a year their full wages
> for six months. "The policy is aimed at increasing female workforce
> participation by allowing new mothers to take a long break from work
> to look after their newborn without sacrificing their career." (That
> last bit from The Australian.) No doubt many (including my very own
> good self) will think that's a noble cause. But running up the budget
> deficit is not the way to pay for it.
>
> As for taxes, there are oodles in print about the Laffer Curve and the
> eventual counter-productivity of higher taxes, including form Keynes
> himself. Here's just one site (of many) that demonstrate the
> apparently paradoxical fact that revenue rises as income tax rates
> fall:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
>

The Republicans here tried to prove the Laffer curve from 1981 to 2009.
They failed. By contrast, under Eisenhower and with a mariginal rate
of about 96%, the economy flourished. Why? because people at the
bottom shared in the wealth and created demand.

> As I said earlier, governments do not create wealth - private
> enterprise creates wealth and people create private enterprise. Some
> of those people are among the 1%. Most, however, are ordinary working
> people whose savings are invested in private enterprises.

Governments do create wealth. They were doing so for millennia before
corporation came along. The Roman Empire was a good example.

>
> Those One Percenters, not being stupid, will invest their capital when
> and where they perceive a profit. Lift their taxes to a level where
> it is no longer profitable for them, and they will withdraw their
> capital and place it elsewhere - often in tax free areas. Jobs will
> disappear and the only people to suffer will be the 99% who will be
> forced to withdraw their savings from profitable private enterprises
> simply to live. This will cost more jobs and so on down the spiral
> slippery slide.

The Eisenhower years are a counterexample.

>
> Short of sheer highway robbery, where the government imposes stringent
> controls on the movement of private capital, and uses force majeure to
> strip the 1% of their wealth, that 1% have the ability and resources
> to minimise their taxes no matter what laws the government passes.
> Given that all politicians rely on the 1% for their political
> survival, including Democratic politicians and particularly President
> Obama who reportedly eschewed public electoral funding to raise much
> of his campaign funding from the robber barons in Wall Street, there
> is absolutely no chance of Congress passing _effective_ tax laws
> impacting on the rich while their proverbial derrieres point to the
> ground.
>

> Mique
>

No one is talking about stripping the rich of their wealth, but of using
the tax system to restore the balance that existed before the GOP
decided to transfer the nation's wealth to the rich. The statistics for
this transfer of wealth were collected by the Treasury Department and by
the Census Bureau year by year under mostly Republican presidents.


Francis A. Miniter

[IanG]

On 4/26/2013 9:36 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:26:13 +1000, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Not borrowing to buy votes, which is effectively what big government
>> expenditure on "captive" groups, eg welfare beneficiaries, teacher
>> unions and the like are. Kids who aren't born yet shouldn't have to
>> have their "rights" curtailed because _their_ government has to
>> allocate
>
>

> That last sentence should have read "...allocate a disproportionate
> share of its total revenue to servicing old debt".
>
> Mique
>

Well, 'disproportionate' is in the eye of the beholder. When people stop
lining up to get into America, I will accept that the national debt
burden is too high.

I don't think we can brandish future generations as an argument against
borrowing money in the here and now - if that money will help us to
right our economy. In this economy, however, pumping money into the
economy in any way at all would increase demand, which is what we need
above all.

Ian

[John Briggs]

On 27/04/2013 03:16, Mike Burke wrote:
>
> Printing money debases the currency and is a historical cause of
> inflation. Inflation hurts the poor more than the rich.

So why hasn't "quantitative easing" caused inflation?
--
John Briggs

[Transition Zone]

The shareholders of the top 500 corporations can't or don't want to
orchestrate it ??

[John Briggs]

Well, that's not in monetarist theory, is it?
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 28/04/2013 02:09, Mike Burke wrote:

> Time will tell.

That's not what "monetarist theory" says.
--
John Briggs

[Mike Burke]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 28/04/2013 02:09, Mike Burke wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:18:08 +0100, John Briggs
>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/04/2013 03:16, Mike Burke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Printing money debases the currency and is a historical cause of
>>>> inflation. Inflation hurts the poor more than the rich.
>>>
>>> So why hasn't "quantitative easing" caused inflation?
>>
>> Time will tell.
>
> That's not what "monetarist theory" says.

Context is everything, John. Do you wish to contribute? If so, don't be
shy.
--
Mique

[IanG]

On 4/26/2013 10:46 PM, Mike Burke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:02:21 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Don't you blokes ever sleep? :-)

>
>>> I agree entirely that not all debt is bad. Borrowing for
>>> infrastructure (sharing the load across multiple future generations
>>> who will be the greatest beneficiaries) is clearly good policy -
>>> although at least here in Oz it seems to have gone out of fashion.
>>> Borrowing to "buy" votes for forthcoming elections - another favourite
>>> of Oz, and US, politicians is bad.
>>
>> Borrowing to keep people healthy also has a return on investment.
>

> To a point.

>>>
>>> One example down here that is topical is the "promise" of Tony Abbott,
>>> likely the next conservative Prime Minister here after the September
>>> election, to pay women earning up to $150,000 a year their full wages
>>> for six months. "The policy is aimed at increasing female workforce
>>> participation by allowing new mothers to take a long break from work
>>> to look after their newborn without sacrificing their career." (That
>>> last bit from The Australian.) No doubt many (including my very own
>>> good self) will think that's a noble cause. But running up the budget
>>> deficit is not the way to pay for it.
>>>
>>> As for taxes, there are oodles in print about the Laffer Curve and the
>>> eventual counter-productivity of higher taxes, including form Keynes
>>> himself. Here's just one site (of many) that demonstrate the
>>> apparently paradoxical fact that revenue rises as income tax rates
>>> fall:
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
>>>
>>
>> The Republicans here tried to prove the Laffer curve from 1981 to 2009.
>> They failed. By contrast, under Eisenhower and with a mariginal rate
>> of about 96%, the economy flourished. Why? because people at the
>> bottom shared in the wealth and created demand.
>

> Some would no doubt argue that it was the post-WWII boom that did
> that. And those high taxes were no doubt designed to repay war debt.
>
> But the graph in that quoted article, if the figures are accurate and
> I've seen it in several other places so I have to assume they are,
> there is no doubt that as tax rates fall, revenue receipts have risen,
> even in the 1981 to 2009 period except for the sharp fall during and
> no doubt due to the GFC 2007-2009.

>>
>>> As I said earlier, governments do not create wealth - private
>>> enterprise creates wealth and people create private enterprise. Some
>>> of those people are among the 1%. Most, however, are ordinary working
>>> people whose savings are invested in private enterprises.
>>
>> Governments do create wealth. They were doing so for millennia before
>> corporation came along. The Roman Empire was a good example.
>

> And the Roman Empire required a vast army and a huge subject territory
> to provide that wealth to a very tiny minority, far fewer than 1%, I
> suspect - not to mention the slaves. The British Empire did much the
> same, as did the Russian Empire and the Soviet Empire that succeeded
> it.

>>>
>>> Those One Percenters, not being stupid, will invest their capital when
>>> and where they perceive a profit. Lift their taxes to a level where
>>> it is no longer profitable for them, and they will withdraw their
>>> capital and place it elsewhere - often in tax free areas. Jobs will
>>> disappear and the only people to suffer will be the 99% who will be
>>> forced to withdraw their savings from profitable private enterprises
>>> simply to live. This will cost more jobs and so on down the spiral
>>> slippery slide.
>>
>> The Eisenhower years are a counterexample.
>

> The Eisenhower years were exceptional - post-war boom and all that.

>>>
>>> Short of sheer highway robbery, where the government imposes stringent
>>> controls on the movement of private capital, and uses force majeure to
>>> strip the 1% of their wealth, that 1% have the ability and resources
>>> to minimise their taxes no matter what laws the government passes.
>>> Given that all politicians rely on the 1% for their political
>>> survival, including Democratic politicians and particularly President
>>> Obama who reportedly eschewed public electoral funding to raise much
>>> of his campaign funding from the robber barons in Wall Street, there
>>> is absolutely no chance of Congress passing _effective_ tax laws
>>> impacting on the rich while their proverbial derrieres point to the
>>> ground.
>>>
>>> Mique
>>>
>>
>> No one is talking about stripping the rich of their wealth, but of using
>> the tax system to restore the balance that existed before the GOP
>> decided to transfer the nation's wealth to the rich.
>

> And I'm saying that this is an utterly unrealistic, unachievable
> pipe-dream based on a false premise, ie that if the rich get richer
> the poor inevitably get poorer. It's not a zero sum game, Francis and
> everyone gets "richer" when the rich gets richer, and I'm not talking
> about the alleged (in fact non-existent) trickle down theory.
>
> I can understand young kids believing that it is, but anyone old
> enough to remember the "the good old days", say three generations ago,
> has to be aware that wealth is now reasonably well-shared, although
> not equally shared across the entire community. With few exceptions,
> in the patches of poverty in our societies the people are far better
> off, indeed relatively wealthy, when compared with their parents let
> alone their grandparents at the same stages of their individual lives.

>
>> The statistics for
>> this transfer of wealth were collected by the Treasury Department and by
>> the Census Bureau year by year under mostly Republican presidents.
>>

> I don't know enough about American politics to argue otherwise, but I
> seriously doubt that Republicans ever made a conscious and deliberate
> decision to transfer the nation's wealth to the rich, or that the fact
> that the statistical rich are getting richer at a faster rate than
> others is proof of anything much at all, except that the rich are more
> immune to fluctuations in the economy, ie in hard times they will lose
> a bit of wealth but stay rich, while the middle and working classes
> will not have that flexibility.

I think you have too much faith in Republicans. Rates for the rich have
been slashed and slashed again under GOP Presidents. Benefits of all
kinds have been reduced or eliminated, creating a society where social
mobility is among the worst of all developed nations.

Part of this can be explained by free trade, but while the economists
tell us that free trade has benefited us as a nation, it usually fails
to point out that the benefits accrue to the richest tax payers, while
the costs in reduced wage increases and lost jobs is borne by the middle
and lower classes.

I believe that the GOP is made up mainly of religious zealots and
Chamber of Commerce types, and they work to reduce the taxes that the
rich pay, whether by cutting tax rates or cutting tax expenditures.

On thing the rich are not short of is people to sell rationales for why
the rich should not have to pay taxes.

Ian

[IanG]

On 4/26/2013 10:16 PM, Mike Burke wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:59:26 -0400, IanG <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>
>>> I can't remember arguing that there was such an effect. I just
>>> wouldn't know.
>>
>> No - you said nobody knows, and people DO know.
>

> Define people. Krugman says not, other economists say so.

>>
>>> Not borrowing to buy votes, which is effectively what big government
>>> expenditure on "captive" groups, eg welfare beneficiaries, teacher
>>> unions and the like are. Kids who aren't born yet shouldn't have to
>>> have their "rights" curtailed because _their_ government has to
>>> allocate
>>
>> I disagree with the 'givers and takers' view of society, and don't view
>> helping the less able as buying votes.
>>

> Nor do I agree with the 'givers and takers' view of society. I don't
> view helping the less able as buying votes. I do believe, and think
> there is sufficient evidence to claim it as a fact, that politicians
> "buy" votes. It's what they do, and politicians of all parties do it.
> The definition of the 'less able' is a very fluid one.

> And clearly that relatively favourable 'balance of trade' situation is
> trending down. What happens when the positive gap disappears?

>
> Printing money debases the currency and is a historical cause of
> inflation. Inflation hurts the poor more than the rich.
>

> Mique
>

Krugman has made predictions based on Keynsian theory as to what would
happen to the economy, to bond rates, and to interest rates, all of
which have been born out. Economists who claim to know and have proved
to be right can be said 'to know'.

Articulate exactly what the threat is in say China owning all our debt?
What can they do to hurt us?

In general, inflation is bad, but right now some inflation would help to
ease our problems.

Ian

[IanG]

It hasn't because demand is so low.

[IanG]

The monetarists predicted that stimulus and QE would lead to inflation,
and have been rpoved completely wrong. Krugman and the other economists
following Keynsian-style theories predicted what we see, which is no
inflation at all - which is what John is pointing out.

Ian

[John Oliver]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:50:43 +1000, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:20:09 -0400, IanG <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>
>>I think you have too much faith in Republicans. Rates for the rich have
>>been slashed and slashed again under GOP Presidents. Benefits of all
>>kinds have been reduced or eliminated, creating a society where social
>>mobility is among the worst of all developed nations.
>

>I don't have any faith in Republicans, Democrats, British Tories or
>Labour, Australian Liberal/National or Labor Party politicians or
>anyone else's politicians. I think it's long past the time when
>statesmen walked the earth, and I certainly couldn't identify a single
>individual currently in the English-speaking polities worthy of the
>name.
<snip>
>
>Mique

I have faith in all of them. I'm sure that whoever is in power, no
matter what party, will make the worse possible decision whenever a
major decision has to be made.

--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au

[John Briggs]

But don't monetarists tell us that increasing M0 increases M1, M2 and
goodness know what, leading to inflation? As night follows day?
--
John Briggs

[Francis A. Miniter]

Not necessarily. See
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_and_Inflation.asp

Ian is right; demand matters. The total money supply takes into account
the rate of circulation of M1. If a bank A has $X of M1 type money and
it cannot lend it, that is all there is. But if it lends it to Jones,
who deposits $X into his own bank B account, for which his bank will
create a reserve $Y, we have increased the money supply by $Y. Now if
later that week, if bank B loans to Smith the sum of $X-Y, and Smith
deposits it into Bank C, which creates reserve $Z, we have again
circulated more money out of the same greenbacks. Right now, however,
lending is very slow, so the speed at which money circulates is very slow.

Recall the Japan Bubble, where people borrowed on homes to buy stocks,
made money, bought newer homes, etc. etc., until the bubble burst. That
was inflation in commodities. What made it possible was the fast price
inflation in each commodity, enabling money to be turned over and over
again. No such thing going on now.


Francis A. Miniter

[IanG]

On 4/28/2013 3:50 PM, Mike Burke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:20:09 -0400, IanG <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>

>> I think you have too much faith in Republicans. Rates for the rich have
>> been slashed and slashed again under GOP Presidents. Benefits of all
>> kinds have been reduced or eliminated, creating a society where social
>> mobility is among the worst of all developed nations.
>

> I don't have any faith in Republicans, Democrats, British Tories or
> Labour, Australian Liberal/National or Labor Party politicians or
> anyone else's politicians. I think it's long past the time when
> statesmen walked the earth, and I certainly couldn't identify a single
> individual currently in the English-speaking polities worthy of the
> name.
>

> And even those fondly remembered by one side or another as great
> statesmen were usually totally reviled by their political enemies
> while they were still alive with, occasionally, some rare individual
> eventually - usually long after death - being conceded by most people
> as having been of sufficient stature to warrant the title.
>
> I think it's the curse of modern times that advances in technology
> have rendered it almost impossible for politicians in our western
> democracies to cope with the pace of change and with the demands of
> our modern societies. Whether as an effect of that, or of other
> modern trends, our politicians seem only interested in policies that
> will win them the next election. This seems to suit the majority of
> the populace fine, because nobody seems to care about long-term
> implications of various policies either, except to the extent that
> they personally are immediately affected.
>
> If they did, they'd hold our politicians accountable for our bridges
> that are falling down and our other infrastructure that hasn't been
> adequately maintained or upgraded "just-in-time" to meet future
> requirements as they arise. Here in Australia with our much-vaunted
> public health system, our hospitals are a disaster-prone mess, our
> schools are pathetic by any rational standards, and just about every
> new initiative to be announced seems to be just another political
> stunt to get a politician's head in front of a TV camera. They even
> keep their own hard hats and his visibility jackets for their
> photo-ops on work-sites. Sheesh.
>
> The signal to noise ration in public discourse is pathetically low,
> with a cacaphony of conflicting demands by this or that special
> interest group drowning out the pleas for the fundamentals to be
> properly managed.

>>
>> Part of this can be explained by free trade, but while the economists
>> tell us that free trade has benefited us as a nation, it usually fails
>> to point out that the benefits accrue to the richest tax payers, while
>> the costs in reduced wage increases and lost jobs is borne by the middle
>> and lower classes.
>

> Free trade has been a bitterly debated issue here in Australia since
> long before Federation in 1901. In fact, it was the original
> watershed between the main political parties. I'm conflicted on the
> issue, but I can remember when we didn't have it and people were
> significantly less wealthy at the time. Relative wealth jumped after
> trade restrictions were lifted and our quality of life was certainly
> improved when we were able to buy modern consumer durables that
> weren't like something produced in a factory in the Soviet Union.
>
> Sorting out cause and effect is beyond me.
>
> Our motor industry is still heavily protected, union dominated and
> just like yours - hopeless. One of the nice things about the entry of
> the Japanese into the car markets here was that it effectively killed
> whatever residual demand for British cars that remained after the
> Brits joined the "Common Market". That alone probably added
> multi-megabucks to our GDP.

>>
>> I believe that the GOP is made up mainly of religious zealots and
>> Chamber of Commerce types, and they work to reduce the taxes that the
>> rich pay, whether by cutting tax rates or cutting tax expenditures.
>

> The GOP may very well be as you say, but my experience with modern
> politicians is that they are effectively interchangeable - and any
> politician who doesn't conform to the cookie-cutter standard is simply
> marginalised and has little hope of ever getting elected in the major
> parties. As I said earlier, they all - left, right or centre, Dems,
> Reps, whatever - take money from the rich and they all owe their first
> loyalties to their main backers. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply
> hasn't been paying attention.

>>
>> On thing the rich are not short of is people to sell rationales for why
>> the rich should not have to pay taxes.
>

> I've never heard the rich in our societies arguing that they should
> not have to pay taxes. I understand quite well that they minimise
> their taxes and some might even evade taxes - including if you recall
> certain Democrats prominent in this current Administration. They
> argue about the amounts, not the principle.
>
> We had a billionaire down here known invariably to the media as
> "Australia's Richest Man, Kerry Packer" (who was a single-digit
> billionaire, but our first and for a while our only billionaire). He
> was being grilled by a bunch of Senators down here trying to hassle
> him about not paying his "fair share". When accused of evading taxes,
> he said: "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of
> course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't
> minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government
> I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be
> donating extra."

Minimizing your taxes sounds fine, but when you are manipulating the
inputs to tax policy, it looks a lot less respectable.

Ian

[Ann Cornellier]

On 24/04/2013 9:49 PM, IanG wrote:
> I thought this was funny, and you might too if you have been following
> the Rogoff-Reinhart Excel error, and its part in fuelling austerity
> mania worldwide:
>
> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-error?xrs=share_copy
>
>
> Ian

"Sorry, but this video is unavailable from your location, probably due
to your overly polite attitudes."

Ann in overly polite Ottawa

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2013-04-30, Ann Cornellier wrote:
> On 24/04/2013 9:49 PM, IanG wrote:
>> I thought this was funny, and you might too if you have been following
>> the Rogoff-Reinhart Excel error, and its part in fuelling austerity
>> mania worldwide:
>>
>> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-error?xrs=share_copy
>

> "Sorry, but this video is unavailable from your location, probably due
> to your overly polite attitudes."

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgMV4KV6Qw0>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPbxYsWxp8A>
<http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/51653129#51653129>

While looking for those, I also found this:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk5B257QmrI>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author: =======================
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[IanG]

On 4/29/2013 12:56 AM, Mike Burke wrote:

> And then there are those who insist that it is production that matters
> (Says Law or somesuch). Here's an article by an Australian economist
> (or former economist as he styles himself) which tends to confirm that
> what you, John and Ian are saying about "quantitative easing" is
> correct and that I misinterpreted what has actually been happening.
>
> You may not like his conclusion, but the relevant bits about
> "quantitative easing" explains the situation clearly and, I hope,
> accurately. I wish I'd seen it earlier but it's hot off the press,
> courtesy of Quadrant:
>
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/04/prints-of-the-city-and-other-royal-pains
>
> Mique
>

In the current environment, government borrowing is not 'crowding out'
private borrowing, nor raising its cost. Interest rates would be
increasing if that was the case, and they are flat.

Ian

[IanG]

I have heard it said that "Worthy Canadian Initiative" is the most
boring headline ever written - is there any truth to that?

Ian:)

[Transition Zone]

On Apr 28, 3:50 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>THe country, with the exception of the rabid left, virtually stood
and
> cheered.  :-)

Interesting. So tell me something Mique; you very opinionated young
man: if you were Kevin Rudd or even Mrs Julia Gillard, how do you
think you'd respond ??

[John Oliver]

Mique isn't young and Julia Gillard isn't married.

--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au

[Mike Burke]

If I were either of those two individuals, my parents would have drowned me
at birth and then died of shame. Singlehandedly, albeit sequentially,
those two have taken the world's oldest and proudest workers' party and
destroyed its credibility and reelection prospects probably for a
generation, if not forever.

And thank you for your back-handed compliment.

--
Mique

[Mike Burke]

Richard Burke <n...@emails.please> wrote:
> In article <gq16o8140mr3k2i3e...@4ax.com>,

> John Oliver <jdol...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Mique isn't young and Julia Gillard isn't married.
>

> Ah - an opportunity, perhaps...!

See Mique. Seek Mique faint dead away.
--
Mique

[Mike Burke]

Richard Burke <n...@emails.please> wrote:
> In article

> <373125499389267549.09...@news.individual.net>,

> Roughly the anticipation I expected Mique - and a sure sign that romance
> is in the air!
>
> R :-)

Hah!

(Book arrived safe and sound. A handsome thing it is too. Thanks,
Richard.)
--
Mique

[Transition Zone]

On May 3, 1:00 am, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:

You're welcome, because I don't always like using the opposite
description. For example, like with my lady friend's relatives;
whenever I ask, I like to ask "how many years young are you?"

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <3fda051a-832e-411b...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>..... For example, like with my lady friend's relatives;

>whenever I ask, I like to ask "how many years young are you?"

Zeesh. If someone asked me that, I would give him the sharp edge
of my tongue. I'm seventy years OLD, dammit, I have the right to
call myself old.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Bookwyrm]

On 5/5/2013 12:44 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3fda051a-832e-411b...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ..... For example, like with my lady friend's relatives;
>> whenever I ask, I like to ask "how many years young are you?"
>
> Zeesh. If someone asked me that, I would give him the sharp edge
> of my tongue. I'm seventy years OLD, dammit, I have the right to
> call myself old.
>

Indeed. I've *earned* this head of grey hair!

'wyrm

[Joan in GB-W]

"Bookwyrm" wrote in message news:5186a4eb$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...

--------------------------------------------

Absolutely! I am years old, not years young. When I hear that said to
older folks, I grit my teeth. I consider it condescending!

Joan

[Mary]

It's extremely condescending, Joan. Bothers me no end.

Mary

[Bookwyrm]

I guess I wouldn't classify it as condescending, exactly -- But it does
push my 'ick, too cutesy!' button.

'wyrm

[Mary]

It's right up there with people who say your whole name when they ask
how you're doing - "well, how is John D. Rockefeller today"?

I don't care for being spoken of as though I'm not there.

Mary

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <5186d6cb$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>,

That, too.

It's part of an attitude that has been around entirely too long,
like as long as there have been humans, maybe: that women's only
purpose is to have babies and that as soon as a woman is no
longer young and fertile-looking she is useless. With sub-memes
that every woman has GOT to get married and have kids, and
that once a woman is thirty, no one will EVER want to marry her.

And that every woman wants to be told that she looks young and is
still cute.

There are movements away from that point of view now, but heaven
only knows how long civilized habits will take to override basic
genetics: after all, we are all descended from an unbroken line
of creatures that reproduced and ensured by whatever means that
their children survived to have children of their own.

In the midst of a lecture on dinosaurs, biologist and SF artist
Bonnie Dalzell once remarked, "You are a successful animal when
you have grandchildren."

Interesting reading: _Survival of the Prettiest_ by Nancy Etcoff.
Dr. Etcoff is a psychologist *and* a neurologist, who divides her
time between Harvard Medical School and Mass. General Hospital.
It's a very thorough analysis of what humans consider beautiful
in other humans -- which can be nearly reduced to youth and
health, which signal fertility. It's why if a man says that a
tree is beautiful, or a waterfall, or the stars, he's talking
about something that goes straight through his senses to what he
may, if he likes, call his soul; whereas if he says a woman is
beatuiful he wants to take her to bed (because his genes want, so
to speak, to use her to perpetuate themselves).

ISBN 0-385-47942-5 in TPB.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <1PWdnXQQTcY9bRvM...@mchsi.com>,

Ewwwwwww. So far I have not heard that one. Count blessings...

[Mary]

I have a colleague who does it. So far I have refrained from saying,
David, I'M RIGHT HERE. Speak to me.

Mary

[Jim G.]

Mary sent the following on Sun, 05 May 2013 21:17:37 -0500:

Has anyone heard anything from Mary lately? :)

--
Jim G. | A fan of good reading, good writing, and fellow bookworms
http://www.goodreads.com/jimgysin/
http://www.librarything.com/home/jimgysin

[Jim G.]

Mike Burke sent the following on Tue, 07 May 2013 13:01:07 +1000:

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:02:58 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Mary sent the following on Sun, 05 May 2013 21:17:37 -0500:
> >> On 5/5/2013 7:46 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> > In article <1PWdnXQQTcY9bRvM...@mchsi.com>,
> >> > Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't care for being spoken of as though I'm not there.
> >> >>
> >> > Ewwwwwww. So far I have not heard that one. Count blessings...
> >>
> >> I have a colleague who does it. So far I have refrained from saying,
> >> David, I'M RIGHT HERE. Speak to me.
> >
> >Has anyone heard anything from Mary lately? :)
>

> Mary? Mary who? :-)
>
> Seriously though, has anyone heard anything of or from Mark Miller
> lately?

I have not, but he's been getting quieter and quieter over time, so I
wouldn't be in a hurry to read too much into it.

[Mary]

On 5/6/2013 6:02 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Mary sent the following on Sun, 05 May 2013 21:17:37 -0500:
>> On 5/5/2013 7:46 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <1PWdnXQQTcY9bRvM...@mchsi.com>,
>>> Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't care for being spoken of as though I'm not there.
>>>>
>>> Ewwwwwww. So far I have not heard that one. Count blessings...
>>
>> I have a colleague who does it. So far I have refrained from saying,
>> David, I'M RIGHT HERE. Speak to me.
>
> Has anyone heard anything from Mary lately? :)
>

*smack*

Mary

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <yJmdnS5ASe2ZwhHM...@mchsi.com>,

I don't know why it took me this long to remember the old
exchange of telegrams (I think I just committed a redundancy)
between some journalist and Cary Grant's agent, only Grant got
hold of it himself.

HOW OLD CARY GRANT?

OLD CARY GRANT FINE. HOW YOU?

[Jim G.]

Mary sent the following on 5/9/2013 9:44 PM:

Has anyone else noticed that Mary's been pretty violent lately? :)

[Ann Cornellier]

>>
>> "Sorry, but this video is unavailable from your location, probably due
>> to your overly polite attitudes."
>>
>> Ann in overly polite Ottawa
>
> I have heard it said that "Worthy Canadian Initiative" is the most
> boring headline ever written - is there any truth to that?
>
> Ian:)

Perhaps in the past, but under the current government, Canadian
Initiatives are just depressing.

Ann