Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (5): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next > Last »

Bernie Sanders

Author Message
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #21
RE: Bernie Sanders

VineFynn Wrote:

Edvard Kardelj Wrote:
His ideas very much are socialist. Its just that you have an incorrect definition of socialism.


I take "socialism" to mean state control and ownership of the economy, as the transitory period of Communism.

I don't interpret his ideas as socialist- socially democratic, yes, socialist, no.

Yes, spot on. It's actually social democracy. The reason the word socialist has become so dirty & impotent is that it's just a cover word for neoliberal. Look at France for instance. Everyone was glad the tories had lost. What did Francois do? He subsidized abortion and that's pretty much it. Did he increase labor's bargaining power? Did he improve employment levels? Did he defend the Periphery against the Troika? Did he improve the GINI? NO! And now the right are bound to win the next election.
Sorry, Edvard. Just because the vast majority of the public (both right and left) think the Earth is the center of the solar system economic-wise, doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean your average honest popular politician should continue to argue in that fictitious system of values. Once again, the US is not under a gold standard or fixed exchange rate.
Deficit owls have been writing about it pre, during, and post WW1/2. Unlike new keynesians, like Krugman, MMTers understand how banking actually works & don't cling onto zombie economic ideas such as loanable funds theory, which Krugman still holds on to, even after Steve Keen pawned his ass in their blogosphere debate. Moreso, James Galbraith says it on television that the US can't go bankrupt, i.e. run out of money. So why can't Sanders say it? How long does it take to be controversial and say, taxes don't fund anything, government spending finances taxation?
It's a lot easier to get people around you for major changes, if you actually tell the truth, which is the first casualty of war. It's a lot easier to get people of all political spectrums to vote for you, if you tell them, I'm gonna enhance public health care, make education free, and abolish FICA while keeping welfare intact. The inevitable question will come. Who is going to pay for this? The government will pay for it, like it pays for everything else, through fiscal debits. And I want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else by doing away with all the loopholes & instituting a capital gains tax. The reason why the rich should pay isn't finance related, but that of socio-economic justice and equality. When you'll do understand MMT, you'll know why it's so poisonous and untrue to say "make the rich pay for education, social security, and health care".


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 18.10.2015 08:48 by Helsworth.

18.10.2015 08:44
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #22
RE: Bernie Sanders

Helsworth Wrote:
Typical neoliberals blackmailing leftist voters to vote for them, else the republicans win. The neocons do the same to the libertarians, vote for us else the democrats win. Some democracy for ya...
I wish I could be there with all of them, Sanders & Trump included, and I would bury them. Sadly, I'm not a US citizen, nor do I have the money to wage such a campaign even if I was. I really can't understand why it's so hard to come on stage and explain in 5 minutes why taxes don't finance spending, that it works the other way around. Sanders can stress income inequality all he wants, at the end of the day, with his deficit dove rhetoric, he is giving legitimacy & validation to Ayn Rand type of (failed) reasoning. It's like your example in the Papacy thread. Why am I paying you to argue in zombie economic theology, favored by neolibs, neocons, and right wing libertarians?


I have friends who can change that. You can just pull same stunt Obama did to 'prove' he was born in the USA as well.


Helsworth Wrote:

VineFynn Wrote:

Edvard Kardelj Wrote:
His ideas very much are socialist. Its just that you have an incorrect definition of socialism.


I take "socialism" to mean state control and ownership of the economy, as the transitory period of Communism.

I don't interpret his ideas as socialist- socially democratic, yes, socialist, no.

Yes, spot on. It's actually social democracy. The reason the word socialist has become so dirty & impotent is that it's just a cover word for neoliberal. Look at France for instance. Everyone was glad the tories had lost. What did Francois do? He subsidized abortion and that's pretty much it. Did he increase labor's bargaining power? Did he improve employment levels? Did he defend the Periphery against the Troika? Did he improve the GINI? NO! And now the right are bound to win the next election.
Sorry, Edvard. Just because the vast majority of the public (both right and left) think the Earth is the center of the solar system economic-wise, doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean your average honest popular politician should continue to argue in that fictitious system of values. Once again, the US is not under a gold standard or fixed exchange rate.
Deficit owls have been writing about it pre, during, and post WW1/2. Unlike new keynesians, like Krugman, MMTers understand how banking actually works & don't cling onto zombie economic ideas such as loanable funds theory, which Krugman still holds on to, even after Steve Keen pawned his ass in their blogosphere debate. Moreso, James Galbraith says it on television that the US can't go bankrupt, i.e. run out of money. So why can't Sanders say it? How long does it take to be controversial and say, taxes don't fund anything, government spending finances taxation?
It's a lot easier to get people around you for major changes, if you actually tell the truth, which is the first casualty of war. It's a lot easier to get people of all political spectrums to vote for you, if you tell them, I'm gonna enhance public health care, make education free, and abolish FICA while keeping welfare intact. The inevitable question will come. Who is going to pay for this? The government will pay for it, like it pays for everything else, through fiscal debits. And I want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else by doing away with all the loopholes & instituting a capital gains tax. The reason why the rich should pay isn't finance related, but that of socio-economic justice and equality. When you'll do understand MMT, you'll know why it's so poisonous and untrue to say "make the rich pay for education, social security, and health care".

There is a difference between lying and being ignorant. I believe most citizens are ignorant and that is why these oligarchs keep winning elections! I can't remember the last good president! I probably wasn't even alive! It is insane, by its own right, that since the late 1900s the government has PURPOSEFULLY down-graded education and the importance of reading to ignorize (for lack of better term, Ignorize - to instill ignorance onto someone) society and enslave it.

19.10.2015 00:50
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #23
RE: Bernie Sanders

I know Sanders is lying to the public when he's using deficit dove rhetoric, because Stephanie Kelton & others told him (explained to him) about MMT. And the typical response people like Mosler & Mitchell get when they tell politicians/elected officials about MMT is - "Oh, well, I can't say that." Ergo, because they're afraid the crowds are too stupid to understand, and because they fear losing their positions of power - they prefer to lie on the tele & other media & continue to vote bullshit legislation & too small budgets.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.10.2015 10:15 by Helsworth.

19.10.2015 10:14
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ajay Alcos
Unregistered


Post: #24
RE: Bernie Sanders

Pandering not to what people want, but rather to what they do not wish to see - politics 101.

19.10.2015 10:23
Quote this message in a reply
Lord Alexander
Comrade
*


Posts: 1,585
Words count: 238,210
Group: Basic
Joined: Feb2009
Status: Offline
Reputation: 61
Experience: 616
Glory Points: 146
Medals: 4

Post: #25
RE: Bernie Sanders

Helsworth Wrote:
I know Sanders is lying to the public when he's using deficit dove rhetoric, because Stephanie Kelton & others told him (explained to him) about MMT. And the typical response people like Mosler & Mitchell get when they tell politicians/elected officials about MMT is - "Oh, well, I can't say that." Ergo, because they're afraid the crowds are too stupid to understand, and because they fear losing their positions of power - they prefer to lie on the tele & other media & continue to vote bullshit legislation & too small budgets.

We know for sure that currently MMT is not suitable platform for participation in the US elections. That is why we are now discussing candidate Sanders and not candidate Mosler. On the previous Presidential elections Mosler already tried to become candidate, but eventually he himself realized that he has no chances to win and withdrew to run for Senate, but has failed there as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mos..._campaigns

19.10.2015 11:26
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #26
RE: Bernie Sanders

Lord Alexander Wrote:

Helsworth Wrote:
I know Sanders is lying to the public when he's using deficit dove rhetoric, because Stephanie Kelton & others told him (explained to him) about MMT. And the typical response people like Mosler & Mitchell get when they tell politicians/elected officials about MMT is - "Oh, well, I can't say that." Ergo, because they're afraid the crowds are too stupid to understand, and because they fear losing their positions of power - they prefer to lie on the tele & other media & continue to vote bullshit legislation & too small budgets.

We know for sure that currently MMT is not suitable platform for participation in the US elections. That is why we are now discussing candidate Sanders and not candidate Mosler. On the previous Presidential elections Mosler already tried to become candidate, but eventually he himself realized that he has no chances to win and withdrew to run for Senate, but has failed there as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mos..._campaigns

You misunderstand. Mosler isn't a veteran of US politics, neither is a politician. He's too nice, honest, and smart & he doesn't cater to lobbyists. A candidate with the support of the Democratic Party on a deficit owl platform would win without problems. And no, you don't know "for sure" it's not suitable, because no charismatic or inveterate US politician ever ran from it.
However, see Wright Patman's career here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Patman

and contrast it with his claim made in '41, from the position of congressman.


So yeah, let Sanders continue to FAIL on the attacks and criticisms of deficit hawks, and even let him fail on a friendly show like Maher's. Instead of employing MMT arguments and completely whipping the floor with deficit hawks/fiscal conservatives & even rallying some of them to his side. (social progressives who are fiscal conservatives do exist). We'll see where that gets him, when he continues to ignore facts (that the economy needs larger fiscal deficits & higher gov debt in order for his desired programs to work - and that doesn't burden future generations with higher taxes, nor does it cause inflation. For fuck's sake, even Mises argues the same on his stance on war debt http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogsp...would.html ). You have to break the vicious cycle at one point. You just can't continue arguing that the world is flat, fearing that if you tell the truth & say it is actually round, you're not going to get elected. Fuck that mentality, I say.

And should people ask him, then why do you want to make the rich pay more taxes, the correct answer is - because money in the circuit of the economy trickles up, not down, and the rich can afford that fiscal burden. And a society that combats socio-economic inequality is better off in every aspect. The correct answer is, because we don't want to move toward feudalism, we want equality, transparency, and democracy, and freedom. And you can't have these things when you have a feudal class sucking like a vampire from the teats of the government and that of the working class. And in conclusion, that's why I want to do away with loopholes in fiscal code for the 1%, why I want them to pay capital gains & I've explained to you how we can have more government spending in the economy and fewer taxes on labor & households.

At any rate, I don't think Sanders will be able to beat Hillary. I've seen dogmatic feminists online going on about how Hillary should be voted, just because she's a woman. LoL.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.10.2015 12:31 by Helsworth.

19.10.2015 11:53
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #27
RE: Bernie Sanders

Helsworth Wrote:

Lord Alexander Wrote:

Helsworth Wrote:
I know Sanders is lying to the public when he's using deficit dove rhetoric, because Stephanie Kelton & others told him (explained to him) about MMT. And the typical response people like Mosler & Mitchell get when they tell politicians/elected officials about MMT is - "Oh, well, I can't say that." Ergo, because they're afraid the crowds are too stupid to understand, and because they fear losing their positions of power - they prefer to lie on the tele & other media & continue to vote bullshit legislation & too small budgets.

We know for sure that currently MMT is not suitable platform for participation in the US elections. That is why we are now discussing candidate Sanders and not candidate Mosler. On the previous Presidential elections Mosler already tried to become candidate, but eventually he himself realized that he has no chances to win and withdrew to run for Senate, but has failed there as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mos..._campaigns

You misunderstand. Mosler isn't a veteran of US politics, neither is a politician. He's too nice, honest, and smart & he doesn't cater to lobbyists. A candidate with the support of the Democratic Party on a deficit owl platform would win without problems. And no, you don't know "for sure" it's not suitable, because no charismatic or inveterate US politician ever ran from it.
However, see Wright Patman's career here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Patman

and contrast it with his claim made in '41, from the position of congressman.


So yeah, let Sanders continue to FAIL on the attacks and criticisms of deficit hawks, and even let him fail on a friendly show like Maher's. Instead of employing MMT arguments and completely whipping the floor with deficit hawks/fiscal conservatives & even rallying some of them to his side. (social progressives who are fiscal conservatives do exist). We'll see where that gets him, when he continues to ignore facts (that the economy needs larger fiscal deficits & higher gov debt in order for his desired programs to work - and that doesn't burden future generations with higher taxes, nor does it cause inflation. For fuck's sake, even Mises argues the same on his stance on war debt http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogsp...would.html ). You have to break the vicious cycle at one point. You just can't continue arguing that the world is flat, fearing that if you tell the truth & say it is actually round, you're not going to get elected. Fuck that mentality, I say.

And should people ask him, then why do you want to make the rich pay more taxes, the correct answer is - because money in the circuit of the economy trickles up, not down, and the rich can afford that fiscal burden. And a society that combats socio-economic inequality is better off in every aspect. The correct answer is, because we don't want to move toward feudalism, we want equality, transparency, and democracy, and freedom. And you can't have these things when you have a feudal class sucking like a vampire from the teats of the government and that of the working class. And in conclusion, that's why I want to do away with loopholes in fiscal code for the 1%, why I want them to pay capital gains & I've explained to you how we can have more government spending in the economy and fewer taxes on labor & households.


He HAS to lie, friend. Otherwise they will not understand what he is saying and will lose votes! Trump or even Hillary will win if he acts on what you propose. Perhaps, instead letting inferiors have power over you, you should run yourself if you truly want radical change!

19.10.2015 12:32
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #28
RE: Bernie Sanders

As I said, if I had US citizenship & enough money to wage an independent campaign, I would. But like I said before, people controlled by their parties are controlled by the lobby groups behind those particular parties. You don't get so high up the political hierarchy without having dirt on you (without being controllable). But I don't understand why it's so hard to say this.


Snorunt said he transformed his deficit hawk econ professor into a deficit owl, after he showed him MMT. If Snorunt, a student can do this, why can't Sanders from his high position, especially in the minds/hearts of American leftists? At least to get them to change their discourse by abandoning neoliberal/monetarist economic theology. You people seem not to realize how powerful the Left's discourse would be on the vast majority of citizens (in a context of understanding economics from a Chartalist POV), if it said - subsidized public utilities, free health care, free education, green tech, and no VAT & no obligatory insurances. Just think how much income these things together would give to households and to workers. The Right would have no choice BUT to try and mirror such a discourse, else risk complete and utter defeat. At the very least, they would have to renounce trickle down in order to stay relevant on the economics debate.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.10.2015 12:46 by Helsworth.

19.10.2015 12:38
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Alexander
Comrade
*


Posts: 1,585
Words count: 238,210
Group: Basic
Joined: Feb2009
Status: Offline
Reputation: 61
Experience: 616
Glory Points: 146
Medals: 4

Post: #29
RE: Bernie Sanders

It is possible to present such arguments, but it is not possible to force others to accept them. Open-minded economy professors and their students are the only people that will be really receptive to the argumentation in support of MMT. Everyone else will find the usual analogy with the budgets of private households and organizations to be much more convincing.

Opponents will be refuting the argument about wartime debt by pointing out that accumulation of debt during the war is acceptable only because defeat is the sole alternative in such situation. They will tell the public that the only way to build long-term prosperity is to maintain the government debt at “manageable” level.

The weak point of MMT is that it never was tested on practice, so it is quite easy to portray it either as a wishful thinking or as a financial pyramid. James Galbraith is free to advocate on TV any theories because he is not seeking to be elected, but Sanders cannot allow himself such luxury. He is forced to take into account how his words will be perceived by the average voters and the important people in the Democratic Party.

This post was last modified: 19.10.2015 18:29 by Lord Alexander.

19.10.2015 18:28
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #30
RE: Bernie Sanders

Lord Alexander Wrote:
It is possible to present such arguments, but it is not possible to force others to accept them. Open-minded economy professors and their students are the only people that will be really receptive to the argumentation in support of MMT. Everyone else will find the usual analogy with the budgets of private households and organizations to be much more convincing.

Opponents will be refuting the argument about wartime debt by pointing out that accumulation of debt during the war is acceptable only because defeat is the sole alternative in such situation. They will tell the public that the only way to build long-term prosperity is to maintain the government debt at “manageable” level.

The weak point of MMT is that it never was tested on practice, so it is quite easy to portray it either as a wishful thinking or as a financial pyramid. James Galbraith is free to advocate on TV any theories because he is not seeking to be elected, but Sanders cannot allow himself such luxury. He is forced to take into account how his words will be perceived by the average voters and the important people in the Democratic Party.

LoL. Who said anything about forcing people to believe this or that. Reason is enough to convince people, the unreasonable ones will still listen to their local religious charlatans. It's easy to tear down such rhetoric by simply showing Japan as an example. Over 220% of GDP, no mass bankruptcy, no hyperinflation, no thing. Furthermore, if financing tanks, weapons, and missiles isn't inflationary, and doesn't bankrupt the country (and people like Greenspan, Krugman, and Summers all testify to that), then why would social/civilian spending?
How come FDR managed to deficit spend on his promises in his day and age, but Sanders cannot in a free floating nonconvertible fucking fiat regime? You're assuming people will find gov budget = household budget more convincing than MMT view that they're nothing alike on NOTHING. People are raised to be 1 of two things, either doves or hawks when it comes to fiscal policy. If a popular figure tells them, you're wrong, deficits should be run even in good times & if they take the time (5 minutes) to explain fucking double entry bookkeeping (minus with plus ALWAYS balance to zero) to the audience, then the audience will be left not with empty rhetoric, but with their curiosity aflame. And the more they;ll think about it & the explanations given, then more they're realize that it's true. That the Federal Government is NOTHING like a household or firm. And that it's insane to "pay off the national debt", when the very dollar bills they have in their wallets and in their pension funds come from (represent) the national debt.
But no, it's too risky to tell people a simple truth, that dollar bills in their pocket is government debt. That might inflame the mob and make it vote with Trump. If you have such little faith in people that they can't handle the truth, no wonder we're moving backwards towards feudalism.
All it takes is for popular figures to tell the truth (do the revolutionary act), and then others will come out of the woodwork as well and defend that particular claim. There are so many closet heterodox economists & financial analysts, you have no idea - and they remain closeted simply because they fear losing their positions of power. They're afraid the financial owners won't pay them to actually write out of the neolib/neocon theology.
The big money interests in the Democratic party have nothing to fear from an MMT advocate candidate. MMT itself is NOT an ideology, it simply describes the modern monetary & banking system. As for deficit doves, from my experience, it comes easier to them to embrace the owl position compared to the hawks, though, I did have success with hawks too.
Like I said before, honest thing to do is to explain MMT to people (introduce double entry accounting class in schools beginning as early as 5th grade), and then hold a referendum asking people to vote on their desired size/role of government in society. Politicians can mold their policy proposals according to those results.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 19.10.2015 19:19 by Helsworth.

19.10.2015 19:07
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Trump vs. Bernie in the First Ever @midnight Presidential Debate Helsworth 0 1,350 31.03.2016 12:59
Last Post: Helsworth
  Bernie Sanders wins Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii Helsworth 1 1,475 28.03.2016 23:20
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Asher Edelman, aka Gordon Gekko, supports Bernie Sanders & explains why Helsworth 7 1,786 18.03.2016 14:55
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Cornel West on Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, Trans Rights, and B.B. King Helsworth 0 1,545 05.08.2015 12:25
Last Post: Helsworth

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: