Economics Thread

[nsacpi]

btw with respect to money in politics I have been impressed by recent massive waves of small donor contributions that have reshaped our politics: Obama in 2008, Sanders in 2016, Trump in 2016, Congressional Democrats in 2018. It was grass roots enthusiasm (manifested in part by massive waves of small donor contributions) that fueled those campaigns. Regardless of the individual outcomes (and I didn't like some of them), I think that's a very healthy thing for our republican form of government.

disclaimer: I have only contributed to one political campaign in my life. John McCain in 2008. When they called me for a second contribution, I requested my money back (due to his choice of Palin as running mate). I remember that call vividly.
I was having dinner at a nice restaurant near the water. I stepped outside to the beach to take the call so that I wouldn't disturb the other diners. The call grew heated and I guess loud enough that I noticed some of the other diners were staring at me. Needless to say they didn't refund me.

 

[nsacpi]

the similarities of Trumpism and the Green Deal: yes they are there

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...21718903bfc_story.html?utm_term=.22a9184674cb


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pretended to forget the name of Ocasio-Cortez’s manifesto, referring to the Green New Deal, with airy dismissiveness , as “the green dream, or whatever they call it.”

By their abundant pragmatism, these elders show they haven’t digested the lessons of 2016. Ocasio-Cortez clearly has. Politics in the age of Trump (and the age of social media) rewards the outsize gesture, the hyperbolic performance. Democrats with big dreams — especially the urgent dream of action on climate change — refuse to be the only ones held to the reality standard. If Trump can promise a 2,000-mile wall covered with solar panels that Mexico will pay for, then they’ll promise to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years while ending poverty and putting a nice kale salad on every plate.

The goal is to whip voters into camps rather than lure them into coalitions.

Which brings us to the common ground that Trump shares with Ocasio-Cortez: Neither one believes in budgets. Central to the Green New Deal is a formulation known as modern monetary theory , which holds that the spending power of a sovereign government is limited only by its productive resources. Trump’s fiscal insanity — massive spending along with pleas for lower interest rates — is modern monetary theory in all but name, and his trillion-dollar deficits are inspirational for the authors of the Green New Deal.

Even the theory gurus agree, however, that printing more money can eventually lead to inflation, and enough inflation can turn a rich country into Venezuela. The mantra of the Green New Dealers — that “deficits don’t matter” — is only true until it isn’t.

Could it be that Trump’s reckless spending and his feckless Republican enablers will doom Democratic firebrands to live in the real world? Seems unfair. But the United States needs at least one party of reality.

 

[50PoundHead]

the similarities of Trumpism and the Green Deal: yes they are there

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...21718903bfc_story.html?utm_term=.22a9184674cb


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pretended to forget the name of Ocasio-Cortez’s manifesto, referring to the Green New Deal, with airy dismissiveness , as “the green dream, or whatever they call it.”

By their abundant pragmatism, these elders show they haven’t digested the lessons of 2016. Ocasio-Cortez clearly has. Politics in the age of Trump (and the age of social media) rewards the outsize gesture, the hyperbolic performance. Democrats with big dreams — especially the urgent dream of action on climate change — refuse to be the only ones held to the reality standard. If Trump can promise a 2,000-mile wall covered with solar panels that Mexico will pay for, then they’ll promise to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years while ending poverty and putting a nice kale salad on every plate.

The goal is to whip voters into camps rather than lure them into coalitions.

Which brings us to the common ground that Trump shares with Ocasio-Cortez: Neither one believes in budgets. Central to the Green New Deal is a formulation known as modern monetary theory , which holds that the spending power of a sovereign government is limited only by its productive resources. Trump’s fiscal insanity — massive spending along with pleas for lower interest rates — is modern monetary theory in all but name, and his trillion-dollar deficits are inspirational for the authors of the Green New Deal.

Even the theory gurus agree, however, that printing more money can eventually lead to inflation, and enough inflation can turn a rich country into Venezuela. The mantra of the Green New Dealers — that “deficits don’t matter” — is only true until it isn’t.

Could it be that Trump’s reckless spending and his feckless Republican enablers will doom Democratic firebrands to live in the real world? Seems unfair. But the United States needs at least one party of reality.

Needless to say, although they disagreed in life, Hayek, Keynes, and Friedman are all spinning in their graves.

 

[Julio3000]

It may be a cynical take, but we need to look at an actual author of the words “deficits don’t matter.” I’m referring to Dick Cheney, of course. Those words were reportedly echoed by WH CoS Mick Mulvaney, who made his bones as a Freedom Caucus deficit hawk, recently saying “nobody cares” about the deficit. And, true, nobody seems to care about it when tax cuts for the donor base and trillion-dollar wars are on the table. So I think there’s a certain wisdom to the Democrats who, instead of playing at being the harrumphing adults in the room and calling for paygo and austerity as they’ve historically done, just call the bluff. I mean, you can like or not like the ideas, but I have to say I find it somewhat refreshing to see someone say ok, let’s play by the rules that the other guys play by. Similarly, since every milquetoast HC proposal is going to be called communism anyway, why not go big?

When it comes to campaign finance, I think you have to keep your eyes open. Small donors are one thing, but you have to keep in mind the dark money super-PAC side of things, which allows unlimited, anonymous $ to flow to the benefit of any candidate, even if their campaign proper is floated by ordinary folks making small donations. The SC decided that money=speech, so folks with exponential wealth have outsized influence in the public square. This is about as neat an example of the corrosive effect of massive concentrated wealth on democracy (per Saez and Zucman) as you’re going to find. I struggle to understand why anyone with a shred of small-r republicanism to their name wouldn’t want to dry that **** up and make the process genuinely more democratic.

 

[sturg33]

It may be a cynical take, but we need to look at an actual author of the words “deficits don’t matter.” I’m referring to Dick Cheney, of course. Those words were reportedly echoed by WH CoS Mick Mulvaney, who made his bones as a Freedom Caucus deficit hawk, recently saying “nobody cares” about the deficit. And, true, nobody seems to care about it when tax cuts for the donor base and trillion-dollar wars are on the table. So I think there’s a certain wisdom to the Democrats who, instead of playing at being the harrumphing adults in the room and calling for paygo and austerity as they’ve historically done, just call the bluff. I mean, you can like or not like the ideas, but I have to say I find it somewhat refreshing to see someone say ok, let’s play by the rules that the other guys play by. Similarly, since every milquetoast HC proposal is going to be called communism anyway, why not go big?

One of these days, I hope you and your team can understand the difference between:

1. "Paying for" people to keep more of their own income

Vs

2. The exact opposite of that.

Then, I hope you and your team recognize the difference between $2t in less revenue vs $40+t in additional revenues

I am glad you all are embracing communism finally after pretending not to all these years. I do hope we live to see the day of its failures here as it's clear the history books aren't clear enough

 

[nsacpi]

It may be a cynical take, but we need to look at an actual author of the words “deficits don’t matter.” I’m referring to Dick Cheney, of course. Those words were reportedly echoed by WH CoS Mick Mulvaney, who made his bones as a Freedom Caucus deficit hawk, recently saying “nobody cares” about the deficit. And, true, nobody seems to care about it when tax cuts for the donor base and trillion-dollar wars are on the table. So I think there’s a certain wisdom to the Democrats who, instead of playing at being the harrumphing adults in the room and calling for paygo and austerity as they’ve historically done, just call the bluff. I mean, you can like or not like the ideas, but I have to say I find it somewhat refreshing to see someone say ok, let’s play by the rules that the other guys play by. Similarly, since every milquetoast HC proposal is going to be called communism anyway, why not go big?

When it comes to campaign finance, I think you have to keep your eyes open. Small donors are one thing, but you have to keep in mind the dark money super-PAC side of things, which allows unlimited, anonymous $ to flow to the benefit of any candidate, even if their campaign proper is floated by ordinary folks making small donations. The SC decided that money=speech, so folks with exponential wealth have outsized influence in the public square. This is about as neat an example of the corrosive effect of massive concentrated wealth on democracy (per Saez and Zucman) as you’re going to find. I struggle to understand why anyone with a shred of small-r republicanism to their name wouldn’t want to dry that **** up and make the process genuinely more democratic.

whether it be called dark money or big money or billionaire's money or plutocrat's money, it seems to me there is a rough equivalence in terms of what is spent on both sides...but the thing that has tipped the balance in recent cycles has been small donor enthusiasm...what happened in the 2018 cycle was a triumph of the small donor and the engaged and energized citizen

 

[Julio3000]

whether it be called dark money or big money or billionaire's money or plutocrat's money, it seems to me there is a rough equivalence in terms of what is spent on both sides...but the thing that has tipped the balance in recent cycles has been small donor enthusiasm...what happened in the 2018 cycle was a triumph of the small donor and the engaged and energized citizen

If we’re talking specifically about so-called dark money, it’s nowhere near equivalent. Conservative dark money groups historically outspend others by a 3:1 margin.

The 2016 presidential cycle saw a lot more super-PAC spending by D boosters relative to Rs than in previous cycles (attributed to traditional donors wariness of Trump), but they still spent less overall.

And while there are certainly plutocrats who support Democrats and liberal causes, overall it’s not even close, particularly when you consider how many of the left-leaning donor groups are labor organizations. I mean, I support stricter rules for contributions and greater transparency no matter the source, but I do draw a categorical distinction between, say, a labor organization and Sheldon Adelson or the Ricketts family.

 

[nsacpi]

If we’re talking specifically about so-called dark money, it’s nowhere near equivalent. Conservative dark money groups historically outspend others by a 3:1 margin.

The 2016 presidential cycle saw a lot more super-PAC spending by D boosters relative to Rs than in previous cycles (attributed to traditional donors wariness of Trump), but they still spent less overall.

And while there are certainly plutocrats who support Democrats and liberal causes, overall it’s not even close, particularly when you consider how many of the left-leaning donor groups are labor organizations. I mean, I support stricter rules for contributions and greater transparency no matter the source, but I do draw a categorical distinction between, say, a labor organization and Sheldon Adelson or the Ricketts family.

I think Bloomberg and some others took some big steps to even things out in 2018. I don't mind seeing more transparency. Voters should know who are funding various efforts to influence their votes. But I think some of the problems we've had can't be remedied as long as voters remain ignorant and lazy. I'm happy to see voters in general caring more about the choices they make. It took a really lousy hire for them to wake them up to the importance of their responsibilities.

 

[thethe]

If we’re talking specifically about so-called dark money, it’s nowhere near equivalent. Conservative dark money groups historically outspend others by a 3:1 margin.

The 2016 presidential cycle saw a lot more super-PAC spending by D boosters relative to Rs than in previous cycles (attributed to traditional donors wariness of Trump), but they still spent less overall.

And while there are certainly plutocrats who support Democrats and liberal causes, overall it’s not even close, particularly when you consider how many of the left-leaning donor groups are labor organizations. I mean, I support stricter rules for contributions and greater transparency no matter the source, but I do draw a categorical distinction between, say, a labor organization and Sheldon Adelson or the Ricketts family.

Should we just ignore all the untraceable 'small' donations given to the Obama campaign? I'm sure 'dark money' was not involved in that at all.

 

[Julio3000]

One of these days, I hope you and your team can understand the difference between:

1. "Paying for" people to keep more of their own income

Vs

2. The exact opposite of that.

Then, I hope you and your team recognize the difference between $2t in less revenue vs $40+t in additional revenues

I am glad you all are embracing communism finally after pretending not to all these years. I do hope we live to see the day of its failures here as it's clear the history books aren't clear enough

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here, but I would suggest using % rather than $ if you want to make apples-to-apples comparisons, though I get why you may not want to.

 

[Julio3000]

Should we just ignore all the untraceable 'small' donations given to the Obama campaign? I'm sure 'dark money' was not involved in that at all.

Uh, that’s the whole point. Direct campaign donations are accountable to FEC reporting. Obama’s campaign got in trouble for untimely reporting and necessary refunding of large donations....which further underscores the point that such donations are accounted for. Please do share with me what you’re referring to.

 

[thethe]

Uh, that’s the whole point. Direct campaign donations are accountable to FEC reporting. Obama’s campaign got in trouble for untimely reporting and necessary refunding of large donations....which further underscores the point that such donations are accounted for. Please do share with me what you’re referring to.

I have shared this many times in the past and a quick google search of Obama campaign finance violations will yield the articles you seek. Obama allowed the collection of donations without entering proper CVV code that acts as an security/identifier mechanism for cashless payments. Therefore, he collected a tremendous amount of untraceable donations during his campaign that originated in China. Doesn't mean the donations came from China but I believe it was hosted there.

 

[Julio3000]

I have shared this many times in the past and a quick google search of Obama campaign finance violations will yield the articles you seek. Obama allowed the collection of donations without entering proper CVV code that acts as an security/identifier mechanism for cashless payments. Therefore, he collected a tremendous amount of untraceable donations during his campaign that originated in China. Doesn't mean the donations came from China but I believe it was hosted there.

Weird. I see a bunch of articles insinuating the latter statement, based on the former, but no documentation or proof that it occurred. Shall I just take your word for it?

 

[nsacpi]

Shall I just take your word for it?

"I have always raised a healthy degree of skepticism to anything that is thrust feverently in front of my face."

----thethe just a few minutes ago in another thread

 

[thethe]

Weird. I see a bunch of articles insinuating the latter statement, based on the former, but no documentation or proof that it occurred. Shall I just take your word for it?

You can and should believe anything that you want. The information is out there, accusations which were raised by Dick Morris as well, for you to draw you own conclusions.

The story that thw republicans are the ones with all or most of large special interests is well dated. Sioicon valley and hollywood almost universally support the left.

 

[thethe]

"I have always raised a healthy degree of skepticism to anything that is thrust feverently in front of my face."

----thethe just a few minutes ago in another thread

And I applaud anyone that develops their own opinions.

 

[nsacpi]

And I applaud anyone that develops their own opinions.

Of course. And we should hone our filters because there is a lot of bad information out there. And I'm using the word information rather loosely to describe some of the garbage out there.

 

[Julio3000]

You can and should believe anything that you want. The information is out there, accusations which were raised by Dick Morris as well, for you to draw you own conclusions.

The story that thw republicans are the ones with all or most of large special interests is well dated. Sioicon valley and hollywood almost universally support the left.

The Center for Responsive Politics has the best data available on this subject, and it’s as I have described it. It may very well change in future elections, but even though Democrats are getting more super-PAC cash than in the early post-Citizens United cycles, conservative groups are still vastly outpacing them in wholly unaccountable dark-money pass-throughs, like by A LOT. Like, it’s not even close. That you’d even argue this point is silly.

 

[thethe]

The Center for Responsive Politics has the best data available on this subject, and it’s as I have described it. It may very well change in future elections, but even though Democrats are getting more super-PAC cash than in the early post-Citizens United cycles, conservative groups are still vastly outpacing them in wholly unaccountable dark-money pass-throughs, like by A LOT. Like, it’s not even close. That you’d even argue this point is silly.

If thats the data then so be it. I do believe that it is changing with silicon valley being almost exclusively behind the democrats.

The democrats have an advantage eitger way of not needing all the money fonsidering the propoganda that is controlled by the dnc. That is worth more than any donation that can be made.

 

[50PoundHead]

It may be a cynical take, but we need to look at an actual author of the words “deficits don’t matter.” I’m referring to Dick Cheney, of course. Those words were reportedly echoed by WH CoS Mick Mulvaney, who made his bones as a Freedom Caucus deficit hawk, recently saying “nobody cares” about the deficit. And, true, nobody seems to care about it when tax cuts for the donor base and trillion-dollar wars are on the table. So I think there’s a certain wisdom to the Democrats who, instead of playing at being the harrumphing adults in the room and calling for paygo and austerity as they’ve historically done, just call the bluff. I mean, you can like or not like the ideas, but I have to say I find it somewhat refreshing to see someone say ok, let’s play by the rules that the other guys play by. Similarly, since every milquetoast HC proposal is going to be called communism anyway, why not go big?

When it comes to campaign finance, I think you have to keep your eyes open. Small donors are one thing, but you have to keep in mind the dark money super-PAC side of things, which allows unlimited, anonymous $ to flow to the benefit of any candidate, even if their campaign proper is floated by ordinary folks making small donations. The SC decided that money=speech, so folks with exponential wealth have outsized influence in the public square. This is about as neat an example of the corrosive effect of massive concentrated wealth on democracy (per Saez and Zucman) as you’re going to find. I struggle to understand why anyone with a shred of small-r republicanism to their name wouldn’t want to dry that **** up and make the process genuinely more democratic.

You mean Mayor Fraudy McFraud from Fraudville? This guy is an absolute joke.