Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

bilby said:

Deficits are a red herring. They are one of the least important indicators of the merit of a policy platform.

Click to expand...

bilby said:

Deficits are completely irrelevant. No serious economist cares about deficits as a problem in their own right; They are an accounting tool that provides just one of many data points to help understand which way things are trending.

Click to expand...

I agree with both statements, assuming you're not actually arguing that a large and persistent national deficit doesn't matter at all. Easy for you to say, but if I start telling people that deficits don't contribute to inflation or interest rates, I'll probably get beat up on this side of the ocean.

Gospel said:

assuming you're not actually arguing that a large and persistent national deficit doesn't matter at all

Click to expand...

I am arguing exactly that.

As a net importer (ie, a wealthy nation with wealthy citizens), a large and persistent national debt is not only not a problem; It's a necessity.

The deficit need not be large; There will even occasionally be years when the economic conditions lead to a surplus, because accidents do happen. But if there is a surplus, that implies either insufficient spending, or excessive taxation, and needs to be corrected.

The objective should be a small deficit, in support of strong economic growth.

If your government can't think of any way to invest money in infrastructure that will more than pay for itself in terms of increased growth, then it's time to elect a more imaginative government.

If your unimaginitive government is collecting as much or more in taxes than it spends (or even nearly as much), then they are not only failing in their duty to improve the nation, they are also overcharging the residents for the privilege of being mismanaged.

She's right about that work fa sho.

Jimmy Higgins said:

Gospel said:

An example of what I'm getting at is Clinton achieved a budget surplus during his administration*.

Click to expand...

* - when including the Social Security surplus.

Click to expand...

The debt reduction was HUGE, during Clinton's 2nd term, more than a whopping half a Trillion dollars lopped off "Federal debt held by the Public". HOWEVER even with the Soc Sec surplus added on to debt, there was a very slight decrease in Total Public Debt at the very end of Clinton's term, as you can see at the linked graph. The Democratic Congresspeople famously "walked the plank" to achieve this impressive result. I don't have the patience to explain this again and watch right-wingers shriek their lies.

But of course, the balanced budget was quickly destroyed -- deliberately (cf "Starve the Beast") -- by Bush-Cheney's GOP and their huge tax cuts for the rich.

Netherlands, Denmark and South Korea are large countries whose government budget is still in surplus.

- - - - - - -

Neither Jimmy nor Gospel is at fault, but some others' recent posts are full of falsities and confusion. I'm too exhausted to whack all the moles.

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

Click to expand...

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

Click to expand...

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

Loren Pechtel said:

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

Click to expand...

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

Click to expand...

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

Click to expand...

OK, Batshit Crazy it is then.

If the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money, then

a) where the fuck is the "cost to society"?

and

b) why the fuck would an infinite pool of money be needed??

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on X: "Wall Street came for us again, ... / X

Wall Street came for us again, and the people prevailed.

Thank you to the Bronx and Queens for choosing me to be your Congresswoman.

It is the honor of my life to fight for working families and everyday people.

To receive this level of support is deeply moving. Pa’lante.

Click to expand...

Pa'lante is short for "para adelante" -- "forward"

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

bilby said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

Click to expand...

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

Click to expand...

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

Click to expand...

OK, Batshit Crazy it is then.

If the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money, then

a) where the fuck is the "cost to society"?

and

b) why the fuck would an infinite pool of money be needed??

Click to expand...

Because you refuse to include any consideration of whether we can afford it. The only way you can not care about cost is if the money available is vastly in excess of what you're considering spending. It's the standard leftist error of assuming anything good can be funded.

Loren Pechtel said:

Because you refuse to include any consideration of whether we can afford it.

Click to expand...

No, that's built in to:

the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money

Click to expand...

In that scenario, you can't afford NOT to do it.

Loren Pechtel said:

The only way you can not care about cost is if the money available is vastly in excess of what you're considering spending.

Click to expand...

That's true, IF YOU ARE NOT A FIAT CURRENCY ISSUER.

If you are a fiat currency issuer, the only physical limit on spending is the availability of numbers.

The practical limit is variable, and changes with the size of the economy, the rate of inflation, and the desired exchange rate with your various trading partners' currencies.

And the effect of spending on that practical limit is (when the benefit outweighs the cost), to increase that practical limit.

Fiat currency issuers always have to spend before they can borrow or earn it; It is the exact opposite of the situation of users of someone else's currency, who must obtain money before spending it.

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc) • Instagram photos and videos

She recently Instagrammed on her visit to some wind farms off the coast of southern New England, going there aboard a Coast Guard ship with "experts, policymakers, and state officials". Also, "Here with some of my congressional colleagues from across the country - including California, New Mexico, North Carolina & of course Rhode Island".

Those wind farms were Block Island and South Fork, under construction near Long Island.

She marveled at how huge the turbines and the blades were, passing by a ship that was carrying some of the blades. In a group of five of the turbines, four were stopped for maintenance, with only one of them turning. Some of the newer wind turbines have blades as long as an American football field, about 100 yd / m long.

Then she requested questions, with a picture of a Metro-North train in the background.