Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible. Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

Deficit spending adds money to the economy, thus increasing the money supply. There's no corresponding increase in good and services, you get inflation. You either get your act together and quit the deficit spending (early Israel) or you blow your economy apart (post-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela.)

 

[bilby]

There's no corresponding increase in good and services

Whether there is a corresponding increase is unknown, but very likely. It depends on the details of what you spend the money on, and how people respond to that expenditure.

Deficit spending on infrastructure is almost always a huge benefit to the economy. It both enables and stimulates growth.

When your deficits are due to increased spending, particularly on infrastructure, the economy booms. When they are due to tax cuts, particularly regressive tax cuts, the economy stagnates.

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible. Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

Deficit spending adds money to the economy, thus increasing the money supply. There's no corresponding increase in good and services, you get inflation. You either get your act together and quit the deficit spending (early Israel) or you blow your economy apart (post-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela.)

I don't see anything in your response that says it cannot be done.

 

[Derec]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible.

Of course it can be funded through deficit spending. But it would not be a good idea. The deficits are already very high. It would also be highly inflationary.

Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

It's an estimate. How much do you think her GND would cost?

 

[Derec]

It's single payer in that the government is the one paying.

Medicare does not cover all the costs of healthcare, even for seniors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible. Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

Deficit spending adds money to the economy, thus increasing the money supply. There's no corresponding increase in good and services, you get inflation. You either get your act together and quit the deficit spending (early Israel) or you blow your economy apart (post-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela.)

I don't see anything in your response that says it cannot be done.

The point is deficit spending actually takes it from everybody via inflation rather than truly creating money. And, as with all flat taxes, it's regressive.

 

[bilby]

The point is deficit spending actually takes it from everybody via inflation rather than truly creating money.

[Citation Needed]

Most deficit spending creates money by stimulating economic growth (or stimulates economic growth by creating and spending money, depending on your perspective).

Macroeconomics is NOT a zero-sum game.

Attempting to balance your national budget, in a growing economy, is an excellent way to stop your economy from being a growing economy.

History is replete with examples of governments cutting spending in an attempt to balance their budgets, and finding themselves caught in a spiral wherein each cut in spending causes a cut in tax revenues due to the decline in economic activity, and so demands further spending cuts in pursuit of the bizarre and purely ideological goal of a balanced budget. The UK has been doing this for over a decade now, with a brief haitus die to COVID, and it has been uniformly disastrous.

There are a number of macroeconomic goals that have been pursued in various ways in recent (post WWII) history. Some have proven to improve the standard of living of the majority; Others have caused that standard to collapse.

Beneficial goals include:

• A low inflation target managed by adjusting interest rates
• Fiat money not pegged to any commodity or external currency
• Infrastructure construction and maintenance paid for through deficit spending
• Increased deficits in response to low growth (or recession); smaller deficits (or even small surpluses) in response to strong growth.
• A balance between public and private ownership, with natural monopolies and essential services (eg healthcare) publically owned and funded, while competitive and luxury goods are made and marketed by private companies.

Detrimental goals include:

• Central planning of production
• Balanced budgets (treating national budgets like household budgets)
• Commodity money, or money pegged to a commodity
• Income Tax cuts (or increased deductions/exeptions/exemptions) for the wealthy
• Privatisation of natural monopolies, and/or allowing monopolies to form (including regional or local monopolies)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is deficit spending actually takes it from everybody via inflation rather than truly creating money.

[Citation Needed]

Most deficit spending creates money by stimulating economic growth (or stimulates economic growth by creating and spending money, depending on your perspective).

Macroeconomics is NOT a zero-sum game.

Attempting to balance your national budget, in a growing economy, is an excellent way to stop your economy from being a growing economy.

History is replete with examples of governments cutting spending in an attempt to balance their budgets, and finding themselves caught in a spiral wherein each cut in spending causes a cut in tax revenues due to the decline in economic activity, and so demands further spending cuts in pursuit of the bizarre and purely ideological goal of a balanced budget. The UK has been doing this for over a decade now, with a brief haitus die to COVID, and it has been uniformly disastrous.

There are a number of macroeconomic goals that have been pursued in various ways in recent (post WWII) history. Some have proven to improve the standard of living of the majority; Others have caused that standard to collapse.

Beneficial goals include:

• A low inflation target managed by adjusting interest rates
• Fiat money not pegged to any commodity or external currency
• Infrastructure construction and maintenance paid for through deficit spending
• Increased deficits in response to low growth (or recession); smaller deficits (or even small surpluses) in response to strong growth.
• A balance between public and private ownership, with natural monopolies and essential services (eg healthcare) publically owned and funded, while competitive and luxury goods are made and marketed by private companies.

Detrimental goals include:

• Central planning of production
• Balanced budgets (treating national budgets like household budgets)
• Commodity money, or money pegged to a commodity
• Income Tax cuts (or increased deductions/exeptions/exemptions) for the wealthy
• Privatisation of natural monopolies, and/or allowing monopolies to form (including regional or local monopolies)

Laffer curve.

There is a point where it's beneficial. There's a point where it's harmful. You seem to think that no matter what the optimum amount is higher. But look at what has happened to countries that let it get out of hand.

 

[bilby]

Laffer curve.

Don't make me laff.

There is a point where it's beneficial. There's a point where it's harmful.

What is "it"? I listed a bunch of positives and negatives; To which (if any) are you referring?

Beneficial goals include:

• A low inflation target managed by adjusting interest rates
• Fiat money not pegged to any commodity or external currency
• Infrastructure construction and maintenance paid for through deficit spending
• Increased deficits in response to low growth (or recession); smaller deficits (or even small surpluses) in response to strong growth.
• A balance between public and private ownership, with natural monopolies and essential services (eg healthcare) publically owned and funded, while competitive and luxury goods are made and marketed by private companies.

Detrimental goals include:

• Central planning of production
• Balanced budgets (treating national budgets like household budgets)
• Commodity money, or money pegged to a commodity
• Income Tax cuts (or increased deductions/exeptions/exemptions) for the wealthy
• Privatisation of natural monopolies, and/or allowing monopolies to form (including regional or local monopolies)

You seem to think that no matter what the optimum amount is higher. But look at what has happened to countries that let it get out of hand.

The optimum amount of what?? I should look at what has happened to countries that let what get out of hand???

Your response apoears to be a knee-jerk reaction to reading the first few words of my post, and (incorrectly) guessing what the rest of it would say.

Perhaps read it, try to understand it, think about it, and then respond to what it actually says. I know it's easier to scan for keywords, and then re-type your canned reaction to seeing those keywords; But it does make you look like a crazy person or an idiot, when your canned response is such a wild non-sequitur.

 

[starwater]

AOC files articles of impeachment for 2 supremes

Clarence and Sam

Little chance of it going anywhere

 

[Janice Rael]

AOC files articles of impeachment for 2 supremes

Clarence and Sam

Little chance of it going anywhere

AOC just said "GURL. BABY GIRL" to MR GINNI and Sam-Alito-I-Am!!!!!

 

[Derec]

Mr. Ginni? Do you mean Corrado Gini, because he spells his name with only one 'n'?

But what does Mr. Gini have to do with AOCc's quixotic impeachment?

 

[bilby]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible. Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

Deficit spending adds money to the economy, thus increasing the money supply. There's no corresponding increase in good and services, you get inflation. You either get your act together and quit the deficit spending (early Israel) or you blow your economy apart (post-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela.)

...or you spend the money on stuff that grows the economy (infrastructure), so that there IS a corresponding increase in "good and services".

Your assumption, that deficit spending cannot, or will not, result in economic growth, is both unwarranted and absurd.

It won't, if the money is spent unwisely, but it will if the money is spent wisely.

I note that you didn't respond to my most recent post to you in this thread. I would be grateful if you could at least attempt to do so. Even if only to concede that your earlier response was a non-sequitur, and that you hadn't understood the post to which you were replying.

 

[robnisch]

Okay, so why can it not be funded through deficit spending? You make it seem like it's impossible. Not to mention the estimate you keep citing is entirely made up. We've been over this before.

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

Deficit spending adds money to the economy, thus increasing the money supply. There's no corresponding increase in good and services, you get inflation. You either get your act together and quit the deficit spending (early Israel) or you blow your economy apart (post-war Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela.)

...or you spend the money on stuff that grows the economy (infrastructure), so that there IS a corresponding increase in "good and services".

Your assumption, that deficit spending cannot, or will not, result in economic growth, is both unwarranted and absurd.

It won't, if the money is spent unwisely, but it will if the money is spent wisely.

I note that you didn't respond to my most recent post to you in this thread. I would be grateful if you could at least attempt to do so. Even if only to concede that your earlier response was a non-sequitur, and that you hadn't understood the post to which you were replying.

You mean like this.

https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/50th-anniversary/history-interstate-highway-system

$618 billion in 2023 $.
Sounds like some good deficit spending.

 

[Swammerdami]

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

I thought I'd pointed out the arithmetic blunder here before.

M⋅V = P⋅T​

It is V, the Velocity of Money, that you overlook.

I've snipped off the rest of your post. To pursue it would be like answering questions about relativity after you start with E-c².

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because prices = money supply/goods and services.

I thought I'd pointed out the arithmetic blunder here before.

M⋅V = P⋅T​

It is V, the Velocity of Money, that you overlook.

Which can be restated as

MV = PY

where Y is real output or GDP, as measured by all the (T) transactions in the economy - i.e. people providing each other with, and paying for, goods and services

And GDP = C + I + G + X-M

where G is govt spending (except transfers such as wefare payments). It's a component of - not something subtracted from - national income.

People struggle with this because they somehow think the same doctors treating the same patients - or the same teachers teaching the same pupils, etc - in the private sector adds to GDP, but is subtracted from GDP in the public sector. The common confusion of macroeconomics with a household budget.

If the govt net ("deficit") spends a billion dollars, both GDP and national debt increase by a billion dollars. Same debt to GDP ratio, bigger economy, all else being equal.

But all else is rarely equal since that spending effects the other components of GDP. That effect is called the 'fiscal multiplier'. Net govt spending might "crowd out" more efficient private sector use of real resorces and have a negative effect on the other components.

For a multiplier of 1, both GDP and national debt increase by the same amount. If the multiplier is <1, debt increases by more than GDP. If the multiplier is >1, GDP increases by more than national debt.

So it's an empirical question of whether multipliers are less than or greater than 1. It's a tricky to measure variable ...unless you conduct a bold experiment like most OECD govts implementing austerity programmes, as they did in the 2010s.

And the results are in - multipliers from net govt spending are, contrary to previous supposition, generally >1.

Net - "deficit" - govt spending tends to crowd private sector economic activity and investment in, not out.


(appologies to anyone who's already spelled it out, but the thread is nearly 300 pages long).

 

[Canard DuJour]

(affects, apologies..)

..just to add that it isn't a silver bullet or free lunch. Multipliers are variables, not constants. Enough net govt spending would eventually "crowd out" more efficient private sector use of real resources (Soviet Union..?), but evidence suggests that we're some way from that.

 

[lpetrich]

Casa Pueblo | El martes, la congresista Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc) visitó Casa Pueblo y recorrió la organización para conocer su historia, los… | Instagram
Google Translate:

On Tuesday, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc) visited Casa Pueblo and toured the organization to learn about its history, educational and cultural projects, and the successful implementation of solar energy in the community.

“It was a pleasure to welcome Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to Adjuntas and Casa Pueblo. Her kindness and openness allowed us to delve deeper into urgent issues for the protection of natural resources, climate adaptation and the fight for the decolonization of Puerto Rico,” said Arturo Massol Deyá (@arturo_massol_deya). “We hope that initiatives like ours, designed and managed from the community base, serve as a model for future energy implementations based on justice and social power.”

After a cup of coffee, the conversation continued in the solar cinema. AOC visited the Art Gallery, shared with the boys and girls of the Summer Camp, visited Radio Casa Pueblo where she shared a message, walked to the Solar Forest and saw the work in progress of the Energy Independence Plaza. Before enjoying lunch at the Vista al Río solar pig farm, the Representative visited the Café Madre Isla farm, where she planted coffee trees. She also visited the Altos de Cuba solar neighborhood with Sharon Cedeño and the microgrids of Adjuntas Pueblo Solar.

: @juancinedoc
: @angelasophia.photo

 

[lpetrich]

Here is her commentary in her Instagram story:

What I've been up to this week in Puerto Rico :

Supporting microgrids and freedom from LUMA with @casapuebloorg

Planting coffee trees in Adjuntas ️

Rolling out solar and battery storage systems on the homes of seniors, rural communities, and people with disabilities

Figuring out a new energy system that is not only renewable, but also liberates us from the handful corporations gouging the people

Energy independence is great.

Decolonization cannot be reduced solely to a status question - as important as that question is.

Puerto Rico is the oldest colony in the world. We have lived under both Spanish and US colonization for hundreds of years. The reality of life under colonization is that it deeply enmeshed in nearly every aspect of our life and society - including designed dependence in our energy systems, food systems, financial systems, not to mention society, mentality, etc.

While I appreciate the light that has been shed on the concept of decolonization online in recent years, have also felt that this word has - at times been reduced to a slogan or conversation lacking the depth and discussion it deserves. We cannot simply vote our way out of colonization, regardless of outcome. It requires us to more comprehensively grapple with ourselves and build a new path and systems. @casapuebloorg shows the way

and

I want to thank ny elders, community, and pueblo for always teaching me, embracing me, supporting me, correcting me with cariño, and helping me grow as a person.

Our people understand that revolutionary work is only possible through community and an active commitment to a culture of love and safety. We cannot change the world with a harsh, disciplinary practice of judgment, exclusion, and lack of love. We *must* love, not only for our needs as human beings, but also because we cannoy liberate ourselves by replicating colonial culture in our disposition and our hearts. To liberate is to love.

From Google Translate, cariño = affection

Scoping out solar installations: ️

and

Casa Pueblo installed solar battery storage in the colmado.

Bill went from hundreds of dollars a month to zero.

When the power goes out, people in the community bring medicines to the colmado and they'll refrigerate them for people who don't have solar systems yet.

Life changing

From Google Translate, el colmado = the grocery store

 

[lpetrich]

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm showed up in Puerto Rico, meeting AOC and Rep. Nydia Velázquez, also from NYC and also with Puerto Rican ancestry
Secretary Jennifer Granholm | Today, Rep. @NydiaVelazquez, @RepAOC and I met Iris in Loíza, Puerto Rico. During Hurricane Fiona, her home suffered severe damage. With… | Instagram

Today, Rep. @NydiaVelazquez, @RepAOC and I met Iris in Loíza, Puerto Rico.

During Hurricane Fiona, her home suffered severe damage.

With help from @POTUS, she rebuilt her home, installed rooftop solar and storage, and will see an 80% reduction in her home energy bills.

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to increasing access to resilient, clean power for the most vulnerable households in the region.

This messy moment - starting off with her work in Puerto Rico and spending most of her time on the challenges to President Biden's re-election candidacy.