President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[ZiprHead]

[stupid tweet by Craig Frizzell]

Calling everything infrastructure makes the very term meaningless!

Sure, he may need child care to do his job. He may also need a car. Or a laptop. Does that mean federal government should provide him those things as "infrastructure"?
He may also need a suit. Does that mean federal government should provide him a few suits as part of "sartorial infrastructure"?

There needs to be a special online Democrat dictionary, where regular folk who are "not in the know" can look up the intended meaning of their words and phrases. For example, "infrastructure" or "defund the police". Of course, all such words should be known and established in the lexicon ahead of time, otherwise its gives the impression that the word meaning was disingenuosly modified to fit a particular narrative. Just a suggestion.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.

Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?

Would you consider hospitals to be part of infrastructure?

 

[lpetrich]

Maddow Blog on Twitter: "And here is the part where Rep. Ocasio-Cortez mentions the 10 trillion number that caught @Lawrence 's attention.

We'll have the full @AOC interview published later tonight. (vid link)" / Twitter

That's $10T over 10 years, or $1T/year.

AOC says that President Biden's $2.5T would be a starting point, and she notes Sen. Joe Manchin's $4T.

 

[lpetrich]

American Jobs Plan | The White House

Its stated goals:

• 
  Fix highways; rebuild bridges; and upgrade ports, airports, and transit centers.
  - President Biden’s plan will modernize 20,000 miles of highways, roads, and main-streets. It will rebuild bridges in disrepair, providing critical linkages to our communities. And it will replace thousands of buses and rail cars, repair hundreds of stations and facilities, and expand transit and rail service into new communities that need them most.
• Rebuild clean drinking water infrastructure, a renewed electric grid, and high-speed broadband to all Americans.
  - President Biden’s plan will eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in United States drinking water systems. It will put hundreds of thousands of people to work renewing our electric grid and capping orphan oil and gas wells and abandoned mines. And it will bring affordable, reliable high-speed broadband to every American, including the more than 35% of rural Americans who lack access to broadband at minimally acceptable speeds.
• Modernize homes, commercial buildings, schools, and federal buildings.
  - President Biden’s plan will create jobs building and modernizing affordable, accessible, energy efficient, and resilient buildings all over the country, while also improving our nation’s federal facilities, especially those that serve veterans.
• Create caregiving jobs and raise wages and benefits for essential home care workers.
  - President Biden’s plan will ensure that essential home workers—the majority of whom are women of color—will provide home and community-based care for individuals who otherwise would need to wait years to get the services they badly need.
• Revitalize manufacturing, ensure products are made in America, and invest in innovation.
  - President Biden’s plan will ensure that the best, diverse minds in America are put to work creating the innovations of the future while creating hundreds of thousands of quality jobs today. It will require that goods and materials are made in America and shipped on U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels.
• Create good-paying union jobs and train Americans for jobs of the future.
  - President Biden’s plan will ensure our workers are trained for well-paying, middle-class jobs of the future. It will ensure that American taxpayers’ dollars benefit working families and their communities, and not multinational corporations or foreign governments.

Very ambitious, I must say. $2 trillion may not be enough for all of it. Sen. Manchin and AOC are likely right that it should be bigger.

 

[thebeave]

There needs to be a special online Democrat dictionary, where regular folk who are "not in the know" can look up the intended meaning of their words and phrases. For example, "infrastructure" or "defund the police". Of course, all such words should be known and established in the lexicon ahead of time, otherwise its gives the impression that the word meaning was disingenuosly modified to fit a particular narrative. Just a suggestion.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.

 

[lpetrich]

FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan | The White House

• BUILD WORLD-CLASS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: FIX HIGHWAYS, REBUILD BRIDGES, AND UPGRADE PORTS, AIRPORTS AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS
  • Transform our crumbling transportation infrastructure:
    • Repair American roads and bridges.
    • Modernize public transit.
    • Invest in reliable passenger and freight rail service.
    • Create good jobs electrifying vehicles.
    • Redress historic inequities and build the future of transportation infrastructure.
    • Invest resources wisely to deliver infrastructure projects that produce real results.
  • Make our infrastructure more resilient:
    • Safeguard critical infrastructure and services, and defend vulnerable communities.
    • Maximize the resilience of land and water resources to protect communities and the environment.
• REBUILD CLEAN DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, A RENEWED ELECTRIC GRID, AND HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND TO ALL AMERICANS
  • Ensure clean, safe drinking water is a right in all communities:
    • Replace 100 percent of the nation’s lead pipes and service lines.
    • Upgrade and modernize America’s drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, tackle new contaminants, and support clean water infrastructure across rural America.
  • Revitalize America’s digital infrastructure:
    • Build high-speed broadband infrastructure to reach 100 percent coverage.
    • Promote transparency and competition.
    • Reduce the cost of broadband internet service and promote more widespread adoption. President Biden believes that building out broadband infrastructure isn’t enough.
  • Reenergize America’s power infrastructure:
    • Build a more resilient electric transmission system.
    • Spur jobs modernizing power generation and delivering clean electricity.
    • Put the energy industry to work plugging orphan oil and gas wells and cleaning up abandoned mines.
    • Remediate and redevelop idle real property, and spur the buildout of critical physical, social, and civic infrastructure in distressed and disadvantaged communities.
    • Build next generation industries in distressed communities.
• BUILD, PRESERVE, AND RETROFIT MORE THAN TWO MILLION HOMES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS; MODERNIZE OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND EARLY LEARNING FACILITIES; AND UPGRADE VETERANS’ HOSPITALS AND FEDERAL BUILDINGS
  • Build, preserve, and retrofit more than two million homes and commercial buildings to address the affordable housing crisis:
    • Produce, preserve, and retrofit more than a million affordable, resilient, accessible, energy efficient, and electrified housing units.
    • Build and rehabilitate more than 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income homebuyers.
    • Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies.
    • Address longstanding public housing capital needs.
    • Put union building trade workers to work upgrading homes and businesses to save families money.
  • Modernize our nation’s schools and early learning facilities:
    • Modernize our public schools.
    • Investing in community college infrastructure.
    • Upgrade child care facilities and build new supply in high need areas.
  • Upgrade VA hospitals and federal buildings:
• SOLIDIFY THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR CARE ECONOMY BY CREATING JOBS AND RAISING WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR ESSENTIAL HOME CARE WORKERS
  • Expand access to long-term care services under Medicaid.
  • Put in place an infrastructure to create good middle-class jobs with a free and fair choice to join a union.
• INVEST IN R&D, REVITALIZE MANUFACTURING AND SMALL BUSINESSES, AND TRAIN AMERICANS FOR THE JOBS OF THE FUTURE
  • Invest in R&D and the technologies of the future:
    • Advance U.S. leadership in critical technologies and upgrade America’s research infrastructure.
    • Establish the United States as a leader in climate science, innovation, and R&D.
    • Eliminate racial and gender inequities in research and development and science, technology, engineering, and math.
  • Retool and revitalize American manufacturers and small businesses:
    • Strengthen manufacturing supply chains for critical goods.
    • Protect Americans from future pandemics.
    • Jumpstart clean energy manufacturing through federal procurement.
    • Make it in ALL of America.
    • Increase access to capital for domestic manufacturers.
    • Create a national network of small business incubators and innovation hubs.
    • Partner with rural and Tribal communities to create jobs and economic growth in rural America.
  • Invest in Workforce Development:
    • Pair job creation efforts with next generation training programs.
    • Target workforce development opportunities in underserved communities.
    • Build the capacity of the existing workforce development and worker protection systems. The United States has underinvested in the workforce development system for decades.
• CREATE GOOD-QUALITY JOBS THAT PAY PREVAILING WAGES IN SAFE AND HEALTHY WORKPLACES WHILE ENSURING WORKERS HAVE A FREE AND FAIR CHOICE TO ORGANIZE, JOIN A UNION, AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS
  • Empower Workers.
  • Create good jobs.
  • Protect workers.
• THE MADE IN AMERICA TAX PLAN
  • Set the Corporate Tax Rate at 28 percent.
  • Discourage Offshoring by Strengthening the Global Minimum Tax for U.S. Multinational Corporations.
  • End the Race to the Bottom Around the World.
  • Prevent U.S. Corporations from inverting or claiming tax havens as their residence.
  • Deny Companies Expense Deductions for Offshoring Jobs and Credit Expenses for Onshoring.
  • Eliminate a Loophole for Intellectual Property that Encourages Offshoring Jobs and Invest in Effective R&D Incentives.
  • Enact A Minimum Tax on Large Corporations’ Book Income.
  • Eliminate Tax Preferences for Fossil Fuels and Make Sure Polluting Industries Pay for Environmental Clean Up.
  • Ramping Up Enforcement Against Corporations.

 

[lpetrich]

Here's AOC's Green New Deal resolution:

H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of

• achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
• establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
• investing in infrastructure and industry;
• securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
• promoting justice and equality.

The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including

• building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
• upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
• removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
• cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
• ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
• providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

Much of it seems to be contained in Biden's American Jobs Plan.

One part of it seems to endorse investment in renewable energy:

Spur jobs modernizing power generation and delivering clean electricity. President Biden is proposing a ten-year extension and phase down of an expanded direct-pay investment tax credit and production tax credit for clean energy generation and storage. These credits will be paired with strong labor standards to ensure the jobs created are good-quality jobs with a free and fair choice to join a union and bargain collectively. President Biden’s plan will mobilize private investment to modernize our power sector. It also will support state, local, and tribal governments choosing to accelerate this modernization through complementary policies – like clean energy block grants that can be used to support clean energy, worker empowerment, and environmental justice. And, it will use the federal government’s incredible purchasing power to drive clean energy deployment across the market by purchasing 24/7 clean power for federal buildings. To ensure that we fully take advantage of the opportunity that modernizing our power sector presents, President Biden will establish an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard (EECES) aimed at cutting electricity bills and electricity pollution, increasing competition in the market, incentivizing more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and continuing to leverage the carbon pollution-free energy provided by existing sources like nuclear and hydropower. All of this will be done while ensuring those facilities meet robust and rigorous standards for worker, public, and environmental safety as well as environmental justice – and all while moving toward 100 percent carbon-pollution free power by 2035.

 

[ZiprHead]

There needs to be a special online Democrat dictionary, where regular folk who are "not in the know" can look up the intended meaning of their words and phrases. For example, "infrastructure" or "defund the police". Of course, all such words should be known and established in the lexicon ahead of time, otherwise its gives the impression that the word meaning was disingenuosly modified to fit a particular narrative. Just a suggestion.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.

So you disagree with the definition TV&CC provided?

 

[lpetrich]

Stephanie Kelton is an economist who advocates Modern Monetary Theory. She has written a book about it, "The Deficit Myth".

Opinion | Biden Can Go Bigger and Not ‘Pay for It’ the Old Way - The New York Times

"By focusing on how much revenue they hope to raise from tax increases on the well-off, Democrats risk limiting the scope of their ambitions."

n an interview on MSNBC last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York explained her mixed feelings about the president’s proposal, saying she has “serious concerns that it’s not enough to realize the very inspiring vision that Mr. Biden has advanced.” Rather than spending roughly $2 trillion over eight years, Ms. Ocasio Cortez and many of her Progressive Caucus colleagues would prefer “to go way higher” and on a shorter timeline.

She’s right that it is possible for Congress and the Biden administration to go bigger, faster — but only by shifting to a completely different budgeting framework: Instead of passing legislation that leans on taxing corporations and the rich to keep spending from increasing the deficit, they would have to develop a robust plan with a focus on containing inflationary pressures as that heightened government spending hits the real economy.

Ocasio-Cortez hails Biden infrastructure bill as good start; pitches bigger investment
and
Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/31/21
AOC majored in economics and international relations when in college, so she's at least a little bit familiar with economics.

Depending on how big Congress ultimately decides to go on infrastructure, and how quickly, it may need to unleash a whole suite of inflation-dampening policies along the way — all of it unrelated to deficit neutrality.

These mostly nontax inflation offsets could include industrial policies, like much more aggressively increasing our domestic manufacturing capacity by steering investment back to U.S. shores, using even more “carrot” incentives like direct federal procurement, grants and loans, as well as more “sticks” like levying new taxes to discourage the offshoring of plants. Reforming trade policies is another option: Repealing tariffs would make it easier and cheaper for American businesses to buy supplies manufactured abroad and easier for consumers to spend more of their income on products made outside of our borders, draining off some domestic demand pressures.

...
A Biden-led plan that is overly protectionist is a much greater inflation threat than a plan that isn’t paid for in the traditional deficit-neutral budgetary sense. This framework — based on the principles of Modern Monetary Theory — redefines fiscal responsibility by flipping the age-old question “How will you pay for it?” The real challenge is “How will you resource it?”

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently hinted at this approach when he told Politico: “You don’t start off by coming up with a sum and working down. You start out by looking at the needs that need to be addressed and adding them up.” The next step is to figure out how to budget your available real resources to deliver on those priorities.

Then SK gets into Modern Monetary Theory.

Modern Monetary Theory is not alone here. For a historical outlook, we can revisit what John Maynard Keynes proposed in “How to Pay for the War: A Radical Plan for the Chancellor of the Exchequer,” a lesser-known work of his. To the contemporary ear, the title suggests that Keynes was trying to figure out how to come up with the money to finance World War II spending. He wasn’t.

Keynes understood that the British government, which controlled its national currency, could create all the money needed. The purpose of the book was to show the government how to scale up and sustain higher levels of spending while containing inflationary pressures along the way. It noted the soldiers, bombers, tanks, combat gear and more that would be needed to prosecute the war and how the entire economy would need to be reoriented, quickly, to supply those things.

...
More recently, economists like L. Randall Wray and Yeva Nersisyan have begun to think about how to pay for a Green New Deal using Keynes’s earlier “radical” framework. And even if one were to accept the terms of the old deficit-oriented budgeting currently favored in Washington, going even bigger on infrastructure, if executed carefully, is still doable: Larry Summers, the former Obama White House senior economist, admitted in 2014 that “public infrastructure investments can pay for themselves” and that “by increasing the economy’s capacity, infrastructure investment increases the ability to handle any given level of debt.”

That may be a sizable leap for some people, but I think that SK is ultimately correct. When the US entered WWII, FDR didn't say that an adequate military response must await the development of some payment plan for it.

 

[lpetrich]

Stephanie Kelton on Twitter: "Yesterday, @jasonfurman tweeted out my NYT piece on the Biden infrastructure proposal. ..." / Twitter

Yesterday, @jasonfurman tweeted out my NYT piece on the Biden infrastructure proposal. He claimed I had ignored the most obvious way to deal with any inflationary pressures that might arise—i.e. Fed rate hikes. I don’t share Jason’s view that fiscal policy can safely ignore inflation risk since the Fed can always handle any resulting inflation. Congress should not ignore inflation risk when contemplating a multi trillion-dollar spending package. That’s just irresponsible. I also don’t share the the view that the Fed can easily keep inflation in check via rate hates. I think it’s complicated and not settled science that rate hikes will temper inflationary pressures by dampening aggregate expenditures.

There are other channels through which interest rates matter. And to the extent rate hikes can, in the extreme, cause deflation by engineering a domestic and/or international recession, we should be at least be weary of turning to them as a primary stabilizing tool. To be provocative, I asked Jason whether he had considered the possibility that Fed tightening might have perverse effects, raising rather than dampening inflationary pressures. It’s something I wrote about back in 2005, and I was curious to hear how he’d respond. He said, “No.” I suggested that it was worth considering and supplied a link. Unfortunately, the article I linked to didn’t include some of the relevant passages from an earlier version of the paper. What I wanted to share was my own (co-authored) work, but I couldn’t find a link to the book chapter. I have it now.

I did not argue in that chapter (nor do I now) that rate hikes *will* lead to higher inflation. It’s an empirical question. We uncovered some interesting correlations, but that’s it. It deserves more rigorous study. Others have thought about this too. Tillmann, P. (2007) “Do interest rates drive inflation dynamics? An analysis of the cost channel of monetary transmission,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. And here’s a series where Fullwiler (@stf18) draws on my 2005 paper to lay out the conditions under which monetary tightening *can* have perverse macro effects (i.e. stimulus vs cooling)

So here are my views…I consider interest-inflation dynamics an open and interesting question rather than settled (always negative sign) science. I think it's irresponsible to imply that Congress can safely ignore inflation risk when drafting a multi trillion-dollar spending package. I think it's naive to assume that the Fed can readily temper any inflation that might be fueled by substantial infrastructure spending. I think it makes sense to think hard about the offsets we are choosing, rather than grabbing any old “pay for” off the shelf for the purpose of satisfying the gatekeepers at the CBO. I think Congress should do its level best to mitigate inflation risk *preemptively* when drafting legislation, rather than ignoring inflation altogether and leaving it to the Fed to clean up any potential mess. Finally, saying that we should take inflation into account (ex ante) when *drafting* legislation (as MMT recommends) is not tantamount to saying that we have to use fiscal policy to fight (ex post) inflation. This is vital.

MMT does not tell us that we must use tax increases or spending cuts to fight inflation. We keep explaining this. https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2018/01/answers-from-the-mmters.html and here https://ft.com/content/539618f8-b88c-3125-8031-cf46ca197c64 . And the NYT column was all about using non-fiscal offsets to mange bottlenecks, etc. Although Jason and I appear to disagree about the purpose of a spending offset, as well as the best way to fight ex post inflation, we are having a more useful debate. I can remember when Jason was pushing $4T in deficit reduction when there was no inflation to speak of. I'm glad we're beyond that now.

• Netscape: Working Paper 384 - wp384.pdf - Minsky's Acceleration Channel and the Role of Money - byGreg Hannsgen - The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
• The New Monetary Policy: Implications and Relevance - Google Books - Recent developments in macroeconomic and monetary thinking have given a new impetus to the management of the economy. The use of monetary policy by way of manipulating the rate of interest to affect inflation is now well accepted by both academic economists
• Does the cost channel of monetary transmission explain inflation dynamics
• Functional Finance and the Debt Ratio—Part I | New Economic Perspectives - Functional Finance and the Debt Ratio—Part II | New Economic Perspectives - Functional Finance and the Debt Ratio—Part III | New Economic Perspectives - Functional Finance and the Debt Ratio—Part IV | New Economic Perspectives - Functional Finance and the Debt Ratio—Part V | New Economic Perspectives
• An MMT response on what causes inflation | Financial Times
• Answers from the MMTers | New Economic Perspectives

 

[lpetrich]

Kristen Eshleman on Twitter: "@RachelRCarlson Yes to collective impact. Hope this group will consult with and look deeply at the work of these incredible female economists who are rethinking capitalism: (@MazzucatoM; @CarlotaPrzPerez; etc) (link)" / Twitter
noting
5 Economists Redefining… Everything. Oh Yes, And They’re Women

Few economists become household names. Last century, it was John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman. Today, Thomas Piketty has become the economists’ poster-boy. Yet listen to the buzz, and it is five female economists who deserve our attention. They are revolutionising their field by questioning the meaning of everything from ‘value’ and ‘debt’ to ‘growth’ and ‘GDP.’ Esther Duflo, Stephanie Kelton, Mariana Mazzucato, Carlota Perez and Kate Raworth are united in one thing: their amazement at the way economics has been defined and debated to date. Their incredulity is palpable.

The trillion-dollar woman - The.Ink by Anand Giridharadas, interviewing SK

oe Biden is president of the United States, but he lives in Stephanie Kelton’s world.

An economist and champion of so-called Modern Monetary Theory, Kelton has long agitated against what she calls “the deficit myth,” which is also the title of her bestselling book on the subject.

At the most basic level, Kelton believes the United States government is capable of investing far more than it ordinarily does, or than most people think it should, in making people’s lives better. And she argues that much of the resistance to doing so is grounded in outdated, gold-standard thinking that has no place in reality today.

Then the interview.

ANAND: In the wake of the passage of the American Rescue Plan, we’ve heard every manner of reaction. Joe Biden is a dangerous socialist. Joe Biden is putting lipstick on the pig of austerity politics. Joe Biden is the second coming of FDR. Or maybe LBJ. How would you assess what happened and what it tells us about where this presidency is headed?

STEPHANIE: I served as one of eight members on the Biden-Sanders “unity task force” on the economy. Some of the other members are now in the administration. I’m not sure exactly what I expected to see from Biden in his first 100 days, but the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act went beyond anything I would have anticipated.

...
Biden is no socialist, but he does seem to understand that his presidency will be judged, in large part, on the degree to which his policies deliver material improvements in people’s lives.

It’s way too early for comparisons to FDR and LBJ. I think Harvey Kaye, who has written several books on FDR, has this right. He tweeted that Biden will be less like FDR or LBJ and more like Dwight Eisenhower if Dems succeed in passing an infrastructure bill but can’t bust the filibuster and pass the PRO Act and the For the People Act.

PRO Act: supports labor unions
For the People Act: election reform

 

[lpetrich]

A year ago:
Congress and White House say blowing up deficit not a concern for coronavirus stimulus - CNNPolitics
then
CNN on Twitter: "Lawmakers and the White House are putting aside any concerns about blowing up the deficit as they consider a trillion-dollar stimulus package to boost the economy in response to coronavirus. (link)" / Twitter
then
Stephanie Kelton on Twitter: "It took a virus to kill the deficit myth." / Twitter
with responses
Fred on Twitter: "@StephanieKelton You mean a global pandemic that is killing people at alarming rates?" / Twitter
and
Stephanie Kelton on Twitter: "@WaywardWinifred Yes, that. It has (at least temporarily) laid bare so many flawed and phony arguments, including those pushed by people who are now urging government to spend freely and ignore deficits. Those folks are right now, but they should have known better then." / Twitter

Something like FDR not worrying about balancing the Federal budget after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.


AG then asked SK to explain MMT in simple terms.

She explained that the Federal Government has an ability that state and local governments don't: the ability to print more money.

"At its core, MMT is about replacing the (flawed) concept of a government budget constraint with a natural resource (inflation) constraint."

That is, printing more money than the non-monetary parts of the economy, this giving more money per non-monetary unit.

MMT teaches us to ask not, “How will you pay for it?” but “How will you resource it?” The politics are hard, but coming up with the money for Medicare for All, tuition-free college, or a huge infrastructure package is the easy part. Managing the use of our productive resources, and respecting our ecological constraints, is the defining challenge of our time.

ANAND: How significant is the new child benefit, and do you think it creates the rudiments of a basic income in American life?

STEPHANIE: It’s significant. Anytime you can cut child poverty in half with a stroke of the pen, it is, as Biden says, “a big f-ing deal.” It is life-changing and significant for millions of families. It shows that poverty is and always has been a policy choice. But it’s also, potentially, a temporary improvement in their economic station.

Then about the Senate.

There was just no way for Democrats to get a package through a standalone bill with the filibuster in place. To have the kind of freedom to do bold, FDR-like stuff, they need to get rid of a whole suite of self-imposed budget rules and constraints. I think you’re right, though. The public’s appetite has been whetted. Unlike the GOP tax cuts, Biden’s rescue package was enormously popular, and that should make it easier for lawmakers to turn some of the temporary measures into longer-term commitments.

As to taxing the rich,

I think every MMT scholar strongly favors substantial tax increases on the wealthiest people in our society — not so much because they’re not paying their fair share but — because they have been taking more than their fair share for too long, something you’ve written about yourself. We have dangerous levels of income and wealth inequality, and that is all the justification I need to support many of the tax increases Senators Warren and Sanders have proposed.

 

[lpetrich]

Then about presenting MMT.

STEPHANIE: I think Biden is a pretty terrific messenger. He sold the population on the need for a nearly $2 trillion rescue package, and he’s on the verge of barnstorming the country to build support for another $3 to $4 trillion for his Build Back Better agenda. He could go even bigger, and I think he could do it without giving the other side any rope to hang him with.

It’s not communism or socialism but a kind of protectionism that he could successfully lean into to build support for a more progressive suite of economic policies.

Donald Trump successfully pushed a protectionist narrative. A typically racist and ugly kind of protectionism, but protectionism nonetheless. Much of it was purely racist. It was about protecting “us” from “them.” But he also spoke of the economic system's failures and the way he intended to protect workers from raw trade deals and the like.

And not very successful protectionism at that.

She then mentioned FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: The Economic Bill of Rights -  Second Bill of Rights

And now we come full circle. FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights was a protectionist document. It enumerated a set of essential protections that should be afforded to every person in this country. The right to a job and a decent wage, the right to operate a business free of unfair competition and monopolies, the right to an education, to housing and health care, and to a secure retirement.

An updated version: An Economic Bill of Rights for the 21st Century - The American Prospect

Starting with FDR's version:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
3. The right of every family to a decent home.
4. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
5. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
6. The right to a good education.

adding:

7. The right to sound banking and financial services.
8. The right to a safe and clean environment.
9. The right to a meaningful endowment of resources as a birthright.

 

[Derec]

AG then asked SK to explain MMT in simple terms.

She explained that the Federal Government has an ability that state and local governments don't: the ability to print more money.

MMT reminds me of this bit from TRatEotU:

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.
“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."

 

[lpetrich]

AG's interview of SK ends with

ANAND: For years, my plea has been that we have to end the age of capital — this neoliberal era — and launch an age of reform. Where do you think we are at this moment in time on that long arc?

STEPHANIE: I’d say we’re closer than we’ve been in a long time, but it could well get much worse before it gets better. I hope I’m wrong, but climate change is going to confront us with some very bad circumstances. If we can’t rebuild basic levels of empathy and communitarian commitment, those bad circumstances are going to make us meaner, more scared, more selfish, and ultimately more violent than we already are.

In effect, go from a Schlesinger conservative era to a Schlesinger liberal one:  Cyclical theory (United States history)
We are overdue for the end of Gilded Age II, and we are experiencing the typical features of an end of a conservative phase: social problems accumulating with society's elites making inadequate responses, to the extent that they think that those problems exist. Also evident is what makes conservative phases end: activism to solve those problems.

 

[Swammerdami]

When I take the family out for pizza I often order a small Caesar salad on the side. In future need I correct my diction? Instead of "let's go for pizza" must I say "let's go for pizza and a Caesar salad on the side"?

Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?

Would you consider hospitals to be part of infrastructure?

@ Trausti -- First we'll need a cite that there have been "thousands" of "infrastructure bills." Or was this exaggeration just "colorful speech"? Are only red-shirts allowed to be colorful?

And did you decide whether hospitals are infrastructure yet?

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.

It was just a week ago that someone on your side of the aisle was bragging that "millions" (or was it "billions"?) of laws have been passed with more than one purpose.

There are different types of "infrastructure" — should each one get its own separate bill? Or is bundling things together OK as long as Webster's Dictionary agrees they are all "infrastructure"? In the latter case, would your complaint go away were the title of the bill changed from "Infrastructure" to, e.g. "Things we want to do"?

And I hope you do answer the following question: Your complaint is that differences of opinion about the definition of "infrastructure" show "the depths of [politicians'] dishonesty", right?

Lies about Stop the Steal and inciting insurrection: that didn't expose the depths of dishonesty? Sharing photos of the teenage pussy we grabbed is OK? Sabotaging elections while pretending to protect them: That's OK too? But forgetting to mention the side dish of salad when going out for pizza, THAT'S what exposes the despicableness?

Get a grip, man.

 

[thebeave]

When I take the family out for pizza I often order a small Caesar salad on the side. In future need I correct my diction? Instead of "let's go for pizza" must I say "let's go for pizza and a Caesar salad on the side"?



@ Trausti -- First we'll need a cite that there have been "thousands" of "infrastructure bills." Or was this exaggeration just "colorful speech"? Are only red-shirts allowed to be colorful?

And did you decide whether hospitals are infrastructure yet?

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.

It was just a week ago that someone on your side of the aisle was bragging that "millions" (or was it "billions"?) of laws have been passed with more than one purpose.

There are different types of "infrastructure" — should each one get its own separate bill? Or is bundling things together OK as long as Webster's Dictionary agrees they are all "infrastructure"? In the latter case, would your complaint go away were the title of the bill changed from "Infrastructure" to, e.g. "Things we want to do"?

And I hope you do answer the following question: Your complaint is that differences of opinion about the definition of "infrastructure" show "the depths of [politicians'] dishonesty", right?

Lies about Stop the Steal and inciting insurrection: that didn't expose the depths of dishonesty? Sharing photos of the teenage pussy we grabbed is OK? Sabotaging elections while pretending to protect them: That's OK too? But forgetting to mention the side dish of salad when going out for pizza, THAT'S what exposes the despicableness?

Get a grip, man.

Dude, you've gone unhinged. How did you get to teenage pussy grabbing in a discussion about a spending bill? I specifically said, "Politicians of all stripes" do it. That means Republicans and Democrats. So I am not picking sides here. Here's an example from last summer where the Republicans did a similar thing. I think what they did is deceptive and dishonest, and I would hope you feel the same:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35168/heres-all-the-ridiculous-military-pork-baked-into-this-proposed-covid-19-bill

Yesterday, Senate Republicans unveiled a proposed bill that would authorize a $1 trillion spending package ostensibly to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and the impacts it has had, especially economically, across the country this year. The draft law immediately drew criticism for including a raft of line items that seem at best tangentially related to those efforts, while many are not at all, including around $30 billion in defense spending, which would be on top of the more than $705 billion in the proposed defense budget for the 2021 Fiscal Year.

By your standard, that would seem to be OK. If Covid-19 spending is the pizza, then defense spending is the Caeser salad, right?

I'm certainly not opposed to considering responsible federal spending on child and elder care, which is probably what you think my true motives are in questioning the inclusion of it into an infrastructure bill.

 

[Swammerdami]

With a sovereign currency (fiat money), the purpose of taxes is not to raise revenue; it is to sop up excess spending power, spending which could lead to inflationary pressures. In today's America, especially after Republican tax cuts, spending power is concentrated in the hands of the super-rich, who are likely to use that power to bid up asset prices rather than to buy goods or services. Asset price bubbles, while not classed as "inflation," have their own risks.

... CNN on Twitter: "Lawmakers and the White House are putting aside any concerns about blowing up the deficit as they consider a trillion-dollar stimulus package to boost the economy in response to coronavirus. (link)"
...
As to taxing the rich,

I think every MMT scholar strongly favors substantial tax increases on the wealthiest people in our society — not so much because they’re not paying their fair share but — because they have been taking more than their fair share for too long, something you’ve written about yourself. We have dangerous levels of income and wealth inequality, and that is all the justification I need to support many of the tax increases Senators Warren and Sanders have proposed.

"Fairness" is one reason to move the tax rates on the rich back toward the higher levels they had under Bush-43. But dampening the asset price bubble may also be worthwhile. If the Bubble is left to grow further, its sudden puncturing — perhaps precipitated by fears of inflation — will lead to loss of confidence and probably another credit crisis. The Fed's remedies are moving the economy further and further from a natural free market to resemble instead a theme park ride with unknown destination.

But one needn't subscribe to MMT to realize that the humans, if finally in control on Capitol Hill, should push for all the deficit spending they can. We now know that every Trillion Dollars that the D's do NOT spend, will be spent on further tax cuts for the rich the next time Republicans are in control. Given such GOP behavior, Parsimony with the budget simply has no rational purpose today.

It's time to turn the GOP's meme on its end. They've been saying "We'd love to spend a billion on education or healthcare for the poor, but we can't: There's no money left after our trillion dollar tax cut." It's time for the D's to answer "We'd love to give more billions to the Kochs and Zuckerbergs, but we can't afford it: We spent the money to help the American lower and middle classes."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like Pelosi is pondering two bills, one for the bridges and roads type infrastructure, which I'm sure the right-wing will get right behind, and one for the infrastructure to increase the viability of the work force.

In a decent world, there is a bipartisan vote for the infrastructure bill and then reconciliation plus gets the other stuff through, but with the GOP the way it is, the Democrats will likely need reconciliation plus to get the hard infrastructure bill through, and the other stuff won't happen.

It is insane, that the reality in America is that things are so crappy, some can't afford to work without using schools as quasi-day care.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Looks like Pelosi is pondering two bills, one for the bridges and roads type infrastructure, which I'm sure the right-wing will get right behind, and one for the infrastructure to increase the viability of the work force.

In a decent world, there is a bipartisan vote for the infrastructure bill and then reconciliation plus gets the other stuff through, but with the GOP the way it is, the Democrats will likely need reconciliation plus to get the hard infrastructure bill through, and the other stuff won't happen.

It is insane, that the reality in America is that things are so crappy, some can't afford to work without using schools as quasi-day care.

I don't much like this splitting of infrastructure into two definitions. "Human Infrastructure" will quickly become a smear on right wing news.

We're hard-pressed to fill blue collar jobs now due to a lack of well trained candidates. Upgrading transportation and utilities and I would suspect having a "buy American" provision attached is just going to exacerbate the problem. There's gonna be a need for some "human" investment if they're gonna make this work.

Broadband should be little more than subsidizing the cost. Musk and Bezos are both slinging thousands of satellites into orbit now and over the next couple years to cover the corn people
so their voice can be better heard bitching about government subsidies.