And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Madiel]

Did anyone follow the latest debate?

Reporting I've seen down here suggests that it was good for Warren (not least because other candidates basically treated her like the frontrunner), also positive for Sanders and Buttgieg, and poor for Biden.

[Muzio]

The President's tweets after the Oct. 15, 2019, dem debate...with love.   

[milk]

The President's tweets after the Oct. 15, 2019, dem debate...with love.   

We love the donald here, especially is fine tweets. 

[drogulus]

Did anyone follow the latest debate?

Reporting I've seen down here suggests that it was good for Warren (not least because other candidates basically treated her like the frontrunner), also positive for Sanders and Buttgieg, and poor for Biden.

      Warren was rattled and it was her worst performance, Biden did very well IMO. It was pointed out that he doesn't need to shine in debates like an underdog. Mayor Pete was the best of the rest.

      I watched Buttigieg in a post-debate interview and I noticed he is smart, almost to the point that he can extemporize his whole campaign on the spot.

[Florestan]

A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in
a paper money of a certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper
money. (Smith, 1776, p. 312)

I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?

[drogulus]

I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?

     A currency monopolist doesn't decree, it uses fiscal and monetary operations to move the price, though price is not the goal, it comes out of the goal the operations are for, providing the government with goods and services it deems necessary and by that provisioning the economy with the currency it needs to operate within the range policy sets.

[Florestan]

     A currency monopolist doesn't decree, it uses fiscal and monetary operations to move the price, though price is not the goal, it comes out of the goal the operations are for, providing the government with goods and services it deems necessary and by that provisioning the economy with the currency it needs to operate within the range policy sets.

This doesn't answer my question. Here it is, again: can a government manipulate the currency into having whatever value they deem it should shave? A simple yes or no would suffice, thank you.

[Karl Henning]

We love the donald here, especially is fine tweets. 

Donald J. Shrivelpecker

[drogulus]

This doesn't answer my question. Here it is, again: can a government manipulate the currency into having whatever value they deem it should shave? A simple yes or no would suffice, thank you.

     No.

[Florestan]

     No.

Thanks. I agree. The reason I asked is that Smith quote, which taken at its face value could suggest otherwise.

[drogulus]

     A government is responsible to the economy through how the money system is operated, there it can't choose arbitrary money targets.

Thanks. I agree. The reason I asked is that Smith quote, which taken at its face value could suggest otherwise.

     That's a weird reading. Smith says the issuer controls the value via the tax, it says nothing about choosing values for reasons that are arbitrary or functionally looney.

[Karl Henning]

Ernie, yes, Pete is sharp.

[drogulus]

     The government has the power to destroy the money system by taxing back everything it has provided. No one bothers asking whether in can "in principle" do this.

     Here's why it never gets that far. Ask people if they would like to eliminate the national debt and they say yes. Ask people if they want to eliminate the dollar savings and they don't know what to say, maybe "why are you asking?". Then you explain it's the same thing and the discussion mercifully ends.

[Florestan]

          That's a weird reading. Smith says the issuer controls the value via the tax, it says nothing about choosing values for reasons that are arbitrary or functionally looney.

I must have misunderstood it then,

[drogulus]

     What I take from the debate is that Mayor Pete has a shot at Top 4 status, an outside chance. The Top 3 are secure for now. Bernie is good to go, as I expected. Biden may have more of an age-related problem than the other dinosaurs. Is Warren my age, really?

[Karl Henning]

     What I take from the debate is that Mayor Pete has a shot at Top 4 status, an outside chance. The Top 3 are secure for now. Bernie is good to go, as I expected. Biden may have more of an age-related problem than the other dinosaurs. Is Warren my age, really?

Right, only an outside chance at the nomination this go, but solid groundwork for the future.

[drogulus]

Right, only an outside chance at the nomination this go, but solid groundwork for the future.

     I don't know what will open up for him in the near future, possibly a slot in the Dem administration if that happens. Indiana is tough for Dems.

[Madiel]

I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?

Many countries have done exactly that in the past.

It works for about 5 minutes, but it does work.

[drogulus]

     How Much Will Medicare for All Cost?

      The article compares estimated costs of different Medicare For All plans.

      Though the article is slightly illuminating on the difference between a federal outlay and projected health care expenditures, it falls short in the dynamic effects on the economy as a whole.

      Since the Great Recession the government has spent great sums into the economy, not especially great or the recovery wouldn't have been half strength. Still, this fiscal expansion has caused a 60% increase in the tax back, roughly. More money out, more money back.

      Oh, you don't remember paying a giant tax increase? You did, you just didn't pay higher rates. When the economy expands it can't help sending more tax back unless a determined effort is made to cut taxes enough to prevent it from happening.

      These Medicare plans are going to send huge increases of spending into the economy and the expansion tax back is estimated at ZERO!

      Trillions with a T in additional payments are supposed to be paid in and no one gets any income that would be taxed. That's how the budgeteers see it.

      The budgeteers are not tracing the spending all the way to the tax, they are starting with the taxing like it's collected before anything can be spent!

      So they never get to the question of how much bigger the economy would have to be to send all those trillions back, because they assume it will be the same size and super giant rates would have to be used to hit a tax target.

      Back on Earth, we might ask how much the tax/GDP ratio would have to change under a Sanders type plan. Some additional taxation might help keep inflation at bay since such a big plan would certainly be demand intensive.

[71 dB]

Medicare for all costs $32 Trillion over 10 year period, much less than current system.
For most people Medicare for all means tax cut, because public taxes rise less than people save paying zero private healthcare taxes.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who can deliver Medicare for all. AOC and Ilhan Omar have now endorsed Bernie.