Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Same thing happened when W. Bush was reelected. The following year (2005) there was no change in the actual numbers of american emigrants to Canada.

Some people get excited about politics, and say bold things, but the day after the election, they still have jobs to go to, and families, and so on.  The truth is that Presidents really don't have much direct impact on most people's daily lives.  Even Trump can't change that.

In the case of Sanders, it's clear he is not listening to Stephanie Kelton in favor of the liberal version of orthodox economics.

On your MMT soapbox again?

Sanders deserves credit for being honest about who and what he is: a Socialist.  He attempts to soften that up with the Democratic qualifier, but as his plan shows, he's a Socialist.

[drogulus]

Some people get excited about politics, and say bold things, but the day after the election, they still have jobs to go to, and families, and so on.  The truth is that Presidents really don't have much direct impact on most people's daily lives.  Even Trump can't change that.




On your MMT soapbox again?

Sanders deserves credit for being honest about who and what he is: a Socialist.  He attempts to soften that up with the Democratic qualifier, but as his plan shows, he's a Socialist.

     We're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent. Sanders is a hairs width more socialist than a typical conservative. Libertarian rhetoricians don't have a real playbook so it doesn't matter how much more socialist everyone else is.

     My view of economics rests as much on pre MMT practice and thought as it does on Mosler, Wray and Kelton. MMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique, Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism. MMT is called theory but it's really an operational description. What it says is what a good theory, past good theories included, must say in order to be coherent and faithful to facts. MMT just rounded up what's true and took out the trash. I'd say the "theory" of MMT is all preexising theory that passed muster by the highest standard, correspondence of a model to the phenomena being modeled. It's a shame more economists don't do this, many of them seem to think the world should correspond to their model, so when it doesn't, that's proof of too many socialists or some other hyper-bad thing.

     

[Todd]

We're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent.

True.

Sanders is a hairs width more socialist than a typical conservative.

False.

Libertarian rhetoricians don't have a real playbook so it doesn't matter how much more socialist everyone else is.

False.  Milton Friedman provided both an intellectual and popular framework that can still be used for those who wish to try.  The freshwater school still has a fair number of heavy-hitters on economic matters, but on political and social matters there is no real analog.  Diehards can revert to the Austrian School, but the ones who do often seem to lack gravitas.  Better to stick with the Windy City.

MMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique

False.  There is a reason - several reasons - why MMT is also referred to as neochartalism.  There is nothing new under the sun.

[Florestan]

We're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialism

Count me out. I have never been, I am not, and I will never be a socialist.

[drogulus]

     

     MMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique

False.  There is a reason - several reasons - why MMT is also referred to as neochartalism.  There is nothing new under the sun.

     That's my point. As theory it draws on earlier formulations. MMT-ers didn't call it a theory for that reason. The name came from people who were unaware of prior theoretical foundations. Anyway, what's done is done, so now it's a theory.

Count me out. I have never been, I am not, and I will never be a socialist.

     Got it, you don't call yourself a socialist and never will, so you attribute your socialism to something else. Even libertarians do that, rhetoric aside. For me rhetoric is aside a lot. I count what people do and expect, how they operate, as evidence, sometimes better evidence, than what they say.

[Florestan]

     Got it, you don't call yourself a socialist and never will, so you attribute your socialism to something else.

If it suits your fancy to call someone who does not subscribe to any of the main tenets of socialism a socialist, then by all means feel free to do so --- but you might as well call pope Francis a new atheist.

[drogulus]

If it suits your fancy to call someone who does not subscribe to any of the main tenets of socialism a socialist, then by all means feel free to do so --- but you might as well call pope Francis a new atheist.

    I wouldn't call him that. Many Christians are operationally atheistic in the old way, just as working economists are all Keynesian when they need to be right about something. If they don't need to be right, though, they will say what they want. Look, some people care more that what they say is true, and other people think what's true is what they say. It often depends on your job. If I'm paid to be right, I'll try to say what's true, if I'm paid to say something, I'll say that and call it true.

[Sammy]

Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc.  He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.

[Florestan]

Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc.  He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.

Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders' Socialism. He's a socialist, not a liberal—and there's a big difference.

[Gurn Blanston]

Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders' Socialism. He's a socialist, not a liberal—and there's a big difference.

Good article. In addition to Liberals, a few Cons and Neo-Cons ought to read it too.

[André]

I don't have RBO. What is John Oliver saying about the latest developments ? Any youtube goodies? 

As we say in French, 'better laugh over this than cry about it'.

[drogulus]

Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc.  He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.

      That might explain why he won't listen to Kelton. My desire for a Bernie revolution minus Bernie meant I supported the people who persuaded Sanders to employ Kelton. If Sanders is a paleo-socialist he shares the view of paleo-capitalists that they are separate and don't mix. The real world and history say exactly the opposite, they're evolutionarily bound and do nothing but mix. There's no pure capitalism and no pure socialism left anywhere on earth. Dead lineages don't spring back to life.

[Brian]

I don't have RBO. What is John Oliver saying about the latest developments ? Any youtube goodies? 

As we say in French, 'better laugh over this than cry about it'.

John Oliver just did Trump last week, coincidentally!

http://www.youtube.com/v/DnpO_RTSNmQ

[Madiel]

The whole of American politics is right wing compared to other developed countries such as In Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand. There are all sorts of things that will create cries of "socialism" in the US that would be considered perfectly normal elsewhere.

It's also bemusing when bizarrely distorted versions of other countries get thrown into US political debates. The politicians are often trusting that the audience doesn't know enough about those other countries to point out the falsehoods.

[drogulus]

Good article. In addition to Liberals, a few Cons and Neo-Cons ought to read it too.

     The article is correct about some details of socialism, but ignores some context.

     It says socialists opposed Roosevelt and the New Deal, while Roosevelt rescued capitalism with his reforms. It didn't say opposition to Roosevelt was a matter of party politics at a time when Socialists could envision winning major offices.

     It didn't say, what I am saying, that Roosevelt adopting the New Deal on the advice of his own "in house" socialists was not a refutation of capitalist/socialist evolutionary entwinement but evidence for it. Why would anyone think both 1) socialism could help save capitalism and 2) capitalism was worth saving?

[drogulus]

    Repub investigators have discovered a surprising fact. According to them, Donald Trump is more than averagely vulgar. Is this picking nits? What are nits? See, I can't imagine saying to a Trump supporter "You shouldn't vote for Trump because he's too vulgar to be President" but then I can't imagine saying anything to a Trump supporter.

    Maybe it's just me but Trump support looks a whole lot like the secondary phase of some evil affliction. First is a slight tremor, then its Trump, then you're eating a guys head. So yeah, it's better not to say anything.

[Pat B]

It's also bemusing when bizarrely distorted versions of other countries get thrown into US political debates. The politicians are often trusting that the audience doesn't know enough about those other countries to point out the falsehoods.

I just read about a poll where 30% of Rs and 19% of Ds supported bombing Agrabah.

[Florestan]

There are all sorts of things that will create cries of "socialism" in the US that would be considered perfectly normal elsewhere.

This is a point worth stressing (which is exactly what the article I linked to does).

[Jo498]

In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning. As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.

As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.

Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).

Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.

[The new erato]

Sanders would be considered a middle of the road moderate conservative in Norway (and I believe in Germany and France as well, but the Sarge may well have a view here?),