NNT vs MMT

That’s MMT, Modern Monetary Theory. I am just following behind a thread at Instapundit: NASSIM TALEB IS NOT PUTTING UP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT, he’s the NNT, which began with this:

It’s this Stephanie Kelton who is the focus here, another economic tragedy in the making. Never heard of her, but the comments thread quickly brought out everything you need to know.

Stephanie Kelton is the proponent of Modern Monetary Theory (TL; DR: we can just print more money and tax it all back if inflation gets to high.) Even Paul Krugman thinks it’s off the wall, leftist, la la land thinking that could completely screw us all.

She’s a Professor. People actually pay her

She’s a fancy professor at Stonybrook. LOLOL. That’s like young adult day care – not a college.

Not just a professor, but a professor of economics. And economic advisor to Congressional Dimocrats.

She’s Bernie Sanders Chief Economics adviser. Of course. He’s the dumbest man in America

This is even more enjoyable when you click through to find out who he is pwning. Kelton is someone who ought to know better but makes a living pretending she does not: Prf. of Economics & Public Policy @stonybrooku.

Was Chief Economist for the Dems on U.S. Senate Budget Committee.I have an old video clip of her making the case that the government can never go broke because it is the source of money and thus can print all it needs. The Weimar Republic could not be reached for comment.

She said “you take it from your workers.” The exact opposite is true.

Somehow she missed the lesson on mutually beneficial exchange. And yet she is ‘Chief economist for the Dems.’ Go figure.

She is actually probably slightly above average in intelligence. That’s the kind of person who becomes a lefty. People significantly less intelligent than average are suspicious of clever ideas, because they think (quite rightly, as it turns out) that nobody would propose them if they weren’t more advantage to the proposer than the proposee. They’ve been snookered plenty by bright people and clever schemes, so they have a basic enhanced animal wariness. People significantly more intelligent than average are deeply skeptical of any social enterprise, because they expect it to be executed incompetently (by their own standards) and degenerate into parasitism and failure. The people who love social schemes are just smart enough to dream them up, smart enough to be dissatisfied with the status quo, but not smart enough to be wary of the unknown unknowns, the unanticipated side-effects, the limits of the ability of plain smarts to accurately predict the future.

Being educated doesn’t mean you’re not stupid. It means you’re not ignorant in the things you were told to repeat to get passing marks in class.

Well, our cultural values are kind of screwed up that way. We value raw intelligence far more than we should, and value character far less than we should. The world doesn’t need that many Einsteins, and having a surplus of them won’t do anyone much good. But it has an endless need for men and women of good character.

There’s no creationists running biology departments.
There’s no flat earthers running geography departments
So why are there marxists running economics departments?

I thank her for writing the most succinct summary of the socialist fallacy that I’ve ever seen.

That last one is from “Aussie Pundit” (not me).

This entry was posted in Economics on the left. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to NNT vs MMT

  1. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Exhibit 1. the bottom half of the bell curve we drag along like a ball and chain.

  2. Biota

    Problem is that these slightly above average IQ people are frequently possessed of a high level of self-righteousness that they know better than we proles do about what is good for us and will give it to us good and hard. And most of them congregate on the left. No amount of ‘splaining will turn them because those extra 10 IQ points are just not enough.

  3. Confused Old Misfit

    I have a brother-in-law who is a MDCM with post doctoral qualificatiosn.
    He has worked overseas in third world countries for the Ford Foundation and the World Bank. He has several publications in the field of demography, the provision of contraception services; setting up and operating birth control clinics.
    He is a proponent of this MMT madness.

  4. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    MMTers are moron. IQ has nothing to do with it. They are too stupid to understand what is good about capitalism and want to propel us into the world of hard communism to assuage their own angst and guilt about the vast differences between people. They are f*ckwits, the intellectual rot in society.

    I have had many discussions with MMTers, they can’t even argue successfully that taxes drive the demand for money upon which the entire MMT edifice is built. Complete and utter dunces.

  5. Cynic of Ayr

    Once upon a time, a Professor was regarded with reverence and possible awe.
    An expert in his field. One who had studied and studied and reasoned and reasoned.
    Usually fairly old, as to be a Professor took time. Lotsa time.
    Now-a-days, a Professor means absolutely nothing! The pool has suffered enormous dilution.
    There are so many youngish, stupid, illogical, non-expert Professors out there, that any idea that they are worthy of reverence or possible awe, is not possible.
    One is intrigued into a talk by some Professor, and one is sometimes inclined to be interested in expert opinion. A few words fall out of the Professors mouth, and it’s all over.
    Jeez, another Professor dimwit! Exhibit Jillian Triggs for one. Flannery. etc.
    I guess there are zillions of Professors out there who are not of the ilk of this Kelton woman. The reason we don’t hear about them much, is because they don’t have much to prove. I’ve met a couple.
    Kelton and her mates, on the other hand, must scream to the Heavens day and night, in an effort to be recognised as a “Professor” and be given the reverence and possible awe they think they deserve.
    Heard somewhere…
    “Do you respect University Graduates?”
    “Sure do! Until they speak.”

  6. max

    THE GREENBACKERS

    The movement was born in the aftermath of the Civil War. The war had been partially funded in the North by the issue of fiat money, known as greenbacks. The South had financed far more of the war by the issue of similar paper currency. This led to hyperinflation in the South. It did not in the North, which had not issued as much fiat money.

    Greenbackers were (and are) populists who favor an expanding federal government that is funded solely by the issue of paper money. They insist that this will cost taxpayers nothing. They insist that this will strengthen the economy. The money should be issued by Congress. They trust Congress.

    The Greenback movement was part of the left-wing reform movements after the Civil War. They became part of the populist movement. They even had a political party. It merged with the Populist party in 1892.

    These people became prominent during the battles against the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. They hated banking because banking charged interest. They wanted debt-free paper money. They hated the banks. Opponents of the Federal Reserve who were in favor of the gold coin standard found themselves in an alliance with people who were far more hostile to the gold standard than the Federal Reserve’s founders were in 1913.

    There was another attempt of these leftists to capture the conservative movement during the late 1930’s. The most prominent greenback or, father Charles Coughlin, became an opponent of Roosevelt. He originally had supported Roosevelt. His influence became considerable. He was an opponent of bankers. Verbally, so was Roosevelt, although he had been a corporate bond salesman prior to his election as governor of New York in 1928. Conservative opponents of Roosevelt’s unilateral destruction of the American gold coin standard at 1 AM on the Monday morning after his Saturday inaugural address found enemies in their camp.

    This infiltration has gone on for over a century. It is still going on.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/19092.cfm

  7. Y

    No one makes a billion dollars. You TAKE a billion dollars.

    I hate this retardation so much. Why would anyone think this?

  8. Iampeter

    Somehow she missed the lesson on mutually beneficial exchange. And yet she is ‘Chief economist for the Dems.’ Go figure.

    I’m glad you haven’t missed this lesson, Steve.
    Oh…wait…
    Seriously, given the stuff you’ve put in writing here, where do you think you get off criticizing other economic illiterates?

    There’s no creationists running biology departments.
    There’s no flat earthers running geography departments
    So why are there marxists running economics departments?

    And for that matter, why are conservatives a political movement?

    The answer is, economics and politics are very abstract sciences. With geography or biology, if you have bad ideas, reality is going to prove it to you pretty quick, most of the time.
    With economics and politics, it might take a generation for the consequences of a bad idea to become apparent. Even when it does, there’s no guarantee the proper cause-affect relationship will be identified either, so mistakes often continue to linger and linger. It often becomes “established knowledge,” or tradition, which becomes even harder to challenge.
    To put simply, economics and politics require a lot more than merely perception level thinking. You need to be good at conceptual thinking, abstraction and integration. Almost no one today knows how to think, so these areas are largely inaccessible to people.
    As such, we have economic and political illiterates overrunning the mainstream in their respective areas.

    It’s not really any kind of mystery.

  9. max

    Iampeter
    To put simply, economics and politics require a lot more than merely perception level thinking. You need to be good at conceptual thinking, abstraction and integration.

    many intellectuals can not survive in the free market and they do not want to work low paid jobs or jobs bellow their intellect — so they promote power religion to give them jobs,power, prestige…

    self interest pure and simple

  10. Tel

    MMT is like Escher’s magic waterfall where the water always flows downhill in a circle.

    Step 1: claim that the government budget does not work like a household budget because the government can print money.

    Step 2: Government can print and spend what it likes, but this dilutes and devalues the existing currency, causes inflation.

    Step 3: Use tax to collect the money thus avoiding inflation.

    Hmmm … so how much tax do you need if you want to avoid inflation? Ahhh, enough tax to consume the money you printed. But wait! If you are taxing as much as you spend, you ARE running a household budget. That’s old fashioned “Tax-N-Spend” which has been around for generations.

    So they argument boils down to, “Look over here!” … does the magician trick … “Now look over there!” Yay endless waterfall!!

    Might as well be honest from the start and call it “Tax-N-Spend” and say you intend to tax one group of people to provide jobs for another group of people. Fair enough, government can do that, but this is no different to work for the dole schemes and other similar stuff which the “right wingers” have been suggesting and Democrats have been rejecting as heartless and inhumane. I’m not opposed to the spirit of “work for the dole” schemes but there’s practical limitations … what should they work on? Any industry these government subsidized workers get involved in will result in lower wages throughout that industry because it’s hard for a real business to compete against endless government spending.

    If you allow regular employers to take on a small number of subsidized employees in each business (this has been tried under the name of “Wage Subsidies” and it’s had some limited success) what happens is the leftists blast the business for taking government money and making a profit out of it (as if business should normally be a charity for their benefit). There’s rules limiting how this is used (from the gov website):

    Some jobs are not eligible for a wage subsidy, including:
    * work that displaces an existing employee
    * commission-based, subcontracting or self-employment positions and
    * work for an immediate family member.

    Trouble is, difficult to figure out whether an existing employee has been displaced. Pretty much any work displaces someone, but that’s kind of the whole thing with getting people into jobs.

  11. Skuter

    When you have no theory of the structure of production and the nature and role of entrepreneurship, of course targeting an aggregate level of spending through money creation is easy and that is the only problem to be solved.
    To combine heterogeneous resources and produce something of greater value than the resources you used up never enters their thinking. For MMT proponents, that process happens automatically and so capturing that value as a reward for your efforts is just ‘rent seeking’ and ‘exploitation’.

  12. Megan

    The troll arrives right on schedule to totally prove the point of the post. Someone, sometime told him what a clever little vegemite he was and he has used that non stop to compose logic free, argument free, ad hominem rants against his imagined, despised enemy. No partisanship at all…just endless variations of the “I’m far cleverer than all or any of you that write or contribute here. And I’ll prove it by calling you all conservatives.”

    Here’s a clue…you are demonstrating what I’ve observed in more and more idiot students in recent years. Why not leave us all alone to our imagined delusions? You are the poster boy for a closed mind. You reliance on untestable moral positions* shows you don’t have 1/10th of the intellectual firepower to construct arguments that will change ours. But I am no doubt whatsover that you cant/won’t stop trying.

    * Cousera run a great free course on logic and argument. Suggest you take it so you can learn the basics and recognise where your own education has failed you. All those professors. So little learning.

  13. Iampeter

    The troll arrives right on schedule to totally prove the point of the post. Someone, sometime told him what a clever little vegemite he was and he has used that non stop to compose logic free, argument free, ad hominem rants against his imagined, despised enemy.

    Like most of the crazy cranks that post here, you need to look up what “projection” is.

    But I am no doubt whatsover that you cant/won’t stop trying.

    Trying what, you nutjob?
    What exactly do you disagree with?
    Do you have any arguments?

    Is Catallaxy the website of choice at some asylumn where mental patients can practice socializing or something?

    Because it’s not working.

  14. Iampeter

    Here’s a clue…you are demonstrating what I’ve observed in more and more idiot students in recent years

    Wait, you teach?
    What could you possibly teach anyone?
    You can’t even articulate a point clearly, just pure emotionalism, to cover for your lack of understanding.

    Are you sure it’s your students who are the idiots?

  15. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    No one makes a billion dollars. You TAKE a billion dollars.

    I hate this retardation so much. Why would anyone think this?

    Soros

  16. struth

    Almost no one today knows how to think, so these areas are largely inaccessible to people.

    Except you, of course.

    You’re dangerously self deluded and full of yourself.
    This is the attitude of tyrants and cult leaders.
    Lucky you don’t have any charisma or personality or you could really become a problem.

    Get your fucking hand off it, imbecile.
    There’s plenty around who think more clearly than you, and are way smarter.
    This attitude actually proves how little world experience you have, and how dumb you are.
    I hope youth is your excuse

  17. Infidel Tiger

    Nassim is doing the Lord’s work.

    Debunking MMT and the IQ fraud and he is also the world’s foremost advocate of localism.

  18. Iampeter

    Struth, you’ve come into this thread throwing ad hominem at me with no supporting arguments. Just like Megan. I’m sure if I was so obviously wrong you would’ve mentioned how, but…you didn’t. No matter!
    Also, unlike Megan, you forgot to accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing.
    Get it right next time. Yeesh.

  19. Iampeter

    Oh good post, infidel, good post. You said political words and this is a political blog, that means good post.
    Hey, quick one: have you figured out what individual rights are yet?
    No biggie, no biggie. It’s only a cornerstone of politics and especially right wing politics and it’s not like you’re a grown man who’s spent years on a center-right blog and haven’t even gotten the basics, but are talking with the tone of an expert That would be crazy, right?
    Also, am I reading this right, but you seem to be opposing MMT? That’s funny, because you support tariffs very strongly. What to make of that? Oh, I’m sure you know that these ideas, along with Keynesian theory, all belong on the left wing side of economics and that supporting some of them, while opposing others, would make not a lick of sense, and would mean one has no grasp of the fundamentals at all.
    I’m sure you know all that.

    Anyway, good talk, good talk.
    Politics. Localism!

  20. Infidel Tiger

    You seem to be having an autistic spazz out.

    Relax Peter.

  21. Iampeter

    Yea…that’s what’s happening. Keep telling yourself that, bud.

  22. Boambee John

    1 Ampmeter

    Is Catallaxy the website of choice at some asylumn where mental patients can practice socializing or something?

    Your presence here might be taken to indicate that.

  23. Tim Neilson

    Hey, quick one: have you figured out what individual rights are yet?,

    Iampeter,

    You are the most confused poster on this blog by the length of the straight.

    You have no idea about what “rights” really are.

    From you, “rights” is just a meaningless shape-shifting magical incantation, like “sustainable” for a green loony.
    Unable to deny that a sovereign state is entitled to stop someone entering its territory if they’re suffering from an incurable fatal and contagious disease, you say that that’s because doing so is protecting “rights”.
    But of course you can’t explain why if being protected from disease is a “right”, being protected from other dangers or detriments isn’t also a “right” – or, if it is, why restrictions on border entry can’t legitimately be used to protect those “rights”.

    Your main problem is that you can’t think logically. Despite incessantly tugging your peen about Aristotle you actually operate in a very non-Aristotelian way. You start with sweeping dogmatic absolutist generalisations like government’s only legitimate role is to protect “rights” (without any definition of “rights”). Then you have to distort yourself mentally as the relentless tide of specific realities proves your generalisation to be false – e.g. the disease carrier, so you have to wildly pluck out of the air that protection from disease is a “right”. But you aren’t intellectually competent enough to see that if a sovereign state is supposed to protect individual’s “rights” to be safe from dangers and detriments, the state must have the power to decide for itself in every specific case whether letting someone in would expose its citizens to a threat to this “right” to protection.

    It was no accident that the tyranny immediately after the French Revolution was orchestrated by the “Committee for Public Safety”.

    You really need to develop a proper understanding of rights and to abandon your irrational voodooism towards demonstrably false pseudo-logical propositions.

  24. bespoke

    Lucky you don’t have any charisma or personality or you could really become a problem.

    Malcolm Turnbull the smartest man in the room.

  25. Neil

    It is amazing how “the left” is attracted to anything false. Climate change, renewable energy, a borderless world, gay marriage and now MMT. Since the usual suspects believe in MMT we can assume MMT is a load of garbage

  26. Tim Neilson

    PS I note that on another thread you’ve excreted, consumed and regurgitated your rancid old “A is A” turd.

    How many times do we have to go through this.

    Voodoo style reciting of “A is A” does not disprove the possibility of non-physical modes of existence.

    Nor does voodoo style reciting of “existence exists”.

    If “existence exists” is supposed to disprove non-physical modes of existence, then “exists” must be synonymous with “physically exists”. [I.e., to make it as clear as possible, if “exists” could include non-physical modes of existence, then the so-called “axiom” couldn’t possibly disprove the possibility of non-physical modes of existence.]

    As a matter of formal logic, a reference to “existence” in a syllogism could be to “no modes of existence”, “some modes of existence” or “all modes of existence” – the last comprising as a subset “the only mode of existence”. I trust I don’t need to explain why “existence exists” couldn’t disprove non-physical modes of existence unless “existence” meant “all modes of existence”.

    So your so-called “axiom” cannot convey the meaning that non-physical modes of existence are impossible unless the “axiom” actually means “all modes [including “the only mode”] of existence physically exist”.

    And once that’s made clear it can be seen that it isn’t an “axiom”, it’s just totally unsubstantiated assertion.

    For heaven’s sake [pun intended], give up your self-assumed role as this site’s resident auto-coprovore.

  27. The BigBlueCat

    Megan
    #2918977, posted on January 27, 2019 at 1:59 pm
    The troll arrives right on schedule to totally prove the point of the post. Someone, sometime told him what a clever little vegemite he was and he has used that non stop to compose logic free, argument free, ad hominem rants against his imagined, despised enemy. No partisanship at all…just endless variations of the “I’m far cleverer than all or any of you that write or contribute here. And I’ll prove it by calling you all conservatives.”

    Megan, I’m sure he honestly believes he’s trying to help. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. But unless you “join the dots” and act as an individual (in his context, by reaching the same conclusion he has), you won’t make any leeway. Unless you advocate laissez-faire capitalism, individualism and objectivism, you will be a collectivist/leftist to his way of thinking. That may or may not be a fair call since how a person views the benefits or costs of a totally free-market system is subjective; even he admits that political and economic errors can take generations to become apparent let alone correct (see below). While there is a lot to commend laissez-faire capitalism for, it is not without risks to society in general and individuals specifically. Most of the posters on this site are free-market advocates, but many of them are also aware of the downsides (though I suspect few will admit it or believe them to be significant – call me “batshit crazy” if you want).

    The problem is that political terms are never properly defined, and what you might understand something to mean may not be shared by someone else, so it’s always good to have a bit of a read first. Posts here aren’t always about debate (clearly), but in many cases they are personal attacks. I can be just as guilty of that as the next person. But if you read up on his political position (he’s told us where in previous posts) you can make up your own mind (as an individual must).

    I think the biggest issue is the judgementalism on display – no-one likes being judged by someone else – least of all him (again, the objectivism and the individualism). I’m hoping that in the cutting of some slack, it might be reciprocated. I guess hope springs eternal, huh!

    On the defintion side, there are multiple variations of what conservatism means (politically and socially). to whit:

    Liberal conservatism
    Conservative liberalism
    Libertarian conservatism
    Fiscal conservatism
    National and tradition conservatism
    Cultural and social conservatism
    Religious conservatism
    Paternalistic conservatism
    Authoritarian conservatism

    I’ll admit my source to being Wikipedia (I’m sure this will initiate something – I don’t claim to be an expert, but I do have an opinion). But the point is the word “conservative” on its own doesn’t mean much, so it’s possible as a “conservative” to criticised for being a collectivist because it fits within one of these categories.

    But he has made some interesting points above that I can pretty much agree with:

    The answer is, economics and politics are very abstract sciences. With geography or biology, if you have bad ideas, reality is going to prove it to you pretty quick, most of the time.
    With economics and politics, it might take a generation for the consequences of a bad idea to become apparent. Even when it does, there’s no guarantee the proper cause-affect relationship will be identified either, so mistakes often continue to linger and linger. It often becomes “established knowledge,” or tradition, which becomes even harder to challenge.
    To put simply, economics and politics require a lot more than merely perception level thinking. You need to be good at conceptual thinking, abstraction and integration. Almost no one today knows how to think, so these areas are largely inaccessible to people.
    As such, we have economic and political illiterates overrunning the mainstream in their respective areas.

    So full marks for THAT bit of clarity. Though I might venture to say that pure politics and the struggle to maintain (or gain) political power over opponents has lead to some very poor economic and socio-political judgements being made progressively over the years – call it judgement creep if you like since it’s trended in the same direction – worse for the individual.

    But I will admit it’s not so much WHAT he says – he is right to say we should educate ourselves and reach conclusions as individuals – but often HOW it is said, especially when people don’t reach the same conclusion as he. Oh well ….

  28. Iampeter

    The BigBlueCat, so on the back of a thread where you demonstrated you know nothing about politics, you think the right thing to do is to come along and post a pretentious wall of text?
    Doubling down, when proven you have no idea what you’re talking about, does seem to be the standard for cat-tards.

    I will give you this, you are the first person at the Cat, to have proven me wrong about something.

    In the previous thread, I said that you are an intelligent poster and that you “get it.”

    Boy was I wrong.

    Not only are you as clueless as the others here, but just as disgustingly dishonest.

    So congrats on that, I guess.

  29. Iampeter

    BigBlue, full disclosure, I kinda posted #2919144 without reading your post in full :/
    I see I’m waaaaayyy overreacting.
    I feel bad. Sorry about that, it wasn’t fair on my part at all.
    I’m a real dick and I wish there was a delete function here.
    I take it back and hope we can still be “frenemies”.

  30. struth

    Struth, you’ve come into this thread throwing ad hominem at me with no supporting arguments. Just like Megan. I’m sure if I was so obviously wrong you would’ve mentioned how, but…you didn’t. No matter!
    Also, unlike Megan, you forgot to accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing.
    Get it right next time. Yeesh.

    You aren’t arguing anything, just grandstanding.
    People can’t argue against pure no substance abuse, and the sort of public masturbating you are practicing.
    Hence my last comment.
    Here is your argument.
    “You guys are dumb and I’m smarter than everyone”.

    That’s all you’ve said.

  31. Chris

    When Governments just print money and spend it, they steal that money out of the pockets of the workers that just got paid.

  32. Chris

    Also everyone else holding any currency, whether in cash or bank accounts.

  33. Chris

    When I worked in Zimbabwe, (pre-2000) a worker asked me why the Zim dollar was worth so much less than a US dollar; surely a dollar should be a dollar?

    Remember, in living memory the Zim dollar had been worth MORE than a US Dollar. At the time he asked his question, the USD had been 10 ZWD, and the AUD= 8 ZWD. The Government had just printed and paid the first of the ‘War Veterans’ payments for mob support, and ZWD dropped about 20% value in a day.

    My wife went off to the grog shop and got me some suddenly-underpriced single malts.

  34. Tel

    Chris, mostly inflation brutally guts people’s long term savings. For people who get paid and spend the money soon afterwards it doesn’t matter all that much (although inflation sets off a prices vs wages race so every worker gets into the habit of demanding a pay rise to try and get ahead of it).

    The bigger problem is that inflation establishes a broadly accepted understanding that if you try to save, your efforts will be taken from you by powerful people. This is really bad because it teaches people that accumulation of capital is useless. In Australia now that Super funds have accumulated wealth, the sharks are circling and governments are just itching to get their hands into it (while various private Super industry groups are looking for ways to fatten their fees).

  35. Infidel Tiger

    When Governments just print money and spend it, they steal that money out of the pockets of the workers that just got paid.

    Quantitive easing has been the greatest heist in human history.

  36. Chris

    Quantitive easing has been the greatest heist in human history.

    I thought so, but when I tried to identify what the hell it was actually doing by quizzing some handy corporate finance guys, they seemed to disbelieve in the inflationary effects. Talk to John Roberson in Zimbabwe, he reckons that as an economist he has lived thirty lifetimes of a Western economist’s inflation!

    Chris, mostly inflation brutally guts people’s long term savings.

    Yes, obviously here in OZ the largest target is super funds denominated in cash. However, shares, property and foreign asset funds should cope pretty well, and geared funds even better.

  37. Iampeter

    Unless you advocate laissez-faire capitalism, individualism and objectivism, you will be a collectivist/leftist to his way of thinking.

    Not to, “my way of thinking,” but because those are the proper definitions of the terms.
    You might not be a literal communist, but you can’t be an individualist or a capitalist, if you’ve rejected individualism and capitalism. I would think this is self explanatory and not contentious.

    The problem is that political terms are never properly defined, and what you might understand something to mean may not be shared by someone else, so it’s always good to have a bit of a read first.

    And this problem needs to be solved, by properly defining terms. If you can see that politics is an abstract science, then you can see that you need to be able to think abstractly. This requires clear definitions, not vagueness.

    On the defintion side, there are multiple variations of what conservatism means (politically and socially). to whit:

    And again, that’s a show stopping problem that needs to be resolved before proceeding. You can’t do politics if you’re movement includes both “liberal” and “authoritarian.” What are you going to implement, “capitalist socialism?”
    Hmmm…I should stop giving cat posters ideas.

    I think the biggest issue is the judgementalism on display – no-one likes being judged by someone else – least of all him

    That’s not true. I judge and I expect to be judged. If you prove me wrong, I’ll happily concede. I’ll even do it when you don’t say anything, as I did with my last post which was totally wrong on my part. (Again really sorry about that. If you hate me and don’t respond, I understand, but will be sad). It’s annoying to see the kind of interesting conversations we actually could be having at the cat, if not for the short-bus riders, derailing every thread they can.
    I realize I’m partly responsible too, by responding to them, so don’t bother pointing that out.
    The issue with being judged is simply not on my end, it’s on the end of the thin skinned and evasive posters who know they are wrong, feel stupid and want to protect their feelings by evading and putting it back on me.
    You’re also more than welcome to Google my earlier posts at the cat and see what my tone was like and the responses I received. Basically what we have here is, you defending people being treated like rude cretins, because they are behaving like rude cretins. Why would you do that?

    Back on point though, you seem to understand that politics is all about ideas and that clarity and integration is needed, but at the same time you are doing the exact opposite and embracing the vagueness. Oh, look none of our terms are defined, *shrug*.
    Oh, look how many different definitions conservatism has, how quaint!
    Why don’t you see these things for the show stopping problems that they are?
    Why don’t you want to join the dots?

  38. The BigBlueCat

    Jeez Iampeter … I was giving you some praise for your clarity of thought in one of your posts, and then you damn me … I guess there’s no pleasing some people …..

    Do I really care if you think I’m clueless? Probably not …. I don’t claim to be a political or economic expert – I’ll leave that to you. You certainly claim to know exactly what people’s political and economic leanings are, despite politics and economics being “abstract sciences” (your words, not mine).

    In my view, politics and economics lie on a multi-dimensional spectrum. To you I am a leftist, but to me I am right-of-centre, which means there might be some “progressive” policy I can live with, but mostly I support capitalism, private ownership as the means of production, free enterprise, competition, small government, minimal taxation, the rule of law, 1 person 1 vote, civil liberties, and the rights of the individual in accordance with natural law. I have generally rejected unionism, though I can well understand why worker organisation and Marxism came about. I reject identity politics and “culture wars”. Australia Day being the 26th of January is just fine with me, but I understand how our indigenous folk might feel about it (despite them being revved up about it all the time). I uphold traditional family structures and social values. I am pro-life. I oppose abortion, public sexual behaviour and illicit drug distribution and use – these are not morally beneficial behaviours in my view (shared by many). I reject totalitarianism though a properly constituted authority is required for social, political and economic cohesion (eg. rule of law), depending. I support having armed forces to protect us locally and to protect our interests overseas. But I might not always support all their actions. I support the separation of church and state – who would want the state interfering with personal worldviews, the expression of such worldviews or a state solely based on religious law. I believe in freedom of expression, but some expression has consequences (eg. defamation, incitement to violence, actual political violence, destruction of property during political demonstrations, etc). I am not an egoist – I hope I am well aware of my faults and limitations. I’m sure I’ve provided some discussion fodder for some here … I may or may not respond to any criticism or support of these views.

    All this might classify me as a classical libertarian, though socially I am probably conservative (of some sort). Doesn’t mean I am confused – it’s just that different aspects of politics, society and economics illicit a different response, and I might not have perfect information to form an opinion. I accept that people will do whatever they want, though in some of those things there are negative consequences (eg. if you murder someone and get caught, if you rip people off, if you actually damage the environment, if you make bad investment decisions, etc) – legislation never stops people; it can only discourage. I believe its good that there are those who will think of others and their welfare and use their personal resources to help those in need.

    But I don’t believe people are inherently good, though clearly many people do have the capacity for doing good. I recognise that people have free will – they are not mere “juicy machines” following the effects of their molecules colliding, but that people do have free agency. That in itself has further connotations as to how that has come about (either by design or by accident – no surprise that I accept the former premise). People can and do make up their own minds on stuff even without (usually) perfect information. People make mistakes. And they also get things right. It means I could be wrong on stuff, or I could be right. Either way I still get by. I’ll either be happy or sad (usually happy, though I accept this is not an over-arching goal in life). It also means you’re not the arbiter of any of my thoughts, acts or morals, because like it or not you’re just the same.

    I come to my conclusions through observation, assessment, testing, evaluation, consideration, education and discussion. Or I might just make sh*t up and see how it flies! If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. If I need to adjust what I believe or how I act, I do that too. Pretty standard fare for a human being I would have thought …. let’s see if Cats agree or disagree … not that it matters all that much. I offer no justification as to why I believe any of this other than it sits well with me. I owe you nothing by way of explanation. Neither does any other Cat expressing their views.

    So, Iampeter, how does that line up with your perception of being “leftist” (I’m betting it confirms it!). Or maybe I’m just not far enough to the right for you …. only perfect people can be right, right?

    But what concerns me most is that you express absolutely no misgivings about your own worldviews (which aren’t your own anyway – neither are mine). BTW – I fully expect you to dismiss out of hand what I’ve just written … as I said, there’s no pleasing some people ….

  39. Pyrmonter

    Scott Sumner has made a recent, perhaps more gentle yet more effective critique:

    https://www.econlib.org/mmt-is-wrong/

    Tax-and-spend progressives put faith in flawed policy theory
    BY SCOTT SUMNER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/25/19 07:00 AM EST 205 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
    20

    Tax-and-spend progressives put faith in flawed policy theory
    © Getty Images
    A relatively new school of thought called “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT), which holds that governments that issue their own currencies do not have to worry about financial constraints on spending, has gained adherents among American progressives.

    Newly elected Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has cited MMT in support of her claim that the U.S. government can afford a single-payer health care system.

    Many mainstream economists are sympathetic to a few of the claims made by MMT proponents, but only under very limited circumstances. Even that assessment may be too generous, as the entire theory is deeply flawed.

    Proponents of MMT (and more government spending) are often viewed as fans of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy, arguing that the risks resulting from aggressively printing money and/or increasing the public debt are overstated.

    Strictly speaking, however, true MMT only makes this claim in cases where the economy is not operating at full employment. When economic output pushes up against the limits of our productive capacity, even MMT proponents acknowledge that more spending financed by debt or money creation can lead to high inflation.

    So, then, what exactly is wrong with the MMT approach to policy?

    The basic problem is that MMT proponents mix up the roles of fiscal and monetary policy. They argue that monetary policy should play a supporting role, holding down interest rates to reduce the cost of public borrowing.

    Meanwhile, the thinking goes, fiscal austerity should be the tool used to hold down inflation when aggregate spending begins to exceed the productive capacity of the economy.

    Unfortunately, there is a long history suggesting that this approach will not work. In 1968, President Johnson raised taxes and balanced the budget, in the hope and expectation that this would hold down inflation. Instead, inflation got even worse, as monetary policy was still highly expansionary. It is monetary policy that determines the price level, not fiscal policy.

    In the early 1980s, Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve was finally able to end the great inflation expansion of 1966-81, and did so solely via a contractionary monetary policy. Indeed, even as the Fed was successfully bringing inflation sharply lower, the Reagan administration was adopting a highly expansionary fiscal policy, pushing the budget deficit dramatically higher.

    Since the early 1990s, the Fed has been targeting inflation — at first implicitly, then after 2012 with an explicit 2-percent target. Personal Consumption Expenditure (the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation) has averaged roughly 1.9 percent.

    This is almost certainly not a coincidence, as inflation was much higher during the previous 25 years and much lower under the pre-war gold standard. There is nothing “normal” about 2-percent inflation — it reflects intentional Fed policy actions.

    If MMT proponents are right that fiscal policy determines inflation, it would mean that Congress caused inflation to move toward a 2-percent trend line after 1990. Given what we all know about the dysfunction on Capitol Hill, where no one even pretends that they are adjusting the budget deficit to target inflation, how likely does that seem?

    When the economy is depressed and interest rates are zero, it may seem like monetary policy is ineffective and fiscal policy is more powerful. This is why mainstream economists will often have a bit of sympathy for MMT, under very limited circumstances.

    In my view, even that limited support is unwarranted. In 2013, we saw how even at the zero bound for interest rates, monetary policy is still more powerful than fiscal policy.

    A dramatic $500 billion reduction in the budget deficit did not lead to the growth slowdown predicted by many Keynesian economists. It was fully offset by expansionary Fed actions and much more aggressive forward guidance.

    Unfortunately, the underlying model used in MMT is based on false assumptions about the inflation process. If you start to rely on a flawed theory as a guide to policy, there will eventually come a time when it will lead policymakers astray, as happened when President Johnson relied on an MMT-type theory and accidentally triggered the greatest peacetime inflation in American history.

    Scott Sumner is an emeritus professor of economics at Bentley University and the Ralph G. Hawtrey chair of monetary policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

  40. Megan

    Megan, I’m sure he honestly believes he’s trying to help. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

    I’m always prepared to assign positive motives to anyone’s point of view. But sadly, he doubled down on the ad hominem in the very next breath. Again…word salads do not an argument make. Threw projection into the mix to impress and intimidate me with his cleverness and then totally overreacted to your post before even reading to the end. Thereby proving my precise point. None so blind, etc. etc.
    In recent years I’ve seen more and more of similarly incapable students parade through my classes carrying their cleverer than you IQ scores like a glittering standard over their heads and throwing tantrums when I ask if they are ever going to actually demonstrate it in any way.

  41. The BigBlueCat

    Well, well, well … thank you, Iampeter. Colour me surprised. I’d formulated my previous post before seeing your “sorry about that” post …

    I’m not out to offend you or anyone … I reckon it’s important to understand that no-one has the perfect answer – not even me. I may have made some assumptions – but I hope at least you’ve challenged those assumptions. I might still stick with them though (just a warning).

    Whether it “moves the needle” with respect to respect and discourse time will tell. But if nothing else, Cat’s will offer a robust response. Maybe even big blue ones.

  42. Crossie

    Y
    #2918908, posted on January 27, 2019 at 12:58 pm
    No one makes a billion dollars. You TAKE a billion dollars.

    I hate this retardation so much. Why would anyone think this?

    To add to Skuter’s explanation, it’s all projection. They make nothing, don’t know how to make anything yet they collect their pay so obviously there is no connection between effort and riches.

  43. The BigBlueCat

    … and maybe there is pleasing some people …

  44. Tim Neilson

    And this problem needs to be solved, by properly defining terms.

    FMD, Iamashiteater of all people pontificating on that, when very clearly he has zero idea what “rights” are, despite giving the trouser ferret such a vigorous rubdown about “rights” all the time.

    If you prove me wrong, I’ll happily concede.

    That is the most dishonest statement ever made by a purportedly sentient being. Iamashiteater’s modus operandi when proved wrong is to scurry off and then come back on the next thread or the one after that to reposit the same demonstrably false drivel, served with a side order of drive-by self-adulation about how he’s supposedly the only life form on planet earth that’s not “confused”. [Drs Dunning and Kruger are regrettably unavailable for comment on these occasions.]

    Bigbluecat I admire your attitude but you’re wasting your time with Iamashiteater. He’s an NPC, and a particularly odiously megalomaniac one.

  45. The BigBlueCat

    Back on point though, you seem to understand that politics is all about ideas and that clarity and integration is needed, but at the same time you are doing the exact opposite and embracing the vagueness. Oh, look none of our terms are defined, *shrug*.
    Oh, look how many different definitions conservatism has, how quaint!
    Why don’t you see these things for the show stopping problems that they are?
    Why don’t you want to join the dots?

    Politics is about power and making decisions that can affect others. In the end, these decisions are either a compromise to get something essential done, or an exercise in ideological bastardry that makes one side happy, and the other side not. It’s about opposing forces, and while we think it’s about doing the best for the country, it can’t be. In the end, we live with the outcomes if we’re not engaged into the process, and even if we are we can’t be guaranteed to see things happen the way we want.

    I think the terms are important if someone is going to be critiqued properly – may as well call a spade a shovel if that’s appropriate. So the term “conservative” might mean different things to different people – a religious conservative is going to be different from a cultural and social conservative, though there may be a few similarities. I don’t think they are necessarily show-stoppers – it just means there are nuances to be negotiated.

    As to the dots … depends on how they are laid out … I might not like the pictures in your “join the dots” book. Doesn’t mean I won’t join the dots … just not agree with the picture it results in. I realise “join the dots” is just an expression to lead me to conclusions supported by facts, but the dots aren’t always facts, or agreeable. It’s better we understand what the dots are before we start joining them. In my view.

  46. The BigBlueCat

    That’s not true. I judge and I expect to be judged. If you prove me wrong, I’ll happily concede. I’ll even do it when you don’t say anything, as I did with my last post which was totally wrong on my part.

    Yes, I see that. thanks.

    Bigbluecat I admire your attitude but you’re wasting your time with Iamashiteater. He’s an NPC, and a particularly odiously megalomaniac one.

    Still a person … don’t have to agree with him. Catallaxy is a robust blog, isn’t it?

  47. The BigBlueCat

    Again…word salads do not an argument make.

    I’m probably just as guilty with my posts … while it can be frustrating (the ad hominems), we all know they don’t make an argument so it’s just the cut-and-thrust of posting on Cat. It’s not good form to try to prove a point by insulting someone … he knows that, you know that, but it still happens anyway (in both directions). The answer is to not drop down to that level (yes, I’ve failed on that score – I expect much better of myself).

    Hopefully, my lengthy posts aren’t “word salad” – they are meant to provide (to me anyway) some clarity of what I do understand politically and economically without having to justify anything to anyone. If people think its incoherent, that’s their issue.

  48. Tel

    I thought so, but when I tried to identify what the hell it was actually doing by quizzing some handy corporate finance guys, they seemed to disbelieve in the inflationary effects.

    Personally I believe there would have been serious deflation if it hadn’t been for QE money pumping. We can argue about who would have benefited from a deflationary episode (obviously anyone with savings would have been well off, but many Americans don’t have savings, they have an asset like a house and a mortgage and those people get hammered by deflation).

    In terms of “just deserts” letting a few banks go broke might have felt pretty good to the “told you so” crowd who had been extremely careful at that point (including myself in that list) … but politically the people who lost savings would be very noisy. Also, remember that GNMA had sold protection to banks against mortgage failure, and that was government backed protection. As the banks went to the wall they sure would have reached out to GNMA and demanded payments on their trash assets … so under the hood the Fed was protecting both the banks AND the government.

    Talk to John Roberson in Zimbabwe, he reckons that as an economist he has lived thirty lifetimes of a Western economist’s inflation!

    That’s another thing the MMT’ers don’t understand … inflation and hyper-inflation are fundamentally different in as much as small scale inflation is caused by pumping the money supply and letting it trickle down through the system (the first people with the money in their hands are always better off). Small scale inflation can be brought under control.

    Hyper-inflation means that all hope is lost and the holders of that currency are trying to abandon it completely. Every payment system requires confidence, otherwise it falls over. Once that’s been destroyed people never fully believe again. Look at Germany: they still expect the Euro to go crazy with inflation the Weimar Republic will be back any minute.

  49. bespoke

    The BigBlueCat

    At fist I pinned Imp as an entitled authoritarian similar to what Megan at 8:16 pm describes. Then I moved to thinking he’s parody sock but after Imp’s emotional outpouring at 7:11 pm ill go back to authoritarian because lack of self awareness, feeling persecuted and neediness fits the profile.

    That said if you succeed whare others have failed then go for it.

  50. Crossie

    That is the most dishonest statement ever made by a purportedly sentient being. Iamashiteater’s modus operandi when proved wrong is to scurry off and then come back on the next thread or the one after that to reposit the same demonstrably false drivel, served with a side order of drive-by self-adulation about how he’s supposedly the only life form on planet earth that’s not “confused”. [Drs Dunning and Kruger are regrettably unavailable for comment on these occasions.]

    You all encourage him/her by replying. Ignore the trolls and there is no reason for them to keep coming back.

  51. The BigBlueCat

    bespoke
    #2919342, posted on January 27, 2019 at 9:30 pm

    hhhmmmm ….. I think my issue is more about being told I’m confused … incoherent maybe, but not confused.

    I’m not yet clear what success looks like in this context ….. any ideas?

  52. sdfc

    Drs Dunning and Kruger are regrettably unavailable for comment on these occasions.

    Without DK many on this blog would have nothing to say.

  53. Tim Neilson

    Still a person … don’t have to agree with him. Catallaxy is a robust blog, isn’t it?

    Well yes, you’re right.

    I’ll try to do better in future.

  54. bespoke

    The BigBlueCat
    #2919365, posted on January 27, 2019 at 9:56 pm
    I’m not yet clear what success looks like in this context ….. any ideas?

    Well if you can get depth out him instead of adopting his opponents words to bluff knowledge that might be a start. But he cant resist posting hooks to feed his persecution complex so I wouldn’t condemn others for there reactions. You and Tim Neilson aren’t the only ones to engage him in fruitful debate and it always ends the same.

  55. Buccaneer

    1ampmeter, why did you assume that Megan was referring to you in her first post? Seems she rather cleverly outed you as a troll. Not as smart as you think you are?

  56. Iampeter

    I’m always prepared to assign positive motives to anyone’s point of view. But sadly, he doubled down on the ad hominem in the very next breath.

    That’s what you do, not me. Thread after thread of ad hominem and accusing me of ad hominem. This is why I told you to look up what projection means. Have you done that yet?

    Again…word salads do not an argument make.

    I wasn’t making any arguments, I was asking what your argument was? What part of that is a “word salad?”
    You make such a big deal out of grammar, but maybe you need to focus more on reading and comprehension?

    So, I ask you again, either state what you think I’ve got wrong, or piss off.

    But don’t do neither, like another of the many crazy loons around here, to pretend to be intelligent, instead of conceding you don’t have the faintest clue about anything.

  57. MatrixTransform

    It is amazing how “the left” is attracted to anything false. Climate change, renewable energy, a borderless world, gay marriage and now MMT.

    They’ve been taught to lie to themselves since birth.
    Not just encouraged but positively rewarded for half-think.
    Underwritten by expansion and low rates and Zimbabwe Dollars they’re now starting to wake up and complain that all they have left are the Corrkt-Think talking points that rattle around in their heads.

    As Tucker Carlson coined it recently they even individually use the absence of logical continuity as a sort of moral and ethical inoculation.

    Taleb talks about skin in the game … dummies like our friend Pete are yet to realise that it isnt just their skin in the game , its their arse on the line.

    Listen to Iampeter wade in slinging ad homs then moaning because nobody here praises him

    all pretty little lies.

    Sometimes in weaker moments I genuinely feel sorry for people like that, wondering what it must be like to have your whole reason for being tied up in 1/2 baked ideologies riding the internet toward the abyss… and not being able to see over the next hump in the roller-coaster ride

    I see it in my kids too. My boy gave me spray a while back about my toxic white privilege even while his wife was a month from bringing grandchild #1 into the world. Told me I was the cause of Epistemic Violences. Seriously?

    A day later is sent him a txt, “unless you wanna be at risk of committing epistemic violences against somebody…one should walk a mile in their shoes first”

    a year with a kid, a job, obligations…that life-long journey ahead as far you can see
    it changes things.

    Iampeter’s gross sense of entitlement

  58. Iampeter

    Matrix, you don’t know what ad hominem is. An ad hominem, is using insults in place of arguments.
    I’m one of the few people here that doesn’t do that.
    I point out the breathtaking ignorance of many posters here re even the most basic aspects of politics and then quite correctly conclude, you are politically illiterate, leftists.

    This isn’t ad hominem. This is FACT.

  59. Bruce

    Zippy:

    “MMTers are moron. IQ has nothing to do with it.”

    Well, sort of.

    It’s not that they don’t know what they are talking about or doing. There’s ya problem. They know EXACTLY what they want, (ABSOLUTE POWER), and a fairly good idea of how to get it. The nine-figure body count they ALL seek is either “irrelevant” or “a good start”; eggs, omelettes, etc..

    See also all the other “NPC” types on the global grand-standing circuit this week; more of the same. Sadly both the LSM and the general intertubes are utterly involved as vectors in the transmission of this lethal pathogen.

    Their role models?

    Caligula, Tamerlane, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot; the usual suspects.

  60. Pyrmonter

    @ Tel

    A point made almost 40 years ago (albeit after the great inflation in the west had been more or less conquered by Volcker, and to a lesser extent, Thatcher) in this memorable paper:

    https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp158.pdf

  61. MatrixTransform

    This isn’t ad hominem. This is FACT.

    SO when you say something like

    Like most of the crazy cranks that post here, you need to…

    You arent literally saying the ‘people who reply are crazy cranks’?

    Subtle I suppose since you arent direct trying to attack the specific poster, more the generic poster.

    perhaps simple tautology describes it better?

  62. Iampeter

    You arent literally saying the ‘people who reply are crazy cranks’?

    No, I am saying it literally and that’s why it’s not ad hominem. They are literally, crazy cranks, as supported by their own posts and numerous other exchanges where I’ve proved it.
    An ad hominem, is what one uses in in place of arguments. So if you have an issue with ad hominem, you should be taking it up with people like Megan here, for example, who has no arguments but only insults.
    But don’t take it up with me, I don’t engage in ad hominem.

  63. MatrixTransform

    so you are literally saying they’re crazy?

    isnt an ad hominem argument a personal attack on someone’s character or motive, rather than addressing the actual issue?

    Tu quoque

  64. Iampeter

    isnt an ad hominem argument a personal attack on someone’s character or motive, rather than addressing the actual issue?

    Really? I’ve only answered this directly two times already.
    Here goes a third attempt:
    For example, when I explain to infidel tiger what rights are and why they are fundamental to being right wing, and that someone who takes a tone of an expert without understanding these things is a dummy, I am, “addressing the actual issue.”
    When infidel tiger responds with some variant of, “you’re an autist,” he is engaging in ad hominem.

    Do you get it? I can’t possibly make it any clearer.

  65. MatrixTransform

    Do you get it? I can’t possibly make it any clearer.

    tell me mate, am I stupid or just ignorant?

  66. Iampeter

    tell me mate, am I stupid or just ignorant?

    Does it matter?
    Which ever one you are, you are also disgustingly dishonest, because you can’t concede when clearly proven wrong.

  67. Confused Old Misfit

    But don’t take it up with me, I don’t engage in ad hominem.

    You certainly don’t engage with rationality.

    …someone who takes a tone of an expert without understanding these things is a dummy…

    Is a description of individual quoted.

  68. MatrixTransform

    I reckon everybody reading except yourself gets it mate.
    do you truly believe that passive-aggressive or catch-all snarks aren’t ad homs?

    But don’t take it up with me, I don’t engage in ad hominem

    disgustingly dishonest

    the question for me is… how on earth can you morally license yourself to such a degree?

    you must be a ‘force for good’ rather than evil perhaps?

  69. Iampeter

    Is a description of individual quoted.

    “No u!” is not an argument.
    But I expect nothing more from a triggered, teenage SJW like you, who also happens to be retiree-aged, so looks even stupider.
    See, when I used that line it was right on the back of PROVING the fact, not just stating it.
    This is another example of ad hominem btw, Matrix.

  70. MatrixTransform

    and this guy wants the final say on Economic Theory ?

    strange world

  71. Iampeter

    I reckon everybody reading except yourself gets it mate.
    do you truly believe that passive-aggressive or catch-all snarks aren’t ad homs?

    No, nor is that what I’m doing, nor is it even comparable to ACTUAL AD HOMINEM like the examples I provided, both of which are from THIS VERY THREAD.
    More ad hominems directed at me are coming thick and fast too.

    Why aren’t you addressing this? Why are you still directing this conversation at me, even though the error of that has been explained to you clearly, not once, not twice, but three times and going on a fourth one now?

  72. MatrixTransform

    I know its absolutely INCREDULOUS right!!!
    perhaps Im slow … maybe try again

    1 increase the volume
    2 increase the frequency
    3 what ever you though, never, I repeat never resort to ‘real’ ad hom

    eventually you’ll get through

  73. Iampeter

    Yea good point.

    When you’re proven completely wrong and exposed as the moron that you are, the only thing to do is to double down, right? Classic Cat trope!

    One of you cretins can have the last word, while I go to a BBQ.

  74. MatrixTransform

    ok no probs.

    It will come in handy being at a BBQ with the skewer I just put in yr arse.

  75. Confused Old Misfit

    I do not think I have, at any time in nearly eight decades, come across anyone with such a lack of self awareness and over developed sense of intellectual worth as that person.
    I have yet to see him post anything but unattributed denigration of other posters.

  76. MatrixTransform

    Misfit, I think he reckon he’s Don Quixote

    become so entranced by reading chivalric romances, that he determines to become a knight-errant himself. In the company of his faithful squire, Sancho Panza, his exploits blossom in all sorts of wonderful ways.

    bit of a tragic-comedy

  77. Tim Neilson

    when I explain to infidel tiger what rights are

    Bullshit.

    You’ve got absolutely no idea what rights are.

    It’s just a word you use for voodoo style fetish worship.

    You said that a sovereign state can justifiably refuse admission to a carrier of contagious incurable fatal disease in order to protect “rights”.

    If there’s a “right” to be protected from infectious disease by appropriate use of border control, why isn’t there a “right” to have border control used for protection against other dangers and detriments?

  78. The BigBlueCat

    My 2 cents worth … the situation is that the left bang on about rights all the time, but do so from a radical progressive perspective – the indigenous have rights because “invasion”, the LGBTQI+ have rights because “equality”, the illegal immigrants have rights because “persecution in their own country”, etc. They present a vast array of “rights” – all of them collectivist rather than individual (though a collection is a group of individuals of similar characteristics).

    But it’s the fundamental rights to own and retain property, live a life separate from government intervention, to do with one’s life what one wants to do that are the primary rights that I hope we all agree to, but we seemingly fail to fight for explicitly or just plain don’t apprehend. That seems to be a particular lens Iampeter wants us to use, and I agree with that (as should all of you claiming to be conservative or right-of-centre) methods aside.

    The issue of border rights is an interesting one, since the left bang on so much about it, but from an individualist and libertarian perspective why should government control restrict people from crossing seemingly arbitrary lines on the map? Individuals should be able to manage their own destinies, right? Border control is a relatively recent invention – but I also think a necessary one also, particularly in this age of mass migration, in order for citizen’s rights and property to be protected within a particular constituency. The Democrats, the Greens and the Socialists (sorry for repeating myself) want more mass migration – it makes them seem compassionate, and they’ll get votes from the immigrants (perhaps). The immigrants are a ready source of labour for work that is beneath them (the Democrats). But they are playing a very dangerous political game, and it seemingly contradicts the policies of previous Democratic presidents. Pelosi and Schumer are very rich people, and they are using their politics to maintain that but at the cost to ordinary Americans.

    Bill Shorten and the ALP are headed our way, guns blazing and preparing to take our money, withhold lawful money from us (franking credits), tell us what we can and can’t say under threat of law, restrict our religious and secular freedoms, and dilute our sense of rights. And they are pretending that it needs to be done in spite of the budget apparently back in surplus. They may open up our borders again. In short, the ALP want to intervene in a vast array of our rights, and there are people out there who want them to – voters who either don’t know/care or do care because “equality” and “compassion”, etc.

    Our 2 party system is broken, because we have one side very clearly leftist if not actually Socialist, while the other is also leftist but claiming to be otherwise because they’re the party of Menzies. Do we have a genuine conservative party in Australia? Cory Bernadi is the closest, but lacks policies and are way too small to be effective. Plus the ABC is there directly attacking right-wing candidates, so there is that.

    Cats used to go on a lot about the right to free expression and how Triggly and S18C of the RDA were barriers to that. We don’t hear much about that anymore. S18C is still there!

    And these days were have groups telling us January 26 celebrates an invasion of this country!! We need to push back big time because if we let go of that (Australia Day on its current date), it means they will try something else … as if they haven’t hoovered enough billions over the years because of the so-called undeclared war, stolen generations, etc. And for what outcome? Krudd said “sorry”, didn’t he?

    MMT seems to me to be a fallacious Keynsian way of “stimulating” an economy by printing money just so the government can get it back. It is, of course, cow dung (to be polite) as it fails to distinguish between cash and currency, and it doesn’t impact GDP. Print more money and inject it into the economy, you are devaluing the currency that is already there.

    Governments don’t create anything – putting more cash into the economy doesn’t do anything real – it cannot possibly increase GDP. It’s like filling a dam from another dam and then connecting a hose to the second dam to fill the first dam – the dams don’t get any more full! That may be a poor analogy when analysed, but it seems to fit MMT to me. Maybe someone can develop the analogy further ….

    It seems to me that governments should only print more money because of economic demand and real growth in the economy (a real economist can educate me on this).

  79. bespoke

    The BigBlueCat

    Good summery and yes people are easily distracted from concern, free expression.

  80. Iampeter

    I do not think I have, at any time in nearly eight decades, come across anyone with such a lack of self awareness and over developed sense of intellectual worth as that person.
    I have yet to see him post anything but unattributed denigration of other posters.

    Yes you have. You’ve just described yourself and many other posters here, but not me.
    I can’t imagine the level of stupidity and dishonesty required to put something like this in writing, in a thread, that already proves everything you’ve written wrong.
    It’s sad how many truly toxic, stupid and dishonest people there are at the cat.

  81. The BigBlueCat

    Ah well, you can lead a cat to water, but you can’t make ’em think, huh!

    Toxicity, stupidity and dishonesty are quite inflammatory labels, whether they be true or not. Always good to point out the fallacy of the argument before pointing out the mental, moral or putative aspects of the other.

    But I would agree that stupid is hard to fix …. MMT seems to be a stupid idea to me … Ocassio-Cortez is an advocate of “just print more money”, but poor young Sandy has no idea what she’s talking about. I don’t think she’s necessarily stupid – she just doesn’t know any better yet. There’s many a Socialist that’s seen the errors of their ways – some before it’s too late! There might be hope for Stephanie Kelton too.

    I’ve always liked Thomas (“I was once a Socialist”) Sowell’s approach … quietly, carefully dismantling the fallacy without resorting (generally) to ad hominems. Uncle Milt is the same …

    Just sayin’ …..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.