OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Hollywood Jesus]

Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”

The constraints on discussing classified programs — and the ambiguity of information cited in unclassified slides from the briefings — have put officials who have studied U.F.O.s in the position of stating their views without presenting any hard evidence.

Mr. Davis, who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense contractor, said he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html

 

[hindy111]

I bought a Ford econovan. Its a car and a shed all in one!

You and Avenger should go for a cruise

 

[crocodile]

That was in my original question. I know that tax cuts would stimulate a contracted economy, but in the long term it yields less receipts, which means cuts to services and job losses in the public sector. I think.

Old mate @crocodile will zero in on this when he is good and ready.

If the aim was to create a stimulatory setting there wouldn't be any attempt to 'fix' a budget. Sovereign governments don't really have to rely income to be greater than their expenses to retire debt. The article headline intimates that this is the reason for tax cuts.

It isn't immediately intuitive why governments can have ongoing debt and repay it the same time. On average our national economy over times grows in nominal terms at roughly 5% pa. Naturally, as the economy expands so too must the money supply. As long as the average growth in debt over time is less than the rate of economic expansion the national budget may run a deficit in perpetuity. Nominal terms are simply the rate without consideration to inflation. In other words, over time the debt is both inflated away as well as dwarfed by continuous economic expansion.

Governments like ours typically raise debt via the issuing of government bonds and securities offered to the private sector. When the bond is redeemed the coupon rate is ideally matched by the growth in money supply.

 

[crocodile]

Obsessed? Who's obsessed?

Even Gough Whitlam kept the budget in surplus yet is generally regarded an economic vandal. Go figure.

I could be wrong but I place the nascent view of red budgets being bad to the the period surrounding the 1996 election campaign when Howard made use of the debt truck in order to lampoon his opponent for it's debt level which was in reality quite minor at the time at 19% GDP. Keating was not popular at the time and so the Howard folklore of continuous public surpluses being a sign of sound economic principles was born. It is now almost a dogmatic view of the unsuspecting public even to the extent that politicians today strive for this ridiculous goal.

It shouldn't really take an Einstein to realise that a surplus can only be achieved by collecting more taxes than what is spent. Every dollar in surplus on the government account therefore creates an equal deficit on the private sector and government debt is simply transferred to the private citizens.

 

[crocodile]

If you want to google it try "modern monetary theory", but yeah, as a sovereign nation, that issues debt in it's own currency, we can simply print more money, it's not unconditional, but it can be done, and pretty much without consequence.

Biggest impediment is that financial markets would freak right the f**k out, unless of course you're the US Fed, and you're printing straight into those very same markets, in which case it's all like, yay!, when the printers go Brrrrrrrrrr!

Even ardent MMTers would accept that there are severe consequences. Their primary argument in the current climate is that despite rounds of quantitative easing around the globe the various economies refuse to inflate. Makes a fairly idealist mockery out of inflation being purely a monetary phenomenon. Their solution to tightening the money supply is to rely on the taxation system rather than bond markets.

MMT is mostly seen as a fad but for all its warts the accounting side is easy to understand and the use of sectoral balances adds clarity to the aims of a national budget that is also easily understood.

 

[crocodile]

*flog

Church

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If the aim was to create a stimulatory setting there wouldn't be any attempt to 'fix' a budget. Sovereign governments don't really have to rely income to be greater than their expenses to retire debt. The article headline intimates that this is the reason for tax cuts.

It isn't immediately intuitive why governments can have ongoing debt and repay it the same time. On average our national economy over times grows in nominal terms at roughly 5% pa. Naturally, as the economy expands so too must the money supply. As long as the average growth in debt over time is less than the rate of economic expansion the national budget may run a deficit in perpetuity. Nominal terms are simply the rate without consideration to inflation. In other words, over time the debt is both inflated away as well as dwarfed by continuous economic expansion.

Governments like ours typically raise debt via the issuing of government bonds and securities offered to the private sector. When the bond is redeemed the coupon rate is ideally matched by the growth in money supply.

Resting on some fairly significant assumptions

 

[Bandwagon]

Resting on some fairly significant assumptions

Our entire economic model rests on some very significant assumptions, that are often shown to be less than perfect, because well humans.

However the ones @crocodile assumes there, inflation and gdp growth over time, are far from radical. They're pretty much built in to how we operate at all levels. I dare say that if they all of a sudden disappear as a thing within world economies, government debt will be the least of your economic concerns.

 

[Bandwagon]

Even ardent MMTers would accept that there are severe consequences. Their primary argument in the current climate is that despite rounds of quantitative easing around the globe the various economies refuse to inflate. Makes a fairly idealist mockery out of inflation being purely a monetary phenomenon. Their solution to tightening the money supply is to rely on the taxation system rather than bond markets.

MMT is mostly seen as a fad but for all its warts the accounting side is easy to understand and the use of sectoral balances adds clarity to the aims of a national budget that is also easily understood.

It seems to me that near everything in economics is a bit of fad, some fads stick around a lot longer than others, some never really catch on at all, some seem to come and go. That's progress for you.

 

[crocodile]

Resting on some fairly significant assumptions

There's no assumptions. Governments raising debts and having it watered down by future growth isn't new. Even the pre-Christian Romans ran the empire in this way.

 

[crocodile]

Our entire economic model rests on some very significant assumptions, that are often shown to be less than perfect, because well humans.

However the ones @crocodile assumes there, inflation and gdp growth over time, are far from radical. They're pretty much built in to how we operate at all levels. I dare say that if they all of a sudden disappear as a thing within world economies, government debt will be the least of your economic concerns.

They do disappear from time to time with some rather ugly outcomes.

 

[crocodile]

It seems to me that near everything in economics is a bit of fad, some fads stick around a lot longer than others, some never really catch on at all, some seem to come and go. That's progress for you.

I wouldn't put it that way. I say fad because to my knowledge no governments participate in an MMT system. It's all theory at present. Some of the operational descriptions like the ones pointed out are rather handy when used to describe other monetary systems though.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Our entire economic model rests on some very significant assumptions, that are often shown to be less than perfect, because well humans.

However the ones @crocodile assumes there, inflation and gdp growth over time, are far from radical. They're pretty much built in to how we operate at all levels. I dare say that if they all of a sudden disappear as a thing within world economies, government debt will be the least of your economic concerns.

Which economic concerns would be greater than a government's ability to service its debt? That goes to the heart of what government is for and whether we can trust the institution.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It seems to me that near everything in economics is a bit of fad, some fads stick around a lot longer than others, some never really catch on at all, some seem to come and go. That's progress for you.

Things that have been around for a long time are more likely to continue than things that are new. Put another way, the newest things are most likely to disappear. The only exceptions are things with a defined lifespan.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

There's no assumptions. Governments raising debts and having it watered down by future growth isn't new. Even the pre-Christian Romans ran the empire in this way.

While we might trust these assumptions because they are not yet proven false, they are still assumptions. As you say:

They do disappear from time to time with some rather ugly outcomes.

 

[crocodile]

While we might trust these assumptions because they are not yet proven false, they are still assumptions. As you say:

Most of our lives are based on assumptions. Many outcomes are merely observed with no proof available and therefore reliant only on statistics. Is there any bigger assumption that we visit the Pearly Gates on judgement day.

I assume the Eels will take the 2020 title

 

[Bandwagon]

They do disappear from time to time with some rather ugly outcomes.

Hence the use of the phrase "over time"

 

[Bandwagon]

Things that have been around for a long time are more likely to continue than things that are new. Put another way, the newest things are most likely to disappear. The only exceptions are things with a defined lifespan.

Feudalism was "around" a fair bit longer than neo liberalism, yet here we are, because it's new things more often than not that replace old things.

 

[Bandwagon]

Which economic concerns would be greater than a government's ability to service its debt? That goes to the heart of what government is for and whether we can trust the institution.

A government that owes money to it's self in it's own currency is unlikely to be unable to service it's debts.

You on the other hand, are far more likely to have this problem through circumstances beyond your control, I'd say that there's a far greater economic concern.

 

[crocodile]

A government that owes money to it's self in it's own currency is unlikely to be unable to service it's debts.

You on the other hand, are far more likely to have this problem through circumstances beyond your control, I'd say that there's a far greater economic concern.

Private debts owed in foreign currency would be a disaster in terms of economic concerns. A bounty for local creditors of foreign origin. We mostly run a deficit on current account so a net disaster.

These are much larger problems than governments having their sovereign currency devalued.