Geoff > Status Update

So what's the solution to debt, Nick? I'm just a dumb musician, me cant think to good

DEFAULT!!!

Economics isn't a real science. Debt isn't a real problem.

ATJG wrote: "Economics, as David Suzuki so rightly noted, is a form of brain damage

Thanks for confirming everything I assumed.

David wrote: "Economics isn't a real science. Debt isn't a real problem."

Ah yes, stick to your fantasy books of utopias.

ok, im out... until tomorrow.

No but I mean, just in general, economics is hard. But the problem of economics (with which we are tasked today) is not how to produce more--we've got that freakin' nailed (as even Marx marveled)! The economic question we are still not good at is distribution. All that wonderful wealth that's been created in the past 200 odd years, where's it all go?

And I have absolutely no faith that the Repubo's are interested in really addressing things like deficits and debts (Reagan anyone?). And Trump even less so. The budget, what I've heard of it, will reverse every distributionary gain we've made. Producing more wealth is not going to solve our problems.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "No but I mean, just in general, economics is hard. But the problem of economics (with which we are tasked today) is not how to produce more--we've got that freakin' nailed (as even Marx marveled)! ..."

Exactly - wealth production does nothing if it all just flows into the same handful of accounts that already hold all of it.

Geoff wrote: "Exactly - wealth production does nothing if it all just flows into the same handful of accounts that already hold all of it. "

And time too. Where the hell is my 4=hour work day? All these time=saving devices? Should be giving me 60% more reading time.

Now, when reality threatens, is time more than ever for utopia, muthaf***er!

Well, Clinton ran a surplus budget for several years. What the fuck did he know that the rest of us don't?

Oh .. he didn't start a ruinous war that cost a few trillion, while at the same time reducing taxes.

Nick wrote: "David wrote: "Economics isn't a real science. Debt isn't a real problem."

Ah yes, stick to your fantasy books of utopias."

From Capital in the Twenty-First Century

To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences. Economists are all too often preoccupied with petty mathematical problems of interest only to themselves. This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex problems of the world we live in. There is one great advantage to being an academic economist in France: here, economists are not highly respected in the academic or intellectual world or by political and financial elites. Hence they must set aside their contempt for other disciplines and their absurd claim to greater scientific legitimacy, despite the fact that they know almost nothing about anything.

Piketty put mountains and mountains of empirical research into his book; I don't see how it could possibly be dismissed as fantasy.

In any case, it is important to educate oneself about economic matters, but, in my judgment, in the meantime it's even more important not to bow to the experts and elites as they destroy the world economy yet again.

If economics is a science, then why did mainstream economics departments fail so badly to predict the '08 crash? Why did Marxist political economists like David Harvey fare much better in this respect? Capitalists are the ones living in fantasy.

Global warming may not literally extinguish all life on earth, but it is likely to cause immense suffering, especially in the poorer parts of the world. Bangladesh is likely to flood, causing tens of millions of people to be displaced. A refugee crisis that far dwarfs what's been happening in the Middle East. Right now I have zero confidence that us first world countries will respond in a humane or enlightened manner.

Interestingly, we're actually getting down to real ground for political discussion, but are likely to have such fundamental differences at this point that we are least likely to understand one another when we get down to these issues.

Maybe we can talk about them though. Maybe. But to do so, we'd have to divorce ourselves from such considerations as support for Trump, or which of two radical sides we gravitate towards. Maybe.

A few random reflections:

-Big government and big debt are probably pretty bad things.
-America, as a mixed economy, neither laissez-faire nor communist, has come to embrace a kind of shared common interest in various parts of our lives, which include public works, social security, public primary and secondary education, military defense, and so on. That doesn't mean everything needs to be run by and managed by the government. But if it generally serves our interests well, it may be fair to ask our representatives to use our money for other benefits such as better healthcare, protection from predatory private interests, scientific research, endowments for the arts, etc.
-Entitlements are easy to create and very difficult to take away again.
-Money and resources do have to come from somewhere, somehow, and good-intentions don't pay the rent.
-Trump and friends, most seated Republicans, and probably most seated Democrats are a bunch of incompetent boobs and monsters who are on the way to bungling the shit out of everything.
-Humans do almost everything that's important, such as parenting or running governments, as though running an experiment, with nothing much to guide our decisions but faith. And we're very very bad at learning lessons from history.
-Private, for-profit prisons was a very very bad idea.
-Seriously, cut the military spending, have a major crackdown on corruption and waste, stop agitating for wars, and to hell with more nukes and one more aircraft carrier. Then we can eat our cake and have some too.
-Most of the ways we measure economy are bogus, and data is almost always misinterpreted.
-Still, economics can teach us a lot, and we oughtta learn it.
-Did I mention that Trump is an unrepentant cunt?

$6bn (20%) cut to NIH. Fuck. A lot of biomedical scientists working hard to figure out why we get sick and what we can do about it are going to get canned or close their labs. Or in the case of 'junior' scientists (only 10-15 years of research experience) never get positions at all. No exaggeration to say this is a setback for humanity.

It’s time for the Raccoons of the Resistance monthly reading group!

Zadignose wrote: "Interestingly, we're actually getting down to real ground for political discussion, but are likely to have such fundamental differences at this point that we are least likely to understand one anot..."

Our political machine has been unattended for a long time by the public and corruption has been rusting the gears. It chugged along okay for the past forty years but in 2016 it seized. I don't know what is on the other side of this breakdown but it won't be anything great I reckon. Civilizations have lifespans maybe the US is at the end of its own right now.

David wrote: "Nick wrote: "David wrote: "Economics isn't a real science. Debt isn't a real problem."

Ah yes, stick to your fantasy books of utopias."

From Capital in the Twenty-First Century

T..."

Piketty also addresses the question Nick was asking of how to pay for things like social programs. The global tax on wealth, it's a fairly simple reform.

In condensed form

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/why-we...

Re That Piketty article, "He also told CNBC that billionaire Bill Gates said to him: 'I love your book. I care a lot about inequality but I don't want to pay more taxes.'"

And the article briefly hints at Gates's proposed solution.

In fact, Gates's suggestion was quite well considered, and he was specifically interested in taxing spending on luxuries. I.e., he wanted to tax the ultra-rich when their spending is not productive in generating value for the larger society. He wanted to encourage the kind of spending and investing that create jobs and opportunities, and he wanted the lion's share of the tax burden to still fall on the wealthiest. He was looking for a way to pursue greater wealth equality. He was actually being progressive as well as innovative in his thinking, but I've gotten the impression this Pikitty is a bit of a crank with no real understanding of... well... much.

you've gotten the impression? how about you read the book?

To be fair, I didn't actually read his book. And, even if he's dismissive of economics because he can't square his ideas with economic theory, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a heart.

It's not his heart, it's his intellect. The dude is smart. He turned down a post MIT.

The point is that the theory doesn't fit the empirical research. That's when you know something has gone wrong with the theory.

I've also, admittedly, depended mainly on a couple of articles on Piketty's book and a discussion around the subject to form an opinion.

However, it must be admitted that even if someone has gotten reputation and prestige, even if he's smart or academically qualified, that doesn't mean he can't be a crank or subject to misunderstanding.

Yeah, it's true, I won't have given him a fair shake without reading his full book. But maybe we can knock a few ideas around:

"As long as the rate of return exceeds the rate of growth, the income and wealth of the rich will grow faster than the typical income from work." True, and as long as a bamboo grows faster than a sunflower, the bamboo will grow faster than a sunflower.

But does he ever get around to establishing why we should be much more concerned about wealth inequality than the growth in wealth for the median, or for all.

And does he convincingly establish that the best solution must be wealth and income taxation?

And does he reconcile his ideas with the notion of the rights of individuals?

Does he reconcile his idea that inherited wealth accumulates and accumulates with the fact that the large majority of inherited wealth doesn't even survive past the third generation?

He apparently does admit that his proposed solution is politically impossible.

But I think some of my doubts go beyond what normal people talk about in this regard. E.g., I'm not sure to what degree we can even measure wealth in terms of money, dollar-denominated, assets, etc.

Certainly, a billionaire does not eat 10,000 times as much as a middle-class person, he or she does not wear 10,000 times as many shoes, or sleep in 10,000 times as many beds (with no innuendo intended). His or her wealth may largely consist in holdings of companies which provide further wealth to thousands of employees. But, to the degree that the billionaire's wealth is wastefully expended on absurd luxuries, such as pyramids to be buried in or intercontinental ballistic missiles to help him sleep soundly at night, well some resources are clearly misdirected.

Yes, I actually agree that the global tax on wealth, as he proposes it, is not really politically feasible. Billionaires put a lot of work into protecting their wealth.

To me, however, this suggests the solution must lie in a more radical politics. The ruling class won't just give up its privileges because of a good argument. That's where liberals are wrong.

I would say Piketty pretty conclusively shows why inequality is a problem in itself. The man knows a lot about a lot of things - along with all the economic history and data analysis, for example, there's a virtuouso reading of Balzac. Basically, democracy is impossible in a highly stratified society, when all important decisions are being made by a minuscule sector of the population. Cynicism is the only rational affect in this sort of society.

As to some of your other wonkier questions, again, I recommend the book, or at least the footnotes. It's incredibly rich in data. So why not read it?

Yeah, from what I remember the book actually does have a fair crack at pretty much all of your questions. And I think even if we can argue about the answers, Piketty has made an invaluable contribution in getting us to think about the right questions. Also in steering economics away from dogmatism and fancy mathematical models and reconnecting it with history.

"A society in which “the poor should just die” is one position among others — even if it’s an unpopular position that people argue passionately against! — is no longer a society. It’s a death camp waiting to happen."
https://itself.blog/2017/03/16/how-wi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7...

Nathan "N.R." wrote: ""A society in which “the poor should just die” is one position among others — even if it’s an unpopular position that people argue passionately against! — is no longer a society. It’s a death camp ..."

Hey thanks Nathan. I'm super depressed and anxious about all of this today and while that didn't change that there is something restorative in commiseration. Kotsko is great

I'm always surprised, when a discussion turns to income inequality, that The Spirit Level is seldom mentioned. It's a very well-argued book.

Unfortunately don't have time to play with you all today, but to show good faith and that I have a sense of humor in all this, I'm going to throw you guys some fodder (especially since at the end of the day this site is about books and reading).

TUCKER: ""What do you do at the end of the day? What do you read, what do you watch?"

TRUMP:
"Well, you know, I love to read. Actually, I'm looking at a book, I'm reading a book, I'm trying to get started. Every time I do about a half a page, I get a phone call that there's some emergency, this or that. But we're going to see the home of Andrew Jackson today in Tennessee and I'm reading a book on Andrew Jackson. I love to read. I don't get to read very much, Tucker, because I'm working very hard on lots of different things, including getting costs down. The costs of our country are out of control. But we have a lot of great things happening, we have a lot of tremendous things happening."

Rump wrote: "But we're going to see the home of Andrew Jackson today in Tennessee and I'm reading a book on Andrew Jackson."

About a half a page :: Andrew Jackson: Young Patriot.

deleted user wrote: "Nick wrote: "Unfortunately don't have time to play with you all today, but to show good faith and that I have a sense of humor in all this, I'm going to throw you guys some fodder (especially since..."

goddmit. how the hell that'd get in there and then not be there anymore?

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Rump wrote: "But we're going to see the home of Andrew Jackson today in Tennessee and I'm reading a book on Andrew Jackson."

About a half a page :: Andrew Jackson: Young Patriot."

Lol

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "deleted user wrote: "Nick wrote: "Unfortunately don't have time to play with you all today, but to show good faith and that I have a sense of humor in all this, I'm going to throw you guys some fod..."

Dunno I dumped his comment anyway though.

On military waste, from the American - yes! - Conservative

If you support the military industrial complex, you're not a fiscal conservative.

Andrew Bacevich is a little right-wing for me, but nevertheless a boss.

http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

Blah blah blah "more than circumstantial evidence Trump's team colluded with Russia" who gives a shit amiright? We gotta get down to the important business of eliminating funding for addiction recovery programs, and making sure the poor sick and old have to pay through the nose for treatment and medicine. It's called competition, folks! All those tax breaks to the super rich just force the poor to have to be stronger - I've read studies that being in constant existential peril actually improves the immune system.

I personally can't wait to perform back alley swaps to get my migraine medications again. I'm nostalgic for when I was getting mailed illicit drug samples in unassuming bubble padded envelops just to manage. I don't know if I have any drug rep friends left, though.

Oh and for Russian collusion, do you suppose we will actually see someone in handcuffs? That might be the kind of healing the American people need.

or,

Trump is having great scandals. The best. I am hearing a lot of great people, lovely people, talking about his scandals and they are just tremendous--like his electoral victory, historic, huge.

Ian wrote: "I personally can't wait to perform back alley swaps to get my migraine medications again. I'm nostalgic for when I was getting mailed illicit drug samples in unassuming bubble padded envelops just ..."

Lol, but, to the handcuff question - that's up to how corrupt Congress is. If they go the way of Nunes, who always seems to be seconds away from fellating the president on live TV, then no, nothing will happen. But if there are enough pitchfork and fire wielding mobs outside the White House...

I think the best thing the poor sick and old can do for themselves is 'get religion' - that way dying is a net positive.

Geoff wrote: "I think the best thing the poor sick and old can do for themselves is 'get religion' - that way dying is a net positive."

Does Jesus forgive the sin of being poor in a capitalistic society, tho? Like, I think the first Q from Peter's probably something akin to, "Why didn't you just try harder?"

Ian wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I think the best thing the poor sick and old can do for themselves is 'get religion' - that way dying is a net positive."

Does Jesus forgive the sin of being poor in a capitalistic s..."

Pretty sure somewhere in the sermon on the mount Jesus says "It is a sin to subsidize heating for the poor, because trembling is also a form of exercise. Whether it be trembling from fear or cold matters not, ye are all the children of God." Any compassionate conservative out there wanna back me up on this?

Blessed are the aged for they shall cook their own meals, free from governmental overreach with programs that are not showing results.

Oh hey check it out - I never want batshit crazyass Mike Huckabee anywhere near a position of power ever again, but, he wrote this oped defending the National Endowment of the Arts against Trump! You go, you unpredictable radical Christian!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...

MRW thinking about Mike Huckabee (this moment you share being an exception) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB9cj...

Ian wrote: "MRW thinking about Mike Huckabee (this moment you share being an exception) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB9cj..."

Ahhh that made me happy

God. Being in Dallas means I got to see how Fox dealt with the terror attack in London. Of course they would have Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, the two most disgusting people in the entire country, come on and talk bollocks. Watching them lie to smug twats like Tucker Carlson may well be the most rage-inducing thing I have ever seen. Absolutely no shame - any chance to peddle their anti-immigration bullshit, and to increase their "celebrity", and they will take it. Fucking gross.

Jonathan wrote: "God. Being in Dallas means I got to see how Fox dealt with the terror attack in London. Of course they would have Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, the two most disgusting people in the entire countr..."

The attacker was UK born though, right? I mean, Fox News wouldn't try to mislead people or insinuate inaccurate information about that. Why, that would be racist!

He was born in Kent. The same county Farage was born in.

Jonathan wrote: "He was born in Kent. The same county Farage was born in."

Goddamn immigrants.

So what have I missed, fellas?

Cody wrote: "So what have I missed, fellas?"

Lol welcome back Cody

Cody wrote: "So what have I missed, fellas?"

This made me look back at the start of this whole thread - all those reasoned explanations for why we should not worry as Hillary would win...