5503

Sorry, that really wasn’t the intent. I don’t think you are dumb, but I do think that MMT is kind of dumb.

5504

I just want to say that, without a dog in this particular fight, I appreciate the sentiment.

We could do better with a whole lot more “I disagree with your position” and a whole lot less “You’re a monster”.

Actual monstrous positions exempted, obviously.

5505

That’s the issue. Those disagreements are seen as monstrous.

On different boards different positions are seen as monstrous.

One place I was even called monstrous for daring to suggest sanctioning the Russian to hurt their economy was a good idea (most folks there had the Cori Bush idea of sanctions, that they are useless for anything except harming lower-class people. They were ok with sanctions on weapons.)

I disagree strongly with that position (I’m closer in age to folks here, there I am much older, which explains some of it) , but I can see it coming from a non-hateful position, and not a threat to me (discomfort and threat are two different things) on a personal level. Those are pretty much my two red lines for monstrousness.

5506

Is there any objective reality here? In the end, the value of money comes from the fact that people believe it has value. Ultimately we’re debating within the realm of social psychology, not maths. Which is why public trust in government fiscal decision-making can’t be blown off as unimportant.

5507

Yeah, this is a good point too. Maybe there’s some real utility in the public believing that government budgeting should be like household budgeting. The problem is that governments don’t actually act like households, except when they’re trying to make political points. The United States government routinely (as in nearly every single year for the last 175 years) runs a deficit. The UK had a deficit for 35 of the last 40 years. Germany for 31 of the last 40 years. Japan for 35 of the last 40 years. It’s how governments in control of their own currency run. So that fact itself creates distrust. The public is being sold on the idea that governments are like households, but governments deficit spend in a way that is not sustainable for households (but absolutely IS for governments.) Central banks don’t act like households in any way, shape, or form. Their operation is utterly alien to the public, creating more distrust. Maybe it would be better if everyone were on the same page; if policymakers were basing their decisions on well-trodden economic principles and selling them to the public that way too, rather than using the public’s naive understanding of governmental accounting as a weak political constraint on spending the way we do now.

5508

Even more: governments mostly don’t pay back any of that debt, and don’t have to. They simply retire it with new debt issues and time and growth overwhelm the balance until, in the grand scheme of the economy, it’s just a triviality.

5509

Routine is not the same as trivial. US debt service payments last year were $562 billion, almost certain to rise sharply in the next couple of years.

5510

Yeah, servicing the US debt is already one of the largest portions of the overall government spending, and is growing much faster than any of our other areas of expenditure.

5511

Sure, debt service matters. The actual debt mostly doesn’t. But the same point applies to debt service. And debt service in recent years, as a percentage of GDP, is largely the same as it was in the decades after the Second World War.

Look at the chart. On an ongoing basis, debt service has been smaller than it was under Reagan.

5512

Debt service under the 2023 budget proposal is expected to rise from about 1.7% of GDP to 3.1% of GDP over the next 10 years. During the 80’s and 90’s it was at about 3.5% of GDP. Long term outlook for total debt as a percent of GDP if the budget is approved is actually better than current projections due to reforms in the tax code (i.e. tax increases.) Debt service is expected to be stable as a percent of GDP, but with climate change who knows.

image

5513
5514

Yeah, I’m not really buying this. Ahmad seems to have an axe to grind with Chomsky, and most of Ahmad’s statements are mis-characterizations of what Chomsky recently wrote and references to another axe-grindy articles from 5 years ago.

The actual statement that Chomsky wrote seems ok? Like you could disagree with him, but the statement is not obviously stupid. E.g. if there could be a settlement with Russia that gave them Crimea and Donbas (both of which they already have) and some language about not joining NATO, I think a lot of people both in Ukraine and in the larger Western community would be happy to take it. The main problem with that solution is that Russia seems to have zero interest in such a settlement and wants to continue to prosecute their war. If I was going to criticize Chomsky for anything it would be that he thinks a diplomatic solution is possible without further Russian defeats on the battlefield.

5515

Russia doesn’t really “have the Donbas region”. They have troops there right now, but the people of the region do not support them. Their position there is not sustainable.

Having Ukraine give up a third of its territory, and agree not to join NATO, is not really a great deal. The idea that Russia can just invade a country and take over a huge chunk of it via bloody violence against civilians, is a profoundly terrible precedent to set.

There’s no way that Chomsky would support such a thing if it were, for instance, the US taking the actions of Russia.

5516

It would be if they get NATO protection without membership, as in the US fully agrees to defend Ukraine’s remaining borders. (then again that wouldn’t be worth much under the Republicans)

This is why I understand Ukraine not taking a shitty Finland after WWII deal.

5517

I think this story counts? It’s a little hard to parse out who all the people involved are though.

5518

That counts as hilarious.

I have this monthy python holy grail witch scene vibe where one of them tries to explain themselves

“Well, he did have that wig”.

5519

Russia has occupied much of this area for the last 8 years and has not shown any signs of releasing it. In that sense occupying that territory seems sustainable.

I agree that such a deal is a profoundly terrible precedent and is an awful proposal for Ukraine, but it still might be better than some outcomes. And if Russia had gone for such a goal from the beginning of their invasion (i.e. continuing their salami tactics by annexing more of the Donbas) they might have gotten away with it and avoided a massive Western response.

As far as I can tell though even that terrible deal is not on the table. And really that is what I would criticize Chomsky for (as well as several other leftists commenters), is that they keep talking about various diplomatic solutions as meaningful options. Russia hasn’t given any indication that it wants to seriously talk, or that they have any war goals besides the destruction of Ukraine. That stance won’t be changed by anything except Russia being defeated militarily and economically. Until Russia’s stance changes there isn’t that much utility in arguing about possible peace deals.

5520
5521

Is any public square owned by the public? I suppose so, through town councils owning the land?

Which you pay taxes for…

So, is he suggesting we pay taxed for Twitter and it become a public utility?

5522

He’s essentially saying that we should nationalize twitter.

Which is super dumb in this case, because he wants to do this in order to have the state control what speech is allowed on the platform.

Which the State would explicitly not be allowed to do, due to the first amendment.

He’s basically parroting the same kind of nonsense argument that the right wing crackpots have been saying since Trump got booted, that it’s not fair for Twitter to control the speech allowed on their platform.