Matthew

Trump doesn't try to explain his failures. Like last night he'll just say the thing that failed was a huge success and that 100% of people loved it and that all the experts agree its the best thing that ever happened in human history.

Overall I think the debate was a short-term win for Trump, but possibly a major turning point in getting Democrats to more seriously push for another candidate. If somehow Democrats can capitalize on this moment and pivot to a new candidate, the thanks would go to Trump's willingness to do this debate. Meanwhile, Trump didn't really do much to improve his own image in terms of competency, honesty, or not being a wack-job. You'd think standing next to an impaired Biden would make you look good by comparison, but no not really. After Trump vs Clinton and Trump vs Biden, and now Trump vs Biden again I'm really ready for ANY halfway good candidate for either party.

Ah, are we actually debating something? Have you been articulating an argument? Supposition. Economists certainly try to calculate hypothetical estimates of things all the time. No economist anywhere would claim to be able to accurately calculate inflation. Anyway, I'm sorry but the quality of your replies is declining and until you at least know the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, I don't see how this conversation can go much further. Implying that inflation is either based on supply chain issues or government spending suggests a limited grasp of the topic. It's ok, it was fun and we had a good run. Thanks for talking with me.

I disagree. Here are some examples of Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have commented publicly about inflation. They have a mix of views on the subject, they portray it as highly complicated, with many variables of causation: Joseph Stiglitz: "A careful look at US economic conditions supports the view that inflation was driven mainly by supply-side disruptions and shifts in the pattern of demand." From "How Not to Fight Inflation," Jan 26, 2023 George A. Akerlof: "Inflation occurs when the demand for goods and services exceeds the available supply. This can happen due to several reasons, including an increase in the money supply, a decrease in the supply of goods and services, or changes in production costs." From Inflation: Akerlof's Perspectives on its Impact and Mitigation, June 9, 2024 Sir Oliver Hart: "The basic definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. The rate of inflation does not depend solely on monetary issues within the Fed’s domain—it also depends on changes in the stock of goods and services. Sensible economic policies that aid growth will thus tend to curb inflation even with bad or capricious decisions by the Fed. But conversely, foolish economic and regulatory decisions will compound the problem by shrinking the economic pie..." From "Fuel for Inflation," Oct 3, 2022. Edmund S. Phelps: "But if the statical "optimum" [between inflation and unemployment] is chosen, it is reasonable to suppose that the participants in product and labour markets will learn to expect inflation (and the concomitant money wage trend) and that, as a consequence of their rational, anticipatory behaviour, the Phillips Curve will gradually shift upward (in a uniform vertical displacement) by the full amount of the newly expected and previously actual rate of inflation. Now if the recalculated "optimal" unemployment ratio does not change in the face of the shift, greater inflation will result than before and the pattern will repeat as expectations are continually revised upward..." From the Journal Economica, "Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time," Aug 1967, p. 255 Robert J. Shiller: "Feeding fears of a wage-price spiral can be dangerous, especially if Americans view it as something that might continue indefinitely. Once lawmakers, business leaders and consumers come to believe the spiral has really taken hold, that belief can amplify long-term inflation expectations. It can make people angry and rigid in their demands and depress the stock market and consumer confidence." Inflation Is Not a Simple Story About Greedy Corporations, Feb 8, 2022 Christopher A. Sims: "Increases in nominal debt in the hands of the public that are not accompanied by any increase in expected future tax liabilities or by any increase in the price level leave the public with apparently increased wealth, which they will try to spend, until price increases erode their wealth or expectations about future taxes or economic growth make them scale back spending. In these circumstances, an increased nominal interest rate flows directly through to increased nominal government spending. In a flexible price model, the monetary authority loses any ability to affect the price level, as interest rate increases increase the rate of expansion of nominal government debt without any restrictive effect on spending plans." From "Stepping on a Rake: The Role of Fiscal Policy in the Inflation of the 1970s," p. 2, 2008. William F. Diamond: "A mix of loose fiscal and monetary policy provides powerful economic stimulus, in large part by causing a surge in inflation that redistributes wealth from savers to borrowers. From "Printing Away the Mortgages: Fiscal inflation and the post-COVID boom," June 2024.

How will it do that?

Personally I think the best way to approach things like this with seriousness is to have a sense of perspective about it and to not be trolled by it and to scale one's reactions according to the actual impact the thing will have. 80% of the motivation behind bills like this is to own the libs etc (refer to thread title) with no expected actual societal impact on anyone. But you're right that trying to win Supreme Court precedents is a thing, and one you'll be seeing a lot of for the foreseeable future.

That seems to be a matter of supposition. I agree that it's reasonable to speculate that Jewish people face certain vulnerabilities in a stateless diaspora as they previously were. Many ethnic groups never developed their own nation-states, a few hundred years back when people were doing that. Most don't face terrible suffering as a result. However, the way in which Israel did come about and the way it continues to gravitate toward right-wing nationalism has created new antagonisms and attachments to the rivalries of great powers and thus puts Jewish people in a state of even greater vulnerability and risk. It is not unreasonable for people--Jewish or otherwise to believe that this is a self-destructive path and to argue that those coopting Judaism in the name of their nationalist political movement are the actual ones doing greater long-term harm to Jews. Again, like your own opinion, this is in the realm of supposition. But reasonable people have long disagreed about this and one side is not automatically anti-semitic for their opinion.

I am opposed to it. But I'm not greatly moved by it and I find it thoroughly meaningless. Republicans like to make these kinds of meaningless virtue-signaling laws, which do their particular cause more harm than good. I love it when people have the courtesy to label their own logical fallacies. You're quite right that my claim of its non-effectiveness is not an argument favoring it. Likewise, your fears of a slippery slope do not add much to the alleged gravity you claim this has. It does violate the First Amendment, on the same low tier as "In God We Trust" or prayers before city council meetings. The Court will swing back the other way someday. But for now, this will be a moot point. Republicans ARE doing far worse things with schools. In Iowa, they are using taxpayer money to fund people's private school tuition. Poorer Republican-dominant counties actually voted to siphon money away from their local community schools toward the wealthy people of cities that have private schools. Essentially a giant government handout to wealthy families and religious institutions. So what I'm saying is that you're assuming they need a slippery slope to gradually ease the population into their awful socially destructive policy ideas. In reality, when they are in power they will simply do the worst thing they can get their colleagues to go along with.

The Washingon Examiner 😄

Ah, so you're just talking about fiscal policy spending. Sorry you used the word monetary previously which caused me to assume you knew more about this topic and were making a better argument than you actually are attempting to make. No I'm the one claiming that there are many factors and it's complicated. You're the one trying to say it's largely government spending. Government intervention in a market does impact prices. A great example of this in the US is that we have a private market for healthcare alongside Medicare paid for by the government. This marginally causes some healthcare inflation but other factors are even greater. Bicycles are one of thousands of examples of goods that began increasing in price during 2020. Showing that inflationary forces were already infolding profoundly before the government stimulus spending started. By the time we get to 2022 its impossible to know how much of that inflation was due to what. You're attempting to draw very specific policy conclusions that are in reality unknowable and are more variables than you're willing to acknowledge, apparently for the purpose of your idiological dogma.

It's not, because the rationale for why they oppose this political formation is not based on anti-jewish sentiment but rather a differing opinion about politics. Judaism is not the nation-state of Israel. So to oppose this nation state is not the same as opposing Jewish people. Just as Christianity was not the medieval Crusader States. Christians today widely condemn the crudades as fundamentally unchristian political endeavor, so how would this political opinion make them anti-christian?

A couple years ago Republicans in my state passed a law to require the pledge of allegiance every morning. It's all very North Korea-esque ands in a high school setting actually makes one more aware of the oppressive nature of their system. It does nothing to evoke patriotism. Its a forced exercise by an authoritarian republican legislature and 90% of students stand up and silently stare off into space for 20 second. 10% of students stay seated and wait for it to end. Imagine how much less students would care about a bronze age religous quote in 1600s style English on a small poster in the corner of the room.

So it's probably not anti-Jewish prejudice though? As far as your analogy, let me put it to you this way. Is opposing the Crusader States of the 11th-12th Century inherently based on anti-Christian bigotry?

I've been public school teacher for 20 years. I think this statement would be widely and vigorously rejected by educators. Obviously you're right that they're there are some facts we want students to know. But I think the concensus would be that the purpose of schools is not to tell students what conclusions or judgments to draw from those facts, but rather how to be a skilled and critical thinker able to ask questions, navigate information, and have some boarder perspective of different points of view.

This kind of collusion with a single candidate is still obviously unethical and why CNN rightfully fired her.

Based on a NYT poll I saw yesterday, over half of democrats would prefer a different candidate. Running against such a flawed turd like trump, democrats probably should put in someone who with name recognition who has a solid chance. Though I'm not sure anyone is yearning for Hillary. On the bright side, she is already a ruined person as far as weathering decades of right wing propaganda, so its not like there would be any big surpises.

A specific person at CNN did this named Donna Brazile. When CNN found out about the emails she sent, they fired her and it was widely publicized humiliation of that network. I'd speculate that CNN has a lot of incentive to not let that happen again. Though I understand why trump fans like to say this to hedge their expectations, since trump can barely complete a coherent sentence even under normal conditions.

That's because you're over-simplifying a thing that has several causes and is likely too many variables to fully understand or calculate. I'm familiar with Austrian school orthodoxy, but actual economists know that inflation is not limited to one thing. Simple Example: At the start of the pandemic the price of bicycles and all bicycle-related supplies suddenly soared. Even low quality off-brand bikes were not to be found. Production of many components was disrupted at the same time that lock-downs and social distancing caused demand for bikes to increase. A similar phenomenon occurred for ceetain goods and services worldwide. Aditionally, once people understand that inflation is ocurring, they anticipate future price increases which itself actually contributes to inflation because the population is primed with a willingness to pay higher prices. This is why even after fiscal policy factors you're referring to are long over, inflation still can still increase for years. But the big fiscal policy pandemic spending you're referring to did not kick in until 2021. Stimulus checks, etc. And the monetary system from March of 2020 until March of 2021 was at near deflation levels. Gas prices plummeted to about a dollar per gallon in 2020. Yet, at the same time, the price of many consumer goods and services (and the components of those goods and services) were widely skyrocketing. If it were true that monetary policies were the only thing driving up prices, then inflation would be more evenly distributed across industries. But in reality the consumer goods and services that spiked during lockdowns (food, vehicles, entertainment, and housing) have experienced far bigger price increases.

A lot of factors impact the value of money, the availability of goods, peoples expectation of future price increases. If your [somewhat over-simplified] dictum were true, inflation would always be crazy high, when in reality monitary policy usually does a fine job keeping inflation near their 2% target. Though not unreasonable, this too is supposition more than fact. The Laffer Curve you're likely alluding to is a useful starting place. Obviously the higher tax rates gets the more diminishing returns will eventually occur. But just because there are sweet spots of efficiency doesn't mean that increasing the taxes will not increase revenue. Plus reality is more complicated than a Laffer Curve, for example the tax revenue is often spent on things that eventually contribute to the private sector economy (infrastructure, education, research, etc) But in any case, my point is that politicians don't even seem comfortable talking about how to increase revenues when clearly that is a necessary thing that will have to occur sooner or later given the reality of what people overwhelmingly expect from their government.

I don't disagree with that. There are more people now compared to then, technology has has created new capacities and complications, and in general people today expect more from their state and federal governments than they used to. And despite decades of republican efforts to cut assisistence to the poor and elderly, or attack public education, these things tend to bounce back and remain extremely valued and have had no problem growing.

There is a very long tradition of anti-Zionism among Jewish people. Whether for political philosophy reasons, religious reasons, anti- imperialism reasons etc they don't see the political project of Israel as beneficial or as a true expression of their culture/beliefs. So why are Jewish people able to sepatrate their opinion of Isrseli politics from their opinion of the ethnic group itself if you say the two can't be separated?

It is definitely that, but not necessarily exclusively. You're using the word "semitic," which by definition undeniably includes Arabs. Zionism is the modern Jewish nationalism movement culminating in the nation state of Israel formed in 1948. So is your claim therefore that any opposition to the political legitimacy of the state of Israel is inhetently based upon anti-Jewish pejudice?

Every major domestic problem the US has (housing shortage, healthcare costs, crime, immigration, etc) could be alleviated with robust public investment and intervention. National and state policies in the last 40 years have largely trended toward reducing government revenue and cutting and privatizing the minimal programs we do have. Republicans and democrats squabble between tax rates in the absurdly low 30% range vs the 20% range while still operating a complex system that does some of the many things that almost everyone expects it to do, increasingly funded via deficit spending. Without cutting big budget items like the military, social security, Medicare, the only way to pay a 1.7 T deficit is with increased revenue--let alone afford anything else that would improve society.

It's true that political hobbyism and so many other features of our contemporary political culture subvert people's ability to care about actual societal needs. Although, on the other hand it's easy to idealize democracy and falsely imagine earlier generations as being less self-centered. They usually had their own crippling problems.

Arabic is a Semitic language just as Hebrew is. Since you acknowledge that Israel is engaging mass-killing and expulsion of Arabs, is the state of Israel therefore anti-Semitic?