…bai, gure txoko maite hau baino pixka bat handiagoa.
Alde batetik, Donald Trump dago, benetako eskuindarra, baina leloa ez dena…
Beste aldetik, DTM dugu, eta beheko eztabaida edo sasi-eztabaida txiki bat…
Eztabaida DTM-ren inguruan kokatu behar da.
Baina interesgarria delakoan, hemen jarriko dut bere jatorrizko bertsioan:
Albistea: “Trump: The US Is Headed For A Massive Recession”
Must be getting his economic advice from the MMT top-enders…
Trump: “The US Is Headed For A Massive Recession; It’s A Terrible Time To Invest In Stocks” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-02/trump-country-headed-massive-recession-its-terrible-time-invest-stocks …
Posted by Matt Franko
Comments:
Michael Norman said…
LOL!!! Yes, the deficit is too small!!!
April 2
John said…
It’s good politics: A vote for Trump is a vote against guaranteed recession. What do you expect him to say, things are going splendidly well? Trump’s right, but not for the reasons he gives.
Anyway, at the risk of being out of step with two big beasts and liable to being eaten alive, the deficit is too small! Way, way too small! The true unemployment numbers are indicative of that.
April 2
Matt Franko said…
John there only about 1,000 to 2,000 of us who have any clue (FD I think I have at least a clue…) as to what is going on…7B humans….. [i.e 7 amerikar bilioi pertsona, hots, 7.000 milioi]
April 2
Jose Guilherme said…
the deficit is too small! Way, way too small! The true unemployment numbers are indicative of that
If there is unemployment then aggregate demand is too low. The government should either spend more or tax less – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the deficit is smaller than it should be.
Suppose the government decides to cut the FICA tax rate to stimulate demand. Individuaks and firms may react by spending more – maybe be so much more that the end result will be a much higher GDP, lower unemployment and also a smaller deficit due to larger tax receipts and lower government expenditures on automatic transfer payments.
April 3
Neil Wilson said…
As I’ve said before ‘the deficit is too small’ is a rejoinder to ‘the deficit is too big’. The actual mechanism is to spend more or tax less. In other words create more flow and let the deficit be whatever it is.
Everybody knows that, and I don’t understand why Mike and Matt think there is a difference in view. There isn’t.
April 3
Edward Delzio said…
Agreed Neil…Perhaps actually thinking there’s a ‘difference’ in view, maybe Mike is just ‘differentiating’ himself from the view (?)
Since this post was originally about Trump, I’ll use a Trump analogy: Just like Trump has brilliantly branded himself as the ‘anti-political-establishment’ choice, Mike is cleverly offering an ‘anti-MMT-establishment’ choice (read: anti-Mosler)…
It’s just smart marketing (at the expense of occasional political missteps by Trump /MMT ones by Mike).
April 3
John said…
Neil has put it more economically accurately. Spend more or tax less, or ideally do both for the time being. Like the widening fiscal deficit created by automatic stabilisers in a recession, the government can and should increase the deficit immediately. It will rise for a while and then fall when the economy strengthens. Mitchell and Wray talk and write about deficits being too small all the time! And their solution is to tax less or spend more. Why? Because the “deficit is too small”, their words.
Jose, what you say is perfectly true. Spending more and taxing less may in fact result in a smaller deficit. As MMTers always say, deficits are ex post, so aggregate demand may decrease the deficit. But in all likelihood, given the economy we have and people needing to delever their debts, the deficit will for the time being increase. Looking at the true unemployment figures, whether here in the UK or in the US or indeed almost anywhere, the deficit is too small.
April 3
Matt Franko said…
“deficit spending” is not a good phrase to use either technically OR politically sorry…
They get nowhere…. why? something is wrong with their approach its not working … this is when objective people would “go back to the drawing board…”
They seem rather to want to blame their lack of success on some sort of “neo-liberal conspiracy!” allegedly being run successfully by a “neo-liberal” cabal of people who are manifestly incompetent in everything they try to do…
April 3
Tom Hickey said…
“deficit spending” is not a good phrase to use either technically OR politically sorry…
Right. It is based on a discretionary fiscal balance based on the budget . The most policy makers can do is set the fiscal stance from tight to loose. The fiscal balance is the outcome of the budget , tax policy, recurring items from previous appropriations, money policy, automatic stabilization, and political and economic conditions.
There’s a false idea out there that the fiscal balance is completely related to the budget. That’s not true. It goes along with the erroneous notion that government finance is the same as firm and household finance, therefore, a good business person in charge of the budget is what the country needs. NOT.
Matt Franko said…
Well Tom you can never get to that conversation when you lead with “we need higher deficits…” or “the deficit is too small….”
Why dont we just talk about the leading spending being insufficient … then let savings desires of recipients of the proposed increased leading spending result in whatever deficit they want…
April 3
Tom Hickey said…
The issue is that fiscal is political and it’s not just the amounts but also the multipliers based on targeting.
April 3
Auburn Parks said…
Because Matt it’s just as viable to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. But according the spending flow only characterization you and Mike keep using, tax cuts wont do anything for the economy because taxes are irrelevant, the deficit is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is GOvt spending.
April 3
Azpimarratu nahiko nukeen puntua hauxe da:
“Soilik guretariko 1.000tik 2.000rako pertsonak arrastoren bat daukagu zer gertatzen ari denaz… [Munduan] 7.000 milioi inguru pertsona [bizi gara]”
Nik neuk, at least, badakit aipatutako kopuru horretan nortzuk dauden, nahitaez…: DTM-koak noski!
Tartean, gure txoko honetan Europako orakuluari (Mario Draghi-ri) zein Greziako orakulu txikiari (Varoufakis-i) men egiten, ekonomialariek, politikariek, kazetariek eta progreek krisi ekonomikoa gaindituz doala errepikatzen, … soilik txorakeriarik handienak aipatzearren.
Gehi, politika arloan, Karlistada berria Madrilerako pelegrinazioan, espainiar estatua demokratizatzearren, sasi-intelektualen (Podemos eta abar) eskutik.
Eta hori guztia gutxi balitz, eztabaidekiko izua, eta okerrenean, zentzura.
Bai, gutxi batzuk ez askok, 1000tik 2.000rako pertsonak badakite Munduan (mundu ekonomikoan eta finantzarioan) zer gertatzen den.
Euskaraz esaten den moduan, dakienak badaki, ez dakienak baleki!
Ahalegindu gaitezen, at least, zertxobait ikasten!
joseba says:
LOL: Laughing out loud
Aurreko egunean kopla berberarekin aritu ziren Mike eta Matt:
“Manufacturing is expanding again. I guess no one told the manfacturers that the deficit was too small!”
3 Comments
Matt Franko said…
More bad news Mike… looks like manufacturing is expanding in the US… we’re going right down the tubes now…
April 2, 2016
Matt Franko said…
No Mike you have it all wrong… the business managers have a time machine…
They wait until they see what “the deficit!” was and then they get in their time machine and go back in time and cancel their previous orders….
April 2, 2016
John said…
Time to start a useful and very necessary conversation/argument. The deficit is too small. Way, way, way too small. The real unemployment figures tell us that loud and clear.
April 2, 2016
LOL?