rigorousintuition.ca

Iamwhomiam wrote: The Dore piece was accurate and the Carlin bit too, Hard to believe how long ago his performance was, considering he died in 2008.

Everything Carlin says in the bit is correct.

The Jimmy Dore segment is mostly right but Dylan Ratigan makes a common mistake in his thinking.

It may be interesting to note that Ratigan's comments opening his appearance are from 2011, referring to the 2008 GFC, well before the Covid crisis. By 2019, we were in about the same place as before the GFC, but with even slightly higher employment, so I think his remarks were a little overheated. This recession is worse and will certainly end up with more financial consolidation than before.

In 2011 Ratigan said, "Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America."

What does that even mean?

The only way to meaningfully extract US dollars from the USA is for the federal government to tax them gone. (Some paper cash goes abroad outside the US system, but otherwise 90+% of USD live at the Federal Reserve.) But I don't think that's what he means.

I'm sure he means the financial sector extracting money from consumers. Ratigan says we "kick the can down the road" "using "taxpayer money" but he's confused about where the money starts.

Also, $10 trillion is pushing it as far as the existing savings that can be taxed. The government would have to, ah, spend the money into existence first. That makes things a little different, doesn't it?

On one hand Ratigan keeps saying that "taxpayers" are paying for all this, then on the other hand he says, "the only place to get money is from the government." Those two entities—taxpayers and the federal government—are two fundamentally distinct sectors of the economy, and which one's paying makes all the difference. So which is it? He makes the category error of treating US government finances like a household's. One creates the money, the other doesn't.

Ratigan refers to the Federal Reserve as separate from the government, a fallacy explained here. This contrubutes to his confused interpretation of the extractions he outlines:

- "through banking" — Yes! This part is right of course. Taxpayers (in aggregate) get net $$ savings from federal budget deficit spending—then the financial industry finds ways to take it away from them.

- "through trade" —No. In the US we get tons of real goods at cheap prices from overseas, it's a good deal. Of course the carbon footprint of all that manufacturing & transportation needs to be addressed immediately, but trade-wise the US is (was) doing okay. Imports are a benefit, adding real goods; exports are a cost—sending away real resources. Also, given the three broad sectors—government, private and foreign—a foreign trade deficit allows the US to more easily run a private sector financial surplus (the flipside of a government deficit), since one sector's deficit must equal another sector's surplus.

- "through taxes" — No. Through its dollar outlays, the federal government provides the net financial surplus we use to pay taxes. It's understood that when the government spends, some will be taxed back. It's a removal of money. Federal taxes are where dollars go to die.


Ratigan rightly says the need for universal income & healthcare is "obvious"—but he needs to stop thinking in terms of "kicking the can down the road." Future taxpayers will not be paying for it—rather, they will inherit the benefits of a healthier society.


Covid-19 has brought these basic issues to the fore, and there's a battle for our minds over it.

Damn man, you've turned into the MMT Machine!

JackRiddler » Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:47 pm wrote:Damn man, you've turned into the MMT Machine!

Somebody has to do it!

If people at least think twice when they hear the cries about "taxpayer money!" then that's a step forward.

Elvis the MMT Mavin!

It's nice to see someone become adept at something they've only recently taken an interest in. Like when someone seems to master an instrument they took up only a short time ago.

Thanks for being specific, Elvis..

I'm sure he means the financial sector extracting money from consumers. Ratigan says we "kick the can down the road" "using "taxpayer money" but he's confused about where the money starts.

That was my impression, too. Most people have no idea how the money they hold came into existence.

"How are we going to pay for it?"

Just goes to show that a great many societal inequities are imposed, rather than being circumstantial.

Iamwhomiam wrote:It's nice to see someone become adept at something they've only recently taken an interest in. Like when someone seems to master an instrument they took up only a short time ago.

Thanks, though I've now been specifically studying MMT for three years, and that's come after a lifetime of trying to figure it out with popular books & different approaches, all with not much satisfaction. None of them fully added up. For me, MMT has cast those different schools of thought in the proper perspective and explains why none really tell the full story.

And it's all absolutely relevant to the Coronavirus Crisis—now is the time to grasp this knowledge.

^^^^ Well said. What's to come in future is anyone's guess. The game can't go on endlessly.

It’s deja-vu all over again with the W.H.O. declaring “pandemics” that result in gold rushes for pharmaceutical companies who swoop in with vaccines to save the day. But are they actually saving anyone? Or do serious adverse events such as the very real narcolepsy epidemic that we saw in the swine flu “pandemic” of 2009—which many researchers tie to GSK’s Pandemrix—counter any perceived benefits of these rushed vaccines? The Jab breaks down what happened in 2009 and why it’s critical that we understand this today.

Belligerent Savant » Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:44 pm wrote:.

I tend to look at the data/information available, and then attempt to filter through political leanings. Increasingly, trusting anyone at face-value is a risky proposition. Scientists aren't immune from compromise, but on average they can be trusted more than others (depending, of course, on their source of funding).

But there's an increasingly pervasive mindset out there fast becoming a pet-peeve of mine: the "because science" people. As in: "I subscribe fully to Dr. Fauci's guidance... because 'science'. "

Hubris. Arrogance. Worship of SCIENCE as the new Religion.

Yes, science is important. But "science" is not infallible. Science, in fact, requires scrutiny, and repeat testing, and most importantly, revisions to a given hypothesis when new findings dictate. (See: The Scientific Method).


The "...because science" card is an excuse to avoid critical thinking, or perhaps more importantly, to avoid challenging the status quo.

..

It's always been the case that you should stay home if you have cold or flu symptoms, period. The usual tens of thousands of annual flu deaths, not to mention the just general suckiness of having the flu, would be greatly reduced if sick people stayed home.

I mentioned previously that I think I probably got sick with the Covid-19 back in November (traceable to international travelers, including from China). All I knew at the time was that I had a bad flu, so I didn't go anywhere and I wouldn't let anyone into my place. It's just common sense.

If a person sick with cold or flu has a pressing to go out, masks help a bit—and make sense in a pandemic—but if you're sick, ffs stay home to whatever extent possible.

SO had the worst flu ever in November-December. Fever and major fatigue for weeks, and she was treated with antibiotics for lingering bronchial trouble at the end. We think she may have had COVID.... she was working at a hotel when she got sick. I didn't get sick or have symptoms at all, and there was no flu 'wave' in town at the time.

.

Crappy experience, N Ash. Hopefully your SO is markedly better now. A few folks I know, including me, had nasty bugs late last year/early this year -- prior to lockdowns.

Elvis:
If a person sick with cold or flu has a pressing to go out, masks help a bit—and make sense in a pandemic—but if you're sick, ffs stay home to whatever extent possible.

Sound advice, and agreed.

I'd like to believe that as this continues to level off, current restrictions will be eased and we can work our way back to some semblance of our prior state of (ab)normal.

What troubles me is our current crisis may instead be used as one of several 'vehicles' -- along with deep economic uncertainty/depression and civil unrest in key cities -- for advancement of broader agendas (similar to what we witnessed after 911, using terror to pass increasingly draconian measures, etc), and the majority will go along with it under the guise of safety/security.

History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes, as Twain reputedly observed.

Plandemic2 here:

https://altcensored.com/watch?v=SUxj0Alpes9

And a sadly underwatched doc, very sober and serious journalism, about how the World Health Org has utterly sold out to the big vaccine makers and their seemingly unlimited supply of $$$$$$

And how the WHO, with the enthusiastically complicit media, and many world governments, tried to pull off this EXACT SAME SCAM in 2009 with the “swine flu” scare/con. Because $$$$$$$. Lots and lots of $$$$$$

https://www.bitchute.com/video/kEn3iVabHtao/

Belligerent Savant » Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:32 pm wrote:

Belligerent Savant » Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:44 pm wrote:.

I tend to look at the data/information available, and then attempt to filter through political leanings. Increasingly, trusting anyone at face-value is a risky proposition. Scientists aren't immune from compromise, but on average they can be trusted more than others (depending, of course, on their source of funding).

But there's an increasingly pervasive mindset out there fast becoming a pet-peeve of mine: the "because science" people. As in: "I subscribe fully to Dr. Fauci's guidance... because 'science'. "

Hubris. Arrogance. Worship of SCIENCE as the new Religion.

Yes, science is important. But "science" is not infallible. Science, in fact, requires scrutiny, and repeat testing, and most importantly, revisions to a given hypothesis when new findings dictate. (See: The Scientific Method).


The "...because science" card is an excuse to avoid critical thinking, or perhaps more importantly, to avoid challenging the status quo.

The Klaus Schwabs of the world, through their techno-fascist totalitarian takeover of the planet, want to eradicate actual religion and replace it with the worship of “science”.