JohnRgt

Another Greenspan nugget

21 posts in this topic

Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

You don't even have to known anything about economics to understand how ridiculous that idea is. All that you would need is common sense. That is the kind of answer a 5 year old gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

You don't even have to known anything about economics to understand how ridiculous that idea is. All that you would need is common sense. That is the kind of answer a 5 year old gives.

The problem is that they do know something about economics, only it's Keynesian economics or some other similar rationalism. Rationalists place more importance on formal deductions from questionable premises than requiring that their theories be cohesive with reality. Hence, it's no surprise that you can find more economic wisdom from someone named "felonious munk" (link below) who looks like a rapper and curses like a sailor than in the whole economics department of Yale or Harvard.

(NSFW! strong language)

Balance the @#$#@#$ing budget!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can this be the same person as the one who contributed essays to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can this be the same person as the one who contributed essays to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?
People change. As Betsy described in one of her threads, a significant number of Objectivists "drop-out" of Objectivism for one reason or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

That's like the old joke where the wife says to her husband, "How can we be broke? I still have plenty of checks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

That's like the old joke where the wife says to her husband, "How can we be broke? I still have plenty of checks."

When I was younger, I used to pay off one credit card with another, then pay off the one with the highest interest rate. This cycle lasted only so long. I wasn't too big to fail. I should have kept going till i was in debt of tens of trillions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?"

From Ms. blog Magazine:

"Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine. She writes frequently for Women's Enews."

A Feminist Economist Speaks Out: Deficits are a Grrrl's Best Friend

July 14, 2011 by Susan F. Feiner

Listen up, sisters! Deficit hawks will eat your lunch, your kids, your jobs and your retirement.

An economy without a deficit is like a fish without water. Reducing the U.S. federal deficit will make unemployment and poverty worse -- way worse. And that means that women's economic condition will deteriorate even further.

Today's 'deficit hawks (and way too many Democrats are flying with this flock), fundamentally and deliberately misinform by insisting on a fictional symmetry between private sector (household and corporate) bookkeeping and the U.S. federal debt.

Squawk squawk. "Families have to live within their means, they can't 'borrow forever."

"Businesses that run in the red risk bankruptcy." Caw caw.

But the analogy -- the budget of the U.S. government is like the budgets of households and firms -- is false.

The mantra that -- the budget must be balanced -- is a throwback to the 19th century, originating from the same outmoded economic thinking that justifies women's lower wages.

Here are the facts: U.S. government borrowing creates interest-bearing assets. The bonds are bought with dollars, the interest on them is paid in dollars and, at maturity, the bonds are paid off in dollars. Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?

Full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?"

From Ms. blog Magazine:

"Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine. She writes frequently for Women's Enews."

A Feminist Economist Speaks Out: Deficits are a Grrrl's Best Friend

July 14, 2011 by Susan F. Feiner

Listen up, sisters! Deficit hawks will eat your lunch, your kids, your jobs and your retirement.

An economy without a deficit is like a fish without water. Reducing the U.S. federal deficit will make unemployment and poverty worse -- way worse. And that means that women's economic condition will deteriorate even further.

Today's 'deficit hawks (and way too many Democrats are flying with this flock), fundamentally and deliberately misinform by insisting on a fictional symmetry between private sector (household and corporate) bookkeeping and the U.S. federal debt.

Squawk squawk. "Families have to live within their means, they can't 'borrow forever."

"Businesses that run in the red risk bankruptcy." Caw caw.

But the analogy -- the budget of the U.S. government is like the budgets of households and firms -- is false.

The mantra that -- the budget must be balanced -- is a throwback to the 19th century, originating from the same outmoded economic thinking that justifies women's lower wages.

Here are the facts: U.S. government borrowing creates interest-bearing assets. The bonds are bought with dollars, the interest on them is paid in dollars and, at maturity, the bonds are paid off in dollars. Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?

Full article

On a positive note, most of the commenters are ripping the fallacious arguments of this stupid shrew to pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can this be the same person as the one who contributed essays to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?
People change. As Betsy described in one of her threads, a significant number of Objectivists "drop-out" of Objectivism for one reason or another.

Indeed. The early Greenspan was the best Chairman the Fed could ever have had. He matched interest rates to the price of gold (as if gold was the only currency and indicator of inflation). See "I am John Galt" by Luskin.

Technically, he is correct - under certain definitions of "default", debt repaid in full is not in default (hence no agency bar S&P rating the US below AAA). The spirit of default however implies some kind of destruction of purchasing power.

Technically, Bernanke is not "printing" money and diluting. Technically, he is swapping short term and long term money (that's why it's called quantitative or qualitative easing depending on the type used). There is a subtle difference: money printing screws everybody holding cash to the benefit of the government (the "stealth tax") whereas QE redistributes the fruits of the loot to those holding non-cash assets (treasuries come to mind - yields are at record lows!). It's a form of wealth transfer from employees to owners. It is quite amusing (in a cynical, head-shaking, "told you so" manner) that this massive wealth redistribution from the productive middle classes that elected him towards the wealthy rentier classes that funded him is happening under Barack Hussein "I'm not a red, honest, but those rich really are juicy" Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?"

From Ms. blog Magazine:

"Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine. She writes frequently for Women's Enews."

A Feminist Economist Speaks Out: Deficits are a Grrrl's Best Friend

July 14, 2011 by Susan F. Feiner

Listen up, sisters! Deficit hawks will eat your lunch, your kids, your jobs and your retirement.

An economy without a deficit is like a fish without water. Reducing the U.S. federal deficit will make unemployment and poverty worse -- way worse. And that means that women's economic condition will deteriorate even further.

Today's 'deficit hawks (and way too many Democrats are flying with this flock), fundamentally and deliberately misinform by insisting on a fictional symmetry between private sector (household and corporate) bookkeeping and the U.S. federal debt.

Squawk squawk. "Families have to live within their means, they can't 'borrow forever."

"Businesses that run in the red risk bankruptcy." Caw caw.

But the analogy -- the budget of the U.S. government is like the budgets of households and firms -- is false.

The mantra that -- the budget must be balanced -- is a throwback to the 19th century, originating from the same outmoded economic thinking that justifies women's lower wages.

Here are the facts: U.S. government borrowing creates interest-bearing assets. The bonds are bought with dollars, the interest on them is paid in dollars and, at maturity, the bonds are paid off in dollars. Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?

Full article

Well, if you think about it, what she said is true, as far as it goes. Just don't think beyond the range of the moment or integrate these "facts" with what happens in other areas of the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?"...

"Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine. She writes frequently for Women's Enews."

Well, if you think about it, what she said is true, as far as it goes. Just don't think beyond the range of the moment or integrate these "facts" with what happens in other areas of the economy.

The facts she manages to not "integrate" include evasion of the fact that "sovereign issuing" of devalued money through inflation used to pay loans is a default. We have another "economist" who thinks that "sovereign government" can override the laws of economics, or use the claim that it can as a cover for dishonesty. Maybe she thinks that is taken care of by her irrefutable argument that "squawk squawk caw caw".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier this week I heard Allan Stadler Greenspan claim that the hysteria over a possible US default was luny. ~"The US would never default. All we'd have to do is print more money."

That's like the old joke where the wife says to her husband, "How can we be broke? I still have plenty of checks."

When I was younger, I used to pay off one credit card with another, then pay off the one with the highest interest rate. This cycle lasted only so long. I wasn't too big to fail. I should have kept going till i was in debt of tens of trillions of dollars.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trammel Crow, the real estate mogul, is supposed to have advised: Never borrow a small amount of money; if you can't pay they'll take anything and everything you have: you have a creditor. Borrow a huge amount of money: you have a partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?"

From Ms. blog Magazine:

"Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine. She writes frequently for Women's Enews."

A Feminist Economist Speaks Out: Deficits are a Grrrl's Best Friend

July 14, 2011 by Susan F. Feiner

Listen up, sisters! Deficit hawks will eat your lunch, your kids, your jobs and your retirement.

An economy without a deficit is like a fish without water. Reducing the U.S. federal deficit will make unemployment and poverty worse -- way worse. And that means that women's economic condition will deteriorate even further.

Today's 'deficit hawks (and way too many Democrats are flying with this flock), fundamentally and deliberately misinform by insisting on a fictional symmetry between private sector (household and corporate) bookkeeping and the U.S. federal debt.

Squawk squawk. "Families have to live within their means, they can't 'borrow forever."

"Businesses that run in the red risk bankruptcy." Caw caw.

But the analogy -- the budget of the U.S. government is like the budgets of households and firms -- is false.

The mantra that -- the budget must be balanced -- is a throwback to the 19th century, originating from the same outmoded economic thinking that justifies women's lower wages.

Here are the facts: U.S. government borrowing creates interest-bearing assets. The bonds are bought with dollars, the interest on them is paid in dollars and, at maturity, the bonds are paid off in dollars. Since the U.S. government is both sovereign in its own currency and the sole issuer of dollars, it can never run out of them. How could it?

Full article

On a positive note, most of the commenters are ripping the fallacious arguments of this stupid shrew to pieces.

And she is still 'teaching economics' at a state university and being promoted in a major Maine newspaper on what she calls "Debt Phobia":

Why baseball can never run out of home runs...

... or the U.S. government out of money (HINT: The reason is just a click away)

... We've got a $16 trillion GDP. (That's $16,000,000,000,000). But only seven percent of the transactions comprising GDP are conducted in old-fashioned money.

The other 93 percent take place when clerks -- in banks, corporations or government offices -- type on keyboards like the one I'm typing on right now.

This is modern money.

Workers don't line up at the payroll office each week to collect their Franklins, Jacksons and dimes.

Health insurers don't dispatch Brinks' trucks to settle up with hospitals and docs.

Electronic clicks pay GM's utility bills, Microsoft's programmers, and Boeing's engineers.

Spending?

Computers subtract clicks from your account.

Earning?

Computers add clicks to your account.

That's all money is: plus clicks and minus clicks.

The simple truth, despite all the serious people who want you to believe otherwise, is that the U.S. government can no more run out of dollars (clicks) than baseball can exhaust the supply of home runs.

That's because U.S. Treasury clicks call spendable funds into existence.

Click, click, click.

There's $900 billion for defense.

Click again and there's $50 billion for nutrition support.

A few more clicks and presto, K-12 and higher ed. are fully funded.

Since 2007 (the start of the Great Recession), the states that are prohibited from borrowing to cover current spending) have collectively cut over $540 billion from their budgets.

This year they'll cut another $55 billion. There's no reason why the Treasury can't or shouldn't step in with enough firepower to bring state spending back to 2008 levels.

The sky won't fall. The world won't end.

Worried about the resulting deficits?

Chill. They're just clicks too. Don't twig out....

At least for the time being, U.S. deficits have to exist ... if only to provide a safe haven for all the world's clicks.

The United States is the only entity that can legally create dollars.

We are "sovereign in our own currency."

Our government spends dollars, borrows dollars and pays interest in dollars.

That's why we can't run out of them.

This isn't true for Greece, Spain or Mexico: in the former borrowing is in euros which those governments don't control, and the latter's economy is way too small.

"Susan, you've gone off the deep end now. If we just print money (OK, just make clicks), inflation will wipe us out."

Relax.

That's not going to happen either.

For four long years we've watched the monetary authorities work to click-start the economy by pumping up bank reserves.

Loanable funds (excess reserves) have exploded but because we are in such a deep recession -- don't forget the 20 odd million who can't find full-time work -- pumping up the monetary base hasn't and won't cause prices to surge....

We can afford to provide decent retirements, life-enhancing health care, and opportunity-expanding education to all our citizens, now.

Debt-phobic austerity policies are what actually diminish future possibilities. Mighty Spendy's batting for our team. He won't strike out.

Susan Feiner is a professor of economics and of women and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine.

"Squawk, squawk" "Caw, caw" "Click, click, click, Chill and don't twig out" yes she really wrote that and yes the Portland Press Herald really printed it, prominently.

Full article

If Ayn Rand had put this into the mouth of a Bertram Scudder it would have been too unbelievable for fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably the only people who take her seriously are die-hard leftists already, so it's just preaching to the choir.

Yesterday's fringe is today's "middle". Leftists like this clown in Maine are all over the universities, the media, the state legislature and one of Maine's Congressional representatives (the other one is also a Democrat but only a 'normal' leftist). Their 'choir' is big and growing, as what is accepted as the 'middle' continuously progresses left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wealth has to be produced. It cannot be brought into being by "clicks". Leftists gall me, but feminist leftists are a particularly nasty mutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see this gal run a local grocery with this logic.

What would be so hard for her to do that? There would be a road to it, wouldn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wealth has to be produced. It cannot be brought into being by "clicks". Leftists gall me, but feminist leftists are a particularly nasty mutation.

Produced? The prevailing economics of the left in Maine (and elsewhere) is that economic prosperity is created by demand. They want to punish and loot the successful producers and redistribute the goods to encourage demand. (As Feiner puts it, "increasing the income tax, not lowering it, would improve the quality of life in Maine.") They want to turn most of Maine into a wilderness (literally) and expect to still have what they want -- by "demanding" it. Who cares if their victims the producers disappear -- they still get what they demand because there is a road in front of their tee pee and they had a "teacher" like Feiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites