Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

29-09-2019 22:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: The dollar, technology, and productivity (economic definition) are all intertwined. ... along with fiscal policy, pork bellies, tarriffs, investment, and many other things. keepit wrote: Then there's always event risk ... Not always. There is always risk, just not necessarily every type of risk. keepit wrote: ... and the world's economy isn't run by breakfast table economics. Clear you mind of breakfast table economics and you'll understand the world better. I have no idea what "breakfast table economics" is. Did you make that up? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 22:43
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I didn't make it up. It's what all of us regular people do manage our bank accounts. We don't have our own printing presses and the world won't loan us whatever amount of money we want. Those 2 abilities make incredible things possible. Edited on 29-09-2019 22:44
30-09-2019 01:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: The dollar, technology, and productivity (economic definition) are all intertwined. ... along with fiscal policy, pork bellies, tarriffs, investment, and many other things. keepit wrote: Then there's always event risk ... Not always. There is always risk, just not necessarily every type of risk. keepit wrote: ... and the world's economy isn't run by breakfast table economics. Clear you mind of breakfast table economics and you'll understand the world better. I have no idea what "breakfast table economics" is. Did you make that up? . I figured it was fantasy-economics, full of hopes and dreams. After you leave the table, you go back to regular economics, and your household budget, and how best to manage what you, to achieve your goals.
30-09-2019 01:57
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	"breakfast table economics". It's just trying to figure out how to pay the bills as a private citizen or family or business. It's nothing like government (fed) economics so we shouldn't try to talk like gov economics is the same thing. It's not.
30-09-2019 02:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: "breakfast table economics". It's just trying to figure out how to pay the bills as a private citizen or family or business. It's nothing like government (fed) economics so we shouldn't try to talk like gov economics is the same thing. It's not. In my family I just taught my kids basic accounting, i.e. debits, credits, Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth, etc ... and to apply that to basic economics, i.e. supply-demand, ... and to keep it simple. It makes so much easy to understand. We've never worried about having to pay the bills. I preferred instead to have my kids give me a "business case" for things they want ... which really means finding the price from a couple of vendors, checking the user ratings and comparing specs ... nothing complicated but they need to know what they are asking for, as opposed to just saying "Daddy, I want one of those!" They know I'm going to ask about it and if they can't answer my questions then I say "We can't possibly buy it until we know." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

30-09-2019 03:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	It is easy to say that your formula is what the govt should have been using all these years but what would have happened to the economy if the us had been like that? There would have been 22 trillion less dollars of spending and each of those 22 trillion would have been spent several times adding up to maybe 100 trillion dollars of spending (and jobs) that would not have happened. And that 22 trillion (maybe 100 trillion) has been in the last few years. Where would the economy be without that? And don't forget, the gov has collected a lot of taxes on those 100 trillion dollars of income. Where would the deficit have been? Even with those many trillions of dollars of spending we can barely avoid deflation. With a bunch of deflation there would be countless bankruptcies etc. Much financial chaos. It is a quagmire. Edited on 30-09-2019 03:47
30-09-2019 03:48
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Do you think you understand govt accounting any better than quantum theory?
30-09-2019 09:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: "breakfast table economics". It's just trying to figure out how to pay the bills as a private citizen or family or business. It's nothing like government (fed) economics so we shouldn't try to talk like gov economics is the same thing. It's not. There's only one difference. The fed can print a piece of paper and try to tell you it has a representation of value. What value it has is dependent on the people willing to accept it as money. If the dollar keeps falling, yes...it could collapse. In just this last year so far, gold went up from $1300 to $1467. Against gold, the value of the dollar is falling. Platinum, rhodium, all are up. Real property prices have increased too in just the last few years. The dollar certainly hasn't collapsed yet, but the government can't just keep printing it and ignoring their debt. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2019 10:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: It is easy to say that your formula is what the govt should have been using all these years but what would have happened to the economy if the us had been like that? There would have been 22 trillion less dollars of spending and each of those 22 trillion would have been spent several times adding up to maybe 100 trillion dollars of spending (and jobs) that would not have happened. And that 22 trillion (maybe 100 trillion) has been in the last few years. Where would the economy be without that? And don't forget, the gov has collected a lot of taxes on those 100 trillion dollars of income. Where would the deficit have been? Even with those many trillions of dollars of spending we can barely avoid deflation. With a bunch of deflation there would be countless bankruptcies etc. Much financial chaos. It is a quagmire. Deflation caused by the creation of wealth is a good thing, not a thing to be avoided. The price of computers has deflated quite a bit. That makes it possible for practically anyone to buy a computer. This has been a direct result of innovation and wealth creation in the computer market. Aluminum was once worth more than gold. Now, it's considered a base metal...common. Why the incredible deflation in the price of aluminum? The Bayer process, making it much cheaper to smelt aluminum metal. Now we build aircraft, car engine blocks, pistons, window frames, and food wrapping out of the stuff. Anyone can buy aluminum now. Deflation means the dollar is more valuable. That's a good thing. It does not cause bankruptcies in and of itself, though it does make loans harder to pay off with the more powerful dollar (That's why the government HATES overall deflation! They would rather service their debts with empty cash (inflation). Deflation simply means cash is worth more against a commodity or commodities. The commodities are cheaper. It is better to sell the commodities and get cash. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-09-2019 10:12
30-09-2019 19:23
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	keepit wrote: "breakfast table economics". It's just trying to figure out how to pay the bills as a private citizen or family or business. It's nothing like government (fed) economics so we shouldn't try to talk like gov economics is the same thing. It's not. Except it really is, in its essentials. Read on. keepit wrote: We don't have our own printing presses and the world won't loan us whatever amount of money we want. Those 2 abilities make incredible things possible. Governments have higher "credit limits" than households do, and limits for the US are determined by two things: the debt ceiling Congress authorizes, currently suspended and maybe on its way out altogether, and the amount of money creditors (those who buy Treasury bonds) are willing to lend. Printing more money, that is, devaluing the currency, is possible but most countries that do it end up with disasters (Mexico, Argentina in 1980s). For nations the variable accorded significance is the ratio of public debt to GDP. In the US, this is about 1.1, highest been since 1946. Greece sparked two major Euro bailout crises with its out-of-control spending and low productivity much to Angela Merkel's chagrin. (She finally put her foot down, with harsher terms for the second bailout, and if there's a Round Three, the European Central Bank could force Greece to leave the Euro.) I doubt we can enact Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, government-paid college tuition and a Volt for every garage and charge it all to Uncle Sam's credit card. If we want those measures in toto, federal taxes will have to more than double to support an $8 or $9 trillion annual budget. Deficit spending should be reserved for hard economic times, to preserve our credit rating and options. We're basically pledging our future GDP growth to repayments and, at the pace it's going now, setting up a default that will make us a second-tier nation like Brazil. keepit wrote: each of those 22 trillion would have been spent several times adding up to maybe 100 trillion dollars of spending (and jobs) that would not have happened... Velocity of money computations are done because economies do grind to a halt if everyone stuffs their funds in their mattresses (which happens when confidence in the future lapses). Yet look at what transpires in the physical goods side of economy in such scenarios. People don't buy, businesses can't sell so they close, meaning people don't work, either. Basically the picture you see in the Central African Republic. Priming the pump offers diminishing returns, however. The first few dollars sunk may get spent 5 times, but the next few, only 3 times and eventually people just stuff the new money in their mattresses again. There has to be production backing up the money for velocity pumping to work. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 30-09-2019 19:43
30-09-2019 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: keepit wrote: "breakfast table economics". It's just trying to figure out how to pay the bills as a private citizen or family or business. It's nothing like government (fed) economics so we shouldn't try to talk like gov economics is the same thing. It's not. Except it really is, in its essentials. Read on. No, it isn't. Read on. keepit wrote: We don't have our own printing presses and the world won't loan us whatever amount of money we want. Those 2 abilities make incredible things possible. Governments have higher "credit limits" than households do, The federal government has no limit (other than a practical one, the debt crash). VernerHornung wrote: and limits for the US are determined by two things: the debt ceiling Congress authorizes, There is no 'debt ceiling'. There never was. Fake 'ceilings' like this are purely a creation of Congress to make it look like there is some kind of limit. There isn't. VernerHornung wrote: currently suspended and maybe on its way out altogether, Never existed except as a buzzword. VernerHornung wrote: and the amount of money creditors (those who buy Treasury bonds) are willing to lend. Bingo. The fewer willing to buy, the higher the interest rate offered must be. That interest rate is also part of the debt. VernerHornung wrote: Printing more money, that is, devaluing the currency, is possible but most countries that do it end up with disasters (Mexico, Argentina in 1980s). The U.S. is no exception. VernerHornung wrote: For nations the variable accorded significance is the ratio of public debt to GDP. In the US, this is about 1.1, highest it's ever been. That's also known as 110% (it's actually 105.2%). This means our debt is GREATER than our GDP. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2019 19:54
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique.
30-09-2019 20:14
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: There is no 'debt ceiling'. There never was. Fake 'ceilings' like this are purely a creation of Congress to make it look like there is some kind of limit. There isn't... You're right about that. We've seen little restraint for many years, with the debt ceiling taking on the function of tool to use in "government shutdown showdowns." Into the Night wrote: This means our debt is GREATER than our GDP.... And that's a trouble sign. Debt crises in Europe involved its exceeding GDP, in Greece's case now approaching twice GDP with an 18% unemployment rate. tmiddles wrote: situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique Main reason failure conditions don't exist here is the US is a large, highly productive country with a tradition of responsible fiscal and monetary policy. But it's *not* exempt from limitations that affect other lands. Restraint on spending began to erode around 1976 when we had our first "government shutdown" and the freewheeling's trended steadily worse since then. I'd like to see the US keep its unique position in global finance & trade. While I'm not categorically opposed to federal benefits for Americans, I think we need to put expansions of these on hold and learn how to get the costs of programs under control first. Medicare & Medicaid as they exist at $1.3 trillion a year today account for 37% of all US health spending, which means our system is about 2/5 socialized already. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
30-09-2019 20:39
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Complaining about medicare and medicaid seems kind of silly. They're good programs. No matter whether it's govt run or not, the healthcare workers are going to get paid. The question is, what is the most efficient way of doing it.
30-09-2019 21:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. You should pay attention to the parts that are directly relevant to the US economy. keepit wrote:Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique. I agree. In what ways do you believe the US is unique? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

30-09-2019 22:07
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	IBDM, Basically "King Dollar". Also, the size of the us economy. These countries that get mentioned here are relatively small with small economies that don't generate the confidence in their currencies that the dollar does. There fore not nearly the borrowing capacity, nor the purchasing power. There are many differences and they are profound.
30-09-2019 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique. In terms of currency and what happens when too much is printed (as you are suggesting we do), the U.S. is not unique. The same thing would happen to us as any other nation that printed too much money. Remember, it is YOU that brought the hypothetical in the first place! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-09-2019 22:35
30-09-2019 22:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: Complaining about medicare and medicaid seems kind of silly. They're good programs. No matter whether it's govt run or not, Both programs are government run. They collect far more in forced taxes than any benefits paid out. Failing to join this pyramid scheme at 65 results in fines. keepit wrote: the healthcare workers are going to get paid. No, they don't. Hospitals collect maybe 20% of what they bill, at best. keepit wrote: The question is, what is the most efficient way of doing it. Fascism and socialism ain't it. Price controls ain't it. Private insurance carriers and Friendly Society programs seem to work pretty well. They have for a very long time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2019 22:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: IBDM, Basically "King Dollar". Also, the size of the us economy. These countries that get mentioned here are relatively small with small economies that don't generate the confidence in their currencies that the dollar does. Even tiny nations like Luxembourg have confidence in their currency. Size makes no difference keepit wrote: There fore not nearly the borrowing capacity, Borrowing does not generate confidence in a currency. It tends to reduce it. keepit wrote: nor the purchasing power. Irrelevant. The unit of account is simply set by the local markets. keepit wrote: There are many differences and they are profound. None. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2019 23:03
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique. In terms of currency and what happens when too much is printed (as you are suggesting we do), the U.S. is not unique. The same thing would happen to us as any other nation that printed too much money. Remember, it is YOU that brought the hypothetical in the first place! Printing more and more. That's inflation.
01-10-2019 00:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Tai, Your answer is a little vague. Could you be more precise so i could understand you a little better? thanks.
01-10-2019 01:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique. In terms of currency and what happens when too much is printed (as you are suggesting we do), the U.S. is not unique. The same thing would happen to us as any other nation that printed too much money. Remember, it is YOU that brought the hypothetical in the first place! Printing more and more. That's inflation. That's not inflation. That's the government spurring economic growth. I don't agree with it because I believe that private investors and businesses should be doing this. At the same time no one knows what goes on in China which sets the yuan at a favorable rate to itself. Market domination is global domination in a sense. like someone dealing crack in a way. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/09/chinas-peg-to-the-dollar.asp Edited on 01-10-2019 01:18
01-10-2019 03:20
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique Apologies again. The quote is from keepit, not tmiddles. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
01-10-2019 06:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: Tai, Your answer is a little vague. Could you be more precise so i could understand you a little better? thanks. It's perfectly clear. He said printing money is inflation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2019 06:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: One thing i noticed in the last few posts is that the discussion is about situations that don't exist with the us economy and us currency. Decisions and pathways should be taken based on the the reality that exists. The us is unique. In terms of currency and what happens when too much is printed (as you are suggesting we do), the U.S. is not unique. The same thing would happen to us as any other nation that printed too much money. Remember, it is YOU that brought the hypothetical in the first place! Printing more and more. That's inflation. That's not inflation. That's the government spurring economic growth. Printing money isn't economic growth. It doesn't spur it either. James___ wrote: I don't agree with it because I believe that private investors and businesses should be doing this. That's what they are doing now. James___ wrote: At the same time no one knows what goes on in China which sets the yuan at a favorable rate to itself. No, the Yuan is locked to the dollar. A decision made by the Chinese government. They have also been buying U.S. government bonds (most central banks do). They have also been buying quite bit of gold. James___ wrote: Market domination is global domination in a sense. Only in a global market, and only in that market. James___ wrote: like someone dealing crack in a way. A crack dealer understands capitalism. He understands price discovery. He understands that you can't kill free markets, even if you drive them underground. They are immortal. If people want a product or service, they will pay for it at the price they agree to pay for it. No more, no less. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty:

Threads	Replies	Last post
"Sustainability" is Utter Nonsense	1	31-03-2022 18:03
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.	6	13-02-2019 23:05
Climate Change Dishonesty	52	03-04-2017 17:51
What is this Church of Marxism?	172	16-10-2016 19:41