Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Day Man]

50 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

$175 Billion…sorry, there you go.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

 

this graphic breaks it out better:

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congressionally-approved-ukraine-aid-totals-175-billion

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

All money is a liability on bank balance sheets (that means it debt). The source of money is bank loans, created to fund spending where current bank deposits are less than the planned spending amount (a deficit). If you apply your rule to subtract deficits (the loan) from spending (also the loan) the the result will always be zero.

Yes, and zero (in the government spending component) would dramatically lower the GDP. We agree. 

And it's sad I need to add this, but not all govt spending is a loan. Taxation is the primary source. That's why government spending is in the GDP in the first place, because it is meant to capture the spending by the populace that was precluded through government taxation. If there was no deficit spending, this would actually be a fair measure, as taxation responds reliably to economic growth and contraction. 

 

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

I didn't bring up growth--you did.

Sure you did:

"Growth is a measure of spending, if the gov spends, growth increases by definition."

 

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

When was I advocating for housing statistic X or Y? 

You weren't. Just pointing out another silly metric used to portray the economic reality in a politically favorable light. 

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Treasury is not anxious about rates. Where are you getting this?

The secretary of Treasury. Good enough?

“We’ve raised the interest-rate forecast,” Yellen noted Friday in an interview with Bloomberg News. “That does make a difference. It makes it somewhat more challenging to keep deficits and interest expense under control.”

https://fortune.com/2024/05/25/deficit-debt-warning-janet-yellen-higher-rate-outlook-interest-expenses/

 

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

What does Japan eats shit even mean? A .25% change to the floor rate in Japan hasn't led anyone to eat feces, lol. If folks levered in Yen to buy USG debt and that trade unwound that's not eating shit, it's pretty normal for one sided bets to unwind. 

https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/boj-wont-raise-rates-when-markets-are-unstable-deputy-gov-says-6f4bf962

Right, they just had to backtrack on future hikes after a whopping .25% hike. That screams stability. The Yen devaluing by 1/3 in a few years is perfect normal too. 

 

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Honestly not sure if you have any idea what you're talking about. Growth is a measure of spending, that's it. No one is counting actual output, because then someone would be recording all the unpaid labour.

No, what's happening here is the normal people are talking about the actual economy using unambiguous terminology. You are attempting to convert the conversation into something more akin to academic economics. But the field of macroeconomics has been dead for decades. There's a reason investors don't lean on guys like Krugman to make money. Modern economics stopped being viable when it became a political tool to justify the utopian desires of elected fools. And no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, we just get more reasons why actually its very very complicated and you definitely can't use common sense. You've once again demonstrated this quite effectively. 

Edited August 14, 2024 by Lord Ratner

[HossHarris]

Will you morons just get a room already … for fucks sake 

[DirkDiggler]

Almost as if there’s already a room (or thread) for this stuff.

 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HossHarris said:

Will you morons just get a room already … for fucks sake 

Yeah dude, it's called base ops. Welcome to the orgy, fucko 🤣😂.

Edited August 14, 2024 by Lord Ratner

[WTFAF]

The anti-Ukraine movement is Russian propaganda that MAGA has stupidly bitten off on because it’s a counter to a wildly successful venture by the current administration. For a pittance (<1% of our normal defense spending), we’ve enabled the Russian military to destroy itself by proving the overwhelming superiority of American weapons (very old ones, at that) in the hands of motivated locals. The effort has helped deter those who use FSU-derived weaponry while upending the idea that a modern Army can just steamroll a determined (and well-equipped) local populace at will. Taiwan would be wise to use the same posture to deter China.
Putin is a shithead sacrificing Russian youth to overcompensate for his insecurities. He is a tiny-dicked that deserves a horrible death, which he will eventually get because the oligarchs would rather make money than see it dissolve in a war.

Goddamn this is well said. I'm glad there aren't just retard Russian shills in here.

[DirkDiggler]

Ukraine and the Problem of Restoring Maneuver in Contemporary War | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

Long but quite interesting read.

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Your argument is the same as those saying someone was pro-Saddam Hussein if that person was against the invasion of Iraq.

That would only be true if the invasion of Iraq was relatively cheap and wildly successful at improving American security, which it was neither.

[Random Guy]

9 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Will you morons just get a room already … for s sake 

These guys think that they should stop activity in Ukraine because the US 'cannot afford' to purchase things denominated in dollars. 

The US gov can buy anything in dollars, whether the choose to borrow first, and give welfare to the already wealthy, or print it directly on the Fed ledger, nothing limits the US govs ability to make purchases in dollar terms except people willing to make things for dollars. That's it.

If you want to argue against Ukraine aid, do it in real terms. Your arguments about debt and deficits are nonsense.

[Random Guy]

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yes, and zero (in the government spending component) would dramatically lower the GDP. We agree. 

Oh FFS lol. If you don't understand that all money is debt just stop posting and go read a book.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And it's sad I need to add this, but not all govt spending is a loan. Taxation is the primary source.

Taxation cannot be a source for spending, how does one tax something which doesn't exist yet? If you secede from the US to start your own state and create your own new currency, you have to distribute it first before you can tax it.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's why government spending is in the GDP in the first place, because it is meant to capture the spending by the populace that was precluded through government taxation.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If there was no deficit spending, this would actually be a fair measure, as taxation responds reliably to economic growth and contraction. 

All money balances created are 'deficit spending'. Just do the math dude.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sure you did:

"Growth is a measure of spending, if the gov spends, growth increases by definition."

I think Helo dude brought up growth. "You" you be "You guys". This place is like a field of mushrooms, everyone is the same. You = y'all. 🤣

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The secretary of Treasury. Good enough?

I see boiler plate non-speak there, IMO.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Right, they just had to backtrack on future hikes after a whopping .25% hike. That screams stability. The Yen devaluing by 1/3 in a few years is perfect normal too. 

Yen floats, they can do whatever they want. Depreciation only improves foreign consumption of their output. 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, what's happening here is the normal people are talking about the actual economy using unambiguous terminology.

Ah. 

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 Modern economics stopped being viable when it became a political tool to justify the utopian desires of elected fools. And no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, we just get more reasons why actually its very very complicated and you definitely can't use common sense. You've once again demonstrated this quite effectively. 

Economics is a language, used by the ruling class to justify political decisions. It's like modern Latin. That's it. Everything is everywhere, always, just politics. And everyone on this forum is literally too stupid to get that. This is the problem. Fix that and you fix everything else. Go kill the priests or learn the language. Those are your options.

[Random Guy]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

$175 Billion…sorry, there you go.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

 

That counts spending on US purchases for the US as Ukraine aid. IOW, it doubles counts: if I give you an apple, and I buy a pear to replenish my fruit stand, I haven't supported you with 2 pieces of fruit. The footnotes in the CFR piece admit this double counting, just FYI.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, Random Guy said:

Oh FFS lol. If you don't understand that all money is debt just stop posting and go read a book.

 

Taxation cannot be a source for spending, how does one tax something which doesn't exist yet? If you secede from the US to start your own state and create your own new currency, you have to distribute it first before you can tax it.

 

 

All money balances created are 'deficit spending'. Just do the math dude.

 

I think Helo dude brought up growth. "You" you be "You guys". This place is like a field of mushrooms, everyone is the same. You = y'all. 🤣

I see boiler plate non-speak there, IMO.

 

Yen floats, they can do whatever they want. Depreciation only improves foreign consumption of their output. 

 

Ah. 

Economics is a language, used by the ruling class to justify political decisions. It's like modern Latin. That's it. Everything is everywhere, always, just politics. And everyone on this forum is literally too stupid to get that. This is the problem. Fix that and you fix everything else. Go kill the priests or learn the language. Those are your options. 

This guy is almost as good as General Chang was in his glory days 🤣😂

[HossHarris]

7 hours ago, Random Guy said:

That counts spending on US purchases for the US as Ukraine aid. IOW, it doubles counts: if I give you an apple, and I buy a pear to replenish my fruit stand, I haven't supported you with 2 pieces of fruit. The footnotes in the CFR piece admit this double counting, just FYI.

Unless you buy the pear from me as well

[tac airlifter]

8 hours ago, Random Guy said:

Economics is a language, used by the ruling class to justify political decisions. It's like modern Latin. That's it. Everything is everywhere, always, just politics. And everyone on this forum is literally too stupid to get that. This is the problem. Fix that and you fix everything else. Go kill the priests or learn the language. Those are your options.

You have an intriguing perspective but your hubris and delivery is off-putting.  Is every conversation in your life a lecture or do you dialogue at all?  If “everything is always politics” then we can disregard all your points as political spin meant to manipulate rather than educate. 

[Lord Ratner]

42 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

You have an intriguing perspective but your hubris and delivery is off-putting.  Is every conversation in your life a lecture or do you dialogue at all?  If “everything is always politics” then we can disregard all your points as political spin meant to manipulate rather than educate. 

It's academics taken to its illogical extreme. You see the same thing in climate science. Absolute certainty in theories that have been mistaken for facts, and every time the theory is unable to predict the future, reasons are found after the fact to justify the theory's failure. When you question the theory, you are deemed too stupid. 

The Soviets called them useful idiots. Unfortunately they predominate in academia and politics. They proliferate during the good times, and skitter away like roaches when things get ugly.

 

But I think our resident economist is more like General Chang than he is like Paul Krugman. It was a good run.

[Boomer6]

Reminds me of the scientist Boyd referenced that declared the ideal missile would need to be shaped like a boomerang...

[Random Guy]

35 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's academics taken to its illogical extreme. You see the same thing in climate science. Absolute certainty in theories that have been mistaken for facts, and every time the theory is unable to predict the future, reasons are found after the fact to justify the theory's failure. When you question the theory, you are deemed too stupid. 

The Soviets called them useful idiots. Unfortunately they predominate in academia and politics. They proliferate during the good times, and skitter away like roaches when things get ugly.

 

But I think our resident economist is more like General Chang than he is like Paul Krugman. It was a good run.

Lol what? At what point were we discussing a theory? Lay it out for us.

[Random Guy]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

You have an intriguing perspective but your hubris and delivery is off-putting.  Is every conversation in your life a lecture or do you dialogue at all?  If “everything is always politics” then we can disregard all your points as political spin meant to manipulate rather than educate. 

What did you want to dialogue?

[raimius]

7 hours ago, Random Guy said:

What did you want to dialogue?

This is a forum... dialogue is the point.

[SurelySerious]

This is a forum... dialogue is the point.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

The AI bot probably wants a substack where it just publishes its copy and paste bs while it doesn’t have to deal with all of us stupid people, but seems to have gotten sidetracked.

[ViperMan]

The only point of taxation is to generate demand for dollars.

Demand for dollars forces you to work for dollars so you can pay the government in their currency. You know, render unto Caesar and all...

MMT makes the case that you can print an unlimited amount of currency and pay all of your debts in it. That's a sophistic truism, and is the core of @Random Guy's world view.

It's alien to the rest of us because the rest of us understand that we don't live in a vacuum. Once other people stop accepting FRNs, or start denominating transactions in something else, the game is up. That's it. It's that simple.

You are a chicken on a tax farm. For the time being.

Edited August 16, 2024 by ViperMan

[Random Guy]

11 hours ago, raimius said:

This is a forum... dialogue is the point.

Yeah, what did you want to talk about.

[Random Guy]

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

It's alien to the rest of us because the rest of us understand that we don't live in a vacuum. Once other people stop accepting FRNs, or start denominating transactions in something else, the game is up. 

Everyone understands. You understand that. I understand it. 

Why is there any discussion of "can we afford it?" or "how do we pay for it"?

No one is interested in the change to acceptance of USD, instead people here are b*tching about nominal quantities of USD created by the gov. People don't even bother to think about the nominal quantities of private debt for financial transactions. 

What's up with this? None of you are in a vacuum, right? 

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Random Guy said:

Everyone understands. You understand that. I understand it. 

Why is there any discussion of "can we afford it?" or "how do we pay for it"?

No one is interested in the change to acceptance of USD, instead people here are b*tching about nominal quantities of USD created by the gov. People don't even bother to think about the nominal quantities of private debt for financial transactions. 

What's up with this? None of you are in a vacuum, right? 

That's because you (not really you, but your troll persona) are quite apparently dumb enough to think that anyone here means "we won't be able to print enough currency to cover these bills" when they say "we can't afford it."

 

Absolutely nobody is referring to the Federal Reserve's ability to create dollars. No one. Not one single person here. Because humans don't speak semantically in raw literal declaratives. 

 

What they are saying is that the process of printing money (issuing new debt, creating it out of thin air, adding it to the ledger, however you insist on portraying it) to cover these expenses will, as it always has, destabilize the currency in a way that will at a minimum negatively impact the purchasing power of the population, or at the extremes, destabilize the entire society such that the status quo falls apart.

 

"We can't afford this" is no more a statement of monetary capacity than it is when a military/airline parent says "I can't afford to miss another soccer game or dance recital."

 

Normal people don't have to explain such simple context to the participants of a conversation, but apparently we would have to dumb it down for you keep up. Fortunately, your participation is neither necessary or beneficial to the conversation, so I doubt we will spend too much time trying. I'm taking a shit right now, so I have a little free time to indulge. 

[disgruntledemployee]

If money is what you want....  let's just take it from the enemy.  Make a top 10 oligarch list and seize it all; land, boats, biz, drug and prostitution rings... all of it.  Then tell the olis that their money will now fund the Ukrainian Defense Fund.  Then name the next 10 olis.  Two things might happen.  1, Zelenski gets guns, 2, Putin gets the boot.  And MAGA can stop whining about defeating Russia.