Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).
You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said
Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.
Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?
It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.
You are operating under the Paradox of Thrift, a Keynesian theory that is outdated.
From the above link:
Quote:
It is vital to have a proper balance in the economy between consumption and saving/investment. Both are necessary to the foundation of wealth and prosperity. But consumer spending should not be promoted at the expense of saving and investment.
Be wary of statements such as: "Consumer spending drives the economy." "Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the economy." "Increasing saving won't help the economy."
Remember that saving is an important ingredient of economic performance over the long run. Tax cuts that encourage saving and investment more than consumption are not necessarily bad. Avoid statements such as: "Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if they are saved." Or: "Tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective because the wealthy spend less than the middle class."
OMG our Bernie Sanders proponent really IS a Reaganomics supply sider. What a fraud.
You are making way too much out of the tax cuts portion of the above statement to try and make an ad hominem attack on me because you realized that you are out of your depth. You could, of course, try to discuss the subject intelligently, but you have chosen to go a route that is more within your capacity.
Since you seem to prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message, perhaps we'll go to a more basic explanation:
Note: The econ help you're getting here is free, to make up for the education you presumably paid for but didn't absorb.
Why Savings equals Investment:
Using the GDP equation to explain saving and investing:
Begin with our GDP equation for an open economy:
Y = C + I + G + NX
To simplify this idea, let's look at a closed economy, where there are no imports or exports. This means that NX will equal 0 and will therefore drop out. This leaves us with:
Y = C + I + G
Therefore I = Y - C - G
This equation tells us that investment in the economy will be equal to the total amount produced (GDP = Y) minus consumption spending, and government purchases.
Now we can create a savings for the economy equation. The total amount of private savings (savings by the private sector meaning households and firms) is going to be equal to the amount produced (Y) plus transfer payments from the government (we will call this TR, and include things like unemployment, social security and welfare) minus the amount spend on consumption (C) and taxes (T).
S(private) = Y + TR - C - T
Hopefully this makes sense, the amount you save (S) will be whatever is left over (starting from initial money of Y and TR) after you account for spending and expenses (C and T).
Now we need to consider public savings, which is how much the government saves. Public spending depends on the amount of taxes they receive (T), the amount they spend in purchases (G), and the amount they transfer to the population (TR). The public savings function will be:
S(public) = T - G - TR
We can find the total amount of savings (S) occurring in the economy by adding public savings to private savings.
S(public) + S(private) = S
T - G -TR + Y + TR - C - T =S
Note that T and TR cancel out. This leaves us with savings (S) being equal to GDP (Y), government purchases (G), and consumption (C):
S = Y - G - C
If we plug in the GDP equation for Y, or substitute C + I + G for Y we get:
S = C + I + G - G - C
Note that C and G will cancel out leaving us with:
Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).
You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said
Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.
Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?
It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.
You are operating under the Paradox of Thrift, a Keynesian theory that is outdated.
From the above link:
Quote:
It is vital to have a proper balance in the economy between consumption and saving/investment. Both are necessary to the foundation of wealth and prosperity. But consumer spending should not be promoted at the expense of saving and investment.
Be wary of statements such as: "Consumer spending drives the economy." "Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the economy." "Increasing saving won't help the economy."
Remember that saving is an important ingredient of economic performance over the long run. Tax cuts that encourage saving and investment more than consumption are not necessarily bad. Avoid statements such as: "Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if they are saved." Or: "Tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective because the wealthy spend less than the middle class."
OMG our Bernie Sanders proponent really IS a Reaganomics supply sider. What a fraud.
You are making way too much out of the tax cuts portion of the above statement to try and make an ad hominem attack on me because you realized that you are out of your depth. You could, of course, try to discuss the subject intelligently, but you have chosen to go a route that is more within your capacity.
Since you seem to prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message, perhaps we'll go to a more basic explanation:
Note: The econ help you're getting here is free, to make up for the education you presumably paid for but didn't absorb.
Why Savings equals Investment:
Using the GDP equation to explain saving and investing:
Begin with our GDP equation for an open economy:
Y = C + I + G + NX
To simplify this idea, let's look at a closed economy, where there are no imports or exports. This means that NX will equal 0 and will therefore drop out. This leaves us with:
Y = C + I + G
Therefore I = Y - C - G
This equation tells us that investment in the economy will be equal to the total amount produced (GDP = Y) minus consumption spending, and government purchases.
Now we can create a savings for the economy equation. The total amount of private savings (savings by the private sector meaning households and firms) is going to be equal to the amount produced (Y) plus transfer payments from the government (we will call this TR, and include things like unemployment, social security and welfare) minus the amount spend on consumption (C) and taxes (T).
S(private) = Y + TR - C - T
Hopefully this makes sense, the amount you save (S) will be whatever is left over (starting from initial money of Y and TR) after you account for spending and expenses (C and T).
Now we need to consider public savings, which is how much the government saves. Public spending depends on the amount of taxes they receive (T), the amount they spend in purchases (G), and the amount they transfer to the population (TR). The public savings function will be:
S(public) = T - G - TR
We can find the total amount of savings (S) occurring in the economy by adding public savings to private savings.
S(public) + S(private) = S
T - G -TR + Y + TR - C - T =S
Note that T and TR cancel out. This leaves us with savings (S) being equal to GDP (Y), government purchases (G), and consumption (C):
S = Y - G - C
If we plug in the GDP equation for Y, or substitute C + I + G for Y we get:
S = C + I + G - G - C
Note that C and G will cancel out leaving us with:
S = I
The important takeaway here is that Professor Turgeson is exposing himself as a fraud by arguing in support of disproven conservative economic arguments that are the polar opposite of Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialism (whatever the hell that means in America). Why a conservative would spend their time pretending to be a socialist so they can come onto this forum and disparage Elizabeth Warren is a mystery to me - but I guess the world is full of mysteries.
Now for the economics. Professor Fraud is arguing the Treasury View of economics which first became a thing in the 1920s and 1930s as an argument against fiscal (Keynesian) policy. If savings = investment (S=I) then any tax is dollar for dollar reducing GDP and therefore fiscal policy CAN'T help the economy grow. This argument was first refuted nearly 100 years ago, but like anything that supports a conservative cause, it never really dies no matter how many deaths it dies. A decade ago the conservative crowd at the University of Chicago dusted off this trope in arguments against fiscal policy during the Great Recession only to be smacked down again. Now we have Professor Fraud.
Professor Fraud and the Treasury View take a real mathematical identity from economics and then make implications of it that are false. I'll start with the common sense argument. According to the mathematical identity S=I if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment. Does that make sense to you? If not, congratulations you are smarter than a conservative economist.
Now for a more academic approach: What is really happening if I earn $20 and save it buy putting it under the mattress? I'm reducing the velocity of money and therefore reducing the money supply. All else equal, one of two things will now happen: 1) either interest rates will go up, inducing me to take the money out from under the mattress and put it back into the economy (S=I holds but only because interest rates are higher which has other downstream effects), or 2) the $20 worth of unpurchased goods somewhere out there (unpurchased because I saved the $20 instead of purchasing something) becomes overvalued inventory which results in a cut to production or devaluing of inventory and therefore the economy slows and GDP contracts (S=I holds but only because GDP is lower dragging S and I both down with it).
The important thing, from a real world approach, is not the mathematical identity (S=I), it is the adjustments to the economy that cause it to be. So when I say progressive policies stimulate consumption and the economy that is the important real world implication. The lack of progressive policy means more saving and yes, S will equal I, but only because GDP is much lower. The important factors to this economic adjustment are the marginal propensity to consume and the marginal propensity to invest. If both are 100% then Professor Fraud's world holds. But it is usually not 100%.
The medicare for all is a losing slogan in a general election. It's simpler, and less polarizing, to campagin on a system where anybody who chooses to can opt in to a "free all-you-can eat" public health care plan. It will erode the private system over time anyways.
Instead of choosing to increase consumption at the expense of increasing S&I or vice versa, you can dramatically lower the effective tax rates for poor and middle class (e.g. $0 to $1M), which in effect is a stimulus for both consumption and S&I. Politicians used to be able to agree on that but it's no longer on the agenda in D.C because of outrageous spending levels that subsidize parties on both sides. You could also lower taxes on everyone except the uber wealthy where signficant nominal deductions in earning won't effect S&1 in a meaningful way that impacts opportunities to work and consume.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
That's been the gist of her campaign
She gained very quickly in the polls before this, so no, the rest of the campaign was not clunky. You might not like her positions, but politically she was very effective.
Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).
You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said
Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.
Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?
It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.
You are operating under the Paradox of Thrift, a Keynesian theory that is outdated.
From the above link:
Quote:
It is vital to have a proper balance in the economy between consumption and saving/investment. Both are necessary to the foundation of wealth and prosperity. But consumer spending should not be promoted at the expense of saving and investment.
Be wary of statements such as: "Consumer spending drives the economy." "Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the economy." "Increasing saving won't help the economy."
Remember that saving is an important ingredient of economic performance over the long run. Tax cuts that encourage saving and investment more than consumption are not necessarily bad. Avoid statements such as: "Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if they are saved." Or: "Tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective because the wealthy spend less than the middle class."
OMG our Bernie Sanders proponent really IS a Reaganomics supply sider. What a fraud.
You are making way too much out of the tax cuts portion of the above statement to try and make an ad hominem attack on me because you realized that you are out of your depth. You could, of course, try to discuss the subject intelligently, but you have chosen to go a route that is more within your capacity.
Since you seem to prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message, perhaps we'll go to a more basic explanation:
Note: The econ help you're getting here is free, to make up for the education you presumably paid for but didn't absorb.
Why Savings equals Investment:
Using the GDP equation to explain saving and investing:
Begin with our GDP equation for an open economy:
Y = C + I + G + NX
To simplify this idea, let's look at a closed economy, where there are no imports or exports. This means that NX will equal 0 and will therefore drop out. This leaves us with:
Y = C + I + G
Therefore I = Y - C - G
This equation tells us that investment in the economy will be equal to the total amount produced (GDP = Y) minus consumption spending, and government purchases.
Now we can create a savings for the economy equation. The total amount of private savings (savings by the private sector meaning households and firms) is going to be equal to the amount produced (Y) plus transfer payments from the government (we will call this TR, and include things like unemployment, social security and welfare) minus the amount spend on consumption (C) and taxes (T).
S(private) = Y + TR - C - T
Hopefully this makes sense, the amount you save (S) will be whatever is left over (starting from initial money of Y and TR) after you account for spending and expenses (C and T).
Now we need to consider public savings, which is how much the government saves. Public spending depends on the amount of taxes they receive (T), the amount they spend in purchases (G), and the amount they transfer to the population (TR). The public savings function will be:
S(public) = T - G - TR
We can find the total amount of savings (S) occurring in the economy by adding public savings to private savings.
S(public) + S(private) = S
T - G -TR + Y + TR - C - T =S
Note that T and TR cancel out. This leaves us with savings (S) being equal to GDP (Y), government purchases (G), and consumption (C):
S = Y - G - C
If we plug in the GDP equation for Y, or substitute C + I + G for Y we get:
S = C + I + G - G - C
Note that C and G will cancel out leaving us with:
S = I
The important takeaway here
is that you got 100% owned on economics and can't deal with it other than to throw insults around and accuse me of believing in things I don't happen to believe in. Sorry you're so sensitive on having your lack of education exposed, but you happily did it to yourself.
Quote:
Now for the economics. Professor Fraud is arguing the Treasury View of economics which first became a thing in the 1920s and 1930s as an argument against fiscal (Keynesian) policy. If savings = investment (S=I) then any tax is dollar for dollar reducing GDP and therefore fiscal policy CAN'T help the economy grow.
Maybe if the tax went into a vault and was never spent on something. However, government spending is a part of GDP, so I have zero idea of where you think you're going here. But then to be honest, I think you have zero idea of where you're going. You're just kinda putting your butthurt on display here.
Quote:
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Quote:
The important thing, from a real world approach, is not the mathematical identity (S=I)
Yes, let's not overstate the importance of the fact that the sky is blue or that water is wet. Let's pretend something that is absolutely true doesn't matter.
Quote:
The important thing, from a real world approach, is not the mathematical identity (S=I), it is the adjustments to the economy that cause it to be. So when I say progressive policies stimulate consumption and the economy that is the important real world implication.
I think it depends on which policy you're talking about. A progressive policy that gave the poor or middle class more disposable income probably is a net positive in growing the economy. I'm not sure that universal healthcare would have a similar effect because a lot of things are going on. A large safety net program is being created and funded, a large existing segment of the economy is going to be severly downsized at best and potentially completely eliminated at worst, and while reduced medication costs and medical expenses are a very good thing for the poor and middle class, it also means doctors and hospitals are making less money than they did before (unless someone is able to claim that although they lack per transaction, more of the transactions actually get paid as opposed to people without health care going to the emergency room and never paying the bill).
Googling that question, it appears that there is not a huge consensus that universal healthcare would grow the economy, though there are definitely some studies suggesting that it would. I'm not going to conclusively say it won't, but my suspicion is that it probably ends up being closer to a net zero effect in the long-term and possibly a short-term shock effect for drug companies and insurance companies while they adjust to the new realities and the insurance companies lay off a lot of employees (who may then end up working for the national program). The effect for poor and middle class families would undeniably be good and increase their disposable income, but I think there's a big question of how hospitals function under the new realities that has yet to be answered.
That was fun reading. Professor Romer was my macroeconomics professor at Cal - probably one of my favorite classes that I took.
I'm terribly amused that you seem to think that when I give you the equation of Y = C + I + G that for some reason, you think that I think that G doesn't matter. You continue to ascribe beliefs to me that I've never advocated to cover your butthurt. We have plenty of contemporary evidence that government spending is good for the economy, even if it isn't spent on something with continuing economic value. We spent a ton of money on World War II building tanks, bombers, guns, etc. and we shipped a large chunk of our workforce overseas to fight in the wars and greatly increased female employment. The net effect of all that is we came fully out of a national depression that Roosevelt's New Deal acts were unable to do not because they were bad ideas, but because they weren't big enough. But not all stimulus is equal. There's a great deal of difference between sending people $500-$1,000 checks and providing them with a job that gives them income certainty, whether that job is in the private or public sector.
The great thing about government spending is that it's the one component of the economy that is least impacted by risk. They never have to have the worries of the working class of how to put a roof over their head or whether they can find good enough paying jobs to cover their bills. Even if the government makes bad spending decisions, they can always correct them and make better decisions because they are never in any danger of becoming insolvent. If we would have had a large commitment towards infrastructure spending in 2008, we'd be seeing the fruits of that right now. Instead, the economy chugs along and fudges the unemployment numbers to make them seem better than they are and pretends that the lack of growth in real wages doesn't matter and that changes in the stock market mean that the economy is healthy when the truth is that we're probably in another bubble that's going to burst on us.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren's transition plan is actually a really good pragmatic approach. Take a first bite that only requires a simple Senate majority under current filibuster rules but that would be a huge win in getting a public option. Then take a second bite with the much more ambitious plan that would clearly be tougher to pass legislatively. That's really a more pragmatic approach then we ever really see out of politicians so, of course, it gets attacked as caving.
I don't know about you but I like pragmatic approaches to legislative success.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren's transition plan is actually a really good pragmatic approach. Take a first bite that only requires a simple Senate majority under current filibuster rules but that would be a huge win in getting a public option. Then take a second bite with the much more ambitious plan that would clearly be tougher to pass legislatively. That's really a more pragmatic approach then we ever really see out of politicians so, of course, it gets attacked as caving.
I don't know about you but I like pragmatic approaches to legislative success.
I don't disagree with you that it is a pragmatic approach. It's just too late for her and seems very cynical the way she has gotten there. I've said here several times that debating plans that can't be passed vs. what are actually going to get done is silly. Like WIAF, I'm glad health care has gotten air time. However, I am frustrated that it has crowded out most other liberal issues at every debate, spending time debating 15 specific plans.
The problem with this pragmatic plan of hers is that virtually every other democrat has proposed similar pragmatic solutions for months and she has trashed them for months. She has been on Bernie's plan for years, got grief for it at the last debate while she attacked everybody else for not being liberal enough. She decided to double down with a plan that even made Bernie go W T F and it got received horribly. (Check out CNN's poll of Iowa). Then she immediately backed down and gave up Bernie's plan she has backed for years and switched to a pragmatic plan she was just decrying as being for small minds.
If this was her plan in March or June, great. Of course she never would have risen to 20% in the polls by proposing nearly the same thing as 15 other democrats. She JUST had her big release of her plan. Why was this not included? Because this wasn't her plan days ago when she released it. What has changed? The fundamentals of the healthcare industry? Or the response in the polls?
If she's flipping around on the issue like this now, why should I believe general election Warren won't move to Biden's plan or less if the polls indicate that is what she should do?
I would have had much more respect for her position if she said "hey, I've been for Bernie's plan all along. I tried to go big and got out over my skis. It is clear our ideas on funding have not been well received. Let's have a conversation about some of these ideas and some of Bernie's ideas. I can't say it won't require a payroll tax. I can say healthcare will not cost most people more than the current system". Hell, I'd respect that. Throwing Bernie's plan under the bus. No I don't.
Bottom line, if your litmus test issue is Medicare for All there is only one candidate that will put that forth. To be clear, I'm not advocating for or against that candidate (don't know who I'm voting for). But if what you like are Bernie's policies, there is only one Bernie in the field. The 15% of you that moved to fake Bernie are being sold out to try and beat back Buttigieg and take down Biden. As soon as you try to be all things to all people, you are nothing to anyone.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren's transition plan is actually a really good pragmatic approach. Take a first bite that only requires a simple Senate majority under current filibuster rules but that would be a huge win in getting a public option. Then take a second bite with the much more ambitious plan that would clearly be tougher to pass legislatively. That's really a more pragmatic approach then we ever really see out of politicians so, of course, it gets attacked as caving.
I don't know about you but I like pragmatic approaches to legislative success.
I like the pragmatic approach; I don't like how she finally arrived at it. Oaktown is right, it smacks of "anything to get elected" pandering, in a too-obvious way. There are much smoother ways to do it.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren's transition plan is actually a really good pragmatic approach. Take a first bite that only requires a simple Senate majority under current filibuster rules but that would be a huge win in getting a public option. Then take a second bite with the much more ambitious plan that would clearly be tougher to pass legislatively. That's really a more pragmatic approach then we ever really see out of politicians so, of course, it gets attacked as caving.
I don't know about you but I like pragmatic approaches to legislative success.
I like the pragmatic approach; I don't like how she finally arrived at it. Oaktown is right, it smacks of "anything to get elected" pandering, in a too-obvious way. There are much smoother ways to do it.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at this new plan. I'd call it the Bidegieganders plan. Step 1. Shore up Obamacare doing exactly what Joe Biden has advocated for which prompted her to imply he should run in the Republican primary. Step 2 work to implement Medicare for all who want it exactly as Pete Buttigieg has advocated for which prompted her to repeatedly thrash him as being afraid of big ideas. Step 3, long, long from now in a galaxy far, far away implement Bernie's plan. Wow. I'll compete with my 3 main rivals by simultaneously advocating for all their conflicting proposals. Look Ma! I'm a moderliberasocialist boomerxilennialz!
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
Warren blinked, and now is talking about offering a public option, while the overall extension of medicare to all is being worked out. I suspect she will take cr@p, for this but it does show a pragmatic side. Good for her. Again, I don't have a problem with the concept of medicare for all, or single payor or whatever you want to call it, Every major industrial (sorry for using this outdated term) country has a robust government plan. My concerns were with her funding approaches and the disruptiveness of not allowing for transition. I think this is a good first step. Remember there is no perfect medical system, and the better systems have everyone in society who can contribute, required to contribute so they all have a vested interest in its success.
I was wondering when she was going to make this move, though still this is a little clunky to do it so soon after rolling out your own "Medicare for All" plan that did not include the transition phase. It's been the only bizarrely clunky portion of her campaign, her attempts to formulate a health care policy.
I don't think it's bizarre at all. She makes no apologies about the fact that she thinks properly regulated markets can solve most problems when the cold hard truth is that markets can only solve market problems and that there are some things that aren't meant to be addresssed by markets at all. I think she is pandering with Medicare4All because she knows a) it's never happening with a Republican Senate and b) given her love of markets, she's probably much more interested in tweaking Obamacare anyway but in order to keep pandering to progressives and keep the notion going that she's a better version of Bernie, she has to have her own version of the plan.
I get what she's doing, but I don't think the messaging or rollout has been smooth.
Here's my guess. Despite a media narrative that is slow to change, Warren's poll numbers stagnated after the last debate and actually turned down some. She stalled out still a good chunk behind Biden. Her campaign is smart enough to read polls not press clippings. They knew they were vulnerable and came out with the Free Medicare for All pander.
My next guess is more speculative because there hasn't been enough post pander polling. But a significant poll just came out showing Buttigieg surging passed her in Iowa and her number dropping there by 5 points. My bet is that her internal polling is showing her plan landed as well as her DNA test and the quick reversal is major damage control.
I don't see how this is a good campaign. Try to outflank Bernie on the left. Get boxed in by Buttigieg in the center. Go from essentially proposing Bernie's plan to basically proposing Buttigieg 's plan that you've been painting as not liberal, with a "someday I'll do Bernie's plan. Did she hire Kamala Harris' campaign manager? It's too late to change your whole identity from Medicare for all. The center won't buy it. And now why would anyone who cares about it pick her waffling and downright backing down on the issue to Bernie's years of consistent, steadfast fighting for the issue?
Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.
Warren's transition plan is actually a really good pragmatic approach. Take a first bite that only requires a simple Senate majority under current filibuster rules but that would be a huge win in getting a public option. Then take a second bite with the much more ambitious plan that would clearly be tougher to pass legislatively. That's really a more pragmatic approach then we ever really see out of politicians so, of course, it gets attacked as caving.
I don't know about you but I like pragmatic approaches to legislative success.
Interesting that some see this as political opportunistic, and not as a response to her more detailed plan. I assume this is negative short term, since the party is very much left of let's start with something pragmatic. They want to hear about super change. With Trump, they are energized for super change.
But Warren can still win the Democrats nomination and keep moderate voters for the general by showing she is realistic and pragmatic. This may be a good long term play. She does need to define who she is, as even more candidates seem to be joining the fray, and I thought she had done that by saying I'm the person on the left that isn't the crabby old man.
As for a public option, I think that will appeal to many voters in the general that do matter.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
Interesting that some see this as political opportunistic, and not as a response to her more detailed plan. I assume this is negative short term, since the party is very much left of let's start with something pragmatic. They want to hear about super change.
That much is not entirely clear. Certainly the loudest, activist wing of the party wants to hear about super change, and there is a trend of the party moving in that direction. But where we sit right now, it's probably more like 50/50 aspirational/pragmatic.
Interesting that some see this as political opportunistic, and not as a response to her more detailed plan. I assume this is negative short term, since the party is very much left of let's start with something pragmatic. They want to hear about super change.
That much is not entirely clear. Certainly the loudest, activist wing of the party wants to hear about super change, and there is a trend of the party moving in that direction. But where we sit right now, it's probably more like 50/50 aspirational/pragmatic.
Let's assume that is correct. Warren is not going to appeal to those identifying as conservative/moderate given who else is in the field (Biden, Mayor Pete, Senator Amy, Harris, Bloomberg, Patrick, etc.), Yet she does have to appeal to those Dems who do identify as moderate or conservative in the general, and maybe at least pull some her way in the primaries, as the field thins (I assume this is going to happen despite a new candidate announcing what seems like every week). Yes?
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
Interesting that some see this as political opportunistic, and not as a response to her more detailed plan. I assume this is negative short term, since the party is very much left of let's start with something pragmatic. They want to hear about super change.
That much is not entirely clear. Certainly the loudest, activist wing of the party wants to hear about super change, and there is a trend of the party moving in that direction. But where we sit right now, it's probably more like 50/50 aspirational/pragmatic.
Let's assume that is correct. Warren is not going to appeal to those identifying as conservative/moderate given who else is in the field (Biden, Mayor Pete, Senator Amy, Harris, Bloomberg, Patrick, etc.), Yet she does have to appeal to those Dems who do identify as moderate or conservative in the general, and maybe at least pull some her way in the primaries, as the field thins (I assume this is going to happen despite a new candidate announcing what seems like every week). Yes?
Yes, I think that's what she is trying to do. I was just pointing out that it's not only about the general election, she knows she needs to win over some moderates to win the nomination too.
Interesting that some see this as political opportunistic, and not as a response to her more detailed plan. I assume this is negative short term, since the party is very much left of let's start with something pragmatic. They want to hear about super change.
That much is not entirely clear. Certainly the loudest, activist wing of the party wants to hear about super change, and there is a trend of the party moving in that direction. But where we sit right now, it's probably more like 50/50 aspirational/pragmatic.
Let's assume that is correct. Warren is not going to appeal to those identifying as conservative/moderate given who else is in the field (Biden, Mayor Pete, Senator Amy, Harris, Bloomberg, Patrick, etc.), Yet she does have to appeal to those Dems who do identify as moderate or conservative in the general, and maybe at least pull some her way in the primaries, as the field thins (I assume this is going to happen despite a new candidate announcing what seems like every week). Yes?
Yes, I think that's what she is trying to do. I was just pointing out that it's not only about the general election, she knows she needs to win over some moderates to win the nomination too.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP
Guys, I'm not an econ major and watching the two of you throw out a bunch of jargon and formulas so you can compare the size of your...er...educations isn't the most elucidating and frankly I've just tried to skim for relevance so forgive me if I missed the point, but is this focus on someone putting savings in a mattress or a sock drawer really a relevant part of the discussion. Does any sizable portion of the money actually go there? Practically speaking isn't savings just money that is given to a bank who then turns around and invests it?
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP
Guys, I'm not an econ major and watching the two of you throw out a bunch of jargon and formulas so you can compare the size of your...er...educations isn't the most elucidating and frankly I've just tried to skim for relevance so forgive me if I missed the point, but is this focus on someone putting savings in a mattress or a sock drawer really a relevant part of the discussion. Does any sizable portion of the money actually go there? Practically speaking isn't savings just money that is given to a bank who then turns around and invests it?
Yeah, I tuned out of this measuring contest a while back.
if I earn $20 and then save it by putting it under my mattress, Professor Fraud is arguing that $20 is I, or investment.
This is the first mention in this thread of putting the money under a mattress. Prior to that, you were referring to it as saving. Is your butthurt so bad that you're now resorting to the Cal88 move the goalposts method of argument? Perhaps since you like to use unclever derogatory nicknames, I'll just start referring to you as Cal 88 2.0.
Saving $20 under my mattress is moving the goalposts? No - saving is saving. You have made the claim that savings = investments. Now back it up and explain how that does or does not apply to saving under the mattress.
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
I am asking you a pretty straightforward question
That's nice Cal 88 2.0.
Take your loss and move on with your life.
You're like a child. Making economic arguments you don't understand and that are contradictory and when you get called out you take your ball and go home because you are debating somebody who knows this stuff better than you.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP
Guys, I'm not an econ major and watching the two of you throw out a bunch of jargon and formulas so you can compare the size of your...er...educations isn't the most elucidating and frankly I've just tried to skim for relevance so forgive me if I missed the point, but is this focus on someone putting savings in a mattress or a sock drawer really a relevant part of the discussion. Does any sizable portion of the money actually go there? Practically speaking isn't savings just money that is given to a bank who then turns around and invests it?
80 years ago when these theories were first being argued saving money under the mattress after the Great Depression banking collapse was a real problem.
Professor's argument is that all savings is investment with no other adjustment in the economy, which is why I raise the issue of sock drawers and mattresses. That's when he disengaged, because it's obviously absurd.
In the modern context, no, money put into a bank is not necessarily invested. A bank could hold reserves or invest in secondary markets (buying a stock or bond in the secondary market is not an investment in the GDP sense).
If Professor were correct there would have been an investment boom after the Trump tax cuts. There was not. Clearly plenty of those tax savings did not get invested.
I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.
Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.
I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter Hahahahaha
I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.
Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP
Guys, I'm not an econ major and watching the two of you throw out a bunch of jargon and formulas so you can compare the size of your...er...educations isn't the most elucidating and frankly I've just tried to skim for relevance so forgive me if I missed the point, but is this focus on someone putting savings in a mattress or a sock drawer really a relevant part of the discussion. Does any sizable portion of the money actually go there? Practically speaking isn't savings just money that is given to a bank who then turns around and invests it?
Yep. Unfortunately, dajo moved the goalposts, called me a fraud, and somehow still feels entitled to me responding to him. It's his problem that he can't accept that water is wet.
