RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Jan 2021

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2021

A new open thread for climate solutions in the new year (and the soon-to-be new US administration actions). As for the climate science open threads, please try to renew your commitment to constructive dialog that prioritises light over heat (like LED bulbs for instance!). Thanks!

360 Responses to “Forced Responses: Jan 2021”

  1. 51
    Killian says:

    #5 nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything… but in particular, economics, by saying investopedia (classical/neoclassical/neolib) should be listened to about MMT (heterodox econ). Kinda like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.

  2. 52
    Killian says:

    44 David B. Benson

    MMT is “way out?”

    That’s… uninformed at best, flatly stupid at worst: You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

  3. 53
    Killian says:

    nigel is suspicious of MMT because it doesn’t guarantee wealth.

    Idiocy. OF COURSE IT DOESN’T. The whole point of MMT is that poverty is a bullshit CHOICE imposed by the 1%-ish.

  4. 54
    Killian says:

    No gov’t debt needs to be serviced if the nation has a central bank.

    You people appear to be clueless on MMT… and basic sanity.

  5. 55
    David B. Benson says:

    Killian @52 — Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize. When you receive yours I’ll pay attention to your remarks on economics.

  6. 56
    David B. Benson says:

    Oh, perhaps I see. Well, here is the BNC Discussion Forum thread on a carbon tax:
    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/722/carbon-tax

  7. 57
    nigelj says:

    Killian @51,

    “#5 nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything… but in particular, economics, by saying investopedia (classical/neoclassical/neolib) should be listened to about MMT (heterodox econ). ”

    More empty and pathetic personal abuse. I gave two definitions of MMT, Investopedia and wikipedia, although both are much the same. There is nothing wrong with either definition. Please state what you think it the “correct definition” of MMT, but you probably wont, because you are often unable to back up what you say. That is a simple fact known to us all here.

    “Kinda like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”

    Youre wrong. I’ve consistently advocated we change the economy in numerous ways. On this very thread I have advocated we could at least try a limited application of money printing by starting an infrastructure bank. This is the exact sort of thing we need to mitigate climate change and avoids the risks of a full scale version of MMT. Its not a complete change of the economic system but its still a change.

    ————————————

    Killian @52

    “That’s… uninformed at best, flatly stupid at worst: You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!”

    Wrong. Krugman is not an advocate of chicago school of small government economics or neoliberalism. He is not a right wing leaning economist. He is a keysian economist and he is pretty centrist. Read his bio on wikipedia before hitting the keyboard.

    Paul Krugman is correct to be critical of MMT. He has a nobel prize in economics.

    ————————————-

    Killian @53

    “nigel is suspicious of MMT because it doesn’t guarantee wealth.”

    Of course I am, because inflation can destroy wealth, including the savings of poor people. They are hurt the worst by inflation and other economic instabilities. Rich people tend to have their wealth in fixed assets like property that are not hurt so much by inflation. Rich people prefer deflation then they can buy up more assets. Its all the complete opposite of what you think.

    “Idiocy. OF COURSE IT DOESN’T. The whole point of MMT is that poverty is a bullshit CHOICE imposed by the 1%-ish.”

    No it isn’t. The whole point of MMT is spelt out in the definitions I posted. MMTs money printing will probably go more to the rich than the poor. Poverty has a range of causes which wont be fixed by MMT imho. The simplest fix to povery is something like a wealth tax or inheritance tax, and then the state providing some income assistance to poor people, just like the Nordic countries already do. They have low rates of poverty.

    ———————————-

    Moderators. Killian fills up this website with boring empty assertions and ignorance (as on this page) just like JDS and you should be boreholed just like him. Its time this website applied some damn consistency surely?

  8. 58
    Al Bundy says:

    Al Bundy @29
    “You’re not getting the change in paradigm that MMT brings. You’re still trying to fit it into Old School thinking. It doesn’t fit. Read mike’s words a few more times.”

    nigelj: Quite correct that I’m trying to fit MMT into old school thinking, because I dont think MMT works EXCEPT as a limited component of old world thinking. Doh!

    AB: But there is an essentially infinite drain available: taxing accumulations of money. Since the money supply to the wealth supply ratio is the primary control lever, the ratio by definition can be brought back into balance…

    …if you commit to taxing the rich instead of squeezing the poor as the primary means of fighting excess inflation.

    am I close, mike?

  9. 59
    nigelj says:

    High inflation really hurts poor people badly. This is very basic economics and is why Im sceptical of MMT because it could cause significant inflation. Its partly because low income people will stuggle to afford the basics and their meagre savings effectively get wiped out. Rich people find ways of protecting themselves.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inflation-may-hit-the-poor-hardest/

    Deflation (inflation below zero or negative inflation) also hurts poor people because it causes high unemployment particularly low skilled jobs. But rich people quite like the ability to buy assets cheaply.

    This is why reserve banks try to keep inflation within 0 – 2%. Inflation and deflation are both bad things although very low inflation around 1% is ok and provides a mild economic stimulus.

  10. 60
    nigelj says:

    DBB

    “Killian @52 — Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize. When you receive yours I’ll pay attention to your remarks on economics.”

    Same with me.

  11. 61
    nigelj says:

    Mike @49, what makes you assume I was referring to debt since 2007? Like I said @50, I was referring to the 1980s and 1990s when debt was much higher than recent years, and interest rates were higher so debt servicing costs were much higher as well. This meant a lot of tax revenue went just on serviceing debt. There is a link on debt since the 1970s in my comment @50. I do know the debt statistics in my own country, actually. Sigh.

  12. 62
    mike says:

    Nigel, you did not specify what time period when you brought up NZ debt. My cursory search found the links I provided which happen to be outside the time frame of your memory. I made no assumptions about the time frame you were referencing. You subsequently clarified that NZ had larger debt to GDP ratios in the 80s and 90s, and that you remember that debt servicing may have approached 25% of tax receipts in that time period, but you have not been able to provide any source that supports your memory.

    I am willing to accept that debt servicing in NZ may have approached 25% of tax receipts 30 years ago or more. That seems possible in a time period during which interest rates were significantly higher than they are today.

    If/when the monetary gods get concerned about inflation the traditionalists will turn to hiking interest rates to reduce inflation. MMT thinkers would turn to tax increases to reduce inflation. I think Keynesians would think of raising interest rates first rather than raising tax rates to take money out of circulation and address inflation.

    back and forth around the time frame of your #50 posting may have crossed and essentially be out of sequence as far as my end of the conversation happens.

    I think it’s smart and polite to not make assumptions, but instead to ask questions for clarification. I am hoping that 2021 turns out to be a more civil, patient and polite discussion here.

    Cheers

    Mike

  13. 63
    mike says:

    Nigel, I am not aware that Killian says anywhere that Krugman is anything other than a keynesian economist of some sort. I watched a couple Krugman interviews about MMT yesterday and I found Krugman to be dismissive of MMT, but not particularly good at explaining why he chooses to dismiss MMT.

    Could you be more careful in your reading of his comments and not bait him quite so much? It’s a simple request in search of increased level of civility and exchange of information here in 2021. If you need to review what looks like baiting to me, look at 60 and 57.

    A cessation or reduction of hostilities may occur when one party in the hostilities reduces or steps back even slightly from the conflict.

    Cheers

    Mike

  14. 64
    mike says:

    at AB 58: Yes, I think you hit the MMT bullseye as I weakly understand such a thing. I think MMT is not particularly doctrinaire about whether you address inflation with taxation aimed at any particular quintile of the population, but if you are using taxation primarily as a means of controlling inflation, then it would make sense to expect that you might be able to reduce the money supply in circulation by taxing the folks who have more dollars in their pockets than trying to receive taxes from folks whose pockets are empty.

    The empty pocket people are like the folks in Mosler’s lecture who are unable to land a job cleaning of the lecture room to earn a Mosler business card that will enable them to leave the room after the lecture. They are stuck in the room until conditions change. Mosler and other MMT enthusiasts are likely to say that who gets taxed to control inflation is a micro-economics question, the macro-economic MMT decision is to use taxation to control inflation instead of hiking interest rates.

    that is 4:30 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1uWVj0YJ3M&t=701s

    Cheers

    Mike

  15. 65
    nigelj says:

    AB @58

    “But there is an essentially infinite drain available: taxing accumulations of money. Since the money supply to the wealth supply ratio is the primary control lever, the ratio by definition can be brought back into balance…”

    Sort of true and ironically I also suggested a wealth tax above, although within a conventional economic system, but I just still have some reservations about MMT. Its one thing to talk general principles its another to make it all work. Read what Krugman says. The devil is in the detail.

    But we may never be able to resolve it by discussion. The thing us to try MMT but at small scale somehow. The application of QE is almost like trying MMT at limited scale, and it has had its positives but also some negatives. Do the same with MMT. I think its that simple.

  16. 66
    nigelj says:

    Killian @54

    “No gov’t debt needs to be serviced if the nation has a central bank.You people appear to be clueless on MMT… and basic sanity.”

    Not me, because I clearly showed @32 that I understand all this: “Yes sure countries cant be bankrupted by other countries if their government debt is owed to their own central bank. That is effectively a form of MMT but is not a sufficient argument to adopt MMT as a whole system. Its very easy not to go bankrupt if you just pay the money you frigging well owe! You dont need to adopt MMT if you are fiscally responsible and dont take on excessive debt”

    The worst you can accuse me of is having an old fashioned view of debt, namely that too much debt is a bad thing for anyone. People like Mike and Killian appear to think governments can create bigger and bigger debt forever with no problems. If anything is crazy that is. But austerity is also a bad thing and with interest rates so low there is certainly no reason for austerity as such right now.

    Its all a bit of a balancing act. That’s what economics is ultimately. Its not “energy” and profit is not some “drain on the system”. Economics is about finding an optimal balance of a wide range of factors, imho. BPL?

  17. 67
    mike says:

    Nigel at 66 says “People like Mike and Killian appear to think governments can create bigger and bigger debt forever with no problems.”

    Nope, I don’t think I have ever said anything like this.

    MMT makes sense to me. MMT (as I understand it at this moment) says that inflation that occurs after full employment is reached is bad and should be addressed by increasing taxation which removes money from the private sector and can address inflation through this mechanism better than traditional monetary theories that address inflation through raising interest rates. Coincidentally, the increase in tax collection will likely reduce sovereign debt.

    As to the question of bigger and bigger sovereign debt, well maybe sovereign debt will continue to grow. That certainly has been the pattern throughout the period of human history during which a thing like sovereign debt has existed, but if debt to GDP remains within reason and interest rates remain low, then servicing the debt might not prove to be a serious problem.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  18. 68
    Lynn Vincentnathan says:

    I would like to propose The Little Way of Environmental Healing (in addition to big stuff). That is, do every small thing to help the environment, like taking a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, hypermiling, taking own shopping bags, turning off water while brushing teeth (water takes energy to pump and heat).

    We started out small like that in 1990, also invested in some bigger things like a Sunfrost frig (uses only 15% of energy as other frigs). It paid for itself in energy saving in some 16 or so years. Got onto Green Mountain wind energy as soon as we moved to Texas in 2002. We got PV panels and a Volt in 2012 a few years before retiring, which are saving us $$ now when we need that extra savings. The $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on soap-up switch we got in 1990 saved us perhaps more than $1000 or over the years in water and the energy to heat the water. Eating lower on the food chain and walking/cycling are also good for the health, perhaps lowering medical costs.

    In fact there are 100s of things people can do to not only save the environment, but also save money. They talk about the Green New Deal costing, but from my experience I think it would be a great savings opportunity, helping to strengthen the economy. Not to mention hopefully reducing the costly effects of climate change and other environmental harms.

    Throw in savings in medical and other costs from reducing local pollution, acid rain, oil spills, coal ash pollution, and oil processing cancer alleys (concomitant with emitting greenhouse gases), doing the EC or Environmentally Correct thing is a win-win-win-BIG WIN situation — that last one being the mitigation of climate change. Not to mention that EVs maneuver and accelerate REALLY better. I avoided an accident a few years ago with that zippy benefit.

  19. 69
    nigelj says:

    Barton Paul Levenson @46

    “I’m going to stop referring to E-P as “Nazi boy.”

    Sounds like a good move and gutsy post as well, although some people just beg to be called idiots (JDS).

  20. 70
    nigelj says:

    mike @62

    I accept your comments about the time periods for the debt issue.

    “I am hoping that 2021 turns out to be a more civil, patient and polite discussion here.”

    I hope so as well. I try to be of the more civil commentators, for various reasons, and I dont like causing hurt, although I think there are times when a bit of bluntness is warranted if sparingly used (Im thinking JDS who is exasperating and seems determined to offer himself up as an easy target). I know its messy but I think these things are a matter of degree.

    Perhaps your concerns about name calling and nastiness etcetera should also be raised directly with the worst offenders, who are rather easy to identify. Thats what I do.

    ——————

    mike @63

    “Nigel, I am not aware that Killian says anywhere that Krugman is anything other than a keynesian economist of some sort. ”

    The implication in his comments was pretty obvious. He clearly regards Krugman as a neoliberal. If I have this wrong, its very easy for him to simply clarify what he means.

    “Could you be more careful in your reading of his comments and not bait him quite so much? It’s a simple request in search of increased level of civility and exchange of information here in 2021. If you need to review what looks like baiting to me, look at 60 and 57.”

    I have probably baited people on occasion, so I plead guilty, and I do accept your sensible advice, but I definitely dont bait Killian very much at all, and I NEVER deliberately do it.

    And I’m not certain why you pick on me. How about you front up to the worst offenders? Nobody baits people quite as much as killian. Have you READ his comments above about what I wrote, for example: “Kinda like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”…..”nigel is suspicious of MMT because it doesn’t guarantee wealth.” Both are false or misleading statements and certainly baiting and inflammatory and one was personally abusive. And I can think of about a dozen more lately. Killian also makes other inflammatory statements eg “electric cars are a piece of useless tech”…”economists are useless” and nobody here indulges in quite so much name calling and invective (idiots, fools and liars). Its so pervasive I don’t need to quote references, and rarely is it justified or any real evidence offered up.

    So I’m happy to take your advice but how about you include the worst offenders in your ‘complaint”?

    I hope I’m not baiting Killian by quoting his baiting, ha ha.

    I would just say the MMT thing is interesting and I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and lets not take ourselves too seriously!

  21. 71
    Omega Centauri says:

    IEEE Spectrum has an article about the gravity storage energy business, which looks to be getting off the ground this year:
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-potential-in-2021

  22. 72
    nigelj says:

    Mike @63

    I forgot to mention something. I don’t regard my responses to Killian @57 are baiting. I don’t know how you conclude that. I was RESPONDING to accusations he made against what I said. I made rational responses with information in them and they were polite. Maybe my comment @60 was baiting.

    KILLIAN was doing the baiting in his original response to my comments. He started it. Just look at the inflammatory language he used. Its all over this page eg “like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.” Inflammatory baiting and personal abuse, and no copy and paste of what I actually said. That’s a pretty big difference and pretty obvious difference.

  23. 73
    prl says:

    According to this paper: https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1784083/WP-19-03-fiscal-history-fiscal-policy.pdf
    New Zealand debt as a fraction of GDP’s most recent big peak was in about 1987 at a bit above 70% of GDP.

    In the same graph, interest repayments on the debt were about 8% of GDP (that makes it fairly expensive debt for a government, about 10% interest).

    Figure 2 in the same paper puts government income as 23% + 12% + 7% = 42% of GDP (income tax + indirect tax + other income).

    So NZ government debt servicing for the most recent big peak was about 20% of government income, which is in the same ballpark as the 25% that nigelj quoted.

    For 2018, government debt was about 30% of GDP, and servicing it was about 1-2% of GDP (~3-6% interest). Government income was about 17% + 12% + 5% = 34%, and so government debt servicing was about 3% of government income.

    All the figures are from eyeballing the graphs.

  24. 74

    n 66: That’s what economics is ultimately. Its not “energy” and profit is not some “drain on the system”. Economics is about finding an optimal balance of a wide range of factors, imho. BPL?

    BPL: That’s pretty much it. The science of economics is simply an empirical science of mass human behavior–who gets what and how, how goods and services are produced and distributed. Economic policy is a matter of keeping the system running optimally, but “optimally” depends on what you want to achieve. The right in this country simply wants to maximize profits for corporations and the income and wealth of the richest people. The left would prefer to reduce inequality and provide a decent standard of living for everybody. Within those goals are various ideas about how to achieve each state.

  25. 75
    Killian says:

    57: Bwahahahahaha! That’s the best you deserve, but I’m in a good mood tonight, so why not destroy your garbage posts yet again.

    ————————
    57 nigelj: Killian @51,

    “#5 nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything… but in particular, economics, by saying investopedia (classical/neoclassical/neolib) should be listened to about MMT (heterodox econ). ”

    More empty and pathetic personal abuse.

    Abuse? Grow up. “Is and idiot” and “shows idiocy” are not the same thing. Try using a goddamned dictionary. “Showed” is a verb, addressing your *actions.* You showed “idiocy” “something notably stupid or foolish.” Notice it says “something” and not “someone.”

    And here you are doubling down.

    Good lord…

    I gave two definitions of MMT, Investopedia and wikipedia, although both are much the same. There is nothing wrong with either definition.

    …because you are often unable to back up what you say.

    Lie. You have never proven me, and will never prove me, wrong on anything.

    And, I post (almost) exclusively on two kinds of things: 1. Science links. 2. Forward-looking analyses that are ahead of the curve.

    The former you cannot judge. They are what they are.

    The latter you cannot judge: A. You have no metric by which to do so; B. by their nature, they cannot be judged as they are… forward-looking… so can only be disagreed with, not judged right or wrong; and C. you have none of the skills or knowledge needed to judge analyses that are well ahead of your understanding.

    “Kinda like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”

    Youre wrong. I’ve consistently advocated we change the economy in numerous ways. On this very thread

    You think “used to say” is something addressed on *this* thread? Your head doesn’t work right, buddy.

    And what you have “consistently advocated” is the absolute least possible at any given time. You *have* consistently moved your goalposts as you found yourself proven ignorant, but even then you never admit we had to drag you kicking and screaming into your “new” positions.

    I have advocated we could at least try a limited application of money printing by starting an infrastructure bank. This is the exact sort of thing we need to mitigate climate change

    LOL….

    ————————————
    niles: Killian @52

    “That’s… uninformed at best, flatly stupid at worst: You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!”

    Wrong. Krugman is not an advocate of chicago school of small government economics or neoliberalism. He is not a right wing leaning economist. He is a keysian economist and he is pretty centrist.

    Give me a sheet of paper and I’ll see if I can slip it between those two “schools.” I.e., there is no useful difference between them. You seem to have missed the part on neo-classical synthesis WRT Keynsian econ.

    Paul Krugman is correct to be critical of MMT.

    No, he’s not. He’s wrong.

    He has a nobel prize in economics.

    1. There is no such thing. 2. That’s like getting a Nobel in Theories of Faeries. 3. I’ll leave you to figure out exactly which logical fallacy you have used.

    ————————————-

    Killian @53

    “nigel is suspicious of MMT because it doesn’t guarantee wealth.”

    Of course I am, because inflation can destroy wealth, including the savings of poor people. They are hurt the worst by inflation and other economic instabilities.

    MMT does not cause inflation. Printing money in a Chicago School economy – this current economy (or pseudo-Keynesian economy) – does.

    Shush… again… you know nothing.

    “Idiocy. OF COURSE IT DOESN’T. The whole point of MMT is that poverty is a bullshit CHOICE imposed by the 1%-ish.”

    No it isn’t.

    Yes, it is. You, of course, can only see bits and pieces at any given time. You can never seem to hold the whole of an argument in your head and get lost in not just the trees, but the freaking pine needles scattered on the forest floor. And, yes, MMT is proffered as the SOLUTION to austerity which exists because the wealthy and political parties (one and the same, of course)
    use crises to suck every bit of gain they can out of every crisis… all of which are created by their policies… intentionally… to enrich themselves.

    Politicians/The 1% claim they can’t just print money and support every family in the country to get through, e.g., the pandemic, allowing people to fully quarantine for a far shorter time than they have to date and actually kill this thing, because they claim doing so will cause inflation and all kinds of nasties. ALL A LIE. The fact is, the gov’t *never has to pay that back.* It cannot default on itself. And, to control any inflation they very simply take money OUT of circulation… via taxes. (Other ways, too, but for simplicity, and primarily, via taxes.) But the politicians know there are people like you who will stand and defend wealth, who will object to those taxes (on the 1/10 of 1%ers to the 1%ers) because you **believe in** [hint: not a science] classical/neo-classical economics.

    The whole point of MMT is spelt out in the definitions I posted.

    Oh, you mean your cherry-picked opponents to MMT? Funny how you never quote those who support MMT. Why don’t you quote Keen? Rhetorical question.

    You didn’t read/listen to any of the sources I have posted, obviously.

    MMTs money printing will probably go more to the rich than the poor.

    Jesus christ you are dense. Those supporting MMT do so at least in part because ***they are making it crystal clear any social program we want, we can have.*** They are *explicitly* calling out the current economic system, orthodox economists and gov’ts for claiming austerity is the only choice when all austerity does is rob FROM the poor and pour that money into the pockets of the rich.

    You literally never know what the hell you are talking about.

    Nonsense belongs in the bore hole, not insightful, accurate posts, and all you offer is regurgitation and/or nonsense.

    Moderators. Killian fills up this website

    Check your post count and word counts vs. mine for last year, son. And my “filling up” is almost exclusively responding to correct your ignorance. But, hey, nice way to gloss over what you actually want is for your daddy to fight your fights for you. You don’t lie, straw man, or just post nonsense, I have nothing to respond to.

    You can’t respond to me without your posts being filled with logical fallacies, outright cluelessness, blinkered, narrow responses, etc. Buy a freaking clue.

    with boring empty assertions

    Bwahahahaha!

    and ignorance

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    60: You’ll take Krugman on economics? A case of “…open your mouth and remove all doubt.” 1. We were not discussing “economics,” we were specifically discussing MMT. If you take an opponent of a concept to be the best expert on a concept, you’re a damned fool. So, again, let’s get Trump’s opinion on good democratic governance, right? Same kind of logic.

    Nigel, try something new: Be worthy of posting here before doing so again.

  26. 76
    mike says:

    Listening this morning to a discussion on India economy. Piketty at 7 minutes says that India’s debt to GDP needs to rise from 10% to 20% over the next decade.

    Debt itself in raw numbers does not tell you much. The important data is in debt to GDP, the cost of servicing the debt, inflation and unemployment numbers and maybe the GINI index numbers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwsirBdpUY&t=638s

    I think that Modinomics is probably quite traditional economics of the austerity school that will entertain the idea of keynesian actions in certain circumstances.

    Cheers

    Mike

  27. 77
    Piotr says:

    DBB (55) “Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize. When you receive yours I’ll pay attention to your remarks on economics.”

    Nigel(60) “Same with me.”

    mike (63 ) Nigel, I am not aware that Killian says anywhere that Krugman is anything other than a keynesian economist of some sort.

    Let me get it right, Mike, you see Killian (52):
    You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

    and you understand _this_ as ….nothing more than Killian doesn’t say anything pejorative about Krugman other than perhaps that he is “a keynesian economist”???
    Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!“, really?

    And AFTER THAT, you lecture … Nigel on the need of … “careful reading“???

    And to make it better, after reading: “ Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!“(Killian 52) and
    nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything…[…] … idiot” (Killian 51)
    you lecture on the virtues of “civility” not Killian, but … Nigel???

    I’ll have what you smoke, Mike (that’s the most “civil” thing I can say after “carefully reading” of your post).

  28. 78

    BPL @46:

    Granted, his political philosophy appears to be Nazi, right down to defending that particular (1933-1945) regime.

    I did that to tweak you.  Proves nothing except that I don’t care what you think or what you call me.

    You were funny for a while, though.  You went all hysterical over it.

  29. 79
    David B. Benson says:

    Omega Centauri @71 — In my opinion, these gravity schemes are most unlikely to be popular.

    For example, there is the scheme in California of heavy railroad cars positioned on a hill. The IEEE Spectrum article doesn’t mention this construction, which has disappeared from news sources. I presume that it went bankrupt.

  30. 80
    Killian says:

    66 nigelj: Killian @54

    “No gov’t debt needs to be serviced if the nation has a central bank.You people appear to be clueless on MMT… and basic sanity.”

    Not me, because I clearly showed @32 that I understand all this: “Yes sure countries cant be bankrupted by other countries if their government debt is owed to their own central bank. That is effectively a form of MMT

    NO! That is not a “form of MMT.” It is a concept of debt within MMT THEORY.

    How do you never get anything right?

    but is not a sufficient argument to adopt MMT as a whole system.

    MMT is not a freaking SYSTEM.

    Its very easy not to go bankrupt if you just pay the money you frigging well owe! You dont need to adopt MMT if you are fiscally responsible and dont take on excessive debt”

    As I said previously, the primary issue is the claim by gov’ts/wealthy POS’s/politicians that social safety nets are bad for the economy is bullshit. THAT is the context. And, it is a *fact* that gov’t can pay for anything we want gov’t to do *and* avoid inflation, *and* end poverty *and* provide health care for all *and* provide free education for all, etc.

    The PROOF of this is the FACT that the US gov’t spends HALF it’s budget on the black hole of UNECESSARY, UNPRODUCTIVE – not just unproductive, but actually economically damaging, military spending.

    The role of MONEY and DEBT needs to be revisited.

    The worst you can accuse me of is having an old fashioned view of debt, namely that too much debt is a bad thing for anyone.

    No, that is far from the worst we can accuse you of…

    People like Mike and Killian appear to think governments can create bigger and bigger debt forever with no problems.

    Because they can, and do, when it suits them. None of the Republican tax cuts have been paid for. NONE OF THEM. Military expenditures are pure waste and a drain on the economy in the end, so, when it increases the bank accounts of the wealthy, the money is unlimited. When it goes to the poor, it wrecks the economy. And this is the lie underpinning austerity and the lie that is revealed via MMT.

    Failing to understand this simple thing is sheer stupidity.

    But austerity is also a bad thing and with interest rates so low there is certainly no reason for austerity as such right now.

    Sure there is, according to you, because MONEY IS LIMITED AND CANNOT BE MANAGED BY PRINTING AND TAXATION, SO SINCE RICH PEOPLE CONTROL GOV’T AND THE LEVERS OF ECONOMICS THEY CAN USE THIS EXCUSE TO FILL THEIR OWN POCKETS AND EMPTY THE POCKETS OF THE POOR…. because of people like tou that spout their nonsense for them.

    That’s what economics is ultimately. Its not “energy” and profit is not some “drain on the system”.

    Idiocy? Delusion? Stupidity? All of the above, perhaps.

    BPL?

    Dude, get this through your head: Someone agreeing with you does not make you correct, it just means there are two people who don’t have a damned clue.

  31. 81
    Killian says:

    77 Piotr:

    DBB (55) “Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize. When you receive yours I’ll pay attention to your remarks on economics.”

    Nigel(60) “Same with me.”

    Piotr, poor lad, is all upset about tone, but not fallacies? Hmmm… Intelligent people are more concerned with WHAT is said than HOW it is said.

    Let me get it right, Mike, you see Killian (52):
    “You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!”

    and you understand _this_ as ….nothing more than Killian doesn’t say anything pejorative about Krugman

    Actually, that is a commentary on the poster for namedropping a completely inappropriate “expert” in a discussion of MMT. It’s a skewering of the poster’s logic, not Krugman. But, you so smart!

    If you can’t parse basic English, should you be commenting at all? Rhetorical question, of course.

    And AFTER THAT, you lecture … Nigel on the need of … “careful reading“???

    Given nigel almost literally never gets anything right in his little attempts to rebut my comments, it’s about time someone besides myself is doing so. You’ve all refused to call out ANY of his lies, his Straw Man arguments (just another kind of lie) and simple failure to grasp the simplest of arguments. You accept them utterly when they are directed at me because of your own gaslit biases.

    And to make it better, after reading: “ Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!“(Killian 52) and
    “ nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything…[…] … idiot” (Killian 51)
    you lecture on the virtues of “civility” not Killian, but … Nigel???

    When have you been civil to me? Never. How are nigel’s lying, Straw Man arguments and flatly false – and unintelligent – claims I post nothing here of use polite?

    Grow up, dude. Learn some objectivity or close your hole because the historical facts are thus: I spent nigel’s first six months on these forums demonstrating the patience of Job as I tried to assume what he didn’t get was merely from a lack of knowledge. I put up with his mischaracterizations of my words, his Straw Men, etc., for six freaking months – and I was helping him! We weren’t enemies, we weren’t attacking each other, but he consistently and constantly failed to grasp simple realities due to his preconceptions and ideology, acted unethically in characterizing what I was posting and flatly lying in several different forms. I put up with this for six months before giving up.

    So, you want to get in my face about behavior? OK, Trumpy.

    Then there’s you. You do nothing but make negative statements about me, damned hypocrite, so shut it. You’ve nothing to say WRT to me or my posts that any need listen to.

    I’ll have what you smoke, Mike (that’s the most “civil” thing I can say after “carefully reading” of your post).

    Remember, gas is bad for the environment.

  32. 82
    Killian says:

    72 nigelj:

    Mike @63

    KILLIAN was doing the baiting in his original response to my comments.

    Good god… To bait someone is to attempt to get a rise out of them. You weren’t “baited”, you were reduced to a pool of goo.

    He started it.

    Did I? Let’s just pretend you don’t constantly lie about what I post and let’s pretend the last three years or so don’t exist.

    Just look at the inflammatory language he used. Its all over this page eg “like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”

    That is exactly what you used to do, and frighteningly still do. You have pushed cautious, incremental change every day you have posted here. I have illustrated the dangerous and unintelligent logic of this approach ad nauseum, yet you persist. How is it not stupid that you do so in the face of a proven existential threat to civilization, if not humanity?

    Make no mistake, what you support as a climate strategy will end civilization as we know it. Do not expect to be treated well for encouraging steps that leave my son with no future. This is *personal.* For all of us. But only *some* of us get that. You are not one of them, so you are a threat to my son and his children and their’s, on down the line.

    Inflammatory baiting and personal abuse

    It’s not abuse. It’s STUPID to still support milquetoast climate responses and the economics of ecological destruction.

    You are an enemy of humanity and the planet so long as you continue to do so.

  33. 83
    nigelj says:

    Killian @75, posts his trademark snarkiness, empty put downs, egoism, empty assertions and nonsense. No wonder so many people treat his posts with contempt. Not really worth my time, but I will pick up on a couple of things:

    “Abuse? Grow up. “Is and idiot” and “shows idiocy” are not the same thing. Try using a goddamned dictionary. “Showed” is a verb, addressing your *actions.* You showed “idiocy” “something notably stupid or foolish.” Notice it says “something” and not “someone.”

    Accusing people of showing idiocy is still abusive, and we need less of this sort of rhetoric not more, and that is the point. And your full statement included …. “Kinda like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”

    So by your own frigging definition, you are an abuser. LOL.

    “And, I post (almost) exclusively on two kinds of things: 1. Science links. 2. Forward-looking analyses that are ahead of the curve.”

    Really? At least 75% of what you post is on so called climate mitigation solution, the so called simplification solutions and related matters. You cant even get the % content of what you post right. Look at the huge number of things you post on the FR thread compared to the UV thread. And don’t try to categorise simplification as forward looking analysis because it isn’t.

    “And what you have “consistently advocated” is the absolute least possible at any given time. You *have* consistently moved your goalposts as you found yourself proven ignorant, but even then you never admit we had to drag you kicking and screaming into your “new” positions.”

    Just a complete fabrication, with no links to back up the fabrication. The only thing of consequence I have changed my mind about on this website is nuclear power, where Ive become a little bit more receptive, and I’ve also been influenced by Zebras smaller population ideas, which I hadn’t thought much about previously, although I always thought we should get population growth to stop. Your trouble is like KM says: you don’t read for comprehension. And sure I miss things sometimes, you miss them an awful lot.

    “Give me a sheet of paper and I’ll see if I can slip it between those two “schools.” I.e., there is no useful difference between them. ”

    Just your unsubstantiated opinion. Everyone else pretty much sees a quite a big difference.

    “He (Paul Krugman) has a nobel prize in economics.”

    “1. There is no such thing. ”

    Encyclopedia Britannica says otherwise as below. The term nobel prize in economics is widely used now, even if the full name is longer “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was established in 1968 by the Bank of Sweden…”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Winners-of-the-Nobel-Prize-for-Economics-1856936

    But nit pick about the precise words if you want. Do you really think anyone really cares that much? Don’t we have more important things to be discussing (hint: climate crisis) and the POINT is Krugman is a highly awarded economist, ahead of most of his peers.

    “MMT does not cause inflation. Printing money in a Chicago School economy – this current economy (or pseudo-Keynesian economy) – does.”

    Many commentators including in the links I have already posted think MMT will lead to inflation in practice. And the chicago school does not believe in printing money. You cannot equate low interest rates with printing money and QE is far more subtle and complex than printing money. These sorts of details matter, a lot. Once governments and politicians start printing money we are asking for trouble. Think man.

    “And, yes, MMT is proffered as the SOLUTION to austerity which exists because the wealthy and political parties (one and the same, of course use crises to suck every bit of gain they can out of every crisis… all of which are created by their policies… intentionally… to enrich themselves.”

    Good grief, do you think the wealthy and powerful wont use MMT to enrich themselves? Who do you think will be running governmnet the bathroom cleaners? The Democrats might, on a good day, use MMT to fund a little bit more social spending. They cant fund much more because….too much printing of new money becomes inflationary so has to be countered by manipulating taxes. And if the Republicans control government, guess where the money will go? The military and the rich.

    MMT is a fools paradise. People like me and BPL can see it straight away. The only thing that might make sense is a limited selective version of MMT, in certain circumstances, as I’ve discussed. We could do an experiment and that would be useful.

    “The whole point of MMT is spelt out in the definitions I posted.”

    “Oh, you mean your cherry-picked opponents to MMT? Funny how you never quote those who support MMT. Why don’t you quote Keen? Rhetorical question.”

    I posted two links on MMT that discussed the advantages and disadvantages….you never even looked did you….

    “60: You’ll take Krugman on economics? A case of “…open your mouth and remove all doubt.” 1. We were not discussing “economics,” we were specifically discussing MMT. If you take an opponent of a concept to be the best expert on a concept, you’re a damned fool. So, again, let’s get Trump’s opinion on good democratic governance, right? Same kind of logic.”

    I value Krugmans opinion because he’s not crazy guy or hard right economist. Hes balanced, centrist and has a nobel prize. This doesn’t mean he’s right all the time, but his discourse critical of MMT made some good points.

  34. 84
    prl says:

    nigelj @57: He [Krugmann} has a nobel prize in economics.

    killian @75 1. There is no such thing.

    That will surprise the Nobel Foundation (www.nobelprize.org) who say: “In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. The Prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation in 1968 from Sveriges Riksbank on the occasion of the Bank’s 300th anniversary. … The Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.”

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences also awards the Nobel Prizes for Physics and Chemistry.

    The major difference between the prize for Economics and the original prizes is the source of their funding.

  35. 85
    nigelj says:

    Lynn Vincentnathan @68

    I couldn’t agree more. The small things do definitely add up. And I think you have suggested practical, largely achievable sorts of things and a harm reduction strategy, as opposed to inanely stupid utopian ideas. I bought a very energy efficient fridge as well, and the tech. also included a frost free feature (it uses a fan to circulate the air) so no more de-icing of the freezer. I try to look at what things have a range of benefits, so for example a diet low in red meat has a range of benefits that add together to make it a smart choice.

  36. 86
    nigelj says:

    prl @73, wow impressive, thanks for that analysis!

  37. 87
    nigelj says:

    mike @67

    “MMT makes sense to me. MMT (as I understand it at this moment) says that inflation that occurs after full employment is reached is bad and should be addressed by increasing taxation which removes money from the private sector and can address inflation through this mechanism better than traditional monetary theories that address inflation through raising interest rates. Coincidentally, the increase in tax collection will likely reduce sovereign debt.”

    Mike yes that sounds about right, but I know how MMT is “supposed” to work. I have read the wikipedia article, and I already posted links on it twice on last months FR thread, so I guess I have to do it yet again:

    https://www.bleyerbullion.co.uk/advantages-disadvantages-modern-monetary-theory-mmt

    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/04/pros-cons-mmt/

    Please read the criticisms of MMT in these links. These are good links because they discuss the advantages and disadvantages of MMT, as opposed to being a one sided analysis. And I will just add that whatever one thinks about the theory you outlined, there is the question of the practical application. Many commentators point out there is a high risk politicians will print too much money to fund their crazier ideas, risking inflation, and will be very reluctant to use taxes properly to control the excessive money / inflation problem. Its a very real and fair criticism. I pointed this out to RL, and he agreed.

    “As to the question of bigger and bigger sovereign debt, well maybe sovereign debt will continue to grow. That certainly has been the pattern throughout the period of human history during which a thing like sovereign debt has existed, but if debt to GDP remains within reason and interest rates remain low, then servicing the debt might not prove to be a serious problem.”

    Yes true, if debt to gdp remains within reason. That is a bit “if” and the history is mostly that its climbing ever upwards, gradually but the day of reckoning will come. The World Bank and IMF recommend keeping debt under 60% of gdp. Many countries are over this and several are around 100% like America and its still growing (as a % of gdp). And that fiscal irresponsibility is partly whats lead to calls for something like MMT to try and find yet more money. Im underwhelmed by that reasoning.

    However a limited application of MMT in certain circumstances looks ok to me. Its always a question of balancing needs, priorities and risks.

  38. 88
    nigelj says:

    This is what I think of at least half of what Killian posts on this website:

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (takes deep breath) ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :)

  39. 89

    E-P 78: I did that to tweak you.

    BPL: You did it because you believe it. Don’t pretend you’re not a Nazi. Your beliefs are too consistently expressed here for anyone to miss it.

  40. 90
    jgnfld says:

    @78 ep…

    “I did that to tweak you. Proves nothing except that I don’t care what you think or what you call me.

    You were funny for a while, though. You went all hysterical over it.”

    Ahhh…the old “well I was jus’ joshin’ to pwn those nasty libs” argument so beloved in certain political actors. Scientists and science commenters? Well not so much.

    Most mature adults give up this sort of thing somewhere around jr hi as all it does is get in the way of communication.

  41. 91
    mike says:

    I thought this one on MMT was interesting and more current than others I have found:

    https://youtu.be/IqDmCpVJfv4

  42. 92
    nigelj says:

    Killian @75

    “That’s the best you deserve, but I’m in a good mood tonight, so why not destroy your garbage posts yet again.”

    Addendum to my previous response. You haven’t destroyed anything Ive said. You have just posted a lot of snarky comments, eg “Bwahahahahaha!” and a huge number of completely empty assertions for example: “Good lord…..You have never proven me, and will never prove me, wrong on anything….You *have* consistently moved your goalposts… No, he’s not. He’s wrong (Paul Krugman)….you know nothing”. These are simplistic assertions. None of these are backed up with evidence or even detailed opinion. They are childish, empty assertions and obviously I reject them all. They destroy nothing. They prove nothing. Science and rational argument demands s a whole other level of evidence, articulation and proof. Your angry inflammatory responses might convince the morons out there, but that’s about all.

    You also need to convince your peers. Does it look like you are convincing anyone on this website? No. You do not seem to be getting any votes of support. You are certainly getting a lot of criticism eg from BPL, AB, KM, piotr etcetera). It doesnt seem to matter what their qualifications are, they arrive at broadly the same conclusions. Doesn’t that get the message across? And our criticisms of your comments are detailed, specific and referenced if you read back. So maybe you do get a few things wrong, and get proven wrong, just like EVERYONE does sooner or later. Get over it.

  43. 93
    mike says:

    at Piotr: I don’t see any point in asking the most outspoken and insulting folks to to refrain from flaming and baiting folks. I am talking about civility with the folks who might be persuaded to lower the temp of the comments a bit.

    I also don’t certain other folks to clarify their comments because it they don’t generally make enough sense to justify the effort. Just ignore those folks is my mode. Scan their comments sometimes, but don’t engage. Nothing to be gained with some folks.

    If I am chatting with you it probably means I think you are reasonable and intelligent enough to make the effort worth while. I tend to stop engaging with folks who don’t make it over those hurdles.

    Does that make sense to you? Help you understand some of my comments here?

    Cheers

    Mike

  44. 94
    mike says:

    ask certain other folks – lost the ask word in comment above, so will clarify a bit in case that lost word creates confusion

    M

  45. 95
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL: Granted, his political philosophy appears to be Nazi,

    AB: Parting last-digs have sunk many a peace treaty.

    And EP is brutally logical, focused on IQ as a prime Good, believes in the heritability of IQ, and is certainly aware of the average Jewish IQ score. To even contemplate that he’s anti-Semitic takes a leap of illogic I can’t fathom. Not. Even. Possible.

  46. 96
    Killian says:

    One take on MMT:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5JTn7GS4oA

    Remember: Taxes fund NOTHING. Taxes are the mechanism for the destruction of money supply, nothing more. When politicians say we can’t afford it, you should have one answer: You’re a damned liar or an idiot. Fund it. Now.

    Public works and safety nets are not funded because politicians simply do not want you to be safe. There is no other reason.

  47. 97
    Killian says:

    Steve Keen interviewed on MMT:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTKvM62HQ0

    This is much easier to follow than the model below. Watch this, then the other.

    SURPRISE! So, for some time now, and I don’t recall how long, I have stated we need about 2 to 4 generations of what I call Deep Simplicity: About 90% less resource consumption as today for a nation like the U.S. However, I also said some of those resources must go to R&D, some of it *specifically* to allow mining of the solar system. Shock of all shocks, here’s Keen saying that’s the long-term solution to consumption.

    Maybe Steve follows me more closely than I thought. Or is it great minds thinking alike? Apparently Keen was influenced by this, which was pubished two years after I pointed out to Keen his profit model could not work: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    ————

    Steve Keen’s Minsky Model: MMT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt4thL3eToU

    This one might require some background in the monetary system and economics. Some number literacy.

    ————-

    If you don’t have a basic understanding of MMT after the things I’ve posted today, and don’t understand we can fund any public good project we want to, including completely shutting down to stop COVID by funding families and small businesses for 2 months, you’re problem is ideology, not information.

  48. 98
    Killian says:

    Very interesting trip down memory lane. I was searching for the first time I talked about mining the solar system. It was 2009! But the context was more pointing out the absurdity of growth and time lines. But, still, there it was, the only way to maintain growth way back in 2009.

    What really jumped out at me was this exchange between Ray Ladbury and I, for two different reasons. Look how similar our views are. Second, the absolute lack of rancor.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/hit-the-brakes-hard/comment-page-5/#comments

    Posts 231, 329, 371.

    I have made the point that the attacks on me here amount to gaslighting, that I did not start the bad blood. I spent a very long time imploring people to see that we should be allies and not understanding why I was getting more and more flack from the core posters.

    I finally got tired of it.

    I have now dug up posts from 2009 and 2013 showing the animosity on this site was not part of the dynamic for YEARS, but eventually did become the norm… but not because of me. Why? People got tired of hearing about simplicity, about regenerative solutions. De-growth at the scale I was talking about.

    You call got scared your way of life was over, or would be.

    So, one more time I’m going to say this: Stop attacking for no reason other than your personal animosity and there will be no problem.

    Well, I don’t think there’s a solution for nigel unless or until YOU all call him out for his obvious Straw Men, etc., so I don’t have to. Until you do, he will live in the delusion that it is OK to Straw Man, to distort, to claim he’s always known or came to conclusions on his own – despite the months, or even years, spent educating him. None of you call him on this stuff for a very simple reason: You see me as the common enemy, so it’s OK if he tosses bullshit all over this forum. You want peace, you’re going to have to be more fair in calling people out. You’re going to have to call him out.

    Anywho… it hasn’t always been like it became, but it’s on you all to fix what you broke.

  49. 99
    nigelj says:

    Killian @80

    “NO! That is not a “form of MMT.” It is a concept of debt within MMT THEORY.”

    Sigh. Google “nitpick”.

    “As I said previously, the primary issue is the claim by gov’ts/wealthy POS’s/politicians that social safety nets are bad for the economy is bullshit. THAT is the context. And, it is a *fact* that gov’t can pay for anything we want gov’t to do *and* avoid inflation, *and* end poverty *and* provide health care for all *and* provide free education for all, etc.” The PROOF of this is the FACT that the US gov’t spends HALF it’s budget on the black hole of UNECESSARY, UNPRODUCTIVE – not just unproductive, but actually economically damaging, military spending.”

    Only Republican / right wing governments claim social safety nets are bad for the economy .Yes its bullshit, but it has nothing to do with how governments ‘fund’ themselves. Its not a *fact* that MMT can work as you claim to fund anything they want and avoid inflation and poverty etcetera. Its very much in dispute as per the links various people have posted. We cannot know for sure until the MMT “theory” is tried out, because its just a theory. So guess what? Someone should try it out at small scale. How hard is that to grasp? How many times do I need to say it?

    I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down. At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power. Fixing poverty somewhere like America is going to have to be more about some wealth and income redistribution like the Nordic countries do.

    “The role of MONEY and DEBT needs to be revisited.”

    That doesn’t mean we should go and do stupid stuff.

    “People like Mike and Killian appear to think governments can create bigger and bigger debt forever with no problems.”

    “Because they can, and do, when it suits them. None of the Republican tax cuts have been paid for. NONE OF THEM. Military expenditures are pure waste and a drain on the economy in the end, so, when it increases the bank accounts of the wealthy, the money is unlimited. When it goes to the poor, it wrecks the economy. And this is the lie underpinning austerity and the lie that is revealed via MMT.”

    That doesn’t make the debt justified or problem free. Eventually governments go bankrupt by over borrowing (eg in latin america). Sure yes spending vast sums on the military is a waste, but rather beside the point. This could still happen easily under a MMT system.

    “But austerity is also a bad thing and with interest rates so low there is certainly no reason for austerity as such right now.”

    “Sure there is, according to you, because MONEY IS LIMITED AND CANNOT BE MANAGED BY PRINTING AND TAXATION…..”

    I never said or implied that. Read what I said. Many countries including my own are now borrowing more because debt is very low and interest rates are low, so no problem, although that doesnt mean countries can go on creating endless debt. And some limited version of MMT is probably ok elsewhere while interest rates are so low because its unlikely to trigger too much inflation. But that doesn’t mean that MMT should become the new norm in a general sense. Understand?

  50. 100
    nigelj says:

    Killian @81

    “You’ve all refused to call out ANY of his (my alleged) lies, his Straw Man arguments (just another kind of lie) and simple failure to grasp the simplest of arguments.”

    Has it occurred to you that its because they cant find any lies, strawman arguments, or nonsense? Eh? I’m not perfect, but if I was wrong about things you post (and others post) these scientists would be all over me because they are trained to smell out BS.

    “When have you (piotr) been civil to me? Never. ”

    By the way Piotr has been pretty civil to you. I havent seen him call you an idiot or similar invective. I bet you cannot provide a link to where he has said such things. The worst I’ve seen him do is make some light hearted fun of peoples comments. There’s a difference between the occasional bit of snarkiness and a stream of verbal abuse. Piotr engages in light hearted fun, you engage in nasty abuse, endless unsubstantiated allegations people are lying, and name calling and a fair bit of trolling at times. There’s a big difference in scale and that counts.

    That doesn’t mean I agree with all Piotrs views, but he’s a logical sort of guy and pretty much right about the science I would say.

    “I put up with his (my alleged) mischaracterizations of my words, his Straw Men, etc., for six freaking months – and I was helping him!”

    I have made none. Killian provides no proof or link back. He just doesn’t understand what people write. And as people can see I copy and paste his comments. I might rarely paraphrase one or two for convenience.

    I’m not perfect. I made one unfair accusation because I misunderstood one comment he made, because he was unclear ( as others like AB pointed out) but I explained why at least twice and retracted it. But he still makes an issue out of it. Draw your own conclusions. Groundhog day or something.

    ——————————-

    Killian @82

    “Good god… To bait someone is to attempt to get a rise out of them. You weren’t “baited”, you were reduced to a pool of goo.”

    No. Saying “like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot” is baiting because its inflammatory, combined with personal abuse and its also a false statement and does not provide one single link back or example. Its only result is to piss me off. It doesn’t change my mind, it hasn’t made me go away, it almost certainly doesn’t impress or convince anyone worth impressing, because there is no proof, and statements like that need proof. You do yourself more harm than me.

    “Just look at the inflammatory language he used. Its all over this page eg “like he used to say climate action wasn’t worth disturbing the economy… because… idiot.”

    “That is exactly what you used to do, and frighteningly still do. You have pushed cautious, incremental change every day you have posted here. ”

    Incremental change is still “disturbing the economy”. its still change. And the sum total of things I have suggested is actually quite large. I have suggested more use of non for profit organisations, much tougher environmental regulations, Ive supported carbon taxes, an infrastructure bank (supported by an application of MMT), greater income redistribution to help poor people, companies being required to have two sets of legally binding goals: conventional profit requirements and environmental requirements, and much more.

    But I definitely don’t accept ideas about the shared or communal or public ownership of the means of production, because its crazy. Its been tried a million times and doesn’t work very well, not in modern societies, perhaps in ancient societies.

    “Make no mistake, what you support as a climate strategy will end civilization as we know it. Do not expect to be treated well for encouraging steps that leave my son with no future. This is *personal.* For all of us. But only *some* of us get that. You are not one of them, so you are a threat to my son and his children and their’s, on down the line.”

    What? Building wind turbines and solar farms (in reasonable quantity), low carbon cement, flying less, electric cars, public transport low meat diet? What’s wrong with that? Properly done your son will have a modern future and so will his son. And if we eventually run out of some materials, people will be forced to live more simply. Where is the extinction level event?

    At least we agree on eliminating waste (or as close as practically possible from my point of view). That is where a lot of effort should go.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.