ImageImageImageImageImage

Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce

Moderators: King of Canada, GONYK, K-DOT, Deeeez Knicks, Capn'O, Thugger HBC, j4remi, Jeff Van Gully, mrpoetryNmotion, mpharris36, NoLayupRule

frothbrain
Analyst
Posts: 3,052
And1: 1,157
Joined: Dec 04, 2011

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#481 » by frothbrain » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:18 am

Clyde_Style wrote:
frothbrain wrote:I don't see any evidence supporting herd immunity is bs?
show me the cases of reinfection. otherwise, i will look towards sweden and nyc's flatline in cases.

as far as your economic speculation, i'll rely on the krona to usd valuation over your views.

but keep pretending that team Democrat will save you by forcing small businesses to continue to shutdown with cases flatlined in hopes of more bailouts from the fed printers.




So go ahead and document the proof of herd immunity for covid-19. Not other infections,but covid-19 and its current mutations.

The burden to provide proof is upon you, because you're the one making the assertion. Otherwise, you're just posturing without the facts to back yourself up.


You were the one to bring up reinfection is a reason we have to maintain the shutdown after a sharp decline and flatline.

I am using Sweden and NYC's peak 3 months ago as evidence of herd immunity.
Whereas you have provided no evidence of reinfection.
frothbrain
Analyst
Posts: 3,052
And1: 1,157
Joined: Dec 04, 2011

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#482 » by frothbrain » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:19 am

HarthorneWingo wrote:
frothbrain wrote:
BKlutch wrote:Would you kindly stop spewing ignorant misinformation? You make yourself look like a friggin idiot when you do this, and I'm sure you're not that much of an idiot. But I could be wrong.

Your interest here is disruption and spreading misinformation? Who is incenvitizing you to do this? You write incorrect "facts" and draw incorrect "conclusions" and expect people will argue with you rationally? No, you're not interested in finding what is right, only in causing confusion. Again, who is incentivizing you to do this?


What is this bull? Do you have hard evidence that reinfection is happening. The numbers show otherwise. All regions that have peaked a couple of months ago are in decline and flatlining.
If you are not going to put forth the effort to defend your position with data, don't reply.



Where to you get your news from, frothbrain?


Cuomo's press releases and google's covid charts.
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 38,062
And1: 26,706
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#483 » by Clyde_Style » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:35 am

frothbrain wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
frothbrain wrote:I don't see any evidence supporting herd immunity is bs?
show me the cases of reinfection. otherwise, i will look towards sweden and nyc's flatline in cases.

as far as your economic speculation, i'll rely on the krona to usd valuation over your views.

but keep pretending that team Democrat will save you by forcing small businesses to continue to shutdown with cases flatlined in hopes of more bailouts from the fed printers.




So go ahead and document the proof of herd immunity for covid-19. Not other infections,but covid-19 and its current mutations.

The burden to provide proof is upon you, because you're the one making the assertion. Otherwise, you're just posturing without the facts to back yourself up.


You were the one to bring up reinfection is a reason we have to maintain the shutdown after a sharp decline and flatline.

I am using Sweden and NYC's peak 3 months ago as evidence of herd immunity.
Whereas you have provided no evidence of reinfection.


IOW, you have zero evidence of herd immunity.

Interesting how no credible scientist is claiming herd immunity has been achieved ANYWHERE, but here you are claiming it is a reality.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 60,696
And1: 27,557
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#484 » by HarthorneWingo » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:34 am

frothbrain wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
frothbrain wrote:
What is this bull? Do you have hard evidence that reinfection is happening. The numbers show otherwise. All regions that have peaked a couple of months ago are in decline and flatlining.
If you are not going to put forth the effort to defend your position with data, don't reply.



Where to you get your news from, frothbrain?


Cuomo's press releases and google's covid charts.



So you’re only referring to NYS?
Image
User avatar
aq_ua
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,950
And1: 3,534
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Optimistic but realistic

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#485 » by aq_ua » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:57 am

There's enough potential policy debate already on the table, but what do you guys think about the role of economic policy in these elections?

We could be at the major intersection of a complete change in how we think about economic policy, especially given worsening inequality and general consensus that the current system is not working. The current mainstream school of thinking has been in place basically since the 1930s and centered around the Keynesian school and the use of interest rates and Fed asset buying as a way of propping up the economy. Given interest rates are now essentially zero and that hasn't really helped, there is room for Modern Monetary Theory to become a mainstream concept. I am a little surprised how close this is to happening.

If MMT is accepted as the new mainstream economic theory, it could dramatically change how the government budgets, how it thinks about taxation, how it thinks about wealth distribution. It would change how political platforms center debates - there would no longer be a real debate about sacrificing program A in favor of funding program B, rather it would simply be about forecasting the potential supplemental benefits.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 9,349
And1: 9,079
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#486 » by Pointgod » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:45 am

Stannis wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:Some establishment Democrats are concerned about the recent polling in key swing states.

From Vox.com

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/27/21324440/state-polls-trump-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania

I don’t trust polling,” Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell recently told the Atlantic. “I don’t believe that Biden is 16 points up in Michigan; that’s a bull poll, and it’s the same people who said Hillary [Clinton] had it in the bag.”

Dingell is among the Democrats traumatized by polling missteps last cycle, which led surveys to overlook the strength of Trump’s support in key battleground states including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — three states Clinton was counting on to win the election. In a late-October survey of Wisconsin, for example, the Marquette Law School poll had Clinton up by 6 percentage points, while Trump ultimately won the state by 0.7 points.

After the election, pollsters conducted an autopsy of why there was such a disconnect between state polls and the final electoral outcomes (though perhaps less so than some Democrats believe).

The review, led by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), identified multiple factors: For one, some pollsters failed to weight for education — so more educated individuals who favored Hillary Clinton were overrepresented in samples and skewing the results. For another, many surveys missed the wave of undecided voters who may have broken for Trump at the last minute.

-more-




That's the attitude everyone should have if they want Biden to win.

These polling numbers are straight up ridiculous and I'm not sure who is believing them.


The polls are fine but they should be used as only a point in time reference. A lot can still change 3 months from now.

Another thing to keep in mind about polls is that Republicans have a built in advantage because of the electoral college. So whatever Biden is leading by nationally you can probably spot Trump 5 points and realistically the state polls are probably 3-5% closer.

Another thing is that polls take into account registered voters and likely voters, however the good news is that Trump would have to turn out new voters for him in massive numbers and pretty much capture a large chunk of Independent voters to beat Biden. As far as I know that ain’t happening but Democrats can’t get complacent
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 34,587
And1: 12,971
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#487 » by j4remi » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:27 pm

aq_ua wrote:There's enough potential policy debate already on the table, but what do you guys think about the role of economic policy in these elections?

We could be at the major intersection of a complete change in how we think about economic policy, especially given worsening inequality and general consensus that the current system is not working. The current mainstream school of thinking has been in place basically since the 1930s and centered around the Keynesian school and the use of interest rates and Fed asset buying as a way of propping up the economy. Given interest rates are now essentially zero and that hasn't really helped, there is room for Modern Monetary Theory to become a mainstream concept. I am a little surprised how close this is to happening.

If MMT is accepted as the new mainstream economic theory, it could dramatically change how the government budgets, how it thinks about taxation, how it thinks about wealth distribution. It would change how political platforms center debates - there would no longer be a real debate about sacrificing program A in favor of funding program B, rather it would simply be about forecasting the potential supplemental benefits.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money


It's really interesting, I've wanted to take a deeper dive on MMT to pull out as much utility as possible. At the very least, I think there's some real value to bringing it into the conversation as a counter to Republican obstructionism via the Two Santa Claus theory. To really oversimplify it; Republicans get power and cut taxes plus spend in ways that boost the deficit. Then when Democrats get power, they point to the deficits that were just created as a reason to half any action or increased spending on programs. This pattern has lasted for decades now and worked way too well for the Republicans. Here's a nice breakdown of the two santa claus theory from Thom Hartmann:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2018/02/how-gop-used-two-santa-clauses-tactic-con-america-nearly-40-years


Stephanie Kelton had a good interview on MR recently, she really is a great mind. I think Sam Seder and co. make for good interview partners on MMT because they have a healthy dose of skepticism toward it but are open minded with it and do want to incorporate aspects of it into the broader conversation about spending and programs. Adherence to MMT would make a Green New Deal or M4A or UBI become immediately palatable for sure.

PG - Morris/Caruso
SG - Booker/B Brown/Z.Smith
SF - Culver/Hood/S Brown
PF - Gallo/ Patterson/Niang
C - Gobert/Gafford/Hartenstein



Ex A. Kaba

Finally a Recaps Stash:
https://medium.com/@j4remi
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 34,587
And1: 12,971
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#488 » by j4remi » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:40 pm

Clyde_Style wrote:
frothbrain wrote:
You were the one to bring up reinfection is a reason we have to maintain the shutdown after a sharp decline and flatline.

I am using Sweden and NYC's peak 3 months ago as evidence of herd immunity.
Whereas you have provided no evidence of reinfection.


IOW, you have zero evidence of herd immunity.

Interesting how no credible scientist is claiming herd immunity has been achieved ANYWHERE, but here you are claiming it is a reality.


I think this is a pretty good and thorough look at the herd immunity conversation quoting expert opinions. It covers Sweden, the volume of people it'd take to reach herd immunity in America and the recent studies that suggest reinfection can occur(which would render herd immunity impossible).

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/24/894148860/without-a-vaccine-researchers-say-herd-immunity-may-never-be-achieved

As the coronavirus continues to spread rapidly throughout the U.S. and beyond, many are wondering: How on earth will this end? In an interview televised this week, President Trump reiterated his belief that sooner or later the virus will burn itself out. "I will be right eventually," the president told Fox News host Chris Wallace. "It's going to disappear, and I'll be right."

But scientists are increasingly of the view that this virus will not disappear. In interviews and correspondence with more than a dozen researchers around the world, NPR found that the vast majority believes the virus will persist at some level for a long time in places like the U.S. and Europe.

And until there is an effective vaccine in widespread use, levels of immunity will never be high enough to achieve what's called herd immunity, these researchers say. That's the tipping point at which the disease begins to burn itself out because so many people are immune that it can't continue to spread.

These scientists' view that the virus will persist is based on growing evidence that immunity may not be as straightforward as first assumed and that the virus is spreading relatively slowly, while continuing to sicken and kill. A vaccine could still prevent the illness or reduce its severity, but it's likely even that won't wipe COVID-19 from the globe.

"I think it's going to be with us probably forever at this point," says Devi Sridhar, a professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh. "It's going to be with us, and it's how we decide to live with it."

The "take it on the chin" approach
The idea of herd immunity has been around for decades. In the past, it has been used to describe an effect seen with vaccination — if vaccination rates for measles are high, for example, a single case cannot spread far into a community. The "herd" of people is protected even when not everyone has received the vaccine.

But with the outbreak of the coronavirus, the idea of natural herd immunity took hold in some circles. The theory, broadly speaking, is that should enough people become ill and then immune, the entire population will be protected. Estimates vary widely, but it's generally thought that somewhere between 50% and 80% of a given population would need to have been infected by the coronavirus before such natural herd immunity could be achieved.

Herd immunity holds appeal in part because it does not require radical action such as social distancing.

"If the thing that is most important to you is not disrupting the economy, is not shuttering small businesses, is not causing economic instability so that people cannot eat — that is the solution you are going to glom onto," says Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University in New York City.

It was for those reasons that the conservative U.K. government toyed with the idea of herd immunity back in March, Sridhar says. Scientific advisers thought it would be futile to try to stop the coronavirus. Instead, some suggested trying to slow infections just enough to avoid overloading hospitals, while allowing the virus to spread through the population. It was the "take it on the chin" approach, as described by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Sridhar says the U.K.'s pandemic scientific advisory group back then was working from a playbook based on the flu. But COVID-19 is not the flu, and calculations showed that pursuing herd immunity would cause many thousands of deaths. The government hastily abandoned the strategy almost as soon as it had been floated.

Sweden's experience
Across the North Sea, however, Sweden continued to pursue an approach with the potential to achieve herd immunity — though the government never stated it as a goal. Swedish authorities recommended taking precautions at an individual level and banned gatherings of more than 50 people, but the nation stopped short of ordering restaurants and bars closed. In April, the Swedish ambassador boasted that Stockholm might achieve herd immunity by the end of May.

That never happened, Sridhar says. "Sweden is stuck at 6% for months now," she says, in reference to the percentage of residents who have antibodies to the coronavirus. Meanwhile, the country has suffered economic devastation and far higher death rates than its Nordic neighbors.

The main reason herd immunity hasn't been achieved, she suspects, is that to get there, many millions of Swedes would have to catch COVID-19. That could happen in the abstract, but in reality, most individuals deliberately try their hardest to avoid contracting the disease. "Nobody wants to be part of the herd," she says.

Sweden is hardly alone. In many countries, blood tests for antibodies — a sign somebody has been infected with the coronavirus — find that the percentage of the population that tests positive for this indicator of immunity is in the single digits.

"The example I like to think about is South Korea, which has 50 cases [of new infection] per day right now. If they were to hold on for another thousand days, which is three years, they would have 50,000 cases, which is 0.1% of their population," says Shaman.

U.S. health care system would buckle
Even in the U.S., at 60,000 cases per day, it would take at least until 2021 — and possibly years of filled hospitals and morgues — before the requisite hundreds of millions of Americans were infected.

"I think if you were to just let this process occur, it's very difficult to project the number of deaths, but I think we're certainly talking north of a million, probably much more," says Dr. Joshua Schiffer, an associate professor in the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

As a practical matter, the U.S. health care system would buckle while trying to care for that many sick people, says Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, who directs the Special Pathogens Unit at Boston Medical Center. "It's unlikely we can achieve natural herd immunity without completely using up physical and human resources," she tells NPR.

Questions remain about waning immunity and reinfection
But recent evidence suggests there is yet another reason immunity levels may not be rising beyond a few percent — the protective immunity an individual gains after becoming infected with the coronavirus may fade with time.

Two studies now show that coronavirus antibodies, a key aspect of a person's immune response, can disappear over a matter of months. The results are hardly conclusive, and to date there has been no scientific proof of reinfections, but they have precedent.

Shaman says studies that his group has conducted of other common coronaviruses show they can reinfect people. By tracking infected New Yorkers, Shaman was able to show, for example, that coronaviruses that cause the common cold sometimes reinfected the study's participants more than once.

"Some of them were four to eight weeks separated — that's rapid, and that might have been a relapse [of the same infection]," he says. "But others we know are different — they were eight to 11 months apart."


The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 hasn't been around long enough in most places to cause reinfections, but that may change this fall and winter.

"If it's like other coronaviruses ... we're going to start to see some of those reinfections in the next six to 12 months" says Greta Bauer, an epidemiologist at Western University in Ontario.

Antibodies are not the only way the immune system fights a disease like COVID-19, and it may be that other types of immune cells ramp up to quickly fight off infection. But if people can be mildly reinfected, then herd immunity simply would not work.

"If immunity is only temporary, then the epidemic may not 'end,' " Neil Ferguson, a disease modeler at Imperial College London, told NPR in an email. "Rather, we may see a transition from epidemic dynamics to endemic circulation of the virus in the human population, albeit at lower levels."

Pursuing herd immunity deliberately now seems more ethically dubious than ever for elected officials, Bauer says, given that individual recovery from COVID-19 also appears to be a fraught process. A significant portion of COVID-19 survivors suffer fatigue, blood clots, fevers and other symptoms for weeks and months after clearing the infection.

"We know very little about the long-term effects for people with mild disease," Bauer says. "We don't know if the virus survives in reservoirs in the body, we don't know if it can cause disease later in life, and that's the really difficult part for decision-making."

In the end, even if natural herd immunity is achieved or partially achieved in the absence of a vaccine, it will likely be seen as a sign of a government's failure to protect its people. In the U.S., subgroups of the population — groups of essential workers, for example — may approach herd immunity, says Sarah Cobey, an associate professor and researcher studying pathogens and human immunity at the University of Chicago. But that would be the result of what she describes in an email as an "appalling inability to manage the epidemic — specifically, to provide the support people need to protect themselves and not infect others."

Nations like Qatar, which has seen huge waves of infection spread through groups of immigrant laborers, may also approach herd immunity soon, says Shaman. "That's a country to keep your eye on," he says.

But assuming a vaccine or effective treatments can be developed, Shaman says, the Qatars of the world won't be viewed as the winners. Instead, nations that can safely shield their population the longest will come out ahead. "South Korea, Vietnam, New Zealand, Japan — these are going to be success stories," he says.

Those nations have suppressed the virus through an initial lockdown, coupled with sustained contact tracing and isolation of sick individuals. That approach, combined with some social distancing and widespread use of masks, can quash the virus to levels where normal life can more or less resume — as long as elected officials, public health leaders and the public continue after that to work in concert to contain any outbreaks.

Sridhar says that Scotland is currently pursuing such a "zero COVID" strategy, and although it hasn't eliminated the coronavirus entirely, it appears to be working.

"Pubs are open, bars are open, kids are in playing in the parks," Sridhar says. "Schools are going to go back full time, and infections are so low that people can feel safe doing that. It's a painful process and it does take time, but there are ways you can stop it."
PG - Morris/Caruso
SG - Booker/B Brown/Z.Smith
SF - Culver/Hood/S Brown
PF - Gallo/ Patterson/Niang
C - Gobert/Gafford/Hartenstein



Ex A. Kaba

Finally a Recaps Stash:
https://medium.com/@j4remi
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 13,116
And1: 13,694
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#489 » by robillionaire » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:03 pm

j4remi wrote:
aq_ua wrote:There's enough potential policy debate already on the table, but what do you guys think about the role of economic policy in these elections?

We could be at the major intersection of a complete change in how we think about economic policy, especially given worsening inequality and general consensus that the current system is not working. The current mainstream school of thinking has been in place basically since the 1930s and centered around the Keynesian school and the use of interest rates and Fed asset buying as a way of propping up the economy. Given interest rates are now essentially zero and that hasn't really helped, there is room for Modern Monetary Theory to become a mainstream concept. I am a little surprised how close this is to happening.

If MMT is accepted as the new mainstream economic theory, it could dramatically change how the government budgets, how it thinks about taxation, how it thinks about wealth distribution. It would change how political platforms center debates - there would no longer be a real debate about sacrificing program A in favor of funding program B, rather it would simply be about forecasting the potential supplemental benefits.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money


It's really interesting, I've wanted to take a deeper dive on MMT to pull out as much utility as possible. At the very least, I think there's some real value to bringing it into the conversation as a counter to Republican obstructionism via the Two Santa Claus theory. To really oversimplify it; Republicans get power and cut taxes plus spend in ways that boost the deficit. Then when Democrats get power, they point to the deficits that were just created as a reason to half any action or increased spending on programs. This pattern has lasted for decades now and worked way too well for the Republicans. Here's a nice breakdown of the two santa claus theory from Thom Hartmann:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2018/02/how-gop-used-two-santa-clauses-tactic-con-america-nearly-40-years


Stephanie Kelton had a good interview on MR recently, she really is a great mind. I think Sam Seder and co. make for good interview partners on MMT because they have a healthy dose of skepticism toward it but are open minded with it and do want to incorporate aspects of it into the broader conversation about spending and programs. Adherence to MMT would make a Green New Deal or M4A or UBI become immediately palatable for sure.



i'm personally not a supporter of mmt. i do think it points out some of the falsehoods most people currently believe about how government spending works. but i don't think it's really an ultimate solution to society's problems like many adherents do, i still think it misses the core of the problem. imo. too bad economics isn't really on the table as an issue in this election. just the usual choice between the standard fare right wing economics/austerity
User avatar
Stannis
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 11,772
And1: 4,650
Joined: Dec 05, 2011
Location: United States of Space
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#490 » by Stannis » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:24 pm

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-cochair-nina-turner-biden-vote-2020-7

"It's like saying to somebody, 'You have a bowl of s--- in front of you, and all you've got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.'" Turner said. "It's still s---."


Image
Retired: 05/10/2020

Goodbye RealGM. Thanks for the Memories!
User avatar
aq_ua
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,950
And1: 3,534
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Optimistic but realistic

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#491 » by aq_ua » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:38 pm

robillionaire wrote:
j4remi wrote:
aq_ua wrote:There's enough potential policy debate already on the table, but what do you guys think about the role of economic policy in these elections?

We could be at the major intersection of a complete change in how we think about economic policy, especially given worsening inequality and general consensus that the current system is not working. The current mainstream school of thinking has been in place basically since the 1930s and centered around the Keynesian school and the use of interest rates and Fed asset buying as a way of propping up the economy. Given interest rates are now essentially zero and that hasn't really helped, there is room for Modern Monetary Theory to become a mainstream concept. I am a little surprised how close this is to happening.

If MMT is accepted as the new mainstream economic theory, it could dramatically change how the government budgets, how it thinks about taxation, how it thinks about wealth distribution. It would change how political platforms center debates - there would no longer be a real debate about sacrificing program A in favor of funding program B, rather it would simply be about forecasting the potential supplemental benefits.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money


It's really interesting, I've wanted to take a deeper dive on MMT to pull out as much utility as possible. At the very least, I think there's some real value to bringing it into the conversation as a counter to Republican obstructionism via the Two Santa Claus theory. To really oversimplify it; Republicans get power and cut taxes plus spend in ways that boost the deficit. Then when Democrats get power, they point to the deficits that were just created as a reason to half any action or increased spending on programs. This pattern has lasted for decades now and worked way too well for the Republicans. Here's a nice breakdown of the two santa claus theory from Thom Hartmann:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2018/02/how-gop-used-two-santa-clauses-tactic-con-america-nearly-40-years


Stephanie Kelton had a good interview on MR recently, she really is a great mind. I think Sam Seder and co. make for good interview partners on MMT because they have a healthy dose of skepticism toward it but are open minded with it and do want to incorporate aspects of it into the broader conversation about spending and programs. Adherence to MMT would make a Green New Deal or M4A or UBI become immediately palatable for sure.



i'm personally not a supporter of mmt. i do think it points out some of the falsehoods most people currently believe about how government spending works. but i don't think it's really an ultimate solution to society's problems like many adherents do, i still think it misses the core of the problem. imo. too bad economics isn't really on the table as an issue in this election. just the usual choice between the standard fare right wing economics/austerity

The economics debate has the ability to cut across a lot of the broader policy issues like climate investments, income inequality, reparations, as any meaningful policy will have questions around how to find them intrinsically tied. So I do hope it makes it way into the discussion.

I think the biggest criticism of MMT is that ultimately it still depends on policy makers to direct the spending to the areas that actually promote long-term growth. That just might be enough to scare away most folk. Instead of simply dismissing the Green New Deal as a non-starter due to budget constraints, it would force a debate as to the potential long term merits and whether there is a better way to approach public investment. I’m not sure there’s a way to have that constructive debate in Congress. It would be a real wasted opportunity if it doesn’t happen though.

Kelton is an adviser to Biden’s campaign - might still have a shot.
User avatar
robillionaire
RealGM
Posts: 13,116
And1: 13,694
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#492 » by robillionaire » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:47 pm

aq_ua wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
j4remi wrote:
It's really interesting, I've wanted to take a deeper dive on MMT to pull out as much utility as possible. At the very least, I think there's some real value to bringing it into the conversation as a counter to Republican obstructionism via the Two Santa Claus theory. To really oversimplify it; Republicans get power and cut taxes plus spend in ways that boost the deficit. Then when Democrats get power, they point to the deficits that were just created as a reason to half any action or increased spending on programs. This pattern has lasted for decades now and worked way too well for the Republicans. Here's a nice breakdown of the two santa claus theory from Thom Hartmann:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2018/02/how-gop-used-two-santa-clauses-tactic-con-america-nearly-40-years


Stephanie Kelton had a good interview on MR recently, she really is a great mind. I think Sam Seder and co. make for good interview partners on MMT because they have a healthy dose of skepticism toward it but are open minded with it and do want to incorporate aspects of it into the broader conversation about spending and programs. Adherence to MMT would make a Green New Deal or M4A or UBI become immediately palatable for sure.



i'm personally not a supporter of mmt. i do think it points out some of the falsehoods most people currently believe about how government spending works. but i don't think it's really an ultimate solution to society's problems like many adherents do, i still think it misses the core of the problem. imo. too bad economics isn't really on the table as an issue in this election. just the usual choice between the standard fare right wing economics/austerity

The economics debate has the ability to cut across a lot of the broader policy issues like climate investments, income inequality, reparations, as any meaningful policy will have questions around how to find them intrinsically tied. So I do hope it makes it way into the discussion.

I think the biggest criticism of MMT is that ultimately it still depends on policy makers to direct the spending to the areas that actually promote long-term growth. That just might be enough to scare away most folk. Instead of simply dismissing the Green New Deal as a non-starter due to budget constraints, it would force a debate as to the potential long term merits and whether there is a better way to approach public investment. I’m not sure there’s a way to have that constructive debate in Congress. It would be a real wasted opportunity if it doesn’t happen though.

Kelton is an adviser to Biden’s campaign - might still have a shot.


well for one I would say that "how are we gonna pay for it?!?!??!" has never been an argument in good faith to begin with. we can pay for anything and they know it. and they do it, when it's something they want, like wars and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Fact is the fossil fuel industry doesn't want a green new deal. the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry don't want universal health care. the non-starter isn't truly about budget constraints, that's always been misdirection, it's about those who grease the pockets of the politicians not wanting these things to happen.
User avatar
Stannis
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 11,772
And1: 4,650
Joined: Dec 05, 2011
Location: United States of Space
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#493 » by Stannis » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:00 pm

robillionaire wrote:Fact is the fossil fuel industry doesn't want a green new deal. the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry don't want universal health care. the non-starter isn't truly about budget constraints, that's always been misdirection, it's about those who grease the pockets of the politicians not wanting these things to happen.

It's starting to get more clear what the people actually want, but the white house is now trying to squash "ethical" investing:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-retirement-funds-socially-responsible-investing/

Really hilarious that they aren't ok with "let the market decide" now.
Retired: 05/10/2020

Goodbye RealGM. Thanks for the Memories!
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 34,587
And1: 12,971
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#494 » by j4remi » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:43 pm

robillionaire wrote:
aq_ua wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
i'm personally not a supporter of mmt. i do think it points out some of the falsehoods most people currently believe about how government spending works. but i don't think it's really an ultimate solution to society's problems like many adherents do, i still think it misses the core of the problem. imo. too bad economics isn't really on the table as an issue in this election. just the usual choice between the standard fare right wing economics/austerity

The economics debate has the ability to cut across a lot of the broader policy issues like climate investments, income inequality, reparations, as any meaningful policy will have questions around how to find them intrinsically tied. So I do hope it makes it way into the discussion.

I think the biggest criticism of MMT is that ultimately it still depends on policy makers to direct the spending to the areas that actually promote long-term growth. That just might be enough to scare away most folk. Instead of simply dismissing the Green New Deal as a non-starter due to budget constraints, it would force a debate as to the potential long term merits and whether there is a better way to approach public investment. I’m not sure there’s a way to have that constructive debate in Congress. It would be a real wasted opportunity if it doesn’t happen though.

Kelton is an adviser to Biden’s campaign - might still have a shot.


well for one I would say that "how are we gonna pay for it?!?!??!" has never been an argument in good faith to begin with. we can pay for anything and they know it. and they do it, when it's something they want, like wars and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Fact is the fossil fuel industry doesn't want a green new deal. the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry don't want universal health care. the non-starter isn't truly about budget constraints, that's always been misdirection, it's about those who grease the pockets of the politicians not wanting these things to happen.


Yeah, I feel you both on this tip. I'm not fully sold on MMT, or at least...I think it's a risky proposition if you go full speed ahead on the assumption that you can just take care of any inflation with taxes. But this is based on a fairly simplistic understanding (I know more than most but way less than anyone who could go full throttle on the topic). But I think it does a good job of creating a greater awareness about current spending and it also reframes the conversation about future spending.

Kelton's fingerprints are on the language of Biden's climate plan (AOC even moreso imo). It's using green new deal language and treating a 2 trillion dollar spending plan as a long term investment. That's where I think the Dems need to start treating a lot of the spending debates. I think that logic is layered into the defund conversations as well, but not as intuitive. MMT and the conversations it fosters could help people intuit the value of long term spending in communities and the idea that spending isn't inherently a bad thing...also that tax cuts should be looked at in similar context to spending (as investment) rather than as something different.
PG - Morris/Caruso
SG - Booker/B Brown/Z.Smith
SF - Culver/Hood/S Brown
PF - Gallo/ Patterson/Niang
C - Gobert/Gafford/Hartenstein



Ex A. Kaba

Finally a Recaps Stash:
https://medium.com/@j4remi
User avatar
Phish Tank
RealGM
Posts: 16,945
And1: 9,649
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Location: Your Timepiece
   

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#495 » by Phish Tank » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:25 pm

j4remi wrote:
Kelton's fingerprints are on the language of Biden's climate plan (AOC even moreso imo). It's using green new deal language and treating a 2 trillion dollar spending plan as a long term investment. That's where I think the Dems need to start treating a lot of the spending debates. I think that logic is layered into the defund conversations as well, but not as intuitive. MMT and the conversations it fosters could help people intuit the value of long term spending in communities and the idea that spending isn't inherently a bad thing...also that tax cuts should be looked at in similar context to spending (as investment) rather than as something different.



love the idea of reframing these "spending" conversations into "investments." Doesn't take much political genius to do it too.

I also like "reimagine" when it comes to conversations around "defunding the police." Instead of saying that or abolish, say "reimagine police" or "reimagine the community" - something along those lines where the conversation is around a reinvestment into the community.

My instincts want me to abolish Homeland Security & ICE (though I think you have to keep some of the post/9-11 security features as going back to a privatized security model is just something no one would ever stomach). "Reimagine ICE" doesn't work.... maybe "reimagine immigration.... something better than ICE.
Image

BAF- Houston Rockets:
PG: Fox/Jerome Rob
SG: Huerter/Romeo
SF: PJ Washington/Hunter
PF: Sekou
C: Jaxson Hayes/Smailagic

Inactive: Rubio, Okobo, Waiters, Swanigan, Louis King, Willy
User avatar
BKlutch
RealGM
Posts: 10,826
And1: 6,946
Joined: Jan 11, 2015
Location: Jamaica, NY
     

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#496 » by BKlutch » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:31 pm

Clyde_Style wrote:
frothbrain wrote:I don't see any evidence supporting herd immunity is bs?
show me the cases of reinfection. otherwise, i will look towards sweden and nyc's flatline in cases.

as far as your economic speculation, i'll rely on the krona to usd valuation over your views.

but keep pretending that team Democrat will save you by forcing small businesses to continue to shutdown with cases flatlined in hopes of more bailouts from the fed printers.


This is just deflection without any content.

If you can prove herd immunity for covid-19 has been scientifically validated, then nobody is stopping you from showing the data.

I don't believe you know anything about the science behind herd immunity and are just repeating that because it suits your POV, not because there is any truth to it.

So go ahead and document the proof of herd immunity for covid-19. Not other infections,but covid-19 and its current mutations.

The burden to provide proof is upon you, because you're the one making the assertion. Otherwise, you're just posturing without the facts to back yourself up.

I'd like to argue that my doctorate from the Sorbonne qualifies me to diagnose frothy brained people as mentally incompetent, but I can't produce the diploma, so I of course won't make that assertion.
.
.
LIVE from New York, which ceded the capital of Coronial America to Florida
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 38,062
And1: 26,706
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#497 » by Clyde_Style » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:35 pm

Took a day off from politics

Posting in politics thread to announce this
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 34,587
And1: 12,971
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#498 » by j4remi » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:38 pm

Phish Tank wrote:love the idea of reframing these "spending" conversations into "investments." Doesn't take much political genius to do it too.

I also like "reimagine" when it comes to conversations around "defunding the police." Instead of saying that or abolish, say "reimagine police" or "reimagine the community" - something along those lines where the conversation is around a reinvestment into the community.

My instincts want me to abolish Homeland Security & ICE (though I think you have to keep some of the post/9-11 security features as going back to a privatized security model is just something no one would ever stomach). "Reimagine ICE" doesn't work.... maybe "reimagine immigration.... something better than ICE.


:lol: Yeah definitely something better for ICE. But I'm with you on the sentiment here. We can't run away from these issues because they're difficult; but we can challenge the framing to make the conversations more accessible. I think the Dems let Republicans control the framing on issues way too often, too much defense where it's not necessary.
PG - Morris/Caruso
SG - Booker/B Brown/Z.Smith
SF - Culver/Hood/S Brown
PF - Gallo/ Patterson/Niang
C - Gobert/Gafford/Hartenstein



Ex A. Kaba

Finally a Recaps Stash:
https://medium.com/@j4remi
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 60,381
And1: 30,313
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Frankie N Baby
   

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#499 » by GONYK » Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:49 am

I thought this was pretty funny

Image
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 60,696
And1: 27,557
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce 

Post#500 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:13 am

GONYK wrote:I thought this was pretty funny

Image


Obligatory

Image

Funny like this? :lol: Bernie's people are going rogue! Better get those liberal conservatives.

[youtube]/youtube]
Image

Return to New York Knicks