I understand economics. I dont care for all this asset and investment s***.

Also idk if you're trying to say that economic policies have an impact social policies but that's obvious lol, idk why you'd remove ideology from it.

Don't say you understand economics when you're dismissing the issues of the investment tax on asset prices which is a stem of concern from Gene Famas (one of the most influential economists of the late 20th century) and many others.

You're pleading to ignorance by being dismissive. Also because you can be explicit and objective of a policy's effects without the need to throw ideology into it.

And no I'm distrusting of a line of thought that has harmed ppl across the globe for decades. I dont care about these ideas of investment assets or whatever. Like I said, if the premise your presenting is true, it's just another argument for a revolutionary overthrow of the system

Then I can agree with this and understand the viewpoint.

My bad if I came off stand offish in this convo.

You dont need to understand all that to understand economics. That s*** is just a branch of it but in reality things like that are just made up nonsense that we'd be fine without provided we had the right policies in place

Fair to say you're a more radical thinker than me (not saying that in a bad way) I'd hear your thoughts on that last point but i'm hungry rn

I'm just saying you could easily organize a society where s*** like that is irrelevant or doesn't even exist really

I don't think it would be easy to upheaval a modern power structure like in the US, especially a superpower with global interests who'd most likely also be against it.

No one saying itd be easy but I'm also saying it theoretically

You're working with an incorrect understanding of the banking system and how govt debt is paid. I don't want the back and forth to be too long so ima give you quick answers and some videos if you want more. In relation to the bond rates, we will not ever be in a scenario in which banks question the ability of the govt to pay back it's debt or can't purchase govt bonds. The govt can create any rate it wants or needs to incentivize banks into purchasing if they don't give larger bailout packages.

Economics is not science

So I read the article you linked. It's basically a lefter version of the WSJ editorials/opinions section.

I'm fine with that and was aware of it. I don't think it's a valid criticism an aware reader would really care about though, it's a magazine favored by rich people. I read both right and left wing outlets.

A year ago I would've said yes, but right now it's a no from me. AOC has become part of the establishment she campaigned against, thinking the democratic party can be reformed, or maybe she's a straight-up fraud like the rest of them, either way, it's a no from me

I'm so over these so-called socialist or whatever politicians... including Bernie 😪

I gave you less than a paragraph of a point. Tell me where the misunderstanding is instead of throwing a video that I'm skeptical if you watched (it's barely relevant besides the Mosler video in the theory it talks about) Mosler video doesn't disagree what I said tho.

The buyback system isn't considered inflation because the money from the buyback is not entering the 'general' economy when it's kept on the banks balance sheet and Fed is assured the banks will repurchase the bonds, basically reversing the transaction, after easing the market. Because of this agreement and understanding, inflation does not occur. Nothing about this is incorrect.

This is assuming it helps the banks/economy out enough to where they are in a position to repurchase these bonds from Government. Debt is already cheap with the interest rate cuts that came in anticipation months ago, so I don't know what you're talking about with further 'incentives'. The fed only can do so much and the rate cuts weren't enough and it's yet to be seen if the bond buybacks will work. The market is not close to bottoming out yet and earnings have already been pretty bad, with Dimon coming out saying the executive team anticipates rougher times worse than 2008. If the banks balance sheet begin to deteriorate along with the markets further, the bond buybacks aren't gonna be enough and likely the banks won't be in a position to repurchase them like I said. Thus, the incentive for debt borrowing is created.

This is still incorrect for the same fundamental reason. Debt borrowing by itself is not enough to create inflation. Watch the videos i saw them months ago along with many other videos when i was going through this for school. Govt debt generally and especially right now is good and very necessary. Remember the inflation equation. Sorry but gtg, would love to chat this out some more

She voted against the last bailout though and is going to against this one. Earned her some cred in my eyes

Bernie was too weak and idk if she'll be anymore aggressive in terms of playing dirty politics but someone's gonna have to step up and do so.

im moving to japan.

You're not understanding the mechanism I'm talking about. If the stock buyback program proves to be ineffective in easing the market then the cash will not remain on the investment bank's balance sheet and will move into their expenses/general economy and that will create inflation. The banks won't have a choice in a historically bad recession/market. With this option dead, again direct borrowing by the US government will be the option. This points to raising interest payments of the US to higher levels and threatens us that other nations will increase our borrowing rates with them.

Well they aren't socialists. They're social democrats. Well intentioned ppl who are just disillusioned into thinking capitalism can be reformed away

They were always social democrats

Socialism is something else

Bernie was a socialist maybe in 70s and 80s but he's just a social democrat now

Socialism is something that can't be voted in, it's a system that will appear through non-electoral means, if it does.

Because of socialists we have a 5 day work week, vacation, parental leave, child labor being abolished. All of these things were fought for here in Europe by workers striking, not by voting

Is this real?

As opposed to who? I suppose if she was the best option on the table. She seems weak in general. Already being assimilated by the establishment. She's just too nice and naive. Takes everything in good faith. I want somebody a little more stubborn.

Give me Rashida Tlaib any day.

possibly