[mikemike]

The danger of a focus on MMT is the same as the old monetarist focus--that we overlook very basic economic issues in favor of playing with money. The advantage is that it may free up options for dealing with the basic economic issues.

I think this is a great point, as a society we focus too much on pushing money from one account to another trying to squeeze out a little something extra. What really matters is making or doing something actually useful or beautiful beyond just money.

[jeffkrol]

No, economic cycles are not normal or inevitable like the seasons. Economic “ups” and economic “downs” are created by politicians. There is no reason whatsoever, why we can’t have steady growth all the time. "Cycles" are an excuse for economic ignorance.

Democrats have expressed frustration that the White House allowed Republicans during the debt-ceiling negotiations to focus solely on deficit reduction while not pushing harder for steps that would energize the economy.

Gee, I wonder why the Tea/Republicans would want to do that? They couldn’t be so cynical as to want to ruin the American economy before the 2012 elections, could they?

“We should not have to choose between getting our fiscal house in order and jobs and growth,” Obama said.

“Fiscal house in order” – he still doesn’t understand the difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Or is he just pandering to the ignorant public?

A Gallup poll released Wednesday showed that just 26 percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of the economy. More than a third, according to a Washington Post-ABC News survey last month, said he has made economic matters worse.

The public doesn’t know economics, and the people don’t understand the causes, but they sure understand the results of Obama’s economic non-policies. Yes, he has made things worse.

Many voters, particularly independents, . . . want to see serious deficit reduction — a goal that might seem at odds with any program to boost spending.

The President has only himself to blame. All along, he should have explained why federal deficits are different from private deficits. By agreeing with the Tea Republicans that the deficit is too high, he has tied his own hands.

Republican lawmakers signaled Wednesday that they are unlikely to embrace any new spending.

Of course. They don’t give a damn about America. Their sole concern is to win office by strangling Obama.

We must put an end to the policy uncertainty constantly being driven by this administration,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) wrote in a memo to colleagues. “That means stopping the discussions of new stimulus spending with money that we simply do not have.”

"Money we do not have"?? Our Monetarily Sovereign government has run out of money?? What a load of crap. When Rick Perry directed the word “treasonous” at Ben Bernanke, he should have directed it at the Tea/Republicans. Intentionally harming the U.S. to gain personal benefit, is the very definition of treason.

A wide range of independent economists agree that the best prescription for the ailing recovery is pairing efforts to boost the economy now, which would include spending increases and tax cuts, with efforts to tame the national debt over the coming decade, through spending cuts and tax increases when the economy is in better shape.

And that is why the economy is in such bad shape. The “wide range of independent economists” simply does not know what it is talking about. Why is boosting the economy considered a temporary exercise? Why not grow the economy all the time? And “tame” the national debt is a meaningless term, akin to “unsustainable.” Typical media term signifying nothing.

And how about the wide range of MMT and Monetary Sovereignty economists who know "taming" the debt is nuts?

White House allies . . . said Wednesday that the president faces a stiff political test in explaining to voters the merits of short-term spending and long-term reduction of the federal deficit.

Yes, especially since he has spent the past three years saying the exact opposite.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), one of six Democrats on the newly formed “supercommittee” that will try to find ways to cut the debt, said Obama will have to “clearly articulate why those twin goals work together and why they do not work at cross purposes.”

He added: “The good news is that the American people seem to be in the same place that the right policy would dictate. Clearly they want to focus on jobs and the economy, but they also recognize the need to develop a long-term plan to reduce the deficit.”

Hey Chris, you’re on the supercommittee. You’re supposed to find ways to cut the debt. You’re supposed to understand how those goals really do work at cross purposes. And Mr. President, you agreed to the supercommittee. What were you thinking?

“You’ll hear a lot of folks . . . say that government is broken. Well, government and politics are two different things,” Obama said . . . “Government is Social Security. Government are teachers in the classroom. Government are our firefighters and our police officers. . . . America is going to come back from this recession stronger than before. . . “I’m also convinced that comeback isn’t going to be driven by Washington. . . it’s not either-or.”

Can you imagine more confused rhetoric than this? “Government is Social Security and firefighters”?? “Government and politics are two different things”?? This is the double talk we should expect from the man who is supposed to cure our ills?

God bless help America.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Voices in the wilderness..................

[skyredoubt]

The danger of a focus on MMT is the same as the old monetarist focus--that we overlook very basic economic issues in favor of playing with money. The advantage is that it may free up options for dealing with the basic economic issues.

That's the danger of focusing on the wrong insight, I agree. Composition of debt within the private sector is by far the most important part - but who's looking at it with all the obsession with govt debt? And people don't realize that it is to a large extent insufficient (and badly allocated) govt debt that drives the non-banking sector into debt slavery to the banking sector.

[GeneV]

That's the danger of focusing on the wrong insight, I agree. Composition of debt within the private sector is by far the most important part - but who's looking at it with all the obsession with govt debt? And people don't realize that it is to a large extent insufficient (and badly allocated) govt debt that drives the non-banking sector into debt slavery to the banking sector.

I think I'd agree with Joseph Stiglitz that he problems with the financial industry go way beyond that. The private financial sector has become divorced from usefulness to the remaining sector. Their function has become parasitic.