@pinkie2, you just advanced to level 10!

They have long-term strategic thinking

@wafflwafgle. I tried to see it. It was about healthcare holding things back. Ehat came out of it? I’m vision impaired

Sorry to hear that.

@wafflwaffle thank you but I wasn’t sure what I missed. I tried to read the article. It said something about old healthcare holding things back. But what did the do at these meetings for over 2 years

He's referring to this statement: during the final weeks of Barack Obama's presidency and the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency. The seats in the House were apportioned based on the 2010 United States Census.

According to that 115th congres, Senate was republican dominated 52 to 45 and the house started rep 241/dem 194.

@WaffleWaffle ok. I got it thank you!

NP

The only reason the author can write that article in 2020 is because of the expanded mandate. With one mandate, like let’s say Volcker had, you can’t say it’s debt monetization with a straight face. Because you know that the debt is coming off the balance sheets later based on the metric they are aiming for. Even with two mandates there was really one mandate depending on what kind of chairman you had. But more recently the return on total mark cap is some how a priority. Now it’s reasonable to say they are monetizing debt, though I still think it’s just a way to couch MMT to the public later. No offense to the balance but you don’t see many mainstream economist calling it debt monetization. The big issues are the fact that they have strayed from the moral hazard doctrine. Which is what I said before. At this point I think I have explained this as much as possible. If you want to trust your googling skills over me have at it. I just gave you information most people have to either pay for or go to school for, if you think I am the moron I have zero interest in justifying my explanation.

Also it’s condescending to explain to me how macroeconomics work if you’ve never studied any macroeconomics. If you do it again I am just going to block you. Do you know what a money multiplier is? Why raising rates is expansionary long term but deflationary short term? What a real interest rate is? How supply creates demand? Why a demand schedule creates innovation? Why minimum wage increases money velocity? If you think I am throwing big words at you then you’re answering your own questions. Maybe I am just grumpy in the morning but this whole time you seemed like a real asshole all while having little to no idea what you’re talking about.

Actually, I had some coffee, thought about it and decided I had head enough of your “expert” opinion 😂. So I went ahead and blocked you anyway.

I think you are being morning grumpy, lol. I read through that whole conversation, and to me on the outside, you came off as more aggressive and condescending than @meglide . (I found the poop emoji more funny than offensive, lol). I don’t know anyone here, but if I were you, I would want to hear that.

Yeah I don’t think I was being grumpy the night before when the conversation started and he said “since you’re so smart”. So I matched his tone.

Idk, I saw that as @meglide matching your tone first. I thought both you and @meglide were making some good points yesterday in the beginning - interesting conversation - and you both were explaining the logic behind them. I wanted to hear more about your observations on MMT and get out of this definition debate, back around historical use (or non-use) of open market operations and potentially reversible monetary policy actions from the Fed... especially since you both seemed to have good foundations, but after a couple of exchanges, instead of elaborating or explaining, it looked like you started getting frustrated; substituting elaboration with, in my opinion, a very poor appeal to a claim of self-developed expertise as a source (“I studied economics” - this statement comes across like a naive freshman college kid. you know the type - the one who dishes out psychology advice and makes diagnoses while taking a Psych 101 class). It would be much more persuasive to know WHERE you worked in economics professionally and academically - as an outsider that would change the polarity of that claim from hurting to helping your ethos... After that, my perception of you changed and it impacted the way I interpreted your arguments, for worse. And when pressed, you resort to ad hominem attacks, and eventually ignored the actual argument entirely. I would have liked to see an actual response because I was interested in the original points you were making. I too have been under the impression since my college economics classes that this stimulus is the same sort of non-conservative approach to economics, which includes what I also believe to be debt monetization the way @meglide described it. I was curious to hear another perspective, learn something, and possibly change my mind... In other words, I was a little disappointed that you decided to “take your ball and go home” lol

Wow, I really need to read what I write before posting, that was way too much text.

Anyways, moot point now. Feel free to ignore.

I personally found your post informative.

I missed the Original Exchange.

When I said source: I studied economics it was in an ironic way. But when he started arguing I was like no I actually did study economics, work as an analyst in finance and spend most my free time reading about this subject. So at that point I no longer was interested in maintaining a tone that entertained the idea we were on equal footing. Because it’s obvious just from the way we argued we were not.

Admittedly it is hard to track these exchanges given how the “reply” thing on Discord works (these pseudo-threads), at least on mobile. Thank you for the feedback!

And so it may seem to someone else like I am being a jerk, but’s the kind of jerk you expect when you start argue with someone whose profession includes the topic. Like if I went to my mechanic and started arguing about cars I expect them to be condescending once I say things like “since you know so much about cars”.

This morning I may have been grumpy but honestly I was just done speaking to them as if we had equally valid opinions. Even for the argument they were trying to make I could have made it better.

So ultimately my sense of humor may have got us off track but it is what it is.

And again, it sounds arrogant but the fact is I am more literate in economics than 999/1000 I run into. So there is only so much back and forth I am going to do when someone thinks MMT or Open Market Operations are fancy words I am hiding behind.

@Gypsy, you just advanced to level 5!

Education or Experience is usually best used as a Tool and not a Weapon in a Debate if your objective is to inform Others.

We weren’t having a debate. Just like I am not debating now. I said what I said and megslide or anyone else is free to be insulted or think I am being arrogant. But there is nothing to argue about. Anyone who starts talking about debt monetization and doesn’t know what MMT is talking out their ass.

Your reasoning makes sense, and I think I understand it. It does sound arrogant but it sounds more like frustration than. But unfortunately it does more harm to your ability to persuade outsiders who are interested in learning! To extend your analogy: If your mechanic is interjecting into a public conversation forum, I would expect that your mechanics’ intended audience is more broad than you!

Well said, I will have to use this elsewhere!

Fair enough

It was a Statement that I strive to live by and take ownership of. I did not assign it to anyone or did I Tag someone in this Chat.

I was frustrated and now I am over it. Not to absolve myself of anything I said I just don’t care. I am generally a curt person so I am used to people thinking I am being cold, esp when talking about economics. Especially because everyone is an armchair economist. Rather than go on and continue being frustrated I decided I had exhausted my ability to state what I was saying in different ways. Just seems like a bigger deal than it needs to be to me.

Yes, exactly. I only commented because I wanted to let you know that there was at least one layperson who was interested in what you were saying, and would have actually enjoyed seeing the arguments play out - it’s a bit selfish but I feel like your frustration robbed me of an opportunity to learn something from you, lol. And if I were in your shoes I’d like someone to tell me that.

😄

We live in a representative democracy, so regardless of your opinion, the will of the people ultimately decides what the people want, not what you feel is validated. Keep that in mind, that's how a democratic system functions.

Yeah I don’t know how that is relevant to economic facts but 👍

Incredibly relevant.

Incredibly not. Economics is a positive science.

I see the relevance. Or at least I can make it relevant to the conversation we were having, not necessarily the economics one.

@blueorbit, you just advanced to level 3!