[generalizations]

We'll see. We're only a couple months into this 'regime' - might be interesting to try a different strategy for a little while.

H&W may have campaigned on this, but there's two things critical to good advertising: offering what people want, and offering it credibly.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> might be interesting to try a different strategy for a little while.

Maybe interesting to you and others largely insulated from the downsides of "a different strategy". Others might not find it so "interesting" at all ...

[drivebyhooting]

What would the status quo be? Continue to escalate in Ukraine? Pile on more debt?

I can’t see how that wouldn’t lead to debasement and ultimately the collapse of the US hegemony. At least this way we will have TSMC and other local production capacity.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The current administration is doing a very fine job ... of collapsing whatever US hegemony still exists.

The status quo would be, for example:

* continuing to honor the social safety net constructed incrementally since 1929

* honoring contracts with overseas organizations

* honoring the 200+ year old understanding that Congress controls spending, creates government departments, and establishes rules for the hiring and firing of government employees

* retaining an understanding of the complex and deeply woven role of the federal government, along with the argument known as "Chestertons fence" (don't tear down a fence till you understand why it was built)

* continuing to structure taxation based on (a) the marginal value of income (b) the concept that the impact of taxation should be roughly equal no matter what your income level is

* resist the expansion of worldwide ideologies that lead to a decrease in personal liberty and/or is accompanied by the use of military force to acquire another nation's territory (we've never been close to perfect on this, but it's nice to have an ideal in mind rather than just dropping any attempt at a morally just world).

Debt is only a problem if you subscribe to heterodox ideas about how national economies with sovereign currencies operate (or worse, imagine that national economies function like household or business economies).

[drivebyhooting]

So what I’m hearing is: * Keep all the existing obligations * Continue to run a deficit * Hope that we can finance these growing expenses through treasuries or debasement * all the while ignoring the hollowing out of American industrial base and expertise * also allowing a large portion of the population to become redundant, unproductive, and irrelevant in the world economy

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Hope that we can finance these growing expenses through treasuries or debasement

No need for "debasement", but sure.

> all the while ignoring the hollowing out

No, we should not be doing this. But the left has been talking about this for decades and was mocked for it. The idea that billionaires and the recipients of their largesse are how we stop "ignoring the hollowing out" just seems laughable to me.

> allowing a large portion of the population to become redundant, unproductive, and irrelevant in the world economy

when the left raised these objections to global trade treaties that ignored labo mobility, they were roundly ignored and ridiculed. Again, the idea that the very class of people who wanted these changes (free movement of capital, tax-free repatriation of profit, tariff-free importation of foreign produced goods, massively reduced labor costs) are the people who will oversee the reversal of their effects just seems laughable to me.

These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce). But the idea that this administration is actually motivated by a desire to solve these problems and not simply reduce costs and taxes for the capital class ... again, it just seems laughable to me.

[generalizations]

>> all the while ignoring the hollowing out of American industrial base and expertise > But the left has been talking about this for decades and was mocked for it.

> These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce).

So, you're right - up until this "regime change" not a lot has been done. And at least this is moving in approximately the right direction. Even if this is a rough amputation, at the very least it's likely to remove the tumor, when nothing up till now has done so.

[absolutelastone]

Don't those heterodox ideas about debt predict these increasing prices?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The heterodox ideas do, yes.

MMT does not.

We don't know who is correct. We do know that one POV is massively favored by those who would like to use the national debt as a reason to impose austerity policies on the US economy.

[mindslight]

What you're calling "heterodox" is obviously wrong, as there has been massive monetary expansion over the past several decades with relatively tame price inflation. The main thing MMT changes is allowing the legislative government to spend the newly-created money for deliberate goals, rather than it just being handed over to the financial industry. Given the massive price inflation we have experienced in housing, education, vehicles, etc - everywhere the new money has been able to go from the financial industry to consumers (to bring up average price inflation as per the overt policy) - I'd say that spreading the new money around more is a no-brainer.

Experimenting with a different approach might be understandable if the austerity wasn't aimed directly at killing the global goodwill that makes such monetary inflation possible - USD's status as the world reserve currency. As it stands, I don't know things would look any different if our country was being controlled by a hostile foreign power intent on destroying us.

[drivebyhooting]

You use the word heterodox as a thought preventing insult.

On the one hand we have a simple model that 1+1=2. On the other we have someone else proclaimed correct saying it’s not so. But it’s too complex for me to understand.