[late]

"If you want change behavior, change the price."

That's not force, it's not cutting off oil. Since the long term trend is dropping prices for oil, it's mostly going to be compensating.

We need to work on climate change, and the longer we wait, the more painful it will be when we do start.

Don't kid yourself, we will.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're right. However, here's where you get it wrong. You should not try to force your way by cutting off oil before you're ready to fulfill on the other side.

Exactly, which is why we should have been moving away from fossil fuels decades ago,

Bell Labs created the first solar cell in 1954. In 70 years, this is as far as they've gotten on solar. That should tell you something. In that amount of time, we haven't come very far on alternatives. Solar panels aren't that great after all this time.

This seems incorrect.

In fact, anyone who has owned a solar powered calculator knows very well that solar power has become far more widespread and accessible since 1954.

Leftists attempting to use FORCE to change behavior doesn't work. They only end up hurting a lot of people. They panicked over nuclear and killed it. Germany is doing the same thing (forcing things) and they're suffering now. Why do you always have to use coercion to get your way? Same with the vaccine.

Can you provide an example of leftists forcing a municipality to have local energy generation that was not based on fossil fuels, and enough electric vehicles to support the supply chain?

[Steve_American]

Hats off to you. You got him [= me, Steve_American] to admit to something no one else has been able to.

Lurkers, here he just shows that he can't read or forgets things very fast.
I had written, "But, what is your point? MMTers always make a point in every lecture and podcast to say that inflation is the limit on magic money creation." So, I assert that I have said this (here) many times before, and so has every Prof. MMTer in their videos, blogs, and peer reviewed papers, etc.

The fact that he didn't know this just shows that either he doesn't read what we say or he forgets parts of what we say as he is writing his response.
.

[Steve_American]

Just about all forms of collectibles have skyrocketed in price since the beginning of the pandemic if you look at ie: eBay. Price is determined largely by supply and demand. The supply of collectibles hasn't changed, only the demand.

Also, the supply of stocks didn't change and yet stock prices skyrocketed.

The causes of inflation all depend on what price/product you're looking at. In terms of most retail goods i'd say the primary cause is shortages, meaning a supply issue. But with certain things the prices rises are being driven by demand, and in other cases both a supply shortage and increase in demand.

Collectibles have skyrocketed in price because the Gov. gave 3 to 5 times more money to the few rich people than it gave to the many, many, many more rest of the people. It has done this since 2010 though, and prices show this. The rich already buy/spend as much as they want. So, they did bid up the prices of stocks, real estate, collectibles, etc. This was not in the CPI. So, it isn't considered 'inflation'. In fact, rising stock prices is usually seen as an unmitigated GOOD.

Please see my new thread about Thomas Hoenig. There it is pointed out that he voted against doing more QE after the emergency had 'ended' in 2010, because he knew that QE would cause asset prices to increase which would increase inequality.
. . . Prof. MMTers go on to assert that QE didn't stimulate the economy much. It just made the rich richer while driving up the prices of assets like real estate, stocks, and collectibles.

Nobody (not MMTers, MS economists, etc.) denies that too much Gov. spending will cause inflation. We all are just disagreeing about "how much is too much". Also, who should get the extra Gov. spending.

I keep asking why the 1% can't grok that they "can't squeeze blood out of a rock". That the corps will sell less to the mass of Americans if we don't get (in some way) more money to spend. And, having the Gov. give the mass of the people more money with deficit spending means it isn't coming from the 1%.

BTW, thanks for agreeing that shortages are a major part of the price increases. Another BTW, the war in Ukraine is also going to cause even more price increases. Duh. It already is.
.

[Steve_American]

Since currency has no inherent value behind it ("full faith and credit of the Govmint"...AKA BFD), its value comes from its SCARCITY.

The more currency you print and create out of thin air, the less value each increment of currency has.

Deficit spending HAS caused inflation. Too many dollars chasing too few goods.

See Economics 101. See: The Creature From Jeykll Island.

Lurkers, the dollar does have inherent value in that we all need it to pay all our taxes and fees. This is important. It is the key element in why the dollar has any value. We need to tax the rich more so they feel a need for dollars too. Right now the 1% could live off their current wealth for 1000 years with no more income at all. This inequality must end, one way or another.

It is possible that printing more dollars does reduce the value of every current dollar by some tiny amount, maybe $0.0000000000001 or less. Think about it they are way over $35T in existence now. So, each dollar added to that is a drop in the ocean.

Lurkers, get this straight. Mainstream lie to you when they tell you that banks loan out the money their customers have deposited in them. The fact is that banks are not constrained by deposits at all, and in fact unlike a pawnbroker, banks don't move dollars from an account on their books labeled "money ready to be loaned" to the borrower's acc.. What they do is create an asset for the borrower in his account (this is a liability or the bank) and an offsetting asset for the bank in the form of the contract to pay the loan back.
. . . So note, the banks have a license to create dollars out of thin air just like the Gov. does. This money being created is added to the GDP as incomes for persons in the economy; in exactly the same way that money is added with Gov. deficit spending. Mainstream economists never talk about how this spending will add to inflation. Why? Maybe by asserting that the people know that someday they will have to pay it back. As if this someday thing changes the behavior of people in the now. I know that MS econ. does assert that it does change behavior now, but this isn't true.** I also know that MS econ. denies that the 'knowledge' that someday the Gov. will have to raise (their) taxes to payback the national debt changes behavior in the now. Why does it deny this?

** . A dollar in your hand is just that. You have no idea if it existed in 1910 or if it was created last year by either a bank loan or Gov. deficit sending. Almost every person in the economy just sees it as a dollar in their hand. MS econ. says otherwise. Think about it a minute. Do you think about the future like that? Do you save that dollar now so you can pay taxes in the future or save it now so you can make a payment on your debts in the future? No you don't, do you? So, why do you accept the MS Econ. assertion that every other person does?
. . . Bank loans are just as inflationary as Gov. deficit spending. Yet, MS Econ. ignores this. Why?
. . . The mass of Americans are not bankers who's living depends on banks making loans. So, I can say, you should not be sucked in by MS Econ. BS. I'm telling you here now to think about it for a while. Think about how bank loans add to GDP in a boomtime, but become a drag on the economy as a recession starts. Paying them back denies someone income from your spending if you could not pay the loan back and spend you money instead. OTOH, if the Gov. is able to deficit spend more that you don't have to pay it back, because the Gov. can either borrow it from a saver or it can just create a dollar to pay-off the bonds as they come due. In a recession, in the 1st case payments to banks suck cash out of the economy, but in the 2nd case either savers buy bonds (so no money added to the economy) or the Gov. creates cash to add to the economy when the economy needs support. I and MMTers assert that the 2nd case is better for All Americans (except bankers), and that only bankers gain from the 1st case.
.773

[Rich]

Well i was going to say thank God for Bush and Blair's invasion of Iraq allowing a massive increase in oil and gas production helping to keep prices down.

But then I remembered that the invasion was totally unnecessary as without it the sanctions would almost certainly have caused Saddam to fall within a few days anyway. If the sanctions had just been given a bit more time we could have peaceful, prosperous multi cultural democracy in Iraq. The scientific experts have proven that sanctions virtually always work and they have virtually no side effects. Contry to what these anti-Sancers say.

I understand the Cuban regime is about to capitulate in the face of sanctions any day now. Why has it taken so long? Well that's the fault of anti-Sancers spreading fake news and stupid conspiracy theories about sanctions often being ineffective or even counter productive. This has allowed the Cuban regime to hang on in the vain hope that American reasolve would be broken and that they would lift the sanctions.

What we need to do is to shut down the media accounts of these so called sanction sceptics. The lies they spread make me so angry. You'll never believe what these these Neo Nazi Flat Earth Earther sanctions deniers say. I heard one claim that sanctions can often hurt the ordinary people more than the regime. I even heard one claim sanctions can actually strengthen a regime, by undermining small business and the private sector and strengthening the command economy. That sanctions can lead to increased rationing, making the state more powerful and undermining the movements for democracy and pluralism. These idiots need to be stopped. Their fake news costs lives.

[late]

Well i was going to say thank God for Bush and Blair's invasion of Iraq allowing a massive increase in oil and gas production helping to keep prices down.

But then I remembered that the invasion was totally unnecessary as without it the sanctions would almost certainly have caused Saddam to fall within a few days anyway. If the sanctions had just been given a bit more time we could have peaceful, prosperous multi cultural democracy in Iraq. The scientific experts have proven that sanctions virtually always work and they have virtually no side effects. Contry to what these anti-Sancers say.

I understand the Cuban regime is about to capitulate in the face of sanctions any day now. Why has it taken so long? Well that's the fault of anti-Sancers spreading fake news and stupid conspiracy theories about sanctions often being ineffective or even counter productive. This has allowed the Cuban regime to hang on in the vain hope that American reasolve would be broken and that they would lift the sanctions.

What we need to do is to shut down the media accounts of these so called sanction sceptics. The lies they spread make me so angry. You'll never believe what these these Neo Nazi Flat Earth Earther sanctions deniers say. I heard one claim that sanctions can often hurt the ordinary people more than the regime. I even heard one claim sanctions can actually strengthen a regime, by undermining small business and the private sector and strengthening the command economy. That sanctions can lead to increased rationing, making the state more powerful and undermining the movements for democracy and pluralism. These idiots need to be stopped. Their fake news costs lives.

War and uncertainty usually drives prices up. You can thank President Cheney for that.

Your post is a mixed bag. Sanctions definitely hurt ordinary people, just watch the news coming out of Moscow. And because they undermine the economy, they can make the state more powerful, relative to the people; as the economy weakens..

Sanctions do not always work, and they are often controversial. It's something that needs public scrutiny. Trumps actions against Iran were deplorable, and deserved the criticism they got.

Another example is Cuba. They serve no earthly purpose. The rich and corrupt Cubans in Florida have been throwing money at Congress my whole life (I am 70) in order to freeze our policy in the anti-Commie hysteria of the 1950s.

Let Cuba trade with us, and American money would do more to pull Cuba away from it's authoritarianism than sanctions ever would.

Btw, do you have a source that says Cuba is going to give up? I would be surprised if Cubans did that. They would be handing a lot of the country back to the corrupt Cubans that were the cause of their revolution in the first place.

[Patrickov]

Let Cuba trade with us, and American money would do more to pull Cuba away from it's authoritarianism than sanctions ever would.

With all due respect, this ploy did not work on China. If anything, China got more oppressive.

[late]

With all due respect, this ploy did not work on China. If anything, China got more oppressive.

Different country.

You never know for sure, but I can tell you what we've been doing for over half a century isn't working.

[Patrickov]

Different country.

You never know for sure, but I can tell you what we've been doing for over half a century isn't working.

Actually my take is that neither total confrontation nor total rapprochement works.

Cuba is one extreme while China is another (for 20 years the US treated China just like Cuba).

Of course, I think the US should reverse treatment to the two countries now.

[Rich]

As far as I'm concerned I haven't been advocating anything new or particularly complex. I kind of assumed the carrot and stick methodology was pretty basic and therefore widely understood, but apparently not. So with Carrot and stick You want to change someone or some peoples behaviour. So you seek to create incentives. So you start off beating them with a stick, but then you say to them if you do X, if you change your behaviour in this way. We will give you this carrot and we will stop beating you with this stick. But for this to work the carrot and the stick have to be proportionate to the change in behaviour you are seeking to affect.

Unfortunately as far as I can see out policy with Russia is No carrot no Stick! Aren't all these wonderful sanctions sticks? Aren't the sanctions a glorious array of sticks? no they're not sticks (in the carrot and stick sense), because the ending of the sanctions is not tied to any specific change or changes in Putin's behaviour. But actually when you start to analyse potential paths it gets worse, I think you may find that we are actually offering negative incentives to Putin to back down and retreat. The more scarce natural resources Putin controls, the less severe the sanctions will be. The less scarce natural resources the more we will be free to squeeze Putin.

its the same with weapons supplies. If Putin withdrew, there would be massive delivery of arms to Ukraine. So far Putin has mostly stayed out of the west of the country. We've basically told Putin we are going to go on supplying weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainians until you secure Ukraine's western borders.

[Pants-of-dog]

It would not be surprising if the current war was used to justify more oil and gas projects in western countries, as a way of achieving energy independence from unethical suppliers.

[Rancid]

It would not be surprising if the current war was used to justify more oil and gas projects in western countries, as a way of achieving energy independence from unethical suppliers.

Of course. It might encourage green energy too though.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course. It might encourage green energy too though.

Doubling down on fossil fuels seems more likely, considering the fact that far more western government figures have money invested in fossil fuel companies than in green energy.

[XogGyux]

Doubling down on fossil fuels seems more likely, considering the fact that far more western government figures have money invested in fossil fuel companies than in green energy.

It is possible, but it is not the smart thing. A lot of those carbon resources are on territories that are not super friendly. Russia, Middle east, China.
While it might be a necessity to tap on some of these resources in the near future, to continue to double down on this would be catastrophically nearsighted. It is absurd that "the west" cannot completely stop buying oil/gas from russia as they are basically cutting down ties with them on everything else... yet we are willing to entertain the possibility of continuing to use a resource that they hold a large portion of? It does not make sense environmentally, but it does not make sense strategically either. It is the ultimate Lose/Lose proposition.
Also, lets not forget russia gets to benefit from global warming as well. Polar ice melts and all of the sudden they will have control of the most lucrative maritimate trading route.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is possible, but it is not the smart thing. A lot of those carbon resources are on territories that are not super friendly. Russia, Middle east, China.
While it might be a necessity to tap on some of these resources in the near future, to continue to double down on this would be catastrophically nearsighted. It is absurd that "the west" cannot completely stop buying oil/gas from russia as they are basically cutting down ties with them on everything else... yet we are willing to entertain the possibility of continuing to use a resource that they hold a large portion of? It does not make sense environmentally, but it does not make sense strategically either. It is the ultimate Lose/Lose proposition.

….which is why the west is going to now unleash a new campaign of drilling for oil, fracking, tar sands, and other fossil fuel mining in western countries.

Also, lets not forget russia gets to benefit from global warming as well. Polar ice melts and all of the sudden they will have control of the most lucrative maritimate trading route.

In general, Europe and North America will benefit from many of the aspects of climate change while developing nations in the global south will experience most of the negative effects. So it is likely that the west will continue to make global warming worse for the foreseeable future.

[XogGyux]

….which is why the west is going to now unleash a new campaign of drilling for oil, fracking, tar sands, and other fossil fuel mining in western countries.

That does not fix the problem because THEY have oil. They still have economic leverage because their oil is cheaper to produce. You learning how to make a pizza does not ruin Domino's business model, you making your own pizza ends up with a more expensive, less convenient pizza. Now, if you change your pizza demand for salads, then that can eat up on Domino's bottom line .
I can see your point, politicians are very shortsighted, but in the long run it is the strategically inferior choice.

[Pants-of-dog]

That does not fix the problem because THEY have oil. They still have economic leverage because their oil is cheaper to produce. You learning how to make a pizza does not ruin Domino's business model, you making your own pizza ends up with a more expensive, less convenient pizza. Now, if you change your pizza demand for salads, then that can eat up on Domino's bottom line .

I never claimed that this strategy would have any impact on Russia. I can see why western politicians would want the public to believe that, but I do not think that this will happen.

Instead, the main motivation by western politicians will be making themselves rich.

[Rancid]

FYI,

Sanctions are not being applied to Russian oil at the moment. However, it now appears that shippers, refiners, and insurers are not dealing in Russian oil because they see it as risky now. There is a defecto ban on Russian only for the moment. It could loosen up eventually, or... they could sanction oil too.

[Potemkin]

War and uncertainty usually drives prices up. You can thank President Cheney for that.

Your post is a mixed bag. Sanctions definitely hurt ordinary people, just watch the news coming out of Moscow. And because they undermine the economy, they can make the state more powerful, relative to the people; as the economy weakens..

Sanctions do not always work, and they are often controversial. It's something that needs public scrutiny. Trumps actions against Iran were deplorable, and deserved the criticism they got.

Another example is Cuba. They serve no earthly purpose. The rich and corrupt Cubans in Florida have been throwing money at Congress my whole life (I am 70) in order to freeze our policy in the anti-Commie hysteria of the 1950s.

Let Cuba trade with us, and American money would do more to pull Cuba away from it's authoritarianism than sanctions ever would.

Btw, do you have a source that says Cuba is going to give up? I would be surprised if Cubans did that. They would be handing a lot of the country back to the corrupt Cubans that were the cause of their revolution in the first place.

Living proof that Americans don't understand the British ironic mode of discourse.