Forum Thread

Jeff Spross - Hillary's Econ Dream Team: MMT #1

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Please read Jeff Spross' article at the week.com: "Hillary Clinton's economic dream team"

    MMT's Stephanie Kelton was named as his #1 pick to the team and MMT's Pavlina Tcherneva was named 4th.

    Kelton was Sen. Sanders' pick for Chief Economist for the Minority on the Senate Budget Committee and one of his chief economic advisers on the campaign trail; while Tcherneva is credited with producing the famed chart featured in the picture below.

    Below is a picture of Sen. Sanders on the Senate Floor, aided by Stephanie Kelton, while discussing Pavlina Tcherneva's chart.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Would you say the same thing if Sanders won the Presidency and people insisted that Clinton's economic advisers have a big role in a Sanders administration?


    I'm a big fan of Bernie, but I also understand that many of the economic proposals he discussed during the primary would never (and I mean ever) become law. He spoke in generalities and never once explained how he would get one of his proposals through an extremely divided Congress.

    That's why I will continue to say that Bernie needs to run for Governor. Far too many people forget that all politics is local.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    My thoughts are that Carlitos is not advocating according to association but because of position. Hillary has one of the greatest as far as I am concerned threats to economic inequality in her repertoire, Robert Reich.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: My thoughts are that Carlitos is not advocating according to association but because of position. Hillary has one of the greatest as far as I am concerned threats to economic inequality in her repertoire, Robert Reich.

    What in the world are you talking about? Robert Reich is a staunch Hillary antagonist. Just because he was the Secretary of Labor for the first four years of Bill Clinton's Administration doesn't mean that Hillary agrees with everything he says.

    Do you believe that wives can have different opinions than their husbands?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Would you say the same thing if Sanders won the Presidency and people insisted that Clinton's economic advisers have a big role in a Sanders administration?


    I'm a big fan of Bernie, but I also understand that many of the economic proposals he discussed during the primary would never (and I mean ever) become law. He spoke in generalities and never once explained how he would get one of his proposals through an extremely divided Congress.

    That's why I will continue to say that Bernie needs to run for Governor. Far too many people forget that all politics is local.

    I suppose it depends on their economic advice?

    Sanders never went with Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) on the campaign trail, but he should have. He would have avoided the criticism that he didn't actually have a plan. But it would have necessitated confronting the deficits myths head on and the "democratic socialist" Senator didn't want to have that kind of fight in a primary/election. While Sanders may get the MMT message in private from association with Kelton, he's couldn't be THE public messenger and wasn't willing to take on the costs and risks of the controversy it would create. It's hard to introduce revolutionary ideas, while reversing one's public positions about government deficits held for decades (in line with popularly held conventions across party and independent lines), when you are trying to NOT make people nervous about your "socialist" political label. So I sympathize with Sanders' choices, and maybe he wasn't the guy to promote the MMT message. As Hillary says, "if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and it sits on the shelf."

    Even Jill Stein copped from a full throat endorsement of MMT by stating that it is something we need to discuss and talk about before implementing.

    Stephanie Kelton is that special kind of progressive educator that can explain and sell the "deficit owl" position (contrary to both "deficit hawks" and "deficit doves") to both liberal and conservative audiences. She's in front of financial audiences regularly and steals the show. She could have been a wonderful asset for the Sanders campaign on the trail and speaking as a surrogate, but she wasn't given the opportunity.

    stephaniekelton.com/

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: My thoughts are that Carlitos is not advocating according to association but because of position. Hillary has one of the greatest as far as I am concerned threats to economic inequality in her repertoire, Robert Reich.

    What in the world are you talking about? Robert Reich is a staunch Hillary antagonist. Just because he was the Secretary of Labor for the first four years of Bill Clinton's Administration doesn't mean that Hillary agrees with everything he says.

    Do you believe that wives can have different opinions than their husbands?

    Do you think Hillary would rule out Reich for personal reasons ruling out objectivity.

    jaredsxtn, Maybe this hasn't hit you yet, but Hillary and Bill are united beyond any challenge to be of a single purpose. They only have one opinion and that is international dominance. The Clinton Foundation was and is not a trivial family hobby. It has succeeded beyond all imagination to achieve a position of international presence. Bill and Hillary are not a neighborly civic minded couple. They are probably the most unique single minded single purposed couple in the history of the world. They will be the historical reference for couples achievement.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Do you think Hillary would rule out Reich for personal reasons ruling out objectivity.

    Reich hasn't been in public service for two decades. Yes, I can absolutely predict with confidence that she would never select him to be in her cabinet.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, Maybe this hasn't hit you yet, but Hillary and Bill are united beyond any challenge to be of a single purpose. They only have one opinion and that is international dominance. The Clinton Foundation was and is not a trivial family hobby. It has succeeded beyond all imagination to achieve a position of international presence. Bill and Hillary are not a neighborly civic minded couple. They are probably the most unique single minded single purposed couple in the history of the world. They will be the historical reference for couples achievement.

    And maybe it hasn't hit you yet that I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

    You have convinced yourself that the only reason Hillary Clinton wants to be President is so she and her husband can fulfill their master plan to take over the world. No amount of facts to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    jaredsxtn, I know that if I say look at that black car you will say that is a white motorcyle.

    Why is the Clinton Foundation a liability to the extent that the Clintons are having to dissasociate from the Foundation. It is not a liability because of the overabundance of work it has done for the USA. If it had focussed on the USA then there would be no basis for a conspiracy. Spin the Clinton Foundation into an election winner for Hillary.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, I know that if I say look at that black car you will say that is a white motorcyle.

    I'm not color blind and I can tell the difference between a car and motorcycle.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Why is the Clinton Foundation a liability to the extent that the Clintons are having to dissasociate from the Foundation. It is not a liability because of the overabundance of work it has done for the USA. If it had focussed on the USA then there would be no basis for a conspiracy. Spin the Clinton Foundation into an election winner for Hillary.

    The Clinton Foundation is a manufactured liability. More than a few former Presidents have created charities and foundations in order to use their influence to help make the world a better place. The reason you don't like this one is because you've convinced yourself that the Clinton's are the devil reincarnate.

    The Clinton Foundation never was intended to be a USA "only" foundation. Think about this for a second. America is the richest country in the world. Why in hell would a former President set up a foundation that is only focused on America when children are dying from dysentery in third world countries? We have our share of problems in America, but it's important to look at the bigger picture every once in awhile.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote: I suppose it depends on their economic advice?

    I think we can both agree that he wouldn't have Clinton advisers on his team.

    Carlitos Wrote: Sanders never went with Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) on the campaign trail, but he should have. He would have avoided the criticism that he didn't actually have a plan. But it would have necessitated confronting the deficits myths head on and the "democratic socialist" Senator didn't want to have that kind of fight in a primary/election. While Sanders may get the MMT message in private from association with Kelton, he's couldn't be THE public messenger and wasn't willing to take on the costs and risks of the controversy it would create. It's hard to introduce revolutionary ideas, while reversing one's public positions about government deficits held for decades (in line with popularly held conventions across party and independent lines), when you are trying to NOT make people nervous about your "socialist" political label. So I sympathize with Sanders' choices, and maybe he wasn't the guy to promote the MMT message. As Hillary says, "if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and it sits on the shelf."

    Even Jill Stein copped from a full throat endorsement of MMT by stating that it is something we need to discuss and talk about before implementing.

    Stephanie Kelton is that special kind of progressive educator that can explain and sell the "deficit owl" position (contrary to both "deficit hawks" and "deficit doves") to both liberal and conservative audiences. She's in front of financial audiences regularly and steals the show. She could have been a wonderful asset for the Sanders campaign on the trail and speaking as a surrogate, but she wasn't given the opportunity.

    stephaniekelton.com/

    I'm just not a big believer in MMT, especially with how our Constitution is set up. There would have to be enough people elected to both houses of Congress to vote for such a drastic change to monetary policy and I think we aren't anywhere near that ever actually happening.

    The reason MMT hasn't taken off is because it's a fringe idea. Dramatically changing the value of money in the United States hasn't happened since the 37th Congress authorized the use of Greenback notes.

    That was during a Civil War.

    You can argue that going off the gold standard in 1971 was revolutionary, but it wasn't nearly as revolutionary as declaring that government issued tokens will wipe away all of the nations debts and obligations.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote: I suppose it depends on their economic advice?

    I think we can both agree that he wouldn't have Clinton advisers on his team.

    Carlitos Wrote: Sanders never went with Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) on the campaign trail, but he should have. He would have avoided the criticism that he didn't actually have a plan. But it would have necessitated confronting the deficits myths head on and the "democratic socialist" Senator didn't want to have that kind of fight in a primary/election. While Sanders may get the MMT message in private from association with Kelton, he's couldn't be THE public messenger and wasn't willing to take on the costs and risks of the controversy it would create. It's hard to introduce revolutionary ideas, while reversing one's public positions about government deficits held for decades (in line with popularly held conventions across party and independent lines), when you are trying to NOT make people nervous about your "socialist" political label. So I sympathize with Sanders' choices, and maybe he wasn't the guy to promote the MMT message. As Hillary says, "if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and it sits on the shelf."

    Even Jill Stein copped from a full throat endorsement of MMT by stating that it is something we need to discuss and talk about before implementing.

    Stephanie Kelton is that special kind of progressive educator that can explain and sell the "deficit owl" position (contrary to both "deficit hawks" and "deficit doves") to both liberal and conservative audiences. She's in front of financial audiences regularly and steals the show. She could have been a wonderful asset for the Sanders campaign on the trail and speaking as a surrogate, but she wasn't given the opportunity.

    stephaniekelton.com/

    I'm just not a big believer in MMT, especially with how our Constitution is set up. There would have to be enough people elected to both houses of Congress to vote for such a drastic change to monetary policy and I think we aren't anywhere near that ever actually happening.

    The reason MMT hasn't taken off is because it's a fringe idea. Dramatically changing the value of money in the United States hasn't happened since the 37th Congress authorized the use of Greenback notes.

    That was during a Civil War.

    You can argue that going off the gold standard in 1971 was revolutionary, but it wasn't nearly as revolutionary as declaring that government issued tokens will wipe away all of the nations debts and obligations.

    Constitution has nothing to do with it.

    No vote to change monetary policy has to happen.

    Value of US dollars doesn't have to change.

    Nobody is talking about wiping away the nation's debts or obligations.

    All Congress has to do is recognize that they are not constrained by financial solvency constraints outside of what they impose on themselves. They can't run out of US dollars to spend. If we default on obligations, it is a political choice. If they refuse to spend or cut taxes when the economy is cold, that's a political choice.

    Something tells me you haven't read the MMT literature?

    And your pro-Clinton bias has you biased against anything connected with Sanders.

    Heather Boushey was recently picked by Clinton as the head economist of her transition team. She's an Econ PhD from the New School for Social Research, a heterodox school, and where Stephanie Kelton also received her PhD.

    Boushey is an inequality expert and could have easily served in a Sanders administration.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, I know that if I say look at that black car you will say that is a white motorcyle.

    I'm not color blind and I can tell the difference between a car and motorcycle.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Why is the Clinton Foundation a liability to the extent that the Clintons are having to dissasociate from the Foundation. It is not a liability because of the overabundance of work it has done for the USA. If it had focussed on the USA then there would be no basis for a conspiracy. Spin the Clinton Foundation into an election winner for Hillary.

    The Clinton Foundation is a manufactured liability. More than a few former Presidents have created charities and foundations in order to use their influence to help make the world a better place. The reason you don't like this one is because you've convinced yourself that the Clinton's are the devil reincarnate.

    The Clinton Foundation never was intended to be a USA "only" foundation. Think about this for a second. America is the richest country in the world. Why in hell would a former President set up a foundation that is only focused on America when children are dying from dysentery in third world countries? We have our share of problems in America, but it's important to look at the bigger picture every once in awhile.

    jaresxtn, So why is the Foundation a liability to Hillary. According to what you say, the Foundation should have the election won for her. It may be contrived as you say but major democratic voices are calling for curtailment of the foundation.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This thread is about Hillary's economic team. We have another thread going on the Clinton Foundation, so Chet move your arguments over to that thread. You seem to want to use every thread to hack the Clintons. Lets keep this one on the economic team, which is a very good topic for discussion.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I Apologize. I noticed that also. When I use a phone to comment that can happen.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    When we talk about economic advisors, the roles of the various people can be a bit confusing. Here's what President Obama's economic team of advisers looks like:

    Council of Economic Advisers: The current CEA members include Jason Furman, Sandra Black, Jay Shambaugh

    National Economic Council: President Obama is the Chair. Jeffrey Zients is the Director

    Office of Management and Budget: Director, Shaun Donovan

    Department of Treasury: The current secretary is Jack Lew.

    All of these economic advisors have different experiences and expertise levels covering a wide range of domestic and international issues. In addition, President Obama has appointed Janet Yellen to serve a 14 year term as Chair of the Federal Reserve.

    When one is looking at Hillary Clinton's Dream Team of economic advisors, except for the Federal Reserve Chair, these are the positions that she will have to fill. It goes without saying that the President will heavily rely on these individuals so she will have to pick them carefully. And they do indeed need to work as a team.

    This is where economic leadership starts -- who she picks to staff these positions.