Not BE Reread, yet it IS! (isn't it?)

[David Morris]

“Sales Pitch?”  Really?  WTF do you think I’m selling?  Do I hope that QE
and a strong GDP will be “successful?”  For all our sakes, yes, I do.  If
it doesn’t, I hope something else will keep our economy afloat.

Are you hoping for QE to fail in order to attack “the System?”  Are you
selling something that wasn’t offered at the last global climate
conference?  I suppose a total global economic (and population) apocalypse
might be the best bet for thorough environmental recovery…

You are full of blame and evil labels and doom scenarios and conflation of
no real points.  That’s what everyone is selling: fear and confusion and
indictment of others’ evil motives.  The Religious Right has been doing
that for ages, with great “success.”  I’m not buying whatever lame version
you are selling.  I don’t think you really have  anything to sell, other
than your own voice for us all to admire.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 5:49 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> That was just amatter of  timing I had not seen the second post when I
> posted what I did. I still don’t buy your agument and you can brand me
> wrong  if you wish. In my opinion it is a sales pitch.
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 3:22 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This last post made a very clear point that was neither vague nor a put
> down (but somehow you have erased it from this response):
>
> 1. Our GDP is near peak right now.
> 2. High GDP growth tends to increase the value of money in circulation,
> for reasons that are almost self-evident.
>
> Whatever you think about QE, it isn’t “imaginary money,” or some slight of
> hand con.  It is a Keynesian monetary strategy.  It may or may not be
> effective, but that term is straight from a right wing playbook, meant to
> invoke derision and fear.  It’s like saying that since you and I have to
> operate with a balanced budget, so should the Federal government.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 1:34 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Thinking the vast sums of QE have nothing to do with inflation sounds
>> ignorant to me, but believe what you will. Your opinions hold little
>> interest for me since you have no argument, only vague and unreasoned put
>> downs.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:41 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A smorgasbord of an answer, there.  But calling qualitative easing
>> “imaginary money” sounds jughead ignorant.  And I know you aren’t that, so
>> I conclude you were just throwing around words, but, by doing so,
>> devaluating whatever points you were trying to make.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:20 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> define “imaginary money.”
>>>
>>> Basically when money is released into circulation that has no
>>> corresponding economic growth/new value. Many economists from different
>>> political positions and economic biases have questioned the benefits of
>>> Quantitative Easing as a solution to any and every sign of economic
>>> faltering. Already China and other countries are pulling away from the
>>> dollar  and Tbills as overvalued.  Tying up metals as markers of wealth
>>> seems like a waste of gold, silver, whatever as highly useful and
>>> decorative material. But people  around the world buy gold against
>>> inflation and it works pretty well. Also indebting the tax base to ever
>>> increasing military budgets is draining value from currency at a time when
>>> ecological threats far far outweigh military threats.  Passive solar houses
>>> and business buildings are a far better hedge against inflation than
>>> truckloads of high tech weapons that lose wars.  Locally grown food and
>>> locally made necessities the best hedge agains attenuated  fossil fuel
>>> dependent supply lines.
>>>
>>> IMO Ignatius is fantasizing if he thinks Biden is going to challenge the
>>> oil companies. Look at COP; look at the pipelines. The dollar = oil.
>>> Food is grown with fossil fuels, delivered with fossil fuels, wrapped in
>>> fossil fuels and converted into debt measured in fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 9:12 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please define “imaginary money.”
>>>
>>> Like, as opposed to gold or something?
>>>
>>> I can’t wait for this…
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 8:54 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe not price gouging but when goverment pumps tons of imaginary
>>>> money into the economy it starts to lose value. Quantitative Easing was the
>>>> phrase.
>>>>
>>>> > On Nov 12, 2021, at 7:12 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Love in the Time of Web3, Pynchon is smiling when he saw that....
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > <https://twitter.com/mattyglesias>
>>>> > Matthew Yglesias
>>>> > @mattyglesias
>>>> > <https://twitter.com/mattyglesias>
>>>> > ·
>>>> > 12m <https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1459126609521295389>
>>>> > Agree with Robinson — you can’t take the politics out of politics!
>>>> Biden
>>>> > should also investigate price-gouging and anti-competitive behavior by
>>>> > retail gas stations and have the FTC ask if cartel-like behavior by
>>>> oil
>>>> > company shareholders is restraining supply.
>>>> > --
>>>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>