I recently read an article called Myths about Homosexuality, America, and the Kingdom of God by Luke Dockery (lukedockery.com). While I disagree with a lot of what he has written, I can respect his interest in thinking critically about his views and supporting them with proper evidence–biblically and constitutionally. Also, I found myself agreeing with him on several points. I could spend a whole lot of words discussing each of his myths in detail, but instead I think a better approach is to add an additional myth, Myth 6, which is almost a corollary to his Myth 4.
Myth 6: Biblical Law is the foundation of American Law.
Several court houses and state houses around the country have Ten Commandments monuments. Atheist organizations often try to get these monuments removed as they claim the monuments on state property violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. I’m not arguing for or against them in this piece. That said, the argument made for the constitutionality of state sanctioned biblical monuments is that the 10 commandments are the foundation of American Law.
This is observably false, and can be shown easily.
As a follow-up to my previous post, I have found some visualizations of the sectoral balances GDP model.
For a step-by-step walk through of how various economic operations affect the economy go here.
For something that lets you play with the numbers a little more, try this one.
Note: these are in an early stage of development.
Thanks to EconViz.org for putting these together.
For those of you who haven’t been able to understand some of what I right about, I offer this 5 minute video clip of Warren Mosler explaining the basics. The sounds on Warren isn’t great, but his message sure is.
As if you didn’t already know that. I haven’t written a blog for a while, but after coming across this article, I just couldn’t stop myself. Let’s look at some excerpts.
The presumptive GOP nominee warned Iowa voters they cannot ignore the swelling “crisis of debt and spending that threatens what it means to be an American” during a speech at a hotel in Des Moines. “A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and across the nation and every day we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and the children we love,” Romney said.
Oh boy, here we go. Let’s get into the meat.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is currently hearing arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. The arguments have mainly centered around the constitutionality of the individual mandate that would require all individuals to purchase health insurance or to pay some sort of penalty. The arguments against the individual mandate concern the right of the government to force people to buy insurance. They through around buzz-words like “freedom” and “death panels.” The arguments for talk about the number of uninsured, the number of medical bankruptcies and the role of the government in providing for all of it’s citizens.
To be frank, I am against the Affordable Care Act. Many of you, knowing I’m pretty progressive, might be asking why I would be against such a progressive bill. The answer is that this is not a progressive bill. The rest of this post will lay out the reasons why this bill should be opposed by both sides of the aisle as well as discuss a more amenable alternative.
In part 1 I (hopefully) illustrated the point I was trying to make, which is that a low stable and predictable rate of inflation is actually preferable to a no inflation state, primarily because it encourages consumption and give policy makers some space in which to influence the economy. I’m sure the libertarians and free-market dogmatists will object, but I will have to leave that discussion for another time. In this post, I want to discuss the money supply and it’s effects on inflation. It will probably get more technical later in the post, however I’m sure you can follow along with some simple algebra and I will try to explain everything in laymen’s terms as much as possible. I’ll also try to pretty this post up with some charts.
Before I get into too much detail on how the government spends and why it should (or shouldn’t), I think it’s best that I cover inflation. I will divide this up into 2 posts. This first post will be more of an overview that will introduce the reader to the various topics concerning inflation. Part two will be a more in depth look at causes and effects and will include more discussion of how government policies work (or don’t work).
Current political and economic discussions about with fears of the national debt and large national deficits. As I discussed in my previous post, these fears are irrational to the extent that there is no solvency concern for the U.S. or any other government which has sovereign control of its own currency. It can never “run out of money” as some many politicians would like you to believe. While there might still be some people who refuse to admit this fact, I think most people will readily agree that, in reality, the government has an infinite supply of its own money. However, most people (especially the conservatives and libertarians) quickly jump on the hyper-inflation bandwagon. The thought process goes like this, “OK fine, in theory government has unlimited supply of money, but in reality, if government keeps ‘printing money’ we will eventually see inflation and if the spend too much we’ll get hyper-inflation like Zimbabwe or Wiemar Germany.”