All judgements are relative. To someone living in New Orleans or on Chicago's South side, Sweden has zero crime. But to a Swede used to no crime at all, the country is falling apart.
I try and respect the opinions of every one. Sometimes it is just impossible. This post of yours above, to put it a little too mildly, is ridiculous. And believe me when I say I am no supporter of the ACA as passed. Single payer would have been vastly better. But at least the ACA was a tiny step away from the brink. Your comments regarding the speed of recovery from recession and Medicare Part D are absurd. (Medicare PartD is totally fucked up, but you have not addressed why.) In addition, you've suggested that I maintained that deficits don't matter. This is incorrect. What I have pointed out is that, according to MMT economists whom I largely agree with, small deficits can be carried virtually forever. There are constraints of course. So a blanket statement such as you have incorrectly imputed to me, and such as i believe Dick Cheney was to have uttered during national consternation over Iraq war costs, is nonsense. Deficits must be maintained in line with slow, steady growth in the money supply* as required by growth in population and productivity. When too much money is introduced too rapidly into an economy, inflation is the usual result. This can be ameliorated to some extent, and the problems it would have otherwise created deferred to future administrations, by concentrating the extra money near the top of the income distribution. This keeps much of the new money out of circulation as it reappears in the form of treasuries purchased by those with disposable income far exceeding their immediate needs. Supply-side economics has become the usual mechanism for carrying out this subterfuge. ___________________ *Deficits are the mechanism governments use to increase the money supply in the economy, i.e., they spend it into the economy. An increase in savings and investment are one of the consequences. Inflation can be another. Still another consequence is an increase in government revenues. However supply-side economics introduced via tax cuts has not increased revenues enough to cancel the deficit created. If that were to happen there would be no net deficit and no net growth of the money supply, and no additional inflation. The government must produce a net deficit to produce a net increase in the money supply. The closest we came to producing a neutral effect from tax cuts, i.e., revenue increases approximately canceled out deficits, occurred during the demand-side economic stimulus applied during the Kennedy Administration. If a government runs consistent surpluses the economy will eventually be thrown into recession as deflation sets in and real interest rates rise. The government spends money into the economy and takes it back out via taxes and fees. The best it can do, ceteris paribis, is to balance these two flows. When population/productivity is growing the government must run appropriate small deficits to avoid throwing the economy into recession. Needless to say, the economy of a nation with its own fiat currency is not comparable to one's household economy and must be managed very differently.
I don't know if I agree with your analysis because I haven't thought about it much, but what you say makes sense. It's nice to read a coherent argument here every once in a while . So thank you. I live in a state with very low property taxes, a couple hundred thousand or so who have virtually no access to medical care except through emergency rooms --medicaid was not expanded -- the worst public schools in the nation according to standard measures, and a regressive and criminal, criminal justice system. My state is a big taker per capita of Federal dollars. So I suppose My state helps to make your case.
I am in favor of giving the women immediate refugee status. We really have no use for the men who refuse to protect their women however.
Thank you for quoting me. Obviously I've had quite am impact on your thinking, and I am flattered. Maybe we can work together to reduce American hypocrisy. I know the two of us working together, arm in arm, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, will never be able to totally eliminate American hypocrisy, but let's try to reduce it to just every now and then.