Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Taking on Stuart Varney and his propaganda show.





10 comments:

Matt Franko said...

How can Fox have a lead economics reporter/journalist (Varney) that does not understand the basic financial concept of Double Entry Accounting?

This is a VERY basic concept of business/finance....Varney seems to be unqualified for the job...

Joe said...

Varney doesn't recognize the difference between govt and household debt. He also doesn't understand the role of US govt debt in a post-gold standard era.

All these deficit hawks are so pig-headed and closed minded about their world view. They simply cannot keep these two concepts in their mind at the same time: the fact that the govt is not revenue constrained in its spending, and because of this the govt cannot necessarily spend limitlessly to promote prosperity.

Tom Hickey said...

Great job, Mike. I think you need to attack Varney more directly and call him on his BS. Call him out next time and make him squirm. Put him in the position of looking like a fool if he persists in the hype. You are getting the upper hand on him. Go in for the kill. We've got your back.

Varney knows perfectly well you are correct and even admits it and then just blithely proceeds with the hype and Pavlovian bells and whistles that Faux Noise listeners are programmed with. For example, every time he says "national debt," say, "You mean 'nongovernment national savings'." Then, ask the listeners, "What is a Treasury bond in your hands? It's part of your savings and investment." Anyone can get that, even if they have never owned a bond.

He'll say, "What about the Chinese." Just come back and say they are just choosing to save the money they get from selling us their stuff in dollars. Instead of leaving it at no interest, they switch to an interest-bearing bond. What's the big deal."

If he hits you with the interest on the national debt, hit him with the no bonds option. :)

HIs m. o. is to keep you on the defensive. Put him on the defensive and box him in. Use phrases like, "That's crazy accounting," when it goes off on the hype.

Tom Hickey said...

Matt, Joe, I suspect that Varney knows the score perfectly well. He is getting paid to be disingenuous, and he is more than willing to oblige for ideological reasons. A lot of these folks are actually a lot more knowledgeable than they are letting on.

Joe said...

Tom, I don't think Varney is just putting us on. There was real conviction in his reaction to Mike's comments.

Stephan said...

Wow. Someone taking on this guy must have listened to Albert Collins' "But I Was Cool!":

I always live by the, golden rule
Whatever happens, ha, don't blow your cool!
You gotta have nerves of steel
And never show folks how you, honestly feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a92LKesAPAo

MortgageAngel said...

You know Varney is about to turn the table when he blows in your ear
"Well Mike, you're right there."
He used same strategy with Warren.

My favorite part is when Mike says
"No, YOU come on!"
(Way to give him the ol' one-two, Mike!!)

IMO - Mike is the one evoking real conviction. IIWQE - (If I was the Queen of England) I would dub Sir Varney 'Stuart the Insidious', Court Jester.

On a lighter note, I think it would be fun to watch Stuart, or any hawk for that matter, bite into a lemon and then try to say billion or trillion. lmaao $0;-D #justsayn
~MA

Philip said...

You know, it just dawned on me that there may be another way to argue for MMT. Part of the problem when talking about the Federal debt is that the people on the street think that the debt figure represents _their_ money (ie: taxpayer funds), when really _their_ money is represented by the other side of the debt. If we could get more people to understand that the federal debt is not what _we_ owe, but what the gov't _owes us_ (or has given us) then we just might be getting somewhere.

Tom Hickey said...

The false narrative is based in the erroneous government-finance=household finance. The reasoning goes that since I have to pay by debts with income (earnings), government must pay its debts with revenue (my taxes). This is confuses the currency issuer with currency users, whereas their relationship is inverse. Government complements the private sector by issuing the currency rather than competing with it for funds. Unfortunately, this is difficult to get for a lot of people.

Moreover, in explaining this, the natural reaction of the public is "printing money leads to inflation." Then it has to be explained how inflation does not result from an absolute increase in money but only in relation to real resources available, which is never a problem with a large output gap and high unemployment.

The other thing that most people don't get and presume the opposite is that both government and nongovernment (consolidating domestic and external) cannot both be in surplus simultaneously. If the private sector desires to save/delever and this amount is not offset by a trade surplus, then either government must offset it with a corresponding deficit or else there will be a widening output gap and rising unemployment. This is an accounting identity not a theory based on assumptions.

Those are the points that need to be hammered home if minds are to be changed.

doggings said...

OMFG do you REALLY believe this stuff you come out with?

"what false lending standards?"

"There are none so blind as those
who will not see"