Mark Sadowksi and the Latest Adventures of a Marxist Telemarketer

     I got to say I like what I see-lots of comments to read and reply to. Almost as many as Scott Sumner-LOL. I must say though this is my site I feel a little outnumbered. I have no less than three Market Monetarist sympathizers leaving comments-Mark, Don Geddis, and Morgan Warslter. Who's getting my back in this rumble? No one really. 

     Tom Brown, of course, is basically Switzerland in all this-I'm not knocking his style, he can often be effective with it, but he sure doesn't give me much aid and comfort. I do have Greg, of course, I was thinking I might give each of my commentors their own blog post-this one is Mark's . I don't dislike Mark-I find him a very intelligent guy, and you have to hand it to him on his analytical wonkishness. I would even say I like him though he seems to not like me. 

    In the past he labelled me 'histrionic' and it wasn't meant as praise. Now he has not for the first time . referred me both as a Marxist and suggested I'm a 'sociopath' because of my day job-telemarketing though I don't know that he did the two together in the past.

    "To be clear, I have never advocated fiscal austerity, although, as I have said, I do not see any harm with cutting the defense budget, which made up almost exactly half of the non-interest sequester cuts. And if by "kind of policies" you mean fiscal stimulus, then I don't think such policies have any effect at all on aggregate demand, and therefore I seriously doubt you or others like you would benefit from such policies."

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/market-monetarism-and-supply-side.html?showComment=1393729705113#c7340075072536551579

     First of all, I don't see any harm in cutting the defense budget either but this is a separate issue than the question of fiscal austerity. I think the defense budget should be cut not to cut the deficit but simply because we spend more than we need in military spending and would rather see that money employed elsewhere. There are some who see many of the things that the military does with its money as immoral-this has nothing to do with a desire for fiscal austerity. 

    As for him doubting fiscal stimulus would help, that's his opinion I have a different one. I don't see that not having fiscal stimulus-and in fact having fiscal contraction the last 3 years has benefited 'me or others like me.'

    I don't get why he's so opposed to it or any of the MMers especially as they keep preaching that fiscal policy doesn't matter that monetary policy is the be all and end all. 

    When he says he's never advocated austerity he's being somewhat obtuse. Of course he hasn't in so many words-neither  does Sumner or any of the MMers-other than Morgan Warstler. Yet that's obviously implied. Explicitly MMers don't spend a lot of time advocating austerity-I never said that they did. Implicitly this is where the argument logically leads you. When you keep claiming like this what effect do you imagine it would have on the political discussion if it's taken to hear? Here is Don Geddis:

    "It's easy to be a liberal Market Monetarist. I don't know how else to say it: fiscal policy is IRRELEVANT to controlling aggregate demand. That doesn't mean that MM requires fiscal austerity. It means that your arguments for or against austerity, have nothing to do with whether we're in a demand-side recession."

    "If your politics suggests that you want larger government, large deficits, whatever ... then by all means, go ahead. The only single thing I don't want you to use in your fiscal debate, is the Keynesian claim that we need large fiscal deficits today, in order to boost aggregate demand. MMs want you to throw away that claim."

     "But if you have other reasons for preferring larger government (during any economy, not just a recession), then by all means state your case."

    "But that's independent of Market Monetarism. MM as a macro theory is completely neutral about fiscal policy. It by no means requires fiscal austerity."

       What's clear is that if this argument were taken to heart the GOP would have a much stronger hand in budget battles-in fighting for austerity. While the MMers claim that fiscal policy doesn't matter they criticize fiscal stimulus but not fiscal contraction. 

         Here Mark just goes off the deep end:

         "As for being conservative, only a Marxist like you could even think that I am conservative, other than in the sense of thinking it desirable to conserve those policies enacted as part of the New Deal and Great Society. "

          This is just gratuitous name calling. I would like to see one quote of me saying something Marxist in any meaningful way. Honestly, when I talk to MMers they really have no idea what my own beliefs are they're so hot to try to prove the absolute correctness of their beliefs. 

          If he wants to conserve the New Deal and the Great Society then we agree-although I also want not just the New Deal's conservation but its expansion. However, since Reagan the New Deal has been under attack so conservation is the first step. However, how would I possibly know that's his agenda based on what I've seen him write in the past? He certainly doesn't sound like someone with these commtiments and quite honestly, MM certainly is in no way going to make it easier to conserve the New Deal0it will make it harder as if it were believed that there's no fiscal multiplier that would only embolden conservatives even more in their bottomless desire to gut the New Deal. 

         Here he gets-well there's no other way to put it: he becomes truly priggish here on the subject of telemarketing. 

        "...If I get them to buy something they don't wholly need or perhaps shove them a little into it, why should I feel guilty? These same people don't give a crap about my struggles and if they elected better politicians we might have more socially beneficial things for people to do than telesales..."

       "This is a chillingly honest revelation of your sociopathic tendencies, although it doesn't surprise me in the least."

       I just have to wonder about his scale of values. What I find 'chiling' and 'sociopathic' is that recently a homeless man died here in NY during a snowstorm-he froze to death. I think that this says something about our society that's rather ugly, It's not about a sociopathic individual but a sociopathic society. What did I say in my comment that he finds so chilling? I certainly didn't lie. These same people don't give a crap about me or anyone else who has been struggling.  So why should I care about them not wanting to be called by telemarketers? I remember when I mentioned my personal struggles over at Money Illusion, both Mark and Sumner pratically spit they were so full of contemptuous derision. 

      Sumner just found such a discussion 'absurd'-I mean the very idea of upsetting people who are uncomfortable with tales of those who aren't comfortable! Mark coldly told me he doesn't give a hoot about my 'life story' or something like thta. So I think if you don't like telemarketers ask yourself if you favor the kinds of economic and social policies which tends to make them proliferate. 

      I call Mark prig here as he just shows not one drop of empathy. He's very concerned about some stuck up office manager who has a 'no solicitation policy' but never thinks that those who call her do so in part because she voted for jerkoff Republicans who care not a wit for those down on their luck. I think Greg sums up this hatred of fiscal policy well on the part of MMers:

      When you say fiscal policy is irrelevant what you are really saying is that distribution of wealth is irrelevant. If our GDP rose to 20 trillion next year but only 10 guys got the income, you think that would be no different than if 100 million got the income. The only thing that matters is the NGDP number not who and how many get it is essentially what you are arguing.

     "You also think the fed can simply target that number just by buying up the earth if necessary."

     "So how does the fed make someone sell?"

 http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/02/turns-out-bernanke-doesnt-believe-in.html?showComment=1393708902046#c851978117942486918

     What you wonder is why buying up the earth isn't actually a fiscal operation. I think the key thing is political. The fiscal authorities were actually elected by the American people. What Fed independence really is about is independence from the American people. Is it just accidental that the most comprehensive Monetarist experiments were in dictatorships like Pinochet?

    P.S. I have to say that Morgan's comments on my discussion about my telemarketing adventures at least contain some empathy on his part-he tries to put himself in the other guy's shoes. Mark clearly just imagines he's better than the other guy if the guy has struggles he doesn't.