|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2014 02:38 bookwyrm wrote:
by structural reforms you mean austerity? that's not structural reform, that's just abandoning the old structural reform half-measures (social democracy) without any replacement.
our country is full of people who believe that there are magic, monetary solutions to real world problems. Like... kwizach and sub40
Well there's reformation of the banking sector, the public sector, taxation and ideas to improve the education systems and mobility, there's certainly a lot more happening than just "austerity".
|
On October 03 2014 02:32 bookwyrm wrote:
HAHA right on cue, more neener neener NO YOU from the self-appointed guardians of discursive integrity. You guys are really doing a great job of convincing me of that your position is reasonable! Thanks for explaining all these difficult concepts to me!
Stay Angry Pony Boy, Stay Angry.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 03 2014 02:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 02:38 bookwyrm wrote:
by structural reforms you mean austerity? that's not structural reform, that's just abandoning the old structural reform half-measures (social democracy) without any replacement.
our country is full of people who believe that there are magic, monetary solutions to real world problems. Like... kwizach and sub40
Well there's reformation of the banking sector, the public sector, taxation and ideas to improve the education systems and mobility, there's certainly a lot more happening than just "austerity".
not radical enough, doesn't solve the problem. solving the problem is figuring out what is the new social contract in a world in which there will never, ever again be "full employment", not even close
On October 03 2014 02:51 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 02:32 bookwyrm wrote:
HAHA right on cue, more neener neener NO YOU from the self-appointed guardians of discursive integrity. You guys are really doing a great job of convincing me of that your position is reasonable! Thanks for explaining all these difficult concepts to me!
Stay Angry Pony Boy, Stay Angry.
more thoughtful, substantive responses from sub40, showing bookwyrm how it's done!! I wish I could be so eloquent and reasonable as you, it just pains me...
seriously though, did you even actually read that Princes of the Yen book that you recommended to me? And you still have faith in central bankers? I don't think you've read any of that shit you told me to read
|
On October 03 2014 02:32 bookwyrm wrote:HAHA right on cue, more neener neener NO YOU from the self-appointed guardians of discursive integrity. You guys are really doing a great job of convincing me of that your position is reasonable! Thanks for explaining all these difficult concepts to me! Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Also, brush up on those open market operations. When interest rates go down the central bank is expanding the money supply, 'monetizing the debt', 'devaluing the currency', etc. QE and other special programs are just extensions of that. There's nothing particularly novel or magical about them.
I know. That's my point! it's exactly the same as has been going on for literally thousands of years. History is full of sovereigns thinking that there are monetary solutions to real-world problems. There aren't, and it always, always ends badly. The point is that economists think that "history" means the 20th century. They need to go read their Fernand Braudel QE is just debasing the currency in a world with fancier forms of money. Hey kwizach and Sub40, y'all wanna explain to me how in your world it's possible to get something for nothing? Please, demonstrate how a REAL intellectual supports his points! How can QE both DO SOMETHING, and BE FREE? Since this is clearly what you believe. Or if not, please explain what, on your view, are the dangers of "unconventional monetary policy", since the dangers I have identified are obviously very stupid and ignorant
Actually that's not true. Monetary solutions do have a history of helping to solve real world problems.
You seem to be, rhetorically at least, throwing all 'monetary solutions' into the catch-all of 'devaluing the currency'. But that's a mistake on your end. The credible opposing view to your own is not that devaluing the currency has a magical outcome, it's that lower interest rates make consumer and business credit cheaper. That, in turn, increases demand for goods and services which can be provided by a real economy that has excess capacity.
|
|
|
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy.
|
On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy.
stop using your lame 20th century history, statist dog. Everyone knows we must study Roman silver debasement of 32 AD to understand economics like bookwrym and David Graebar have. Not factually but intuitively, the only way to understand things.
|
On October 03 2014 03:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy. stop using your lame 20th century history, statist dog. Everyone knows we must study Roman silver debasement of 32 AD to understand economics like bookwrym and David Graebar have. Not factually but intuitively, the only way to understand things.
It is true. I an an unrepentant statist.
Has anyone argued for the return of the gold yet? That would just make me spill my guts on the floor in laughter.
|
United States44336 Posts
On October 03 2014 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 01:46 KwarK wrote:
Do we know that the President definitely would have died if he only had 30 highly trained highly armed people protecting him? Cause if not she may have had a point. Why not go with
"How dare they recommend the President be protected by just 100? You need at least 500! That's 5x as secure!"
Someone far more informed and experienced that us commenting on it here thought 30 would be sufficient and if your only basis for criticising that is that there are numbers higher than 30 then you should be barred from opinions. if their internal reports say you need 100 people to keep the White House perimeter secure at all times then trying to do it with 30 is a risk they should not be taking. Now ofc you can look at the situation and see how you can employ other measures to allow 30 to do it but thats something different. A random bystander climbed the fence and walked through the front door of the White House. I would say that there is more going on then ignorant people shouting.
You legitimately believe that based upon hearing that an internal report proposed something you know better than the head of the department? I would be amazed if she didn't also know the proposals in that report, the difference between her and you is that she knew other things too because it's like her job and shit so she wanted to go another way whereas that one proposal is literally all you know about the subject.
I don't know why she proposed something different but to cry incompetence and claim that you could do better based upon hearing about one proposal is ridiculous.
|
On October 03 2014 03:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2014 01:46 KwarK wrote:
Do we know that the President definitely would have died if he only had 30 highly trained highly armed people protecting him? Cause if not she may have had a point. Why not go with
"How dare they recommend the President be protected by just 100? You need at least 500! That's 5x as secure!"
Someone far more informed and experienced that us commenting on it here thought 30 would be sufficient and if your only basis for criticising that is that there are numbers higher than 30 then you should be barred from opinions. if their internal reports say you need 100 people to keep the White House perimeter secure at all times then trying to do it with 30 is a risk they should not be taking. Now ofc you can look at the situation and see how you can employ other measures to allow 30 to do it but thats something different. A random bystander climbed the fence and walked through the front door of the White House. I would say that there is more going on then ignorant people shouting. You legitimately believe that based upon hearing that an internal report proposed something you know better than the head of the department? I would be amazed if she didn't also know the proposals in that report, the difference between her and you is that she knew other things too because it's like her job and shit so she wanted to go another way whereas that one proposal is literally all you know about the subject. I don't know why she proposed something different but to cry incompetence and claim that you could do better based upon hearing about one proposal is ridiculous.
And similarly defending her competency at this stage is premature.
This coming from a guy who thinks this is overblown drivel.
|
On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy.
Being charitable here, I think if you take a very narrow view of what counts as 'money' the future does look scary:
+ Show Spoiler +
But if you take a broader view, not so much:
+ Show Spoiler +
So just by changing perspective you can support whatever opinion you want to have. The challenge for anyone who wants to take the topic seriously, and not just rant one way or another, is to look at the different perspectives and argue why one or the other is more relevant to the present circumstance. Taking back my charity, I think that's where bookwyrm's posts are lacking. He seems to be arguing that his perspective is right, flat out, in all times and places.
|
On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy.
is debasing the currency not increasing money velocity?
now i'm not that steady on terms etc, but if debasing currency is increasing the $ in circulation (or lowering the value of a $) the money velocity will increase. if it does not, that is because the economic growth is 'big enough', not because debasing the currency is not increasing money velocity (because it is, if my understanding is accurate enough).
deflation on the other hand would lead to a decrease in money velocity... right?
|
On October 03 2014 03:56 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy. is debasing the currency not increasing money velocity? now i'm not that steady on terms etc, but if debasing currency is increasing the $ in circulation the money velocity will increase in that respsect.
Velocity is a per-unit term. 'How often does a dollar change hands in the economy' rather than a total volume term like 'how many dollars flow through the economy in a year'. Increasing the supply with increase the latter, but not the former.
|
United States44336 Posts
On October 03 2014 03:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 03:46 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2014 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2014 01:46 KwarK wrote:
Do we know that the President definitely would have died if he only had 30 highly trained highly armed people protecting him? Cause if not she may have had a point. Why not go with
"How dare they recommend the President be protected by just 100? You need at least 500! That's 5x as secure!"
Someone far more informed and experienced that us commenting on it here thought 30 would be sufficient and if your only basis for criticising that is that there are numbers higher than 30 then you should be barred from opinions. if their internal reports say you need 100 people to keep the White House perimeter secure at all times then trying to do it with 30 is a risk they should not be taking. Now ofc you can look at the situation and see how you can employ other measures to allow 30 to do it but thats something different. A random bystander climbed the fence and walked through the front door of the White House. I would say that there is more going on then ignorant people shouting. You legitimately believe that based upon hearing that an internal report proposed something you know better than the head of the department? I would be amazed if she didn't also know the proposals in that report, the difference between her and you is that she knew other things too because it's like her job and shit so she wanted to go another way whereas that one proposal is literally all you know about the subject. I don't know why she proposed something different but to cry incompetence and claim that you could do better based upon hearing about one proposal is ridiculous. And similarly defending her competency at this stage is premature. This coming from a guy who thinks this is overblown drivel.
Sure, I have no idea if she is competent or not. But I don't go "I heard about this person who was doing a job and then someone said she should do it one way but then she said she should do it another way so she must be like terrible at her job because 100 is like a way bigger number than 30" which is essentially what Gorsameth leaped to.
There was a proposal which she disagreed with for reasons which may have been good, or may not have been, I don't know, but nor does anyone else here. The only stance I'm taking here is that we're probably less informed about the issues involved in running the secret service than the head of the secret service.
|
On October 03 2014 03:56 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 03:29 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Why is "debasing the currency" a bad thing when an expanding money supply is usually needed with an expanding economy and without increasing velocity of money. Deflation is...bad.
This thread always amuses me when I open it.
Also bookwyrm: the Great Depression. The end of the depression in different countries can Be plotted against the date they left the gold standard and had free reign to institute stimulative monetary policy as opposed to maintaining and defending the gold. Other countries such as Japan were well insulated from the Deflationary pressures in the global economy by never being on gold in the first place.
Energetic monetary policy was a critical component in ending the depression. Whilst in the US, attempts defend the gold prolonged the recession because it incentivized bad monetary policy. is debasing the currency not increasing money velocity? now i'm not that steady on terms etc, but if debasing currency is increasing the $ in circulation the money velocity will increase in that respsect.
No. Velocity of money refers to how quickly money circulates through the system. Aka, people and businesses are spending it rapidly and a smaller money supply magnifies, as the same unit of money is used to purchase more goods with high velocity of money. Completely different from the money supply. One is how much money is in the system, the other measures how quickly money circulates through the system.
|
yes...
and if you increase the amount of money in the system, without increasing the value, then the money will circulate faster. the velocity will increase. or? dam, this is tough, gotta bring it onto familiar territory.
if i gotta pay you 5 dollar per suckjob instead of 1 dollar per suckjob, because the dollar is now worth less, that means money is moving faster, not slower. the dollar will be turned over more times per suckjob season.
|
On October 03 2014 04:05 nunez wrote:
yes...
and if you increase the amount of money in the system, without increasing the value, then the money will circulate faster. the velocity will increase. or? dam, this is tough.
Increasing the money supply, assuming no change in economic activity (impossible), would lower the velocity of money, as the same unit of money changes hands less.
V=PT/M. Wherein V is the velocity of money, M is the money supply, T is the value of transactions, and P is the Price level.
|
hm, yes, i think that seems correct. phew.
so what you are hoping for is that the increase in money supply does not affect the price of transaction or the price level to a such a degree that it counteracts the change?
|
Yes. The Japanese Lost Decade and the 2007 recession however have more or less proven that velocity of money is not constant as some have argued, and is indeed inversely related to the money supply.
|
aha, yes, how silly of me, thx. :>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/100214inflate31.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/100214inflate5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/100214inflate41.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/100214inflate21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/100214inflate1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=KPd)
![[image loading]](http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u2228/images/2013/us-money-supply-divisia-m4.jpg)
