|
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 November 02 2014 12:14 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 10:51 bookwyrm wrote:
what's your point? this seems like an irrelevant thing to say. That the claim "technocrat conspiracy" isnt sustained by what happened over the last 30 years in BoJ, even within the constraints of their institutional narrow mindedness.
There's a much better case to be made that a technocrat conspiracy exists in the US. Speaking of which, I'm thinking that the Democrats' claim to populism is long gone given what's happened over the past six years. The line between the democrat and republican establishments is so blurred on the economic issues that it is almost irrelevant. Pretty much every difference in position is merely a function of semantics as far as I am concerned.
|
On November 02 2014 12:13 nunez wrote:
i didn't think you would be able to back up your claim
in a meaningful way, that would mean a lot of hard work,
and maybe not even possible!
however i was at least expecting that you'd contrast the data
from two similar markets with different levels of competition
and flesh out a simple non-linear model reflecting your
business dynamic!
dismiss-as-troll escape-strategy?
coward! market heuristic soundly rejected!
If you really want to learn econ, why not just take some classes?
|
@sub40apm
i am a student of control theory, a hobby programmer,
distrustful of authority, and terribly confused both
politically and economically.
a distributed, democratic, and decentralized
version of project cybersyn would be right up my ally.
|
On November 02 2014 12:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:14 Sub40APM wrote:On November 02 2014 10:51 bookwyrm wrote:
what's your point? this seems like an irrelevant thing to say. That the claim "technocrat conspiracy" isnt sustained by what happened over the last 30 years in BoJ, even within the constraints of their institutional narrow mindedness. There's a much better case to be made that a technocrat conspiracy exists in the US. Speaking of which, I'm thinking that the Democrats' claim to populism is long gone given what's happened over the past six years. The line between the democrat and republican establishments is so blurred on the economic issues that it is almost irrelevant. Pretty much every difference in position is merely a function of semantics as far as I am concerned.
Well yea, the Republicans from the 1980s won. Free trade, relatively low taxes, relatively lite touch regulation, outsourcing are all popular. Why are you mad you won? There are only two attacks: either the insane Rand Paul/Austria lets go back to gold standard and also abolish any regulation to guarantee fuedalism and the Leftist-Quasi-Racist lets end free trade with countries where labor is so suppressed that the only way of equalization between us is for our way of life to be much shittier.
|
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save when the economy grows faster than the money supply and deflation kicks in, but the notion that magic paper money will end all the economic trouble and that by definition there can never be something wrong with the economy itself is even more ridiculous (and honestly quite some economists are saying exactly that)
|
On November 02 2014 12:42 nunez wrote:
@sub40apm
i am a student of control theory, a hobby programmer,
distrustful of authority, and terribly confused both
politically and economically.
a distributed, democratic, and decentralized
version of project cybersyn would be right up my ally.
wouldnt making it distributed, democratic and decentralized undermine the whole point of it? Or do you mean people vote on the forecasts of the model and then follow the steps necessary to make those forecasts reality?
|
On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save when the economy grows faster than the money supply and deflation kicks in, but the notion that magic paper money will end all the economic trouble and that by definition there can never be something wrong with the economy itself is even more ridiculous (and honestly quite some economists are saying exactly that)
outside of a few random moneterists no one is saying that. But saying "hey guys, that period where people in developed countries could hold factory jobs and feel good about themselves not only financially but in a social order also depends on us continuing to hold down the 3rd world in feudal penury" isnt that popular to announce.
|
On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save
why is saving a bad thing? i think that people who save should be rewarded.
|
On November 02 2014 12:57 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save why is saving a bad thing? i think that people who save should be rewarded.
Well but if everybody saves prices will go down more, the economy will shrink, prices will fall, it's a vicious cycle. I also don't really understand how inflation is supposed to actually do anything but I think it's pretty easy to see that deflation should be avoided.
On November 02 2014 12:50 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save when the economy grows faster than the money supply and deflation kicks in, but the notion that magic paper money will end all the economic trouble and that by definition there can never be something wrong with the economy itself is even more ridiculous (and honestly quite some economists are saying exactly that) outside of a few random moneterists no one is saying that. But saying "hey guys, that period where people in developed countries could hold factory jobs and feel good about themselves not only financially but in a social order also depends on us continuing to hold down the 3rd world in feudal penury" isnt that popular to announce.
I feel like a lot people think like this. In every random economy related journal you're bound to find a dozen articles about central bank x doing y, but surprisingly little information about what real structural problems our economies have.
|
On November 02 2014 12:57 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save why is saving a bad thing? i think that people who save should be rewarded.
Saving is great! The only problem with saving is that you can find yourself in an economy where there is already spare capacity and saving is increasing. That leaves no investment opportunity for the savings to be used in and so total output falls. This is particularly a worry in a deflationary context.
|
On November 02 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2014 12:14 Sub40APM wrote:On November 02 2014 10:51 bookwyrm wrote:
what's your point? this seems like an irrelevant thing to say. That the claim "technocrat conspiracy" isnt sustained by what happened over the last 30 years in BoJ, even within the constraints of their institutional narrow mindedness. There's a much better case to be made that a technocrat conspiracy exists in the US. Speaking of which, I'm thinking that the Democrats' claim to populism is long gone given what's happened over the past six years. The line between the democrat and republican establishments is so blurred on the economic issues that it is almost irrelevant. Pretty much every difference in position is merely a function of semantics as far as I am concerned. Well yea, the Republicans from the 1980s won. Free trade, relatively low taxes, relatively lite touch regulation, outsourcing are all popular. Why are you mad you won? There are only two attacks: either the insane Rand Paul/Austria lets go back to gold standard and also abolish any regulation to guarantee fuedalism and the Leftist-Quasi-Racist lets end free trade with countries where labor is so suppressed that the only way of equalization between us is for our way of life to be much shittier.
I'm not really sure who actually "won."
|
@sub40
it seems the point of it is to produce what you need as effectively as possible,
so you have more time for Other Activities.
i think restricting each node (in the distribuited system)
to a local (as possible) economy,
and letting the people in it decide what is needed through
democratic processes will be a good starting point
because reasons.
i wouldn't mind a peep at the source for cybersyn.
probably a hilariously complicated mess.
@jonny
i have a decent foundation for reasoning about models
in general, but unless you want to reveal what you're hiding
under your skirt i can't measure your models girth.
i don't need economy, i need theology and geometry.
|
On November 02 2014 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:57 bookwyrm wrote:On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save why is saving a bad thing? i think that people who save should be rewarded. Saving is great! The only problem with saving is that you can find yourself in an economy where there is already spare capacity and saving is increasing. That leaves no investment opportunity for the savings to be used in and so total output falls. This is particularly a worry in a deflationary context.
why do we want output to go up? no investment opportunity sounds like another name for already having everything you need, which is a good thing in my book
|
On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save when the economy grows faster than the money supply and deflation kicks in, but the notion that magic paper money will end all the economic trouble and that by definition there can never be something wrong with the economy itself is even more ridiculous (and honestly quite some economists are saying exactly that)
This is a classic misunderstanding of how free markets function.
If an economy grows that means that the standard of living has increased.
If the standard of living has increased why would prices increase?
Competition within free markets causes prices to fall as people are competing against one and other in order to gain market share. Competition on price always drives prices down in a free market, which indicates that standard of living has increased and resources are being used more efficiently.
If the price of televisions increases 10% every year, and the value of the currency stays the same, people would have experienced a reduction in standard of living.
If the price of televisions decreases 10%, while the quality stays the same and the currency has not fluctuated, more people can afford televisions and the standard of living of the society has increased.
You are also misunderstanding interest rates and how they relate to market signaling.
If money is gaining value in an economy(deflation) this sends a signal to market participants that people are forgoing immediate consumption in favor of future consumption. This scenario indicates that entrepreneurs should focus more on research and development of their products as opposed to simply producing more of their current product.
If money is losing value in an economy(inflation) this sends a signal to market participants to avoid technological development and utilize their purchasing power immediately, before it loses more value.
It should not be difficult to see how the manipulation of interest rates leads to a lowering of standard of living for people within a manipulated market as a key signal for how to utilize scarce resources efficiently is the time preference of money.
|
The overall price level only changes if the ratio between the amount of money and amount of goods in circulation changes.(or the circulation speed changes, which empirically has been shown not to happen so much). If TV's get cheaper because one additional company has decided to produce TV's that has nothing to do with inflation or deflation. The people with their surplus money will then simply demand something else. That is why inflation is measured by throwing a lot of different stuff into a basket, and not just one thing.
Regarding what deflation does, I haven't said anything that would contradict what you said in the second part of your post.
|
On November 02 2014 14:30 Nyxisto wrote:
(or the circulation speed changes, which empirically has been shown not to happen so much).
the problem of the velocity of money is a big unknown thing
On November 02 2014 14:30 Nyxisto wrote:
why inflation is measured by throwing a lot of different stuff into a basket, and not just one thing.
ultimately a political decision what the inflation measure is, there is no possible objective measure of inflation this way
|
On November 02 2014 14:21 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save when the economy grows faster than the money supply and deflation kicks in, but the notion that magic paper money will end all the economic trouble and that by definition there can never be something wrong with the economy itself is even more ridiculous (and honestly quite some economists are saying exactly that) This is a classic misunderstanding of how free markets function. If an economy grows that means that the standard of living has increased. If the standard of living has increased why would prices increase?
Because the price of certain inputs is fixed by a finite supply.
And deflation does not signal to businesses to 'increase research because consumers are saving for the future', it signals 'cut spending' to increase market share in a decreasing pool of consumption.
|
On November 02 2014 14:15 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 02 2014 12:57 bookwyrm wrote:On November 02 2014 12:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously deflation is bad because people and companies start to save why is saving a bad thing? i think that people who save should be rewarded. Saving is great! The only problem with saving is that you can find yourself in an economy where there is already spare capacity and saving is increasing. That leaves no investment opportunity for the savings to be used in and so total output falls. This is particularly a worry in a deflationary context. why do we want output to go up? no investment opportunity sounds like another name for already having everything you need, which is a good thing in my book
Theoretically that can be the case, but it is not something we've experienced. Historically, a lack of investment opportunity has always been a temporary issue, brought about by changes in demand and mis-matches between supply and demand.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2014 09:56 bookwyrm wrote: Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 03:00 oneofthem wrote:
this is beyond ridiculous. do any of you actually know what the boj is up to? you have the secret knowledge, i'm sure. enlighten us
if you had a clue then you would realize the silliness of screaming neoliberal technocrats from da US at the current policy leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
