|
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 24 2013 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 06:41 Wegandi wrote:On October 24 2013 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2013 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
A couple questions that go along with that line of thought:
1) Whether we can get back to trend growth, ever, or if this a new normal.
2) The extent to which, going into 2014, total spending is still a driving issue.
I'm of the opinion (since the sequester kicked in) that we could be spending somewhat more now, but that depends heavily on what the money would be spent on. I'm also of the opinion that non spending issues are growing in importance. It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already. Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Well that's not entirely correct. You don't get free money, you are getting interest free money. Alhtough that's often a great deal, you are still increasing your debt. And that's an issue. Maybe not at the 90% of GDP line Rogoff and many other fiscal conservatives drew, but at some point it will get too much, and at some point you need to pay it back.
Hurray! More Debt! isn't exactly an argument. Austerity till nothing of a countries economy is left, on the other hand, obviously isn't really a smart idea too. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure. What? I don't understand your characterization of monetary policy. How is it "buying time"? Monetary policy helps. Inflation works and has always worked to shrink unemployment. Google "Baby-sitting the Economy" for how printing money can actually spur real growth depending on the conditions. No, monetary policy has no long term effect on real variables. That is called Neutrality of money and is basically accepted by every economist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_moneyIf you lower interest rates through monetary policy, the economy basically needs to 'earn that money back'. Else you are just feeding into a bubble of worthless credits. That's why i was talking about "buying time". You need to follow an expansive monetary policy up by real-growth, monetary policy does not lead to real growth in the sense that monetary policy would create growth. That's also why the German government opposes the idea of euro-bonds or an expansive MP . They fear it will take the pressure from debt ridden countries to make real structural reforms. It has nothing to do with a 'German fear of inflation', it's just the acknowledgement of the fact that printing paper or artificially low interest rates are not going to help you in the long run. Yes, monetary policy have no long term effect on real variables. Do you know what "real variables" means ? Having a debt in central money is not "real"... or to say it in another way, real interest rate can be below 0%. You've read some theory you don't know about and you just use it to support your own point of view. When they say that monetary policy have no impact on real variable, it means that you cannot (in theory) use monetary policy to lower unemployment or to push GDP : it is the conclusion modern economists have come after the discussion behind the phillips curve that advanced the idea that there was a possible trade off between inflation rate and unemployment (the more inflation, the less unemployment). Today, and since Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps' works, we consider that this trade off doesn't work in the long run, because of rational anticipations, but is still possible in the short run due to some circumstances (mainly price rigidity). PLUS this was proved to be true only under a certain inflation rate (which explained the idea of the inflation target). Thus monetary policy might still have an impact in the long run if the inflation rate is under a certain ratio (between 2 to 4%). See Akerlof Dickens & Perry's workThis doesn't mean that we have no control over inflation rate, and that a 4% inflation would not greatly lower our debt : if you have 2% more money at the end of each month, and you have to give the exact same amount to the people who posses your debt, then the real debt has effectively lowered. There is a reason why almost every economists - from the FMI to Krugman - push for a 4% inflation ratio, despite the fact that it is supposed to disturb market allocations : it will lower our debt, force firms to push salaries up (since they are indexed to inflation and we see, since some years now, a complete split between productivity and salaries) and it might also permit a trade off between inflation and unemployment. See, all that by changing a simple inflation target. Except that is not true. Wages have never matched inflation because of the Cantillon Effect. The allocation of the newly printed money must necessarily move from the first person, to the second, and the third, and so on and so forth. Those who are at the front of this chain reap the benefits of the newly printed money (e.g. higher purchasing power), because the effects of the inflation have yet to be systematically felt. In other words, inflation is a domino affect whereby the first benefactors reap higher purchasing power at the expense of those down the chain. When you finally get the money that has been newly created months down the line you've become poorer because you've been robbed the purchasing power of the dollar you had months earlier by the people who first received the new monies. This means, that the Government has stolen your wealth from you and handed it over to its chosen few. This means large corporate entities like GE, Citigroup, MIC, and of course the Welfare recepients. Those most hurt are in the middle. The people who make too much to qualify for much of the Welfare, and those who make not enough or those who are ideologically opposed to taking the money from the Government. Essentially the Government creates a system of patronage. This was the entire point behind the Federal Reserve System and the ability to decouple the dollar from a weight of gold or silver. Why do you think these Corporations are so large and powerful? They're creations of Government patronage. It's a perverse system that steals the wealth from Middle America and redistributes to the Government cronies whether they're rich, or poor. What do the politicians get in return? (power, wealth, etc.) That's nothing to say of the Institutional problems themselves - of motivation, of conflicts of interest, of calculation problems. Prices are there to allocate resources, and by fucking with natural price mechanisms you highly distort the economy causing recessions and depressions. The Federal Reserve is equivalent to the USSR CPSU and Politburo. These people have no idea what the 300 million individuals in the US prefer at any given moment or time and expecting them to properly allocate resources (money and interest (or the price of money)), is absurd. They cause enormous economic hardship on the people of the US. They're not a boon - they're a colossal disaster. Look the last 30 years, with the lowest inflation rate we've had since the 2nd world war, and look how inequality have risen. Of course, it's not completly the fault of the low inflation rate, but it is pretty simple to understand how a higher inflation would have prevented those inequalities to a certain extend.
the mechanism you describe only works if you are talking about savings being in terms of actual cash. assets rise in an inflationary environment, and the rich who save via houses or stocks would win out as well.
|
I have no idea why people take Austrian Economics seriously. I discarded them the moment I found out their theories aren't based on mathematics or empiricism. That's all you really need to know. Oh, and that they like to predict DOOOOOOM a lot.
|
Apparently the Obama administration now has the opportunity to change the rules / taxes on carried interest without Congressional approval.
A Chance to End a Billion-Dollar Tax Break for Private Equity
A recent court case has given the federal government a chance to sidestep Congress and eliminate private equity’s billion-dollar tax break. The question is whether the Obama administration takes up the fight. ...
Link
I have mixed feelings on carried interest. I suppose the current rules are nice when the government is flush with cash, but since its not this is probably a decent way to raise revenue.
Edit: I suppose it would be wise for Obama to put the issue on the back burner until after we have a full year budget / debt ceiling deal in place.
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea why people take Austrian Economics seriously. I discarded them the moment I found out their theories aren't based on mathematics or empiricism. That's all you really need to know. Oh, and that they like to predict DOOOOOOM a lot.
People like Austrian economics because the notion that capital G Government is to blame for our problems is far more comfortable than the uncertainty of knowing that no single entity or dynamic is responsible.
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 06:41 Wegandi wrote:On October 24 2013 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
It can become the new normal if we just sit on our asses and allow unemployment to continue. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unemployment can almost certainly go down even if labor participation doesn't go back up entirely because we've let it fester this long already.
Austerity is clearly driving the issue. Again, the private sector has pretty much recovered. The public sector is continuing to shed jobs. All the evidence points to a public sector issue. I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On October 23 2013 12:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word below in my sentence. It means that the debt depreciates faster than the interest increases it for an overall loss in the total real value of the debt. This is free money. Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure. What? I don't understand your characterization of monetary policy. How is it "buying time"? Monetary policy helps. Inflation works and has always worked to shrink unemployment. Google "Baby-sitting the Economy" for how printing money can actually spur real growth depending on the conditions. No, monetary policy has no long term effect on real variables. That is called Neutrality of money and is basically accepted by every economist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_moneyIf you lower interest rates through monetary policy, the economy basically needs to 'earn that money back'. Else you are just feeding into a bubble of worthless credits. That's why i was talking about "buying time". You need to follow an expansive monetary policy up by real-growth, monetary policy does not lead to real growth in the sense that monetary policy would create growth. That's also why the German government opposes the idea of euro-bonds or an expansive MP . They fear it will take the pressure from debt ridden countries to make real structural reforms. It has nothing to do with a 'German fear of inflation', it's just the acknowledgement of the fact that printing paper or artificially low interest rates are not going to help you in the long run. Yes, monetary policy have no long term effect on real variables. Do you know what "real variables" means ? Having a debt in central money is not "real"... or to say it in another way, real interest rate can be below 0%. You've read some theory you don't know about and you just use it to support your own point of view. When they say that monetary policy have no impact on real variable, it means that you cannot (in theory) use monetary policy to lower unemployment or to push GDP : it is the conclusion modern economists have come after the discussion behind the phillips curve that advanced the idea that there was a possible trade off between inflation rate and unemployment (the more inflation, the less unemployment). Today, and since Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps' works, we consider that this trade off doesn't work in the long run, because of rational anticipations, but is still possible in the short run due to some circumstances (mainly price rigidity). PLUS this was proved to be true only under a certain inflation rate (which explained the idea of the inflation target). Thus monetary policy might still have an impact in the long run if the inflation rate is under a certain ratio (between 2 to 4%). See Akerlof Dickens & Perry's workThis doesn't mean that we have no control over inflation rate, and that a 4% inflation would not greatly lower our debt : if you have 2% more money at the end of each month, and you have to give the exact same amount to the people who posses your debt, then the real debt has effectively lowered. There is a reason why almost every economists - from the FMI to Krugman - push for a 4% inflation ratio, despite the fact that it is supposed to disturb market allocations : it will lower our debt, force firms to push salaries up (since they are indexed to inflation and we see, since some years now, a complete split between productivity and salaries) and it might also permit a trade off between inflation and unemployment. See, all that by changing a simple inflation target. Except that is not true. Wages have never matched inflation because of the Cantillon Effect. The allocation of the newly printed money must necessarily move from the first person, to the second, and the third, and so on and so forth. Those who are at the front of this chain reap the benefits of the newly printed money (e.g. higher purchasing power), because the effects of the inflation have yet to be systematically felt. In other words, inflation is a domino affect whereby the first benefactors reap higher purchasing power at the expense of those down the chain. When you finally get the money that has been newly created months down the line you've become poorer because you've been robbed the purchasing power of the dollar you had months earlier by the people who first received the new monies. This means, that the Government has stolen your wealth from you and handed it over to its chosen few. This means large corporate entities like GE, Citigroup, MIC, and of course the Welfare recepients. Those most hurt are in the middle. The people who make too much to qualify for much of the Welfare, and those who make not enough or those who are ideologically opposed to taking the money from the Government. Essentially the Government creates a system of patronage. This was the entire point behind the Federal Reserve System and the ability to decouple the dollar from a weight of gold or silver. Why do you think these Corporations are so large and powerful? They're creations of Government patronage. It's a perverse system that steals the wealth from Middle America and redistributes to the Government cronies whether they're rich, or poor. What do the politicians get in return? (power, wealth, etc.) That's nothing to say of the Institutional problems themselves - of motivation, of conflicts of interest, of calculation problems. Prices are there to allocate resources, and by fucking with natural price mechanisms you highly distort the economy causing recessions and depressions. The Federal Reserve is equivalent to the USSR CPSU and Politburo. These people have no idea what the 300 million individuals in the US prefer at any given moment or time and expecting them to properly allocate resources (money and interest (or the price of money)), is absurd. They cause enormous economic hardship on the people of the US. They're not a boon - they're a colossal disaster. Look the last 30 years, with the lowest inflation rate we've had since the 2nd world war, and look how inequality have risen. Of course, it's not completly the fault of the low inflation rate, but it is pretty simple to understand how a higher inflation would have prevented those inequalities to a certain extend. the mechanism you describe only works if you are talking about savings being in terms of actual cash. assets rise in an inflationary environment, and the rich who save via houses or stocks would win out as well.
Yes but those type of savings are less liquid so it would not be possible for rentiers to completly save through those. Also, there are more taxs in housing than in other type of savings.
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea why people take Austrian Economics seriously. I discarded them the moment I found out their theories aren't based on mathematics or empiricism. That's all you really need to know. Oh, and that they like to predict DOOOOOOM a lot.
A lot of macro is based on gobbledygook. It's getting better though 
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Apparently the Obama administration now has the opportunity to change the rules / taxes on carried interest without Congressional approval. Show nested quote +A Chance to End a Billion-Dollar Tax Break for Private Equity
A recent court case has given the federal government a chance to sidestep Congress and eliminate private equity’s billion-dollar tax break. The question is whether the Obama administration takes up the fight. ... LinkI have mixed feelings on carried interest. I suppose the current rules are nice when the government is flush with cash, but since its not this is probably a decent way to raise revenue. Edit : I suppose it would be wise for Obama to put the issue on the back burner until after we have a full year budget / debt ceiling deal in place.
Lol good joke. what are the chances of this ever happening?
|
On October 24 2013 07:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Apparently the Obama administration now has the opportunity to change the rules / taxes on carried interest without Congressional approval. A Chance to End a Billion-Dollar Tax Break for Private Equity
A recent court case has given the federal government a chance to sidestep Congress and eliminate private equity’s billion-dollar tax break. The question is whether the Obama administration takes up the fight. ... LinkI have mixed feelings on carried interest. I suppose the current rules are nice when the government is flush with cash, but since its not this is probably a decent way to raise revenue. Edit : I suppose it would be wise for Obama to put the issue on the back burner until after we have a full year budget / debt ceiling deal in place. Lol good joke. what are the chances of this ever happening?
Then he should act right away. I don't think it would be wise to end the tax break and tick off Reps right before a deal needs to be made.
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Apparently the Obama administration now has the opportunity to change the rules / taxes on carried interest without Congressional approval.
That's no surprise, he's an evil villain!
Reuters) - The German government has obtained information that the United States may have monitored the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel and she called President Barack Obama on Wednesday to demand an immediate clarification, her spokesman said.
Source
Please stop listening to our phones USA : (
|
On October 24 2013 07:07 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea why people take Austrian Economics seriously. I discarded them the moment I found out their theories aren't based on mathematics or empiricism. That's all you really need to know. Oh, and that they like to predict DOOOOOOM a lot.
You do know Economics as a profession is a logician based field, right? Or are you saying that from the 1700s to the early 1920's all of Economics was wrong? Similarly, you can't use the same methodology that physics and other 'hard' sciences use because you're dealing with human beings, who have their own motivations, and influences. How can you use math for instance, to understand how power dynamics influence decisions (re: things like Stanford Experiment). You're expecting people in positions of power to act benevolently on the behalf of 'the people', when they have no incentive and are rewarded for doing exactly the opposite. You can't model those things with math. Also, Austrian Economics doesn't outright reject empiricism. We reject that empiricism can inform theory, before theory informs empiricism. You can't base theories off empiricism is what we are saying, not that empiricism itself is to be completely discarded. In fact, if you bothered to do any investigation you could easily listen to some of Rothbard's lectures he used to give in which he gives many empirical examples of things like preference (e.g. at the first American Austrian Economics conference there were two stores side by side in the same small town. One had far higher prices than the other, but yet was in business all the same. Why? Because half the town hated the one store, and half the town hated the other store, out of personal spite.) This is why when people say things like 'perfect markets' as a theory to describe Austrian Economics I can only laugh. None of us believe in that silly Walrasian non-sense. It's a strawman you use to try and discredit something you're personally against.
If anything Keynesian and Neo-Classical economics is more Walrasian than it isn't which is pretty ironic considering the excuses you guys use against AE.
Kirzner does a good job here: http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMA3.html#Part 2, Essay 2
|
It is not a strawman to maintain that Austrian economics turns on basic assumptions as to the viability of things like price signaling and rational actors, and it is there that most begin their critique.
|
On October 24 2013 07:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On October 24 2013 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 06:41 Wegandi wrote:On October 24 2013 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:On October 24 2013 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:On October 24 2013 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure how much of the story is austerity. The labor market has been steadily lackluster throughout the recovery, both when fiscal stimulus was high, and currently post-cuts. Employment at the Federal government has been falling, but remains elevated if you exclude the post office and back to the pre crisis level if you don't. State and local governments are still at a depressed level, but that's a separate issue from the Feds and has been ticking up this year. As for the private sector, construction has been improving but remains one of the biggest portions of the output gap. Fiscal stimulus was high during the crisis... so altho the labor market didn't showed any big "recovery" it didn't mean that it wasn't effective : you would have to evaluate the number of job it prevented from getting destroyed. To say it bluntly, it didn't create any job, it limited the rise of unemployment. Simple explanation of the mecanism at hand in Krugman's blog back in 2009 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/On October 23 2013 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Okay i misunderstood you, but you can't just inflate all your debt away by printing money. If the currency loses more value than what it was actually worth wenn someone bought the bond no one is going to invest in that currency. Else you could just print a 15 trillion dollar bill and be done with it. Why am I am not surprised that you are German ? I could live on the moon, that wouldn't change the fact that monetary policy isn't solving any problems. All it does is buying you time and easing pressure. What? I don't understand your characterization of monetary policy. How is it "buying time"? Monetary policy helps. Inflation works and has always worked to shrink unemployment. Google "Baby-sitting the Economy" for how printing money can actually spur real growth depending on the conditions. No, monetary policy has no long term effect on real variables. That is called Neutrality of money and is basically accepted by every economist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_moneyIf you lower interest rates through monetary policy, the economy basically needs to 'earn that money back'. Else you are just feeding into a bubble of worthless credits. That's why i was talking about "buying time". You need to follow an expansive monetary policy up by real-growth, monetary policy does not lead to real growth in the sense that monetary policy would create growth. That's also why the German government opposes the idea of euro-bonds or an expansive MP . They fear it will take the pressure from debt ridden countries to make real structural reforms. It has nothing to do with a 'German fear of inflation', it's just the acknowledgement of the fact that printing paper or artificially low interest rates are not going to help you in the long run. Yes, monetary policy have no long term effect on real variables. Do you know what "real variables" means ? Having a debt in central money is not "real"... or to say it in another way, real interest rate can be below 0%. You've read some theory you don't know about and you just use it to support your own point of view. When they say that monetary policy have no impact on real variable, it means that you cannot (in theory) use monetary policy to lower unemployment or to push GDP : it is the conclusion modern economists have come after the discussion behind the phillips curve that advanced the idea that there was a possible trade off between inflation rate and unemployment (the more inflation, the less unemployment). Today, and since Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps' works, we consider that this trade off doesn't work in the long run, because of rational anticipations, but is still possible in the short run due to some circumstances (mainly price rigidity). PLUS this was proved to be true only under a certain inflation rate (which explained the idea of the inflation target). Thus monetary policy might still have an impact in the long run if the inflation rate is under a certain ratio (between 2 to 4%). See Akerlof Dickens & Perry's workThis doesn't mean that we have no control over inflation rate, and that a 4% inflation would not greatly lower our debt : if you have 2% more money at the end of each month, and you have to give the exact same amount to the people who posses your debt, then the real debt has effectively lowered. There is a reason why almost every economists - from the FMI to Krugman - push for a 4% inflation ratio, despite the fact that it is supposed to disturb market allocations : it will lower our debt, force firms to push salaries up (since they are indexed to inflation and we see, since some years now, a complete split between productivity and salaries) and it might also permit a trade off between inflation and unemployment. See, all that by changing a simple inflation target. Except that is not true. Wages have never matched inflation because of the Cantillon Effect. The allocation of the newly printed money must necessarily move from the first person, to the second, and the third, and so on and so forth. Those who are at the front of this chain reap the benefits of the newly printed money (e.g. higher purchasing power), because the effects of the inflation have yet to be systematically felt. In other words, inflation is a domino affect whereby the first benefactors reap higher purchasing power at the expense of those down the chain. When you finally get the money that has been newly created months down the line you've become poorer because you've been robbed the purchasing power of the dollar you had months earlier by the people who first received the new monies. This means, that the Government has stolen your wealth from you and handed it over to its chosen few. This means large corporate entities like GE, Citigroup, MIC, and of course the Welfare recepients. Those most hurt are in the middle. The people who make too much to qualify for much of the Welfare, and those who make not enough or those who are ideologically opposed to taking the money from the Government. Essentially the Government creates a system of patronage. This was the entire point behind the Federal Reserve System and the ability to decouple the dollar from a weight of gold or silver. Why do you think these Corporations are so large and powerful? They're creations of Government patronage. It's a perverse system that steals the wealth from Middle America and redistributes to the Government cronies whether they're rich, or poor. What do the politicians get in return? (power, wealth, etc.) That's nothing to say of the Institutional problems themselves - of motivation, of conflicts of interest, of calculation problems. Prices are there to allocate resources, and by fucking with natural price mechanisms you highly distort the economy causing recessions and depressions. The Federal Reserve is equivalent to the USSR CPSU and Politburo. These people have no idea what the 300 million individuals in the US prefer at any given moment or time and expecting them to properly allocate resources (money and interest (or the price of money)), is absurd. They cause enormous economic hardship on the people of the US. They're not a boon - they're a colossal disaster. Look the last 30 years, with the lowest inflation rate we've had since the 2nd world war, and look how inequality have risen. Of course, it's not completly the fault of the low inflation rate, but it is pretty simple to understand how a higher inflation would have prevented those inequalities to a certain extend. the mechanism you describe only works if you are talking about savings being in terms of actual cash. assets rise in an inflationary environment, and the rich who save via houses or stocks would win out as well. Yes but those type of savings are less liquid so it would not be possible for rentiers to completly save through those. Also, there are more taxs in housing than in other type of savings.
if you expect inflation, and you are well connected, you buy houses and lock in interest you are paying. You not only save, you get rich thanks to leverage and the retarded American tax code that encourages house buying.
|
Just thought that I'd reinforce the arguments around here that Obama is horrible at foreign policy:
The strange thing about the crackup in U.S.-Saudi relations is that it has been on the way for more than two years, like a slow-motion car wreck, but nobody in Riyadh or Washington has done anything decisive to avert it.
The breach became dramatic over the past week. Last Friday, Saudi Arabia refused to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council, in what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief, described as “a message for the U.S., not the U.N,” according to the Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence, voiced “a high level of disappointment in the U.S. government’s dealings” on Syria and the Palestinian issue, in an interview with Al-Monitor.
What should worry the Obama administration is that Saudi concern about U.S. policy in the Middle East is shared by the four other traditional U.S. allies in the region: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. They argue (mostly privately) that Obama has shredded U.S. influence by dumping President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, opposing the coup that toppled Morsi, vacillating in its Syria policy, and now embarking on negotiations with Iran — all without consulting close Arab allies.
Saudi King Abdullah privately voiced his frustration with U.S. policy in a lunch in Riyadh Monday with King Abdullah of Jordan and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the U.A.E., according to a knowledgeable Arab official. The Saudi monarch “is convinced the U.S. is unreliable,” this official said. “I don’t see a genuine desire to fix it” on either side, he added.
The Saudis’ pique, in turn, has reinforced the White House’s frustration that Riyadh is an ungrateful and sometimes petulant ally. When Secretary of State John Kerry was in the region a few weeks ago, he asked to visit Bandar. The Saudi prince is said to have responded that he was on his way out of the kingdom, but that Kerry could meet him at the airport. This response struck U.S. officials as high-handed.
Saudi Arabia obviously wants attention, but what’s surprising is the White House’s inability to convey the desired reassurances over the past two years. The problem was clear in the fall of 2011, when I was told by Saudi officials in Riyadh that they increasingly regarded the U.S. as unreliable and would look elsewhere for their security. Obama’s reaction to these reports was to be peeved that the Saudis didn’t recognize all that the U.S. was doing to help their security, behind the scenes. The president was right on the facts but wrong on the atmospherics.
The bad feeling that developed after Mubarak’s ouster deepened month by month: The U.S. supported Morsi’s election as president; opposed a crackdown by the monarchy in Bahrain against Shiites protesters; cut aid to the Egyptian military after it toppled Morsi and crushed the Brotherhood; promised covert aid to the Syrian rebels it never delivered; threatened to bomb Syria and then allied with Russia, instead; and finally embarked on a diplomatic opening to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s deadly rival in the Gulf.
The policies were upsetting; but the deeper damage resulted from the Saudi feeling that they were being ignored — and even, in their minds, double crossed. In the traditional Gulf societies, any such sense of betrayal can do lasting damage, yet the administration let the problems fester.
“Somebody needs to get on an airplane right now and go see the king,” said a former top U.S. official who knows the Saudis well. The Saudi king is “very tribal,” in his outlook, this official noted, and in his mind, “your word is your bond.” It’s that sense of trust that has been damaged in the kingdom’s dealings with Obama. One good emissary would be John Brennan, the CIA director, who was station chief in Riyadh in the late 1990s and had a good relationship with the Saudi monarch. Another would be George Tenet, former CIA director, who visited the kingdom often and also developed a trusting relationship with Abdullah.
For much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn’t heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon’s successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
The administration’ lack of communication with the Saudis and other Arab allies is mystifying at a time when the U.S. is exploring new policy initiatives, such as working with the Russians on dismantling chemical weapons in Syria and negotiating a possible nuclear deal with Iran. Those U.S. policy initiatives are sound, in the view of many analysts (including me), but they worry the Saudis and others—making close consultation all the more important.
Washington Post.
Again, I'm not sure why we should be surprised that he's so bad on the foreign stage when he's horrible at managing politics at home beyond grinding the opposition into dust. The guy doesn't know how to work with people.
|
Actually, now that I think about it, now is the time for Obama to make a real apology tour. There's plenty of people that he really needs to apologize to now. He's pissed off just about all of our allies in the EU and Middle East.
|
On October 24 2013 07:30 farvacola wrote:
It is not a strawman to maintain that Austrian economics turns on basic assumptions as to the viability of things like price signaling and rational actors, and it is there that most begin their critique.
Let's define our terms. Rational actors is merely the saying that people pursue their preferences in a subjective fashion. We simply define the terms differently than others. For others, if you say rational actor you think 'non-crazy' person, or someone who always chooses a lower price, etc (ie; rationality is objective - we simply disagree). For us that isn't the case. Again, like I said, a lot of the 'critique' are strawmen. The only really credible critiques I've read have come from former Austrians like Caplan.
|
The guy doesn't want war and is willing to give up everything to avoid war. That isn't necessarily bad foreign policy but if you lack any sort of a stick you need to be good on the carrot.
there really isn't much to justify how hes fucked up egypt though. that country is going to come and bite us in the ass in a few years. And he hasn't really done anything about the NSA leaks damaging our standing abroad. Neither is really things he caused so you can't put all the blame on him but hes failed to make the situation any better.
|
On October 24 2013 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Just thought that I'd reinforce the arguments around here that Obama is horrible at foreign policy: Show nested quote +The strange thing about the crackup in U.S.-Saudi relations is that it has been on the way for more than two years, like a slow-motion car wreck, but nobody in Riyadh or Washington has done anything decisive to avert it.
The breach became dramatic over the past week. Last Friday, Saudi Arabia refused to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council, in what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief, described as “a message for the U.S., not the U.N,” according to the Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence, voiced “a high level of disappointment in the U.S. government’s dealings” on Syria and the Palestinian issue, in an interview with Al-Monitor.
What should worry the Obama administration is that Saudi concern about U.S. policy in the Middle East is shared by the four other traditional U.S. allies in the region: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. They argue (mostly privately) that Obama has shredded U.S. influence by dumping President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, opposing the coup that toppled Morsi, vacillating in its Syria policy, and now embarking on negotiations with Iran — all without consulting close Arab allies.
Saudi King Abdullah privately voiced his frustration with U.S. policy in a lunch in Riyadh Monday with King Abdullah of Jordan and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the U.A.E., according to a knowledgeable Arab official. The Saudi monarch “is convinced the U.S. is unreliable,” this official said. “I don’t see a genuine desire to fix it” on either side, he added.
The Saudis’ pique, in turn, has reinforced the White House’s frustration that Riyadh is an ungrateful and sometimes petulant ally. When Secretary of State John Kerry was in the region a few weeks ago, he asked to visit Bandar. The Saudi prince is said to have responded that he was on his way out of the kingdom, but that Kerry could meet him at the airport. This response struck U.S. officials as high-handed.
Saudi Arabia obviously wants attention, but what’s surprising is the White House’s inability to convey the desired reassurances over the past two years. The problem was clear in the fall of 2011, when I was told by Saudi officials in Riyadh that they increasingly regarded the U.S. as unreliable and would look elsewhere for their security. Obama’s reaction to these reports was to be peeved that the Saudis didn’t recognize all that the U.S. was doing to help their security, behind the scenes. The president was right on the facts but wrong on the atmospherics.
The bad feeling that developed after Mubarak’s ouster deepened month by month: The U.S. supported Morsi’s election as president; opposed a crackdown by the monarchy in Bahrain against Shiites protesters; cut aid to the Egyptian military after it toppled Morsi and crushed the Brotherhood; promised covert aid to the Syrian rebels it never delivered; threatened to bomb Syria and then allied with Russia, instead; and finally embarked on a diplomatic opening to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s deadly rival in the Gulf.
The policies were upsetting; but the deeper damage resulted from the Saudi feeling that they were being ignored — and even, in their minds, double crossed. In the traditional Gulf societies, any such sense of betrayal can do lasting damage, yet the administration let the problems fester.
“Somebody needs to get on an airplane right now and go see the king,” said a former top U.S. official who knows the Saudis well. The Saudi king is “very tribal,” in his outlook, this official noted, and in his mind, “your word is your bond.” It’s that sense of trust that has been damaged in the kingdom’s dealings with Obama. One good emissary would be John Brennan, the CIA director, who was station chief in Riyadh in the late 1990s and had a good relationship with the Saudi monarch. Another would be George Tenet, former CIA director, who visited the kingdom often and also developed a trusting relationship with Abdullah.
For much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn’t heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon’s successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
The administration’ lack of communication with the Saudis and other Arab allies is mystifying at a time when the U.S. is exploring new policy initiatives, such as working with the Russians on dismantling chemical weapons in Syria and negotiating a possible nuclear deal with Iran. Those U.S. policy initiatives are sound, in the view of many analysts (including me), but they worry the Saudis and others—making close consultation all the more important. Washington Post.Again, I'm not sure why we should be surprised that he's so bad on the foreign stage when he's horrible at managing politics at home beyond grinding the opposition into dust. The guy doesn't know how to work with people.
Yes what an asshole, not leaping at the commands of an oil theocracy, its gulf arab puppets and Israel to start a war with Syria and Iran.
|
On October 24 2013 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Reuters) - The German government has obtained information that the United States may have monitored the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel and she called President Barack Obama on Wednesday to demand an immediate clarification, her spokesman said. SourcePlease stop listening to our phones USA : (
But European accents are so fun 
|
On October 24 2013 07:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:30 farvacola wrote:
It is not a strawman to maintain that Austrian economics turns on basic assumptions as to the viability of things like price signaling and rational actors, and it is there that most begin their critique. Let's define our terms. Rational actors is merely the saying that people pursue their preferences in a subjective fashion. We simply define the terms differently than others. For others, if you say rational actor you think 'non-crazy' person, or someone who always chooses a lower price, etc (ie; rationality is objective - we simply disagree). For us that isn't the case. Again, like I said, a lot of the 'critique' are strawmen. The only really credible critiques I've read have come from former Austrians like Caplan.
You are the first self proclaimed Austrian I've met who has acknowledged the credibility of Caplan, so for that, kudos. I actually got a chance to meet him at George Mason a few years ago, and he seemed really cool. For anyone interested, here is his critique.
Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist
|
Oh how quickly we have forgotten Obama's campaign promises in 2008 about how he was going to restore America's respectability on the international stage. I think we can safely file that one into the the good 'ol "bag o' ROFLs" category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
