|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are.
You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits.
|
On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are.
have you read the counterpoints on this? cuz I've heard quite a lot of them which demonstrate that this article, and others of its ilk, are a load of malarkey, and misrepresent the situation.
|
This is becoming a cult of personality, he campaigned on anti-globalism and his supporters made it seem really important to them. Now he does a 180 and talks of a TTIP-type deal which is what the 'neoliberals' wanted all along, including Juncker's EPP and the Obama admin, and his base calls it a huge victory. Is there anything they actually want, independent of whether Trump is for it or not as of the last tweet?
Even if they're massive fans of free trade suddenly, what he did now was to merely stop fueling the crisis that he single-handedly created out of thin air and take a step back towards the status quo.
As for soy beans and LNG, tariffs are already non-existent. Sure, if the American soy price plummets enough Europeans may buy more of it but that's hard to sell as a win to the ones producing it. For gas the issue is transporting it, there isn't a realistic chance of a trans-atlantic pipeline. Juncker doesn't have the power to offer things up or to make anyone buy anything.
It's worrying that people fall for these cheap gimmicks of starting fires, putting them out and expecting to be called a hero. Or getting the exact same thing you had before throwing a tantrum and expecting to be seen as an expert haggler.
|
On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits.
Do you pay sticker price at the car dealerships too? Or get your coolant changed out for anti-freeze?
The EU has been quick to collect the record and by saying they are not fucking over their farmers to make Trump happy. NK is stillproduxing nuclear fuel and it will take years to verify the remains they returned to us. Last time NK gave us back remains, some of th where animal bones.
But yes, a huge win if you lower your standard “held a press conference”
|
United States42004 Posts
On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits.
Juncker doesn't have the authority to offer any kind of deal, which is why no deal was made. Trump is lying xDaunt. Pay attention to what he actually does, not what he says. There is no deal here.
What Juncker said was that if current market trends continue (ie US soy prices continue to freefall) EU companies may consider purchasing soy from the US. That's not a deal, that's a description of how free market actors may exploit the US trade war with China for their own advantage.
Essentially Trump set his own house on fire and the EU is saying that while they're not willing to negotiate a specific firehose agreement they don't see why some European companies wouldn't be willing to sell water at an extremely inflated price. Trump is trying to sell this as an agreement to get a new supply of water to his house. The only problems being that there is no agreement, the water wasn't needed before he set it on fire, and any water he does get is going to be extortionately priced because of said fire.
|
On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment.
It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity.
Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice.
|
On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice.
Then how do you explain stagflation?
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On July 29 2018 14:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. Juncker doesn't have the authority to offer any kind of deal, which is why no deal was made. Trump is lying xDaunt. Pay attention to what he actually does, not what he says. There is no deal here. What Juncker said was that if current market trends continue (ie US soy prices continue to freefall) EU companies may consider purchasing soy from the US. That's not a deal, that's a description of how free market actors may exploit the US trade war with China for their own advantage. Essentially Trump set his own house on fire and the EU is saying that while they're not willing to negotiate a specific firehose agreement they don't see why some European companies wouldn't be willing to sell water at an extremely inflated price. Trump is trying to sell this as an agreement to get a new supply of water to his house. The only problems being that there is no agreement, the water wasn't needed before he set it on fire, and any water he does get is going to be extortionately priced because of said fire.
Every time I consider posting a reply here Kwark has already hit the nail on the head better than I could have done.
This "victory" is just going back to how things were before this whole silliness started. Congrats.
|
On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation?
Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending.
|
5930 Posts
On July 29 2018 14:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. Juncker doesn't have the authority to offer any kind of deal, which is why no deal was made. Trump is lying xDaunt. Pay attention to what he actually does, not what he says. There is no deal here. What Juncker said was that if current market trends continue (ie US soy prices continue to freefall) EU companies may consider purchasing soy from the US. That's not a deal, that's a description of how free market actors may exploit the US trade war with China for their own advantage. Essentially Trump set his own house on fire and the EU is saying that while they're not willing to negotiate a specific firehose agreement they don't see why some European companies wouldn't be willing to sell water at an extremely inflated price. Trump is trying to sell this as an agreement to get a new supply of water to his house. The only problems being that there is no agreement, the water wasn't needed before he set it on fire, and any water he does get is going to be extortionately priced because of said fire.
For reference sake, here is a graph detailing soybean prices between Brazil and the US. Both the major soybean suppliers for the EU by far. Everyone else has to be in single or low double digits compared to these two countries, they're overwhelmingly the main suppliers of soy to the world.
![[image loading]](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ikqabaJL94_Q/v2/1550x-1.png)
China is dealing with this situation by buying more Brazilian soybeans as well as removing all tariffs on Asian suppliers. The EU was always going to buy US soy because the price sucks major donkey balls for US soy farmers and is in freefall. The only reason the EU wouldn't buy US soy is if they see trade as a zero sum game.
Are we at the point where even simple facts like goddamn market prices are disputable now? Its clear as day why a rational actor might buy less Brazilian soybeans and more US soybeans in mid 2018. Shit, even decent economists like Krugman predicted this well before any meeting or economy reports came out because the data is so clear about what exactly is happening.
|
On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending.
That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment.
|
On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment.
That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy.
|
On July 29 2018 18:26 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 22:53 Dan HH wrote:
Newly created dollars have to amount to ideally a small percentage more than the money removed from the economy though tax in order to avoid you having to spend 100$ on a pack of gum next year.
It's not 'their money' per se, as in a bill that passed from their hand to the government, but spending is still inextricably tied to tax in a working economy, regardless of the operational mechanism behind it. Even though taxes in the US are more like an MMO's gold sink than how it works in other countries, government's spending is still 'taxpayer's money' in an indirect way because printing significantly more than it deletes becomes inflation.
That some people don't want the government to use their money to assist others, that's a whole other discussion. I don't think telling them it's not their money would change that view, it's more likely to make them say well don't don't delete my money then, let me keep it. No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US. Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will. Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment. That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy.
It's exactly how cost push works. Cost push is a short term phenomenon. Long term money is neutral and long term inflation is caused by growth in the money supply.
|
On July 29 2018 19:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 18:26 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:On July 28 2018 23:02 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
No this is all wrong as far as the US (and other monetary sovereign nations) is concerned. A $100 dollar pack of gum has nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, but the availability of the gum itself. I've gone over this many times already in this thread, you can look up Greenspan talking to Paul Ryan about this- it is the amount of real resources available that determines hyperinflation, not currency. Look up Japan for another example. They try very hard to get inflation and fail- much higher debt to GDP than the US.
Taxes are deleted from the system, the government's money (which they alone create) are not "taxpayer dollars" in any way shape or form. Taxes like FICA, are sort of like war bonds in the US during WW2. They take money out of circulation, while at the same time let people feel like they have "skin in the game". A form of Calvinism if you will.
Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy. If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment. That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy. It's exactly how cost push works. Cost push is a short term phenomenon. Long term money is neutral and long term inflation is caused by growth in the money supply.
Cost-push can have long term effects.
Anyway, ask Japan how that inflation is working out lol. (Spoiler alert: it didn't work).
|
On July 29 2018 19:13 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 19:02 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 18:26 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:On July 28 2018 23:27 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
Beats me how you can claim this when we've already seen it collapse empires, see what the gold influx from South America did to the value of gold and prices in the Spanish economy.
If your comments on this topic start from the premise that the US government can print however much it wants, regardless of taxes and without depreciating the dollar, then I understand why you would disagree with spending being called taxpayer money. Though it defies all evidence, historical and virtual, of what happens when there is a rapid increase of money supply. The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money. Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment. That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy. It's exactly how cost push works. Cost push is a short term phenomenon. Long term money is neutral and long term inflation is caused by growth in the money supply. Cost-push can have long term effects. Anyway, ask Japan how that inflation is working out lol. (Spoiler alert: it didn't work).
Cost-push only works because of sticky pricing. Long term prices adjust. You haven't really provided any argument to the contrary.
Inflation in Japan has been trending upwards after abenomics (from deflation/zero inflation to a core inflation near 1%). In both the US and EU inflation has been trending upward as well after QE. Nice shifting of goalposts though.
|
On July 29 2018 20:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 19:13 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 19:02 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 18:26 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:On July 28 2018 23:38 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
The only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation, is where you have full employment, and continue to spend dollars chasing goods and services already in use. Nowhere in history has it been otherwise. Let's look at the usual suspects of note. Zimbabwe- indigenous people that reclaimed the land were not efficient or experienced farmers. Shortage of food caused hyperinflation, doesn't matter how much money was printed. Weimar Republic. Was subject to the nasty Treaty of Versailles. Had to pay debt in a foreign currency- French Francs. Could not print French Francs and also had issues with production because of the terms of the Treaty. Venezuela exported low value crude oil and imported high value refined fuels. Exchange rate issues and debt in foreign currencies- again, nothing to do with printing their own money.
Spanish colonial economy was pegged to gold which they had to defend- fixed exchange rate policy and could not just print money. It is this type of economy that can run into issues by spending. As a monetary sovereign FIAT, the US has MUCH more policy space and no such constraint. I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment. That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy. It's exactly how cost push works. Cost push is a short term phenomenon. Long term money is neutral and long term inflation is caused by growth in the money supply. Cost-push can have long term effects. Anyway, ask Japan how that inflation is working out lol. (Spoiler alert: it didn't work). Cost-push only works because of sticky pricing. Long term prices adjust. You haven't really provided any argument to the contrary. Inflation in Japan has been trending upwards after abenomics (from deflation/zero inflation to a core inflation near 1%). In both the US and EU inflation has been trending upward as well after QE. Nice shifting of goalposts though.
Cost-push of the 70's ended when utilities started using natural gas and OPEC was stuck with a massive supply causing prices to drop. You are the one claiming it was "printing money".
Japan's core inflation is around 0.2% if you exclude food and energy. Wake me up when the OMG we're gonna die hyperinflation hits from doubling the money supply.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/markets/japan-e2-80-99s-inflation-inches-higher-thanks-to-energy-costs/ar-BBKPVgu
|
So let’s recap:
1- Trump puts tariff on China
2- China stops buying US soy beans
3- US soy beans farmers lose money
4- Trump borrows 12 billion dollars from China to give to soy beans farmers
5- ????
6- Are you tired of winning yet?
|
On July 29 2018 20:59 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 20:22 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 19:13 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 19:02 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 18:26 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 18:19 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 17:21 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 15:20 RvB wrote:On July 29 2018 14:30 screamingpalm wrote:On July 29 2018 00:17 Melliflue wrote:
[quote]
I'm not an economist so I may be missing something obvious, but if "the only scenario in which printing money causes hyperinflation is where you have full employment..." then a country that is not at full employment could simply print money until it had full employment. It's more situational and nuanced, but in general, and in a FIAT system, federal spending raises aggregate demand and leads businesses to hire in order to meet higher production demands. Spending also has to come before taxation- if you look at how economies are formed, no one can pay a tax until they receive the currency. Once a tax is levied, you have unemployment. Now people need to find a way to pay the tax. The official unemployment numbers also do not factor people who gave up looking and underemployment. I do not believe that we have reached productive capacity. Where I disagree with Dan, is that the US dollar is not limited by a commodity like colonial Spain was. It used to be when we were on the gold standard, but Nixon took us off of that in 1971. There could potentially be an issue of devaluation if we suddenly doubled the money supply, but I haven't seen very much evidence of this in practice. Then how do you explain stagflation? Stagflation was a term that was used in the 70's of a cost-push issue driven by OPEC's pricing power. They acted as a sort of cartel by consistently raising the price of oil. In '78, natural gas started being used by utility companies and OPEC had to cut production- but they ended up with far too much supply and prices dropped again (it was a supply response that broke it). Keynesian views lost out to monetarists in the mid-70's and the budget hawks cut the spigot of federal spending. That's only half an explanation for stagflation. All else being equal an increase in the price of oil will lead to reduced demand and inflation in other products. Average inflation shouldn't budge much. Only when you couple the shock of rising oil prices coupled with an increase in the money supply causing further inflation is stagflation possible. Your framework doesn't account for stagflation since, in your own words, printing money doesn't cause inflation unless we have full unemployment. That's not how cost-push works. Certainly with oil, it has a big effect on prices of other goods. During the 70's we had budget hawks and high levels of taxation draining the economy. It's exactly how cost push works. Cost push is a short term phenomenon. Long term money is neutral and long term inflation is caused by growth in the money supply. Cost-push can have long term effects. Anyway, ask Japan how that inflation is working out lol. (Spoiler alert: it didn't work). Cost-push only works because of sticky pricing. Long term prices adjust. You haven't really provided any argument to the contrary. Inflation in Japan has been trending upwards after abenomics (from deflation/zero inflation to a core inflation near 1%). In both the US and EU inflation has been trending upward as well after QE. Nice shifting of goalposts though. Cost-push of the 70's ended when utilities started using natural gas and OPEC was stuck with a massive supply causing prices to drop. You are the one claiming it was "printing money". Japan's core inflation is around .2% if you exclude food and energy. Wake me up when the OMG we're gonna die hyperinflation hits from doubling the money supply. https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/markets/japan-e2-80-99s-inflation-inches-higher-thanks-to-energy-costs/ar-BBKPVgu
They didn't double the money supply, there's hardly any change at all in rate of increase in the years before and after that Guardian article claiming they're doubling the money supply. A rate which is actually lower than America's or Germany's.
|
|
|
On July 29 2018 22:00 JimmiC wrote:
Does anyone else think it is odd that the "right" hates free trade and the "left" is fighting for it. This is opposite world.
makes sense to me; basically, both the left and right centrist (or whatever term you want to use) wings favor free trade. and the populist (again, not sure on optimal term) wings of them dislike it.
the american left (establishment wing and on the whole) has been pro free trade for quite awhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
