 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 11-28-2012, 09:19 AM | #31 |
 Originally posted by Winder  Why is Yemen not as rich as Saudi Arabia? If it were simply a matter of printing presses then there would be no poverty. It does not matter how much money Yemen prints, its currency will never have value because value is not determined by the government. IT is very important factor that you gloss over to make your ideas appear possible. I will believe it when I see it. From China's ghost cities to the economic wasteland of the Soviet Union. Governments typically make very poor decisions when it comes to resource allocation. Politicians pander to the herd and consider long-term to be the 4 year election cycle. Kicking the can down the road for the next guy to deal with is a sport in the world politics. AND a politician can succeed on results NOT based on profits... 2 edged sword but more flexible than a spread sheet...... AND you keep saying it won't work but have not proven it won't work.............................................there IS a difference.. Trying hard to hold QE's against me and my ideas is pointless.. I already said it was a mis-allocation of a resource.. It was nothing more than a poorly placed poltice that could be done because it was /politically/expedient/and socially feasible.. but not very economically valid..... I've already said as much..That should have gone WAY down the food chain. to the heart of the economy.. us......... It did shore up the stock/bond/bans and conversely tricked down to pensions and investments that "little people" hold BUT no structual reforms..i.e spend it on tangable things like jobs, clearing mortgage debt,infrastructure.................. It was better than nothing less than something Oh and poverty is the stick to 1)keep wages down 2)keep the populous happy w/ what they have (ironic isn't it) or WORSE.. free stuff would go to the "undeserving"..of course then EVERYONE would want free stuff.. Funny you actually believe poverty can't be eradicated..now.. Maybe you should study the "green revolution" and you would see hunger could be eliminated now.. It is not a matter of resources.. only will, infrastructure, and the illusion of money.. There is more than enough food produced to feed the world.. you may say" It is not that simple" and I would say.. it is INDEED that simple............only we don't want it to be that simple.. or others don't want us to perceive it as that simple.. Sending money intensive "super grain" seeds to India who can't "afford" the tech to grow them properly is not a tech problem but a will problem..and the illusion it can't afford it.. India.. they can afford a nuclear arsenal but not tractors/fertilizer/education and petrol to feed their population.. There is ideology "at work" for you....... Quote: “To rapidly increase productivity, farmers will also need better access to fertilizers and education and practice conservation agriculture where technically and economically feasible,” Kofi Annan further said. I see no insurmountable hurdles in the above statement.. On the contrary I see moral and social failure of priorities.......... Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-28-2012 at 09:47 AM. | |
| 11-28-2012, 09:47 AM | #32 |
| Originally posted by jeffkrol AND a politician can succeed on results NOT based on profits.... Originally posted by jeffkrol AND you keep saying it won't work but have not proven it won't work.............................................there IS a difference.. Originally posted by jeffkrol Trying hard to hold QE's against me and my ideas is pointless.. I already said it was a mis-allocation of a resource.. It was nothing more than a poorly placed poltice that could be done because it was /politically/expedient/and socially feasible.. but not very economically valid.. | |
| 11-28-2012, 10:19 AM | #33 |
| Quote: It is relevant if you are trying to show that government spending can drive an economy out of a recession. The USA has spent the equivalent of 2 Canadian economies in the form or stimulus as QE in just a couple of years and the result was a flat line. Most of that money was created from thin air either through credit expansion or direct injection of currency. Quote: You want me to prove a system that does not exist does not work? Think about that for a second. no unicorns need apply..at least you have gone beyond "it has failed in the past" syndrome...  I took known facts (obviously some judgement in validity of such) and come to the conclusion that a "system" such as HR2990 is completely logical and factually possible.. socially/politically well we all know the answer to that but "common knowledge" and "belief" is usually not a good reflection of reality..though it has it's moments... | |
| 11-28-2012, 01:31 PM | #35 |
| Originally posted by JohnInIndy Well with the most liberal state in the country about bankrupt that should prove that liberal policies don't in fact work at all. But the libs will blame someone or something other than their own failed policies. sigh. Really you must understand states/you/corps must pay their bills w/ money collected.. Fed does NOT HAVE to collect anything to pay any bill. This is a FACT not arguable on that level.. now "debasement inflation fine but bills??? NOT EVEN close........... Really study it a bit.. you will see.. EVEN Ron Paul understands this..............Fed can never run out of money.. ever ever ever... now what that impacts is open to discussion.............. Quote: Congressman Paul's opposition to deficit spending and increasing debt is based on the inevitable repercussions of those actions. He notes that the solution to paying off large debts is always to print more money and lessen the value of the currency to make paying off those debt easier. Eventually, all governments that attempt this fail due to their inability to control the inflationary results of too much monetary devaluation. In the short term, this inflation is little more than a tax imposed on middle class Americans as the value of their savings is lessened. Ron Paul - Debt, Deficit, Spending, and the Size of Government It is fun to watch him try to twist it without admitting (which he did but unfortunately I lost the link: ) that the Fed can't "go broke" Quote: “We need an intellectual awakening. Without an intellectual awakening the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current under-control system to its knees,” concluded Paul. David Cay Johnston: Sovereign Governments Can't Go Broke In Their Own Currency http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/david-cay-johnston_n_1237272.html | |
| 11-28-2012, 02:32 PM | #36 |
| Originally posted by jeffkrol who said it was a liberal policy??? Some pretty strong capitalists support it.. | |
| 11-28-2012, 02:40 PM | #37 |
| Originally posted by Winder I think you are again confusing corporatists with capitalists. anyways you are assuming "capitalism" can't exist in the "systems" I support.. which is soo far from the truth to be laughable.. It NEEDS capitalism.. on slightly different terms It is non-threatening.. sort of. Michael Hudson and Stephanie Kelton on Modern Monetary Theory - P2P Foundation Someday you might find them your ally............... Quote: “For 200 years, classical economics sought to purify industrial capitalism from the carryover of feudalism. And these carryovers were the private land ownership of a hereditary aristocracy and commercial banks that had held governments in debt and then foreclosed and exchanged their debts for monopolies. In Britain, this is how the trading companies were formed, the East India Company and the Bank of England with its monopoly, and in the United States you had similar creations of monopolies through the railroads that became the largest landowners through land grant. What Balzac wrote in one of his novels was that behind every family fortune was a great theft, often an undiscovered one. And, yet, modern economics treats all of the theft, the capital transfer, the transfer payments that are occurring today, as if it were all productive, as if all income is earned. Every government in the world now prints National Income and Product Accounts that say that rent is earnings of landlords and interest is the earnings of bankers. In the United States, the financial sector has 40% of all reported corporate earnings. So, you have this shift of the economic surplus shifting away from industrial capital that’s invested in new plant and equipment—to hire labour—to finance capital that is lent out. And the interest earned by the banks is lent out again. And the result is an exponential growth, which Americans called the magic of compound interest. The growth of compound interest is so large that it is much larger than any government’s ability to pay. And, so, the result has to be default. And the default position that Europe and America finds itself today is the point at which the financial sector makes its grab for assets and takes for itself the public domain, the public enterprises, the roads, the broadcasting systems, the ports and the harbours. And that is what is happening today. And the difference in privatising these assets is that when you privatise the roads and the infrastructure, the ‘buyers’ have to pay interest; they pay dividends; they pay exorbitant executive salaries; they pay financial fees to the underwriters; they offer stock-options to the management. And then they raise the price of these public services to the highest rent extraction that they can charge. The economy is turned into a toll booth opportunity. Toll booths are placed on the access to housing, the access to roads, the access to telephone systems, the access to credit for the money that you use by credit cards in payments. And, all of a sudden, instead of paying for the cost of operating an economy, you’re paying for the privileges of people—the financial sector and what used to be called rentiers—that are simply charging whatever they can get and siphoning off the wealth into their own hands. (c. 40:54): “So, in the United States, the real economy of production and consumption has actually declined over the last 30 years. All of the growth in the economy is overhead to the rentier sector—to what we call the FIRE sector: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, which now should include the legal system and the monopoly system. So, almost without the textbooks or anyone noticing, what used to be analysed as industrial capitalism has turned into finance capitalism. And this finance capitalism has not been the kind of finance that was imagined a hundred years ago. It is not financing of industry. | |
| 11-28-2012, 02:56 PM | #38 |
|
the fun part.............. Quote: Our message is very simple. And that is why it is threatening. From Margaret Thatcher to President Obama, you were told that there is no alternative. And we are here—and will spend the next two days—telling you that there is an alternative. And we will spell out what the alternative is. “What we are seeing now is a fight for what is going to be the rest of the 21st century by creating a new kind of class, a new class much like the invasions of Europe a thousand years ago. A thousand years ago, invaders from the north and from Italy would grab land and grab public utilities by military means. But today—ever since the United States went off gold in 1971—aggressors can no longer afford military war. So, what you have today is a new kind of a war. It’s a financial war. You can get by privatisation and financialisation what armies used to get by force of arms. This is not the class war that people spoke of a hundred years ago. It is a financial war. And it is a war that classical economists warned against. (c. 20:51) “300 years of classical political economy sought to get rid of landlords and bankers. A hundred years ago people spoke of technology. Nobody believed that the vested interests could fight back. But they did fight back in the way that parasites do in biological nature. I’ve read in the Italian newspapers—coming over on the airplane—that people talk about parasites. And people think about parasites, as taking the host’s energy and lifeblood. But, in biology, the smart parasites do something else: They take over the brain of the host. They make the brain think that the parasite is part of the body, to be protected. (c. 21:53) “In America, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, say the economy cannot survive without bailing out the banks, without bailing out the debt, without making the gamblers and the cleptocrats whole on what they have taken. The production economy, the consumption economy, the real economy is being sacrificed to the financial sector. But matters don’t have to be this way. There is an alternative. And we will be spelling out the alternative in the next two days. Quote: There must of course be a medium-term plan for reducing the government deficit. But if this is too front-loaded it can easily be self-defeating by aborting the recovery. A key priority now is to reduce unemployment, before it becomes endemic, making recovery and future deficit reduction even more difficult. (MES paragraph 7) This statement, considered conventional wisdom among policy makers and among neoclassically-trained economists, violates the insights of MMT based on Wynne Godley’s clarification of basic macroeconomics. Godley’s method of stock-flow consistent accounting of flows of funds between the three great sectors of the macro-economy suggests that governments are almost compelled to run deficits if the national private sector is to experience net economic growth, the supposed goal of all economic policy as currently understood, except where nations have a substantial trade surplus, i.e. are net exporters. Working in seeming obliviousness or ignorance against the growth imperative baked into economics and capitalism, balanced-budget (austerity) advocates appear to forget that to balance a government budget the public sector must take away in taxes exactly as much money as it spends into the economy, requiring then every nation to become a net exporter if its private sector is to grow. Governments that control their own (fiat) currency, can by design, run deficits indefinitely because, based on the observations of Modern Money Theorists, they do not actually use taxes collected to spend but instead “mark up bank accounts (issue currency)” when needed. There may be prudential (inflation, currency depreciation) but not affordability constraints on spending of a monetarily sovereign government but the excess of spending relative to collected amount of taxes, i.e. “deficits” is not one of them. MMT argues that it is, in fact, imprudent for monetarily sovereign governments to use budget balancing as a means to determine levels of spending. The injection of Krugman’s concession to this supposed economic virtue alone makes the “Manifesto for Economic Sense” unpalatable to those who follow MMT’s account of the monetary operations of government. Much of the rest of the “Manifesto for Economic Sense” is devoted to arguing against the main right-wing economic talking points that austerity will increase business “confidence” and that unemployment is due to there being a structural deficit of skills and/or willingness to work in the labor market. While most Post-Keynesians would also share Krugman and Layard’s opposition to these arguments, the MES at this point in my opinion could have been sharper and more satirical of the pro-austerity camp. Austerity economics makes so little sense that serious analysts should grant themselves the license to use the sharpest rhetorical tools to demolish its supposed respectability Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/is-an-anti-austerity-alliance-of-left...tKvSGh3Uafu.99 Perversely, media and academic outlets have generally ignored heterodox economists, whose theories are generally more relevant to business and the public and who among other things, are the group that was more acutely aware of the looming 2007-2008 financial debacle than the orthodox mainstream. Steve Keen has not only written a rigorous critique of conventional economics but seems to be on the trail to understanding the role of debt in the capitalist economy overall. Keen is also critical of the austerity drive and the focus of austerians on public debt as opposed to private debt. The University of Missouri at Kansas City (that hosts this blog) has developed a powerhouse economics department that is one of the few places in the world where Ph.D. economics students can use and work on models of the economy that more closely approximate the real economy. Randy Wray, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Black and Michael Hudson are all professors of associates of UMKC and are some of the most vociferous critics of austerity. Warren Mosler, a post-Keynesian and a founder of MMT, often speaks out against austerity. Bill Mitchell in Australia is one of the founders of MMT who focuses on full employment and leads the Center for Full Employment and Equity at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales. Austerity runs counter to MMT theory, so critique of austerity is a logical extension of the theory and not simply the product of economic personal “taste”. To some degree most of the economists who have been associated with the heterodox post-Keynesian tradition treat austerity madness as just another edition of the foolishness of the neoclassical economics they have spent decades criticizing and, they hope, uprooting. Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/is-an-anti-austerity-alliance-of-left...tKvSGh3Uafu.99 Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-28-2012 at 03:07 PM. | |
| 11-28-2012, 07:01 PM | #39 |
| Originally posted by Winder It is relevant if you are trying to show that government spending can drive an economy out of a recession. I have no opinion if gov. spendings are a good thing to help the economy. I don't know. But because such spendings would more likely occur during a crisis, any correlation must look like big spendings would make the economy shrink, because they would occur during a crisis. As I said, such correlation cannot prove anything. You would have to set up two identical countries and try different levels of spendings. But one thing I DO know: a gov. is better off investing into infrastructure during a crisis because then it simply is cheaper ... But anyway, I'll leave the thread now. You are not really discussing. Everybody simply is copying junk from the internet into here. It's no fun for me. | |
| 11-28-2012, 07:53 PM | #40 |
| Originally posted by falconeye I tried to explain, did you follow my argument at all? I have no opinion if gov. spendings are a good thing to help the economy. I don't know. But because such spendings would more likely occur during a crisis, any correlation must look like big spendings would make the economy shrink, because they would occur during a crisis. As I said, such correlation cannot prove anything. You would have to set up two identical countries and try different levels of spendings. Economics will never be a hard science and if you try to apply the rules of hard science you will be disappointed with the results. Every person in an economy represents a variable that you can't control for, which is why planned economies never go as planned. I agree that you can not run 2 separate worlds in order to have a control group, but we do have historical data that we can use to guide future decisions. That is currently as good as it gets. | |
| 11-29-2012, 06:43 AM | #41 |
| Originally posted by Winder Do you understand that we have over 240+ consecutive quarters of good economic data to look at? Yes, it is more likely that more spending occurred during a recession relative to the private sector, but that has not always been the case. We were in a recession in the early 1990's and Clinton reduced government spending substantially and we recorded significant growth in the following quarters. We also have period were we were not in a recession and the government increased government spending. We also have decent data for the period after the civil war which predates the governments ability to attempt to "spend to prosperity". Economics will never be a hard science and if you try to apply the rules of hard science you will be disappointed with the results. Every person in an economy represents a variable that you can't control for, which is why planned economies never go as planned. I agree that you can not run 2 separate worlds in order to have a control group, but we do have historical data that we can use to guide future decisions. That is currently as good as it gets. Chart on pg. 15 tells the real story............ http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rlawrence/Lawrence%20for%20Brandeis.pdf  GOOD TIMES eh..... Quote: The key to her argument is that, in almost all economically developed countries over the past few decades, there has been a steady decline in wage shares. This is the proportion of national GDP that is made up of peoples’ wages, as opposed to, for example, corporate profits. You can see this in the graphs below showing wage share trajectories in developed and developing economies (sourced from this United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report): Your glorioussystem fails the very people who drive it.. sad.......  "Please sir can I have enough cup of gruel"????? http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-05/reminder-private-sector-doing-fine Quote: Increasing public understanding of the extreme concentration of income in New York, and elsewhere around the nation, is about more than just tax policy, although that is obviously one place to begin to reverse the trend that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently called a “very bad development … [that’s] creating two societies.” The pronounced polarization in the distribution of the rewards of economic growth is holding back the nascent recovery. Growth is stalled because our system of rewarding economic effort is out of kilter—the average worker is not paid for the productivity he or she generates and incomes flowing to those at the top are far out of proportion to what they contribute to our economy. It is ironic that the Post wants to exaggerate the impact of income maintenance payments to the working poor when it should be decrying the low wages that confine far too many New Yorkers to poverty or near-poverty and thus must turn to public income supports. Workers should be compensated in line with their productivity but that happens less and less these days as the economic system concentrates unimaginable gains at the very top. In New York City, the size of our economy has grown by 63 percent since 1990 yet there has been no increase in median hourly wages or median family incomes and college-educated young workers get paid 6 percent less than two decades ago. The Post should stop fudging the issue and get behind a system of economic rewards that restores the idea of a “fair day’s wages” for a “fair day’s work.” How long can an economy function when the rewards of everyone’s hard work all get siphoned to the............. I flat out REJECT your rosy world as not being the "real world".............. Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-29-2012 at 06:55 AM. | |
| 11-29-2012, 06:54 AM | #42 |
| Originally posted by Winder Do you understand that we have over 240+ consecutive quarters of good economic data to look at? | |
| 11-29-2012, 07:16 AM | #43 |
| Originally posted by falconeye I tried to explain, did you follow my argument at all? I have no opinion if gov. spendings are a good thing to help the economy. I don't know. But because such spendings would more likely occur during a crisis, any correlation must look like big spendings would make the economy shrink, because they would occur during a crisis. As I said, such correlation cannot prove anything. You would have to set up two identical countries and try different levels of spendings. But one thing I DO know: a gov. is better off investing into infrastructure during a crisis because then it simply is cheaper ... But anyway, I'll leave the thread now. You are not really discussing. Everybody simply is copying junk from the internet into here. It's no fun for me. Sometimes your insistence on "first person" is baffling... In any good well built enlargement there are footnotes and prior knowledge.. and really most is just a reiteration or cleaning up of that.. Building blocks.. In the case of DE of course you are tied to the silly Euro.. which is NOT a "sovereign currency" and therefore it is "cheaper" for you to borrow in a crisis.. For the US our currency is ours.. totally owned and "created" by the Fed (well technically priv banks create it at the treasuries "whim").. there is NO NEED to EVER "borrow" from anyone to pay bills.. Our "financial rules" are a fantasy of our own creation... and when presenting this fact.. in a system chock full of "urban legends" there is no choice but to go to 3rd party sources.. Otherwise it simply boils down to "opinion"...which is really worth little... I can't set up a "lab country" and run simulations.. therefore I rely on others.. both factual and opinion.. most are "my words and beliefs" just not spoken by me.. convenience.... Economics is "no fun" for most people... Political ideology is not often "factual" and even less fun..............anyways thanks for playing.. Germany's problems are not American problems.. your "playing field" is very different..thanks to the Euro.. and your import/export balance.. Messy messy messy.. people always are............ I encourage you to study it more and do what you usually doo Ignore the status qua for real facts... | |
| 12-01-2012, 01:54 PM | #44 |
| Originally posted by jeffkrol anyways thanks for playing.. Germany's problems are not American problems.. your "playing field" is very different..thanks to the Euro.. and your import/export balance.. Messy messy messy.. people always are............ I encourage you to study it more and do what you usually doo Ignore the status qua for real facts... | |
| 12-01-2012, 05:22 PM | #45 |
|
Since apparently the totalitarians won't allow a private response.................. The term was misunderstood completely.. it was to infer people add a messy component to any analytical system.. I honesty can't understand how you (or Falconeye) pertained it to ANY specific country or person... But whatever.. Yes the status quo comment was a small poke at Falconeye who uses the "I'm not not going to talk to you " technique of discourse. BUT referrring to someone as abiding by the status quo as a insult.. A BIT far fetched ...but you caught me.. I was miffed at him a bit for his bowing out tactic.. You know if anyone (and who didn't) cites me as a c/p-er THAT is about as equal as an insult.. or publicly calling me out.. is that not as "rude"???? Quote: Added jeffkrol to my ignore list. (still miffed at how I treated ricehigh aren't you) Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2012 at 05:36 PM. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| efficiency, market, model, myth, reality |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| fun in the free market | Nesster | General Talk | 3 | 09-28-2012 09:10 AM |
| Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? | runslikeapenguin | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 60 | 05-01-2012 01:16 PM |
| The Myth of Japan's 'Lost Decades' | jeffkrol | General Talk | 3 | 03-01-2011 10:40 AM |
| When did the market fall out of the manual lens market | GregK8 | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 34 | 01-20-2011 08:48 PM |
| Free trade doesn't work, the global economy is a myth | Nesster | General Talk | 24 | 12-17-2010 08:10 AM |
