UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you are one of the most articulate and well spoken members of this forum.
This is what is destroying our country
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I think he's equating fiat currencies to central banks, which in itself isn't either entirely accurate or inaccurate.I would love to see you explain how that works.
Feel free to use some numbers and equations while you're at it...
For inflation to occur, you have to increase the money supply with no increase in overall productivity/market participation.
With an asset backed currency inflation becomes virtually impossible because to make new money you have to either adjust the currency/asset ratio (first step towards a fiat currency) or simply come up with more of the original asset and then issue more currency.
In this sense, he is accurate but the problem with an asset backed currency is that over time deflation will occur due to a lack of increase in the currency supply but an increase in market participation. (EDIT: Also there is the risk of foreign entities/speculators devaluing the asset to undermine the currency.)
I don't believe either system to be entirely useful by itself but that's a digression for elsewhere.
Sorry if any lefty brains exploded or if I mistyped something, I'm baked and phones are small.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
And you are one of the more asinine members of this forum.
Last edited:
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That's not completely accurate, either.
If it were, the reserves "created" to mop up the derivatives would have caused the economy to implode (ala the hyperinflationista nightmares).
It didn't, and that's the key argument made by proponents of MMT/Neo-chartalism.
The money has to be used in the economy and has to be met by full-employment (or full capacity utilization) before inflation truly happens in the classical sense. Any other type of perceived inflation is more likely due to the squeezing of consumer surplus (i.e. how much more will the consumer pay for the same or less...) thanks to greed and "shareholders", ultimately.
Perhaps the simplest metaphor is that of a battery; it doesn't do anything when it just sits in the package. It has to be stuck into a circuit before the charge flows.
And that's one reason we got rid of the commodity standards (cf. Jane D'Arista 2010)
I'd be more concerned with the apoplexy in "free-marketeers" who fail to grasp the subtle differences in "money" at the macro-scale.
It's hard for some people to differentiate how they (e.g. households) use money relative to the issuer (i.e. the Federal gov't). Now when the discussion turns to endogenous vs. exogenous money, that's when economists really start bickering, to which the Krugman/Keen debate exemplifies that point...
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, being despised by clueless, right-wing nutjobs ...
That's a good thing, huh Buck!?
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
And you are who?Hmmm, being despised by clueless, right-wing nutjobs ...
That's a good thing, huh Buck!?
..........Nobody.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
And here comes Ub's biggest fan.Hmmm, being despised by clueless, right-wing nutjobs ...
That's a good thing, huh Buck!?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You forgot to call them racist.Hmmm, being despised by clueless, right-wing nutjobs ...
That's a good thing, huh Buck!?
Amateur.
I love how Roli automatically assumes everyone who doesn't agree with himself or Stormfront buck is a right wing nutjob. What he doesn't realize is that when you are way out on the left edge, just about everyone is a right wing nut job because just about everyone is to the right of you in the political spectrum.
That and racist, racist, racist.
That and racist, racist, racist.
True, to have general price inflation, but the Fed was hand tied by the banks not giving out loans. So the money went into the financial world and now we have major inflation in equities and bonds instead.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
"Stock market is at an all time high"
Thanks Obama.
Helping the *cough* poor *cough* as usual.
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
I've read your posts, Son. It really doesn't matter where on the "political spectrum" my views are, because your views are way "out there."
What's really pathetic is that you actually think you are paying attention!
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
So back on topic.
Why would someone want to hide the fact they are donating millions to political candidates?
Why would someone want to hide the fact they are donating millions to political candidates?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
While your latter conclusion is amenable to mine, the part in bold is questionable. Banks aren't going to give loans in the absence of the SIVs they had prior. So to assume "they" refused to give loans is mistaken. Their playing field changed, so they reverted to the prudential model (i.e. emphasis on risk assessment).
Even though one can look in hindsight and say, "what a bunch of fucking crooks", it doesn't mitigate the fact the "rules" (or lack thereof) changed, and so it is logical they wouldn't be so quick to issue the money into the endogenous economy.
As for the equity inflation, is it really that surprising? In the long run, markets go up. Post-GFC, the trajectory has merely resumed its prior path. Are the valuations goofy? You're damn right they are (20:1 Price:Book-Value is not "normal"). Also, don't forget the equity markets are non-exclusive; foreign money has just as much weight as "FED Notes". "Flee to safety" and all that jazz...so to make the presumption where the FED is primarily responsible for the "inflated" values is also somewhat tenuous.
However, I do believe (but lack evidence) some of those reserves have wiggled into the market somehow (either through the ESF or some other nondescript mechanism). Again though, how much it has happened is questionable. We can't really know who is doing what and with what influence since the micro-scale is about as bonkers as the Uncertainty Principle. We can observe Price and Volume, but we can't know the specifics in any great detail merely due to the conflation of inputs and outputs (i.e. the function of state is dynamic in time). IF the activity is strictly one-way, like when the gov'ts of Canada and US unloaded their GM shares, then one can state with greater certainty a degree of "federal" influence. But without that kind of detail, who really knows anything beyond "correlations"?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
That last sentence made me dizzy.... Not the smiley one :]I've read your posts, Son. It really doesn't matter where on the "political spectrum" my views are, because your views are way "out there."
What's really pathetic is that you actually think you are paying attention!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the plgiarist who supports rawn pawl and denial of service based on skin color.
budlover13
King Tut
I
offices.
Integrity in politics is lost these days imo.
We need men and women of integrity to fill our public
offices.
Integrity in politics is lost these days imo.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
There are still some good ones out there
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Even good people will take the cash when it's being legally rubbed in your face.
Doesn't matter how loyal you are to your country, ask any man/woman, they are and always will be 100x more loyal to their family.