Economics: The 180 Degree Science!

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Here is another post from that blog. I think that it is pretty good because it describes some of the pre-conceived notions that are incorrect. Especially about us and manufacturing, is what I found most interesting, and the foreign trade is just a bonus.


Economics: The 180 Degree Science!



Now is that time of year when thousands of high school and college students across the world will be taking their very first economics course. Perhaps it will be a basic, high school introductory economics’ course, or perhaps an even more challenging AP or IB economics’ course. Or perhaps you are a freshman or sophomore in college taking an introductory macroeconomics or microeconomics course.


Whatever your situation, you will soon read that all introductory economic text book authors make the point, usually in their respective text’s first chapter, that a primary benefit of studying economics is that it aims to transform one into a more effective and influential citizen by enabling one to better understand and conclude on the economic positions and promises of those running for public office.


The underlying logic is that a citizen or voter that is well-versed in basic economic principles will be a smarter citizen and more likely to vote for the political candidate or referendum that will deliver the greatest economic gain for the citizens of the locality, state, and/or nation. In fact, this “economics for citizenship” reason is why a growing number of states now require completion of a basic economics course as a requirement for high school graduation.


In my classroom, I informally call the study of economics “the 180 degree science” because as the student studies this social science for the very first time they often develop conclusions that are precisely the opposite (hence, the “180 degrees”) of what they had originally believed before taking their first economics course.
For example, here are two “180 degree moments”, which are applicable to the United States’ economy, that you may well learn in your first year economics’ course:

1. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “We don’t make anything anymore in America. America’s manufacturing prowess is in a state of constant decline. It seems like almost everything bought and used in the U.S. is made in China”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: Right before the recession hit in 2007, the U.S. was manufacturing approximately 2.5 times more in dollar value than China and is still today the largest manufacturer in the world.



The dollar value of manufactured goods in the United States, restated for price level changes so the comparison is accurate, is up over 50% for the last 13 years ending in June of 2007, just prior to the recession! Yes, it is true that the U.S. has lost several million jobs in manufacturing over that same time period, but that is primarily due to rising manufacturing productivity (think machines & technology replacing humans), where the U.S. can now produce more valuable manufactured products than ever before freeing up those displaced manufacturing workers who now have found or must find employment in other more labor-intensive service-related businesses.


Moreover, the US has maintained its percentage share of rising global manufacturing product over that same aforementioned time period, whereas other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have actually decreased their percentage share of global manufactured product.



More specifically, in 2006 U.S. manufacturing revenue, profits, exports, and productivity per employee reached their all time peak! Of course, with the current recession and the regression of the U.S. automobile industry, manufacturing levels are now below the levels of 2006.


According to government statistics, manufacturing still accounts for slightly over a third of our economic activity and the U.S. will continue to grow in production value, although manufacturing will continue to decline as a percentage of overall economic activity as the United States is growing faster in services than in manufacturing.

2. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “It is patriotic for U.S. citizens to “buy American” so that we can help our own economy. When we buy foreign products (i.e., exports), in lieu of American products, we hurt our U.S. economy as we lose American jobs and incomes. I hope the recently passed stimulus bill monies will be spent entirely on U.S. products and services.”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: The U.S. will benefit the most economically if Americans buy what they consider to be the very best product, in terms of price and quality, regardless of whether it is a foreign-produced product or an American-produced product. One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a U.S. buyer purchases a foreign product (i.e., an “import”) that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product circle back to a U.S.- based company, not a foreign company.


Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart, for example) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, an Apple, Microsoft, IBM, or General Electric to maintain or increase U.S. employment, profits, and stock prices!


Let me try to explain this concept in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation. I always say the more accurate slogan should be “Buying American is Un-American”, since it creates a weaker America!


Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy some shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying similar shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars!



It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China!



China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).


In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a few i-Pods from Apple (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid Apple (USA) $400 directly! Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing or maintaining that domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living.


And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I will be excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember the key point is that the $400 spent for the Chinese shirts went to Apple, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer.



If Wal-Mart would have “bought American” by buying from the Elon shirt manufacturer, even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, Wal-Mart would have prevented the more effective U.S. business (Apple, in this example) from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and mediocrity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!


Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy those i-Pods from Apple for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received from U.S. import purchases.



Said another way, China is not buying as many US i-Pods as the US is buying Chinese shirts and, of course, we call that situation the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy those i-Pods or build more plants in America to employ more Americans!


I decided to highlight this particular “180 degree moment” because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on my intuition, I believe that over 95% of adult Americans believe that these “buy American” clauses somehow help our economy more so than if the stimulus bill was silent on “buy American”, thus allowing stimulus money to be spent on foreign-produced products as well. Yes, it is an economic principle that if U.S. citizens “buy American” driven solely by patriotism (and not because they think the product is superior) the American economy actually becomes weaker as the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American company.


In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!


Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!


Well enough for now. I could go on and on with more 180 degree moments relating to areas such as standard of living, unemployment, the minimum wage, gasoline taxes, and many others. But we’ll discuss some of those in class and I will cover others through this blog site. For now, I just really hope you look forward to and work hard in your economic course so that, you too, will become a more informed and influential citizen as you begin to see your nation’s economy, and our global economy, in a whole new light!


Discussion Questions:
1. Do you believe that politicians will promise and enact policy that seems on the surface to be beneficial to a nation, but are actually harmful to that nation?
2. After reading this blog do you begin to see how the huge declines in manufacturing employment are more driven by leaps in productivity (machines and know-how)? How else could we be producing more manufacturing value each year if employment is decreasing?
3. What would happen to a nation’s “standard of living” if the government passed a law requiring its citizens to only buy their own domestic products? Why?
4. Do you personally believe you will make your own country’s standard of living grow the fastest if you buy the best product available, whether an import (foreign) or a domestic product?
pix.gif
About the author: Mr. Latter teaches various business courses at Paul VI Catholic High School in Fairfax, Virginia (USA) including AP Economics, Accounting, Marketing, and Personal Finance. Mr. Latter is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and former Chief Financial Officer with 10 years of high school business teaching experience. Prior to his career change to teaching in 2000, Mr. Latter spent 21 years in various auditing, accounting, and financial positions with Price Waterhouse, Sprint, and Teleglobe.
 
I totally agree with the premise. but the fact that we, the people of this country, don't make anything anymore is true. The machines make it. All the other human interaction stuff is taken care of by call centers in wage poor countries. The reason we became such a manufacturing giant was not because we made the best shit, it was because we had bombed all the competition to tiny pieces after WW2. They all had to rebuild while we had excess manufacturing capability and we put it to good use.

personally if there is a choice between two same items and one is made in the USA? well I buy the American made one.
 
I think that the call center stuff will eventually end up with being a way to have a cheap alternative and people will pay a premium for american workers because it is so much more efficient.

Perfect example of this, my old lady yesterday was talking to me about having to deal with a tard from india for 23 minutes when last week she had a american call center that would get the same thing done in about 3 minutes.

So essentially that call wasted 20 minutes of her time, or approx $20. More than enough to pay that american call center employee to not waste a pharmacists time.


But the problem with manufacturing is that we don't have people educated enough to work on all the machinery that we could have. Look at factories that want to open up in Michigan that cannot because they do not have enough college grads to fill the shifts. It is sad. But still the fact we have went away from a high labor workforce to a skilled workforce and have kept up with the efficiency and still are far largest producer in the world, imagine if we would have an extra 10% of our workforce that would have gotten a degree and been able to work in these new factories.

We would have very low unemployment and far more wealth as a country, and the rest of the world would be drug up with us.
 
We would have very low unemployment and far more wealth as a country, and the rest of the world would be drug up with us.
Please tell us more about this "Trickle Up" theory of yours.

China will shortly take over as #1 manufacturer.
 
The following is taken from Federal Reserve Banking System Publications.

Question 1: Do Banks create money when making a loan? Answer: Yes: "Commercial banks, however, lend in a different way. They create new checkbook dollars and add them to a borrower's checking account. Because commercial banks create almost all new dollars, they play a special role in our financial system." "The Story of Banks," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 4.

Question 2: Do the commercial banks create money in the form of loans? Answer: "One institution, the commercial bank, creates new money, checkbook money, when it lends producers and workers borrowing from commercial banks. The banks put this new money into circulation." "The Story of Money," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 4.

Question 3: Do banks cause prosperity as well as recessions? Answer: Yes, But bank credit isn't a one way street. It adds to our money supply, to be sure, but our money supply declines as bank credit is repaid. Banks, then, can "destroy" or "extinguish" money as well as create it. "Money: Master or Servant?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 15.

Please pay close attention to this next question and its official answer:
Question 4: Do banks know that creating fiat money (loans) is the primary cause of the total decline of the American economy and creating money is the fatal flaw in the Banking System ? Answer: Yes, "Of course, they (Banks) do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by the amount of the loan." "Modern Money Mechanics" Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Page 6

Question 5: Do banks monetize people's negotiable instruments by crediting a bank's liability (Demand Deposit Account) proving that the bank owes the depositor for his promissory note? Answer: Yes, "The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. As noted earlier, check liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts." "Modern Money Mechanics "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 3.

Question 6: When a bank makes a loan for $9,000, is that newly created money and does it get posted like a deposit does into someone's checking account? Answer: Yes, "When a Bank make a $9,000 loan the bank accepts' the promissory note(s) of the borrower in exchange for credits to the borrower's transaction account (demand Deposit). Bank Loans (Assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the deposits of the banking system." "Modern Money Mechanics", Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
Note: The Bank admits that the liabilities are Demand Deposits. The banks did not loan by taking money out of their own assets, as you and I must do if we loan money to a friend, for example. The banks loan that which they never owned. So, the ledgers of the banks, which they refuse to show in courts of law even when subpoenaed (which would allow people to demonstrate fraud), are proof that banks do not really loan anything. They only monetize. They means they loaned nothing from their own assets to begin with.

Question 7: Does the Fed's banking system actually cause recessions or even depressions? Answer: Yes, "When the Federal Reserve sells securities, the supply of lendable money is decreased. When the Federal Reserve sells government securities, the check paying for it is deducted from the account of the commercial bank on which it is drawn, but it is not deposited to the account of another commercial bank." "Putting It Simply" Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Pages 16 and 17.

Note: The news media is telling a deceptively concealing truth about this diabolical Bank System. While the system is lowering the interest rates on the right hand, the real damage is being accomplished behind their back using their left hand. When this Banking System purchases bonds, negotiable instruments from the commercial sector (with or without their consent) it is diminishing the excess reserves account which is the entire basis of lending. The lending and/or money creating capabilities of the banks is being intentionally contracted to bring about this recession and all recessions. Why? Because banks, especially the big banking centers, make much more money by seizing homes in foreclosure.

Question 8: Does the Banking System create or publish any information to substantiate the allegations contain in the above Answer? Answer: Yes. According to the above cited booklet: "Bank credit isn't a one way street. It adds to our money supply, to be sure, but our money supply declines as bank credit is repaid. Banks, then, can "destroy" or "extinguish" money as well as create it." "Money: Master or Servant?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York Page 15.

"Put another way, when the Federal Reserve buys government securities, it is by the mere stoke of a pen putting new money into the banking system, money which itself can lead to the creation of even more new money. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." "Putting it Simply," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Page 17.

Question 9: Why doesn't the United States Government, to relieve the pain and sufferings of the American people just simply follow Article One, Section five and Paragraph eight of the United States Constitution and just simply create the necessary money to allow the economy to function properly (stopping this inflation)? Answer: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, D.C, a unit of the treasury, is responsible for printing the nation's currency. But its order to print comes from the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, not the President or Congress. The Federal Reserve, not the Treasury, determines how much currency is printed, based mainly on estimates of commercial banks and public cash demands. Under this arrangement, the government can't print more Federal Reserve notes to pay its bills or debts. Since most U.S. money is checkbook money, the printing presses have little to do with the buying power of money. "I Bet You Thought," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 12.



Still want to argue over whether or not the fed "Creates" money?
 
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,
privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239
9th Circuit 1982

Maybe they didn't learn about economics until after 1982 eh?
 
China will shortly take over as #1 manufacturer.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?cid=GPD_29

China is just over 2 trillion GDP, we are over 6 times the size of their economy with over 4 times the amount of people we have. But as they increase their standard of living (like they have been) they will start to slow the growth rate they have been at. Because as they start to have to increase their wages (which they are now) they will start to have to charge higher prices, and that means we will buy less of their goods, and they will stall out.

They are going to really have to invest most of their income into themselves to even have a chance. Their resources will only go so far and the reality that they have too many people will cripple their growth for a while. Maybe someday, but I really think that if there is a country that gets their shit together will push for Number 1 is India, they are going through their growing pains now and focusing on their infrastructure as they increase their economy.

OMG the Bank of England even creates money out of thin air...LOOK!!!.......http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...tin/qb0801.pdf

The piece is on page 105 of the pdf and states " banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank 'writing a cheque on itself', That is, banks extend credit by creating money".

Well if you are determined to think that credit is some how a one way street then sure, but you are not correct.

How does a bank/Fed create money with nobody wanting to get a loan?


Hey Han, More Evidence banks create money out of thin air.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/...te-credit.html
How exactly is a half quote proof? They are talking about possible changes due to volatility in rates mean that they create money out of thin air?
9. The authority to pay interest on reserves is likely to be an important component of the future operating framework for monetary policy. For example, one approach is for the Federal Reserve to bracket its target for the federal funds rate with the discount rate above and the interest rate on excess reserves below. Under this so-called corridor system, the ability of banks to borrow at the discount rate would tend to limit upward spikes in the federal funds rate, and the ability of banks to earn interest at the excess reserves rate would tend to contain downward movements. Other approaches are also possible. Given the very high level of reserve balances currently in the banking system, the Federal Reserve has ample time to consider the best long-run framework for policy implementation. The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system. Return to text

ok, I am going back to working on whatever you meant by trickle up economics.
 
Damn you sucked me in again.

Question 1: Do Banks create money when making a loan? Answer: Yes: "Commercial banks, however, lend in a different way. They create new checkbook dollars and add them to a borrower's checking account. Because commercial banks create almost all new dollars, they play a special role in our financial system." "The Story of Banks," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 4.

How do you make a loan with no customer?

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,
privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239
9th Circuit 1982

Maybe they didn't learn about economics until after 1982 eh?
You act like you are saying something I didn't say about a year ago. Not that judges are economists though so I am not sure what you mean by that.
 
Ps

Still want to argue over whether or not the fed "Creates" money?
I think it is funny that you are using comic books the Fed had made to teach children as somehow proving your point hilarious.

Like I had said in the other thread, they are usually not in the practice of thinking that every time they talk about money creation that they need to emphasize there are people on the other end of the transaction. It is assumed in the word transaction, or when a bank makes a loan there is money creation (because someone is taking out a loan being the key).
 
Ok so after some distraction:

If we have 10% of Americans with a HS diploma or less get a 4 year degree I am saying not only do we benefit as a country, but the entire world does to through trade benefits of a even stronger America. I would think that would be enough but hey lets keep going.

_wsb_523x329_Value+of+College+Degree+for+Earnings.png Right off the bat we can see that employers offer a premium for educated workers of about 1.7 times the rate of HS educated workers.

Adding to that the unemployment rate for HS degreed workers during this recession is
High School or less = 38,436,000 (HS Dipl.)+ 12,402,000 (No HS D) = 50,838,000
Is the labor workforce and together they have (3,609,000+1,736,000) 5,345,000 unemployed.

(4 Yr Degree = 45,438,000 is the workforce and they have 2,070,000 unemployed.)

So I am saying that if 10% of these people go to school and get a 4 year degree all economies benefit greatly.

508,000 people get a degree, increasing the amount businesses are able to profit off of their labor to the point that they would be willing to pay approx. $46,980 per worker ( I discounted it at 10% from what they are making now to put in some decline initially due to the number of jobs would be willing to pay before they took off (New industries open in untested markets so (like it always has been, but these would be markets that need higher end workers due to increase in numbers there), but in the span of 5 years (4 for them to get the degree and and then the wages would increase with maturing of these industries) I would expect that there would be a slow increasing of these wages.

As we start to develop the new technologies and innovations that increase our standard of living we would be able to sell more of those to not only the newly developing countries (china and india) but to help renovate the older countries (like Europe).

Not even necessarily that we are the ones building it, much of it is us working with them in their countries. This way as they make money, we make money and everyone benefits. Because one countries GDP going up, doesn't have to mean that another countries GDP is going down. But one can be going up at a faster rate depending on how much each side can benefit from the other.

I wish I could find a good graph of an edgeworth box. .. Wow so shouldn't smoke and do this, I just went on a 2 hour study session having fun thinking about how to best show the benefits of trade and how the production possibility curves and how you invert them onto eachother and you have the edgeworth box. Then thinking about all the different ways that is relevant, but at the same time how little is understood from a lower level course viewpoint. Seeing it for the first time I am remembering how little most people actually understood the relevance of it and because it was easy to remember for the exams they just memorized enough to get it right on the test and that is it missing the entire point of it. Anyway I gave my whiteboard a workout just now.

But I am back.

So we are at an extra 5,000,000 workers with wages at $47000. Meaning out GDP can rise $235,000,000,000 without the help of banks. Figuring these people decide to purchase something, that money has a multiplier effect, but even more so is when you think that growth was not done.

Businesses always make a profit off of the people they work with, and the government gets taxes which help with initiatives like this to get people educated and interest paid back to banks for the loans it took for these businesses to open up and get this increase in GDP moving in the first place, they still make more than a 20% return ontop of everything else. So if you figure everything else (insurances, rents, operational costs, taxes, ect being 50% of the total) That would mean that the salaries workers had is around 30% of the costs (low number, but I wanted a low number for the return too, and know that you would rather see taxes and interests on loans a huge number (even though tax is a % of wages beyond every other costs, and most loans are only about 10% max).

That would mean that all this would actually raise GDP by $783,333,333,333 or 1/18th increase in GDP before any multipliers a year.

If the average 4 year degree costs $64,000 (High numbers 160 hours at $400 an hour) which this would also stimulate the economy with the boost in college students because everyone in the university is apart of a neighborhood, this would be a total of $320,000,000.

So how this would break down is the first 4 years it would cost us all $80 billion a year. Then in the 5th year it would not cost a thing, and in the 6th year we would gain $783 Billion a year. If the average worker is 40 years old and has 25 years before they retire, in todays dollars (you know I can do it with inflation if you like too) we would gain $19,583,013,333,325 with doing something like this.





All of this would be possible because as a country we spent about 1.3x the amount of money we spend in gasoline in a single day. Which is actually about $6.00 per person.
(Average gasoline a year divided by 365 days a year = gas a a day multiplied by 1.4 (a little higher than the 1.3 difference because they figured gas at $3.00 a gallon, and I wanted it a little higher)
If as they say 50% of people do not pay any taxes, it would be most likely $12.


$12 to possibly add $63,786 per person to the economy. I think that is a very good bet.
 
Ps

I think it is funny that you are using comic books the Fed had made to teach children as somehow proving your point hilarious.

Like I had said in the other thread, they are usually not in the practice of thinking that every time they talk about money creation that they need to emphasize there are people on the other end of the transaction. It is assumed in the word transaction, or when a bank makes a loan there is money creation (because someone is taking out a loan being the key).

What comic books do you speak of? Or did you mean that cartoon that YOU POSTED?

Hey guess what ? you figured it out, it takes someone to want a loan for the money to be created. the money does NOT come from depositors. And all along you said that the money came from depositors, well you figured it out. So simple the mind is repelled.
 
Damn you sucked me in again.



How do you make a loan with no customer?

You act like you are saying something I didn't say about a year ago. Not that judges are economists though so I am not sure what you mean by that.


You don't, thats the whole scheme of it, and you figured it out, but it hasn't rang home yet. Banks lend credit (Checkbook money) when customers come in for a loan, they don't take money out of a depositors account and give to the person who needs the loan. They just "Create" the money after you sign a promissory note. And then they charge you interest for something that wasn't theirs to begin with...they call that fraud. Again, let me repeat myself. Look up the legal definition of "Consideration" and know that without legal consideration all contracts are null and void. ie the banks cannot really collect on a mortgage because the mortgage is fraud as the banks never had the money to loan you in the first place.

You keep telling me its a quasi governmental agency, it isnt, not really. It may appear that the government has some control, but its the fed (The owners) that controls the government.
 
Ok so after some distraction:

If we have 10% of Americans with a HS diploma or less get a 4 year degree I am saying not only do we benefit as a country, but the entire world does to through trade benefits of a even stronger America. I would think that would be enough but hey lets keep going.

View attachment 997094 Right off the bat we can see that employers offer a premium for educated workers of about 1.7 times the rate of HS educated workers.

Adding to that the unemployment rate for HS degreed workers during this recession is


So I am saying that if 10% of these people go to school and get a 4 year degree all economies benefit greatly.

508,000 people get a degree, increasing the amount businesses are able to profit off of their labor to the point that they would be willing to pay approx. $46,980 per worker ( I discounted it at 10% from what they are making now to put in some decline initially due to the number of jobs would be willing to pay before they took off (New industries open in untested markets so (like it always has been, but these would be markets that need higher end workers due to increase in numbers there), but in the span of 5 years (4 for them to get the degree and and then the wages would increase with maturing of these industries) I would expect that there would be a slow increasing of these wages.

As we start to develop the new technologies and innovations that increase our standard of living we would be able to sell more of those to not only the newly developing countries (china and india) but to help renovate the older countries (like Europe).

Not even necessarily that we are the ones building it, much of it is us working with them in their countries. This way as they make money, we make money and everyone benefits. Because one countries GDP going up, doesn't have to mean that another countries GDP is going down. But one can be going up at a faster rate depending on how much each side can benefit from the other.

I wish I could find a good graph of an edgeworth box. .. Wow so shouldn't smoke and do this, I just went on a 2 hour study session having fun thinking about how to best show the benefits of trade and how the production possibility curves and how you invert them onto eachother and you have the edgeworth box. Then thinking about all the different ways that is relevant, but at the same time how little is understood from a lower level course viewpoint. Seeing it for the first time I am remembering how little most people actually understood the relevance of it and because it was easy to remember for the exams they just memorized enough to get it right on the test and that is it missing the entire point of it. Anyway I gave my whiteboard a workout just now.

But I am back.

So we are at an extra 5,000,000 workers with wages at $47000. Meaning out GDP can rise $235,000,000,000 without the help of banks. Figuring these people decide to purchase something, that money has a multiplier effect, but even more so is when you think that growth was not done.

Businesses always make a profit off of the people they work with, and the government gets taxes which help with initiatives like this to get people educated and interest paid back to banks for the loans it took for these businesses to open up and get this increase in GDP moving in the first place, they still make more than a 20% return ontop of everything else. So if you figure everything else (insurances, rents, operational costs, taxes, ect being 50% of the total) That would mean that the salaries workers had is around 30% of the costs (low number, but I wanted a low number for the return too, and know that you would rather see taxes and interests on loans a huge number (even though tax is a % of wages beyond every other costs, and most loans are only about 10% max).

That would mean that all this would actually raise GDP by $783,333,333,333 or 1/18th increase in GDP before any multipliers a year.

If the average 4 year degree costs $64,000 (High numbers 160 hours at $400 an hour) which this would also stimulate the economy with the boost in college students because everyone in the university is apart of a neighborhood, this would be a total of $320,000,000.

So how this would break down is the first 4 years it would cost us all $80 billion a year. Then in the 5th year it would not cost a thing, and in the 6th year we would gain $783 Billion a year. If the average worker is 40 years old and has 25 years before they retire, in todays dollars (you know I can do it with inflation if you like too) we would gain $19,583,013,333,325 with doing something like this.





All of this would be possible because as a country we spent about 1.3x the amount of money we spend in gasoline in a single day. Which is actually about $6.00 per person. If as they say 50% of people do not pay any taxes, it would be most likely $12.


$12 to possibly add $63,786 per person to the economy. I think that is a very good bet.

You don't automatically get a better paying job just because you have a degree, hell I know people who are unemployed that have masters and PHD's. Just because you get a college degree does not make you more effective at digging a ditch or taking orders at McDonalds. THE ONLY thing that will do what you say is an INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY. Getting a degree does not automatically increase productivity. Thanks for playing. Now lets get back to the subject. Central banks create synthetic money in the form of credit, they loan this credit to people at interest and for profit. The main thing they do is make sure Governments have a large cookie jar in which the supply of cookies is seemingly unlimited. This puts them in a position of power. If the fed decided it wanted to bankrupt half the banks in the country overnight all it would have to do is either raise interest rates or make a much larger reserve requirement. Bernanke is actually toying with the idea of having no reserve requirement at all.

Why should we the people allow our government' bank to borrow our treasuries from us for nothing, then turn right around and loan it back to us at interest. Why can't government just create its own money, back by something tangible and do away with the interest all together. We could get rid of most of the income tax by not having to pay the fed interest. And don't give me that crock about how the fed gives all the extra interest back every year, they only give back 45 billion, but we get charged 2.5 trillion. Somewhat of a disparity there. I mean you don't really think it costs two thousand four hundred fifty five billion dollars a year to run the fed do you?
 
What comic books do you speak of?
35mm8tz.jpgLook at the upper right hand corner, all those references you made where about comic books.

Hey guess what ? you figured it out, it takes someone to want a loan for the money to be created. the money does NOT come from depositors. And all along you said that the money came from depositors, well you figured it out. So simple the mind is repelled.
Whose money is being lent out, it is the depositors. They are the first link in the chain, they deposit their earnings and save it, the bank takes that and lends it to people that want to borrow it, that is the money creation cycle.

When the Banks have enough money saved and want to get a bit more interest, and the Treasury is selling new securities, they spend some of that deposited money they have pooled on that, removing money from the system.

Later if the Fed thinks that there is deflationary pressure (like now) they buy that treasury and the bank gets back its cash, and lends that money, and that is where the money creation happens.

hats the whole scheme of it, and you figured it out, but it hasn't rang home yet. Banks lend credit (Checkbook money) when customers come in for a loan, they don't take money out of a depositors account and give to the person who needs the loan.
You are wrong, everything has orgionated from deposits, if there were none, they would not have been able to purchase that first treasury. They do not just create money and loan it, it is impossible, they do not have printers, and whatever that loan was going to be spent on is not going to accept not being paid.

They just "Create" the money after you sign a promissory note. And then they charge you interest for something that wasn't theirs to begin with...they call that fraud. Again, let me repeat myself. Look up the legal definition of "Consideration" and know that without legal consideration all contracts are null and void. ie the banks cannot really collect on a mortgage because the mortgage is fraud as the banks never had the money to loan you in the first place.
They are lending real money, they do not just 'create' money after signing a promisarry note.

What you are saying is insane man. Money is worth something, that is what they are lending, that is why your 'consideration' theory falls apart.

You keep telling me its a quasi governmental agency, it isnt, not really. It may appear that the government has some control, but its the fed (The owners) that controls the government.
That is just paranoid. The Government does have a large amount of pull over the Fed, not as much as the banks and businesses that rely on those banks, but it does have a large amount.

You don't automatically get a better paying job just because you have a degree, hell I know people who are unemployed that have masters and PHD's. Just because you get a college degree does not make you more effective at digging a ditch or taking orders at McDonalds.
Some degrees are not worth what others are. Math and sciences, service degrees, and languages, computer degrees, medical degrees, ect are all very high in demand. But yeah if you get a phd in latin you are boned. The rest cannot get enough people in them, that is the degrees I am talking about, not french history of art.

THE ONLY thing that will do what you say is an INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY. Getting a degree does not automatically increase productivity. Thanks for playing. Now lets get back to the subject

And productivity and entrepreneurial talent is what we need. You really thing that 5 million hard working americans that would be developing skills at a high level would not come up with new ideas or help to get the ideas that are out in the market already marketable?

How dark is your world?

Central banks create synthetic money in the form of credit, they loan this credit to people at interest and for profit. The main thing they do is make sure Governments have a large cookie jar in which the supply of cookies is seemingly unlimited. This puts them in a position of power. If the fed decided it wanted to bankrupt half the banks in the country overnight all it would have to do is either raise interest rates or make a much larger reserve requirement. Bernanke is actually toying with the idea of having no reserve requirement at all.

Yeah I read that remember, I posted it yesterday and was showing how that is taken completely out of context. Because you are saying the last sentence of a few paragraphs of an examination of different strategies to deal with reserve requirements.

Currency is just a numerical amount of what we deem our time to be worth. That is all, it would not matter if they paid in gold or rocks, as long as it would be hard to duplicate, fractionable (to be able to buy small items), and store of value, and people accepted it as a form of payment because they knew they would be able to spend it, it would be currency.

Why should we the people allow our government' bank to borrow our treasuries from us for nothing, then turn right around and loan it back to us at interest. Why can't government just create its own money, back by something tangible and do away with the interest all together. We could get rid of most of the income tax by not having to pay the fed interest. And don't give me that crock about how the fed gives all the extra interest back every year, they only give back 45 billion, but we get charged 2.5 trillion. Somewhat of a disparity there. I mean you don't really think it costs two thousand four hundred fifty five billion dollars a year to run the fed do you?

350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png How is 187 billion 2.5 trillion? The Fed owns 20% of the treasuries remember? So 1/5 of the treasuries, and they handed over to the government 1/4 of all the interest they paid out. So the government is making out with this, because the Fed is giving them back MORE than what they are getting from them in the form of interest.

Where do your numbers come from?
 
How do you make a loan with no customer?

You act like you are saying something I didn't say about a year ago. Not that judges are economists though so I am not sure what you mean by that.
You don't, thats the whole scheme of it
Ok so you get that if nobody takes out a loan, there can be no money creation.

Your right han, until Keynes came along everyone was just fucking STUPID!! No one had a clue because everyone lived in a fucking cave until AFTER the depression. What a crock of BS. I Laugh at your premise.

This is why it is so important.

Because before the great depression, every economic model was based on the firm and the way they produced, and how efficient they were. Some truly brilliant strides were made during that time, but they never really took into account the entire economy. Nor did they really understand the concept of the importance of the Demand side of economics. Just like you are discounting its importance when you say that Fed and Banks create money and dismiss that people have to take out that loan for the money creation to actually start.

Peoples wages are their wealth, all the things you have ever build up in your life is your wealth, the future wages you will earn are part of your future wealth, and that is very real and very tangible. And that is why you can take out a loan if you wished. Because you are saying that I am going to repay this with my future earnings (+ interest so that you can pay your operation expenses, and make some money for you and your depositors) so that I can get whatever it is that I am taking this loan out for. Because it is worth it to me.

Which is what that question is all about. You have to realize that there will not always be a purchaser for a product. The Demand must be there for the supply or the vendors have to reduce its cost until it can entice someone to purchase it, and if they can't they go out of business. That is just how it works, they did actually get this before the great depression, but they figured on a whole that there would always be someone somewhere that would buy it and that is why the classical economic model is build around aggregate supply being a vertical line (the vendors supply a certain amount and there will always be someone to buy it). And the reason it is a vertical line is due to them setting up the model at full employment levels so that any increase in demand is simply inflation. Which is not the case, because we are not at full employment.
asvert.gif Classical model

adright.gif Keynesian Model

Keynes model showed that indeed at full employment the AS was a vertical line, but we can have less unemployment too, that curve is where we generally are, so we can have a very modest change in prices while producing a large increase in GDP. Because that extra money (Open Market Operation purchase that increases money in banks, which they lower the interest rates to promote borrowing, which leads to businesses (and people) to borrow to buy stuff, which leads to increase in spending, which leads to increase in GDP, which entices businesses to expand and start hiring people). They did not study this before the Great Depression.


This is why I am constantly saying that all of your quotes are pre-depression. Hell even the people from the 50's never really learned what you like to call "Keynesian economics" because it really did not start getting taught until the 60's and even that was not widespread because most the professors had not learned it properly and saw stuff that was not there. So it basically took until the 80's for people to really get a widespread grasp of it on the college level and that is something that is a new model and there is things that will not be fully understood.

Like in 92 when we had a recession and the government and Fed did an open market operation and underestimated the effects, because at the time they were not aware that when rates dropped there is a huge portion of foreign investors that pull out their funds and invest in other nations with higher rates of return, and did not put enough money into the system and failed to stop the recession before it happened.

That is why I am always pointing out the dates on the quotes you use. They are pre-depression economists that usually did not know what the upstart theory was all about.

Much like you look at the medical field in pre depression days vs today. It is night and day, it has nothing to do with them being stupid, it is just they did not have enough information, nor the tools to examine things the way they can now. The world has changed so much in the last century because of innovations in science and math modeling.
 
Lets re link all of these again, i think you are doing something wrong, not a single comic in all these links NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!!

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/7-questions-about-public-banking.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/german-central-bank-says-credit-is-created-out-of-thin-air-2010-3

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm


http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_complete.pdf

Go through each link one by one and discuss the merits, don't try to obfuscate the issue by saying they are comics when they clearly are not, half of them are Fed Reserve publications and ALL WERE WRITTEN AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!~!!!!!~!!!! so you cannot use the " idiots" excuse.

Nope no comics there. Just more evidence that what I say is true. Is there anyone who sees comics? I don't, does anyone else see comics? Or is it just you?

What is this bit about banks saving money? Banks don't PRINT the money , they use CHECKBOOK money, what part of this don't you understand? When we talk about printing money we aren't really talking about running a printing press, were mostly talking about putting numbers in accounts. When you get a check direct deposited to your account a guy doesn't show up with cash and put it in the bank for you, its CHECKBOOK MONEY!!! The bank does not lend other peoples deposits, the FED has said so many many times, just read the links provided, the FED Emphatically says they CREDIT the persons account!

Oh and money isn't worth anything, its just a worthless piece of paper, it would be worth more if it hadn't been printed on. The only reason the system works is becasue people have faith in the system and have been indoctrinated to put a value on a dollar bill.

One of my friends has a Masters in business finance, the one holding a PHD is in chemistry. These aren't people who took art classes or history teachers who can't find a job.

Oh and hey just so you know Keynes came out with his theories 13 years before the great depression started, so that kinda blows your whole premise that everyone was economically stupid right out of the water. I really find it funny that you believe that economics was a dark secret art that no one understood until after the GD.


Peoples wages are their wealth, all the things you have ever build up in your life is your wealth, the future wages you will earn are part of your future wealth, and that is very real and very tangible. And that is why you can take out a loan if you wished. Because you are saying that I am going to repay this with my future earnings (+ interest so that you can pay your operation expenses, and make some money for you and your depositors) so that I can get whatever it is that I am taking this loan out for. Because it is worth it to me.

Every dollar printed is backed by collateral- that collateral being a US treasury bond which is sold off by the federal reserve to a buyer like your grandma, China, a pension fund, etc.

That means every dollar is borrowed and has to be paid back with interest. How do we pay it back? With your tax dollars. 100% of your federal income taxes goes to pay these bond holders back. NONE of your taxes goes to fund the govt. or the military.

That's how it works, you debt slave. So you think about that. What amount of taxes are collected each year? 2.5 trillion.

How do you "Create" money if your just borrowing someone elses? If I borrow your lawn mower to mow my lawn, will a new mower appear in my driveway? So where is the creation?

Lets get some quotes from central bankers that are after the great depression shall we?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Because of 'fractional' reserve system, banks, as a whole, can expand our money supply several times, by making loans and investments." "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." - Federal Reserve Bank, New York

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The actual process of money creation takes place in commercial banks. As noted earlier, demand liabilities of commercial banks are money.."Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of money outstanding, even though most of the assets themselves are no more than pieces of paper--.", P.3."Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.", p. 19. "The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.",
p. 27.- Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it (p15). The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." - John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p29.[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint, and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency". Major L. L. B. Angus

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment, out of nothing." - Ralph M. Hawtery (Former Secretary of the British Treasury)


[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely not enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. Money is created when banks lend it into existence When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000."- Bernard Lietaer, Former Central Banker


[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. .. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -John Danforth, Republican senator from Missouri, reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States." -Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)


Now are you gonna to try and argue that none of these people know what they are talking about, perhaps they are all stupid because economics wasn't known until yesterday? Mayhaps you are the only person who has a grasp on economics and all those Fed reserve Presidents, secretaries of the treasury and banking behemoths are all just dumb and haven't got a clue how money works.
[/FONT]
 
We can go on and on, for every argument you make that has no factual backing I will link the facts that support me, but you will be unable to do so, because its not factually true that banks lend money from depositors accounts, therefore there is nothing for you to link because your argument has no basis in reality. None of the Stuff I link is taken out of context, its all there for anyone to read.

One day a light bulb will go off in your head and you will get it, until then you are a debt slave.
 
"[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower."
- Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report

“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.”
-Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)

"Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money."
- Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955.

If this were not true, you would think that maybe the Fed would say so and you would be able to link me that evidence, but they (and you ) don't becasue money creation is a fact.
 
Back
Top