Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Fun with supply and demand.
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:32 pm

Again - pointing out what may be an exception as if it were the rule. And of course his intent was to mislead.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11153
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:14 pm

Tom Palven wrote:I don't think that Hornberger said anything misleading, but suspect that the Chinese and Vietnamese regimes, with robust economies due to the free market efforts of the likes of Deng Xiaoping, will be able to live up to their commitments for a long time as the US continues to increase age eligibility.

The US is too busy giving tax breaks to the wealthy parasites to sustain a healthy population.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:43 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:I don't think that Hornberger said anything misleading, but suspect that the Chinese and Vietnamese regimes, with robust economies due to the free market efforts of the likes of Deng Xiaoping, will be able to live up to their commitments for a long time as the US continues to increase age eligibility.

The US is too busy giving tax breaks to the wealthy parasites to sustain a healthy population.


Yes, the US gives tax breaks to the MIC and other wealthy parasites, but it also keeps busy giving tax breaks to poor people and people of average wealth including union members, retired military, and on and on and on and on and...

The US tax code is no longer available new from the government in bound volumes, but only on line, and the number of pages will vary according to font size.

However, these comments on the size of it are amusing:
http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Flash » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:41 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
Yes, the US gives tax breaks to the MIC and other wealthy parasites, but it also keeps busy giving tax breaks to poor people and people of average wealth including union members, retired military, and on and on and on and on and...

But isn't it the case of little tax breaks for little people and big tax breaks for big, wealthy people?
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:56 pm

Flash wrote:Tom Palven wrote:
Yes, the US gives tax breaks to the MIC and other wealthy parasites, but it also keeps busy giving tax breaks to poor people and people of average wealth including union members, retired military, and on and on and on and on and...

But isn't it the case of little tax breaks for little people and big tax breaks for big, wealthy people?


Probably Flash, but I dunno. Who gets the best deal, a guy who gets a million-dollar tax break or a guy who pays no taxes at all? You tell me. I didn't take new math.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:44 am

The problem in the USA is that far too much wealth is held by the rich. The wealthiest 1% of the population hold 38% of the country's total wealth. The poorest people hold most of the debt, and live very impoverished lives. The USA is often described as a wealthy country, but for which sector of its population?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:54 am

Tom Palven wrote:
Flash wrote:Probably Flash, but I dunno. Who gets the best deal, a guy who gets a million-dollar tax break or a guy who pays no taxes at all? You tell me. I didn't take new math.

Oh puleease: tired, drunk.....staring into the abyss....contemplating you are wrong and don't want to admit it?..... What????

I HATE defaulting to explaining the obvious...but who knows how many brain dead libertarians read this forum?

Personally: I would take the position of anyone getting a million dollar tax break. That guarantees at a minimum a million dollar income? While everyone in jail, starving to death and 50% of the population on minimum wage pay no taxes at all.

Yeah.....thats a real stumper.

Be direct. Be honest. Look for and admit mistakes. Learn. Grow. Prosper........... have fun.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4117
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:31 am

In a way, wealth inequality is irrelevant: what an economy needs is the exchange of money for goods. An economy is like a watermill that is powered by the flow of money. And money flows most reliably from those who have least and therefore have to (by definition) buy what they need.
The rich basically need nothing since they already have everything. Many super-rich can live rather frugally since they have no rent to pay, might build self-sufficient houses and can buy high-quality items which last a lifetime.

For an economy to thrive it is essential to have distributed purchasing power. How the money is put into the hands of the lower 50% can vary, but of course it must come from the top 50% if they want the economy to continue to run.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:32 am

EM

That is a shocking post.
How dare you be so sensible and rational.

Sheesh!

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11153
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:58 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:In a way, wealth inequality is irrelevant: what an economy needs is the exchange of money for goods. An economy is like a watermill that is powered by the flow of money. And money flows most reliably from those who have least and therefore have to (by definition) buy what they need.
The rich basically need nothing since they already have everything. Many super-rich can live rather frugally since they have no rent to pay, might build self-sufficient houses and can buy high-quality items which last a lifetime.

For an economy to thrive it is essential to have distributed purchasing power. How the money is put into the hands of the lower 50% can vary, but of course it must come from the top 50% if they want the economy to continue to run.

Another way is to build a facility that employs and pays people to do productive things (whether goods or services).

The problem with extreme wealth (and the Panama Papers reflect this) is that it is taken out of the economy altogether. It is easy to argue that no one has the right to remove wealth from the economy.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:45 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:The problem with extreme wealth (and the Panama Papers reflect this) is that it is taken out of the economy altogether. It is easy to argue that no one has the right to remove wealth from the economy.
[/quote]

Karl Marx called stocks, government bonds, and other debt instruments "fictitious capital." In 1964 the words "Silver Certificate" were removed from US dollars and replaced with "Federal Reserve Note," not redeemable in silver, and silver was removed from US coins. Later, Nixon removed all links of the US dollar, the world reserve currency, from what remained of the gold-silver standard.

At this point I think that Karl Marx would have added dollars to his list of "fictitious capital" assets.

What I'm getting at is that real capital, real wealth, consists of tangible assets- farmland, buildings, machinery, assembly lines, and so on, and I doubt that taking fictitious capital out of the country actually affects the wealth of the nation.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:47 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:The problem with extreme wealth (and the Panama Papers reflect this) is that it is taken out of the economy altogether. It is easy to argue that no one has the right to remove wealth from the economy.


Karl Marx called stocks, government bonds, and other debt instruments "fictitious capital." In 1964 the words "Silver Certificate" were removed from US dollars and replaced with "Federal Reserve Note," not redeemable in silver, and silver was removed from US coins. Later, Nixon removed all links of the US dollar, the world reserve currency, from what remained of the gold-silver standard.

At this point I think that Karl Marx would have added dollars to his list of "fictitious capital" assets.

What I'm getting at is that real capital, real wealth, consists of tangible assets- farmland, buildings, machinery, assembly lines, and so on, and I doubt that taking fictitious capital out of the country actually affects the wealth of the nation.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:46 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote: ... In 1964 the words "Silver Certificate" were removed from US dollars and replaced with "Federal Reserve Note," ...


Not quite accurate.

There were already Federal Reserve notes since before WWI.

The gold certificates were withdrawn in 1933, the silver certificates withdrawn in 1964.

Each type of currency was established by different acts of congress.

There were also United States notes, backed by silver but not redeemable as such.
Aldous Huxley wrote:A government with a comprehensive plan for the betterment of society is a government that uses torture.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:49 pm

Tom Palven wrote: ... What I'm getting at is that real capital, real wealth, consists of tangible assets- farmland, buildings, machinery, assembly lines, and so on, and I doubt that taking fictitious capital out of the country actually affects the wealth of the nation.


Of course it does, since it reduces the nation’s ability to purchase goods and services from other countries, as well as lowers the national investment and jobs which would have been created in concert. And of course it isn`t fictitious, but rather is simply liquid assets instead of fixed.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:31 am

TJrandom wrote:
Tom Palven wrote: ... What I'm getting at is that real capital, real wealth, consists of tangible assets- farmland, buildings, machinery, assembly lines, and so on, and I doubt that taking fictitious capital out of the country actually affects the wealth of the nation.


Of course it does, since it reduces the nation’s ability to purchase goods and services from other countries, as well as lowers the national investment and jobs which would have been created in concert. And of course it isn`t fictitious, but rather is simply liquid assets instead of fixed.


If US dollars are sent abroad, where can they be spent? In the US, right? And if US IOU'S are just circulated abroad, how does this hurt Americans? Wouldn't US citizens be making out like bandits, getting goods and services for pieces of paper?

If the Chinese work hard, produce a lot of goods, and stay out of debt, in what reality does this make them the bad guys? Trump's world?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:17 am

Tom Palven wrote:If the Chinese work hard, produce a lot of goods, and stay out of debt, in what reality does this make them the bad guys? Trump's world?

Fact is: that is not "all" the Chinese are doing. Add in currency manipulation, environmental disregard, violation of safety standards, dumping...and a list as long as you like. Any orchard can be cherry picked....even those not growing cherries ((ie: you cheat!)).
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:07 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Fact is: that is not "all" the Chinese are doing. Add in currency manipulation, environmental disregard, violation of safety standards, dumping...and a list as long as you like. Any orchard can be cherry picked....even those not growing cherries ((ie: you cheat!)).


Are you implying that those are things that the US Treasury Dept. and Defense Dept. are not doing all over the world?

You may be reading too many of their self-serving press releases from their PR people run by the AP as news.

Trying to hang the blame for US economic stagnation on the Chinese is totally absurd. You might just as well blame Jesus, Son of God, or even The Big Guy Himself.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:51 am

I blame Reagan....

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4117
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:56 am

The US wants trade with China, mostly because US economists subscribe to the Theory of Competitive Advantage.
And by helping to lift hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, the US is creating a huge market for its products.

And TP is right, the US is the biggest currency manipulator of all times. And in order to be able to continue to do that it very strongly prevents the rise of other currencies are possible alternatives .

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:56 am

TJrandom wrote:I blame Reagan....


Him too, God's Other Son.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:56 am

Tom Palven wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Tom Palven wrote: ... What I'm getting at is that real capital, real wealth, consists of tangible assets- farmland, buildings, machinery, assembly lines, and so on, and I doubt that taking fictitious capital out of the country actually affects the wealth of the nation.


Of course it does, since it reduces the nation’s ability to purchase goods and services from other countries, as well as lowers the national investment and jobs which would have been created in concert. And of course it isn`t fictitious, but rather is simply liquid assets instead of fixed.


If US dollars are sent abroad, where can they be spent? In the US, right? And if US IOU'S are just circulated abroad, how does this hurt Americans? Wouldn't US citizens be making out like bandits, getting goods and services for pieces of paper?

If the Chinese work hard, produce a lot of goods, and stay out of debt, in what reality does this make them the bad guys? Trump's world?


Actually, those off-shore US$ can be spent almost anywhere and spend a near-eternity before ever seeing US shores again. And when they do come back, they generally come back as part of a foreign government purchase of arms - so back to the government, and not the economy (except those arms were built by someone)...

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:58 am

Tom Palven wrote:
TJrandom wrote:I blame Reagan....


Him too, God's Other Son.


AKA Satan... :twisted:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:39 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Fact is: that is not "all" the Chinese are doing. Add in currency manipulation, environmental disregard, violation of safety standards, dumping...and a list as long as you like. Any orchard can be cherry picked....even those not growing cherries ((ie: you cheat!)).


Are you implying that those are things that the US Treasury Dept. and Defense Dept. are not doing all over the world?

You may be reading too many of their self-serving press releases from their PR people run by the AP as news.

Trying to hang the blame for US economic stagnation on the Chinese is totally absurd. You might just as well blame Jesus, Son of God, or even The Big Guy Himself.


Several ways to go with that: Of course its true........but OBVIOUSLY===>my complaint is that the Chinese are unfairly competing BETTER THAN the USA. No true blue American can be for THAT!!!

Here's another one: its not actually the USA that is competing against China...but rather Multi-National Corporations that are raping us both.

I like both, for different reasons.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:22 am

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:59 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:What if the Greek and US governments repudiated their huge and crushing debts and no longer serviced them? Without the debt expenditures, would they then have enough money to continue to make Social Security payments along with the promised cost-of-living-increases, and also be able to pay for entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be mainly the rich banksters and their wealthy clients (including the Chinese government) that would affected by a debt default? And if the US and Greece found it hard to borrow money after that, what would be the result of them being restrained to spending within their means?

A lot of banksters would lose their limos.

Otherwise, nobody really knows. Previous governments which have repudiated their debts have done so in isolation. Also, they had relatively small economies, so the impact wasn't devastating to others.

If Greece goes, the fear is that Spain, Portugal and maybe Ireland will go too because Greece owes them lots of money, and all that's keeping them afloat is the revenue stream from Greece, which would stop. If they went, Italy would also go, same reason. The fear is that if Greece goes, the whole Eurozone goes because of the levels of debt they owe each other. That would bankrupt a lot of banks. I don't know how many, if any, would survive. If the US repudiated, everyone else might as well, too, and get it over with. One big crash and burn instead of a domino effect crash and burn.

(I saw an analysis a bit ago, where half the Eurozone debt would disappear if they got together and contra'd what they owe each other - Greece owes Italy, Italy owes Spain, Spain owes France, France owes Greece. But they aren't likely to do that. Some Eurozone pet economist replied to the analysis with a long windy monograph that looked to me like "blah blah blah". I was not more informed after reading it. The economist who posted it wasn't impressed either.)

If the whole works went down, nobody knows what would happen. Probably a very deep but short depression, but maybe not so short.

Some banks are in a solid position. They didn't get involved in the subprime thing, and don't hold much government debt. Some might survive. Businesses have far more liquidity now than ever before, some of those might be able to carry on too, without their lines of credit. Depends where that liquidity is invested. If it's gov't bonds - oh well.

Governments took only two generations to forget everything they learned from the Great Depression. How long do you think it will take them this time, considering they haven't learned anything from the Great Recession yet?


The Greeks are still suffering and the bankster loan sharks are still collecting after the government double-crossed the voters and ignored the Greek referendum advocating bankruptcy.
https://www.rt.com/newsline/413056-gree ... s-bailout/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28533
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:27 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote: ... In 1964 the words "Silver Certificate" were removed from US dollars and replaced with "Federal Reserve Note," ...
Abdul Alhazred wrote:Not quite accurate.

Exactly. In the mid 19th Century there were more than 1600 different bank issued currencies traded through the USA.

What is interesting is that there were so many counterfeit notes floating around, and distance prohibited checking authenticity, that the counterfeit notes were accepted in trades. It really was a period of simply "printing money" and people accepted that.
counterfeit.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28533
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:33 pm

Tom Palven wrote:If US dollars are sent abroad, where can they be spent? In the US, right?

The Chinese will hold a certain percentage of their national reserves in USD, Euros, AUD and other foreign currencies as hedging insurance. to reduce currency exchange risk.

Australian dollars are the sixth most traded currency, despite Australia being so small, because we trade with every country on the planet in basic minerals and resources, therefore out currency is seen as stable and reflect the world's economy as a whole. China currently holds $130 billion USD, in AUD reserves.


Return to “Economics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests