MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
You can't resist can you.
How's this ? If I need to write more, then I really do need to take you by the hand...and 'walk you through it' and still, you'd find some abstruse bullshit to disagree.
Dude. If you'd like to have an economic discussion, awesome. If you want to have a spitting match, you'll have to spit on yourself--I'm not interested.
I asked you for logic and reason--your OP claims that was your goal. You responded with this crap.
I gave you the reasons for the "abstruse bullshit," reasons you didn't bother to refute with anything objective. So apparently that part is as far as it's going to go. In the logic world, when you don't have a counter-argument, but insist your claim is true, there's a word for that. Seriously--don't you think it's time to consider things a bit more deeply?
You have a lot of attitudes about economics, but little substance, and a lot of misunderstanding.
Take your Ponzi scheme crack, for example. Workers put money in, it's invested in treasuries, retired workers draw money out. If that's a Ponzi scheme, then so is an IRA or a 401K or any mutual fund--hell, even a savings account. And for more and more workers retiring, even more workers pay in--because those retired workers had children and grand-children. Even if the numbers don't "work out," then it's a matter of adjusting the formula. Can't people just invest their own money? We tried that, and had wide-spread poverty among the elderly. Now we don't. The average 50 year old in the US has less than $50,000 saved. The US actually has a negative savings rate. Social Security addresses these issues at an at least basic level. Over your lifetime, plus interest, you've paid for your retirement benefits. There's nothing Ponzi about it. If you'd like to raise FICA taxes, or adjust the retirement age back, fine--that's a reasonable discussion to have. But the comparison to a Ponzi scheme is silly and grossly inaccurate.
Then there's your obsession with the money supply. Sure, the bulk of US wealth is not in money -- total assets top $188 trillion, while currency is around $1.4 trillion, and M2 is just over $12 trillion. So what? Money is a means of exchange and a storable account of value -- it's a tool, a relationship, not a thing. The actual assets it quantifies are the wealth, the value, the real economics. Why would we want to pull all that monetary value out? Real things are going to be there; monetary valuation in a pure currency form is subject to market fluctuation, a risk. Why would we want total liquid ability but no things to exchange? And even if people did demand all that value in cash, it would drive the value of the dollar way up, unless the Fed bought up Treasuries to increase the money supply to balance that demand. Because that's what the Fed does--balance that relationship relative to economic circumstances.
Drop the persecution bullshit. I have no interest in picking on you--you aren't that important. It's a discussion board. If you raise topics, someone's likely to discuss them. If you don't want that, start a blog and be sure to turn off the comments option.
If you believe you're beyond error, then the world is going to pick on you a lot, as if it "just can't resist" spewing that "abstruse bullshit." But maybe you should listen to the world, consider the arguments, and if you see a different understanding, walk people through your logic and reasoning.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out.
You might also strive for clarity in posts. When you're posting a lot of attacks and sarcasm, you can't be surprised when people take as sarcasm statements you actually meant affirmatively.
You know what ? I would prefer to have a discussion about economics in general sometime but the OP was about such naysayers as Dr. Paul and is coterie as well as financial television actually using the words...'printing up money.' It's if we are to accept that as gospel and buy their advice for protection while the fed has not been...printing up new money.
First thing you suggest is that I think these lay people are right and I clearly say they are not.I stick to the premise that the fed is not printing up money. I, referring to only the part of M1 that would tell us, I use two links that show there is little new currency when compared the increase in GDP and you bring up M2 which for such policy issues and...this OP is a non-factor.
Then you bring up the function of money which is obvious even to the lay person while I stick to the 'opinion and speculation' of dollar holders and their confidence regardless, that the dollar remains a store of wealth which is in fact held in the perspective that the US labor force will still give them good value in return and particularly as [it] relates to 'storing' any alternative currency. There is no alternative with the only possible exception being the Swiss franc and even that has come down from its recent post WWII highs.
Furthermore I brought up Soc, sec as a so-called Ponzi scheme as that expression too, is widely held among the public they being swayed by the so-called experts, only to refute that as compared to real ponzi...it is not.
My logic is this...the fed has not been printing up new currency and therefore there is no reason to expect doom or hyperinflation. Then you introduce our fiscal situation and the 'reasons' behind its recent increase are well known to investors, and their 'opinions and speculation' still holds solid concerning the dollar as reflected by billion$ every month selling out very quickly at extremely low rates.
Therefore fiscal policy, M2, working population, retirement issues, savings rates are all non-issues and thus rendered irrelevant to the issue of 'On printing up currency.' So now my logic and my reasons should be perfectly clear.
As I've written and am backed up by more than one professor of economics, all of the issues concerning the long term success of our rapacious monetary system creates whole courses of study and admonitions based on theory the monetarists create themselves and to the advantage of those in control and realizing great wealth from it.
Some go so far as to suggest that M2, 3, 4, and 5 were thesis-based bullshit and should have no effect on public policy issues and are even used to obscure issues that may be problematic and as a deliberate distraction from the effects of policy and the public concerning M1.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 9/16/2015 10:21:19 AM >
|
On printing up new currency..... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread