- #71
twofish-quant
- 6,821
- 20
Shackleford said:And you don't see a problem with arbitrarily printing notes?
I see a problem with arbitrarily printing notes. I also see a problem with arbitrarily not printing notes.
Shackleford said:And you don't see a problem with arbitrarily printing notes?
twofish-quant said:I see a problem with arbitrarily printing notes. I also see a problem with arbitrarily not printing notes.
Shackleford said:I listened to some of a lecture today, by Roger Garrison I believe. According to capital-based macroeconomics, consumption and investment are inversely proportional (my words). He then noted the C I G macroeconomic equation. It makes more sense to me that individual consumption and investment are mutually exclusive and hence inversely proportional. You invest/safe to yield a greater consumption in the future, and how this back-and-forth changes determines economic growth. So, burying it in the ground only yields economic potential. Saving outside of the "system" is such a dirty word in Keynesian economics.
Shackleford said:There is no problem as long as there is a naturally-valued exchange medium.
It's funny because Hayek wanted competing monies. That's interesting.
But that's what the equation is already saying. Consumption is just the sum of consumption of all individuals. Although I wouldn't use the wording inversely proportional, but just mutually exclusive. You consume A, you make A less investments, not 1/A less.Shackleford said:It makes more sense to me that individual consumption and investment are mutually exclusive and hence inversely proportional.
inknit said:The Federal Reserve is not printing money.
Expansionary monetary policy is executed through open market operations, namely by buying short term treasury securities which increases bank reserves.
Shackleford said:You mean in an unconstitutional direction? You do know that the Constitution limits the scope of the federal government, right?
inknit said:In essence, if government spends money without raising taxes, it must borrow loanable funds, which which increases interest rates
And I also agree with you that we should be skeptical of government intervention at the micro level.
If we consider the government bureaucrats who are instituting the measures themselves as economic agents maximizing their own utility functions, then we must take that into account when formulating policy.
Shackleford said:Well, I decided not to argue anymore with two-fish because we have different political and hence economic worldviews - or vice versa.
The Keynesian simply want to arrogate more power to government under the guise of extricating an economy from a deep recession/depression.
Shackleford said:By the way, the Austrians, in particular Peter Schiff, back in 2006-2008 predicted with accuracy the impending financial crisis.
He was ridiculed constantly by other "economists" and "financial experts" all over TV. It doesn't matter what two-fish's professional experience is. That doesn't automatically lend merit to her arguments. Clearly, that is not generally true for experience to produce correct results.
inknit said:Also when sellers are knowingly deceiving buyers (information asymmetry).
Austrians, on the other hand, tend to cling to their dogma of laissez-faire capitalism purely on ideological grounds, even when modern empirically supported economic theory suggests that intervention is necessary.
Sorta random, but this is a great paper to read for anyone interested in econ. It deals with market failure, specifically on the notion of information asymmetry. It's by Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof.
twofish-quant said:OMG...
I was just surfing and it turns out that you have a lot of economics people that assume that US monetary policy works the way that inknit says it does, when it hasn't worked that way in at least 15 years.
Shackleford said:Which part?
Shackleford said:Another great video. He is making some of the points I have been making.