How the fuck does it work?
>>73189302
>>73189730
What does this mean?
>>73189730
Ben Bernanke did nothing wrong.
>>73189302
>prosperity for banks and Washington DC
>>73189302
They believe that Government expenditure can stimulate the economy, by artificially increasing aggregate demand. However, this effect must be sustained via taxes, debt, or quantitative easing. All of these tactics in the long run will create a bubble, and eliminate economic growth.
It loses horribly in a debate vs Austrians or Chicago schoolers, but it promotes the state, and is effectively a road to Socialism, so the Government naturally supports it.
>>73189302
Before there was Keyes in the USA, we had the Great Depression. Therefore what solutions that followed had to be put in context of the times.
Marriner Stoddard Eccles first realize that businesses and investors would not invest, spend, consume enough in a Depression to lift the Economy and Depression.
See Bill Still Videos on Youtube.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriner_Stoddard_Eccles
>>73191000
So is a jewish conspiracy that was used to take control of the left
>>73191264
>It loses horribly in a debate vs Austrians or Chicago schoolers, but it promotes the state, and is effectively a road to Socialism, so the Government naturally supports it.
citation needed
>don't invest in the roman coin, fellow Celts, it is bound to fail, like all fiat money
>>73191310
The great depression lasted what 12 years? Those policies seemed to do nothing really,if it wasnt for WW2,the economy wouldnt have recovered at its fullest
>>73189302
Can you ask about Keynes without asking about
- Private Federal Reserve Behavior in the Great Depression and leading up to US Recessions?
- Our Currency, what kind of Currency we have, What kind of Currencies there could be
- Debt Based Currency
- Monetary Policy, Austerity, Shrinking Money Supply, Expanding Money Supply, Hoarded Money, Money that Leaks from the Economy or is Mal-Investment or is stagnated in accounts of the very rich and powerful
- How can you understand Keynesian Idea in context of Wealth Extraction, Capital Flight, Brain Drain from Industry, Globalism, Balance of Trade Deficit and Bread Winner Jobs Losses, ... what about risking wealth and income gaps... what about Pension & Retirement collapse... what about the environment of ZIRP/LIRP Interest Rates in Inflationary Economy and Requirement for Pension & Retirement Wealth Growth
- Would Keynes approve of Inflation in Housing as Wages and Compensation collapse in Job Loss Economy... and yet Inflation is planned by the Private Federal Reserve Corporation
>>73191439
>Econ 101 detected
>>73191757
Well it is hard to believe main stream history and news reporting since Bankers have been at war with the USA since 1776 and before.
- You might be the Loyal Believer Generation, the Post War Generation that pulled together and believed in Government... you exhibit faith here, perhaps you are the Silent Generation that has watched the complexities of US Systems, Courts, Laws, Banking, Lobbying, Politics, Government, Taxes, War, Huge Federal Budgets that will never be paid off, inflation of money supply that can never be justified in terms of AAA rating, perhaps you watched the death of the Free Press and Good Education in the USA
-
Too bad US doesn't have a Culture for all people to learn business and finance to fight the Lawyers, Bar Association, Lobbyists, Career Politicians, Propaganda, and the Bankers and Transnationals
>>73192384
No country has an educated population to vote desu
>>73189302
the trick is to destroy other peoples windows
>>73191264
And yet, the Austrians never holler about Corruption and the Corruption of Govt Statistics.
I realize that all Economist have to work around the lack of data, type of data, and deliberate obfuscation of economic Data.
But if an Economist doesn't harp on Corruption, he is owned by someone either on the right or the left... or perhaps a wealthy group that would like to go into gold, collapse the world economy, and come out owning everything.
Wealth Extraction Types
- Money flowing out of your city, county, state, or nation
- Usury
- Debt Based Money
- Taxes, Fees by Govt
- Property Tax
- Inflation in everything from Court Costs, Lawyer Costs, Prison Costs, Health Care Costs, Education Costs, Housing Costs, Govt Costs, Govt Debt, Govt Payroll, Privatization, Bans on Consensual Crimes to control people like having a marijuana joint, Insurance Requirements, Obama Care, International Laws to sue US Citizens
You don't own that house, you don't own that business... you didn't build that.
>>73191439
The Chicago school is based on Keynes. Please don't group them together with the Austrian school. Empirical bullshit is not scientific.
>>73189302
Just another Jewish cash grab.
>>73192928
Class Warfare.
But it has always been about power, and bankers & lawyers have attacked the USA non-stop for 100s of years.
USA started out as the Wild Cat with no Private Central Bank with great economic success.
>>73191346
Everything is a jewish conspiracy. Though in the financial sectors and the control of the bankers over politicians is the only case where people actually have it right with their conspiracy theories.
>>73191000
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/prime-aged-workers-tumble-280k-workers-55-and-over-surge-new-all-time-high
>>73193513
>the media is not owned by jews
>>73193422
The US started with a central bank but Jackson destroyed it. Probably the greatest president in the US history
>>73189302
Remember, kids...
>>73191000
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/medical-error-third-leading-cause-death-america-%E2%80%93-estimated-250000-annually
British Medical Journal, BMJ, seems to have repeated a study published 10 years ago by JAMA on US Health Care Medical errors.
>>73193321
Money being stockpiled DOES negatively impact the economy, to be fair, though most people don't save up enough money for it to really affect anything.
Keynesianism works and is the best economic ideology
Krugman is a retarded neoclassical "new Keynesian" and shouldn't be associated with the doctrine.
>>73193803
watch these videos OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIaXVntqlUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHEjobYP6mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14iP_qnlgU
>>73193422
That is actually true, the US killed its central bank at least twice and in most cases had to recreate one due to either an expensive war or an economic collapse. I still can't believe how not all your people know your own history, how you fought your revolution and won your independence from England because England wanted to destroy your local colonial currencies and basically put you guys under the chains of the England Central Bank, not one but twice. And this private interest killed and tried to kill 2 of your presidents. When I went to US to work for a couple of months I found earthshaking how oblivious most of Americans are to the most obvious historical facts.
>>73189302
>how the fuck does it [keynesianism] work?
>Keynesianism
>works
Pick one and only one
>>73193798
No it doesn't.
>>73189730
Don't they do that already? Except that they call them "federal reserve notes".
>>73193979
Yeah it does. It is called money velocity.
>>73193941
Keynesian economics ensured prosperity for everyone in the west post WW2
then the neoliberals ruined everything in the late 70s
>>73193932
they're idiots that think a central bank is "le evil" because Ron Paul said it was
>>73194035
>It is called money velocity.
If you treat the economy and capital as fixed pies, sure.
>>73194139
>Keynesian economics ensured prosperity for everyone in the west post WW2
That was the bombed out factor of the rest of the world, m8.
>>73194381
You didn't read his post, did you?
>>73189302
Keynesian economics were generally replaced with what is called the "neoclassical synthesis" in the 1970s. The synthesis leaves out some of the most important aspects of Keynesian doctrine as well as some rather important writings on aggregate supply.
>>73191264
Keynesians believe that government expenditure must rise as household and business expenditure falls in order to counterbalance the effects of falling household and business consumption, and that the obverse should also be true.
>>73194593
>That was the bombed out factor of the rest of the world, m8.
Western Europe did amazing as well
>>73194821
>Keynesian economics were generally replaced with what is called the "neoclassical synthesis" in the 1970s
Because Israel and the arab countries chimped out and wrecked the economy with high oil prices
then the kikes blamed "Keynesian Economics" and used it as an excuse to justify outsourcing, deregulation, government surpluses, privatization, ending unions, and mass immigration i.e. neoliberalism
>>73194849
>Western Europe did amazing as well
They were also in a constant state of repair and occupation.
>>73195268
>They were also in a constant state of repair and occupation.
and they did amazingly with record high gdp growth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
It's almost as if Keynesianism works and your dumb meme neoliberalism and austerity is shit
>>73194593
>If you treat the economy and capital as fixed pies, sure.
I actually agree with your statement since in order for money stocks to hurt the economy not new wealth should be generated but the reality is that the ones that horde and stock money putting out of the real goods and service economy (financial capital is a different kind of capital though and that difference would take too long to explain but I guess we both know that already) aren't the mom's and pop's or rather individuals from the middle classes the ones that hurt the economy but rather the people that stock it in large quantities either be in tax heavens to avoid paying taxes on their earnings until a "pardon" is giving by their goverment usually every 8/10 years or by basically sitting on their money doing nothing but collect small interest rates, while basically lending the money to capital owners to invest the velocity of the money in the upper classes is always slower than on the lower classes.
People have the notion that stocking on money is something only low and middle classes do when in reality the ones that actually have the power to stock on money and hurt the velocity of it are the upper classes.
>>73195473
GDP is not a real indicator of anything.
>>73195936
This. GDP can be boosted just by public expending.
>>73195936
That's why the US economy didn't suffer at all when the top tax rates were highest
They were just putting money back into the economy (although in reality the government doesn't even need to tax the rich do get money they can just run a deficit)
>>73195936
That's only true in the sense they count unproductive transactions such as charging rent, interest rates, gambling on securities, etc.
But higher media wages and income are an indicator (as well as lower prices and higher productivity) of economic health.
And guess what real wages and median income are stagnant since we abandoned Keynesian economics.
So again
Keynesian Economics> retarded neoliberal meme economics
>>73196309
>neoliberalism totally works goys
>>73196400
>>73196447
>>73190779
fucking kike
>>73196490
>>73195936
While I agree, it is also true that Western Europe has seen a rise in the quality of life of their average citizens. I love Europe and most countries I went to were magnificent a decade ago.
The problem with Europe was the birthrates (primary problem of every modern nation) and how they had to import several people from Africa or the middle east to be above the replenishment rate. I went to Paris recently and HOLLY SHIT it is nothing what I remember from 10 years ago the landscape changed so much in such a short time, I wonder what will happen to Europe as more and more people go there and basically push the welfare state to its limits.
non economy dumbo here
so if I got it right, in the 70's Muricans did a reform where it unregulated some of the banks activities but also regulated them in a way that allowed the big banks to have 0 risk of going to shit?
>>73196876
>The problem with Europe was the birthrates (primary problem of every modern nation) and how they had to import several people from Africa or the middle east to be above the replenishment rate.
Except that's nonsense
A lower population increases standard of living, and any health care costs can be fixed by deficit spending and debt monetization.
>>73197027
yes basically
and it was all caused by Israel's dumb war that increased oil prices
you can read about the deregulation here
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
They also used it as an excuse to start outsourcing to China, breaking unions, and importing millions of illegals in order to lower wages for the working class whites.
>>73196513
>Fiat currency and the FED had nothing to do with this goy
>>73197326
you realize that's irrelevant right?
prices go up and wages go up so purchasing power doesn't matter.
>>73190779
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5A4Gw20dcw
>>73197430
the real problem is when "real" wages are stagnant and don't rise with housing costs
>>73197512
And the FED isn't the reason housing prices are going up, housing prices are going up because of mass immigration, and cheap credit (due to deregulated wall street banks) otherwise known as globalism.
>>73197684
the end result is this
>>73196309
You have posted a single chart in a Vacume that does not exist.
US was on a Gold Standard and the Federal Budget had to balance largely (smaller debt, smaller part of the whole economy, smaller interest expense, financial ratings might have been tighter).
But also who where our trading partners and what was the trade policy.
What was the monetary policy, tight money or loose money as per Eccles.
What was the age of US Manufacturing Facilities.
Where were the Worker Rights Laws, Union Strength, Safety Regulation Enforcement, and Environmental Regulation Enforcement in a time of heavy petroleum and chemical industries for instance.
How was wage growth and Inflation during this time.
How many Transnationals or International Corporations had huge power to invest and influence our monopolies, oligopolies and take profits out of country.
What was the Balance of Trade, money leaving our economy, going to off shore accounts.
>>73197275
In a welfare state you need a higher portion of the population to pay taxes, specially the young, since the older ones retired and stop producing wealth and basically live of their pensions and pay little to no taxes (depending on the country). So the young are left to carry the weight of the welfare state. The problem is (and has been in europe or over a decade) is that when the average life expediency up and the birthrates below the replenishment rates, it was a mathematical certainty that a future generation will come that will be unable to sustain the welfare state, now there are 2 solutions for this. Europe went for the short and easiest one, import people, first from withing Europe itself then former colonies and now with Muslims. Japan has the same problem but they went a different direction, Japan is basically increasing the productivity of each individual by freeing individuals from low paying jobs and pushing them to peruse high end paying jobs by pushing for automation in the lower scale of work.
Something that America is also doing but without the low birthrates, which will basically either generate a max exodus in the next 10-20 years of poor people to other countries, end with the extermination of an entire social class or basically social revolt.
>>73189302
Theoretically, money is a commodity that goes through shortage and abundance phases. If you make sure money is never in short supply and is never abundant, you remove monetary shock from the economy. Unfortunately it involves putting the FED at the spigot and they do as they please.
The failure of the Central banks cartel is they become a monopoly and pick winners and losers. In the end they will fuck up and the money instead of being just in the right supply will either dry up completely or overflow. It's basically a more fancy monetary communism idea without actually calling it that. The people in charge of the money can't plan without market mechanisms, so they are bound to get reckt.
>>73197684
>Cheap credit isnt related to low interest rates goy. We lowered interest rates in the 80's so you could afford better housing
>>73196447
Well we have to discuss why Education, Health Care, Energy, Govt Payroll, Housing, Insurance, Food, Military Costs, Usury Costs are not part of the Inflation Rate used by DOL.
Weekly and hourly earnings data from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LEU0252881600
Series title: (unadj)- Constant (1982-84) dollar adjusted to CPI-U- Median usual weekly earnings, Employed full time, Wage and salary workers
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual
1979 339 334 325 328 332
1980 324 314 315 317 318
1981 317 311 304 314 312
2012 337 335 329 336 335
2013 334 333 330 337 333
2014 339 328 332
Constant Dollars, Weekly Earning same in 1979 as 2014.(BLS)
>>73197818
>US was on a Gold Standard and the Federal Budget had to balance largely
No it didn't
FDR took us off the gold standard in 1933
>But also who where our trading partners and what was the trade policy.
we had protectionism until the 1970s
>What was the monetary policy,
the FED acts counter cyclically so it can be either
>What was the age of US Manufacturing Facilities.
Well they liked building infrastructure back then because not every factory was outsourced to China so new
>Where were the Worker Rights Laws, Union Strength, Safety Regulation Enforcement, and Environmental Regulation Enforcement in a time of heavy petroleum and chemical industries for instance.
They had good unions and safety regulations
>How many Transnationals or International Corporations
Multinational companies weren't that relevant
>What was the Balance of Trade
we didn't outsource back then so of course the balance of trade was lower.
I'm not sure what your point is besides the fact that you seem to be in denial that high tax rates don't matter one way or the other.
>>73197823
>In a welfare state you need a higher portion of the population to pay taxes,
No you don't
deficits don't matter and never will (unless you were conned into joining the EU lol)
>>73198307
that's irrelevant since the cost of everything goes up with inflation.
>>73198273
The overall Federal Funds rate is only low today in order to save the wall street banks (who have tons of toxic mortgages on their balance sheets)
The cheap credit during the boom was caused by deregulation (repealing Glass Steagall) not the FED.
>>73198836
Explain why they dropped so much in the 80's. It is obviously related.
>>73198936
Because 16% was absurdly high, to the point of constraining liquidity and investment.
>If it's not a billion% it's not Pure Aryan Economics
>>73197430
USA spends $Trillions in various sectors.
This is Inflation and can not be irreverent. The Taxing Policies and Globalization lead to loss of family wealth, family homes, middle class status, retirement & pension growth.
$1 Trillion in US MIC Security Annual Costs
$1.1 Trillion in K-12 and Education Assistance Annual Costs by State & Federal Govt
$1 Trillion in Medicare/Medicaid (HHS) Annual Costs
$1 Trillion in Social Security Costs
- Granted SS & Medicare have funding streams
$62 Trillion in Total US Debt (FRED), this is a profound kind of drag on the economy and inflation
>>73198936
interest rates were raised in the early 80s explicitly in order to cause a recession because the idiots running the FED thought that the economy was in a rut for some reason other than OPEC raising oil prices.
they naturally were set lower after that.
>>73199143
>USA spends $Trillions in various sectors.
you realize all money spent by the US government goes into the private sector right?
Only morons want the government to run a surplus since a surplus would take money out of the economy.
>>73197684
There are different housing markets even from city to city within a single state.
The data is very big and takes time to deal with.
Not sure consolidating the data really helps in most of my work.
>>73199124
So allowing banks to take loans for free is good.How is this not related with inflation,increasing prices and riskier investments that lead to the housing bubble?
>>73199443
by all means go city by city
have fun
>>73199449
>4-8%
>free
>How is this not related with inflation,increasing prices and riskier investments that lead to the housing bubble?
Lower cost of borrowing is not correlated with financial innovation in the slightest. Witness: The Mortgage-Backed Security (MBS) was invented at a time when the Federal Funds Rate was sitting at 10%.
Financial innovation leads to riskier balance sheets. Cheaper lending may exacerbate the risk on those sheets, but only ever by the difference between the optimal and real rates, which is probably no greater than 5% in any given fiscal year.
>cheap borrowing
>leads to inflation
Jesus Christ no wonder Spain can't figure out how to dig itself out of the hole it's in.
>>73193422
>the central bank ruined our economy meme
the reason we have a central bank and FDIC is to prevent runs on the bank, other economic crises created by regular banks being unaccountable and uncontrollable. The FED was specifically a compromise to also make it less likely to be under complete political control and thus make it less likely to be corrupt. Not unlikely to be corrupt, just less likely.
If we get rid of the FED it'd just increase instability and volatility all else being equal.
>look me in my eyes and tell me I'm wrong
>>73199811
The banks borrow from the FED directly. And the FED prints the money,if they borrow more how is it not going to lead to inflation?
>>73199910
Beady.
>>73198505
>No you don't
>deficits don't matter and never will (unless you were conned into joining the EU lol)
Running deficits isn't bad per se, but depending on the system you are own with your monetary policy it would create either distrust in your currency and generate inflation as you basically print out the money you need (if you have a nationalize central bank) you escape the debt attach to the new money in circulation but this newly created money does affect the economy at large and create an inflationary cycle until you have time enough to balance the deficit and destroy the excess of money in the economy.
But if you are like modern US, then you have to take on new debt to cover the deficit either by creating new money for interest or by selling bonds at interest over the years to balance your budget.
Neither are good long term strategies to a problem that will not solve itself without goverment intervention, either by stimulating young couples to marry and have children (tough considering the current status of gender politics in the west) or you import people to artificially inflate the birthrates above replenish rates (though personally I think this is even more stupid for a lot of different factors) or you basically push for an increase in pay and productivity of each worker to allow them to be taxed at a higher rate to cover up the imbalance created by the aging population (you can also raise the age of retirement and so on).
>>73199862
why not nationalize it? not saying the government will do a good job at it but at least if they mess up we can vote against that government so they can't bail themselves out like they bailed out the banks in 08
and since the banks ain't supposed to create money, nationalizing it wouldn't stagnate the country like nationalizing a company would right?
>>73200125
America is an special case since the money generated isn't only taking value out of the existing money of the US but rather the dollars that exist in the entire world. The creation of new money does generate inflation but in the u$s case the inflation is absorbed by the entire world since the u$s is basically the international world reserve currency.
>>73199375
You like your Trillion Dollar Military Spending, you can keep your Corrupt, Over-Spending, Govt. And don't ever question the World Reserve Currency if you are a young citizens talking to an older one right.
Question: What is good stewardship of the US Currency, the Petro Dollar, the World Reserve Currency... and shouldn't this have been Addressed after the 2007 - 2016 Global Financial Collapse?
You don't want to examine the $62 Trillion Dollar Total US Debt??
The Economist Published a Trade Deficit of like $760 Billion Dollars last year.
How long till the USA must Draft Military Servicemen and Nationalize Industry to support it's expensive Habits and poor stewardship of inflation, World Reserve Currency, Health Care, and Organic Industry/Jobs/Careers?
Take your pick, Communism or Fascism or World Government with both or either? Because if you don't decide in a National way, it will be decided for you.
-
Nixon Shock was in 1971.
It's not just about Tax Rates, Inflation, expanding or contracting the money supply, Keynesian policy, Globalism, Destruction of Wealth, Economic Policies of Extraction from Households... the discussion keeps expanding.
But I appreciate you answering so quickly and that you experienced with the topic
>>73200252
>but depending on the system you are own with your monetary policy it would create either distrust in your currency and generate inflation
No it doesn't
Japan has a shrinking population and is spending trillions and the stardard of living is going up
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/a-sprawl-of-abandoned-homes-in-tokyo-suburbs.html
You don't need taxes to finances spending at all, it's a myth left over from the gold standard
anyone who worries about government deficits is stuck living in the past
>>73200125
>the fed prints the money
Not even close senpai. And bank borrowing leads to inflation if and only if the majority of investments made by those banks end up being malinvested. Which wasn't even the case in The Big One in 2008.
Otherwise, borrowing leads to investment which leads to an increase in supply which leads to no real inflation.
>>73200634
>You don't want to examine the $62 Trillion Dollar Total US Debt??
none of it matters
Every dollar spent goes into the private economy stimulating demand. The government can pay for any debt by monetizing it.
how do you not get that?
>>73200698
>And bank borrowing leads to inflation if
No the banks print the money
everything they do is inflationary
>malinvested
there's no such thing
that's just Austrian Voodoo economics,
>>73199375
>you realize all money spent by the US government goes into the private sector right?
Privatization sucks.
Probably I don't have time to really get into it. We live in a military republic and privatization is often just Fascism.
Austerity is a problem in Western Economies. I didn't suggest the Federal Govt crash the economy.
But there is no way we will see a Federal Govt Surplus in our life times and doubt the USA will survive much longer than that.
>>73200125
Because loans, beside consumer credit, doesn't boost demand without increasing supply, and the cost of borrowing for consumer credit besides mortgages is rather marginal and most people don't make financial decisions based off of it. Remember, inflation is a raise in price, not the supply of money.
Also, >>73200565
Although I would still caution this anon that inflation is more than money supply, it is rising price. Printing money does create inflation assuming this money can be used to buy things by most people.
>>73200869
>there's no such thing as malinvestment
Sure there is. Any investment which fails to meet the cash flow obligations derived from the financial goods consumed to produce that investment is malinvestment. To be sure, any investment whatsoever still increases aggregate supply by some amount, but that doesn't mean all investments increase aggregate supply to justify its own existence.
>>73200917
>But there is no way we will see a Federal Govt Surplus in our life times
good
Surpluses are retarded and take money and demand out of the economy
Deficits are overall good for the economy.
>>73199701
Nice chart. Thanks.
In what world do Govt Leaders live in where $300K house is for normal working guys.
What a Scam, a Scheme. Inflation. Something the Elites love.
>>73200458
The danger with nationalizing is that the government would print money to pay for its expenses if it had a cash crunch. I don't think that's a big danger in the US, but its there.
Nationalizing some industries can boost the economy even if the industry itself takes losses subsidized by the government since it can bring down prices for everyone else. For example, amtrack helped break up local monopolies and lower transportation costs for consumers.
>>73201240
but ain't the FED printing money like hell already?
>>73201139
do you realize how many companies don't make profits?
by your logic every company in the red at the end of a quarter is a "malinvestment"
>>73200982
>Printing money does create inflation assuming this money can be used to buy things by most people.
Yeah you are right but America got away with QE only because most of the money NEVER leave the financial capital sector. And that money did create inflation, just not on the traditional good/service market but rather on the financial sector where every index is not only up from 2007 but almost 30% up from the high previous to the market crash of 2008.
People thinking that the increase in the money supply didn't generate inflation only because it never reached the consumer market of goods and services aren't looking at how the financial sector basically got fatter than ever with almost every single company growing larger and larger without actual products or goods to show for it.
Most of the inflation that the newly created loans at 0% interest rates the FED gave to the banks stay in the financial sector since most of that money never actually left that casino in the first place.
>>73200869
>No the banks print the money
>everything they do is inflationary
INCREASING MONEY SUPPLY DOESN'T EQUAL INFLATION
RAISING PRICES EQUALS INFLATION
ALSO, IF THE BANKS ARE CREATING AS MUCH MONEY AS IS BEING RETIRED BY THE TREASURY IT IS NOT CREATING INFLATION
>>73199862
USA has $62 Trillion in Total Debt... but has a AAA Rating.
Federal Govt has over $19 Trillion in Treasuries, $6 Trillion owed to Foreigners, $12 Trillion or more owed to the Public... but has a AAA Rating.
Financial Ratings serve the Banks who want more control and power over all levels of government from the village, township, city on up.
Power, Control. Status, Titles, Money, Debt, Credit, Land... and limited Liability in a court system where the most wealth can take down most everyone else including waste the time and money of DoJ, FBI, SEC, and FDIC.
Banks have been in conspiracies forever to take down the Free USA, its currency, it's debt, it's credit... and they love an expensive war or expensive military system... it means more debt.
>>73194821
>Keynesians believe that government expenditure must rise as household and business expenditure falls in order to counterbalance the effects of falling household and business consumption, and that the obverse should also be true.
In theory that's what happens, however, once people are promised free shit, any politician that attempts to remove it will be booted from office, and the debt will never be paid back.
Hence, the spiralling debt bubble that now faces the U.S.
>>73200634
Warren Mosler, is that you??
>>73201491
not in the way you think
I suggest reading this article it well shed some light on the issue
tl;dr
the FED only prints money to give to wall street to gamble on the stock market
there's no inflation in the real economy because none of the money printed goes to the real economy.
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-chart-that-explains-everything/
>>73201565
printing money and putting it into the economy is what banks do which is inflationary.
>>73201716
>the debt will never be paid back.
the debt can be paid back by typing some numbers on a keyboard
>>73201554
Only companies which cannot satisfy their cash flow obligations are malinvestments, which is a very different thing from being in the red at the end of a given quarter. If a company has no obligations to pay anyone, it can run in the red for an indefinite period of time. Most companies don't have a lack of obligations, though. By your logic, no company should shut down ever because there's no reason to shut any company down, given that they all contribute to aggregate supply. Since some companies do close down, you evidently don't have the full perspective.
>>73201491
No, because people are taking out less loans since they want to deleverage.
>>73201557
All true, but I would add that some of the increase in prices on financial markets has to do with individual companies doing buybacks and increasing dividends at the expense of their main operations.
>>73193803
Only person here with any sense
Keynes was an advocate of saving during the booms so that you could spend your way out of the busts, Krugman is a neo-Keynesian shill
>>73201986
Enough to drive up the entire market index (mind you all market index I should say) so high to a point where the market currently worth a lot more than at the high of the housing market bubble?
Also of course a lot of companies would buy back their own stock, if they get 0% interest rates and then get to buy their own stock at current prices and then get to pay the loans they took years down the line at 0% interest rates the natural inflation of the market will generate enough room for the action to be not only profitable but highly so, so it doesn't matter how the companies spend their 0% interest rate loans it still created inflation on the financial capital market and it was in their self interest to invest most of that money in it thanks to the inflationary process that was ongoing.
>>73191439
>he needs an explanation as to why QE is bad
you don't follow the markets much, do you?
>china is seething with unsubstantiated debt to supplement their debt
>"emerging markets need high high-yield, quarterly capital debt! That encourages spending!"
>ECB is being jewed out from frugle (read: jewish) krauts and dutchies b/c negative interest penalises their frugalness
>somehow QE is supposed to save everyone
>>73201962
>By your logic, no company should shut down ever because
No. All I'm saying is the cause of the recession isn't "malinvestments" it's lack of demand in an economy
>>73201744
then what's the solution to this Wall Street and FED problem senpai?
>>73201744
>printing money and putting it into the economy is what banks do which is inflationary
You're being reductive. If the loans do not effect consumer prices they are not creating general inflation.
>>73198273
>dropped interest rates in late 80s are what caused the housing bubble
>not clinton c. 1999 ordering freddie/fannie to lower requirements for large, unsecured loans so niggers could get 10-year low cost mortgages that ballooned after a decade
>>73192928
Switzerland does. People there also understood that they were the ones paying for social expenses, while everybody in France thinks they benefit more than they pay.
>>73201144
Oh I also wanted to Ask POL: Collapse of Country/Empire
What is it that brings down an Empire like Rome or Great Britain?
If it is Corruption, then please list some things.
like
- Deflating Currency due to excesses
- Inflation in Housing, Food, Entertainment, shipping, energy, education, health care, govt, taxes
- Lobbying & Bribes, Conspiracies, Racketeering
- No Term Limits for Congress, Money & Gifts in Politics, Education, Health Care, Court Systems
- Expensive Legal System, Tax System, Financial System, Power Centers that dominate the land like DC or NYC
- Collapse of Property Law or Legal System, i.e. confiscation of car, boat, airplane with cash, confiscation of family homes due to rising property taxes
$62 Trillion in Total US Debt is a hell of a hockey stick chart. $1 Trillion a year for Defense, Security and Spy Agencies is a hell of a Spike
>>73202575
I never said that the recession was caused by malinvestment, only that malinvestment could be inflationary. Since inflation hasn't been a problem in this recession I'm not sure where you thought I was talking about the recession.
>>73202333
>Also of course a lot of companies would buy back their own stock, if they get 0% interest rates and then get to buy their own stock at current prices and then get to pay the loans they took years down the line at 0% interest rates the natural inflation of the market will generate enough room for the action to be not only profitable but highly so, so it doesn't matter how the companies spend their 0% interest rate loans it still created inflation on the financial capital market and it was in their self interest to invest most of that money in it thanks to the inflationary process that was ongoing.
But you're not seeing the big picture. Whatever they pay towards stock buybacks they will eventually have to be paid back. Which means that regardless of inflation, we have to realize that this money could have just as easily gone towards other parts of their operation. When so many companies are spending more on buybacks and dividends then they are spending on workers or r&d, I think our economy is headed towards trouble.
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/the-cannibalized-company/
>>73202401
QE is bad because money goes to the banks and not the real economy
Keynesianism would put money in the hands of consumers and not the banks
Our current system is not "Keynesianism" but the "neoclassical synthesis" which ignores the key aspects of real Keynesian economics.
>>73202589
Increasing government spending and separating investment banks from commercial banks so investment banks (Glass Steagall)
but in the EU the main solution is either
1. using the European Central Bank to start actually printing money and running a deficit so EU countries aren't stuck in austerity
or
2. Ending the EU
>>73202654
The banks create money so yes assuming the loan gets spent it's putting money into the economy and causing inflation
>>73202744
>malinvestment could be inflationary
all bank lending is inflationary
>>73189302
Musical chairs, just keep moving and don't be left standing when the music stops.
>>73193803
>>73193924
>>73194139
>>73194381
>>73194849
>>73195037
>>73195473
etc
damn bro you're on fire
>>73201554
Aren't those successful companies in the red by their budget, but are expanding? i.e. making a profit, but using it to expand their business?
>>73203017
>all bank lending is inflationary
Inflation only occurs when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. In situations when bank lending leads to increased supply, then bank lending would not, in those situations, lead to inflation.
>>73203017
It also depends on the demand for money at the rate at which money is being destroyed. There are many factors which create inflation, the amount of money printed is just one.
>>73196400
>"liberalise 10% of the State"
>oh shit neoliberalism doesnt work
>>73202894
I agree with the problem parts but I don't see how you believe there is no inflation generated by the increase of the money supply when that inflation is evident when you see the financial market.
The inflation didn't reach the traditional goods where inflation is measure but that doesn't mean that years of 0% interest rates didn't create inflation at all. Sure it didn't on a large scale for the average american but it certainly did push the price of almost every single stock in the financial market over the last 7 years and you can see the inflation by comparing the value of the index market on commodities that have suffered in the last years a horrible devaluation process due mostly to the investment now going to the financial capitals looking for that high grow that now most of the industries can't provide and even when the real goods and service markets are on a decline almost all index are still going up and up mostly fulled by the low interest rates the FED keep giving out. The moment the Fed rises the interest rates even to 1% the bubble will burst and shit will hit the fan in more ways than one, specially when now the banks/corporations/countries are completely overleveraged and exposed to CDO and securities and debt up the wazoo.
>>73194139
THIS
Even if it was kinda inevitable
>>73203017
>keynes theory would put money into people's pockets
this is the line they feed us 80 years ago, and no one believed it then. why do you believe regurgitating a faulty conclusion is going to persuade anyone?
Keynes, followed with alterations, "may" put some dollars in my pocket this week, but next week I'll owe it all back some way, i.e. lower yields for my GICs, increased spending=increased taxation, etc.
I'd rather decide what to do with my money than have some pompous leftist intellectual decide for me and everyone else.
>>73189302
>break window
>people get paid to fix it
>demand, even artificial demand, grows the economy
there ya go.
>>73203491
It doesn't surprise me in the least that /pol/ is in favor of protectionism and Keynesian economics. There are some good points to Keynesianism, like those put up in this thread, but you can't completely bash the Austrian school either. Especially when the neoliberal system we have now is an abomination.
>>73189302
Whatever you think the animal spirits are indicating.
Seriously.
>>73203946
most level-headed people see the folly of neo/post-keynesian economics for what it is, i.e. >>73203786.
we know it doesn't work in its current iteration.
/pol/ tries to strike the delicate balance between wilsonian-protectionism and kike-globalism
>>73203786
>Keep Borders Open
>Start Global War on Islam in 7 countries
>See 2 Million Refugees from Iraqi War alone, but organize no international movement to support in the Middle East
>Invite Refugees in from Jihadi Countries and War Torn M.E.
>Support other VISAs for Jihadi Countries like work VISAs, Education VISAs
>Keep SPy Agency activies secret so we don't know if they bring in terrorist
>Broken Windows Fallacy of Economic Stimulus through war now operational
>Open Borders to Disease and even Pandemics/Epidemics to stimulate Health Care industry & CDC Grants
>Use globalism to bring in poor uneducated people and ship Bread Winner jobs overseas, so that more poor people get sick and use welfare and health care
>Ignore cries and protests by people against banks, globalism, wall street, wars... so that they Riot, break windows, burn buildings
>>73203564
>I agree with the problem parts but I don't see how you believe there is no inflation generated by the increase of the money supply when that inflation is evident when you see the financial market.
I wouldn't call that inflation since its not increasing the prices for consumer goods, but I'll agree that its a problem.
Although, I disagree that the FED raising interest rates is what's going to cause the bubble to burst, that can be planned for by institutions and firms and such. Much more likely is massive defaults and slowing growth from China sending shock waves through the global financial system.
>>73204159
This.
Paul Krugman is a Neoclassicist meaning he is not a classicist. But he is also a paid shill as per the internet.
Nowadays, with the exponential rise of global trade, you need to understand that in order for your country to not suffer from competiton with the rest of the world, you need to work together and help one another
I wish edgy poltards would understand that in comparison with 150 years ago, there is much more demand for much more things, and much more competition.
Austrian economics is basically globalism this day and age
>>73205263
There's nothing wrong with a globalized economy, less still with free trade as a concept. /ppl/ likes to focus on the net loss of jobs without seeing the great benefits of economic liberalism. The jobs that would have been conserved in a more protected market would have been low paying and eventually automized anyway.
>>73205665
The jobs and the pay in itself dont really matter. The people who hold, or held, these jobs should be compensated for their loss of real income.
But with austrian economics, this doesnt happen.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/americans-unleash-epic-debt-fuelled-spending-spree-credit-card-debt-jumps-most-recor
>>73189302
Ok OP, since no one has taken you up on your challenge.
Keynes assumes two things:
The inevitability of the boom/bust cycle and the inevitability of inflation.
So far, both these things have always happened, and always will as far as anyone knows.
The Great Depression prompted economists to find ways the government can mitigate or eliminate boom/bust cycles.
Keynes said, governments can do this by massive spending during busts. That will help the economy during down times.
Now here's the magic of Keynes and why he's a fucking genius, the greatest economist ever.
How does the government pay for the down time spending? They borrow in the form of bonds. You hope bonds mature during a boom time. Because of inflation, the payback on the bonds is *literally* less money than the state borrowed in the first place. Thanks to the boom, taxes are more than ever before. Thanks to inflation, paying back the bonds is way cheap.
Win win win.
Everybody wins. The downturn has been mitigated and perhaps turned around by the government stimulus, the cost to do so was negligible, and now we're in a boom time so tax revenue is up.
So big big big government spending in downturns, austerity and paying back bonds in boom times. Keep inflation down at all times, because inflation is painful to individuals, but you want some inflation so that payback isn't too painful. The Fed wants 1-2% I think.
This is why austerity doesn't do shit. Austerity only makes depressions worse and deeper and longer. And maybe forever. Unless the government spends, the depression never ends. Fact.
>>73205665
>>73205263
But what about muh sovereignty/
>>73191264
>However, this effect must be sustained via taxes, debt, or quantitative easing.
well this is completely wrong
doesn't surprise me though
like this
>>73193924
steve keen is great.
surprised to see this linked here.
>>73189302
It doesn't. Modern economic policy is about stealing money from consumers and giving it to the federal reserve member banks.
And they wonder why consumer spending declined.
>>73193798
Wrong. Savings allow consumers financial security allowing them to spend. Without financial security consumers will only spend on essentials.
Savings increase consumer spending.
>>73189302
You can't really "explain" it in any simple way. It would be like saying "How the fuck does subatomic physics work?" Learn to do Lagrangians and then we'll talk, moron.
The short version is, the purpose of money is to give people a liquid medium of exchange. A depression is when there are multiple people who would like to (a) work more so that they could (b) use the income from that work to buy goods from other people who would like to work more, but (c) neither party has has the money, so neither person gets to work more.
In other words, you're in a depression when there are people who, if they could find one another and barter for each others services, could each get more work and have a higher standard of living; but so long as they need to do the transaction in money, it's impossible because neither is willing to pay.
How is something like this possible? Well, it's pretty simple; we don't just use money to fund our immediate consumption, we use it as a safe form of savings for the future as well (a store of value). When people get worried that they'll lose their jobs, they start to try to save more and more money; but that means less spending, which puts more people out of work, and everyone who is out of work or afraid of being out of work starts hoarding money too, and the cycle intensifies. Remember, just having a suitcase full of money in a safe in your basement doesn't increase the amount of goods your country will produce in the future. You need to INVEST to accomplish that. If everyone is trying to save for the future with a safe stash of cash, you get a self-perpetuating cycle of stagnation.
Under normal circumstances you can manage this just by increasing the supply of money. The prices of things are set by supply and demand: more supply, the price drops. When the "price of money" drops, i.e. when you get inflation, people become less keen on saving money as cash and more keen on investing it in economic activity. (Cont'd)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBtTZHS96eA
Sharia law is a legal way to appease God. But only grace of God through cross of Christ can save us from sin and give us eternal life
>>73206113
in an austrian economy there are multiple paths to build real wealth. outsourcing hurts jobs less because cargo cult employment isn't the only, or even MAIN method of building assets.
the wealthiest people alive don't typically have jobs. the pharaohs didnt work, they used slaves.
the idea that WE should work and the niggers should get the welfare and proceeds is backwards. work the niggers to death, and we use the proceeds from that. simple
>>73206493
Inflation and deficit spending are unsustainable
Keynekeks will never understand this
>Unless the government spends, the depression never ends.
Keynekeks and FDR tried for an entire decade to end the depression with government spending, and only WWII ended up ending it.
It would be more accurate to say that only wars can end depressions
>>73203946
>America is Neo-Liberalism
Holy keks no we are not. The amount of regulations and government programs as well as levels of government controlling the market, you'd be retarted to say such a think so. If anything it died after HW Bush. Bush Jr. had protectionist policies in placed and then focused on the WOT. Obama Administration has regulated the market even more and for the most part handed out money (Although started with Bush Jr back in 2007 to which I am wondering if it was because Congress pressure or not)
Since Neo-Liberalism is commonly associated with Milton Friedman (To which I find somewhat comical since he tried to promote Classical Liberalism) his economic policies did not remain permanent after two years of HW Bush. With Robert Reich under Clinton, they were pretty much dead by 1998.
Do not kid yourself.
>>73207260
cont'd
Normally you manage the supply of money by swapping money for government bonds, because it has a very neutral effect on the economy other than getting people to stop hoarding cash. The Keynesian insight is that there are certain circumstances under which there is no way for this to happen, because people start treating government bonds and money as interchangeable - in particular, this happens when the interest rate on government bonds gets close to 0%. At that point the government can only combat the problem by spending money directly. The government's spending single-handedly creates enough additional spending that people become less worried and stop hoarding quite so much cash.
>>73206937
>It doesn't. Modern economic policy is about stealing money from consumers and giving it to the federal reserve member banks.
I agree there are winners and losers in the Economy. 2007 - 2016 TARP, Fed Bailout Loans, Corporate Bailouts, Operation Twist, QE, and LIRP/ZIRP... have produced like $400 Billion plus profit at the Private Federal Reserve much of which they award to their stockholders and pay out in bonus money to themselves.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/corporate-tax-receipts-reflect-economic-slowdown
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/no-wonder-were-poorer-wages-share-gdp-has-fallen-46-years
(Of course, I think we should not count govt spending as part of GDP... this only inflates the view of the Economy... like Rentier Behavior... and how Usury and Debt is a drag at least at some point and certainly when it is govt debt)
>>73207441
Problem is no one has ever come up with any reason why war spending would be more effective than non-war spending.
>>73207351
"Austrians" have a weak grasp of a number of important issues, including the difference between savings and investment. It's why Austrians tend to be goldbugs.
>>73207235
You're getting things exactly backward. That's like saying "It's important for criminals to steal, because until the criminals have stolen everything they will take, the original owners don't get anything." Yes, a household needs income in excess of its liquid savings (not investment) goals to have the financial security to consume/invest, but that's precisely why a higher savings goal reduces spending.
>>73189302
>How the fuck does it work?
Lies and debt to the kikes for the next 4 generations of your family (assuming both your country and family still exist that long into the future).
Also it's anti-semitic to audit the fed or jail any kikes that work on Wall Street.
>>73207441
The political will to stimulate the economy with ENOUGH money wasn't there until WWII.
And yes, even Keynes agreed that modern capitalism was, in the long run, unsustainable. But even he wasn't a big enough genius to come up with a solution.
He did suggest that money have negative interest. That is, it gets less and less valuable the longer you hold on to it. This is literally what happens with inflation, which is another good reason to have inflation. Without some inflation, rich people hoard their money and never put it back into the economy, which is kind of the situation we have today. Keynes suggested negative interest rates on savings, which will probably never happen, but it would benefit the overall economy tremendously.
There definitely needs to be a post-capitalist economic system that isn't completely reliant on infinite growth. Problem is, no one knows what that would be.
>>73208154
and all the other schools have a weak understanding of social capital, legal foundations, and civilizational commons, which is why they work their geniuses to death in slave camps in singapore who bear no children, and flood america with 65 iq jungle cannibals
smart capitalists would be enslaving lesser races, NOT working to feed them
>>73208516
>And yes, even Keynes agreed that modern capitalism was, in the long run, unsustainable. But even he wasn't a big enough genius to come up with a solution.
I think Richard D. Wolff is right when he says the first step is to transform the economy into a primarily co-op form of production. That will boost spending and lower corruption by dispersing power.
>>73189302
Keynes ideas are god tier.
If the economie fucks up, just change interest rates and let the state make his magic and then everything is fine.
>>73208516
>Without some inflation, rich people hoard their money and never put it back into the economy
Literally no
"The rich" don't have money in vaults in a bank, they have their money in assets, like property or shares.
>There definitely needs to be a post-capitalist economic system that isn't completely reliant on infinite growth.
Capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth, only Keynesian economics does.
>plz gib ever more taxes so we can put it back in the economy to the highest bidder :((((((
>>73208831
>"The rich" don't have money in vaults in a bank, they have their money in assets, like property or shares.
Yes, because of inflation. If they didn't invest it, it shrinks.
>Capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth, only Keynesian economics does.
This guy...
>>73209287
People don't invest so that their money pot doesn't shrink, they invest so that they can grow their assets
The very existence of the idea of venture capital completely shatters your argument.
>>73208721
Getting layers of leeches and parasites out of businesses is a good first step for a lot of reasons.
Another effort should be to eliminate as many externalities as possible. Businesses need to pay for their costs.
After that, when we get a real free market going, maybe we have a chance.
Population growth is a problem, but it looks like women will handle that naturally if you give them the tools.
Maybe a free market is the solution. We just have to make a free market.
>>73208831
Everyone, including the rich have money in savings accounts. The problem is that they put most of their money into the least productive parts of the economy, ie, the financial sector. Also, keep in mind what having money put into property or shares does, it allows them to suck the money out of productive land and firms into their own pocket, and if its reinvested its only for them to get more money back in the future.
>Capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth, only Keynesian economics does.
Except it does. If there is no growth there can be no positive profits in the long run, and if there are no positive profits in the long run, nothing will get done in capitalism. After all, capitalism requires the owner of an enterprise to sell things for more than they cost to make them, and if the economy is not growing, then were is this money coming from?
>>73209639
>Maybe a free market is the solution. We just have to make a free market.
I don't know. I think after a certain point we will have production capacity to a point where things are so plentiful that selling them is unnecessary.
>>73208532
Don't prate to me about civilization and immigration. The Austrians were hardcore open-borders fanatics, and served at the fanatical center of a libertarian movement that has provided huge amounts of ideological cover for that aspect of the cultural marxist project. Murray Rothbard eventually realized he was wrong and came up with an Austrian defense of closed borders in, what, the late 1980s? In other words, a day late and a dollar short, and in a way that had precious little relevance to economics.
There is practically no one in any economic school who is willing to admit the significance of genes and IQ to social outcomes. That doesn't change the fact that Austrian macroeconomics is needlessly foolish because Austrians can't bear to admit that savings isn't investment.
>>73208831
First, the rich do have cash reserves, but that's beside the point. The corporations that they own also have cash reserves, and that is more central to the issue: for example, right now Apple alone is sitting on $200 billion in cash, just in case they need it. They don't want to invest it in expanding their operations, they don't want to return it to the shareholders, they're just sitting on it. Tens of thousands of companies are doing the same thing. That is how you end up with savings not equalling investment, because some savings is held in liquid forms.
Furthermore, you don't have to literally hoard money in a Scrooge McDuck vault to be stockpiling money in the economic sense. Anytime someone choose to pay down net debt rather than spend or invest, they are increasing their liquidity.
>>73209563
>People don't invest so that their money pot doesn't shrink, they invest so that they can grow their assets
>The very existence of the idea of venture capital completely shatters your argument.
This guy.
Look, there's a reason you don't make investments with pure gold. Gold isn't subject to inflation. You don't use it to make investments. You don't have to. It *is* an investment.
The reason Venture Capital exists is because there's so much liquid money in the world looking for places to shield itself from inflation. If you just parked all your cash in a bank account, the interest wouldn't even be enough to fight inflation. You money would just shrink to nothing. Even massive endowments at colleges need to invest or they will shrink. If I were wrong, then people wouldn't ever ever ever invest endowment money. You wouldn't need to. Yet, I'm right.
If you could just park your fortune in a bank and it gets bigger, in absolute terms, no one would ever invest in anything ever.
>>73209713
The history of humanity is the one of growth. The theory that we will sudenly stop growing is dumb.
>>73210216
Yeah, the Earth is infinite. Stop being dumb everyone!
>>73210298
>Infinite is not an abstract concept
>New resources are not found,or given new uses to alredy know ones
>Technology doesnt make grow sustainable.
Using meme arguments wont make your shitty argument right
>>73209713
Oh wow, where do I even begin?
>The problem is that they put most of their money into the least productive parts of the economy, ie, the financial sector.
Actually, the US government is the #1 investor in the US financial sector. Do you just conveniently forget the 2008 crisis because it ruins your argument?
>Also, keep in mind what having money put into property or shares does, it allows them to suck the money out of productive land and firms into their own pocket, and if its reinvested its only for them to get more money back in the future.
What's your point?
>If there is no growth there can be no positive profits in the long run
Wrong. As long as people exists and do work, capitalism can work. Wealth is inevitably created by people working, not by "infinite expansion"
>After all, capitalism requires the owner of an enterprise to sell things for more than they cost to make them
How does this imply that "infinite growth" is necessary?
>if the economy is not growing, then were is this money coming from?
As I said above, value is created when people work, not when arbitrary values are assigned to pieces of paper for the purpose of exchange.
>>73210216
Are you a nutcase? Look at a map of historical GDP sometimes. There has been net growth since maybe 1700. In Europe there has been net growth since 1300, probably.
>>73210298
And you're even dumber. Growth may be a statistical anomaly, but the usefulness/value of what we produce can increase without its physical bulk increasing. Look at an iPhone; worth vastly more than a 1940 IBM adding machine, but uses a fraction of the raw materials and fits in your pocket.
>>73189302
The assumed output doesn't have into account corruption.
>>73210584
>Growth is only measured in GDP
>Those GDP meme charts are reliable
>>73210584
>Growth may be a statistical anomaly, but the usefulness/value of what we produce can increase without its physical bulk increasing. Look at an iPhone; worth vastly more than a 1940 IBM adding machine, but uses a fraction of the raw materials and fits in your pocket.
Even if you're completely right with this argument, there is a limit. Infinite growth still isn't possible.
>>73210081
>he actually thinks that inflation (at a couple percent per year) is more of a motivator for investment than taxes for standing assets and standard income (which are between 40-60% in some places)
top kek
>If you just parked all your cash in a bank account, the interest wouldn't even be enough to fight inflation. You money would just shrink to nothing.
So inflation is good because it hurts "the rich" (suppposedly); and yet keynekeks are the same kind of people that advocate for increasing minimum wage, which is only necessary because keynekek economics requires the continuous printing of money to create artificial value.
>>73210298
The only limiting factor in growth is the amount of energy, not the amount of x or y. You can get any amount of x or y nowadays with enough energy. Why do you think that the only limited resource of consequence lately is oil?
>>73210835
If you're going to talk about "growth" being a continuous part of human history at all, yes, you need to estimate some sort of national account to see how much is produced per person over time. (And how many people there were.) If you think the whole concept is stupid before a certain date - that proves my point further. Growth means getting bigger. You can't decide whether one thing is bigger than another unless you have some way to measure it.
>>73210908
No, there isn't. Not because the earth isn't finite. There is no reason why the use of raw materials per dollar of GDP can't continue to fall more quickly than GDP grows, forever.
There are lots of other reasons growth might stop. It might turn out that there is nothing more to discover or invent. We might pull a global Venezuela and stop investing so that we can increasing short-term consumption. But the lack of infinite resources doesn't matter.
>>73210508
>Actually, the US government is the #1 investor in the US financial sector. Do you just conveniently forget the 2008 crisis because it ruins your argument?
Because the US government is owned by capitalist interests. Do you conveniently forget that the gov. worked in collaboration with banks and big business to load up the average consumer to make up for stagnant wages in order to boost demand and growth.
>What's your point?
My point is the rich get richer, and at a faster rate then everyone else. The faster and more this happens, the slower the economy will grow compared to an economy where workers' share of wealth grows faster. This is only in regards to what is created during growth.
>Wrong. As long as people exists and do work, capitalism can work.
Incorrect, capitalism works by the wealthy owning property and the means of production, if there is not growth, they have no incentive to do so. Therefor, everything in a capitalist political economy is done to boost growth in the short term.
>Wealth is inevitably created by people working, not by "infinite expansion"
True, but we are talking about capitalism, where the money generated by growth goes mostly to the capitalist.
pt 1/2
>>73206589
http://www.sovereignmoney.eu/
https://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/07/what-is-a-sovereign-currency.html
Money Created without Debt, i.e the US System is Debt Money, created through credit and loans. This means a usury burden sucks money out of the local economies city, county, state, whatever.
>>73210508
>How does this imply that "infinite growth" is necessary?
If there is no growth, this means that what value there is in the economy at the moment is all there is. if that's the case, and, let's just say for the sake of example, that the capitalist gets 10% of the value of everything sold and the workers get 10%, with everything else going into fixed costs. Now, since the capitalist keeps more of their money to themselves, both in savings and investments which are made to bring themselves more money, and the worker spends most of their money on consumer goods, 10% of which goes back to workers like themselves and 10% goes to the capitalist, the share of value in the economy belonging to the capitalist increases and increases while the share belonging to the workers decrease and decreases. Throughout this whole process, as workers get less and less value, so too does demand for physical goods and services, forcing suppliers to drop their prices, lowering the amount of profit and surplus value for capitalists. Eventually, even as the capitalists get more and more value, the rate at which they do so goes down until, either, wealth is redistributed, or profit equals zero, and capitalism ends for there is no reason anyone would want to privately own the means of productions as they get no real benefit
pt 2/2
>>73189302
It works because we believe it works.
I'm late to the thread but I will chime in since I just took a final exam on capitalism philosophy and am a Finance major
John Maynard Keynes was a popular British socialite who pretty much lived the coke and hookers lifestyle in a seedy part of London for a large chunk of his life. He eventually married an extremely famous Russian ballet dancer and the two of them were known for the crazy shit they would get into in downtown London.
He was also incredibly intelligent and educated in the highest degree, and he wrote one of the cornerstone pieces of literature that make up our modern understanding of economics.
The top points of his economic theory are as follows:
>Unemployment is a top priority for a society to avoid at any cost
>Government intervention by way of injecting federal funds into the economy will stimulate the markets and create more demand for labor and thus more jobs
>The free markets absolutely need forms of government control in order to keep the markets efficient
>If the government runs out of money to spend, it can print more
>We can use the government to push the economy back toward equilibrium by means of altering interest rates to force it downward or printing money/inflation to force it to grow
>Capitalism is inherently evil, but it is a necessary evil until we can produce enough surplus to eliminate the need for human labor
He is the reason we had Reagan and Bush and friends spouting "Trickle-down economics." There is a lot more to explain, but my adderall is wearing off, I just took a derivatives final 2 hours ago, and my brain feels like spaghetti.
If you /pol/iticians really want to read interesting economic theory, read about Friedrich Hayek. This is the guy who predicted the modern social justice movement back in the 70s and coined the term 'social justice' itself. Margaret Thatcher's political career began as a member of his think-tank in England (he also invented the very concept of think-tanks) and saved the 80s UK economy.
>>73212427
>Because the US government is owned by capitalist interests.
Nice meme
The government is owned by the mob, and politicians obey whomever will vote them back into office. The only reason money has sway in politics is because more money means more advertising, which inevitably is used for the purpose of getting the average person to vote one way or another.
>to load up the average consumer
What does the bailing out the banks using taxpayer money have to do with capitalism? These financial institutions should have been left to fail. It is government's fault that the broken system still exists.
>My point is the rich get richer, and at a faster rate then everyone else.
The primary engines that drive this trend are inflation (mandated by government) reducing the purchasing power of people's wages. The other is big banks buying government bonds and IOUs, and then sit on them to collect interest. These things are only given out so that the government can continue to pay for deficit spending.
>wealth isn't created by work
>but it is wrong when "the wealthy" are the owners of work
What? Socialist delusion at its finest.
Tell me, if someone is dissatisfied by their wages, why don't they seek someone who will pay them better?
The answer is of course that their work only has a certain value, and that value is not determined by whatever low number "the rich" can collude to keep it at, but is determined by how much profit can be made by the results of their work. That is why an engineer is paid far more than a garbageman, one's work is more valuable than the other, regardless of wages.
>>73212883
>If you /pol/iticians really want to read interesting economic theory, read about Friedrich Hayek.
Hayek was a dumbass and his philosophy was bourgeois bullshit, I'm writing a paper doing a demolition job on him due on the 9th.
Private property only preserves freedom when it refers to personal property, all other forms of property such as rent and private ownership of the means of production decrease freedom. The idea that rent and wage work submitting you to the will of others is ok because you signed a contract is ridiculous! You can't sign away human freedom as our ability to regulate ourselves and our own behavior on our own judgment is what separates us from animals. To sign away that is to sign away our humanity.
His worship of the free market and private property was laughable, and the only way his ideology can be defended is by only comparing it the ideologies behind soviet style political economies, or western liberal ones.
Can someone explain Austrian and Chicago economics?
I
>>73212883
Name one economic conservative ever who said "trickle down economics" in word?
I'll wait
>>73212551
When "the capitalist" can no longer sell their product due to people having no money, they go bankrupt.
What do you think happens to someone's assets when they go bankrupt?
>>73213839
>To sign away that is to sign away our humanity.
>implying most humans are more than just machines for the system
kek
>>73213839
Hah, I actually have to agree with some of those points, but Hayek was no dumbass. He was spot on in his assertion that allowing high levels of unemployment as temporary evils in an economic cycle that would correct itself in the long run instead of trying to throw artificial government money at it every time it occurred like Keynes would do saved the economies of the USA and the UK in the 1980s following the economic and political disaster that was the entirety of the 1970s.
His biggest shortcoming is his inability to grasp the power of homogeneous culture to make a society and economy stronger in every way. The guy grew up in Vienna and hung out with socially alienated Jews who were not accepted by the radical Zionists and hated by the native Austrians. His world view came from the intellectual mixed salad that was Vienna for the first half of the 20th century. He never really had a chance to experience a society where everyone is committed to an ideal or goal, so his whole shtick about freedom, personal property, private ownership etc. is rooted in his complete rejection of nationalism or ethnocentrism in general. And is also why he supports the free market as an economic deity to never be touched by filthy government hands.
But he still got so many things right, and the political atmosphere we have right now in the USA with rampant racial/class tensions was predicted in its entirety decades ago. Gotta give him some credit there.
>>73213791
>The government is owned by the mob, and politicians obey whomever will vote them back into office. The only reason money has sway in politics is because more money means more advertising, which inevitably is used for the purpose of getting the average person to vote one way or another.
>the government is owned by the mob
>implying the masses control the government
don't make me laugh
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=65d188fc2e627008535dff80e4f96db5
(check out page 10)
>What does the bailing out the banks using taxpayer money have to do with capitalism? These financial institutions should have been left to fail. It is government's fault that the broken system still exists.
The owners of the means of production, the capitalists, including those who owned the banks, would have lost a lot of money if that hadn't happened.
>The primary engines that drive this trend are inflation (mandated by government) reducing the purchasing power of people's wages.
You still don't get it dumbass. You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The other way they do this is by just owning everything! The rich are rich because they own companies, property, and innumerable assets that produce wealth for them. Keep in mind that inflation is actually an increase in prices, so when inflation goes up so does the amount of money going into the capitalists pockets. Inflation doesn't effect them because when prices go up so does their income!
And don't forget that the government is often deficit spending only in an attempt to boost the economy since consumer spending is down thanks to low wages given to them by the capitalists, as if they were to raise wages it would cut into their profits.
>>73212883
>>73215438
you seem smart senpai, I hardly know jackshit about economics, you know a good book to start with?
>>73213791
>wealth isn't created by work
I just said it was.
>but it is wrong when "the wealthy" are the owners of work
why is that better than workers owning the work?
>Tell me, if someone is dissatisfied by their wages, why don't they seek someone who will pay them better?
Because there is a labor surplus which allows capitalists to pay workers of the same skill set whatever the lowest bidder offers. But no matter what he is paid, if he is working for a wage, he is working for less than the value he creates through his work, otherwise the capitalist wouldn't hire him.
>>73214594
the assets will get bought up by a richer capitalists at a discount, but eventually the problem will repeat itself. A capitalist economy without growth will eventually destroy itself, which is why they try to avoid it at all costs.
>>73215406
It's sad that the world we live in led you to that conclusion.
>>73216146
does it lead you to other conclusions then?
>>73215438
I will give you that unemployment, sometimes high levels, are necessary for capitalism in order to keep low, but that's just another reason to dislike capitalism.
>But he still got so many things right, and the political atmosphere we have right now in the USA with rampant racial/class tensions was predicted in its entirety decades ago.
Not that impressive, it's the natural result of liberalism and capitalism.
>>73216370
If you understand what material conditions cause that in our world, you realize that its not inevitable.
>>73214594
No one said it. Politicians and journalists said it. That is why I put it in quotation marks, as in some jackass on TV said it.
>>73215814
Yes actually, the book that we all began with is The Mind and the Market by Jerry Muller. Muller is a Jewish American who teaches at a Catholic university here, but he writes in a surprisingly unbiased way about the role of Jews in the development of capitalism and how things developed from Adam Smith to the 1990s.
The only time I could see see his bias was when he would refer to Nazism as essentially "society's losers forming a mob and bestowing privileges on their group to the detriment of others" and other things like that. His chapter on Voltaire is great - Voltaire absolutely loathed jews.
The book is about philosophy and history, not hard theory, so it's more of a broad stroke over the last 300 years or so with the first chapter covering ancient-medieval history. I highly recommend it because I learned a ridiculous amount from it and found myself able to talk about economics for the first time ever and have fallen in love with the whole world of finance/economics in general ever since.
>>73216649
>but that's just another reason to dislike capitalism
That's the funny thing. All these guys, Keynes and Hayek included, openly acknowledged that capitalism was shit. Hell - ADAM SMITH - the guy we all know as Economics Jesus, actually spend the second half of On the Wealth of Nations explaining exactly how capitalism would turn men into mindless zombies who only identify by their work and make people miserable and unequal. Of course, we never learn about the second half of the book because that would be against the Common Core propaganda - they teach us up to how the invisible hand of the market will save us and correct all our problems and then move onto the Industrial Revolution. Smith openly stated that he knew there would have to be some form of government intervention at some point or we would all end up as literal slaves to a tiny 1% of titans of industry (sound familiar?)
Everyone accepted that capitalism was and still is a necessary evil on the march toward progress, and there is nothing else that can get us to the point of elimination of human labor faster than it can. Socialism is merely slowing the path toward the inevitable and therefore irrational.
As for his predictions about today's climate, you mistake liberalism and capitalism for democracy as the catalyst for all this. When you give people the vote, they will gang together as interest groups and try to strong arm politicians in the name of irrational appeals to social justice. This is what he predicted. Not labor unions or lobbyists, but common people trying to force a government to favor them over others with special economic compensation. No one would have believed you in 2007 if you told them that in 9 years black people across the country would become as politically insufferable and hateful as they are now. But Hayek called it 30 years ago.
>>73218078
Socialism is meant to be the economic mode of production after capitalism, and I believe market socialism as Richard D Wolff advocates it is the next immediate step.
Most "socialists" these day are indeed just implementing social democracy and slowing the transition by trying to put band aids over the contradictions and problems.
>As for his predictions about today's climate, you mistake liberalism and capitalism for democracy as the catalyst for all this.
>implying we live in a democracy
As rousseau said, we are only free when are actually voting and participating in politics.
We live in a liberal and capitalistic republic where only those with the determination, time and power actually have influence in politics. You say "black people" as if they are a monolith, but in reality it is only those that have embraced liberal and social justice ideology the most, those that are the most determined to get involved who are a part of blm. But furthermore, it is true that factionalism and special interest lobbying is the only to get things done politically in our republic, the only way to solve this problem is to create political bodies so small that factionalism becomes impossible, in other words we need to focus power on the smallest most municipal level in order for all of us to truly have freedom and have our own individual voices heard.
>>73219222
I completely agree that socialism is the next step after capitalism, but the issue is that we are nowhere near capable of producing enough without intense, massive daily human labor to sustain ourselves entirely yet. Keynes and Hayek would tell you "We love the idea of socialism, but it just is not feasible by any measure yet."
Guys like Bernie Sanders think that the solution to wealth disparity is simply taking away the wealth of the rich and redistributing it. The real solution is to create automated processes that produce the physical goods and food/drink we need to thrive as a civilization with almost no human input.
Robotic automation in all manufacturing areas is the future to this. Soon after, we will start seeing people go into Kroger and simply use a computer to fill out a list of all the items they need from the store, and the machines will go into the store warehouse and package everything neatly into a box and give it to the consumer. There will be almost no need for human labor beyond maintenance and quality assurance checks at the base level of labor in many service industries.
Once both product and service industries are automated, then we can return to the discussion of replacing capitalism with socialism. But as long as we have humans living in the middle of nowhere cultivating our foods instead of a vast warehouse managed entirely by robots that produces precisely perfect crops to mass produce into food, we cannot move into socialism. It will not work because the government will run out of other people's money, as the saying goes. Sweden was on track to truly create a society that could eliminate human labor, and they destroyed it with socialistic empathy.
I am enjoying this discussion, but I have to retire now. I have been up 18 hours studying bond/stock pricing models and am quickly going into zombie mode.
Best of luck with your thesis on Hayek. Try not to paint him too negatively, because he really had great ideas.
>>73220217
>>73219222
>mfw real discussion
>mfw no memes
Is this the real /pol/?
also
>The real solution is to create automated processes that produce the physical goods and food/drink we need to thrive as a civilization with almost no human input
I'd think that elimination of human labour would eventually lead to the absolute destruction of the human race, a complete lack of incentive to produce and work would lead to generations of people incapable of working, without motivation to perform whatsoever. I'd say that the lack of work would result in selfdestruction.
>>73220217
The problem, though, and where I think people like Sanders are absolutely necessary is that this transition cannot be effectively achieved without greatly limiting the power of the capitalists, who will use automation to boost their profits and their power in society. They will keep capitalism alive far past its due as it maintains their power and their social status.
Sanders' campaign most central issue is campaign finance reform, a step in that right direction.
Automation can also occur under market socialism, so I think we should make that our most immediate goal.
But yeah, thanks for the bants, it's rare that I get someone who's actually well read on pol.
>>73220901
try doing nothing for a couple months, you'll find it unbearable. innovation and productivity will still occur, but because we want to not because we have to
also, have a meme
>>73220901
We'd essentially Lise all reason for living. No struggle, no exertion, not conflict, what's the point of life anymore? To live as a domesticated animal, eating, sleeping, and fucking until the day we die? That's a society I would not want to live in. Struggle breeds excellence. Comfort and security breeds complacency and self destructiveness.
>>73221455
*lose
>>73189302
Economics is hard, it takes years to learn about, I suggest you enroll at a university if you want to understand.
Surprisingly for some, the economy of nation state/the world isn't a simple system like your own bank account, and does require a great depth of analysis to understand it, and indeed also requires acknowledgement that it is not completely understood.
>>73221455
>>73220901
One last note - the elimination of human labor will not destroy human ambition. It will simply redirect it. All humans will dive headfirst into scientific and intellectual pursuits. Currently, the truly smart people in society know to work for a private sector company because they can become fabulously rich. If these people were properly incentivized to get involved in politics, science, engineering, medical development, philosophy, fields that only humans can truly innovate, we would see a veritable singularity in the very way we perceive and live life. Space colonies on every planet in the solar system will become immediate realities, you two who think you will become depressed, directionless shells of humans will be the ones directing how we will coordinate the planning and logistics of the UNSC's new colony on Planet X. Don't think so narrowly that your work alone defines you. That is simply a lie. Your intellectual pursuits, achievements, and skills in your passions/hobbies define you.
>>73221275
>try doing nothing for a couple months, you'll find it unbearable. innovation and productivity will still occur, but because we want to not because we have to
Wall-E comes to mind to be honest. 'doing nothing' is easily done if you watch television, browse the internet or game for 12 hours a day. Those activities are generally useless and lead to people doing nothing, especially not doing anything 'productive or innovative'.
Most people will not want to be productive, the vast majority of the people will allow themselves to be bound to a chair for the rest of their lives if they get spoonfed both 'bread and circuses'. I'd see that as a step back, from a productive society, even with its unequality, to a fully dependant society, whose inhabitants are incapable of producing, who effectively have nothing to value as they've never worked or produced so haven't learned what value is.
I can't see how this is preferable to unequality.
>>73222260
You might see us as pessimists, but you should be aware that you're being hopelessly optimistic. Human ambition is built on work for the most part. The vast majority would never, ever, ever, force themselves to work if they didn't have to. It's human nature to be lazy.
>>73222510
>'doing nothing' is easily done if you watch television, browse the internet or game for 12 hours a day.
I could do all of that in me free time as I'm an expert procrastinator, but I know if I do, I'd get angry at myself, so instead I get some writing done, and if we socialize people to be productive even with so many distractions, then people will be productive.
>>73206493
>So big big big government spending in downturns, austerity and paying back bonds in boom times. Keep inflation down at all times, because inflation is painful to individuals, but you want some inflation so that payback isn't too painful. The Fed wants 1-2% I think.
>So big big big government spending in downturns, austerity and paying back bonds in boom times.
>paying back bonds in boom times
Which is *precisely* what most "keynesians" conveniently forget when times are good.
Bust phase?
>Government spending, please.
Boom phase?
>How about some noice upgrades to our welfare state, huh?
I challenge anyone reading this post to find a so-called keynesian economist giving his opinion on the importance of austerity during boom times DURING SAID BOOM TIMES.
Go, I'll wait here. Actually, I won't: I know it's not coming.
>>73191757
Wwii was government spending.
>>73222829
Perhaps the space colonies are more a metaphor of the potential we have when we put our minds toward the development of our species, its health, and its ability to compete in the universe once we inevitably come into contact with other forms of intelligent life, but I firmly believed that billions of people committed to the ideal of progress will result in an explosion in technology and philosophy the likes we cannot realistically fathom as people who are grounded in the daily routines we do so that we stay both alive and respected by our social equals.
>>73199862
>I drank the koolaid
>>73201609
As long as we stay capable of supporting ourselves in an economic collapse, the threat of economic collapse cannot hold us as a nation prisoner
>>73216649
>prophecize a problem
>create the problem
>I WAS RIGHT
>>73193803
>Keynesianism works and is the best economic ideology
Do you know that the Keynesians have been keeping the world in a recession for 9 years now.
