MMT = Moronic Monetary Theory

[James972]

No, when it comes to basic understanding of the FED, I don't have to prove to you that their mandate does not involve keeping inflation at "0%". As a matter of fact, I'll let you show from any source you prefer that your claim is true. Show us that the FED's mandate is to keep inflation at "zero".

target is usually between 1.7-2% which in effect means no inflation.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

target is usually between 1.7-2% which in effect means no inflation.

So in your world, "no", aka none, or in math terms, "zero" is equal to 1.7% to 2%?

Further, are now saying the mandate is to keep inflation at those numbers?

 

[James972]

So in your world, "no", aka none, or in math terms, "zero" is equal to 1.7% to 2%?

Further, are now saying the mandate is to keep inflation at those numbers?

why do you want to quibble about 0-2%??????? Is it because you cant talk about anything serious?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

why do you want to quibble about 0-2%??????? Is it because you cant talk about anything serious?

Usually, a serious discussion includes being correct, especially math, but also when it comes to claims about mandates. You are wrong about it all, but you don't care......which means you are not serious.

Irony.

 

[James972]

Usually, a serious discussion includes being correct, especially math, but also when it comes to claims about mandates. You are wrong about it all, but you don't care......which means you are not serious.

Irony.

why not cut the BS and try to defend a substantive aspect of liberal economics???

 

[Gimmesometruth]

why not cut the BS and try to defend a substantive aspect of liberal economics???

Why would I have a serious debate on such a topic with someone who refuses to have serious debates?

(of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner.
acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner.

 

[ludin]

Yes, we had a gold standard and Federal Reserve central bank. Friedman and Bernanke agree Depression was caused by Fed not following gold standard and thus allowing money supply to shrink by 33% and the number of banks to shrink by almost the same percent. Now, a gold standard and /or central bank would work fine since have now have enough valuable experience with both to know what to do.

umm no you really don't understand what the gold standard is.

the gold standard determines how much money you are allowed to have.

so if all the trading partners agree that gold is 100 an ounce and you want to have 1000 dollar in your economy
then you need 10 ounces of gold.

it really gets worse when you have a depression and you would like to help move the economy but you can't
as you don't have the money supply to do so.

to expand the money supply you need more gold.

 

[James972]

to expand the money supply you need more gold.

did anyone disagree?? Can you tell us what your point is??

 

[James972]

Why would I have a serious debate on such a topic with someone who refuses to have serious debates?

(of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner.
acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner.

why not cut the BS and try to defend a substantive aspect of liberal economics???

 

[ludin]

did anyone disagree?? Can you tell us what your point is??

can you actually quote everything I said instead of dishonest cherry picking?
my whole post dealt with what you said and instead of actually addressing the argument you decided
to be dishonest.

 

[James972]

can you actually quote everything I said instead of dishonest cherry picking?
my whole post dealt with what you said and instead of actually addressing the argument you decided
to be dishonest.

didn't you say you need more gold to expand the money supply??? this is like saying 1+1=2 and assuming you said something smart.

 

[James972]

umm no you really don't understand what the gold standard is.

the gold standard determines how much money you are allowed to have.

.

yes and 1+1=2. And???????????????????????

 

[Deuce]

Xero's same nonsense. Pops in here every once and a while with this idea that everyone should get to decide where each tax dollar goes.

If you think this is a good idea, off the top of your head tell me how many dollars the Department of Energy should be allocated to do a good job. Don't know, do you? You probably have no inclination of what they actually do from day to day, much less exactly how much that sort of activity will cost.

One of the reasons we have government employees in the first place is so we can hire specific people who know **** about X to do job X, and hire specific people who know **** about Y to do job Y. 99.99% of the population has absolutely no idea how much operating, say, an Air Traffic Control system costs. Hell, a surprisingly large number of people think "air traffic controller" refers to the guy standing on the ground waving around orange sticks. How the **** is that person supposed to make a decision regarding funding of the FAA?

We hire Congress, in part, to get together with people who know how the **** all this works and see how much money they need to do the **** they need to do.

 

[Xerographica]

Xero's same nonsense. Pops in here every once and a while with this idea that everyone should get to decide where each tax dollar goes.

Guess you missed the part where I critiqued MMT.

If you think this is a good idea, off the top of your head tell me how many dollars the Department of Energy should be allocated to do a good job. Don't know, do you? You probably have no inclination of what they actually do from day to day, much less exactly how much that sort of activity will cost.

Off the top of your head... tell me how many dollars the producers of tampons should be allocated to do a good job. Don't know, do you? Therefore... the government should be in charge of supplying tampons? Because you're clueless about how much this sort of activity will cost.

Markets aren't about consumers knowing how shoes or laptops are made. Just like markets aren't about consumers knowing how much it costs to make shoes or laptops. Just like markets aren't about consumers knowing how much money is spent on shoes or laptops. What are markets about? They are about consumers deciding whether shoes and laptops are worth the alternative uses of their limited money. Markets are about consumers deciding how they want influence to be distributed. Markets are driven by consumers. Producers cater to consumers. Because it would be the epitome of stupidity for consumers to cater to producers.

Right now you think that I exist for the Department of Energy (DoE). What a stupid thing to think!!!! Anybody with half a brain should be able to understand that the DoE exists for them. Anybody with an IQ of over 75 should be able to understand that the DoE exists to serve the needs of consumers. Anybody with an IQ under 75 will easily be tricked into believing that consumers exist to serve the needs of the DoE.

If you can strain your brain hard enough to understand that the DoE exists to serve the needs of consumers... rather than the other way around... then it's only a small step away from understanding that consumers are the only ones who can truly decide for themselves just how well their needs are being served. If you're assuming that...

A. the DoE is wonderfully serving the needs of consumers
B. consumers are smart enough to understand that the DoE is wonderfully serving their needs

... then you should have absolutely no problem with giving people the option to choose where their taxes go. Maybe you don't assume B? Then how can voters possibly be smart enough to understand whether their needs are being wonderfully served by congress? If you don't assume B... then you can't argue for democracy. Neither can you argue for having a market in the private sector. Which leaves you with... what?

One of the reasons we have government employees in the first place is so we can hire specific people who know **** about X to do job X, and hire specific people who know **** about Y to do job Y. 99.99% of the population has absolutely no idea how much operating, say, an Air Traffic Control system costs. Hell, a surprisingly large number of people think "air traffic controller" refers to the guy standing on the ground waving around orange sticks. How the **** is that person supposed to make a decision regarding funding of the FAA?

We hire Congress, in part, to get together with people who know how the **** all this works and see how much money they need to do the **** they need to do.

We give people the option to directly allocate their taxes and voila! No more congress! Really? We stop hiring congress? Everybody's like F*** congress!

You want to argue that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes? Great... then don't argue that voters want impersonal shoppers. You want to argue that voters want impersonal shoppers? Great... then don't argue that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes.

You want to argue that most voters are idiots? Great... then don't argue that we should have confidence in the competence of congresspeople. You want to argue that we should have confidence in the competence of congresspeople? Great... then don't argue that most voters are idiots.

Are you capable of coming up with a coherent story? Are you capable of even perceiving the need for a coherent story?

 

[Deuce]

Guess you missed the part where I critiqued MMT.


Off the top of your head... tell me how many dollars the producers of tampons should be allocated to do a good job. Don't know, do you? Therefore... the government should be in charge of supplying tampons? Because you're clueless about how much this sort of activity will cost.

False analogy.

Markets aren't about consumers knowing how shoes or laptops are made. Just like markets aren't about consumers knowing how much it costs to make shoes or laptops. Just like markets aren't about consumers knowing how much money is spent on shoes or laptops. What are markets about? They are about consumers deciding whether shoes and laptops are worth the alternative uses of their limited money. Markets are about consumers deciding how they want influence to be distributed. Markets are driven by consumers. Producers cater to consumers. Because it would be the epitome of stupidity for consumers to cater to producers.

Correct. Because in the case of the market, consumers can directly evaluate a particular product and its costs.

Not the case with many government operations.

Right now you think that I exist for the Department of Energy (DoE). What a stupid thing to think!!!! Anybody with half a brain should be able to understand that the DoE exists for them. Anybody with an IQ of over 75 should be able to understand that the DoE exists to serve the needs of consumers. Anybody with an IQ under 75 will easily be tricked into believing that consumers exist to serve the needs of the DoE.

Funny. You didn't give me a number.

If you can strain your brain hard enough to understand that the DoE exists to serve the needs of consumers... rather than the other way around... then it's only a small step away from understanding that consumers are the only ones who can truly decide for themselves just how well their needs are being served. If you're assuming that...

A. the DoE is wonderfully serving the needs of consumers
B. consumers are smart enough to understand that the DoE is wonderfully serving their needs

... then you should have absolutely no problem with giving people the option to choose where their taxes go. Maybe you don't assume B? Then how can voters possibly be smart enough to understand whether their needs are being wonderfully served by congress? If you don't assume B... then you can't argue for democracy. Neither can you argue for having a market in the private sector. Which leaves you with... what?


We give people the option to directly allocate their taxes and voila! No more congress! Really? We stop hiring congress? Everybody's like F*** congress!

You want to argue that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes? Great... then don't argue that voters want impersonal shoppers. You want to argue that voters want impersonal shoppers? Great... then don't argue that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes.

You want to argue that most voters are idiots? Great... then don't argue that we should have confidence in the competence of congresspeople. You want to argue that we should have confidence in the competence of congresspeople? Great... then don't argue that most voters are idiots.

Are you capable of coming up with a coherent story? Are you capable of even perceiving the need for a coherent story?

False dichotomies everywhere!

You didn't tell me what the DOE does or how many dollars it should have to do so. Because you didn't know. Without looking it up, you don't know what they actually do from day to day and you don't know how much that costs. You don't know.

A government is not like a market. Your analogies keep failing as a result. See, markets have things like competition and choice and a reasonably informed consumer. Government doesn't have that. You aren't giving me an option between a Samsung Department of Defense and a Sony Department of Defense. There's no actual choice being made here. Defense is not something you can actually skip. You can't choose between a Department of Defense and a Department of Transportation because both are necessary.

What happens when the DOT gets twice the funding it wants and the DOD gets a quarter the funding it wants?

The fundamental flaw in your proposal is this: you are trying to apply Economics 101 to a "market" that isn't a market, because government is inherently a monopoly. It's not a market if there's only one supplier.

 

[ludin]

yes and 1+1=2. And???????????????????????

thanks for showing that you don't have an argument have a nice day.

 

[PoS]

:doh

only if you ignore massive bank defaults and bank closers with people losing all of their savings etc ...
You also for get that we were operating under the gold standard during the great depression.

there was only so much that the fed could do. their were pretty limited by the gold reserves we had.
which is one of the issues with the gold standard.

The great depression wasnt caused by the gold standard- the Fed continued to maintain a high interest rate after the markets crashed in 1929 and just stood by when the bank runs happened. And America wasnt in the gold standard when the depression of 2008 hit either.

 

[ludin]

The great depression wasnt caused by the gold standard- the Fed continued to maintain a high interest rate after the markets crashed in 1929 and just stood by when the bank runs happened. And America wasnt in the gold standard when the depression of 2008 hit either.

I never said it was caused by the gold standard. I said that it didn't help the great depression.
The federal government could only take limited action that is why in 1933 FDR did one of the best things
he ever did he ended parts of the gold standard.

you are making false claims about what I said stop being dishonest.
2008 wasn't a depression.

 

[PoS]

I never said it was caused by the gold standard. I said that it didn't help the great depression.
The federal government could only take limited action that is why in 1933 FDR did one of the best things
he ever did he ended parts of the gold standard.

you are making false claims about what I said stop being dishonest.
2008 wasn't a depression.

You keep making claims that the Fed was somehow stopped by the gold standard, they were not. They continued to manipulate the interest rates to keep it high instead of letting it float on the market. They could have also injected more liquidity or could have simply bought government bonds to prop up the ailing banks but they didn't. The gold standard had nothing to do with their inaction when the money flow contracted nor did it stop them from floating the interest rates so your argument is silly. FDR's policies merely continued the Great Depression, just as the Fed's policies exacerbated the 2008 crisis.

 

[ludin]

You keep making claims that the Fed was somehow stopped by the gold standard, they were not. They continued to manipulate the interest rates to keep it high instead of letting it float on the market. They could have also injected more liquidity or could have simply bought government bonds to prop up the ailing banks but they didn't. The gold standard had nothing to do with their inaction when the money flow contracted nor did it stop them from floating the interest rates so your argument is silly. FDR's policies merely continued the Great Depression, just as the Fed's policies exacerbated the 2008 crisis.

the only way to inject more liquidity into the market was to get more gold.
do you not understand how the gold standard works?

well when you keep strawmaning my argument you are silly.
I never said it was the cause.

I said it didn't help as it limited what actions the government could take in regards to the money supply and how they could
handle the system.

 

[PoS]

the only way to inject more liquidity into the market was to get more gold.
do you not understand how the gold standard works?

Apparently you dont since almost every government was on the gold standard at that time and they financed their wars not with gold but with credit AKA loans. The gold standard or fiat money that we use now has nothing to do with how the Fed operates when it comes to a banking crisis.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The ....... fiat money that we use now has nothing to do with how the Fed operates when it comes to a banking crisis.

Whut?

 

[Xerographica]

Correct. Because in the case of the market, consumers can directly evaluate a particular product and its costs.

In a market, what consumers evaluate are the opportunity costs. They would do the same exact thing if they could shop for themselves in the public sector. This is the only way to ensure that Quiggin's Implied Rule of Economics (QIRE) isn't thoroughly and consistently violated.

False dichotomies everywhere!

You didn't explain why, exactly, you're assuming that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes.

You didn't tell me what the DOE does or how many dollars it should have to do so. Because you didn't know. Without looking it up, you don't know what they actually do from day to day and you don't know how much that costs. You don't know.

I don't know what Greenpeace actually does from day to day and I don't know how much it costs. And Greenpeace is the rule rather than the exception.

You don't realize it... but right now you're trying to use the division of labor (DoL) as an argument against markets. As if markets will only work when consumers know how everything is made and how much it costs to make it. I don't know how laptops are made... therefore...? What? Therefore... I shouldn't be allowed to decide whether a laptop is worth the opportunity cost? It should be entirely up to the producers of laptops to decide how much funding they receive? It should be entirely up to Greenpeace to decide how much funding they receive?

Find an economist who will publicly agree that the DoL is a good argument against markets. I bet you $100 dollars that you won't be able to. Deal?

A government is not like a market.

Of course the government isn't a market!!! Why the hell would I be arguing that we should create a market in the public sector if there was already one there????

The fact that the government is NOT a market has obvious and detrimental consequences. When consumer choice is blocked, then there isn't going to be any pressure for public goods to differentiate.

You and I both want defense. But do we both want the same exact type of defense? You and I both want food. But do we both want the same exact type of food? You and I both want clothes. But do we both want the same exact type of clothes? In case you missed it... you and I are DIFFERENT. When we have a choice how we spend our money... this difference has an impact on the supply. When the demand is diverse... then the supply will also be diverse. If we eliminated consumer choice from the private sector... then the demand would not be diverse... so of course the variety of private goods would be virtually eliminated.

Name one single command economy that has or had a large variety of goods. Do you think the Soviet Union had a large variety of goods? Do you think China during Mao's reign had a large variety of goods? Do you often find yourself wishing that you could shop in North Korea?

If an economy is a command economy... then it can't be a consumer economy. Our public sector is NOT a consumer economy. Therefore... our public sector is a command economy.

I'm arguing that we should turn our public sector into a consumer economy. What's your counterargument? Your counterargument is that we can't transform our public sector into a consumer economy because... the public sector sucks. Of course the public sector sucks. It sucks because it's NOT a consumer economy. It sucks because producers are not forced to cater to the diverse preferences of consumers. It sucks because consumers can't boycott producers that fail to perform.

What happens when the DOT gets twice the funding it wants and the DOD gets a quarter the funding it wants?

What would happen if you got twice the funding that you wanted and I got a quarter of the funding that I wanted? Then... you would work half as hard and I would work four times as hard?

Public services are never better performed than when their reward comes only in consequence of their being performed, and is proportioned to the diligence employed in performing them. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

 

[Deuce]

In a market, what consumers evaluate are the opportunity costs. They would do the same exact thing if they could shop for themselves in the public sector. This is the only way to ensure that Quiggin's Implied Rule of Economics (QIRE) isn't thoroughly and consistently violated.


You didn't explain why, exactly, you're assuming that most people will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes.

I am not assuming that. However, what benefit is there to having some percentage do so? All that does is make budgets less predictable and more subject to the whims and panicky behavior of the public.

I don't know what Greenpeace actually does from day to day and I don't know how much it costs. And Greenpeace is the rule rather than the exception.

Which makes you unqualified to decide which dollar goes to which green peace department.

You don't realize it... but right now you're trying to use the division of labor (DoL) as an argument against markets. As if markets will only work when consumers know how everything is made and how much it costs to make it. I don't know how laptops are made... therefore...? What? Therefore... I shouldn't be allowed to decide whether a laptop is worth the opportunity cost? It should be entirely up to the producers of laptops to decide how much funding they receive? It should be entirely up to Greenpeace to decide how much funding they receive?

You don't realize it, but this entire paragraph is a straw man. The current system doesn't leave the DOD entirely in charge of deciding how much funding the DOD receives. They don't even get to decide where every dollar they are allocated goes. It's a partnership with Congress to decide that.

Of course the government isn't a market!!! Why the hell would I be arguing that we should create a market in the public sector if there was already one there????

The fact that the government is NOT a market has obvious and detrimental consequences. When consumer choice is blocked, then there isn't going to be any pressure for public goods to differentiate.

You and I both want defense. But do we both want the same exact type of defense? You and I both want food. But do we both want the same exact type of food? You and I both want clothes. But do we both want the same exact type of clothes? In case you missed it... you and I are DIFFERENT. When we have a choice how we spend our money... this difference has an impact on the supply. When the demand is diverse... then the supply will also be diverse. If we eliminated consumer choice from the private sector... then the demand would not be diverse... so of course the variety of private goods would be virtually eliminated.

Name one single command economy that has or had a large variety of goods. Do you think the Soviet Union had a large variety of goods? Do you think China during Mao's reign had a large variety of goods? Do you often find yourself wishing that you could shop in North Korea?

I'm arguing that we should turn our public sector into a consumer economy. What's your counterargument? Your counterargument is that we can't transform our public sector into a consumer economy because... the public sector sucks. Of course the public sector sucks. It sucks because it's NOT a consumer economy. It sucks because producers are not forced to cater to the diverse preferences of consumers. It sucks because consumers can't boycott producers that fail to perform.


What would happen if you got twice the funding that you wanted and I got a quarter of the funding that I wanted? Then... you would work half as hard and I would work four times as hard?

You're trying to force something to become a market when it can't possibly be one.

The government will always be a monopoly. You can't change that. And a monopoly can't possibly be a healthy market. Even more bizarrely, you're trying to set up a situation in which the government has to compete with itself for funding goals. Imagine Samsung is the only provider of products. Any products. And Samsung's cell phone research guys have to compete with Samsung's television guys. Why is Samsung competing against itself?

Next Ebola scare, you'd have the CDC being over-allocated funds by 400%.

And then there's the ludicrous logistical issue. Like half the population files tax returns in the last week. I recall you claiming some sort of website could be set up to show how much each department wanted and how much had been allocated, but that wouldn't work the way the IRS processes returns.

My counter argument is that anybody trying to compare our current government to North ****ing Korea is an idiot.

 

[DA60]

You keep making claims that the Fed was somehow stopped by the gold standard, they were not. They continued to manipulate the interest rates to keep it high instead of letting it float on the market. They could have also injected more liquidity or could have simply bought government bonds to prop up the ailing banks but they didn't. The gold standard had nothing to do with their inaction when the money flow contracted nor did it stop them from floating the interest rates so your argument is silly. FDR's policies merely continued the Great Depression, just as the Fed's policies exacerbated the 2008 crisis.

It semi-amazes me how Keynesian historians paper over the economic facts about the 1930's.

Massive government spending and market manipulation (starting with the bonehead Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) by Hoover and later by FDR and his magical New Deal.

And the result?

By 1939 - TEN years after the market crash - the unemployment rate was still over FIVE times higher (5?!?) then before the crash and the DOW never got to more then 52% of it's pre-crash high...all for a roughly 150% increase in the national debt.
Oh yeah...all that stimulus was just swell.

Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm

You have to be pretty macroeconomically thick to look at those stats and call Hoover/FDR's policies a success.


And today, the government/Fed is stagnating the economy and killing the middle class with it's manipulation.

Krugmanites NEVER learn.