|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In an economy with 9% [un]employment or more, factories lying idle, goods languishing in warehouses, printing money stimulates demand and puts people back to work. Inflation happens when there's more money to chase the same amount of goods and services. But when people are unemployed, you can increase the amount of goods and services and prevent inflation. Still on with this, are we? What is there to buy? What do you need? What do I need? I could use a vacuum, that's for sure. But my needs are pretty much met. All I need is enough money coming in to replace the stuff that goes out on consumable expenses. Any extra money is spent on junk; wasted on non-essentials; thrown into causes and products that provide no real return. Driving an economy by encouraging people to spend money on useless junk? Not a plan. And even worse: buying more useless junk still won't help with your idle factories and unemployed people, since little of the junk bought is actually manufactured domestically.
Currently inflation is at less than 2%, despite several decades of deficit spending and three years of economic stimulus. The fact that there is any inflation at all should tell you that more money thrown blindly into the system is not the answer. A consumption-driven approach is not the solution. But we've been over this before; you seem dead-set in thinking the world is run by bunny rabbits in marshmallow hats. I don't see that changing. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: I was told that its silly to think of what the conspiracy theorists say about the dollar being at risk of being stripped of its role as a global reserve currency, but, also, others have told me that indeed this is true. Just printing new money doesn't mean that the currency is debased. Increasing the money supply is only inflationary when production is at its capacity. In an economy with 9% employment or more, factories lying idle, goods languishing in warehouses, printing money stimulates demand and puts people back to work. Inflation happens when there's more money to chase the same amount of goods and services. But when people are unemployed, you can increase the amount of goods and services and prevent inflation. Currently inflation is at less than 2%, despite several decades of deficit spending and three years of economic stimulus. LOL on 2% Factoring in groceries and clothes etc the realistic rate is, conservatively, 10% and rising rapidly. quote: The last year you could take your paper notes to the bank and trade for solid silver was 1964. Just about everyting you buy today is at least 10 times higher than that period. Many things are much higher. Gasoline was about thirty cents in 1964. A barrel of crude oil was $3. If you pay $4 for a gallon of gas you are paying about 40 cents in real money. A dozen eggs at $1 are 10 cents in real money. If you are paid $30 an hour for work, that would be $3 in real money but that hour's work would buy 10 gallons of gasoline or 30 dozen eggs in real money as per 1964. Currently, grocery prices are rising by weeks and months rather than years and decades, yet they are not included in the CPI of the Obama Administration. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Just about everyting you buy today is at least 10 times higher than that period. Then again, you earn about ten times more. Money has to drop in value over time, Buz, otherwise capitalism fails. If, I offered you $100 in 1964 but gave you the choice of $100 today instead - you'd wisely take the $100 in 1964. But why is it worth more in 1964? Because in 1964 you have more of your life to invest it and make it grow into something bigger. Let's say you think that if you invest the money wisely you think you can make it $5000 by today. That means, in your estimation (ignoring risk for the time being), you value $100 as in 1964 being worth $5,000 by 2011. This makes $100 in 1964 worth more than $100 in 2011, and this is a good thing. 1964 prices are no more 'real' than today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I could use a vacuum, that's for sure. Sure, but you're not buying one, for the very simple reason that you don't have the money to spend on one right now. That, or you consider the future value of money to be greater than the present value of a vacuum cleaner, which is stupid, since here you are talking about how inflation is going to screw us all. I mean, you can't have it both ways - either inflation is going to kill us, in which case present goods are way more valuable than future dollars, or future dollars are more valuable than present goods, in which case what you're afraid of is deflation, and you should believe that the government should be printing money and giving it to people like you, so you can buy a vacuum cleaner. You'd benefit from owning one. The store that sold it to you would benefit from having sold it to you. The factory that made it would benefit, marginally, from having constructed it and sold it to the store. The workers and store owner, now with a little extra money in their pockets, might have frequented other businesses, including yours. Just about everybody in the supply chain would be better off if you spent your money on a vacuum, but you've not done so simply because you lack the scratch. All for the want of a horseshoe nail, indeed! Giving you some money to buy a vacuum seems like a good idea - a net benefit. And it's impossible for it to be inflationary during a demand-driven recession.
Driving an economy by encouraging people to spend money on useless junk? Are vacuums useless? Are yoga lessons useless? Is it useless to eat out at a restaurant with your friends instead of cooking by yourself at home? "Useless junk" isn't a substantial or even noticeable part of the economy. Predominantly people are spending their money on things that improve the quality of their own lives. Is that useless?
The fact that there is any inflation at all should tell you that more money thrown blindly into the system is not the answer. There's always inflation, and should always be; it's a necessary buffer against incredibly destructive deflation and the indicator of a growing economy. Recall that during the Reagan "Morning in America" inflation was over 5%.
But we've been over this before; you seem dead-set in thinking the world is run by bunny rabbits in marshmallow hats. You seem dead-set in thinking that everybody who's not you is a gaping moron. (Never mind that you're the one who thinks vacuum cleaners are "useless junk.") Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
LOL on 2% Factoring in groceries and clothes etc the realistic rate is, conservatively, 10% and rising rapidly. That's not inflation, that's actually an increase in the price of groceries and clothes primarily driven by the increasing demand for the same amount of oil. Inflation isn't when the price of something goes up. Inflation is when the price of everything goes up, and factoring in everything, inflation is only at 2%, less than half of what it was during the Reagan Revolution.
The last year you could take your paper notes to the bank and trade for solid silver was 1964. Remember how we explained that metal-based currency was inherently inflationary because they're still mining silver?
Currently, grocery prices are rising by weeks and months rather than years and decades, yet they are not included in the CPI of the Obama Administration. Right, which is proof that they're not considered a very good indicator of inflation due to price volatility and dependency on an underlying asset that is in high demand. If inflation is "really" at 10%, Buz, why aren't people's wages going up? Inflation should raise the price of everything, including labor. Are you making any more at your job than you were before?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Jon writes: What is there to buy? What do you need? What do I need? I could use a vacuum, that's for sure. But my needs are pretty much met. All I need is enough money coming in to replace the stuff that goes out on consumable expenses. Any extra money is spent on junk; wasted on non-essentials; thrown into causes and products that provide no real return. Driving an economy by encouraging people to spend money on useless junk? Not a plan. And even worse: buying more useless junk still won't help with your idle factories and unemployed people, since little of the junk bought is actually manufactured domestically.Jon After you have covered food & clothing & shelter & medical needs, and you are looking for ways to spend money, may I suggest supporting your local musicians & artists? Agreed - don't buy shit. RULE OF THUMB: The more you see it advertised in the main stream mediot world, the more unmitigated shit it is. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The last year you could take your paper notes to the bank and trade for solid silver was 1964. Just about everyting you buy today is at least 10 times higher than that period. Many things are much higher. I've never understood why people think paper money that is backed by an equally useless and much heavier element is somehow better. You can't eat silver. You can't build a house with it. You can't water your crops with it. You can't clothe your children with it. What practical use does silver have that paper money does not, other than making pretty shiny things? And if you think that there was no inflation when the dollar was backed by silver or gold, think again. Why don't you compare prices between 1964 and 1914. Using the inflation calculator here $3.20 in 1964 was the same as $1.00 in 1914. Yep, inflation even with currency backed by gold and silver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I ask this question to all economically savvy EvC members...
Mod writes: Money has to drop in value over time, Buz, otherwise capitalism fails. I understand enough to understand that this is true. But what is a 'good' rate of inflation? And at what point does inflation become a bad thing? Is inflation something whose good/bad effects should be determined in relation to growth/GDP? Or something else? Basically can someone explain the role of inflation, what is good and what is bad, in Capitalist economics to me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not only is inflation present during the period when the US was on a precious metals standard, it's higher then than at any subsequent point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But what is a 'good' rate of inflation? And at what point does inflation become a bad thing? There's a zero-bound problem where central banks can't, obviously, loan money at negative interest, so a positive (but low) interest rate gives a central bank room to maneuver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK. So whether inflation is good or bad is directly related to interest rates? Is that right?
Can you explain more fully? I am asking from a position of genuine ignorance here. Not because I have some axe to grind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Not only is inflation present during the period when the US was on a precious metals standard, it's higher then than at any subsequent point. Judging from the graph, the economy was less stable while on the precious metal standard. One of the advantages of being off a gold/silver standard is that it is easier to manipulate the economy to prevent big swings in inflation/deflation. In my notoriously uninformed opinion, if we were still on a gold standard the current recession may have turned into this generation's Great Depression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: they have the same value "in dollars". What if we used Euros? Which has more value? An ounce of gold, a loaf of bread, or a giant stone from Yak?The bread is the only item that we can gauge based on our unchanging human need. But wait...human need even changes. Should a garment worker in Indonesia expect the same wage as a garment worker in Atlanta? (No, because the wage is based on need...on what that individual needs to buy and purchase for their survival. 30 cents an hour goes farther for one than for the other.)
Which has more value, a dollars worth of gold or a dollars worth of lead? jar writes: Actually I was listening to Alex Jones but am keeping an open and skeptical mind. It was here that I first heard of the alarm being sounded if the dollar was dropped globally for being a reserve currency. The way it was explained, other nations have to be more disciplined since they cant simply print more of their own currency and have it pass muster globally...whereas the US can and does and has increased our money supply and not be forced to be accountable as much. Beyond that, I dont know how or why this all works.
I imagine that Phat started this thread because he was listening to Christian Radio yet again. It seems that the folk selling vitamins and health foods and gold and prayer hankies know their demographics and so sell where they know the suckers are lined up. jar writes: What value is added by being a Global Reserve Currency and do you even know what that means? This is all I have: Ron Paul explains that the free ride since Breton Woods has come to and end and that we wont be able to exploit as much with a new reserve currency system that we cant control. Paul claims that such a new system would "crash the dollar" and this is what rightly worries me and should worry every American. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is your base concern that US economic hegemony is at an end and that other nations wil take economic precedence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh good grief. People actually listen to Alex Jones??????
Does ANYTHING in your post have ANYTHING to do with the topic? What value is added by being a Global Reserve Currency and do you even know what that means? Would it make any difference if we abandoned the dollar and adopted the Euro? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024