Well done mate (HAR{copyright Nom}. I often like to get cruder n
thinking. If the US has $100 and UK £100 and he exchange rate is 1 :
1 if both sides print an extra thousand each both the dollar and pound
haven't changed in reciprocal value. But there is extra money about
and the main question is who gets this - if everyone gets the same
share nothing has changed - if you and I had 10 units each before and
now had double etc. We'd still have 10% of each domain's currency.
But if we get zilch (as usual) we only have 5% after the printing.
Even then, if the extra 1000 in each currency doubled production and
prices didn't rise but fell by half owing to a jump in productivity
we'd be twice as well off. This model has limits but is the essential
idea. Instead, the extra money has been going into financialisation
and we are being screwed. Even at this simplistic level it's not that
simple as our assets may inflate in price - maybe our goats, wives and
other chattels inflate to twice the old price We really need a
spreadsheet - economics is full of them, but they quickly get very
over-complicated. In science we'd throw them out as based on the
wrong premises. All economic models contain sweeping power relations.
I agree with your question on raising all countries out of poverty
relations - but economics dismisses this and allows no such
questioning. Even without thinking about the third world, one can ask
why wages have been stripped of any relation with productivity. With
increasing house prices how does it make sense to restrict wages -
etc? Given most of the back-breaking work has been done on producing
agricultural land and houses, why should we let their money value rise
rather than decline (other than through fair maintenance)? In the end
I think the drug involved in economics is competition - as expressed
in vile work ideologies. This said, I still don't want to take only
the same share as a dire slacker.
On Feb 21, 5:15 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
> but someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the cantillon
> effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of it
> held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create economic
> rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon
> shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/
> Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we
> think. / Archytas
>
> I see that (what you say).... but there are (apparently) two parts to it,
> as your separation into two sentences/passages recognizes....I ask you to
> consider and speak to the distinction between Domestic "in-country" effects
> or likely outcomes as distinguished from "inter-national" or
> "between-country" effects or likely outcomes.
>
> The "Domestic"
> results....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon...Cantilloneffect
> (new and
> interesting lead, by the way, for me) would seem to say that the
> "creation"and distribution of such money by the central banks, as is now
> the case, benefits the "first use" "entrepreneur" recipients who get to,
> as you say, create and profit from "economic rents" from it before passing
> it on.....These "first use" "entrepreneurs" are, of course, advantaged by
> this as distinguished from the "second use" fixed income wage earners.....
> "Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income
> wage-earners and non-fixed income
> earners.[84]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-84>Entrepreneurs,
> according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay
> known costs of production but earn uncertain
> incomes,[85]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-85>due
> to the speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their
> product." ... Maybe I take some
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-86>liberties and
> jump to my own (non-Cantillon warranted) overarching conclusions in
> this.... but my point is that the central banks, themselves, "cause" their
> own problems by allowing their "created money" to be "first-used" in an
> "entrepreneurial" way? By directing their "created money" to "fixed-income
> wage earning'" endeavors, instead... the central banks would (seemingly, to
> me) directly benefit their national economies... and also greatly diminish
> "money-value fluctuation"..... This isn't anything unheard of.....the
> Savings and Loan banks here in the U.S. went through this in the 1980s and
> now have to abide by standards regarding how they "spend" the monies they
> receive from the federal government....The Wall Street "commercial" banks
> and firms could easily be "regulated" in this manner, also, I'd
> think....Anyway.... my bigger "societal" point is.... will internal
> domestic politics allow for greater economic pain for the fixed-wage
> earners in order to continue the increased and increasing wealth
> accumulation on the part of the entrepreneurs......?..... It shouldn't, I'd
> think.... speaking in a common-sense sort of way.
>
> Internationally, the same dynamic ... rich country vs. poor country comes
> into play.....I ask whether the rich countries should behave in an
> "exploitative-entrepreneurial" manner, economically toward the poor
> countries or whether the rich countries should try to raise the poor
> countries to an equal level of economic development as themselves....
> generally stated.....?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:03:49 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > The currency wars are with us Nom. But what is a successful outcome -
> > having the lowest? Who is at war against whom? I suspect all the
> > economic blather is a cover for the money printing - as the money is
> > going into stuff like ETFs (exchange traded funds) used to create
> > monopolies in commodities and food. As an economist my guess is that
> > if everyone prints the same amount of dilution nothing changes - but
> > someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the cantillon
> > effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of it
> > held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create economic
> > rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon
> > shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/
> > Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we
> > think.
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > More on QE, now in the U.S..... Up to now, the "conservatives" have been
> > > handed the luxury of spouting off in support their "fiscal austerity"
> > > budgetary and economic programs, while the central banks did what they
> > > could to defray the actual "pain" by putting "money" into the
> > economies....
> > > looks like.... no more central bank "money"... time to either starve the
> > > population or get the money the "old-fashioned" way... get the money the
> > > only way it can be gotten.... where it is... stashed away in the pockets
> > of
> > > the "fat cats"..... Har... What do you think Archytas?
>
> > >http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cae57b82-7b88-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0.html#a...
>
> > > [image: Financial Times] <http://www.ft.com>Fed backs away from asset
> > > buying
>
> > > By Robin Harding in Washington and Claire Jones in London
>
> > > The US Federal Reserve is backing away from open-ended asset purchases
> > as
> > > officials grow nervous about the dangers of a bigger balance sheet.
>
> > > The minutes suggest that QE3 – as the Fed’s third round of quantitative
> > > easing is known – could end earlier than previously thought and is no
> > > longer a truly open-ended programme. The Fed’s balance sheet has reached
> > > $3,078bn and could exceed four trillion dollars if QE3 continues for the
> > > rest of the year.
>
> > > Launching QE3 last September, the rate-setting Federal Open Market
> > > Committee said it would keep buying assets until there was substantial
> > > improvement in the labour market. The goal of asset purchases is to
> > boost
> > > the economy by driving down long-term interest rates.
>
> > > But according to the minutes, “a number of participants stated that an
> > > ongoing evaluation of the efficacy, costs, and risks of asset purchases
> > > might well lead the committee to taper or end its purchases before it
> > > judged that a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labour
> > market
> > > had occurred”.
>
> > > That could reduce the support that QE3 provides to the economy because
> > > markets can no longer be certain that the Fed will keep buying assets
> > until
> > > the labour market recovers.
>
> > > The Fed minutes hit the US bond markets, with most Treasury prices
> > briefly
> > > paring gains or turning lower after the release of the document. The US
> > > dollar rose broadly, with the trade-weighted dollar index climbing 0.4
> > per
> > > cent as the euro fell below the $1.33 mark.
>
> > > In the UK, by contrast, it emerged on Wednesday that the governor of the
> > > Bank of England had called for more quantitative easing at its February
> > > meeting, pushing sterling to its lowest level against the dollar since
> > the
> > > summer.
>
> > > The Fed minutes show that the duration of QE3 remains hotly disputed on
> > the
> > > FOMC, with “several” other participants sticking to open-ended purchases
> > > and warning that stopping too early could damage the economy.
>
> > > But the balance appears to have shifted since December, when the FOMC
> > was
> > > evenly split on whether to keep buying assets until the end of the year
> > or
> > > stop earlier. In FOMC terms, “a number” is more than “several”.
>
> > > The FOMC decided not to change its January statement on the costs and
> > > benefits of QE3 pending a review of asset purchases at its March
> > meeting.
>
> > > Several participants said the FOMC should be ready to slow down the pace
> > of
> > > asset purchases. Some dovish officials raised the idea that the Fed
> > could
> > > hold its portfolio of assets for longer instead of making its balance
> > sheet
> > > bigger.
>
> > > The risks that are starting to worry Fed officials include difficulties
> > > when they eventually come to sell assets, undermining financial
> > stability,
> > > the functioning of financial markets and the possibility of capital
> > losses
> > > when interest rates rise.
>
> > > The Fed’s balance sheet has now reached $3,078bn and could exceed four
> > > trillion dollars if QE3 continues for the rest of the year.
>
> > > According to the minutes, the Fed is also pondering communication
> > changes
> > > that could include publishing more information about individual
> > official’s
> > > views about the balance sheet.
>
> > > *Additional reporting by Vivianne Rodrigues in New York*
>
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48:33 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > My view goes a bit more like this:
> > > > The laziness of the educated middle class is the thing haunting me.
> > > > Rich bankers see what is happening, and laugh all the way to the bank,
> > > > while the middle class works to serve their interests. Risk managers,
> > > > lawyers, chartered accountants, all these people pretend that they are
> > > > working hard, while in truth they are lazy – morally and
> > > > intellectually. The same holds true for the university professors of
> > > > law and of economics. Where is constructive criticism today? This
> > > > laziness has become so widespread, that very few can see it for what
> > > > it is.
> > > > The bit about local Zionist Jews is likely to write off all the
> > > > message of course - falling foul of the political correctness you rail
> > > > against. I'm not sure it's worth keeping - though we should be asking
> > > > questions about the rentier-class. I have
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
