Glen, I share your misgivings about the current discussions regarding money, Before the second world war there was an Austrian or Austro-Hungarian school of economics that had substantially different ideas than is currently in fashion. My understanding is that Brettton Woods ? agreement ,after the war, ended the old school and started the one we now think is "Normal" The name that sticks out is Von Mises. I have a copy somewhere but it was thicker than my own PhD thesis and never had the courage to crack it open.
It is a little late in my life for such a dramatic shift of intellectual pursuit.. Reading Herodotus I am convinced children rarely pay off the debts of their forefathers and would rather emigrate or fight. Trying to extract ancient debts from the unwilling is a nasty affair that costs more than it returns. Solon's approach to declare bankruptcy for Athens is said to have saved the city and heralded in a new era of Prosperity. If money does not last forever then it seems debt is just as short lived. Maybe others have more details or ideas to add to the discussions. Debt crisis have been downplayed by historians I suspect because they did not fully understand the economics or principles. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: September 10, 2010 11:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] national debt and zero-sum games I keep hearing people claim that any debt the US builds/acquires will have to be paid (or defaulted on) by "our children and their children". This oversimplification has always _seemed_ fundamentally wrong to me ... more wrong than just being an oversimplification. It doesn't seem to me like the economy is a zero-sum game. Money isn't subject to any conservation laws that I"m aware of. Granted, there are economic drivers that are conserved; but money isn't one of them. So, what literature do I need to start reading that will help me a) understand what is and isn't conserved about debt and b) clarify this point to those who insist on making the oversimplified argument? I'm not convinced one way or the other; I just want to find a bit of clarity around this soundbite. In particular, it strikes me that on a personal scale (time and distance), money is mostly conserved. E.g. I pile up credit card debt or buy a house and that debt sticks with me. I either have to pay it off or default (or die). But is that true at all scales? I've spent some time looking at generic books and popular magazine articles on economics. But they lack the clarity I need (or perhaps I'm too thick to understand them). And the sources for Game Theory I've seen are too idealistic to get any real traction for an argument. Thanks. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
