Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greece's debt has been downgraded to junk status

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Greece can go bleep themselves. They should stick to their own knitting.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Highwayman
    replied
    A few reasons why the Greek government isn't fit to direct traffic.



    Greece’s Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis announced today that Greece would veto the US’s continued membership of NATO unless the US changed its name to ‘United States of Central North America’. ‘Greece is nothing if not consistent’, Ms Bakoyannis said at a press conference today, ‘Just as we object to FYROM [the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] being the sole claimant to the name of the entire area of Macedonia, so we object to FBCOA [the Former British Colony of America] claiming sole use of the name of “America”.’ She pointed out that the territory of the FBCOA covers less than half of the continent of North America, which in turn is only one of two American continents: ‘We are concerned that the FBCOA’s use of the name “America” implies territorial claims on neighbouring states.’
    http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com...north-america/

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Another article on the Greek financial collapse. According to the article, they are meeting all their foreign debt obligations. One of the ways they are doing this is by "suspending" severance payments retirees have earned and by not reimbursing companies for monies they have coming to them.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...9703-2,00.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco Borealis
    replied
    Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
    An update on the situation in Greece from Der Spiegel - things not going well there, as shown by the article's title: Death Spiral.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...712511,00.html
    So they expected the shock therapy to work after only one year after deacedes of fiscal sodomy? Poland begun to surface after the 1989 meltdown only in mid nighties and it was not pleasant expierience I asure you. Maybe they shud hire Prof. Balcerowicz.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    An update on the situation in Greece from Der Spiegel - things not going well there, as shown by the article's title: Death Spiral.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...712511,00.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    You're confusing demand with desire: you may desire a thing, but without the means to engage in voluntary exchange, your desire represents no demand.
    "DEMANDE
    La demande est l'expression de la volonté (#1) et de la capacité #2 de l'acheteur potentiel pour l'acquisition de certaines quantités d'un article aux differents prix possibles que l'acheteur peut raisonnablement payer. On peut concevoir la demande comme une gamme de prix et de quantités correspondantes dans l'esprit de l'acheteur."

    http://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesfr/mac/mac3.html

    #1 et #2 dont appear in text, I've added them for easy reference for those dont speaking french.

    Usually demand is #2 but when a specific reference is made to will, as you did.

    You argued that will (volonté #1) was cause of 1929 crisis using capacity (capacité #2). My point is that #1 did not created crisis. In this case credit is a mean to transform part of #1 in #2 and credit is in hand of lender, not consumer.

    Earlier you gave an example of one bartering oranges for apples...
    My barter example show that #1 can turn in #2 without use of money. Hence #1 is not function of money. #2 can be modified trough money tough.

    Now imagine that you and every other farmer in the valley is growing oranges, and only Mr Smith is growing apples. The value of apples relative to oranges will be rather inflated, no?
    Assuming that apples only exchange to oranges, yes.

    Likewise, going back to the 1920's example, everyone may have desired a washing machine, but it until a mass of consumers obtained the means to enter into voluntary exchange with vendors there was no demand for the vendors to respond to. Easy consumer credit is what gave representation to consumers' desires, turned them from idle pipe dreams into economic demand that merchants, vendors, and producers could then respond to. Without a recognized means of exchange, desire remains just that. In today's world, it takes money to give form to desire. Then it becomes demand: not before.
    That credit as the cause of crisis is my point since the very start. It's overestimation of gains made by to lender to turn part of #1 in #2 that is the cause, not increase of #2 by itself.

    If you don't believe me, try walking into your local store with empty pockets. Tell the salesman that you want such-and-such product -- but you're not going to pay for it. Take a guess how he'll respond.
    'Want a credit ?' will be most likely answer.

    Then try the same trick, only this time with a credit card. What will his response be then?
    'Thanks' with no need for the above.

    This isn't even economics anymore: this is basic logic.
    I agree, and that you want to see consumer (demand) instead of lender (credit) as cause is not that logical.

    Look again at the relationship between M and AD as detailed by Keynes: it's as true today as it was eighty years ago. Our too-easy credit policies have pumped up M to such a degree that P now reside at wholly unsustainable levels. We're still in the midst of an asset bubble -- and I'm not the only one saying it. Even Keynes would recognize this in about three friggin' seconds. It was the radically quick accumulation of aggregate debt that has brought us to this point, and since governments' policies have steadfastly refused to address the issue, but instead have sought to prop up money markets at their currently inflated levels, a la Greece, we have yet to seen the real bursting of the bubble. When it does burst, it's gonna splat all over.
    My post #100 :

    "Credit crisis are not due to overhelming demand, lenders (have) always the option to not make a loan, but is result of over estimation by lenders of global wage increase."

    Sound familiar ? I'm saying the same things for several pages you know

    Your #101

    "No: overwhelming demand is caused by too loose credit."

    Going back to Greek debt, reducing it is a need. Now reducing global wage will most likely turn as bad as the illness as it did everytime it has been applied.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    You simply confused two concepts having the same name.

    Here is your post #99

    "These are all examples of rapid inflation due to a meteoric rise in aggregate debt. In the 1920's, no one NEEDED a washing machine, but everybody wanted one: manufacturers and retailers offered store credit...."

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...t=92459&page=7

    Emphasize is mine. Clearly everyone can see that you're speaking of demand as will to obtain goods. Since I always answered to that kind of demand. That you changed mind is another story but I've no responsability there.
    You're confusing demand with desire: you may desire a thing, but without the means to engage in voluntary exchange, your desire represents no demand.

    Earlier you gave an example of one bartering oranges for apples. You desire Mr Smith's apples, so you offer to exchange with him a quantity of his apples for your oranges. You negotiate the quantities that you both feel appropriate, and then you effect trade. Sounds good so far, no? Let's say, however, that Mr Smith has been trading for oranges with Mr Brown down the road. You come along and offer your oranges, but he does not need them. If all you have is oranges, then you have nothing to trade with. Your desire for Mr Smith's apples in the absence of your capacity to trade for them reppresents no demand that Mr Smith might respond to. If all you've got to trade is oranges, and he doesn't want them, then Mr Smith is not going to say to himself, "I should plant more apples next season in anticipation that I may desire Mr Metryll's oranges." Mr Smith will only respond to your desire if you can express it in terms of a product or service that Mr Smith feels that he wants or needs: then your desire becomes demand -- not before.

    Now imagine that you and every other farmer in the valley is growing oranges, and only Mr Smith is growing apples. The value of apples relative to oranges will be rather inflated, no?

    Likewise, going back to the 1920's example, everyone may have desired a washing machine, but it until a mass of consumers obtained the means to enter into voluntary exchange with vendors there was no demand for the vendors to respond to. Easy consumer credit is what gave representation to consumers' desires, turned them from idle pipe dreams into economic demand that merchants, vendors, and producers could then respond to. Without a recognized means of exchange, desire remains just that. In today's world, it takes money to give form to desire. Then it becomes demand: not before.

    If you don't believe me, try walking into your local store with empty pockets. Tell the salesman that you want such-and-such product -- but you're not going to pay for it. Take a guess how he'll respond.

    Then try the same trick, only this time with a credit card. What will his response be then?

    This isn't even economics anymore: this is basic logic.

    Look again at the relationship between M and AD as detailed by Keynes: it's as true today as it was eighty years ago. Our too-easy credit policies have pumped up M to such a degree that P now reside at wholly unsustainable levels. We're still in the midst of an asset bubble -- and I'm not the only one saying it. Even Keynes would recognize this in about three friggin' seconds. It was the radically quick accumulation of aggregate debt that has brought us to this point, and since governments' policies have steadfastly refused to address the issue, but instead have sought to prop up money markets at their currently inflated levels, a la Greece, we have yet to seen the real bursting of the bubble. When it does burst, it's gonna splat all over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    SM,

    I've read your text but aside the fact that you seem to have followed an economic course, I dont see in what it invalidate any of my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    I see. I see the little game you're playing: I say something, you disagree, then you hijack my argument and call it your own. That's good.
    You simply confused two concepts having the same name.

    Here is your post #99

    "These are all examples of rapid inflation due to a meteoric rise in aggregate debt. In the 1920's, no one NEEDED a washing machine, but everybody wanted one: manufacturers and retailers offered store credit...."

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...t=92459&page=7

    Emphasize is mine. Clearly everyone can see that you're speaking of demand as will to obtain goods. Since I always answered to that kind of demand. That you changed mind is another story but I've no responsability there.

    So you're admitting that too-easy credit has led to the asset bubbles that we've seen over the years?
    Never stated otherwise. But unlike you I see lender rather than demand as cause as lender as always the capacity to refuse a loan.

    That's an irrelevant observation for two reasons:

    1) you don't live in a barter economy, and
    2) even if you did, the ready availability of whatever medium of exchange you use will impact the value of the good or service you desire relative to your account of the medium of exchange. If I double your holdings of wampum, and your vendor knows that you're holding double your original wampum, he's going to raise his prices proportionally to your incresed wampum holdings. That's inflation -- but you knew that already -- right?
    I used barter to show you that demand, that is will to obtain good, is not function of money not that our economy is based on barter. This said barter has been and still used today.

    About inflation sorry I dont know but this mechanism is probably not that simple as holding wampum, wathever a wampum is, may too decrease the price either that demand is closing to saturation of that another vendor low its price in order to increasing selling.

    WHAT???? Are you serious? You've argued all along that there's no relatinship between M and D. How did you put it on 8 May:
    Of course I'm. When dealing with demand as a will, money does not create demand but modifiy it. It's not because money increase that square wheeled car will be sold as there is no will for such a good.

    Demand as discussed as in your post #99 and mine are differents. Former is the will, later the capacity, to get goods.

    "That's not only factually untrue, but a complete perversion of both moetaryist and Keynsean theory...."

    Please could you be more precise. What is untrue, that deficits were used as compensation ?

    I read this guy when I was a freshman in college: my professor hated the macro textbooks then in print, so he gathered up some of Samuelson's from the Strand, and copied them for the class at his own expense. Before you argue another macro point, please read him. Please. If not, then head on out to Tulsa, OK, and look up Prof Scott Carter: he's a self-described Keynsian, and one hell of a teacher. When he gets to aggregate debt in Macro II, pay special attention: you need all the help you can get.
    Thanks for the reading I'll have a look but so far everything I posted was checked previously against Keynes's 'General Theory' text. It explain why it proved so difficult to prove me wrong about its use but I can make errors, we'll see

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    I see. I see the little game you're playing: I say something, you disagree, then you hijack my argument and call it your own. That's good.

    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    Credit is made by a lender in prospect to increase its gains. In a barter economy gains will be goods, in economy based on money it will be money. Medium change, concept is identical.

    Contrary to your belief, it's not demand for washing machines (among others goods) that caused 1929 crisis, but over estimation by lenders of gains to be made by lending money for machines. It's true for 1929 crisis but for 1907 panic and 2008 crisis as well.
    Why, it was only on 11 May that I said something rather similar:

    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    These are all examples of rapid inflation due to a meteoric rise in aggregate debt. In the 1920's, no one NEEDED a washing machine, but everybody wanted one: manufacturers and retailers offered store credit. Well, that came crashing down pretty quick.
    So you're admitting that too-easy credit has led to the asset bubbles that we've seen over the years?

    Here's a gem:

    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    Money is a common value replacing direct exchange of goods. It affect exchange but does not create it. Following your junk logic barter dont exist
    That's an irrelevant observation for two reasons:

    1) you don't live in a barter economy, and
    2) even if you did, the ready availability of whatever medium of exchange you use will impact the value of the good or service you desire relative to your account of the medium of exchange. If I double your holdings of wampum, and your vendor knows that you're holding double your original wampum, he's going to raise his prices proportionally to your incresed wampum holdings. That's inflation -- but you knew that already -- right?

    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    Losing nerve is simply showing your lack of arguments. I never stated that money has no impact on demand but that demand is not created by money. Is that hard to understand ?
    WHAT???? Are you serious? You've argued all along that there's no relatinship between M and D. How did you put it on 8 May:

    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    And demand is made by wage of others companies to their worker that buy your product : it is what you call the market. Reduce global wage, you reduce market as well. . . . . After 1980, thanks to Frideman/Hayek wage were disconnected from inflation that decreased sharply but in same time unemployement rose. The end result was that global wage was not enough to support gobal offer : companies went in difficulty. US deficit begun to be used as a compensation for the lost consumption.
    That's not only factually untrue, but a complete perversion of both moetaryist and Keynsean theory. In reality, the things that a consumer -- be he individual, or corporate, or government -- desires that really drive an economy are not the things that he buys for cash, but the things that he finances through debt: automobiles, real estate, other capital goods. In macroeconomic sense, no one gives a flying f*ck about the price of beans: the price of a car, on the other hand, is a driving force in any economy. Ease of credit, therefore, is of paramount concern in any economy -- even if the vast majority of the population never borrows! Their governments borrow, their employers borrow, their employers' vendors and clients borrow. Easier credit means more borrowing. More borrowing increases both V and M. Higher V and/or M means higher prices for the same supply level. Even Keynes noted the D-curve's right-shift when M increases at a given supply point! Now you're arguing against Keynes? Pick a position already.

    I read this guy when I was a freshman in college: my professor hated the macro textbooks then in print, so he gathered up some of Samuelson's from the Strand, and copied them for the class at his own expense. Before you argue another macro point, please read him. Please. If not, then head on out to Tulsa, OK, and look up Prof Scott Carter: he's a self-described Keynsian, and one hell of a teacher. When he gets to aggregate debt in Macro II, pay special attention: you need all the help you can get.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Please forgive me, for I possess not the eloquence needed to address something this patently stupid, except to call you a moron. How on earth can demand -- as we understand it in the economic sense -- exist if the means with which we conduct our exchanges is unavailable?
    If you offer an orange, demand an apple while I offer an apple and demand an orange we have two offers and two demands. When I exchange you an apple for an orange we dont use money, yet we have both satisfied a demand. It's called barter, a mode of goods exchange that existed well before money was created and still widely used today.

    If now I've no apple but take your orange with the promise that I'll supply you later with two apples what you've done ? I let you search for the word, it begin by the letter 'C'...

    Credit is made by a lender in prospect to increase its gains. In a barter economy gains will be goods, in economy based on money it will be money. Medium change, concept is identical.

    Contrary to your belief, it's not demand for washing machines (among others goods) that caused 1929 crisis, but over estimation by lenders of gains to be made by lending money for machines. It's true for 1929 crisis but for 1907 panic and 2008 crisis as well.

    Commonly, we use money as our medium of exchange, but regardless of the specific medium, without it, there can be no demand for producers to respond to! If a prospective customer walks into your store expressing a desire to possess your merchandise but lacks any means of legally exchanging for it, do you simply give him your stuff?
    Money is a common value replacing direct exchange of goods. It affect exchange but does not create it. Following your junk logic barter dont exist

    You putz, that's why loosened credit stimulated demand: M expanded faster than S -- more dollars were chasing the same amount of stuff -- therefore prices had to rise!
    Losing nerve is simply showing your lack of arguments. I never stated that money has no impact on demand but that demand is not created by money. Is that hard to understand ?

    Apparently you have a problem of understanding of words 'create' vs 'increase'.

    You blab on endlessly about Keynes' General Theory: did you ever read the friggin' thing?
    Have you proved me wrong on any point I made about Keynes so far ? Anwser : no. Another irrational question ?

    Don't respond. You're honest-to-goodness an economic illiterate. In and of itself, that's no so bad: even illiterates can be taught to read. You, however, put on airs like you're some kind of friggin' Nobel economics laureate. You're not: your proven ignorance of even the most fundamental economic precepts and relationships proves your manifest ignorance in spades.
    You'll then have no problems to prove me wrong using Keynes in this case ? But wait, you never had. Too bad...

    Ignorance inflated by pride: now there's a winning combination.
    You speak of yourself as you wish...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    #1 : Yourself "No: overwhelming demand is caused by too loose credit." No use of word money there and I did not used it as well.
    Please forgive me, for I possess not the eloquence needed to address something this patently stupid, except to call you a moron. How on earth can demand -- as we understand it in the economic sense -- exist if the means with which we conduct our exchanges is unavailable?

    Demand is the want or desire to possess a good or service with the necessary goods, services, or financial instruments necessary to make a legal transaction for those goods or services.
    - emphasis mine

    Commonly, we use money as our medium of exchange, but regardless of the specific medium, without it, there can be no demand for producers to respond to! If a prospective customer walks into your store expressing a desire to possess your merchandise but lacks any means of legally exchanging for it, do you simply give him your stuff? You putz, that's why loosened credit stimulated demand: M expanded faster than S -- more dollars were chasing the same amount of stuff -- therefore prices had to rise!

    "The inflation resulting from an increase in aggregate demand is called demand-pull inflation. Such an inflation may arise from any individual factor that increases aggregate demand, but the main ones that generate ongoing increases in aggregate demand are

    1.Increases in the money supply
    2.Increases in government purchases
    3.Increases in the price level in the rest of the world"
    - emphasis mine

    Remember how increases in M shift the AD curve to the right?



    You blab on endlessly about Keynes' General Theory: did you ever read the friggin' thing?

    Don't respond. You're honest-to-goodness an economic illiterate. In and of itself, that's no so bad: even illiterates can be taught to read. You, however, put on airs like you're some kind of friggin' Nobel economics laureate. You're not: your proven ignorance of even the most fundamental economic precepts and relationships proves your manifest ignorance in spades.

    Ignorance inflated by pride: now there's a winning combination.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by At ease View Post
    I can see what you are attempting to do by making the comparison that you made previously, which may have some validity if you were attempting to establish what proportion of a working mans labour was required to pay for someones unfunded unemployment benefits, or someone who is unjustly on disability payments.
    - emphasis mine

    Gee, we wouldn't know anything about that:

    LIRR retirees automatically approved for disabaility, whther disabled or not;
    NYC DoE maintains "rubber rooms" for teachers unfit to be near children but cannot be terminated due to strict union contract;
    the mendacious founding of Amtrak, a government-run enterprise that has never so much as broke even, much less tirned a profit, was actually meant to protect railroad wrokers' pension funds, under the cover of "the romance of the rails";
    the recent bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, motivated by the same concerns that led to the formation of Amtrak;

    MTA workers have to be caught sleeping on the job three times before they're fired.



    Let's carry on.

    Originally posted by At ease View Post
    However, what your continual attitude is that civil servants do not contribute to the economy, via their day to day activities, at all. You are not attaching any value, at all, to the work that for example, an air traffic controller does, or a scientist working in a government controlled research establishment, or a librarian in a public library, or a train driver working for a government authority, or a policeman, or a......... The list goes on and on.
    With a handful of exceptions, almost all of those jobs can be done better, to a
    singinficantly higher degree of quality, more efficiently, more quickly, and more economically, all of those endeavors can be addressed better by private concerns than by government agencies, and by non-union labor rather than by politicly protected unionized labor. The Transportation Workers Union Local 100, the union that represents the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's workforce in New York City, including the people who work on the subways, has lobbied heavily to protect two-man tran crews -- even though the technology has long existed to allow safe reduction of the crew to one. The taxpayers and the riders can millions. TWU 100 claims a membership of over 50,000 current and retired MTA workers. If TWU 100's membership drops to 25,000, do you think that that will reduce the amount of cash and "volunteerism" that the union can funnel towards friendly political candidates? We know that the union that represents hundreds of thousands of health care workers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) veritably brags about what they did to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency. These unions and their memberships have absolutely no interest in providing the public with better, more efficient services. If they were, they wouldn't feel the need to buy political patronage, nor protect obviously deadbeat members. The value of their output would be self-evident. Truth is, the value of their output IS self-evident: it's self-evidently sucks! Their "clientele" isn't the public who pays arm-and-leg for sub-standard service: the unions' clientele are the politicians, who rely on union cash and union muscle to get elected. The political class and organized labor are in an embrace of mutual extorsion, and it's the public that pays for it.

    And before I have to hear about what a cruel bourgeoise, anti-working-man capitalist I am, let me tell you something: my step-father's union (UFT) my father in-law is union (NJ Ironworkers) one of his son's is union (NJ Ironworkers/NJPBA) most of their nephews and cousins are union (NJ Ironworkers) and my wife was union -- until she got fed up with the chronic ass-dragging and muling that came to define the union membership at her hospital. Patient care suffered 'cause when the state upped the qualifications for certain specialized RN's, the usual worthless union members responded, with collective bargaining agreement in hand -- and I quote -- "where in this fcking contract does it say that we have to take these qualifications?" I've seen more examples of organized labor's attitude towards work than I can shake a stick at. At some point the plain truth must be spoken: unions drive down productivity, and will readily substitute political clout for market share in order to protect the most worthless of their members. Unions incentivize their workers to be the worst that they can be -- and they've been doing it for better than half a century.

    Just this week the producers of the famed television crime drama Law & Order announced that they will cease production in New York. Law & Order has been on the air for twenty years. Now it's going -- and it will be taking thousands of jobs with it. Listening to the bleeding hearts on National Public Radio this morning (hardly a conservative news outlet by any means) blame was cast about in ever direction. One unionized crew-member blamed the City of New York for not extending tax abatements for another five years as Law & Order's reason for leaving New York. What went unmentioned is the incredible cost of production that New York incurs upon television and film producers: every crew-member with more than 100 days per calendar year on a production has to be a union member, and even the lowest union members (Theatrical Teamsters Local 817) grosses better than $600 per 10 hr day. How do I know this? I waorked in TV and film production for several years, and nearly made it my career, before a I chose financial services. It was the greatest gig in the world: easy work, tons of beautiful and flirtatious girls, free food, and great pay. Since I never had more than 100 days per year on a single production, I didn't qualify for a union card, but the union regulars were always surly, foul-mouthed, and lazy as a day is long. They were some of the most blatent ass-draggers I've ever seen. Naturally, they'd never accept a modicum of blame for rendering New York a less attractive place to film, so when they're watching depictions of New York filmed in Los Angeles or Toronto, they'll blame to taxpyers of the City of New York for not subsidizing their rice bowls. What pigs!

    Originally posted by At ease View Post
    You seem to think that life will go on as normal if the jobs that people such as these do were eliminated. Next time you need to drive across a bridge, consider whether you are getting some return for your taxes, or how good a swimmer you are. Certainly, waste exists, but you are yet to convince me that it has reached 100%.
    I'll remember that the next time I see a road repair crew dump a truck-load of asphalt into the river 'cause they didn't want to interrupt their coffee break with actual work. Don't preach that union hall propaganda to me: they exist to provide me a service, for which I'm willing to pay them a wage and benefits commeasurate with going market rates. Contrary to the current public employee unions' mentality (and several private sector unions, as well) I do not exist to provide mouth-breathers with life-time employment. There whole rice bowl can be blow clear apart and all will go on as before. As I type this, there's tens of thousands of Mexicans clamoring to get across the border who'd be happy to fill their jobs for a fraction of the cost -- and they'd do it better, at that. Life won't continue as normal: it will thrive.

    "Certainly waste exists." There's the understatement of the century.
    Last edited by slick_miester; 17 May 10, 12:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    I've argued all along that demand is simply a function of money -- and you've proved absolutely nothing, except that you have an obsession with a Freidman-Keynes rivalry that exists only in the minds of politicians....
    #1 : Yourself "No: overwhelming demand is caused by too loose credit." No use of word money there and I did not used it as well.

    #2 Demand is NOT a function of money. Homo Sapiens has used an offer/demand economy for more than 30.000 years now without money. Once again read Keynes, he cover the case of an economy without money where Friedman cant. Money can modify demand but does not create it alone.

    #3 I've no obsession, Fridedman had one. Monetarism from which you get your erroneous ideas was designed to prove Keynes wrong. That's called history

    Read it years ago, and quite closely. It was a damn good read, too, and I've seriously admired Keynes ever since. My admiration for both the man and theory does not blind me, however, to the failings of either. ...
    Re-read it once again and even more closely. I challenge you to find in Keynes a call for a constant and high state debt. Wish you good luck doing so

    Not at all. Indeed, you've consistently differed with the contention that price is a function of demand, and that demand is a function of money supply, and that the aggregate of outstanding liabilities is strangling this economy just as surely as easy credit fed it in the first place. You're forgetting the boom years, which were fed by too easy credit. Start with what made the boom, and then the bust will make sense.
    I differed with the idea because it's wrong. Once again demand is not function of money. See#2 above.

    It is called monetarism, but it hasn't failed: no monetarist ever advocated habitually extending credit to chronic deadbeats. Only governments do that, and they do so for political reasons, not economic.
    Monetarism failed because it's inherently recessionist. Credit extension is simply the counter-measure as in democracies, goverments are elected to increase living conditions of citizens or at least not worsen them. Credit was a needed bad solution to a ideological bad idea.

    We already have deficits. Almost every major economy in the world is choking on its own debt. Poorly applied Keynesianism broke New York City thirty-five years ago. Poorly applied Keynesianism is breaking California, New York State, New Jersey, the United Kingdom, and France today. Poorly applied Keynesianism is breaking Greece, as well. All of the jurisdictions that I've mentioned share two key tastes: bloated public payrolls -- and grandiose, over-priced feel-good projects. How long will Greece be paying off those Olympics? No monetarist ever advocated that kind of crap.
    France, like almost all western countries before, left Keynes in late 80's. For now the sole economy that could be seen as following Keynes principles is Norway.

    I'll repeat it again : increasing public servant number to enhance economy is NOT Keynesian.

    What planet have you been living on? It hasn't been done for thirty years....
    Then I suggest you to open an history book.

    Mometatrism as begun to spread as the economic orthodoxy in late 70's/early 80's with Regean and Tatcher. Today both Bernanke and Trichet are monetarist as well most goverment economists. Initially the goal had been to control inflation. It did along with crisis and unemployement.

    Once again you confuse a solution with a cause. Deficits have nothing to do with welfare by itslef but with the need to keep economy out of recession.

    You simply continue to use ideas that economics elements like profits and wage can be viewed separatly and that micro-economics can explain modern economies. Both ideas are fallacious.

    A state can reduce the number of public servant, control its deficit and kept welfare. The key is not a micro-economic based ideology against public servant but the macro economic concept of keeping global wage at least constant. It's exactly what Canada has done.

    Leave a comment:


  • At ease
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    You're a raging pain in the ass, you know that. Okay then, as of 2008, according to the US Bureau of the Census, the median annual income of the American worker was $26,513.00. (That's a good website, by the way, for a whole slew of US statisitical and demographic data. Keep it handy: you never know when you'll need it.)

    Since you feel like being such a helper, you can recalculate how many American workers it takes to support one public employee. Get cracking, smart guy. Let's see you math skills kick into high gear.

    I can see what you are attempting to do by making the comparison that you made previously, which may have some validity if you were attempting to establish what proportion of a working mans labour was required to pay for someones unfunded unemployment benefits, or someone who is unjustly on disability payments. However, what your continual attitude is that civil servants do not contribute to the economy, via their day to day activities, at all. You are not attaching any value, at all, to the work that for example, an air traffic controller does, or a scientist working in a government controlled research establishment, or a librarian in a public library, or a train driver working for a government authority, or a policeman, or a......... The list goes on and on. You seem to think that life will go on as normal if the jobs that people such as these do were eliminated. Next time you need to drive across a bridge, consider whether you are getting some return for your taxes, or how good a swimmer you are. Certainly, waste exists, but you are yet to convince me that it has reached 100%.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X