Anyone willing to bet on a devaluation of the dollar when all the debt bubbles burst?

[Galen]

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful. Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work. My investments decisions have been much better since I encountered Mises and Rothbard which tells me that they knew what they were talking about.

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ah, just select the libertarians you want and avoid the fact that Koch and Cato are libertarians.

They call themselves libertarian but if you actually knew anything you would realize that everyone else calls them [URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beltarian"]beltarians[/URL]. (Just follow the link for the definition.) The Republicans often use libertarian rhetoric but have no actual intention of following through. This is one of the reason for the success of Trump.

[Eric the Green]

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful. Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work.

Maybe so, but I am qualified to have a negative opinion of your quote!

Quote: My investments decisions have been much better since I encountered Mises and Rothbard which tells me that they knew what they were talking about.

Oh I see; the only things useful to read are those that improve your investment decisions. Interests typical of libertarians; whatever helps you keep your wealth up. That's what matters in life.

Quote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ah, just select the libertarians you want and avoid the fact that Koch and Cato are libertarians.

They call themselves libertarian but if you actually knew anything you would realize that everyone else calls them [URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beltarian"]beltarians[/URL]. (Just follow the link for the definition.) The Republicans often use libertarian rhetoric but have no actual intention of following through. This is one of the reason for the success of Trump.

No, the reason for the success of Trump is his partial departure from libertarian slogan orthodoxy.

But of course Republicans use libertarian rhetoric but don't follow through, at least not as much as libertarians want. That's what I've been saying, as you would know if you could read properly.

But the Republicans followed through for you guys pretty well where it counts: the rich have gotten richer because of their policies, and the poor have gotten poorer. Just what you want!

[Kinser79]

(05-24-2016, 09:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 06:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 12:19 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Fed only has two leavers it can work economically, the interest rates and money printing.  The interest rate is already at its minimum.  That leaves money printing.

Interest rate policy IS money printing.

I would argue that interest rate policy is indirect money printing.  Lowering the interest rate usually signals to borrowers it is time to borrow and that for spenders it is time to spend.

Interest rate policy is performed using open market operations.  If the Fed wants to keep interest rates low they buy government debt.  They buy it with dollars they create.  Monetary easing adds money to the economy.  When the Fed hikes rates they sell government bonds for dollars, removing those dollars from the economy.

Normally the bond being uses are short term government securities.  One could do open market operations with other kinds of bonds.  When they do that they call it quantitative easing.  During 1942-1951 the Fed performed open market operations with both short term and long term debt maintaining interest rate pegs on both.

Yes, Mike...I know what the Fed does. I've read a book or two you know.

[Kinser79]

(05-24-2016, 10:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The money supply will have to keep up with some other proxy (growth of the workforce or growth of productivity) to prevent deflation. If it overshoots badly, and hyperinflation usually reflects a political system overshooting the connection between money supply and growth, then one gets this sort of toilet paper as a joke of a currency:



Now demonetized.

Inflation and espeically hyperinflation is usually the result of the supply of money exceeding the amount of goods and services produced by an economy. Furthermore, political disruptions can and do have a major impact on the value of currencies internationally. Last I checked Zimbabwe was neither developed nor politically stable.

Quote:A currency not a joke:



Inflation is estimated at 2%. The country produces some desirable goods.

RMB is primarily not a joke because China is the Sweatshop of the World. Furthermore, the PRC is working on liberalizing its financial markets and access to its capital markets meaning It could concevably become a major reserve currency within the next decade and replace the dollar entirely within a few decades after that. Sooner if Clinton or some other Neo-con moron gets us into a war which we'd probably lose.

Quote:

Often  rejected in the country's shops. Not much useful stuff comes from North Korea, unless you consider street heroin useful.

North Korea does not produce heroin because the climate is unsuitable for opium poppies. You are thinking of Afghanistan. Perhaps while you were looking for pictures of various bills you could have googled where heroin comes from as well. I'm not impressed.

[Odin]

(05-24-2016, 07:46 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 07:28 AM)Odin Wrote: You know that Rockwell is an unapologetic White Supremacist, right?

I'm going to demand sauce or you have no argument.

DOH, I checked Wikipedia and apparently I had misremembered his role in the Ron Paul Racist Newsletter kerfuffle, never mind.

[Galen]

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful.  Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work.

Maybe so, but I am qualified to have a negative opinion of your quote!

It is unlikely that you even understand it.

[Galen]

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote: My investment decisions have been much better since I encountered Mises and Rothbard which tells me that they knew what they were talking about.

Oh I see; the only things useful to read are those that improve your investment decisions. Interests typical of libertarians; whatever helps you keep your wealth up. That's what matters in life.

If I am going to do something it seems best to do it well which is why I have books on many subjects.  The fact that Mises an Rothbard help me as other economists don't then it becomes clear that they know rather more about economics than the current crop of PhDs running the Fed.  Interesting, but sadly not surprising, that you would miss that point.

Careful, your envy is showing.

[Galen]

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But of course Republicans use libertarian rhetoric but don't follow through, at least not as much as libertarians want. That's what I've been saying, as you would know if you could read properly.

They don't follow through at all.  Which is why government spending and bureaucracy are completely out of control which is just the opposite of what a libertarian would do.  I can read properly you just can't figure out what a libertarian is or what the Non-Aggression principle implies.
 

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the Republicans followed through for you guys pretty well where it counts: the rich have gotten richer because of their policies, and the poor have gotten poorer. Just what you want!

As long as it doesn't break my leg or pick my pockets, I really don't care what people do.  I don't even worry if someone has more than I do or less.  I am too busy running my life to worry about it.  What the government does is pick my pocket and give it to people who didn't work for it and don't deserve the fruits of my labor.  The legions of bureaucrats and financial institutions that keep getting tax dollars through bailouts come to mind.

[Kinser79]

(05-24-2016, 02:52 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 07:46 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 07:28 AM)Odin Wrote: You know that Rockwell is an unapologetic White Supremacist, right?

I'm going to demand sauce or you have no argument.

DOH, I checked Wikipedia and apparently I had misremembered his role in the Ron Paul Racist Newsletter kerfuffle, never mind.

In other words Galen posted the work of someone who you've been told you don't agree with, and as such they have to be a Racist, Sexist, Homophobe, or whatever-phobe. You have to be extra careful around me Odin. Remember I spent many years on the so-called left, I know how you guys think. I trained many as well.

There is nothing as dangerous as a defector.

[pbrower2a]

(05-24-2016, 11:37 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful.  Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work.

Maybe so, but I am qualified to have a negative opinion of your quote!

It is unlikely that you even understand it.

The argument that one does not accept a politically-charged idea due to mental insufficiency  is one of the oldest and most obnoxious of fallacies. By this reasoning, my stupidity alone keeps me from accepting the truth (as David Irving puts it) that the Holocaust did not happen.

Oh, yes -- I don't 'get' the arguments behind child molestation, female genital mutilation, ISIS, or Stalinism, either.

[Galen]

(05-25-2016, 06:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:37 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful.  Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work.

Maybe so, but I am qualified to have a negative opinion of your quote!

It is unlikely that you even understand it.

The argument that one does not accept a politically-charged idea due to mental insufficiency is one of the oldest and most obnoxious of fallacies.

Eric the Obtuse has given more than enough evidence of mental insufficiency to conclude that he doesn't understand the Mises quote and its implications.

[pbrower2a]

(05-25-2016, 12:53 PM)Galen Wrote: Eric the (Green)  has given more than enough evidence of mental insufficiency to conclude that he doesn't understand the Mises quote and its implications.

Here's the quote:

Quote:If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises

Allow me to parse it for error. We all know that human nature is flawed. Because of the flaws in human nature, one can of course expect flaws in business -- especially where greed operates. Surely we can all dissent with false and misleading advertising, with having small children work in mines, with the sale of deceptively-labeled cure-alls, and of course with unrestrained destruction of the environment. Milton Friedman, generally very much a proponent of free markets had his answer to the question of how to deal with pollution: tax the Hell out of it!

We should reasonably expect people in positions of trust to act honorably, and to avoid conflicts of interest. Thus a CPA should not entice a client to cheat on taxes and then report the client to the IRS for a reward. (Remember: no matter what the economic order there will be some taxing authority).

We may be unable to have direct democracy, but we can have representative government (although I see that much in doubt in the USA now because special interests get more attention from elected officials than do constituents, which is a perversion of what the Founding Fathers wanted) that protects the rights of those who voted wrong. One can practically look at the Bill of Rights as a collection of "Thou shalt not" commandments, as in

"Thou shalt not abridge the freedom of speech, worship, or of the press"
"Thou shalt not establish a State church, nor shalt thou prevent peaceable assembly for redress of grievances"
"Thou shalt not quarter troops in the homes of private citizens without the consent of those citizens"

The Bill of Rights could have been so written. A legislative vote that authorizes imprisonment without trial or cruel and unusual punishment is void. Democracy has its limits. We have a Constitution as a restraint upon democracy going amok. After all, lynch mobs make their decisions by majority vote, as with the massacre of the Romanov family by the Bolsheviks. 

Governments have at the least the duties to enforce laws duly enacted and consistent with the Constitution, to judge criminals and determine cases of civil dispute, and defend the People against invasions.  To regulate business? Every country does so.

[Galen]

(05-25-2016, 04:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-25-2016, 12:53 PM)Galen Wrote: Eric the (Green)  has given more than enough evidence of mental insufficiency to conclude that he doesn't understand the Mises quote and its implications.

Here's the quote:

Quote:If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises

Allow me to parse it for error. We all know that human nature is flawed. Because of the flaws in human nature, one can of course expect flaws in business -- especially where greed operates. Surely we can all dissent with false and misleading advertising, with having small children work in mines, with the sale of deceptively-labeled cure-alls, and of course with unrestrained destruction of the environment. Milton Friedman, generally very much a proponent of free markets had his answer to the question of how to deal with pollution: tax the Hell out of it!

We should reasonably expect people in positions of trust to act honorably, and to avoid conflicts of interest. Thus a CPA should not entice a client to cheat on taxes and then report the client to the IRS for a reward. (Remember: no matter what the economic order there will be some taxing authority).

What you expect doesn't really matter. What does, is that you expect a population of fallible people to produce competent and ethical people to rule us.  This is a logical fallacy which is demonstrated by the fact Nixon who contemplated using the IRS for political purposes and later actually did and got away with it.  Then there is the Bush and Clinton crime families just in case you needed a few more examples.  Then there is Congressman X and his book.

This is the reality that neither you or Eric the Obtuse can accept.

[Ragnarök_62]

Mikebert Wrote:Interest rate policy is performed using open market operations.  If the Fed wants to keep interest rates low they buy government debt.  They buy it with dollars they create.  Monetary easing adds money to the economy.  When the Fed hikes rates they sell government bonds for dollars, removing those dollars from the economy.

I agree with the above as an explanation of "FOMC operations".

Quote:Normally the bond being uses are short term government securities.  One could do open market operations with other kinds of bonds.  When they do that they call it quantitative easing.  During 1942-1951 the Fed performed open market operations with both short term and long term debt maintaining interest rate pegs on both.

Theoretically, and what you say above is also correct. To expand on it, the Fed can purchase trash assets as well! Rags wonders to no end how much Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac trash has landed on the Fed's  balance sheet.

Now to make this whole "what the Fed does" real simple, can be stated as such.

The denizens of the Fed gather for FOMC meetings, go outside, piss in the wind and set interest rates based on which way they think the way the wind blows.

Apparently, they have had a spate of full bladders since the piss indicator is stuck in neutral by way of them having piss all over the bottom halves of their bodies. Further, since that is what they do, the Fed should be abolished since the interest rate, which is the price of money can never, ever be centrally planned.

Edit: Whoah, on that link, man.

Bernanke Wrote:Deflation: Its Causes and Effects

Deflation is defined as a general decline in prices, with emphasis on the word "general." At any given time, especially in a low-inflation economy like that of our recent experience, prices of some goods and services will be falling. Price declines in a specific sector may occur because productivity is rising and costs are falling more quickly in that sector than elsewhere or because the demand for the output of that sector is weak relative to the demand for other goods and services. Sector-specific price declines, uncomfortable as they may be for producers in that sector, are generally not a problem for the economy as a whole and do not constitute deflation. Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.

No!  Deflation is defined by the decrease in money + credit relative to the supply of goods + services.  Geeze, no wonder why the Fed is so messed up.  Bernanke may have a Phd. but methinks he's a habitual user of stupid sauce, aka booze.

No wonder why the Fed can't spot an asset bubble even it smacked them in the face. That's why the numbskulls don't know that all that QE juice has gone into Silicone Valley unicorns and really weird house prices.

On, deflation.  Interesting.  If the US wasn't such a debt besotted place, then deflation wouldn't be such an issue. Rags would love deflation because that means he could buy more stuff over time since his dollars would fetch more stuff as time passed.
Deflation is only a problem for the debt besotted 'cause it's an effective rise in interest rates which can bankrupt certain debtor parties.

[Eric the Green]

(05-24-2016, 11:37 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wouldn't be caught dead reading Mises. I've seen enough of his quotes and enough discussion of him to know better.

You wouldn't be caught dead reading anything useful.  Unless you have read any of his works you are unqualified to have an opinion about him or his work.

Maybe so, but I am qualified to have a negative opinion of your quote!

It is unlikely that you even understand it.

It is so easy to understand that I could not fail to understand it.

No-one has written a more cogent refutation of laissez faire online than I have.
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

[Eric the Green]

(05-24-2016, 11:51 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 12:58 PM)Galen Wrote: My investment decisions have been much better since I encountered Mises and Rothbard which tells me that they knew what they were talking about.

Oh I see; the only things useful to read are those that improve your investment decisions. Interests typical of libertarians; whatever helps you keep your wealth up. That's what matters in life.

If I am going to do something it seems best to do it well which is why I have books on many subjects.  The fact that Mises an Rothbard help me as other economists don't then it becomes clear that they know rather more about economics than the current crop of PhDs running the Fed.  Interesting, but sadly not surprising, that you would miss that point.

Careful, your envy is showing.

One thing I don't understand is why you consult economists from a century ago to make investment decisions today.

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2016, 02:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing I don't understand is why you consult economists from a century ago to make investment decisions today.

Probably because their economic theory is more sound than the investment advice one gets from the talking heads on the business channels. As I pointed out earlier, I've not gone broke by doing the exact opposite of what the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox Business say to do.

And I only have to handle one piddly little retirement account. Well that and a safe, but I'm not going to talk about that.

[pbrower2a]

(05-26-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote: What you expect doesn't really matter. What does, is that you expect a population of fallible people to produce competent and ethical people to rule us.  This is a logical fallacy which is demonstrated by the fact Nixon who contemplated using the IRS for political purposes and later actually did and got away with it.  Then there is the Bush and Clinton crime families just in case you needed a few more examples.  Then there is Congressman X and his book.

This is the reality that neither you or Eric the Obtuse can accept.

That's why we have laws, police, prosecutors, judges, tax collectors, prisons, and at the extreme hangmen.

The Seven Deadly Sins hubristic pride, greed, lust, malicious envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth, remain degrading and destructive at the least; to those I would add cowardice and self-delusion.

Government of the People, by the People, and for the People (I love James Earl Jones' reading of those words in the Gettysburg Address) is far preferable to government of, by, and for the rich and powerful who often act collectively without conscience. A few people identifiable by class, religion, ethnicity, or occupation are likely to look out for themselves alone. Multitudes of voters can vote their consciences.

[Galen]

(05-26-2016, 02:22 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:37 PM)Galen Wrote: It is unlikely that you even understand it.

It is so easy to understand that I could not fail to understand it.

Your actions suggest otherwise.  You seem to think giving flawed self-serving people more power and money is a good idea.

(05-26-2016, 02:22 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: No-one has written a more cogent refutation of laissez faire online than I have.
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Only an idiot or Eric the Obtuse, but I repeat myself, would confuse the modern US enconomy as laissez faire.  I have read your writing and you are seriously confused if you think Reaganomics was supported by the Austrian Economists.  Then again your writing is always confused since you have only sporadic contact with reality.

[Galen]

(05-26-2016, 02:29 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 11:51 PM)Galen Wrote: If I am going to do something it seems best to do it well which is why I have books on many subjects.  The fact that Mises an Rothbard help me as other economists don't then it becomes clear that they know rather more about economics than the current crop of PhDs running the Fed.  Interesting, but sadly not surprising, that you would miss that point.

Careful, your envy is showing.

One thing I don't understand is why you consult economists from a century ago to make investment decisions today.

For the same reason I use the physics of 150 years ago in my day job.  It allows me to solve the problems in my day job for which my employer pays me rather well.  Truth does not have an expiration date.