quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
Of course it's possible. Maybe it's not probable under the current monetary system and power structure. But that's not what I've been talking about here. I'm talking about a new monetary system and a new power structure.

Imagine a situation where overall goods and services have contracted due to newer technology replacing older/obsolete technology, regardless of whether the population has expanded slightly or stabilized. Think travel/transport here, a new technology rendering automobile, railroad, and air travel, and all their related industries obsolete.

Or imagine a situation where the population has contracted slightly or stabilized, in the midst of a rash of new technologies in the area of entertainment and communication that most of the population "simply has to have." Think 3D/hologram television, computers and communications.

This is 3 times you've been wrong on this thread alone, Ken. Well, actually 4, since my comments were neither convoluted nor impossible.

What is it about the status quo that compels you to be such a rabid defender of, to the degree of making such blunders?

Hypothetical situations that aren't possible do not change the facts. precisely matching the size of the economy to the monetary supply is impossible. The simple concept of the pay raise destroys your idea. Small cost increases occur throughout the economy effectively continously. Those things add up to a moderate inflationary pressure. Its a sign of a healthy thriving economy.

A truly zero inflation economy is stagnant. Nobodies innovating and getting wealthy because that would increase demand, and therefore  prices, for more expensive/desirable products and services. No competition is occuring, which causes prices to go down. Sounds like a collapsing demand economy to me.

So as I've now said three times, every thing besides a single date in your initial post was wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

JohnSteed, the problem with your plan is that it makes too much sense!
People in Washington try to tell us that you can't "oversimplify" things, that, "it's more *complicated* than that" etc, etc.
The people who are making our laws are the Lobbyists and their clients, not "The People" anymore! And they get those things passed for *their own benefit*!
Look at "NAFTA", the American People never wanted "NAFTA" or any of those other "free-trade" deals, Big Business wanted them!
Thy figured they could save money by cutting labor costs.
Well, that's comming full circle to bite them in the ass now, with people in this country making less and less money now they'll be buying less and less of the goods and services that those big cos. want to sell them. What they've done effectively is to cannibalise their own market.
And it affects society as a whole too. Fifteen dollars an hour is today "subsistance level wages."
People who make $15 an hour don't buy new cars, new houses, new furniture etc. They also can't afford to pay lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants and other professionals.
The taxes of  the 50 million without health insurance in this country are going to build hospitals and provide healthcare to people in foreign countries through all those "foreign aid" programs that big business makes so much money from!
Gee, does THAT make any sense to anyone?
But, you can't "oversimplify" things,...right?
We have a seperation of church and state in this country, we need to have a seperation of big business and state as well!
In Washington in recent years (Bush, Clinton) they do what's good for big corporations not what's good for the country!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

JohnSteed, the problem with your plan is that it makes too much sense!
People in Washington try to tell us that you can't "oversimplify" things, that, "it's more *complicated* than that" etc, etc.
The people who are making our laws are the Lobbyists and their clients, not "The People" anymore! And they get those things passed for *their own benefit*!
Look at "NAFTA", the American People never wanted "NAFTA" or any of those other "free-trade" deals, Big Business wanted them!
Thy figured they could save money by cutting labor costs.
Well, that's comming full circle to bite them in the ass now, with people in this country making less and less money now they'll be buying less and less of the goods and services that those big cos. want to sell them. What they've done effectively is to cannibalise their own market.
And it affects society as a whole too. Fifteen dollars an hour is today "subsistance level wages."
People who make $15 an hour don't buy new cars, new houses, new furniture etc. They also can't afford to pay lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants and other professionals.
The taxes of  the 50 million without health insurance in this country are going to build hospitals and provide healthcare to people in foreign countries through all those "foreign aid" programs that big business makes so much money from!
Gee, does THAT make any sense to anyone?
But, you can't "oversimplify" things,...right?
We have a seperation of church and state in this country, we need to have a seperation of big business and state as well!
In Washington in recent years (Bush, Clinton) they do what's good for big corporations not what's good for the country!

I have to agree with Popeye on this one.
Sorry, I just never have been thrilled about Big Business or like we said in the 70's.....the man!
The man is not and has never been the friend to the little people.
I also agree, I don't remember anyone asking Joe Public how he felt about Nafta, Shafta, or up the Assta.

Hey Joe Blow, how do you feel about "The Man" closing down as many companies and plants as possible, and going to 3rd world countries where he can get slave labor/and or pay people $3 a day to do your old job? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Things that are among our realities today, were bizarre fantasies 150-200 years ago. My examples are not impossible. They are just impossible to you.

My examples are based upon possibilities under an alternative monetary and power structure. The status-quo is such a God to you that you're seemingly stuck in current time, and can't comprehend beyond it.

This doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it very unlikely that you and I will agree on much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EandD

What about an IRS "overhaul"? Imagine a tax plan that eliminates ALL FEDERAL TAXES. No more FDIC, social security, nor medicare taxes taken out of your check, and those programs will remain funded, taxes only eliminated. On top of that, no more death tax, capital gains tax, corporate income tax, unemployment tax, etc. This reduces the cost of goods by roughly 22% AND gives you a larger take home pay AND turns April 15 into another lovely spring day. Now for the bad news. Replace all of these taxes with an INCLUSIVE 23% sales tax on goods and services, chargable only once.  Cost of goods effectively remain the same, and more take home pay. HMMMMMMMMMM. It's called HR25 and is the most sponsored bill in the HoR of the US Congress. Or, the Fair Tax.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

To put the US (or any country) back on the gold standard, gold would have to rise to $11,000 an ounce....or....the dollar's value would have to fall by 90%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnSteed


2) Charge any and all Companies that have operations over seas TRIPLE or even Quadruple their current taxation rate. on those jobs they have over seas. Which will force companies to shut all overseas operations and bring jobs back to America where they belong. Think of it MILLIONS of Jobs coming home to American workers in less than one year. If the government wants to spend money they can use it to retrain workers for those jobs which will put us on a sound an long term footing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
Since the Fed got involved in the creation and issuance of our currency the dollar has lost 95% of its value. I'll let hotter heads than mine debate the reasons and importance of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Things that are among our realities today, were bizarre fantasies 150-200 years ago. My examples are not impossible. They are just impossible to you.

My examples are based upon possibilities under an alternative monetary and power structure. The status-quo is such a God to you that you're seemingly stuck in current time, and can't comprehend beyond it.

This doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it very unlikely that you and I will agree on much.

You greatly and completely misunderstand me.

I despise the present system. However I have actually studied the matter in depth and know easy pablum like "do away with inflation" is impossible.

Fundamentally large conglomerates with fingers in lots of different things are bad for us. They concentrate wealth and power in way sthat are damaging to society as a whole. However anti trust laws being used to break those corporations up ha shad decidely mixed results. Finding a way to keep industries vital with new competitors emerging and discouraging large conglomerates from dominating the market is a place where a few real good ideas could really change the world.

Another area where some sort of change is needed is the global labor marketplace. The developed world wants the third world to develop, it will give us new markets to sell our stuff in, but we also need to maintain our standard of living so ending/discouraging the outsourcing of jobs is something we have to do. So find a workable solution that builds a midle class in Bangladesh while not destroying the one in the USA.

But please if monetary policy is your thing study the subject enough to understand why low level inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. One thing to study if the area actually does interest you is how to handle a country, like China, that pegs its currency to an artifically value in another currency. This is the source of much of our trade problem with china and solving it would go a long way to freing our economy from the chinese stranglehold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
There are plenty economists and others who believe that a zero rate of inflation is desirable. Furthermore, their assumptions are based upon the current monetary and power structure. At this point in time, one can only imagine what the benefits of zero inflation might be under a monetary system that serves the people instead of enslaves them though debt.   


http://www.somc.rochester.edu/Dec05/Hoskins.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/gavin/Gavin_Stockman_FRBC_Com_1988.pdf

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar98/w6200.html

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr1997/winter/hell97_1.htm

http://www.economywatch.com/inflation/zero.html


I’m well aware that anyone can post just as many articles that favor moderate inflation over zero inflation. The point is, just because you say something is right or wrong, doesn’t make it so.