RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/28/2013 6:10:56 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Only if the money supply increases. If there is a set number of dollars in the economy for one person to get more another person must have less.

False. It's not a zero sum game. Your statement assumes no dollars are ever spent. In order for you to be correct monetary velocity would have to be zero. The way I get wealthier than you is by having more dollars pass through my hands than yours.

Which means that less dollars pass through some one else's hands. That's just one of the myriad problems of a static money supply.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/28/2013 6:24:34 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Only if the money supply increases. If there is a set number of dollars in the economy for one person to get more another person must have less.

False. It's not a zero sum game. Your statement assumes no dollars are ever spent. In order for you to be correct monetary velocity would have to be zero. The way I get wealthier than you is by having more dollars pass through my hands than yours.

Which means that less dollars pass through some one else's hands. That's just one of the myriad problems of a static money supply.

Hold on now! By what mechanism does less pass through someone else's hands? Surely not work, competitiveness, and smarts! And a static money supply? Again, you portend zero velocity. It's hardly static. Again, it's not a zero sum game.

(But I do see the crack of equality peeking its pretty little head in. It's just not fair that anyone do better than someone else.)

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/28/2013 6:32:11 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Only if the money supply increases. If there is a set number of dollars in the economy for one person to get more another person must have less.

False. It's not a zero sum game. Your statement assumes no dollars are ever spent. In order for you to be correct monetary velocity would have to be zero. The way I get wealthier than you is by having more dollars pass through my hands than yours.

Which means that less dollars pass through some one else's hands. That's just one of the myriad problems of a static money supply.

Hold on now! By what mechanism does less pass through someone else's hands? Surely not work, competitiveness, and smarts! And a static money supply? Again, you portend zero velocity. It's hardly static. Again, it's not a zero sum game.

(But I do see the crack of equality peeking its pretty little head in. It's just not fair that anyone do better than someone else.)

Consider this carefully. If the number of dollars is unchanging and more dollars are being accumulated by you, we are talking about increasing wealth so those dollars do not pass through your hands but stay with you, there are two options one is everyone else's wealth remains unchanged because velocity has increased to match your retained wealth, obviously absurd, or your retained wealth reduces the wealth of the rest of the population.

It's not equality it is that it simply won't work.

Or another thought experiment, there is an economy with 10 people and exactly $100. Each person supplies a good the others must have and each makes enough to afford the others products. As long as each transaction is instantaneous that all works out fine but what happens if there is any delay between purchase and payment? For instance if each person pays by check?

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/28/2013 7:39:46 PM

jola37

Posts: 433
Joined: 7/8/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I would be interested to hear where you got the claims about London from. The fact is, the arms industry makes vast profits and arms production has always been a reasonable investment, but this only hold true if you are on the winning side.

Hi, if you see my other link in the forum, 'Frankie Boyle', there is the reference to the book it is quoted from.

The arms industry often sell to both sides. A quick easy example is Iraq, we were fighting against equipment we sold to them.

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/28/2013 7:47:59 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

I think you are all nibbling at the edges. Inflation is the rise in the cost of doing business. I call it therefore...the protection of my return on capital. There really isn't I think...a better way to put it.

There arises a very big problem though when you then look at the reasons in any increase in the cost of doing business. For commodities, the speculator determines the price It is he we allow to buy and sell those commodities without actually taking delivery...only on paper but yet still sets the market price. It is this fact that causes all of the hedging against the speculator to further protect my return on capital.

Deflation is the fear of bankers and investors as they are paying for the capital they use and at lower prices...could produce losses. The consumer however loves deflation.

At no time in the history of the US or the fed has there been an increase in the supply of capital via printing up new currency and adding it to the economy somehow. Here's an economic exam question. How would the fed having ordered the treas. to print up new money complete with new serial nos., go out and add that currency to the economy ?

Give it to their member banks for their bad debt ? The fed is doing that now and using existing cash and [it] is not even doing that. It is simply taking the bad debt of the books of these banks that is worth only the paper it is written on and ths allowing the bank to free up reserves...which is cash already there and in circulation.

Uniquely and because it has never been necessary...the US is among the strong nations (strong labor force) that has not and does not actually add currency into circulation.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/29/2013 5:06:31 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jola37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I would be interested to hear where you got the claims about London from. The fact is, the arms industry makes vast profits and arms production has always been a reasonable investment, but this only hold true if you are on the winning side.

Hi, if you see my other link in the forum, 'Frankie Boyle', there is the reference to the book it is quoted from.

The arms industry often sell to both sides. A quick easy example is Iraq, we were fighting against equipment we sold to them.

Boyle By name boil by nature.

(in reply to jola37)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/29/2013 5:30:24 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jola37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I would be interested to hear where you got the claims about London from. The fact is, the arms industry makes vast profits and arms production has always been a reasonable investment, but this only hold true if you are on the winning side.

Hi, if you see my other link in the forum, 'Frankie Boyle', there is the reference to the book it is quoted from.

The arms industry often sell to both sides. A quick easy example is Iraq, we were fighting against equipment we sold to them.

No, we weren't. The only weapons we sold Iraq were helicopters during the Iraq-Iran war. Those were either lost in the first US invasion or out of service 20 years later. Most of the Iraqi military arms were ex Soviet with some bought from China and France during the Iraq-Iran war.

(in reply to jola37)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/29/2013 5:33:06 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Consider this carefully. If the number of dollars is unchanging and more dollars are being accumulated by you, we are talking about increasing wealth so those dollars do not pass through your hands but stay with you, there are two options one is everyone else's wealth remains unchanged because velocity has increased to match your retained wealth, obviously absurd, or your retained wealth reduces the wealth of the rest of the population.

It's not equality it is that it simply won't work.

Or another thought experiment, there is an economy with 10 people and exactly $100. Each person supplies a good the others must have and each makes enough to afford the others products. As long as each transaction is instantaneous that all works out fine but what happens if there is any delay between purchase and payment? For instance if each person pays by check?

Bolded - ONLY if wealth is expressed in dollars held. Is that what wealth is? Just money? You ask me to consider it carefully. Please do the same.

Only if you are correct could the following be possibly true.

your retained wealth reduces the wealth of the rest of the population.

Again, there is that zero sum game. That would only be the case if everyone kept the money they got hold of under the mattress and never spent one dime. No economy is a zero sum game. I know of no economic theory, be it Keynesian, Monetarist, or Austrian that posits such.

For instance, and at a base level, a farmer produces all the wheat. If he holds all the wheat and never i.e. spends one dime, is he wealthy? In terms of wheat held, yes. But an economy is more than just wheat, isn't it? So, is he wealthy? No. Only if he puts the wheat to work within the economy can his wealth be realized. If he sits on it, he's as poor as the next man.

Your example works too, provided that payment shall be received. It's no different than a business using receivables as collateral on another deal. But your example goes beyond what we are trying to pin down.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? - 9/29/2013 7:25:45 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Bolded - ONLY if wealth is expressed in dollars held. Is that what wealth is? Just money? You ask me to consider it carefully. Please do the same.

Only if you are correct could the following be possibly true.

your retained wealth reduces the wealth of the rest of the population.

Again, there is that zero sum game. That would only be the case if everyone kept the money they got hold of under the mattress and never spent one dime. No economy is a zero sum game. I know of no economic theory, be it Keynesian, Monetarist, or Austrian that posits such.

You're misunderstanding. The money spent certainly recirculates but I specifically said retained wealth which is dollars he holds on to.

Also in an economy with no inflation holding more non cash assets also directly reduces the assets held by others because the amount of assets has to be static or price changes will occur.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 49