Firstly, what IS money Joe? Secondly, does the 'fee paid' have a price? You say interest is the 'fee paid'... yes Joe - and the amount of the fee would be the price. Thirdly, is there something you disagree with in the following description? A bank has little money, thus, the price of money goes up (supply is low): The bank offers a higher rate of interest to attract savings. A bank has lots of money, thus, the price of money goes down (supply is high): The bank offers a lower rate of interest. Do you believe in Capitalism as the bases of our economic system? And, do you think the free-market is the best means of meeting supply and demand?
In an anarchic society there'd be no illegal immigration and humans would be free to move about the earth with their sex-bots as the Mother Goddess intended....
I think the main factor was / is (cheap) oil - fuels, plastics and so on, monetary policies mainly fuck things up than the other way around IMO
It's not just roads, you are buying a social safety net, defense, the court system, clean water, relatively clean air, regulations of all sorts including worker safety and product safety, all kinds of services you could not accomplish yourself.
That is an excuse frequently proffered by folks on the “conservative” end of the political spectrum. But it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. How would fuels, plastics, etc. explain the economic stability we see in the post-Keynesian world? Cheap is certainly not a word I would use to describe oil prices. Stability is not a word I would use to describe oil production and distribution. Oil is why we have been involved in two gulf wars in the last 2 decades. It is the reason we have spent so much money guarding world waterways including the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. It is the reason we may eventually go to war with Iran. Are you familiar with the Arab oil embargos of 1967 and 1973? Apparently you don't remember standing in line for gasoline and gasoline rationing or you were not yet born. Oil prices have been far from cheap. There is an entire organization (OPEC) whose mission is to keep oil prices as high as possible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And then you still have to explain the pre-oil period in economic history, per my previous chart posting. Periods of frequent and extreme depressions and inflation predate the commercial use of oil. Also notice the period of The Great Depression, 1929 - 1933, oil prices were very low. The pre-modern Fed economic instability demonstrated in the previous chart existed right up to the modern Fed and implementation of Keynesian economic policies. And that economic instability existed in a period of falling oil prices. So the bottom line here is the data is inconsistent with your belief. You believe monetary policies “mainly fuck things up”. Well where is your evidence to support that belief?
Umph, hold your horses, there was a reason why I highlighted words "much more prosperous" and not words "more stable" when quoting your post, I bet you know what that reason is... Also there is a reason why I wrote (cheap) oil instead of cheap oil... Exactly, oil has become irreplaceable in current economic model, so surely it has played bigger part in making the world "much more prosperous" than policies that control the flow of the very things what are used to buy oil and can be printed on to paper. You can take out money out of equation and markets would solve out new money real quick, but you cant take oil out of the economy. So this prove that monetary policies played bigger part on creating much more stable and prosperous world rather than use of oil ? Or what ? Errr, for what and why I have to explain ? That because there has been depressions and inflation before use of oil it could not be so that the use of oil have played bigger part than monetary policies on creating much more prosperous world ? I think I stick to my guns still... Evidence ? How about common sense ? History is full of fiat money experiments, look it up. You bring me case where monetary policies have bring prosperity and I will show you two cases where the opposite happens. I would take relative cheap energy over counting tricks everyday.
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed the data also showed greater prosperity. So you are saying higher oil prices make a more prosperous economy? Well that too is not supported by the previously provided data. In fact there is no correlation between economic prosperity and oil prices in the US economy. Oil is an important commodity, but so is corn, wheat, metals, and other food stuffs and metals. Without metals, you cannot make the engines that burn oil or make the factories that turn oil into other products. Again, you have offered no proof that there is any relationship between the price of oil and the longer more sustained periods of economic prosperity we see in the post Keynesian world. You can’t take food out of the economy either. Here is the deal; the conclusion is supported by the data. And the data is just not consistent with your notions. You can start my making sense. I would no more expect you to change your ideology than I would expect a religious fanatic to change their ideology, because their beliefs like yours are not based on reason or empiricism. I have a degree in this subject matter. I suggest you do a little "looking up" instead of recommending it to others. I already have and you have not. You are being evasive and relying on some magical thinking in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. How about some common sense and how about some empirical evidence that supports your ideology? I have provided you with ample proofs. Your insistence on ignoring them in preference to some vague unsupported notions will not make them go away. Your notions about oil just are not consistent with the data or history. You cannot even explain a common sense way that supports your notions. Monetary policy and Keynesian polices work and that data supports it. And this is why they work. This is the common sense. Various things can cause recessions and depressions as well as periods of inflation. When depressions occur, it results in a lack in demand for goods and services. The Keynesian solution is that government should step and restore confidence in the market place by investing in infrastructure, replacing the missing demand. When the economy recovers, government should step in and recover the money it invested in the economic downturn thus mitigating any inflation resulting from an expansionary monetary policy during the economic slowdown and preparing itself for the next recession or depression. Now you cannot make a specific common sense justification of your notions about oil. Your notions go like this, oil is important to the economy. Therefore it is why things are good. That logic ignores the fact that there are a lot of things important in the economy. It also doesn’t explain what happens in depressions and periods of inflation and how that commodity mitigates inflation and depression as you claimed. You cannot even explain your accusations (e.g. “counting tricks). But like I said, I would no more expect a religious fanatic to be rational about his/her positions as I would people of your particular religious/political ideology.
Errr, but it is the issue under debate here, where the excess prosperity came from? Couple of charts dont cut it. First of all, there is lots of all kind of charts, like this one inflation adjusted oil price chart Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Everything is relative, and I would argue that oil was/is the cheapest form of energy around in recent history, the volatility of the price is something that roots from politics, like monetary policies and suchs... So are you saying that if we would have excess corn, wheat, metals and suchs, we would have the same kind of booming 20th century, or why you are comparing those with oil ? Like demonstraded, trying to fix oil prices to with some other indicators to prove X is pretty futile try. Its the high amounts of it used that is more important when deciding its role. You gotta admit, its pretty ironic, after all that preaching to call me a religious fanatic. Well, since you accused me so, please, do tell, what are my fanatic beliefs ?
Err...you are not making any sense. That is the issue. The orginal issue here was post-Keynsian economic stability and the virtual elimination of periods of extreme inflation and depression. And you threw in the prosperity issue, as if it were a separate issue. Ok, aside from the fact that your chart doesn't support your notions or add to your argument. You still have not explained how oil prices have promoted prosperity or how they have reduced the frequent periods of depression and inflation that we see in the pre-Keynesian era. In fact, oil prices were low during the Great Depression. Cheap oil didn't prevent The Great Depression. I again challenge you to explain your position. How has oil been responsible for the post-Keynsian economic stability and prosperity? Get your head out, I asked you how oil was different from any other commodity. Why is oil so special in your view? There are many important commodities. The existence of important commodities does not explain the observed changes in the business cycle seen in the post-Keynesian world, nor does it explain them. That is a bunch of incoherent nonsense. How does "oil" prevent depressions as you have claimed? Why is oil a better monetary policy or economic policy than that exercised by the Fed or Keynesian policy? Oil isn't even money. No it's not ironic at all. I have offered empiracism and real data and some common sense. You cannot explain your notions, you cannot even answer the questions that have been repeatedly put to you. Instead you rely on some magical undefined properties you attribute to oil.
I think you may want to take a look again at social republics, the like The People's Republic of China or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Islamic Republic of Iran. Not to mention WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War I and II and ect.... The so-called 'Dark' Ages are actually looking comparably better.
You can still buy all those things. You can buy private social security insurance (unemployment insurance is common in Japan - and cheap), lots of private companies agree to private arbitration prior to entering into contracts (this is very common for international companies), clean water and air is an issue of property rights (it should be notes the largest polluter in the world in the US government), as a laborer you have a right NOT to work where it's unsafe and if you're lied to you have the right to sue. Medicine was dirt cheap before the government monopolized who could practice and who could not - thanks to the payoffs from the AMA. All of these services are, at present, offered privately to some segments of society. You ARE paying for these one way or another. It's just that when the government does things there's little to no price mechanism to alert this big bloated bureaucratic it's doing something uneconomical. Take FEMA and the price of gasoline along the coast. Gas Stations were told not to 'price gouge' and a law was quickly enacted to stop them from raising their prices. How f*cking moronic was that? So, what happened? Well, people didn't economize gasoline and so many stations ran out leaving people with no fuel. Not to mention there was no incentive to prioritize restocking - I mean, why bother if you're losing money doing so? Gas was then re-sold on the black market (by those that got in first) at upwards of $20 a gallon. This is a classic example of the government interfering in the market and making thing much much worse, all while pandering to the public about the 'greedy gas station owners who were 'price gouging'. Which, the idiotic public STILL THINKS WAS TRUE! If the price had been allowed to go up, then people would have economized, only those that really needed a gallon would have bought it and used it economically and there'd of been little incentive to resell on the black market. The gas stations looked like they were from the old USSR - bare as bones and no gas. Next is the way insurance is paid for by ALL OF US so that the wealthy can live on the coast. The argument goes, if it weren't, then the insurance would be so high no one would live there. Well, so what? Why should WE... the people NOT living on the coast by paying to lower THEIR insurance? That's moronic! Oh, what's that argument again? YOU USE THE ROADS! Or, YOU'RE AMERICAN!! What's the result? The poor and lower middle class are paying for wealthy elites to get State discounted insurance on their coast side third homes.
eyeswideshut, To Joe the Global Financial Crises never happened and even if it did - it was all the fault of Republicans and Captain Obama saved the say, if the GFC had happened, then it's long been over with and we've been on the mend for years now, but it didn't happen. That's just a conspiracy theory. But if it did, the Banks had nothing to do with nothing - especially the Federal Reserve. They only do good and only have our best interests at heart - thus they can only do good. Because, you know, what you want to do is good enough. But the GFC really never happened. That's just one big CT promulgated by the GOP. But if it did, that's the fault of the GOP for not working with Obama - even though the DEM had control over both the House and Senate for two years. But, it's all the GOPs fault. Blue Red, Red Blue. Down Up, Up Down. Left Right, Right Left. Oh, and interest isn't the price of money, it's the fee paid for money. You know, like Obama, or Amabo. Same, Different. It's all good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OMG you are so clueless, to take the last first, there is no where in America safe from natural disasters. Should we stop living on the West Coast? How about the East? What about tornadoes? That about covers all of it. About gas shortages, why are you talking about economizing? These people had no power! This is an emergency situation. It's not like they were using it frivolously. Then on the one hand you talk about suing someone for contract violations. That takes a COURT SYSTEM! On property rights and pollution, pollution doesn't respect your property borders. Arbitration is fine, but not always successful, and not always desirable or fair. Should everyone sign away their rights just so you don't have to have a court system, which has been in use for hundreds of years? I wager that if you had a society that lived up to your anti-government dreams, it would eventually be necessary to develop institutions exactly like those you rejected.
First of all, negative inflation ~ deflation is not same as depression. There were 3 depressions before FED and 2 after. Using the same source we can find list of depressions; So, using charts can be tricky, here is one from the same source; This is your stance, it is what you preach to be the only truth and fact, thats dogmatic, and then you call me religious fanatic ...of what ? That you have not clarified. Like I said, couple of charts dont cut it, and the thing is that I dont have any particular ideology in economics, I listen all but follow nobody. Am I wrong to say that your ideology is Keynesian Economics ? And nothing else cuts it for you ? And what can be concluded after all that preaching, that the business cycles are now longer... wow. Prosperity came from use of oil, not from the price, eh. Stability, well, we dont have deflations any more, is that good is another thing, looking the mounting debt and accelerating inflation, it might be a good thing the economy to finds its balance swinging in somewhere between rather than pushing it in too far. So what stability, there has been recessions and crashes all along. If I really have to explain to you how important oil was/is to the economy oh my...I dont know what to say Sorry but I find it highly ironic, find out what preaching is in terms of internet forum conduct. You offered charts with explanations painted with large brush, and your questions are illogical, and there was couple of questions for you too... Magical attributes of oil: Surely oil has played bigger part in generating prosperity than monetary policies.
First of all, negative inflation ~ deflation is not same as depression. There were 3 depressions before FED and 2 after. Using the same source we can find list of depressions; So, using charts can be tricky, here is one from the same source; This is your stance, it is what you preach to be the only truth and fact, thats dogmatic, and then you call me religious fanatic ...of what ? That you have not clarified. Like I said, couple of charts dont cut it, and the thing is that I dont have any particular ideology in economics, I listen all but follow nobody. Am I wrong to say that your ideology is Keynesian Economics ? And nothing else cuts it for you ? And what can be concluded after all that preaching, that the business cycles are now longer... wow. Prosperity came from use of oil, not from the price, eh. Stability, well, we dont have deflations any more, is that good is another thing, looking the mounting debt and accelerating inflation, it might be a good thing the economy to finds its balance swinging in somewhere between rather than pushing it in too far. So what stability, there has been recessions and crashes all along. If I really have to explain to you how important oil was/is to the economy oh my...I dont know what to say Sorry but I find it highly ironic, find out what preaching is in terms of internet forum conduct. You offered charts with explanations painted with large brush, and your questions are illogical, and there was couple of questions for you too... Magical attributes of oil: Surely oil has played bigger part in generating prosperity than monetary policies.
First of all, negative inflation ~ deflation is not same as depression. There were 3 depressions before FED and 2 after. Using the same source we can find list of depressions; So, using charts can be tricky, here is one from the same source; This is your stance, it is what you preach to be the only truth and fact, thats dogmatic, and then you call me religious fanatic ...of what ? That you have not clarified. Like I said, couple of charts dont cut it, and the thing is that I dont have any particular ideology in economics, I listen all but follow nobody. Am I wrong to say that your ideology is Keynesian Economics ? And nothing else cuts it for you ? And what can be concluded after all that preaching, that the business cycles are now longer... wow. Prosperity came from use of oil, not from the price, eh. Stability, well, we dont have deflations any more, is that good is another thing, looking the mounting debt and accelerating inflation, it might be a good thing the economy to finds its balance swinging in somewhere between rather than pushing it in too far. So what stability, there has been recessions and crashes all along. If I really have to explain to you how important oil was/is to the economy oh my...I dont know what to say Sorry but I find it highly ironic, find out what preaching is in terms of internet forum conduct. You offered charts with explanations painted with large brush, and your questions are illogical, and there was couple of questions for you too... Magical attributes of oil: Surely oil has played bigger part in generating prosperity than monetary policies.
First of all, negative inflation ~ deflation is not same as depression. There were 3 depressions before FED and 2 after. Using the same source we can find list of depressions; So, using charts can be tricky, here is one from the same source; This is your stance, it is what you preach to be the only truth and fact, thats dogmatic, and then you call me religious fanatic ...of what ? That you have not clarified. Like I said, couple of charts dont cut it, and the thing is that I dont have any particular ideology in economics, I listen all but follow nobody. Am I wrong to say that your ideology is Keynesian Economics ? And nothing else cuts it for you ? And what can be concluded after all that preaching, that the business cycles are now longer... wow. Prosperity came from use of oil, not from the price, eh. Stability, well, we dont have deflations any more, is that good is another thing, looking the mounting debt and accelerating inflation, it might be a good thing the economy to finds its balance swinging in somewhere between rather than pushing it in too far. So what stability, there has been recessions and crashes all along. If I really have to explain to you how important oil was/is to the economy oh my...I dont know what to say Sorry but I find it highly ironic, find out what preaching is in terms of internet forum conduct. You offered charts with explanations painted with large brush, and your questions are illogical, and there was couple of questions for you too... Magical attributes of oil: Surely oil has played bigger part in generating prosperity than monetary policies.
After all your tirades about money and you don’t know what money is? LOL. No Michael, interest is a fee for the use of money. It is not the price of money. It’s like renting a car. If I rent a car, I have to return the car and pay a fee for using the car. When one borrows money at a bank, one must return the borrowed money and the fee for using the money (i.e. interest). Interest is not the price of money. Interest is the price to borrow/rent money. The price of a car is is the price at which a buyer and seller are willing to exchange ownership. If I purchase a car, I will pay x number of dollars for it and after the exchange I would then be the owner of the car. I would not have to return the car. As per my previous currency example, if I want to buy a currency, in particular a Euro it will cost me $1.27 per Euro, and I don't have to return the Euro to it's previous owner. Because after the exchange I would be the owner of the Euro. You don’t seem able to discern the difference between a rental and a sale. You don't like this realtiy because it blows a big hole in your anti-fed political ideology. No, the interest rate goes up or down based on all the components of interest previously stated. And again you are confusing sales with rents. We call bank depositors, depositors, not sellers for a reason. When folks deposit money in banks, they are not giving up ownership of those deposits. When a car dealer sells a car, he releases ownership of the car. Absolutely, I am a capitalist. I have worked in private enterprise all my life (less my military service). I have started and sold a number of businesses. I have dealt with idiot regulators and equally idiotic public officials and some private enterprise idiots and scumbags as well. I also know that capitalism is not the nirvana that you seem to think it is. Capitalism is not without problems. It is not error proof. It is not without inefficiency. It can be just as inept and bureaucratic as government can be and it can be inept and bureaucratic for a very long time. And not all government is bad and/or inefficient and ineffective. Human organizations of any stripe are all tainted by all frailties of humanity. Because they have been created by humans and are managed by humans. The unrestricted capitalism you advocate, has never worked. It didn’t work as recently as a few years ago with the Banking Crisis of 2007 -2009. It didn’t work back in the era of industrial robber barons, the era of monopolists. Monopolists almost succeeded in preventing Henry Ford from revolutionizing the auto industry. And monopolization is the ultimate endpoint of unrestricted capitalism. That is what history has taught us. What has worked best is a blended economy. The blended economy has worked so well, that it has become the most prevalent economy in the world. Opportunity breeds competition and competition breeds excellence. Monopolization suffocates competition and breeds incompetence and inefficiency, be that in government or private enterprise. Humans are human and it matters little wither we call an organization a government or a private enterprise, the results are the same. People like you seem to think there is something magical about private enterprise, and the truth be told, that simply is not the case.
Interest is a fee that you have to pay me, in order to convince me to let you use my money instead of using it myself. Suppose I have $60,000 and I'm on my way to buy a new machine tool for my metal fabrication business. Michael stops me and says, "Hey, I'm broke. I wasn't able to get a good job because I flunked Econ 101A. Let me use $20,000 of your money so I can buy a Hyundai. That will leave you $40,000, so you can still buy a smaller machine tool that will work pretty well. I'll give back your money in three years, because once I have a car I can drive further and get a better job, which will allow me to save money instead of spending it all on food and rent." I say, "Screw you. Why should I support you with my hard-earned money? You might not get that job; you might go back to that bar I saw you in last night and spend all my money on booze instead of a car; you might die and I'll be stuck with nothing but a used Hyundai that I can't sell for $20K. There are lots of ways I might not get my $20K back. Loaning money to you involves risk. If you want me to take a risk there will have to be a reward to compensate for it. "I'll make a deal. Pay me $150 a month for the service of being able to use my money. That's 9% annual interest, which is quite generous for such a high-risk loan as the one you're proposing. This way if you skip town I've at least gotten a little of my money back. This reduces the risk to me and also gives me a little profit, which is a good reason to consider giving you the loan. "Otherwise I'm just going to buy the tool I wanted in the first place, which will make my business more prosperous so I can pay my employees more."
