Didn't say I knew it any better. But then again, I'm not on here pretending I do.
Sweden's awesome liberal and socialist eutopia coming to an end.
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
Didn't say I knew it any better. But then again, I'm not on here pretending I do.
This is the problem with the writing of most who study economics but do not consider the Austrian school's concepts.
What you wrote is theory. Your theory does not apply to the US system except for when the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt. (which it did for few years after the mortgage crisis.)
When the govt borrows the money the money is not being printed by the Govt. Hence government spending is not increasing the money supply. Hence the Government is not creating the inflation caused by an increase in money supply per MMT theory you cited.
Govt spending (and corresponding borrowing) is not the cause of the vast majority of our systemic inflation.
Systemic inflation in our system is caused by the Federal Reserve creating money for the accounts of its private shareholders.
However your MMT idea that "When too much money is introduced too rapidly into an economy, inflation is the usual result." is almost definitely correct.
The issue is that it is the not the Govt creating the money for the benefit of United State citizens it is the FED creating trillions of dollars for the benefit of its private shareholders. The US citizen pays for that massive private benefit via inflation.
2. I am not sure you need to increase the money supply to prevent a recession in and expanding economy. As the economy expands the demand for money increases. Interest rates would go up naturally. This would causes even more foreign investment to flow in. The economy would get stronger. The dollar would get stronger and we would have to spend less for overseas goods. Potentially creating a virtuous upward spiral. *
*See that is the fun of economic theory you can contradict propaganda by doing solid thought experiments and working your way through the system.
What you wrote is theory. Your theory does not apply to the US system except for when the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt. (which it did for few years after the mortgage crisis.)
When the govt borrows the money the money is not being printed by the Govt. Hence government spending is not increasing the money supply. Hence the Government is not creating the inflation caused by an increase in money supply per MMT theory you cited.
Govt spending (and corresponding borrowing) is not the cause of the vast majority of our systemic inflation.
Systemic inflation in our system is caused by the Federal Reserve creating money for the accounts of its private shareholders.
However your MMT idea that "When too much money is introduced too rapidly into an economy, inflation is the usual result." is almost definitely correct.
The issue is that it is the not the Govt creating the money for the benefit of United State citizens it is the FED creating trillions of dollars for the benefit of its private shareholders. The US citizen pays for that massive private benefit via inflation.
2. I am not sure you need to increase the money supply to prevent a recession in and expanding economy. As the economy expands the demand for money increases. Interest rates would go up naturally. This would causes even more foreign investment to flow in. The economy would get stronger. The dollar would get stronger and we would have to spend less for overseas goods. Potentially creating a virtuous upward spiral. *
*See that is the fun of economic theory you can contradict propaganda by doing solid thought experiments and working your way through the system.
Last edited:
You've helped me realize there's no limit to leftist lunacy and I thank you for that.
I was assuming you could read. Population of Sweden 9.9 million is nearly identical to Chicago and surrounding areas 9.9 million.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sweden-crime-rates-immigration-policies/
Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average.
The Chicago Tribune crime team tracks homicide victims in Chicago and includes all deaths rules a homicide by the medical examiner. This page will be updated weekly. (I think this may be just for Chicago, 2.7 million. If so it understates the homicide rate for chicago and surrounding areas, 9.9 million.)
Homicides, so far this year
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
313 298 353 526 492 374
Sept. 9
That wouldn't include me however. I have studied widely in economics and that includes of course the "Austrian School." I am am admirer of Hayek. I studied both the work he did in England from his earliest guest lectures at the newly created LSE to the work he did there after Lionel Robbins and Beveridge invited him to take a chaired position there.. And of course he was a primary influence on the young socialist Milton Friedman who attended the early Mount Pelerin Society meetings with Hayek. It is fair to say that the profound influence of Hayek on a young Friedman was such that, without exaggeration, Friedman can be said to have been a Hayek protege. Here is an interesting quote from Hayek (I had to search for this, I knew it existed) I want to spring on you because I so strongly disagree with your ideas on economics.
This is what Hayek wrote in his "The Constitution of Liberty" (I personally think it was a rebuke of those Conservatives that read too much into his challenge of communism -- and socialism too -- in "The Road to Serfdom." It seems they mistakenly assumed he was one of them. By declaring himself a liberal, he wanted to make it clear he was not aligning with them ...
"Why I am not a Conservative:
..."One of the fundamental traits of the conservative is fear of change, a timid distrust of the new...while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on preparedness to let change run its course even if we can not predict where it will lead... The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people -- he is not an egalitarian --but he denies that anyone has the authority to decide who these superior people are.
...The conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it not ought to be to restricted by rigid rules...Like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people... It is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government..
..."One of the fundamental traits of the conservative is fear of change, a timid distrust of the new...while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on preparedness to let change run its course even if we can not predict where it will lead... The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people -- he is not an egalitarian --but he denies that anyone has the authority to decide who these superior people are.
...The conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it not ought to be to restricted by rigid rules...Like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people... It is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government..
He thought conservatives were far to given to nationalism which he thought could lead from conservatism to collectivism.
the regarding of national resources as "our" resources "[is] only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. Nationalism of this sort is something very different fro patriotism and... aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. ...It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American or un-German, nor is it mistaken ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.
Hayek was writing this in the shadow of the House un-American Activities Committee! I see these sentiments as quite applicable to what is happening in Western Countries today.
Hayek played an important role in development of 20th Century Economics in the period dominated by commodity based currencies. Though he and Keynes were adversaries* and Keynes is credited with economic's great 20th Century innovation, Macroeconomics, Hayek, nevertheless, deserves credit too, as he furnished one of the critical sounding boards against which Keynes and his students hurled their creativity ... We experienced a Hayekian revival of sorts in the late 20th Century during the Thatcher-Reagan revolution which was heavily influenced Hayek's protege, Friedman. It is also safe to say that Hayek's influence on twentieth Century American and British economics has been almost as extensive as Keynes'. Sad to say that Hayek wasn't around to put his foot down when Jude Wanniski, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Art Laffer dined on chicken salad at Stanford, and started our long dreadful experiment with supply-side economics. It put us in a pickle. And as I write this we are still suffering from yet another round of failed economic policy.
I want to address some of the specific statements in your post, but have no more time. But I will get back to you because this topic keenly interests me. I just have to interject here I came back. I had a moment, then it hit me that you don't understand rudiments. I don't know that we can therefore have a productive discussion. You remind me of Jem. He didn't understand central bank operations either. He though the central bank was owned by private banks just because private banks are required to buy what they call stock. But that stock imparts no ownership rights. the banks get a dividend fixed by law. And the Branch banks get representation but the central bank is a thoroughly, almost, government operation. Prior to the early 1930s there was some truth to what jem maintained but that all changed in the 1930's.
Last edited:
So true.
1. Those shares are 100 percent ownership rights. The government does not own those shares. The Regional Federal reserve banks shares are owned by private banks.
When the FED created trillions of dollars and gave it out as they saw fit. Was it approved by the President, by Congress by the Courts?
Did they even tell anyone at the time? Did they fight disclosure via a law suit brought by bloomberg?
Nothing about the creation of trillions of dollars is controlled by our govt.
When you read the Federal Reserve website you will see their shares are indeed different than typical shares in that they are restricted. Owners don't get to partake in all of the Feds "profits" The FED pays expenses, pays a small dividend to share holders and they forwards the rest of the money to the govt.
However, that is a red herring. When you have the power to create money... "profits from operations" is not really a meaningful indicator. Creating money and having it put in your account is the key indicator of owning the digital printing press.
2. The rest of your post about Hayek was interesting and biased but had nothing to do with the point.
The point being that when the government borrows money it is not creating money.
When the FED created trillions of dollars and gave it out as they saw fit. Was it approved by the President, by Congress by the Courts?
Did they even tell anyone at the time? Did they fight disclosure via a law suit brought by bloomberg?
Nothing about the creation of trillions of dollars is controlled by our govt.
When you read the Federal Reserve website you will see their shares are indeed different than typical shares in that they are restricted. Owners don't get to partake in all of the Feds "profits" The FED pays expenses, pays a small dividend to share holders and they forwards the rest of the money to the govt.
However, that is a red herring. When you have the power to create money... "profits from operations" is not really a meaningful indicator. Creating money and having it put in your account is the key indicator of owning the digital printing press.
2. The rest of your post about Hayek was interesting and biased but had nothing to do with the point.
The point being that when the government borrows money it is not creating money.
Last edited:
h ha ha in the same way that you own a bank you acquire a CD from. All they would have to do is change the name from CD to "stock". Next time you go for a CD ask the banker to cross out "CD" and write in "Stock" that should do it. Then you can have full ownership rights in the Bank. You'll be in the bucks!!! The only thing you'll be missing is your share of the bank's profits, just like the Fed member banks don't get any share of the Branch banks profits, except their statutory dividend. Since these private banks "own the Fed" I think we are cheating them don't you.
Last edited:
I have a great idea, jem. Start a bank and buy into the Fed, then just ask them to create some money and put it in your account. And if if's not enough just ask them to put some more in. What a brilliant guy you are! You'll be rich in no time!
You are so damn smart!Oh, I can read, so you assumed correctly. All I said is that you have no idea what is truly going on in Sweden. All you do is quote stats from your couch. How many Swedes have you spoken to?
Since all you like to do is read, break out a bit from your Propublica paradigm and read some alternative views. This guy is a good start.
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7?lang=en