Tapering - "Canary in the Mine?"
- Thread starter kmiklas
- Start date
There are theories of money and then there is monetary theory & policy. Theories of money are ideas about the medium exchange people use. Monetary theory & policy is how central banks and treasury departments function.
The inaccuracies and complete falsehoods that were published in this thread earlier make a little choice of terminology almost irrelevant
Ha ha ha. Indeed, most people say "Modern Monetary Theory." Warren Mosler is the one generally credited for coining that rather unfortunate phrase. Mosler is a former Wall Street maven, so using -- note I did not write "utilizing"! -- English in its best and most useful form would not have been a part of his job description. Although I could quarrel with Dice's nit picking, I won't. Monetary is the adjective, meaning having to do with money, and Money is usually a noun meaning the thing itself. But Money can be an adjective, as any good dictionary will tell us; yet I can't legitimately quarrel with "Monetary Theory." Its meaning is precisely the same as "Money Theory," which I prefer. I will continue to use this better expression, hoping that others will catch on.@piezoe I generally find your posts interesting, but I gotta go with @DiceAreCast and say it's "monetary" theory.
Another point, just having read your posts, I think you both are speaking truth but from different perspectives. You're taking a more prescriptive approach, while Dice is speaking descriptively.
Let Will Strunk have the last word here. In those long ago days at Cornell, when Strunk passed out his mimeographed rules of plain English to his eager Freshman, one rule would today stand out as particularly germane. To wit: "Never use a ten-cent word, when a nickel word will do."
By the way. I like your posts too. You obviously have some knowledge of economics, and Treasury-Fed operation. Hell, you might even be an economist for all i know. God help you if you are.
Last edited:
How could I not like this. This is the new addition of Wray's seminal 1992 book, "Understanding Modern Money," which is now available used at lower low cost. I can not possibly recommend this book too highly to any one interested in Treasury-Fed operations, the "National Debt", or the Deficit.I've seen both terms used.
Wray was one of Minsky's, and indirectly Abba Lerner's, proteges. He and William Mitchell have been in the forefront of Modern Money Theory, which we are hearing so much about now. Rest assured there are years and years of careful research behind MMT. I personally consider Aba Lerner to be the real father of MMT. Although we have come a long, long way from Aba Lerner's rules of "Functional Finance," which, even though he laid them down in the 1940s, remain relevant today.
Last edited:
And yet you got ruled up by my correction, pretended you did not know the term nitpicking and nitpicked and now use the same term. You are an idiot who contradicts himself within 2 pages of most threads.
And now you write a lengthy post about nitpicking of the term that you claim in the same post you are not nitpicking. Hilarious. You reached 98% of the threshold tolerable before being put on ignore
And now you write a lengthy post about nitpicking of the term that you claim in the same post you are not nitpicking. Hilarious. You reached 98% of the threshold tolerable before being put on ignore
Ha ha ha. Indeed, most people say "Modern Monetary Theory." Warren Mosler is the one generally credited for coining that rather unfortunate phrase. Mosler is a former Wall Street maven, so using -- note I did not write "utilizing"! -- English in its best and most useful form would not have been a part of his job description. Although I could quarrel with Dice's nit picking, I won't. Monetary is the adjective, meaning having to do with money, and Money is usually a noun meaning the thing itself. But Money can be an adjective, as any good dictionary will tell us; yet I can't legitimately quarrel with "Monetary Theory." Its meaning is precisely the same as "Money Theory," which I prefer. I will continue to use this better expression, hoping that others will catch on.
Let Will Strunk have the last word here. In those long ago days at Cornell, when Strunk passed out his mimeographed rules of plain English to his eager Freshman, one rule would today stand out as particularly germane. To wit: "Never use a ten-cent word, when a nickel word will do."
By the way. I like your posts too. You obviously have some knowledge of economics, and Treasury-Fed operation. Hell, you might even be an economist for all i know. God help you if you are.
I just read Ray Dalio's recent book - The Changing World Order. Exhaustively researched by a highly competent. Seemed to have no agenda except telling it like it is.
Upshot: empires rise and fall based on a set of measurable parameters like wealth inequality, debt ratios, political divisivions, etc. One of the key lagging indicators and the core of this post is Reserve Currency. Empires, if they issue a reserve currency, do so later than other rising indicators like productivity, liberty and so forth.
Towards the end of the cycle, liberties are sharply curtailed, political tensions rise and war or revolution (latter can be bloodless) becomes more or less inevitable because the system can no longer be sustained.
In every case (they studied many examples in history) the government tries curtailing QE/printing, then gives in. At the end of the road is Monetary Expansion type 3 (money in the hands of consumers directly). It's a hail mary with virtually no chance of success.
The next, rising empire moves in with allies to bring it down. The reserve currency fails because the authorities do anything to kick the can.
At this point, stage 6 - Civil War becomes fairly likely. According to them, that is happening more or less in real time. It's a toss-up whether it's a peaceful revolution or a bloody one for the US. But the currency will suffer a massive decline as it is repudiated. That's mathematically inevitable.
Upshot: empires rise and fall based on a set of measurable parameters like wealth inequality, debt ratios, political divisivions, etc. One of the key lagging indicators and the core of this post is Reserve Currency. Empires, if they issue a reserve currency, do so later than other rising indicators like productivity, liberty and so forth.
Towards the end of the cycle, liberties are sharply curtailed, political tensions rise and war or revolution (latter can be bloodless) becomes more or less inevitable because the system can no longer be sustained.
In every case (they studied many examples in history) the government tries curtailing QE/printing, then gives in. At the end of the road is Monetary Expansion type 3 (money in the hands of consumers directly). It's a hail mary with virtually no chance of success.
The next, rising empire moves in with allies to bring it down. The reserve currency fails because the authorities do anything to kick the can.
At this point, stage 6 - Civil War becomes fairly likely. According to them, that is happening more or less in real time. It's a toss-up whether it's a peaceful revolution or a bloody one for the US. But the currency will suffer a massive decline as it is repudiated. That's mathematically inevitable.
So, what's your one paragraph summary of the book and how did it personally affect you. Most importantly, how does it apply to today?
I think it is not coming any time soon and if in any way it is, then it’s better to just wait and watch.