To navigate economic storms we need better forecasting

[dreamdancer 0]

it's a simple economic question - who does money belong to?

does it belong to the individual for instance - or does it belong to the state?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Keynes understood facets of it but did not understand it. I see you are on the same lines as Keynes because, like Keynes, you seek to equate “money” with “value.” Hence, paying somebody $100 per hour to rake leaves puts an objective figure on it. That’s money. And the reason why you focus so frequently on money and wages. Like it or not, you are greedy and want more money. Just like the government. Just like the Occupiers. Just like the 1%. Just like me.

Your problem is that you confuse “money” with “value.” $100 per hour for raking leaves is not a reflection of the “value” of the service. Thus, in order to get $100 per hour for raking leaves, $100 must be devalued. You have never reflected an understanding of this. Keynesians don’t. NeoKeynesians and post-Keynesians do. It’s one of the reasons for post-Keynesian studies – trying to find ways to reconcile Keynes with reality.

Keynes is more of a Fred Hoyle of the economics world. Fred Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer whose theory of generation of heavy elements in stars were accurate and correct and won him a Nobel Prize. Hoyle was also a zealous advocate of the “steady state” universe who coined “big bang” in the 1950’s as a derisive term. Hoyle lived until 2001, maintaining his disbelief at the idea of an expanding universe with a moment of creation, even with the confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s. And part of it because he just couldn’t see how anyone could be excited over something like that.

Hoyle wanted the universe to fit his subjective romantic notions of what he thought would be best. As did Keynes. The problems is that Keynes and government CANNOT control the minds, needs and desires of the population (See “War on Drugs”). This is understood in many places, such as North Korea where people are executed for black market participation. Or the US, where people are imprisoned in mass numbers in a Keynesian system for operating outside of the realm of governmental involvement.

Keynes sought to impose morality with his economic system because you have to have an individual or entity controlling it and deciding where he/she would like the money to go. Hence, Reagan got Congress to direct large sums to the military. Once the government priorities changed, there was an economic shock because defense and aerospace were artificially inflated and there was an economic shock. Keynesian systems, because they are based on the subjective views of an individual, are designed to cause market shocks. Keynes is political.

Free-market advocates are in favor of rules and regulations that promote honesty and truth in the market. Caveat emptor is not wholly consistent with free market enterprise, for fraud and inside knowledge cause mistrust in the market and, therefore, inefficiency. So there is morality there, too.

Friedman and his ilk sought economic systems that operate within reality. Keynes – by his very words – sought to institute a new reality. Reality has a nasty habit of fighting back.

Quote

(for example - who does money belong to?)

Money and wealth are different things. Money is simply an adjunct used to describe wealth. My Les Paul would probably fetch $1k if put for sale. I personally wouldn't take $10k for it. It's more valuable to me than to anyone else on the planet.

Value versus price. Wealth versus money. Keynes looks at price and money. I look at value and wealth.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Keynes understood the function of money. He understood the reasons for it. But because the idea of wealth goes against his moral code, he sought to find ways around it. Which is the reason Keynesians fuck so much stuff up.

Quote

it's a simple economic question - who does money belong to?

does it belong to the individual for instance - or does it belong to the state?

Money is nothing more than an adjunct to determine the value of something. Money is a fiat. An illusion. What’s the difference between a $1 bill and a $100 dollar bill? Nothing except what is printed on them.

I’ve got eight dollars and some change on me. That money does not belong to the government. It belongs to me because I bought it. In exchange for my labor, I receive payment. Rather than receiving twelve chickens for a day’s work, I received money as an adjunct. It is not valuable in and of itself. Rather, the value of the money is determined by fiat.

Another example: my Les Paul. Is it the government’s Les Paul? No. It’s mine. But a Les Paul is not liquid. Barter economies are inefficient and I cannot have an easy time trading my Les Paul for two months of groceries. Thus, a system is in place to exchange the Les Paul for something that is liquid. Then I can use that liquid asset and convert it to groceries for two months.

The government does not “own” it per se. The government simply assigns it a value by fiat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

In exchange for my labor, I receive payment. Rather than receiving twelve chickens for a day’s work, I received money as an adjunct.

pretty easy to see the 'value' of a chicken - not so easy with money...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

In exchange for my labor, I receive payment. Rather than receiving twelve chickens for a day’s work, I received money as an adjunct.

pretty easy to see the 'value' of a chicken - not so easy with money...

That's why I said it's fiat. The government assigns a value.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

it's a simple economic question - who does money belong to?

does it belong to the individual for instance - or does it belong to the state?

Why don't you answer that for all of us? Another debater has practically turned backloops to get you to answer ANY question.
Orrrrrrrrrr....!! ( Ah hah.!) Do it be that you are incapable of independent probative thought to a conclusion? If so, then I do empathize and sympathize for your incapacity. Having no experience or knowledge if it, myself.
Perhaps another poster might know of a medication that could be helpful for you. Best regards....

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In exchange for my labor, I receive payment. Rather than receiving twelve chickens for a day’s work, I received money as an adjunct.

pretty easy to see the 'value' of a chicken - not so easy with money...

That's why I said it's fiat. The government assigns a value.

the state puts a number on the note - the market assigns the value...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

it's a simple economic question - who does money belong to?

does it belong to the individual for instance - or does it belong to the state?

Why don't you answer that for all of us? Another debater has practically turned backloops to get you to answer ANY question.
Orrrrrrrrrr....!! ( Ah hah.!) Do it be that you are incapable of independent probative thought to a conclusion? If so, then I do empathize and sympathize for your incapacity. Having no experience or knowledge if it, myself.
Perhaps another poster might know of a medication that could be helpful for you. Best regards....

the state owns the money it issues. if it wants it can recall it...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

the state puts a number on the note - the market assigns the value...

Now you’re getting somewhere.

I’d like to shake your hand and welcome you to the world of Milton Friedman. You've just summarized a key facet of monetarist (Chicago) thought.

How’s that different from Keynes? Keynes, primarily, sought to control runaway inflation by controlling the market valuation of money by making the government the key market participant and allowing the government to, via policy, affect the price of goods and services.

Friedman, on the other hand, thought the best way to control runaway inflation is for the market to balance it out. Thus when a product is artificially inflated, it results in a sell-off. Rather than the Keynesian thought of government policy deciding the value, the Friedman school operates to adjust the monetary policy as a response to market conditions.

Keynes – governments use money to cause market conditions.
Friedman – governments use market conditions to control monetary policy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

it's a simple economic question - who does money belong to?

does it belong to the individual for instance - or does it belong to the state?

Why don't you answer that for all of us? Another debater has practically turned backloops to get you to answer ANY question.
Orrrrrrrrrr....!! ( Ah hah.!) Do it be that you are incapable of independent probative thought to a conclusion? If so, then I do empathize and sympathize for your incapacity. Having no experience or knowledge if it, myself.
Perhaps another poster might know of a medication that could be helpful for you. Best regards....

the state owns the money it issues. if it wants it can recall it...

If a state were to recall it's money, or notes or whatever you wish to call it, that state would then be obligated to restore to the holder of the notes some form of instrumentality that would represent the buying power or financial worth of the rescinded note. If the state were to take your money, and make you whole with a bushel of barley that would be inequitable in practically all societies, wouldn't it. How would you conduct your daily activity having to barter everything with your sack of barley. How would an entire national entity function, much less succeed? The society would fail. Additionally the leaders of our phantom society would not be in office for very long, now would they? Circular, ain't it?
Actually, Governments own nothing. The Government is care taker for the People who placed it in the position of governance, by contract. With the exception of monarchy, and other tyrannical forms of society. Not so cut and dried as you would believe? Again, Friedman.

[dreamdancer 0]

there were markets long before friedman...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

would the state be obligated to replace the currency they've issued? nope. the state can halve the value of the currency the individual holds just by doubling the supply. it can supply so much the dollar in your hand is worth less than the paper it's printed on...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There are even moves afoot to put these raw materials to work. The US aims to create an Office of Financial Research to collect data from firms and weave the information into a web suitable for mapping and simulating risk.

What we have here is called backtesting. A principle used heavily (nearly exclusively) in every quant shop on earth. Come up with a hypothesis, run monte carlo simulations against the historical data, decide if the signal is strong and worth putting money on.

And these same quants were the ones who lost the most reputation in the early phases of our latest meltdown. Their models did not work, the historical data did not reflect the situation very well.

So will this latest attempt fare.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

there were markets long before friedman...

And there was a universe long before there was Einstein.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

would the state be obligated to replace the currency they've issued? nope. the state can halve the value of the currency the individual holds just by doubling the supply. it can supply so much the dollar in your hand is worth less than the paper it's printed on...

You're confusing currency with buying power or value. See Germany after WW1. Millions of marks for a slice of cheese. What had the true value? The mark note, or the cheese?
Barter markets did exist before Friedman. Societies were also fragmented and disassociated, unless there was a tyrannical central government, like Rome to pull it together. Doing business with a gladius at my gizzard ain't my idea of governance.
View the UK. A geographical homunculus in the world, yet a power, none the less. Why? The awareness that a Central Government with a centralized financial institution, that the People have agreed to with the Monarch, was the better way to go. Brits have a lot to be proud of.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

would the state be obligated to replace the currency they've issued? nope.

Under current US laws? Yep. It's actually called a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. It's why the Federal Reserve buys the money back.

Quote

the state can halve the value of the currency the individual holds just by doubling the supply. it can supply so much the dollar in your hand is worth less than the paper it's printed on...

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

would the state be obligated to replace the currency they've issued? nope. the state can halve the value of the currency the individual holds just by doubling the supply. it can supply so much the dollar in your hand is worth less than the paper it's printed on...

You're confusing currency with buying power or value. See Germany after WW1. Millions of marks for a slice of cheese. What had the true value? The mark note, or the cheese?
Barter markets did exist before Friedman. Societies were also fragmented and disassociated, unless there was a tyrannical central government, like Rome to pull it together. Doing business with a gladius at my gizzard ain't my idea of governance.
View the UK. A geographical homunculus in the world, yet a power, none the less. Why? The awareness that a Central Government with a centralized financial institution, that the People have agreed to with the Monarch, was the better way to go. Brits have a lot to be proud of.

all sorts of markets existed for tens of thousands of years before friedman. markets existed before money. money is a necessary add-on to markets to move on past direct barter. i'm of the mind that even money may now be outdated/evolving to a new form. with market trades contained within a virtual/digital framework barter may prove to be more efficient again...

meanwhile the state is going to further take control of its money. every transaction its money is involved in will be noted and trailed from issuance to death...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

all sorts of markets existed for tens of thousands of years before friedman.

No shit.

Quote

markets existed before money.

No shit.

Reply]oney is a necessary add-on to markets to move on past direct barter.

[BoogeyMan 0]

"meanwhile the state is going to further take control of its money. every transaction its money is involved in will be noted and trailed from issuance to death... "

States may attempt taking control. It's up to the People to regulate government at the ballot box.
As far as finance/ economics through the ages, Keynes , Marx and others didn't exist in your time frames either. We exist in a time frame that has complexities that need explanation. Keynes, as has already been discussed, misses the mark in our time. See TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack and other failed social engineering experiments by misguided governments. Experiments that were all too easy for the corrupt to use to rip off the taxpayers and build vast wealth. Legally, I must add.

[dreamdancer 0]

when the state wants part of its money it taxes - have you tried not paying taxes?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

"meanwhile the state is going to further take control of its money. every transaction its money is involved in will be noted and trailed from issuance to death... "

States may attempt taking control. It's up to the People to regulate government at the ballot box.
As far as finance/ economics through the ages, Keynes , Marx and others didn't exist in your time frames either. We exist in a time frame that has complexities that need explanation. Keynes, as has already been discussed, misses the mark in our time. See TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack and other failed social engineering experiments by misguided governments. Experiments that were all too easy for the corrupt to use to rip off the taxpayers and build vast wealth. Legally, I must add.

keynes was behind all that quantitative easing. where was friedman when he was needed?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

when the state wants part of its money it taxes - have you tried not paying taxes?

Nope. I pay them. But note the Third Amendment about quartering troops. How about eminent domain?

Your exceptions do not prove the rule.

Now - answer my question: is anything yours? Or does it belong to the state? Including yourself and your kids? Oops. I means "state's self and state's kids."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

keynes was behind all that quantitative easing. where was friedman when he was needed?

Friedman was ignored in much the same fashion your ideas ignore everything he suggested and have always resulted in abject misery for everyone except the state bourgeois.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

when the state wants part of its money it taxes - have you tried not paying taxes?

Nope. I pay them. But note the Third Amendment about quartering troops. How about eminent domain?

Your exceptions do not prove the rule.

Now - answer my question: is anything yours? Or does it belong to the state? Including yourself and your kids? Oops. I means "state's self and state's kids."

after pearl harbour many japanese and their kids were placed in camps. should they have refused?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[BoogeyMan 0]

Where was Friedman, you ask? In Oslo, at the University, picking up his Nobel prize.