Topic: Hide your kids, hide your wife! - page 2. (Read 3718 times)

The whole story is not that simple as you tell it here. It can actually be better as you don't take into account that the exporting country can in fact sell more (since the importing country pays less and thus can pay for more volume), so producing more wealth and profits, providing higher employment and fuller utilization of productive capacities even at lower prices...

The balance is restored through adjusting the exchange rates of the trading countries as well as increasing national debt (Japan is the second largest holder of U.S. government debt, if I'm not mistaken). Your first assumption is incorrect since currencies are actually floating against each other

Hopefully you're the first to go

England, France and Germany defaulted during the 1930's, meaning they could not pay their debts.

The 1930's will happen again, and it will be called the 2nd Great Depression.

The only open question is, how many people will die due to the war that will result because of the renewed financial crisis?

It won't be in the hundred million range this time, it will be in the 1-3 billion deaths range.

That's the scary part. The financial pain ALWAYS causes subsequent deaths. It's the only constant in human history.

dammm you good! i really wish i had some economics teacher like you
glad we came basically to the same conclusion (FED=EVIL). be sure i will be using your flawless statement when arguing this subject

thx buddy.

No, no! You misunderstand my perspective. You've stated it quite nicely. Perhaps numbers can be used to prove you right — and of course they can, or something is wrong! — but your premise is free of logical contradiction and stands well, numbers or not. Indeed, I read your words and see numbers, and they are right. I was merely admiring that, while I see it all with numbers, that you managed to state the truth clearly without breaking out a whiteboard. Not a popular trick at dinner parties, I assure you.

Feel free to dress it in numbers, if you think it is necessary.

And without any arithmetic at all 

Focus on raising export, reducing import, that is focus on the trade balance, is a fallacy called mercantilism. It is rampant today. Free trade is all about removing it.

The fallacy comes into the clear when it is explained this way:

Imagine first that you have world money, or, which is the same thing, the two countries' money is stable in regard to each other. It does not matter if the units have different value, just that the exchange rate is stable. Now, the people in one country wants the wares of the other country. To get that, they trade their own products. The more they can produce and export, the more they can import. The purpose of producing is to consume, either what they produce themselves, or imported goods traded for their own. The money is just oil in the machinery, the imports are paid with exports. There does not have to be any net inflow or outflow of money. Now if money flows out, the people in the country will want to repair their money loss, because they have a certain preference for holding money in reserve. Therefore they will produce more and export. Thus the balance is restored.

Now to devaluation. The government intervenes to reduce the value of their own money. This means that the producers get less value for their production, prices of the products go lower. Basically the importing country pays less, and the loss is on the producers in the exporting country. The corresponding imports will rise in price, making the imported volume lower. So the workers in the devaluing country gets less for their work and pay more for the imports. This is just bad for the people in the devaluing country. How can it be better? A number on the governments accounting books.

Now imaging that to reduce the value of a currency, there is in the end really one way to do it - to dilute the money with increasing the money supply. And where does the new money go? Whoever gets them, this is the people who wants the devaluation to happen. So for personal gain, they are willing to reduce the wealth of a whole population. That is evil.

You two should fix the issues you have with yourselves before fixing the issues you have with others.
Anyway, you don't need mathematics, arithmetic or human psychology to understand that QE is shit. Common sense is enough.

And we should rename this thread... I'm thinking of "Nomad vs Sedentary" or "deisik the tree vs FenixRD the wind".

You didn't give me math, you gave me words, based on fantasy values, completely devoid of any applicability to a world other than one in your mind. The only logical premise I can sort of try and infer is that you believe export-oriented economies should be inflationary. Reversing the values, consumer economies should be deflationary. So, the US should be deflationary?

I've also taken the liberty of reviewing your posts, which seem primarily to be advertisement-for-pay for PrimeDice. I should have known better, with such an astronomical (note: not astrological) ratio of posts relative to your registration date. Dozens a day, all meaningless, often combative, insulting, and always simple. If only this forum had a signal-to-noise indicator below the Ignore button.

Please, please, stop replying. I can't stop you, but I can promise this will the the last reply of yours in this thread I answer. Feel free to use the most trollish reply you can muster to draw me back. It is doubtful you will succeed.

I didn't expect anything different from you (but I was ready). You can't prove me wrong mathematically here (that is what you were bragging about). I gave you arithmetics you required. In reality, there are a myriad of things that complicate matters and can change everything dramatically, but you can't beat the principle which is still there. You can overwhelm it but simply can't get rid of it...

These are the basics of macroeconomics

I can think of not a single case when such an oversimplification could be useful. You have disregarded almost every variable and initial condition possibility. There are more countries, timescales are involved, natural resources. This is so absurd I will not bother to go on. Please just stop.


Primitive indeed. Let's just stare at the stars and rationalize them as fireflies on a bedsheet. That sounds so very peaceful... I hope you'll join me...

Now to the point (let's forget about you being a douchebag)

Your country exports 1000 units of goods (in money terms) and imports 500 (typical export oriented economy). Due to depreciation of its currency it can now export twice as many, i.e. 2000 units, and import twice as less, i.e 250 units. But since it has got the net surplus of 1000 units through exports, it can now easily buy missing 250 units and still have a surplus of 750 units

Lol, the deepest insights into the most important economic matters (such as subjective valuation of things which makes exchange ever possible) can be formulated with primitive mathematics (or even without it) and are based entirely on human psychology...

Oh, fuck me, you're one of those.

Never mind, no, don't go on. I might as well debate Scientology.

Astronomy uses math. Astrology uses superstition regarding temporally-relative positions.

To properly model economics and include the element of human behavior, some brilliant fellows laid the groundwork for game theory, thus allowing it all to still be math. This is the calculus of economic modeling. Not using this is akin to trying to work out quantum field theory with an abacus. No wonder you're lost.

/subthread... carry on gentlemen. Derailed due to emotional response at mention of Japan; it turns out the commenter has no knowledge of Japan, or any general economic theory relevant in the last two decades.


Ah. Yes. I trust that we can all look past this... I certainly am much more clear on who knows what. I have learned my lesson, please forgive me my assumptions... all of them...

How can I be sure that you won't go on like that, lol? You discredited yourself, period. Hope this will serve you a lesson, though scarcely...

Are you absolutely dense? I just admitted that I brought up the pluralization of arithmetic foolishly, illogically, and emotionally. Move on with your end. Stop sidetracking the issue. No one here cares to allow you to belabor the fact that I made a poor debate choice 6 posts ago. I admit it, now on with the math, please.

I don't believe, I know this for sure. Economics is about human psychology, first and before all. I never said anything about economics being based on astrology. And yes, astrology also uses some math (should we discredit mathematics on account of that?). Your assumption is wrong again...

Should we go on?

Fair enough gentlemen, please stop comparing your junks.
I believe no one can seriously think QE is a sustainable policy for any country and considering the long run (and the future generations).
Wealth has to be created.. not printed..