Pages:
Author

Topic: Were the Keynesians wrong? - page 4. (Read 5582 times)

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
January 16, 2015, 03:28:24 PM
#36
von Mises?  Hahaha.  Is that a joke?  Nobody in economics takes him seriously

It's not about his "authority", but about his arguments.
I guess that Nobel Prize Hayek is also not taken seriously then ?

Quote
So is sterling pound.  So what?  What does that prove?  That Silver was used for coins once?  You think you can walk into a shop in London back the old days and pay with a silver dollar?  The money aspect doesn't come from the metal it comes from the authority of the issuer

Of course gold and silver was used as money ! 

The "authority" you talk about was just a certification of the amount and purity of the coins.

http://www.jmbullion.com/guide/history/

Quote
From 1785 until 1861, in the relatively early years of the country, the US based their financial structure on currency that utilized gold and silver. Instead of the paper that is used today, coins made of pure gold and silver were traded in the free market. If it was not for financial crises in 1857, it is more than likely that this system would have endured for much longer than it did.

Executive Order 6102 is a case that many mistake as being the Gold Standard itself. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 6102, which stated that citizens were not to own their own stock piles of monetary gold. All gold was to be turned into the government, with the owners receiving $20.67 per ounce in compensation. The primary outcome of this event was a sharp increase in the price of gold, as it would rise to $35 per ounce shortly thereafter.

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 16, 2015, 01:57:26 PM
#35
This is wrong.  You Need to read Graebers History of Money

Maybe you need to read von Mises "the theory of money and credit" ?

Quote
In modern times gold was reserve money and mainly used for international trade but inside the nation, money was largely credit money.  Credit money and metal money have always coexisted.  Gold itself wasn't the money it's the coins with stamp of the king on it.  In essence money has always been a creature of law whenever there is a state

Do you know where "dollar" comes from ?  It's a mass unit of gold.

Edit: I'm wrong, it was an amount of silver: 24 grams.

von Mises?  Hahaha.  Is that a joke?  Nobody in economics takes him seriously

So is sterling pound.  So what?  What does that prove?  That Silver was used for coins once?  You think you can walk into a shop in London back the old days and pay with a silver dollar?  The money aspect doesn't come from the metal it comes from the authority of the issuer
member
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
January 16, 2015, 01:30:17 PM
#34
Demand and supply balance. This world is too unstable still
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
January 16, 2015, 11:48:35 AM
#33
Please give example of when deflationary money has been used for a long time.  And gold is not an example.  Gold was used for coinage but the money is not denominated in gold but instead whatever the Kings money was

You should maybe read this also.

Or this .


hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
January 16, 2015, 11:44:23 AM
#32
This is wrong.  You Need to read Graebers History of Money

Maybe you need to read von Mises "the theory of money and credit" ?

Quote
In modern times gold was reserve money and mainly used for international trade but inside the nation, money was largely credit money.  Credit money and metal money have always coexisted.  Gold itself wasn't the money it's the coins with stamp of the king on it.  In essence money has always been a creature of law whenever there is a state

Do you know where "dollar" comes from ?  It's a mass unit of gold.

Edit: I'm wrong, it was an amount of silver: 24 grams.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 16, 2015, 10:05:03 AM
#31
As the price was rising, all of the Keynesians kept harping about how nobody would spend bitcoins because they would want to wait to spend later when the price is higher, never spending their money.

And yet, for the past year the price has been going down, high inflation, a Keynesian dream. And yet, the spending did not skyrocket.

Why are Keynesians always wrong about economics?

Keynesianism has nothing to mean to BTC price

Tell that to the Keynes mouthpiece, Paul Krugman.

Krugman never said anything about Keynes and Bitcoin.  He said he's not convinced it can be a stable store of value and that's not what you want as a working currency.  You want stability not volatility.  Nothing to do with Keynes just common sense
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 16, 2015, 09:50:53 AM
#30
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
January 16, 2015, 04:53:31 AM
#29
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?

Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.

Please give example of when deflationary money has been used for a long time.  And gold is not an example.  Gold was used for coinage but the money is not denominated in gold but instead whatever the Kings money was

Gold is an example and the example, you're just choosing to ignore it or don't know what deflation and inflation actually is, the state always chose gold in the end, one perfect example was the byzantine empire having a gold coin minted and they lasted for almost 1000 years, even in the U.S and the UK silver was used as a currency for quite some time but was replaced by paper because it wasn't as easy to for the state to control the currency supply.

Amazes me how blatantly people choose to ignore historical fact when it doesn't fit into their political agendas, go and fucking learn what deflation and inflation actually is instead of just dismissing people who know more than you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_coinage

Oh and here's a definition of deflation for people willing to read since I know you won't bother looking it up.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deflation.asp

Quote
A general decline in prices, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit.

I highlighted the important bit for you.

This one line is exactly what deflation is but the rest is pretty much the kind of neo-keynesian crap you're trying to peddle, precious metals are precious, very rare. So that is why everything becomes far cheaper in that currency as opposed to paper which is printed in ridiculous amounts, it is also why cryptocurrencies are worth much more than the dollar.

Inflation and deflation are almost always a result of changes in the money supply, there are of course normal trading patterns that happen because of regular trading but these always get exaggerated if it's someone messing with how much currency is in circuation. A perfect recent example would be the situation with mt.gox and butterfly labs, you also have silkroad online, those are all cases where a large amount of currency has exited circulation or been dumped onto the markets at once and that is what causes such dramatic changes in prices and also peoples spending habits, the inflation is scaring the crap out of everyone and causing everyone to dump their paper for something of value.
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
January 16, 2015, 04:25:31 AM
#28
As the price was rising, all of the Keynesians kept harping about how nobody would spend bitcoins because they would want to wait to spend later when the price is higher, never spending their money.

And yet, for the past year the price has been going down, high inflation, a Keynesian dream. And yet, the spending did not skyrocket.

Why are Keynesians always wrong about economics?

Keynesianism has nothing to mean to BTC price

Tell that to the Keynes mouthpiece, Paul Krugman.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
https://dadice.com | Click my signature to join!
January 16, 2015, 04:22:33 AM
#27
As the price was rising, all of the Keynesians kept harping about how nobody would spend bitcoins because they would want to wait to spend later when the price is higher, never spending their money.

And yet, for the past year the price has been going down, high inflation, a Keynesian dream. And yet, the spending did not skyrocket.

Why are Keynesians always wrong about economics?

Keynesianism has nothing to mean to BTC price since Keynesian doctrine relates to macroeconomics (economic policy). So far, BTC is going down since more players/parties adopted it - as per the old Exchange saying: buy on rumors, sell on confirmed news - also, i guess that the bitstamp hack add some burning fuel to the smouldering ashes.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 16, 2015, 02:44:33 AM
#26
Keynes is the troll of economic theorists used by universities and interested parties to add theoretical justification for their parasitism.

Keynes was probably terrible at saving money. Marx was for a fact. I think Keynes appeals to people who are suseptible for lazy quick fixes in general. We live in a different world now as well and so I think something as simple as "save money for future consumption and investment" is a principle we all need to adhere to a lot more now. Society might grind along at a slower pace, but it will probably have to since things are growing in complexity globally.

Managing a global economy is a much larger pipe dream than managing farmers in Siberia was during the Soviet regime. So much more impossible. Governments and citizens alike will have to become more coherent going forward if anything is going to get done.

Wrong.  Keynes is not the prevalent "school" in academia.  Its probably neo classical

Keynes did public service and was an astute investor.  His theories comes from market experience and public service experience.  IOW "real life experience" not academic theories.  He only started to get popular again recently after the 2008 crash.  His main thing is using fiscal policy and focus on unemployment numbers

The govt has no reason to "save money"  when they can just "print money".  You are totally confusing household economics and macro and blaming everything on Keynes.  Since 80's there have been no Keynesian influence on policy.  It was more Friedman
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
January 16, 2015, 02:21:17 AM
#25
Keynes is the troll of economic theorists used by universities and interested parties to add theoretical justification for their parasitism.

Keynes was probably terrible at saving money. Marx was for a fact. I think Keynes appeals to people who are suseptible for lazy quick fixes in general. We live in a different world now as well and so I think something as simple as "save money for future consumption and investment" is a principle we all need to adhere to a lot more now. Society might grind along at a slower pace, but it will probably have to since things are growing in complexity globally.

Managing a global economy is a much larger pipe dream than managing farmers in Siberia was during the Soviet regime. So much more impossible. Governments and citizens alike will have to become more coherent going forward if anything is going to get done.


Quote from: Josef Stalin link=http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.
(Red colorization mine.)
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
January 16, 2015, 02:14:45 AM
#24
Keynes is the troll of economic theorists used by universities and interested parties to add theoretical justification for their parasitism.

Keynes was probably terrible at saving money. Marx was for a fact. I think Keynes appeals to people who are suseptible for lazy quick fixes in general. We live in a different world now as well and so I think something as simple as "save money for future consumption and investment" is a principle we all need to adhere to a lot more now. Society might grind along at a slower pace, but it will probably have to since things are growing in complexity globally.

Managing a global economy is a much larger pipe dream than managing farmers in Siberia was during the Soviet regime. So much more impossible. Governments and citizens alike will have to become more coherent going forward if anything is going to get done.

A debt is profitable for its creditor. Ought one not pursue profit?
newbie
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
January 16, 2015, 02:08:47 AM
#23
Keynes is the troll of economic theorists used by universities and interested parties to add theoretical justification for their parasitism.

Keynes was probably terrible at saving money. Marx was for a fact. I think Keynes appeals to people who are suseptible for lazy quick fixes in general. We live in a different world now as well and so I think something as simple as "save money for future consumption and investment" is a principle we all need to adhere to a lot more now. Society might grind along at a slower pace, but it will probably have to since things are growing in complexity globally.

Managing a global economy is a much larger pipe dream than managing farmers in Siberia was during the Soviet regime. So much more impossible. Governments and citizens alike will have to become more coherent going forward if anything is going to get done.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
January 16, 2015, 12:30:06 AM
#22
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?

Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.

1. It is state, money, possession, and tribe which begets that.

2‒3. Deflation is the reduction of “supply.” A precious stone or metal has a “supply” that nets increase (at an ever decreasing rate).

4. Here, a user profile informs visitors of its user’s “[l]ast [a]ctive” time.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 15, 2015, 07:32:30 PM
#21
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?

Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.

Please give example of when deflationary money has been used for a long time.  And gold is not an example.  Gold was used for coinage but the money is not denominated in gold but instead whatever the Kings money was
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
January 15, 2015, 07:15:24 PM
#20
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?

Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
January 15, 2015, 07:10:58 PM
#19
Spending and inflation/deflation aren't really related to each other, the only reason spending would increase because of inflation would be if people are being forced to spend because their wealth is being destroyed which is what inflation actually does, especially hyperiflation and that is exactly what is happening to paper currency.

Whenever I get any paper money of my own I can tell you I immediately dump mine for Bitcoin just because I know every second I hold the stuff it's getting devalued and if I want to have some kind of long term purchasing power I need to get rid of it. The only time I use paper is in order to pay someone else who only takes that or for bills etc. that need to be paid.


Quote from: Charles Eisenstein, Negative-Interest Economics, Sacred Economics link=http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-12-negative-interest-economics
In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

(See my forum signature.)
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
January 15, 2015, 06:55:39 PM
#18
Spending and inflation/deflation aren't really related to each other, the only reason spending would increase because of inflation would be if people are being forced to spend because their wealth is being destroyed which is what inflation actually does, especially hyperiflation and that is exactly what is happening to paper currency.

Whenever I get any paper money of my own I can tell you I immediately dump mine for Bitcoin just because I know every second I hold the stuff it's getting devalued and if I want to have some kind of long term purchasing power I need to get rid of it. The only time I use paper is in order to pay someone else who only takes that or for bills etc. that need to be paid.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 15, 2015, 05:50:57 PM
#17
The Bitcoin supply has only been inflating at consistently lower rates (e.g., ⅟ₙ₊₁ after 𝑛 blocks when the Bitcoin block reward was fifty bitcoins), so a progressive reduction in spending would seem to be expected under the economic theory.

But it is currently inflating more than the dollar and yet spending has not increased.

Can Keynesians ever be right or has there been any instance throughout history where they have been right? Other than 600 years ago when tulips happened. Once.

It's you who don't understand the concept.  It applies to macro level not some little private speculators plaything.


Spending hasn't increased because it's used to speculate.  The holder are treating it as a commodity not a currency.  Also it's a private outside money.

I see, so it is a concept that is useful for talking among college professors and politicians but not useful in the real world. Understood.

No you are just applying the concept to the wrong context.
Pages:
Jump to: