Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 149
  1. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,
    Throwing Down the Gauntlet

    Nicholas Taleb is making waves again – and in a good way, as we will explain below. It began with an altercation between him and a few mainstream economists on Twitter (what is apparently called a 'Twitter brawl'). Here is a post from Taleb's Facebook page that he put up in the wake of said brawl – Taleb announced that he will go with a fine comb through the papers of one Karl Whelan, one of the countless 'monetary economists' who are writing papers for the Fed and are thereby providing justifications for its meddling with the markets. Here is his post:


    “We Can Start Exposing Economists:

    I just finished a very rough draft of *Fat Tails & (Anti)Fragility* (~100 pages).

    PART I provides a mathematical toolkit to detect anything that is bullshit in economic modeling (particularly macroeconomics), figure out which papers are flawed from a scientific standpoint, etc. When I mean flawed, it is on the basis that the math used impresses nonmathematicians but does not support the stated policy conclusions.

    So I start by putting one Karl Whelan "scientific" work under severe mathematical scrutiny. I select him to start as he worked with central banks, the perfect profile of the person supported by the taxpayer against the taxpayer's own interests. I also had a disgraceful encounter with him and his macro peers on twitter. Mr Whelan's papers can be found here: http://ideas.repec.org/e/pwh23.html We can progressively expose mathematized social science that way, as I am refining the text, adding words and examples.”



    Mr. Taleb of course needs to continually market himself, since he is a book author and economic and financial pundit on television and various financial media. Courting controversy is a good way of staying in the limelight. In this case though, we think he has picked an excellent fight. We will explain below why that is so and why we wish him success.


    Maverick economist Nicholas Taleb – challenging the establishment

    Modern-Day Macro-Economists – Who Needs Them?

    We are certainly not against people trying to advance economic science. We are also vehemently disagreeing with those who assert that 'there are no economic laws' or that economics is somehow not a science. What these people fail to grasp is that economics – a branch of the larger science of praxeology (the science of human action) – is a social science, not a natural science. It therefore requires a methodological approach that is different from that employed in the natural sciences. It therefore is also different in terms of what we can and what we cannot know. We will return to this point further below.



    Economic science advanced in great strides with the independent discovery of the principle of marginal utility by Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras in the 1870s. The Austrian subjectivist school which Carl Menger founded, advanced value theory, price theory, capital theory and monetary theory enormously. However, as many of the most important works were originally published in German language and not translated into English in a timely fashion, it never gained the influence in the English-speaking world it would actually have deserved (ironically, today the Austrian School enjoys far greater support and popularity in the US than in the German-speaking world).


    One 'problem' is of course that the Austrians advocate the adoption of an unhampered free market economy. This is not based on 'right wing ideology', but on a value-free assessment of economic laws. It is a 'problem' only because there would be fairly little, if anything, to do for macro-economists in a truly free market economy. Only exceptional men of great intellect could hope to get enough support to be able to pursue their scientific interest in economics as their main job. In today's era of unbridled statism, a great mass of people are by contrast employed by the State in one form or another, and their output is therefore, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out, as a rule both mediocre and “viciously statist”. To quote him more fully:


    “Intellectuals are now typically public employees, even if they work for nominally private institutions or foundations. Almost completely protected from the vagaries of consumer demand ("tenured"), their number has dramatically increased and their compensation is on average far above their genuine market value. At the same time the quality of their intellectual output has constantly fallen.

    What you will discover is mostly irrelevance and incomprehensibility. Worse, insofar as today's intellectual output is at all relevant and comprehensible, it is viciously statist. There are exceptions, but if practically all intellectuals are employed in the multiple branches of the state, then it should hardly come as a surprise that most of their ever-more voluminous output will, either by commission or omission, be statist propaganda.”

  2. #77
    Member
    Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    07-05-2019 @ 12:49 PM
    Location
    at the banks of the Mighty Muddy River
    Posts
    502
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.

    The theories that this is based upon are old fashioned, didn’t foresee the current situation the world is in, and will not help us to find solutions.

    Debt is based on the principle of growth and future production. In the next few decades, growth will be non-existent due to the limitations of resources on earth: water, raw material, land, energy, food.

    Therefore, debt can not be maintained, nor vindicated.

    It will take a few more Greece’s, and crises, and likely revolutions, and then a new world order will take shape.

  3. #78
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Anybody objecting to 'austerity' is a fool, they seem to believe that the answer to problems created by excessive debt, money printing and govt wastrelism is yet more of the same. Deficit spending will only ever end in tears.

  4. #79
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Anybody objecting to 'austerity' is a fool, they seem to believe that the answer to problems created by excessive debt, money printing and govt wastrelism is yet more of the same. Deficit spending will only ever end in tears.
    Typical foxnews bot who never read the op..Why are you still talking?

  5. #80
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Anybody objecting to 'austerity' is a fool, they seem to believe that the answer to problems created by excessive debt, money printing and govt wastrelism is yet more of the same. Deficit spending will only ever end in tears.
    Typical foxnews bot who never read the op..Why are you still talking?
    why dont you talk about how 45% social programs is vastly smaller than 19% defence budget? How is 45% a drop in the bucket compared to defence? If you can't do simple math then why do you talk at all?

    Never seen Fox News BTW.
    Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

  6. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.

    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.

    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?

  7. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Anybody objecting to 'austerity' is a fool, they seem to believe that the answer to problems created by excessive debt, money printing and govt wastrelism is yet more of the same. Deficit spending will only ever end in tears.
    Typical foxnews bot who never read the op..Why are you still talking?
    What would have happened to Thailand if they printed money in 1997 to try and fill the gap in the wake of the financial crisis ?


  8. #83
    Member
    Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    07-05-2019 @ 12:49 PM
    Location
    at the banks of the Mighty Muddy River
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.

    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.

    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    I just argued that I dont know. So you tell me.

  9. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.

    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.

    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    I just argued that I dont know. So you tell me.
    My basic point is that there its not a choice to have austerity or not.

    A country cannot spend purchasing power that it does not have. If a debtor nation does not cut back, the market will eventually cut it back for them in the form of a bond sell-off. That is what happened in Greece. Now if Greece didn't join the Eurozone, it would still have the Greek Dracma and it would be able to print its own money. If Greece decided to do that, this is what the value of the Dracma would have done.


    ^Because Argentina was in the exact same spot as Greece was except they went for the "no austerity" monetary policy. They could print Peso's.

    Europe isn't stupid. This is why the Euro exists. The Euro is the first non nation state currency. Europe had a hyperinflation in the 30's that led to the rise of Hitler. They know that printing money and "no austerity" doesn't work. So the best way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to take away the money printing machines from the politicians.

  10. #85
    Thailand Expat
    GooMaiRoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    03-07-2023 @ 08:41 AM
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.
    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.
    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    Your basic premise about Thailand's recovery from the 1997 crisis is simply untrue. Austerity drives down tax revenues and makes things worse. Below is a quote from a New York Times article dated 2/11/1998 (note the words "budget deficit" on the last sentence) :

    "The International Monetary Fund has conceded that conditions it imposed on Thailand as part of a multibillion-dollar bailout package have proved too austere, clearing a path for the Thai Government to increase spending substantially.Acknowledging that economic growth and tax revenue have fallen far below levels predicted only several months ago, the I.M.F. has agreed to allow Thailand to run a budget deficit instead of posting a sizable surplus, said Hubert Neiss, director of the fund's Asia Pacific department."

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS - I.M.F. Concedes Its Conditions for Thailand Were Too Austere - NYTimes.com

    In addition, Thailand is a semi-feudal country whose employers didn't fire millions of workers when the crisis started. Its unemployment rate peaked around 4.5% in 1998. Global capital will dump workers and/or outsource at the drop of a hat in a crisis. The Thai ruling elites realize that millions of displaced people create unpleasant externalities (i.e., they crap up the country). Global corporations couldn't care less about what sort of a mess they leave. They just go somewhere else. Also, the 1997 Thai crisis was not systemic (it was centered on a real estate collapse), whereas the current economic malaise in the West is pervasive. Apples and oranges when you compare semi-feudal Thailand to Western economies.

  11. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.
    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.
    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    Your basic premise about Thailand's recovery from the 1997 crisis is simply untrue. Austerity drives down tax revenues and makes things worse. Below is a quote from a New York Times article dated 2/11/1998 (note the words "budget deficit" on the last sentence) :

    "The International Monetary Fund has conceded that conditions it imposed on Thailand as part of a multibillion-dollar bailout package have proved too austere, clearing a path for the Thai Government to increase spending substantially.Acknowledging that economic growth and tax revenue have fallen far below levels predicted only several months ago, the I.M.F. has agreed to allow Thailand to run a budget deficit instead of posting a sizable surplus, said Hubert Neiss, director of the fund's Asia Pacific department."

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS - I.M.F. Concedes Its Conditions for Thailand Were Too Austere - NYTimes.com

    In addition, Thailand is a semi-feudal country whose employers didn't fire millions of workers when the crisis started. Its unemployment rate peaked around 4.5% in 1998. Global capital will dump workers and/or outsource at the drop of a hat in a crisis. The Thai ruling elites realize that millions of displaced people create unpleasant externalities (i.e., they crap up the country). Global corporations couldn't care less about what sort of a mess they leave. They just go somewhere else. Also, the 1997 Thai crisis was not systemic (it was centered on a real estate collapse), whereas the current economic malaise in the West is pervasive. Apples and oranges when you compare semi-feudal Thailand to Western economies.
    Quotes from economists in the New York Times are just that. Quotes from libtard economists in a libtard lefty newspaper.

    This is what actually happend: (Wikipedia)

    the IMF's support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms called "structural adjustment package" (SAP). The SAPs called on crisis-struck nations to reduce government spending and deficits, allow insolvent banks and financial institutions to fail, and aggressively raise interest rates.

    -The Thai stock market dropped 75%. Finance One, the largest Thai finance company until then, collapsed.
    - Countries' governments raised domestic interest rates to exceedingly high levels (to help diminish flight of capital

    What followed was the Asian recovery with South Korea and Thailand repaying their debts 4 years ahead of schedule and becoming creditor nations.

    At no point did any of the countries start printing money and upping spending.
    Last edited by socal; 04-05-2013 at 04:00 AM.

  12. #87
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    ^ Yep thats socal stating that wikipedia is more credible then the New York Times.

  13. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    ^ Yep thats socal stating that wikipedia is more credible then the New York Times.
    ^ Yep thats Bsnub not realizing that the New York Times is the most lefty libtard outfit in the US.

    Liberal Bias is Killing the New York Times | NewsReal Blog

    Man That Admitted BBC's Left-Wing Bias to Head New York Times ...

    New York Times caught shaping pro-Obama, anti-GOP narrative in ...



    Stating the Obvious About NY Times Bias - Commentary Magazine



    And I used Wiki to chronicle what did actually happen. The news paper clip was an opinion piece.

  14. #89
    Thailand Expat
    GooMaiRoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    03-07-2023 @ 08:41 AM
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo View Post

    "The International Monetary Fund has conceded that conditions it imposed on Thailand as part of a multibillion-dollar bailout package have proved too austere, clearing a path for the Thai Government to increase spending substantially.Acknowledging that economic growth and tax revenue have fallen far below levels predicted only several months ago, the I.M.F. has agreed to allow Thailand to run a budget deficit instead of posting a sizable surplus, said Hubert Neiss, director of the fund's Asia Pacific department."

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS - I.M.F. Concedes Its Conditions for Thailand Were Too Austere - NYTimes.com

    ...
    Quotes from economists in the New York Times are just that. Quotes from libtard economists in a libtard lefty newspaper. ...
    It was actually a quote from an IMF economist, as reported in the New York Times. I was half-expecting your response, typical of someone so clouded by toxic ideology that he/she has completely lost the ability to process information. The article had nothing to do with the opinion of the New York Times. It was factual and presented on this forum to give an historical perspective on governmental austerity and its efficacy during economic crises.

  15. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo View Post

    "The International Monetary Fund has conceded that conditions it imposed on Thailand as part of a multibillion-dollar bailout package have proved too austere, clearing a path for the Thai Government to increase spending substantially.Acknowledging that economic growth and tax revenue have fallen far below levels predicted only several months ago, the I.M.F. has agreed to allow Thailand to run a budget deficit instead of posting a sizable surplus, said Hubert Neiss, director of the fund's Asia Pacific department."

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS - I.M.F. Concedes Its Conditions for Thailand Were Too Austere - NYTimes.com

    ...
    Quotes from economists in the New York Times are just that. Quotes from libtard economists in a libtard lefty newspaper. ...
    It was actually a quote from an IMF economist, as reported in the New York Times. I was half-expecting your response, typical of someone so clouded by toxic ideology that he/she has completely lost the ability to process information. The article had nothing to do with the opinion of the New York Times. It was factual and presented on this forum to give an historical perspective on governmental austerity and its efficacy during economic crises.
    It doesn't change the fact that they implemented slashing spending, no bailouts and high interest rates which resulted in a recovery in 1999.

    The IMF was widely criticized for the way they handled it. Nobody even wanted them there.
    Last edited by socal; 04-05-2013 at 10:22 AM.

  16. #91
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    ^ Yep thats socal stating that wikipedia is more credible then the New York Times.
    You mention credibility when you claim 45% is vastly lower than 19%?

  17. #92
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    And your basic premise seems to neglect one important fact; austerity should mean lower state spending as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.
    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.
    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    Your basic premise about Thailand's recovery from the 1997 crisis is simply untrue. Austerity drives down tax revenues and makes things worse. Below is a quote from a New York Times article dated 2/11/1998 (note the words "budget deficit" on the last sentence) :

    "The International Monetary Fund has conceded that conditions it imposed on Thailand as part of a multibillion-dollar bailout package have proved too austere, clearing a path for the Thai Government to increase spending substantially.Acknowledging that economic growth and tax revenue have fallen far below levels predicted only several months ago, the I.M.F. has agreed to allow Thailand to run a budget deficit instead of posting a sizable surplus, said Hubert Neiss, director of the fund's Asia Pacific department."

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS - I.M.F. Concedes Its Conditions for Thailand Were Too Austere - NYTimes.com

    In addition, Thailand is a semi-feudal country whose employers didn't fire millions of workers when the crisis started. Its unemployment rate peaked around 4.5% in 1998. Global capital will dump workers and/or outsource at the drop of a hat in a crisis. The Thai ruling elites realize that millions of displaced people create unpleasant externalities (i.e., they crap up the country). Global corporations couldn't care less about what sort of a mess they leave. They just go somewhere else. Also, the 1997 Thai crisis was not systemic (it was centered on a real estate collapse), whereas the current economic malaise in the West is pervasive. Apples and oranges when you compare semi-feudal Thailand to Western economies.

  18. #93
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,429
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888
    And your basic premise seems to neglect one important fact; austerity should mean lower state spending as well.
    Because that is absurdly obvious my silly little fox news friend.

  19. #94
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888
    And your basic premise seems to neglect one important fact; austerity should mean lower state spending as well.
    Because that is absurdly obvious my silly little fox news friend.
    As absurdly as obvious as 19% is greater than 45%?

    If you could read you would realise I have never viewed Fox News. So you can't do basic math, can't comprehend basic English....

    Man up and admit you lied, that may restore some shred of credibility.

  20. #95
    Member
    Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    07-05-2019 @ 12:49 PM
    Location
    at the banks of the Mighty Muddy River
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior View Post
    In my innocence, I feel that limiting yourself to a position either in favour or against strict austerity is foolish.
    To think that there is a choice in the matter is what is foolish. It is basic arithmetic.

    When capital flight hit Mexico in the 80's, it put depreciating value on the Mexican Peso. The market forced austerity. Same thing happened in Asia in 1997.

    What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997 ?
    I just argued that I dont know. So you tell me.
    My basic point is that there its not a choice to have austerity or not.

    A country cannot spend purchasing power that it does not have. If a debtor nation does not cut back, the market will eventually cut it back for them in the form of a bond sell-off. That is what happened in Greece. Now if Greece didn't join the Eurozone, it would still have the Greek Dracma and it would be able to print its own money. If Greece decided to do that, this is what the value of the Dracma would have done.


    ^Because Argentina was in the exact same spot as Greece was except they went for the "no austerity" monetary policy. They could print Peso's.

    Europe isn't stupid. This is why the Euro exists. The Euro is the first non nation state currency. Europe had a hyperinflation in the 30's that led to the rise of Hitler. They know that printing money and "no austerity" doesn't work. So the best way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to take away the money printing machines from the politicians.
    I hear what you are saying. However, I asked you to answer your own question: What do you think would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997

    So far you haven't answered that question. You have start talking about the rise of Hitler, as if Hitler was the result of some economic situation, rather than the political vacuum that existed after WW I.
    Your thinking is monetized - i.e., you talk as if everything results from the economy, from the value of money, and so on.

    You overlook the fact that there are other powers in life - political, human. If you are a believer: supernatural powers.

    My original point was that monetary and economical theories are not going to predict the way forward. Thats why I was - and still am - interested in what would have happened to Thailand if they decided to print money in 1997

  21. #96
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    ^ I think a large part of hitlers rise was because of the economic legacy of economic conditions resulting from the previous war.

  22. #97
    Member
    Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    07-05-2019 @ 12:49 PM
    Location
    at the banks of the Mighty Muddy River
    Posts
    502
    Printing money does not automatically lead to hyper inflation. Inflation is low, and there is nothing against a little higher inflation. We are far away from hyper inflation. It is as smoking your firts cigarette - cigarettes cause cancer, but its extremely unlikely one will die from his first cigarette.

    I see no evidence for your suggestion that printing money nowadays would create a new Hitler. In fact, I see developments that suggests the opposite. In austerity Greece, they extremists are winning popularity.

  23. #98
    I'm in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    12-06-2021 @ 11:13 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior
    Printing money does not automatically lead to hyper inflation.
    when you are in a recession gap like we are, it's definitely needed.

    Not doing it could actually lead to inflation if another "aggregate supply" shock was to happen because the economy was to shutdown and the level of production would fall leading automatically to a general rise in the price level, that is inflation. This is what happened temporarily in 2008 after the crash.

  24. #99
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    The increase in real GDP for every additional dollar of debt is virtually zero.

  25. #100
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Money has actually had no intrinsic value for quite some years. As long as people believe in it as a medium of exchange, that is all that matters.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •