There's a fair paper by michael hudson -
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson255.pdf
- which shows there is very articulate criticism that economics starts
in the wrong place.
On 21 Feb, 23:26, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well done mate (HAR{copyright Nom}. I often like to get cruder n
> thinking. If the US has $100 and UK £100 and he exchange rate is 1 :
> 1 if both sides print an extra thousand each both the dollar and pound
> haven't changed in reciprocal value. But there is extra money about
> and the main question is who gets this - if everyone gets the same
> share nothing has changed - if you and I had 10 units each before and
> now had double etc. We'd still have 10% of each domain's currency.
> But if we get zilch (as usual) we only have 5% after the printing.
> Even then, if the extra 1000 in each currency doubled production and
> prices didn't rise but fell by half owing to a jump in productivity
> we'd be twice as well off. This model has limits but is the essential
> idea. Instead, the extra money has been going into financialisation
> and we are being screwed. Even at this simplistic level it's not that
> simple as our assets may inflate in price - maybe our goats, wives and
> other chattels inflate to twice the old price We really need a
> spreadsheet - economics is full of them, but they quickly get very
> over-complicated. In science we'd throw them out as based on the
> wrong premises. All economic models contain sweeping power relations.
>
> I agree with your question on raising all countries out of poverty
> relations - but economics dismisses this and allows no such
> questioning. Even without thinking about the third world, one can ask
> why wages have been stripped of any relation with productivity. With
> increasing house prices how does it make sense to restrict wages -
> etc? Given most of the back-breaking work has been done on producing
> agricultural land and houses, why should we let their money value rise
> rather than decline (other than through fair maintenance)? In the end
> I think the drug involved in economics is competition - as expressed
> in vile work ideologies. This said, I still don't want to take only
> the same share as a dire slacker.
>
> On Feb 21, 5:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > but someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the cantillon
> > effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of it
> > held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create economic
> > rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon
> > shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/
> > Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we
> > think. / Archytas
>
> > I see that (what you say).... but there are (apparently) two parts to it,
> > as your separation into two sentences/passages recognizes....I ask you to
> > consider and speak to the distinction between Domestic "in-country" effects
> > or likely outcomes as distinguished from "inter-national" or
> > "between-country" effects or likely outcomes.
>
> > The "Domestic"
> > results....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon...Cantilloneffect(new
> > and
> > interesting lead, by the way, for me) would seem to say that the
> > "creation"and distribution of such money by the central banks, as is now
> > the case, benefits the "first use" "entrepreneur" recipients who get to,
> > as you say, create and profit from "economic rents" from it before passing
> > it on.....These "first use" "entrepreneurs" are, of course, advantaged by
> > this as distinguished from the "second use" fixed income wage earners.....
> > "Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income
> > wage-earners and non-fixed income
> > earners.[84]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-84>Entrepreneurs,
> > according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay
> > known costs of production but earn uncertain
> > incomes,[85]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-85>due
> > to the speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their
> > product." ... Maybe I take some
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-86>liberties and
> > jump to my own (non-Cantillon warranted) overarching conclusions in
> > this.... but my point is that the central banks, themselves, "cause" their
> > own problems by allowing their "created money" to be "first-used" in an
> > "entrepreneurial" way? By directing their "created money" to "fixed-income
> > wage earning'" endeavors, instead... the central banks would (seemingly, to
> > me) directly benefit their national economies... and also greatly diminish
> > "money-value fluctuation"..... This isn't anything unheard of.....the
> > Savings and Loan banks here in the U.S. went through this in the 1980s and
> > now have to abide by standards regarding how they "spend" the monies they
> > receive from the federal government....The Wall Street "commercial" banks
> > and firms could easily be "regulated" in this manner, also, I'd
> > think....Anyway.... my bigger "societal" point is.... will internal
> > domestic politics allow for greater economic pain for the fixed-wage
> > earners in order to continue the increased and increasing wealth
> > accumulation on the part of the entrepreneurs......?..... It shouldn't, I'd
> > think.... speaking in a common-sense sort of way.
>
> > Internationally, the same dynamic ... rich country vs. poor country comes
> > into play.....I ask whether the rich countries should behave in an
> > "exploitative-entrepreneurial" manner, economically toward the poor
> > countries or whether the rich countries should try to raise the poor
> > countries to an equal level of economic development as themselves....
> > generally stated.....?
>
> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:03:49 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > The currency wars are with us Nom. But what is a successful outcome -
> > > having the lowest? Who is at war against whom? I suspect all the
> > > economic blather is a cover for the money printing - as the money is
> > > going into stuff like ETFs (exchange traded funds) used to create
> > > monopolies in commodities and food. As an economist my guess is that
> > > if everyone prints the same amount of dilution nothing changes - but
> > > someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the cantillon
> > > effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of it
> > > held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create economic
> > > rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon
> > > shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/
> > > Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we
> > > think.
>
> > > On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > More on QE, now in the U.S..... Up to now, the "conservatives" have been
> > > > handed the luxury of spouting off in support their "fiscal austerity"
> > > > budgetary and economic programs, while the central banks did what they
> > > > could to defray the actual "pain" by putting "money" into the
> > > economies....
> > > > looks like.... no more central bank "money"... time to either starve the
> > > > population or get the money the "old-fashioned" way... get the money the
> > > > only way it can be gotten.... where it is... stashed away in the pockets
> > > of
> > > > the "fat cats"..... Har... What do you think Archytas?
>
> > > >http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cae57b82-7b88-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0.html#a...
>
> > > > [image: Financial Times] <http://www.ft.com>Fed backs away from asset
> > > > buying
>
> > > > By Robin Harding in Washington and Claire Jones in London
>
> > > > The US Federal Reserve is backing away from open-ended asset purchases
> > > as
> > > > officials grow nervous about the dangers of a bigger balance sheet.
>
> > > > The minutes suggest that QE3 – as the Fed’s third round of quantitative
> > > > easing is known – could end earlier than previously thought and is no
> > > > longer a truly open-ended programme. The Fed’s balance sheet has reached
> > > > $3,078bn and could exceed four trillion dollars if QE3 continues for the
> > > > rest of the year.
>
> > > > Launching QE3 last September, the rate-setting Federal Open Market
> > > > Committee said it would keep buying assets until there was substantial
> > > > improvement in the labour market. The goal of asset purchases is to
> > > boost
> > > > the economy by driving down long-term interest rates.
>
> > > > But according to the minutes, “a number of participants stated that an
> > > > ongoing evaluation of the efficacy, costs, and risks of asset purchases
> > > > might well lead the committee to taper or end its purchases before it
> > > > judged that a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labour
> > > market
> > > > had occurred”.
>
> > > > That could reduce the support that QE3 provides to the economy because
> > > > markets can no longer be certain that the Fed will keep buying assets
> > > until
> > > > the labour market recovers.
>
> > > > The Fed minutes hit the US bond markets, with most Treasury prices
> > > briefly
> > > > paring gains or turning lower after the release of the document. The US
> > > > dollar rose broadly, with the trade-weighted dollar index climbing 0.4
> > > per
> > > > cent as the euro fell below the $1.33 mark.
>
> > > > In the UK, by contrast, it emerged on Wednesday that the governor of the
> > > > Bank of England had called for more quantitative easing at its February
> > > > meeting, pushing sterling to its lowest level against the dollar since
> > > the
> > > > summer.
>
> > > > The Fed minutes show that the duration of QE3 remains hotly disputed on
> > > the
> > > > FOMC, with “several” other participants sticking to open-ended purchases
> > > > and warning that stopping too early could damage the economy.
>
> > > > But the balance appears to have shifted since December, when the FOMC
> > > was
> > > > evenly split on whether to keep buying assets until the end of the year
> > > or
> > > > stop earlier. In FOMC terms, “a number” is more than “several”.
>
> > > > The FOMC decided not to change its January statement on the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
