Thanks for the link, Archytas... I downloaded the PDF but have not looked at it yet..... I am an amateur when it comes to economics...I tend to look at the issue mainly as one of spotting the scams and the shams and trying to get them out of the "system".... or at least not falling for them, myself.....There was a time when these sorts of shenanigans were not as common... not too long ago, here in the U.S. ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_Act_of_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Deregulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
In the U.S.here was the Glass-Steagall act which many say served to guard against questionable transactions and practices.... although the actual efficacy or interpreted legal application of that act seems to be disputed, too..... But then, there are places, (like notably Canada) where their own laws avoided the brunt of the economic collapse in 2009 or so...This too seems to bring into play the question of differing regulations on banking and related firms.... You speak of "banksters"....and you are more able to explain it that I am.....what sorts of "regulations" should be instated or reinstated in places like the U.S. and England... etc....to restore a better functioning banking (and related) system.....Back to the Future.... to Glass- Steagall , plus? On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:28:52 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > 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.
