PS... Archytas...I read the article linked below about "austerity" in London (England generally).... sounds "Dickensian"....worse (not so, maudlin... but "factual").... time to lop off some Tory heads, I say....Can you blame (me) them?
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/23/can_england_be_saved_country_feeling_pain_of_pm_david_camerons_austerity_cuts.html 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.
