PPS... definitely... off with Cameron /Osborne heads..... HAR..... http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/23/the-loss-of-aaa-is-a-mild-national-humiliation-now-let-s-get-serious-about-generating-growth-cutting-spending http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/23/us-britain-osborne-idUSBRE91M0BW20130223 http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/23/the-loss-of-aaa-is-a-mild-national-humiliation-now-let-s-get-serious-about-generating-growth-cutting-spending
Where's Oliver Cromwell when you need him...... On Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:36:35 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > 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.
