Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

What are your views on economics?

adontimasu
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 11:12:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello, DDOers. After looking through many explanations given for many people's beliefs regarding many economic issues in the BIG ISSUES section of the site, I saw that many people didn't (or, rather, couldn't) get all that specific in why they viewed the way they did. That is why I am here: I want to know, in as much detail as possible, why you hold the view you do now on the following issues:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)
> Free Market v. Government Regulation
> Welfare
> Social Security
> Minimum Wage
> Stimulus Spending
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 11:40:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:12:59 PM, adontimasu wrote:
Hello, DDOers. After looking through many explanations given for many people's beliefs regarding many economic issues in the BIG ISSUES section of the site, I saw that many people didn't (or, rather, couldn't) get all that specific in why they viewed the way they did. That is why I am here: I want to know, in as much detail as possible, why you hold the view you do now on the following issues:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

The rate of inflation growth has remained relatively stable under the Federal reserve. There haven't been any major bank runs under the Federal reserve. No depression since the Great Depression. There have been recessions, but not a depression.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

Depends on the regulation.

> Welfare

Earned income tax credit with a negative income tax would be the most efficient system. Welfare-to-work programs are also good. As long as the welfare programs try to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence.

> Social Security

financial unsound at the time and inefficient in terms of rate of return from its deposits.

> Minimum Wage

No. Minimum wage causes unemployment since businesses can't afford poor quality labor for minimum wages. People don't necessarily work-for-a-living but work-for-a-training, like education. Except the difference is if you work-for-training you get paid. If you get an education you have to pay.

> Stimulus Spending

It depends on the situation. Nations with closed economies, fixed exchange rate, and low debt would benefit from stimulus spending. However, monetary policy is preferred over stimulus spending.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 11:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:40:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

The rate of inflation growth has remained relatively stable under the Federal reserve. There haven't been any major bank runs under the Federal reserve. No depression since the Great Depression. There have been recessions, but not a depression.

http://www.uri.edu...

> Welfare

Earned income tax credit with a negative income tax would be the most efficient system. Welfare-to-work programs are also good. As long as the welfare programs try to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence.

Welfare-to-work programs are complete failures. Mutual aid societies are a much better way to go.

> Stimulus Spending

It depends on the situation. Nations with closed economies, fixed exchange rate, and low debt would benefit from stimulus spending. However, monetary policy is preferred over stimulus spending.

Ah, yes, monetary policy aka the policy of systematically devaluing the currency and creating bubbles.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:03:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

It devalues the US dollar, creates+fuels bubbles, funds militarism, hurts savings, which in turn discourages investment while encouraging speculation, causes the business cycle, etc.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

The free market is self-regulating. Every government regulation you can think of is either unnecessary, harmful, or both. Some government regulation serves to help select corporations at the expense of start-ups, other regulations serve to expand the powers of a particular bureaucracy through crisis creation or exacerbating an existing problem.

> Welfare

I'm all for welfare if it's done voluntarily. Stealing from me to give to someone else is immoral and inefficient. Mutual aid societies and charities exist to help the disadvantaged. It's also a responsibility of family and close friends to help a person make ends meet, not the responsibility of a stranger who has never seen the disadvantaged person.

> Social Security

Again, stealing is immoral. In the absence of government coercive theft, people would save for their own retirements, and most would receive better returns through investment than through stealing working persons' salaries.

> Minimum Wage

I don't support excluding unskilled and uneducated people from the labor market to support unions, so I'm against the minimum wage.

> Stimulus Spending

I support neither Keynesian nor socialist policies. It doesn't work, wastes resources/or/devalues the dollar, and disallows the allocation of resources from unproductive areas to productive areas.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
adontimasu
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:04:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:40:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

The rate of inflation growth has remained relatively stable under the Federal reserve. There haven't been any major bank runs under the Federal reserve. No depression since the Great Depression. There have been recessions, but not a depression.

Well, sure, but we never really had depression without the Fed, either. Most depressions were caused by relatively stupid mistakes on the part of Congress or the President (such as the Embargo Act under Jefferson, which would have completely crased the economy). Furthermore, I wouldn't call the levels stable.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

Depends on the regulation.

I would take that as saying that you are not completely for the free market. Why do you regard the free market as inefficient in comparison to certain regulations by government?

> Social Security

financial unsound at the time and inefficient in terms of rate of return from its deposits.

Indeed. I find myself becoming more and more against Social Security with each passing day; however, I wanted to know other people's opinions on the matter.

> Stimulus Spending

It depends on the situation. Nations with closed economies, fixed exchange rate, and low debt would benefit from stimulus spending. However, monetary policy is preferred over stimulus spending.

From my knowledge, stimulus spending is most beneficial during recession, and most harmful during economic prosperity in any country, closed or not, low or high debt, etc.
adontimasu
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:09:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:03:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

It devalues the US dollar, creates+fuels bubbles, funds militarism, hurts savings, which in turn discourages investment while encouraging speculation, causes the business cycle, etc.

Business cycle? Are you an Austrian economicist?

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

The free market is self-regulating. Every government regulation you can think of is either unnecessary, harmful, or both. Some government regulation serves to help select corporations at the expense of start-ups, other regulations serve to expand the powers of a particular bureaucracy through crisis creation or exacerbating an existing problem.

The disallowment of the establishment of monopolies?

> Welfare

I'm all for welfare if it's done voluntarily. Stealing from me to give to someone else is immoral and inefficient. Mutual aid societies and charities exist to help the disadvantaged. It's also a responsibility of family and close friends to help a person make ends meet, not the responsibility of a stranger who has never seen the disadvantaged person.

This one is a tad tough for me. While I see your point, I find the idea of the government pretty much abandoning people (especially after they have already become dependent on the government for their living) to be rather immoral in itself.

> Social Security

Again, stealing is immoral. In the absence of government coercive theft, people would save for their own retirements, and most would receive better returns through investment than through stealing working persons' salaries.

Agreed.

> Minimum Wage

I don't support excluding unskilled and uneducated people from the labor market to support unions, so I'm against the minimum wage.

Huh. Would you argue that the removal of minimum wage would create jobs?

> Stimulus Spending

I support neither Keynesian nor socialist policies. It doesn't work, wastes resources/or/devalues the dollar, and disallows the allocation of resources from unproductive areas to productive areas.

Are these affects true in all uses, or only in certain uses? For instance, is this the same for in times of great economic depression as it would be in great economic prosperity?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:11:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:52:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/30/2012 11:40:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

The rate of inflation growth has remained relatively stable under the Federal reserve. There haven't been any major bank runs under the Federal reserve. No depression since the Great Depression. There have been recessions, but not a depression.

http://www.uri.edu...

Graph seems to be using a 1 year average. Use a 1 month average and you get much less stable results.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

also the graph conviently ignores the years prior:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That links actually from my university.

> Welfare

Earned income tax credit with a negative income tax would be the most efficient system. Welfare-to-work programs are also good. As long as the welfare programs try to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence.

Welfare-to-work programs are complete failures. Mutual aid societies are a much better way to go.

> Stimulus Spending

It depends on the situation. Nations with closed economies, fixed exchange rate, and low debt would benefit from stimulus spending. However, monetary policy is preferred over stimulus spending.

Ah, yes, monetary policy aka the policy of systematically devaluing the currency and creating bubbles.

Bubbles are created due to herd behavior, and other behavioral phenomon. There's the greater fool theory, in which people invest in bubbles not because they think it has intrinsic value, but because If the bubble grows, they can just sell it off to any sucker, as long as it doesn't pop when they have it. Then there's the extrapolation theory, in which people invest based on a stock's trend. They see the stock has been growing, they invest in it, because they believe the trend will continue.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:18:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

also the graph conviently ignores the years prior:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That links actually from my university.

Man, look at those spikes of inflation when we introduced central banking. Phew!

Bubbles are created due to herd behavior, and other behavioral phenomon. There's the greater fool theory, in which people invest in bubbles not because they think it has intrinsic value, but because If the bubble grows, they can just sell it off to any sucker, as long as it doesn't pop when they have it. Then there's the extrapolation theory, in which people invest based on a stock's trend. They see the stock has been growing, they invest in it, because they believe the trend will continue.

And what is the source fueling the irrational exuberance? C'mon, you can say it ;) I won't tell your professors.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:22:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:04:58 AM, adontimasu wrote:
At 9/30/2012 11:40:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

The rate of inflation growth has remained relatively stable under the Federal reserve. There haven't been any major bank runs under the Federal reserve. No depression since the Great Depression. There have been recessions, but not a depression.

Well, sure, but we never really had depression without the Fed, either.

Course we have. plenty of bank runs. Just look at a history of recessions:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most depressions were caused by relatively stupid mistakes on the part of Congress or the President (such as the Embargo Act under Jefferson, which would have completely crased the economy). Furthermore, I wouldn't call the levels stable.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

Depends on the regulation.

I would take that as saying that you are not completely for the free market. Why do you regard the free market as inefficient in comparison to certain regulations by government?

Negative externalities for one. For example, If there are safety or pollution consideration, it should be regulated. I suppose you can use a tax system, but its not always practical. Some regulations are beneficial for cases of asymmetric information and increasing equality for those with medical disabilities, handicapped and pregnant women in the workforce. I don't agree with a lot of legislation passed in congress for some of these issues, but I do believe some regulation is necessary.

> Social Security

financial unsound at the time and inefficient in terms of rate of return from its deposits.

Indeed. I find myself becoming more and more against Social Security with each passing day; however, I wanted to know other people's opinions on the matter.

> Stimulus Spending

It depends on the situation. Nations with closed economies, fixed exchange rate, and low debt would benefit from stimulus spending. However, monetary policy is preferred over stimulus spending.

From my knowledge, stimulus spending is most beneficial during recession, and most harmful during economic prosperity in any country, closed or not, low or high debt, etc.

that is true. however, closed or not and low or high debt does matter quite a bit. High debt lowers consumer confidence. Keynesian economics uses closed economy assumptions. If the economy is more open, the rules change since its foreign demand that matters, not domestic demand.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:29:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:18:24 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

also the graph conviently ignores the years prior:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That links actually from my university.

Man, look at those spikes of inflation when we introduced central banking. Phew!

Less spikey then before the Fed. Also pre-Great Depression our understanding of macroeconomics was much weaker then it is now.

Bubbles are created due to herd behavior, and other behavioral phenomon. There's the greater fool theory, in which people invest in bubbles not because they think it has intrinsic value, but because If the bubble grows, they can just sell it off to any sucker, as long as it doesn't pop when they have it. Then there's the extrapolation theory, in which people invest based on a stock's trend. They see the stock has been growing, they invest in it, because they believe the trend will continue.

And what is the source fueling the irrational exuberance? C'mon, you can say it ;) I won't tell your professors.

I already graduated. And I didn't go into economics, although I'm thinking about going into banking or investment. I have a job interview for an equity trading company. However, I'm not sure how difficult it would be for me to find other positions without a finance or economics major. A lot of firms care more whether the person is good at math or not.

Do you really think humans are rational calculators? And the "greater fool theory" occurs under rationality.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:32:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:09:49 AM, adontimasu wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:03:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

It devalues the US dollar, creates+fuels bubbles, funds militarism, hurts savings, which in turn discourages investment while encouraging speculation, causes the business cycle, etc.

Business cycle? Are you an Austrian economicist?

Economist*
No, I'm more in line with David Friedman of the Chicago School, but the ABCT has strong data and argument supporting it.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

The free market is self-regulating. Every government regulation you can think of is either unnecessary, harmful, or both. Some government regulation serves to help select corporations at the expense of start-ups, other regulations serve to expand the powers of a particular bureaucracy through crisis creation or exacerbating an existing problem.

The disallowment of the establishment of monopolies?

That's an economic and historical myth, which is wholly incompetent when you note that much of the US government's argument against the formation of monopolies was for the express purpose of establishing its own monopoly over a particular industry. This is particularly true with regard to electricity, water, and sewage, utilities.

Big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprises loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers. In a free market, if a business becomes a monopoly for a substantial period of time (only has occurred in history: De Beers, although it doesn't fit my illustration) it is due to providing the best possible product at the best price at that time. Furthermore, a company can't force you to do anything, it can only offer you a product, which you can turn down. Meanwhile, government has a monopoly on force, and abuses it, but you don't see the problem with that? The skepticism should be on government, which is the only apparatus whereby people can profit unjustly.

> Welfare

I'm all for welfare if it's done voluntarily. Stealing from me to give to someone else is immoral and inefficient. Mutual aid societies and charities exist to help the disadvantaged. It's also a responsibility of family and close friends to help a person make ends meet, not the responsibility of a stranger who has never seen the disadvantaged person.

This one is a tad tough for me. While I see your point, I find the idea of the government pretty much abandoning people (especially after they have already become dependent on the government for their living) to be rather immoral in itself.

Theft is theft is theft. It's not moral to steal, sorry. And no Libertarian advocates pulling the rug out from under people that have been in a generational attachment to the state in welfare. The policy is usually disbanding troops, bureaucrats, and eliminating waste before slowly tapering the addiction to the state apparatus.

> Minimum Wage

I don't support excluding unskilled and uneducated people from the labor market to support unions, so I'm against the minimum wage.

Huh. Would you argue that the removal of minimum wage would create jobs?

Yeah, because wages (a type of price) at the low end of the continuum would reflect market valuations

> Stimulus Spending

I support neither Keynesian nor socialist policies. It doesn't work, wastes resources/or/devalues the dollar, and disallows the allocation of resources from unproductive areas to productive areas.

Are these affects true in all uses, or only in certain uses? For instance, is this the same for in times of great economic depression as it would be in great economic prosperity?

While there may be slight differences, the fact is that stimulus doesn't stimulate, it perpetuates problems and destroys resources. A Keynesian would not use this policy during a boom time.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
adontimasu
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:37:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:32:29 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:09:49 AM, adontimasu wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:03:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

It devalues the US dollar, creates+fuels bubbles, funds militarism, hurts savings, which in turn discourages investment while encouraging speculation, causes the business cycle, etc.

Business cycle? Are you an Austrian economicist?

Economist*
No, I'm more in line with David Friedman of the Chicago School, but the ABCT has strong data and argument supporting it.
Yeah, I realized my mistake only after it was too late. :P

> Welfare

I'm all for welfare if it's done voluntarily. Stealing from me to give to someone else is immoral and inefficient. Mutual aid societies and charities exist to help the disadvantaged. It's also a responsibility of family and close friends to help a person make ends meet, not the responsibility of a stranger who has never seen the disadvantaged person.

This one is a tad tough for me. While I see your point, I find the idea of the government pretty much abandoning people (especially after they have already become dependent on the government for their living) to be rather immoral in itself.

Theft is theft is theft. It's not moral to steal, sorry. And no Libertarian advocates pulling the rug out from under people that have been in a generational attachment to the state in welfare. The policy is usually disbanding troops, bureaucrats, and eliminating waste before slowly tapering the addiction to the state apparatus.

I disagree. Most people regard that there are times where theft is moral; for instance, when a poor person is trying to feed their family and steals money or food from a person. (A nice little symbol of welfare, is it not?)

> Minimum Wage

I don't support excluding unskilled and uneducated people from the labor market to support unions, so I'm against the minimum wage.

Huh. Would you argue that the removal of minimum wage would create jobs?

Yeah, because wages (a type of price) at the low end of the continuum would reflect market valuations

Alright, then.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:39:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:29:15 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Less spikey then before the Fed. Also pre-Great Depression our understanding of macroeconomics was much weaker then it is now.

The general trend prior to the Fed was gradual deflation, which is the natural trend for an economy: capital becomes more efficient, and as a consequence, purchasing power increases, so prices decrease.

I already graduated. And I didn't go into economics, although I'm thinking about going into banking or investment. I have a job interview for an equity trading company. However, I'm not sure how difficult it would be for me to find other positions without a finance or economics major. A lot of firms care more whether the person is good at math or not.

Cool, I'm excellent at math. Good luck with the interview, man!

Do you really think humans are rational calculators? And the "greater fool theory" occurs under rationality.

No, I'm not a neo-classical follower, bro. There exists no rational economic man or average man, there exists individuals pursuing their own interests. The Federal Reserve fuels bubbles. This is historically undeniable, and especially apparent in recent times. Do you doubt that the Federal Reserve fueled the housing bubble?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:58:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:39:57 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:29:15 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Less spikey then before the Fed. Also pre-Great Depression our understanding of macroeconomics was much weaker then it is now.

The general trend prior to the Fed was gradual deflation, which is the natural trend for an economy: capital becomes more efficient, and as a consequence, purchasing power increases, so prices decrease.

So what? It doesn't matter whether deflation or inflation is occurring. How inflation or deflation is occurring matters. Only the real wages and real prices. Prices might be more expensive, but wages are higher as well.

High levels of deflation are bad because it can create a scenario of zero interest rate, in which people hoard money rather than spend money. Currently this is a problem since gold extraction can not keep up with gdp or even population growth for that matter. Nominal wages have a difficult time of falling even if real wages are increasing.


I already graduated. And I didn't go into economics, although I'm thinking about going into banking or investment. I have a job interview for an equity trading company. However, I'm not sure how difficult it would be for me to find other positions without a finance or economics major. A lot of firms care more whether the person is good at math or not.

Cool, I'm excellent at math. Good luck with the interview, man!

Thanks. Do you plan on going into something similar as well? I assume your name is wallstreetatheist for a reason.

Do you really think humans are rational calculators? And the "greater fool theory" occurs under rationality.

No, I'm not a neo-classical follower, bro. There exists no rational economic man or average man, there exists individuals pursuing their own interests. The Federal Reserve fuels bubbles. This is historically undeniable, and especially apparent in recent times. Do you doubt that the Federal Reserve fueled the housing bubble?

No it isn't. Bubbles have existed throughout history.

I'm not sure about the fed fueling the housing bubble. You can blame them for creating the credit, but why did it go to the housing bubble instead of other investments? It wasn't as IF there was huge inflation everywhere. It was mainly the housing market that was inflated. The Community Reinivestment act and Freddie and Fannie Mac played a role. But irrationally played a major role and the belief that home prices could only go up and up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 1:04:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of my friends, who actually is in investment banking describes it as the following:

-trading is about information monopoly
-to be a good trader u need to be a better liar
-it's like poker to make money u need top be able to make people make unfav trades
-it is kinda zero sum (adjusted for inflation) so your profit is someone's loss to get max profit

I understand a lot of its anecdotal evidence though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 2:35:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:58:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So what? It doesn't matter whether deflation or inflation is occurring. How inflation or deflation is occurring matters. Only the real wages and real prices. Prices might be more expensive, but wages are higher as well.

Whether it is occurring matters greatly for an economy and families. What I'm saying is that the natural pattern of the free market is slight deflation for the aforementioned reasons. Without inflating a currency through central banking, this would be the trend. Also, a wage is a price.

High levels of deflation are bad because it can create a scenario of zero interest rate, in which people hoard money rather than spend money. Currently this is a problem since gold extraction can not keep up with gdp or even population growth for that matter. Nominal wages have a difficult time of falling even if real wages are increasing.

What? A zero-interest rate policy encourages inflation and reduces the threat of deflation. At any rate, high levels of inflation or deflation are bad, no question. That's not really what we're arguing about at this point though. You think government monetary policy is necessary to keep a stable economy, and I think it is not for many reasons: the complete failure of central banks to stabilize economies, their role in fueling bubbles, and the destruction of savings to name a few.

Thanks. Do you plan on going into something similar as well? I assume your name is wallstreetatheist for a reason.

Yes, I matriculate to college in the spring to study finance with a minor in economics or math. I was accepted to NYU, but my dad said that he wouldn't pay, or help pay, for my tuition or room and board, so I'm going to WVU.

No it isn't. Bubbles have existed throughout history.

I'm not sure about the fed fueling the housing bubble. You can blame them for creating the credit, but why did it go to the housing bubble instead of other investments? It wasn't as IF there was huge inflation everywhere. It was mainly the housing market that was inflated. The Community Reinivestment act and Freddie and Fannie Mac played a role. But irrationally played a major role and the belief that home prices could only go up and up.

Would you like to debate on this issue?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 3:14:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 2:35:55 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:58:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So what? It doesn't matter whether deflation or inflation is occurring. How inflation or deflation is occurring matters. Only the real wages and real prices. Prices might be more expensive, but wages are higher as well.

Whether it is occurring matters greatly for an economy and families.

You can't just state that deflation = good, inflation = bad. It depends on how it occurs and what the current rate of inflation or deflation was.

What I'm saying is that the natural pattern of the free market is slight deflation for the aforementioned reasons. Without inflating a currency through central banking, this would be the trend. Also, a wage is a price.

And i'm saying this isn't necessarily a good thing. Same that inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

High levels of deflation are bad because it can create a scenario of zero interest rate, in which people hoard money rather than spend money. Currently this is a problem since gold extraction can not keep up with gdp or even population growth for that matter. Nominal wages have a difficult time of falling even if real wages are increasing.

What? A zero-interest rate policy encourages inflation and reduces the threat of deflation.

Only in the short-term. Long-term inflation encourages higher interest rates. An increase in the supply in the money will cause interest rates to lower. Based on basic supply and demand analysis (increasing the supply of money lowers interest rates). This is only because the degree of inflation or deflation is unexpected.

However, If inflation or deflation is expected, then rational business owners adjust their expectations. In other words, If they expect inflation, they will expect high cash flows in the future. If they expect deflation, the will expect low cash flows in the future. Under deflation, you need a low interest rate to be profitable and under inflation you can remain profitable under a higher interest rate.

At any rate, high levels of inflation or deflation are bad, no question. That's not really what we're arguing about at this point though. You think government monetary policy is necessary to keep a stable economy, and I think it is not for many reasons: the complete failure of central banks to stabilize economies, their role in fueling bubbles, and the destruction of savings to name a few.


Thanks. Do you plan on going into something similar as well? I assume your name is wallstreetatheist for a reason.

Yes, I matriculate to college in the spring to study finance with a minor in economics or math. I was accepted to NYU, but my dad said that he wouldn't pay, or help pay, for my tuition or room and board, so I'm going to WVU.


No it isn't. Bubbles have existed throughout history.

I'm not sure about the fed fueling the housing bubble. You can blame them for creating the credit, but why did it go to the housing bubble instead of other investments? It wasn't as IF there was huge inflation everywhere. It was mainly the housing market that was inflated. The Community Reinivestment act and Freddie and Fannie Mac played a role. But irrationally played a major role and the belief that home prices could only go up and up.

Would you like to debate on this issue?

maybe, if I'm given some time to do some research.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:12:59 PM, adontimasu wrote:
Hello, DDOers. After looking through many explanations given for many people's beliefs regarding many economic issues in the BIG ISSUES section of the site, I saw that many people didn't (or, rather, couldn't) get all that specific in why they viewed the way they did. That is why I am here: I want to know, in as much detail as possible, why you hold the view you do now on the following issues:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

Either end it, but a probably better idea/more realistic idea is to have a responsible Fed, which would help the economy have less serious depressions, like Darkkermit proved, and without drastically devaluing the currency like they have been doing.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

The Free market will self-regulates itself. Some regulations may be beneficial, but the actual number is very limited. Most of the time, the free market should be left to regulate itself.

To protect the environment, decrease negative externalities and protect property rights.

> Welfare

End it. Replace it with the Earned Income tax credit fully, short term welfare assistance (no more than 3 months is ok).

> Social Security

End it. Fully privatize it in private accounts, and it will usher opportunity and economic growth into the retirement plans of every American. And will limit government, and boost the stock market and therefore the economy.

> Minimum Wage

End it, as this imposes a wage floor above the level of marginal productivity, increasing unemployment. Ending this will allow the poor to get jobs and gain skills. The EITC is much better.

> Stimulus Spending

Besides incentivizing employers to hire workers, tax cuts, possibly monetary policy, I oppose stimulus spending, besides in the case of food stamps (high stimulative effect and are almost always at low levels during a strong economic time).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
adontimasu
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 2:54:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 5:50:34 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/30/2012 11:12:59 PM, adontimasu wrote:
Hello, DDOers. After looking through many explanations given for many people's beliefs regarding many economic issues in the BIG ISSUES section of the site, I saw that many people didn't (or, rather, couldn't) get all that specific in why they viewed the way they did. That is why I am here: I want to know, in as much detail as possible, why you hold the view you do now on the following issues:

> The Federal Reserve (esp. ending it)

Either end it, but a probably better idea/more realistic idea is to have a responsible Fed, which would help the economy have less serious depressions, like Darkkermit proved, and without drastically devaluing the currency like they have been doing.

> Free Market v. Government Regulation

The Free market will self-regulates itself. Some regulations may be beneficial, but the actual number is very limited. Most of the time, the free market should be left to regulate itself.

To protect the environment, decrease negative externalities and protect property rights.

> Welfare

End it. Replace it with the Earned Income tax credit fully, short term welfare assistance (no more than 3 months is ok).

> Social Security

End it. Fully privatize it in private accounts, and it will usher opportunity and economic growth into the retirement plans of every American. And will limit government, and boost the stock market and therefore the economy.

> Minimum Wage

End it, as this imposes a wage floor above the level of marginal productivity, increasing unemployment. Ending this will allow the poor to get jobs and gain skills. The EITC is much better.

> Stimulus Spending

Besides incentivizing employers to hire workers, tax cuts, possibly monetary policy, I oppose stimulus spending, besides in the case of food stamps (high stimulative effect and are almost always at low levels during a strong economic time).

Seems reasonable.