Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Challenge to Opponents of Monetary Stimulus

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 4:16:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And, for those of you who are daring enough, here's one I would love to debate:


Resolved: Barring structural reform, secular stagnation renders monetary stimulus impotent as a unilateral stabilization measure


There are a lot of different ways to formulate this resolution and even to define the terms, though I'll love those be for the time being since a willingness to debate this resolution would require, I would presume, a great deal of background knowledge. Without that, I don't think this would generate a worthwhile debate .
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
LETeller
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 4:31:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Resolution 4.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 4:32:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 4:31:12 PM, LETeller wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Resolution 4.

Great; I'll be in touch with you after my classes end.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
LETeller
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 4:48:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 4:32:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:31:12 PM, LETeller wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Resolution 4.

Great; I'll be in touch with you after my classes end.

Cool. Thanks
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

All of your debates accept the premise of monetary policy. I would debate a topic like:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

A topic like that, debates if government should even engage in monetary policy.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

All of your debates accept the premise of monetary policy. I would debate a topic like:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

A topic like that, debates if government should even engage in monetary policy.

But that boils down to a philosophical, rather than economic, question.

How about a more general debate about the *effectiveness* of monetary policy?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, since you seem to prefer invisible-hand-onomics, how about this:

Resolved: In the absence of appropriate monetary policy, the self-correcting mechanism is destabilizing

Let me know.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 7:14:07 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

All of your debates accept the premise of monetary policy. I would debate a topic like:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

A topic like that, debates if government should even engage in monetary policy.

But that boils down to a philosophical, rather than economic, question.

How about a more general debate about the *effectiveness* of monetary policy?

Maybe a good debate would be singular vs multiple monetary policy, in other words multiple currencies accepted as legal tender.

If the premise of a policy is **immoral**, effectiveness is irrelevant. Moral philosophy is a key part of monetary policy. The Fed is mandated with maintaining stable prices. The Fed defines stable as a policy to increase prices by 2% per year, based on philosophical beliefs.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:49:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 7:44:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:

Maybe a good debate would be singular vs multiple monetary policy, in other words multiple currencies accepted as legal tender.

We would be talking over each other in such a debate, though -- you would argue for multiple currencies on the basis of "immorality," whereas I would be saying, "No monetary policy isn't the devil." It would just be a horribly boring debate all around for both of us, whereby we would just be ranting.

If you really wanted to, we could do the gold standard -- but that's pretty much as far as I'll go.

If the premise of a policy is **immoral**, effectiveness is irrelevant.

Can something be ineffective, but moral? How about effective, but immoral? I'm not seeing why you're so deadset on debating morality -- I clearly am interested in having an economics debate, not a philosophy debate.

Moral philosophy is a key part of monetary policy. The Fed is mandated with maintaining stable prices. The Fed defines stable as a policy to increase prices by 2% per year, based on philosophical beliefs.

No, it isn't a philosophical distinction -- it's an acknowledgment on a global basis that 2 percent is, at present, deemed most conducive to price stability, which is generally seen as the price level having virtually no bearing on consumer and business behavior. There's empirical work suggesting that a different level may be appropriate, but it's hardly a "philosophical belief."
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
LETeller
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 7:44:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:14:07 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

All of your debates accept the premise of monetary policy. I would debate a topic like:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

A topic like that, debates if government should even engage in monetary policy.

But that boils down to a philosophical, rather than economic, question.

How about a more general debate about the *effectiveness* of monetary policy?

Maybe a good debate would be singular vs multiple monetary policy, in other words multiple currencies accepted as legal tender.

If the premise of a policy is **immoral**, effectiveness is irrelevant. Moral philosophy is a key part of monetary policy. The Fed is mandated with maintaining stable prices. The Fed defines stable as a policy to increase prices by 2% per year, based on philosophical beliefs.

- Multiple currencies?

I'll debate that anywhere, anytime.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription
.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?

Monetary policy is sophistry that has no merits.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:11:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:01:01 PM, LETeller wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:44:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:14:07 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 6:39:09 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

All of your debates accept the premise of monetary policy. I would debate a topic like:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

A topic like that, debates if government should even engage in monetary policy.

But that boils down to a philosophical, rather than economic, question.

How about a more general debate about the *effectiveness* of monetary policy?

Maybe a good debate would be singular vs multiple monetary policy, in other words multiple currencies accepted as legal tender.

If the premise of a policy is **immoral**, effectiveness is irrelevant. Moral philosophy is a key part of monetary policy. The Fed is mandated with maintaining stable prices. The Fed defines stable as a policy to increase prices by 2% per year, based on philosophical beliefs.

- Multiple currencies?

I'll debate that anywhere, anytime.

Sent
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:13:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:10:59 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?

Monetary policy is sophistry that has no merits.

You're wasting my time.

Take up one of the resolutions, or leave. I don't have time for this type of back and forth, which is precisely why this thread came to be.

Once more, I want to debate ECONOMICS -- not morality. Economics is not about morality, and never will be. We may apply morality to economic analysis and that may inform the trade-offs we opt to accept to better societal welfare -- e.g., we may accept inefficient trade barriers to ensure environmental protection and labor rights because we deem them important -- but that doesn't change the economic analysis that free trade is good for the economy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

One thing that I find ironic about stimulus economics is that it's usually the rich and big businesses who benefit the most. Any devout Liberal should be opposed to stimulus packages.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:19:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

One thing that I find ironic about stimulus economics is that it's usually the rich and big businesses who benefit the most. Any devout Liberal should be opposed to stimulus packages.

I mean, it would make perfect sense as to why Bush did bailouts, given his more Authoritarian Right ideology, but Obama too? Really?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:23:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:19:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/2/2015 4:09:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I haven't much time to hash a lot of these issues out in the forums, but I've ran into several people here who are, for whatever reason, skeptical of monetary policy. This need not take the form of being an outright inflationista or permahawk, but several people here see to believe fervently that Fed policy is misguided by its very nature -- and that the last six years demonstrate a failure to properly revive the economy. This isn't directed at any one person in particular, and I can think of as many as four or five people off the top of my head who may be interested in this.

Here's the challenge: debate me formally. We can even do a 2-on-2 team debate, if you'd prefer. In fact, that may even be more interesting.

Here are the resolutions I'd be interested in, though feel free to add to these or propose new ones:

Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should increase short-term interest rates in mid-2015
Resolved: The Federal Reserve's response to the 2007-09 financial crisis was appropriate
Resolved: Monetary policy is impotent once nominal interest rates reach their zero lower bound
Resolved: Fiscal stimulus is preferable to monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound

Hopefully someone is willing to accept one of these. I'd post this in a formal debate challenge, but haven't had much luck finding an opponent thus far that way. Hopefully this is a constructive way to hash out our differences -- and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.


Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

One thing that I find ironic about stimulus economics is that it's usually the rich and big businesses who benefit the most. Any devout Liberal should be opposed to stimulus packages.

That just isn't the case -- and if it were, why are rich oligarchs the first people to fund hard-money, sh1t-for-Brains, astroturf "thinktanks" like Freedomworks and Heritage which suggest that tighter money is GOOD for the U.S. economy?

It's true that a rising tide does not lift all boats -- mind you, that's conservative economics -- but a falling tide sure as hell hurts the least off most; when I think of monetary policy, it's primarily to ensure the bottom from falling out, and dealing with the ramifications of inequality by other means. I assure you that the poor and middle class would be far worse off in the absence of stimulatory monetary policy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:26:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:13:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:10:59 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?

Monetary policy is sophistry that has no merits.

You're wasting my time.

Take up one of the resolutions, or leave. I don't have time for this type of back and forth, which is precisely why this thread came to be.

Once more, I want to debate ECONOMICS -- not morality. Economics is not about morality, and never will be. We may apply morality to economic analysis and that may inform the trade-offs we opt to accept to better societal welfare -- e.g., we may accept inefficient trade barriers to ensure environmental protection and labor rights because we deem them important -- but that doesn't change the economic analysis that free trade is good for the economy.

I want to debate if a nation should even have monetary policy. You only want to debate the small differences in approaches. Central bankers won the fight a century ago, and everyone else must pay the price today to keep the banker's pockets full of newly created money. Macro-economists refuse to debate the morality of policy that costs so many, so much, for so long.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:28:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:26:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:13:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:10:59 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?

Monetary policy is sophistry that has no merits.

You're wasting my time.

Take up one of the resolutions, or leave. I don't have time for this type of back and forth, which is precisely why this thread came to be.

Once more, I want to debate ECONOMICS -- not morality. Economics is not about morality, and never will be. We may apply morality to economic analysis and that may inform the trade-offs we opt to accept to better societal welfare -- e.g., we may accept inefficient trade barriers to ensure environmental protection and labor rights because we deem them important -- but that doesn't change the economic analysis that free trade is good for the economy.

I want to debate if a nation should even have monetary policy. You only want to debate the small differences in approaches. Central bankers won the fight a century ago, and everyone else must pay the price today to keep the banker's pockets full of newly created money. Macro-economists refuse to debate the morality of policy that costs so many, so much, for so long.

The last sentence is the only thing you got right. That's completely true, and it's why we went into economics, not philosophy. Economics, once more, has NOTHING to do with morality.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:28:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:26:31 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:13:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:10:59 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:06:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:04:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:59:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:55:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:36:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:16:43 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/2/2015 7:52:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
And, not to mention, economics is not a game of morality. There may be moral implications of policy, but the Fed didn't consider, when defining price stability as "inflation on average of 2 percent over the longer run," whether it would be "immoral" for prices to rise at some other rate than 2 percent -- but that, empirically, inflation in that vicinity optimizes behavior among economic actors and is conducive to the best outcomes. There is even debate amongst economists over whether that number is even correct -- yet the moral basis (we want sound decisionmaking) is held constant.

The Fed's mandates are based on morality, with macro-economics being the tool of the morality.

That just isn't the game; economics has nothing to do with morality. The implications of policy may be of a moral nature, but that need not go into the policy prescription

Right this is not a game, ***REAL PEOPLE*** are harmed or rewarded by monetary policy. Explain *why* a person that is poor and does not trust of banks that stores money in a mattress, should have their money decrease value every year so that a rich banker can earn profits from making new loans. Or, *why* a successful businessman should have his business punished by a change in monetary policy because the economy is over-heating.

You're getting COMPLETELY off-topic -- and this shows that you don't understand monetary policy, as this does not in any way represent monetary policy in practice, or over the past thirty years. Paul Volcker actually induced a massive, prolonged recession to FIGHT against hyperinflation; we haven't had anything of the sort since then, so this analogy is just wrong.

.
My guess is than you are similar to a Soldier fighting for their country. A Soldier that knows everything about tools of the trade, but does not question the mission. I want to debate the mission.

What's the alternative? Can't we both agree the mission is a "strong economy," and then fight about the "how?"

The alternative, there are many, people should not be forced to comply with only one. A strong economy, at what cost? The "why" is more important than the "how". It should be easy for you to justify the "why".

I gave you a potential resolution on the self-correcting mechanism -- i.e., doing nothing. Take a look.

You seam to strongly support the effects of monetary policy, support the *why* directly:

Resolved: A just government should require participation in a monetary system that will conduct normative policies

You cannot defend the *why* on moral grounds!

I could defend it -- I just have no interest in a philosophy debate. "A just government" brings into play questions of what justice actually is. I could just as easy pull a Zaradi and tell you that monetary policy is great because it induces suffering, and thus turn all of your arguments against you.

It's a stupid proposition that I'm just not interested in. Once more, I want to debate economics, not sophistry. If monetary policy were ineffective, why won't you debate me on its merits?

Monetary policy is sophistry that has no merits.

You're wasting my time.

Take up one of the resolutions, or leave. I don't have time for this type of back and forth, which is precisely why this thread came to be.

Once more, I want to debate ECONOMICS -- not morality. Economics is not about morality, and never will be. We may apply morality to economic analysis and that may inform the trade-offs we opt to accept to better societal welfare -- e.g., we may accept inefficient trade barriers to ensure environmental protection and labor rights because we deem them important -- but that doesn't change the economic analysis that free trade is good for the economy.

I want to debate if a nation should even have monetary policy. You only want to debate the small differences in approaches. Central bankers won the fight a century ago, and everyone else must pay the price today to keep the banker's pockets full of newly created money. Macro-economists refuse to debate the morality of policy that costs so many, so much, for so long.

The last sentence is the only thing you got right. That's completely true, and it's why we went into economics, not philosophy. Economics, once more, has NOTHING to do with morality.

That is why you are only ****a tool**** for the connected to manipulate, no morals or ethics. just as a hammer.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:35:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:31:37 PM, Chang29 wrote:
That is why you are only ****a tool**** for the connected to manipulate, no morals or ethics. just as a hammer.

That you can only communicate in ad-hominem attacks when people tell you "no" and aren't interested in your misguided, wildly misinformed sophistry, says a lot.

We're done here. Please, step aside so I can set up a list of debate challenges for *serious* people.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:35:13 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:31:37 PM, Chang29 wrote:
That is why you are only ****a tool**** for the connected to manipulate, no morals or ethics. just as a hammer.

That you can only communicate in ad-hominem attacks when people tell you "no" and aren't interested in your misguided, wildly misinformed sophistry, says a lot.

We're done here. Please, step aside so I can set up a list of debate challenges for *serious* people.

You have demonstrated that your opinions should be completely disregarded. The tool does not question its uses, just keeps banging away no matter the harm caused by its actions.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.