Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

And.....Bored

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:08:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll start.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is putting out a ballot initiative on Sunday to allow the Greek people to decide whether to give into the demands of its creditors - structural reform (pension cuts, labor-market reforms, austerity) - or to default on its debt. Tsipras's party was elected earlier this year to take a stand *against* austerity, which in the absence of a credible, independent monetary regime is extremely deleterious to growth and may even have lingering impacts in the form of hysteresis.

Now, the ECB unveiled a bond-buying program earlier in the year, promising to buy at least $1 trillion euros worth of bonds by September 2016 (but retained the right to extend the size and scope of the program beyond that date), and markets reacted: the euro fell, interest rates fell, and most of the periphery saw a modest recovery, though obviously it hasn't been nearly robust enough. Greek imploding could send ripples throughout global financial markets and even threaten the credibility of the euro system itself, and would surely lead to flight-to-safety flows to the United States, which would further appreciate the dollar and undermine exports.

Further, the IMF came out recently and projected that, even if Greece were to accept the austerity measures demanded by the Troika, it's debt would still balloon to unsustainable levels - 118% of its GDP - by 2030 [http://www.theguardian.com...]. In other words, the causation may be, and likely is, that slow growth leads to high debt, rather than high debt to slow growth (though, it bears mentioning, that doesn't complete undermine the conclusions of Ken Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Vincent Reinhart (2012), because their paper set a danger threshold somewhere around the 90-100% range, though because that's *relative* to the size of the economy, faster growth now could dramatically shrink that nevertheless state-contingent range).

So, my view is that Greece is in a pickle and has to accept the Troika's demands. The implications of it not doing so are cataclysmic and, irrespective of the fact that a currency union is a horrid, failed political experiment (note that it was never pegged as good economics), now is not the time, especially with financial volatility to follow from a U.S. rate liftoff - which, of course, could be implicated by Greece imploding and continued malaise abroad in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere.

By extension, though, the ECB requires a credible regime change. That could take the place of a price-level or nominal-income level target, or even extending a line of credit to Greece to obviate Depression-inducing austerity measures. It passed QE without German support, and surely it can change its intermediate target without them as well.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

Of course it's dead, it's economics. But I suppose that stuff about Greece is quite interesting, like what will they duuuuuu?

And, begin!
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:28:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:08:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'll start.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is putting out a ballot initiative on Sunday to allow the Greek people to decide whether to give into the demands of its creditors - structural reform (pension cuts, labor-market reforms, austerity) - or to default on its debt. Tsipras's party was elected earlier this year to take a stand *against* austerity, which in the absence of a credible, independent monetary regime is extremely deleterious to growth and may even have lingering impacts in the form of hysteresis.

Now, the ECB unveiled a bond-buying program earlier in the year, promising to buy at least $1 trillion euros worth of bonds by September 2016 (but retained the right to extend the size and scope of the program beyond that date), and markets reacted: the euro fell, interest rates fell, and most of the periphery saw a modest recovery, though obviously it hasn't been nearly robust enough. Greek imploding could send ripples throughout global financial markets and even threaten the credibility of the euro system itself, and would surely lead to flight-to-safety flows to the United States, which would further appreciate the dollar and undermine exports.

Further, the IMF came out recently and projected that, even if Greece were to accept the austerity measures demanded by the Troika, it's debt would still balloon to unsustainable levels - 118% of its GDP - by 2030 [http://www.theguardian.com...]. In other words, the causation may be, and likely is, that slow growth leads to high debt, rather than high debt to slow growth (though, it bears mentioning, that doesn't complete undermine the conclusions of Ken Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Vincent Reinhart (2012), because their paper set a danger threshold somewhere around the 90-100% range, though because that's *relative* to the size of the economy, faster growth now could dramatically shrink that nevertheless state-contingent range).

So, my view is that Greece is in a pickle and has to accept the Troika's demands. The implications of it not doing so are cataclysmic and, irrespective of the fact that a currency union is a horrid, failed political experiment (note that it was never pegged as good economics), now is not the time, especially with financial volatility to follow from a U.S. rate liftoff - which, of course, could be implicated by Greece imploding and continued malaise abroad in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere.

By extension, though, the ECB requires a credible regime change. That could take the place of a price-level or nominal-income level target, or even extending a line of credit to Greece to obviate Depression-inducing austerity measures. It passed QE without German support, and surely it can change its intermediate target without them as well.

Ok I actually read this
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:27:33 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

Of course it's dead, it's economics.

Ha, I think economics is interesting, though! At least it is when it's not expressed in superfluous jargon.

But I suppose that stuff about Greece is quite interesting, like what will they duuuuuu?

Precisely... I'm probably not as worried as most people, because I'm inclined to think that Tsipras has reached a tipping point beyond which his party's (admittedly admirable) intransigence can't really traverse. Politics isn't my thing, but there really isn't anything much worth politically than an implosion of the euro. As painful as austerity will inevitably be, I think he's going to cave. Greece will likely survive - for now - but his reelection bid... not so much.

And, begin!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:32:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:27:33 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

Of course it's dead, it's economics.

Ha, I think economics is interesting, though! At least it is when it's not expressed in superfluous jargon.

Si it's just not my kind of subject (or maybe I could get interested in it) I suppose it is *very* relevant after all.

But I suppose that stuff about Greece is quite interesting, like what will they duuuuuu?

Precisely... I'm probably not as worried as most people, because I'm inclined to think that Tsipras has reached a tipping point beyond which his party's (admittedly admirable) intransigence can't really traverse. Politics isn't my thing, but there really isn't anything much worth politically than an implosion of the euro. As painful as austerity will inevitably be, I think he's going to cave. Greece will likely survive - for now - but his reelection bid... not so much.

I actually agree, though you obviously know much more about the "economics" of it than me. My interest is mainly with the politics...

And, begin!
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:45:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:37:27 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:27:33 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

Of course it's dead, it's economics.

Ha, I think economics is interesting, though! At least it is when it's not expressed in superfluous jargon.

Si it's just not my kind of subject (or maybe I could get interested in it) I suppose it is *very* relevant after all.

It's certainly relevant, particularly around election seasons when politicians will, without fail, offer a load of nonsense masquerading as a serious plan.

But I suppose that stuff about Greece is quite interesting, like what will they duuuuuu?

Precisely... I'm probably not as worried as most people, because I'm inclined to think that Tsipras has reached a tipping point beyond which his party's (admittedly admirable) intransigence can't really traverse. Politics isn't my thing, but there really isn't anything much worth politically than an implosion of the euro. As painful as austerity will inevitably be, I think he's going to cave. Greece will likely survive - for now - but his reelection bid... not so much.

I actually agree, though you obviously know much more about the "economics" of it than me. My interest is mainly with the politics...

That's fair, though I'm actually inclined to think that the deliberations thus far are almost entirely political in nature. The economic implications are actually pretty cut and dry, and it's not as though Tsipras is rooting for a default. Dragging the conflict out most likely lets him paint Greece as a victim - which, honestly, it is to a large degree - and return a wounded soldier who tried, but failed, to reign in gratuitous austerity.

And, begin!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 5:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:45:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:37:27 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:27:33 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

Of course it's dead, it's economics.

Ha, I think economics is interesting, though! At least it is when it's not expressed in superfluous jargon.

Si it's just not my kind of subject (or maybe I could get interested in it) I suppose it is *very* relevant after all.

It's certainly relevant, particularly around election seasons when politicians will, without fail, offer a load of nonsense masquerading as a serious plan.

True, it's obviously very relevant in the sense that it dictates to how rich [or not] a country actually is. And as you say...because of the suggestions and so-called "plans" that politicians present whenever there's an election. Thinking about it that's probably the one aspect of economics that I know the most about, as like many people I'm of aware how they're essentially false promises or faulty in some way.

But I suppose that stuff about Greece is quite interesting, like what will they duuuuuu?

Precisely... I'm probably not as worried as most people, because I'm inclined to think that Tsipras has reached a tipping point beyond which his party's (admittedly admirable) intransigence can't really traverse. Politics isn't my thing, but there really isn't anything much worth politically than an implosion of the euro. As painful as austerity will inevitably be, I think he's going to cave. Greece will likely survive - for now - but his reelection bid... not so much.

I actually agree, though you obviously know much more about the "economics" of it than me. My interest is mainly with the politics...

That's fair, though I'm actually inclined to think that the deliberations thus far are almost entirely political in nature. The economic implications are actually pretty cut and dry, and it's not as though Tsipras is rooting for a default. Dragging the conflict out most likely lets him paint Greece as a victim - which, honestly, it is to a large degree - and return a wounded soldier who tried, but failed, to reign in gratuitous austerity.

Yep I suppose they actually are, the essence of the situation is pretty much just political. And the economic aren't too difficult to understand. I share the opinion that in this Greece [like other European countries that have joined the Euro and been negatively impacted as a result] is largely the victim. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the actual outcome is...

And, begin!
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 5:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 5:10:22 PM, Emilrose wrote:
True, it's obviously very relevant in the sense that it dictates to how rich [or not] a country actually is. And as you say...because of the suggestions and so-called "plans" that politicians present whenever there's an election. Thinking about it that's probably the one aspect of economics that I know the most about, as like many people I'm of aware how they're essentially false promises or faulty in some way.

Most are highly flawed, yeah, or the marketing of the plan is flawed. One thing Mitt Romney did a while back was try to sell his tax cut by adding up numbers from three or four studies on how many jobs it would create, so he came up with 12 million when each study estimated, say, 3 or 4 million. Then there's even problems or extraneous assumptions within the studies themselves. It's all a giant mess, lol.

Yep I suppose they actually are, the essence of the situation is pretty much just political. And the economic aren't too difficult to understand. I share the opinion that in this Greece [like other European countries that have joined the Euro and been negatively impacted as a result] is largely the victim. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the actual outcome is...

Indeed we will.. Let's hope the people of Greece see the light, lol. It's hard to think that the sustainability of the global financial system depends quite literally on one referendum.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin!

Should a free market allow the creation of monopolies?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 8:06:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:58:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin!

Should a free market allow the creation of monopolies?

I don't think it can and still call itself a free market, so I'd vote nay.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:06:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin!

lol scrub
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:47:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:06:52 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin!

lol scrub

Haters gonna hate
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor. : :

I'm an older man who has been in several businesses and worked hard most of my life. What you will discover is that money is an illusion. Sometimes it pours in while other times it trickles in and when it's completely gone, you realize you can still live a good life because of all those memories.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:03:05 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor. : :

I'm an older man who has been in several businesses and worked hard most of my life. What you will discover is that money is an illusion. Sometimes it pours in while other times it trickles in and when it's completely gone, you realize you can still live a good life because of all those memories.

I guess the saying is true: All the things in life worth having are free.

That's interesting, though. Usually when we think of money - particularly when economists do it - the implication is that cash flow is highly systematic. From what you're saying, that's not at all the case.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:06:26 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:03:05 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor. : :

I'm an older man who has been in several businesses and worked hard most of my life. What you will discover is that money is an illusion. Sometimes it pours in while other times it trickles in and when it's completely gone, you realize you can still live a good life because of all those memories.

I guess the saying is true: All the things in life worth having are free.

That's interesting, though. Usually when we think of money - particularly when economists do it - the implication is that cash flow is highly systematic. From what you're saying, that's not at all the case. : :

Here's an analogy of a one time millionaire;

A man was given 1 million dollars cash for a deed well done, He took that cash and hid it in a safe place within his home. That night, a fire broke out and burned up all the cash.

Is that man still a millionaire? Can he go to the bank and ask for a cash replacement?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:15:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:13:10 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:06:26 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:03:05 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor. : :

I'm an older man who has been in several businesses and worked hard most of my life. What you will discover is that money is an illusion. Sometimes it pours in while other times it trickles in and when it's completely gone, you realize you can still live a good life because of all those memories.

I guess the saying is true: All the things in life worth having are free.

That's interesting, though. Usually when we think of money - particularly when economists do it - the implication is that cash flow is highly systematic. From what you're saying, that's not at all the case. : :

Here's an analogy of a one time millionaire;

A man was given 1 million dollars cash for a deed well done, He took that cash and hid it in a safe place within his home. That night, a fire broke out and burned up all the cash.

Is that man still a millionaire? Can he go to the bank and ask for a cash replacement?

Surely he isn't (and couldn't), but the term "money" in the age of electronic banking and cash-equivalent assets is a tad more eclectic than savings under a mattress.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:15:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you want to make good money, all you need is a bunch of suckers to believe you have something to offer them for their cash as long as that something you offer is a lot less valuable than all their labor.
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:15:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:13:10 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:06:26 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:03:05 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:58:02 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:56:40 PM, sword wrote:
At 6/30/2015 3:53:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm bored - and this forum is dead - so this is another one of those "let's discuss anything remotely related to economics." We could even turn it into an AMA if anyone is interested.

And, begin! : :

Economics is not boring if you're a rich man. Maybe you should become rich.

I'm not rich. In fact, I'm a college student who's pretty much by definition poor. I still find economics interesting, though.

Now... finance is another story. I'd probably buy that finance is only interesting if you're a well-off institutional investor. : :

I'm an older man who has been in several businesses and worked hard most of my life. What you will discover is that money is an illusion. Sometimes it pours in while other times it trickles in and when it's completely gone, you realize you can still live a good life because of all those memories.

I guess the saying is true: All the things in life worth having are free.

That's interesting, though. Usually when we think of money - particularly when economists do it - the implication is that cash flow is highly systematic. From what you're saying, that's not at all the case. : :

Here's an analogy of a one time millionaire;

A man was given 1 million dollars cash for a deed well done, He took that cash and hid it in a safe place within his home. That night, a fire broke out and burned up all the cash.

Is that man still a millionaire? Can he go to the bank and ask for a cash replacement?

Surely he isn't (and couldn't), but the term "money" in the age of electronic banking and cash-equivalent assets is a tad more eclectic than savings under a mattress. : :

Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt? This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:01:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?

The real world.

What world are you living in?

You're suggesting that there's some demarcation between supporting just rich people or just the "majority," and I'm suggesting otherwise, even though I literally just endorsed progressive taxation.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:20:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:01:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?

The real world.

What world are you living in?

You're suggesting that there's some demarcation between supporting just rich people or just the "majority," and I'm suggesting otherwise, even though I literally just endorsed progressive taxation. : :

I know what you and the rest of us poor people would like to see happen but that doesn't happen in this world. Who do you think writes the laws of the land?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:20:10 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:01:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?

The real world.

What world are you living in?

You're suggesting that there's some demarcation between supporting just rich people or just the "majority," and I'm suggesting otherwise, even though I literally just endorsed progressive taxation. : :

I know what you and the rest of us poor people would like to see happen but that doesn't happen in this world. Who do you think writes the laws of the land?

Politicians bought out by special interests and corporate donors, of course. That doesn't change the essence of good policy, though.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 9:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 7:35:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:20:10 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:01:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?

The real world.

What world are you living in?

You're suggesting that there's some demarcation between supporting just rich people or just the "majority," and I'm suggesting otherwise, even though I literally just endorsed progressive taxation. : :

I know what you and the rest of us poor people would like to see happen but that doesn't happen in this world. Who do you think writes the laws of the land?

Politicians bought out by special interests and corporate donors, of course. That doesn't change the essence of good policy, though. : :

I agree with your idea of good policy but every idea that man has used to control society ends up in the hands of a few.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 9:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 9:03:12 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:35:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:20:10 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:01:46 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 7:00:14 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:10:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:03:27 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:24:32 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:21:07 PM, sword wrote:
Do you think banks give their investors all their electronic money back when they go bankrupt?

No, but a bankruptcy is a whole lot different than a fire. Surely you know that the actual amount of dollars in circulation - I think it's about $4 trillion last I checked - is less than a fourth of GDP.

This is why many people are now using cash instead of trusting the electronic age. At least they can sleep comfortably on a mattress full of cash.

How is that even plausible? If you hold your cash under a mattress, you lose (a) the costs of storing cash (which, mind you, is why nominal interest rates can in fact go negative, and have in several European countries) and (b) inflation. A savings account at least safeguards people's money from those risks.: :

If everyone cooperated with the banks and governments of their countries, the rich would benefit greatly from it. Are you in support of the rich or the majority of the people?

I don't think there's a dichotomy such that I need to choose either the rich or the majority. I think people *should* cooperate with their institutions, and that will result all else equal in affluent people paying forward a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. : :

What world are you living in?

The real world.

What world are you living in?

You're suggesting that there's some demarcation between supporting just rich people or just the "majority," and I'm suggesting otherwise, even though I literally just endorsed progressive taxation. : :

I know what you and the rest of us poor people would like to see happen but that doesn't happen in this world. Who do you think writes the laws of the land?

Politicians bought out by special interests and corporate donors, of course. That doesn't change the essence of good policy, though. : :

I agree with your idea of good policy but every idea that man has used to control society ends up in the hands of a few.

I don't think every idea necessarily does, but I think the best we're really capable of is crafting good policy and, if necessary, reform our institutions so that we can actually implement said policy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah