Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Inflation and wealth distribution

DanielPeterson
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 9:19:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems reasonable to assume that inflation and wealth distribution are somewhat related.

My assumption is that if the poor an middle class gets wealthier then this wealth will go towards consumption that will drive up inflation.

If instead money flows towards the already wealthy then inflation will go down because rich people generally has less tendency to spend additional income.

This model suggests that in a deflationary environment where real wages are not keeping up with GDP it would make sense for government to use laws and regulations to increase the competitiveness of the poor and the middle class relative to the rich and the business sector. Not necessarily as a moral position but in order to balance the economy.

Is this reasoning correct? Has is been mentioned in recent public debate regarding the current economic situation?
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 1:36:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you might be confusing wealth and money. If I could somehow (with no change in money supply) eliminate half the real goods in society (cars, houses, clothing, food, etc) we would clearly be much poorer. Or if I simply gave everyone a million dollars with no change in real goods, there would be no change in wealth.

As Friedman said:
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output"

How exactly would you "use laws and regulations to increase the competitiveness of the poor and the middle class relative to the rich" ?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 2:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 9:19:39 PM, DanielPeterson wrote:
It seems reasonable to assume that inflation and wealth distribution are somewhat related.

My assumption is that if the poor an middle class gets wealthier then this wealth will go towards consumption that will drive up inflation.

How exactly does this happen? More sales would increase profits, not drive up inflation.

If instead money flows towards the already wealthy then inflation will go down because rich people generally has less tendency to spend additional income.

Then what do they do with the money?

This model suggests that in a deflationary environment where real wages are not keeping up with GDP it would make sense for government to use laws and regulations to increase the competitiveness of the poor and the middle class relative to the rich and the business sector. Not necessarily as a moral position but in order to balance the economy.

Is this reasoning correct? Has is been mentioned in recent public debate regarding the current economic situation?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
DanielPeterson
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 10:50:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
ax123man:
You are correct I am confusing wealth and money. In my argument I mean money in both cases. Thank you for pointing this out.

Some ideas of how to increase the competitiveness of the middle class would include: increasing the minimum wage, facilitate unionization, raise unemployment benefits, build public institutions, roads and railroads, subsidize healthcare and so on. Basically anything that will leave more money left over at the end of the month for the general population.

ColeTrain:
I agree that this might be a fallacy in my reasoning. I am thinking that this should come as a result of supply and demand. If more people have money to spend on goods and services it will be possible for sellers to increase prices without affecting demand.

As for what "rich" do with money, the assumption is that they generally tend to invest in asset classes that are not part of the inflation rate measure.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:31:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 9:19:39 PM, DanielPeterson wrote:
So if your reasoning for giving more money (benefits, etc) to the poor and middle class is not for moral reasons, then what does "balance the economy" mean? Is this just another way of saying you want to address inequality?

The problem with just giving people stuff is the perverse incentives it creates. I'd argue that the poor today would be better off if none of LBJ's great society (or any other welfare program) had happened. This isn't just my crazy opinion. There is a lot of economic literature backing this up. Federal government intervention (welfare) has caused more harm than good.

Regarding inflation, I don't think your reasoning holds. As I said, inflation is purely based on the amount of money produced relative to the amount of goods produced. This seems fairly obvious and intuitive. Friedman wasn't always right, but on this, he was.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 9:19:39 PM, DanielPeterson wrote:
It seems reasonable to assume that inflation and wealth distribution are somewhat related.

This this relationship is casual at best. It is true that a burst in inflation, particularly one that is unexpected, might redistribute wealth from net savers to net borrowers (or from creditors to debtors), but other than that the relationship is essentially null. That's because inflation is "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon," and monetary policy -- which impacts real variables via controlling the inflation rate (i.e., targeting nominal variables to move real variables in the short run) -- can't impact real variables, like the distribution of income and wealth, over the long run. I don't see this relationship, then, as particularly compelling.

You could say, though, that higher inflation caused by expansionary monetary policy (as opposed to a negative AS shock) via a higher PV of future cash flows -- i.e., lower short-term real interest rate -- might boost asset prices. While that might boost stocks, which is generally an activity associated with the affluent, houses are the largest assets on most people's balance sheets, and they're a lot more stable than stocks, which might move in response to news events, global uncertainties, anticipated policy changes (or policy surprises), etc.

There's also the fact that wages are stickier than prices, and a lot of poorer people lived on fixed incomes so, as in Japan, they might benefit from *deflation*, though that's probably insofar as pushing up real wages doesn't induce involuntary unemployment. But the general mechanism here is that higher inflation in the short run might reduce real wages, and thus redistribute income from employees to employers. That would tend to redistribute income upward, *but* might also ameliorate nominal rigidities via inducing hiring, which would be at least a partial offset.

My assumption is that if the poor an middle class gets wealthier then this wealth will go towards consumption that will drive up inflation.

I think this is generally overstated -- that is, the differentials in MPC's -- and the idea that consumption is the only mechanism to boost inflation is likewise false. Ignoring "global savings glut" hypotheses -- which are probably true -- and weak demand for credit, redistributing income from higher savers to high consumers would do this:

Start from GDP: Y = C + I + G + NX

Back out gross national savings from this, assuming government spending constitutes consumption: Y - C - G = I + NX

Replace Y - C - G with S, which is an identity: S = I + NX

In other words, savings can go either into investment or net exports -- or, at least, resources that might have been spent in producing export goods. So redistributing income that reduces savings will probably, over longer periods of time, reduce investment, which would cause an equal and opposite fall in aggregate demand, which contrary to popular belief isn't solely inclusive of consumption.

But would there be a short run boost to this? Perhaps, and that's generally what current monetary policy is aiming to do: get people to do more risky things with their money.

If instead money flows towards the already wealthy then inflation will go down because rich people generally has less tendency to spend additional income.

This I don't buy at all, again because it conflates consumption and aggregate demand. They're less likely to *consume* with those dollars, but they're *more* likely to invest, and dollars that go into financial assets are usually invested by firms into physical capital, which ultimately translates into higher wages, more hiring, and thus more consumption.

Now, granted, in the case of a savings *glut*, this would tend to pull down real interest rates -- i.e., the case right now on a global basis -- which would tend to increase current short-term real rates relative to the Wicksellian benchmark (i.e., the S = I graph plots the equilibrium real rate). That would tend to push down on inflation, or at least decelerate the lever if we're still below the Wicksellian real rate.

This model suggests that in a deflationary environment where real wages are not keeping up with GDP it would make sense for government to use laws and regulations to increase the competitiveness of the poor and the middle class relative to the rich and the business sector.

I'm trying to follow this, but there are several problems:

First, the reason we would have high unemployment in a deflationary environment is that real wages can't adjust *downward.* They're sticky in the short run. If real wages aren't keeping up with (real?) GDP, that suggests they're at least somewhat downwardly flexible, in which case we probably don't have much involuntary unemployment. In that case, there isn't much of a need for policies of this nature.

On the flip side, if that "deflationary" environment is caused by a positive AS shock like higher productivity, that would tend to pull up real wages, in which case this policy is likewise futile, though it might induce capital investment and further consumption and eventually pull inflation back up, which might of course decelerate log wag changes insofar as real wages are sticky (i.e., some of the increase in real wages might be accomplished via productivity-induced declines in inflation).

But this policy, honestly, isn't exactly new. It can be accomplished in a whole lot of ways, though you shouldn't think of it in terms of real wages, but rather in terms of structural impediments in labor markets -- i.e., the fact that a lot of people in the post-recession era have become unemployable due to the longevity of their unemployment spells. Public funding of job-training programs, to that end, might be a good idea, an at least somewhat in line with what you're suggesting.

Not necessarily as a moral position but in order to balance the economy.

I don't think we would need to "balance the economy" for the aforementioned reasons, unless we decided we didn't like structural unemployment -- which is a perfectly reasonable position -- and wanted to transition people off the government dole and onto the job market, perhaps aided by low-wage subsidies. This might accomplish that, sure, but this is hardly a panacea in terms of "growth." It might raise trend growth, though, but not current growth relative to trend.

Is this reasoning correct?

Some of it -- see above, lol.

Has is been mentioned in recent public debate regarding the current economic situation?

Sure, some of it, and some of it is spot-on if we're talking about structural unemployment. If we're talking about supposed asymmetries of bargaining power and "wage stagnation," it isn't right, because those graphs are highly deceptive and their methodologies flawed.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
DanielPeterson
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 9:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ax123man:
I should have been more clear on this. By balancing the economy I mean to raise inflation rates to some fixed goal, lets say 2%. To redistribute money would be the the means of doing so, not the goal in itself.

As for the effects of giving people stuff or money I like to assume that anyone will spend any additional money given to them to the best of their own interests, be they rich or poor. But I see what you mean! Thank you for taking the time to answer my post!

ResponsiblyIrresponsible:
Thank you for your explanations! Those are neat calculations, I looked them up on wikipedia and realised that I have much to learn :)

I will have to dig a little deeper into this now that I have gotten some food for though. It will likely be a while before I am ready to post here again!

In the meantime, thank you all for answering and helping me out!
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 1:36:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
As Friedman said:
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output"

Friedman was actually completely wrong on this, and recanted this views in the 90s. This "quantity theory of money" position only holds over extremely long periods of time, but in the short run is subject to nominal rigidities and fluctuations in velocity (i.e., consumers' desires to hold liquid assets, inversely related to money demand).

To use variables, this was Friedman's position for a while:

MV = PY

M = money supply
V = velocity
P = price level
Y = output

Velocity and output were fixed -- though in reality they're not -- so an X% increase in M would translate to an X% increase in P. In reality, velocity fluctuates, as does Y, so we don't know the composition of P and Y, and monetary policy isn't able to directly (though it can indirectly through, say, forward guidance to establish and maintain a nominal anchor, flattening the SRPC) influence that spread, which is determined the elasticity of the AS curve: a flatter AS curve means that per change in output, inflation changes by less; a steeper AS curve, that per change in output, inflation changes my more (i.e., prices adjust faster).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:04:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:42:21 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/15/2015 1:36:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
As Friedman said:
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output"

Friedman was actually completely wrong on this, and recanted this views in the 90s. This "quantity theory of money" position only holds over extremely long periods of time, but in the short run is subject to nominal rigidities and fluctuations in velocity (i.e., consumers' desires to hold liquid assets, inversely related to money demand).

To use variables, this was Friedman's position for a while:

MV = PY

M = money supply
V = velocity
P = price level
Y = output

Velocity and output were fixed -- though in reality they're not -- so an X% increase in M would translate to an X% increase in P. In reality, velocity fluctuates, as does Y, so we don't know the composition of P and Y, and monetary policy isn't able to directly (though it can indirectly through, say, forward guidance to establish and maintain a nominal anchor, flattening the SRPC) influence that spread, which is determined the elasticity of the AS curve: a flatter AS curve means that per change in output, inflation changes by less; a steeper AS curve, that per change in output, inflation changes my more (i.e., prices adjust faster).

If I make the assumption that the natural world doesn't correct itself fast enough, I can justify any govt. intervention I want. Global warming falls into this category. Slavery: 600,000 dead in order to shave a decade or two off - sure, makes sense (for those that buy the argument the war was fought over slavery). How about LBJ's war on poverty? Oops, that time they really f'd it up, stopping the natural decline in poverty rates.

"The world isn't perfect but we can make it so!"

"Extremely long periods" - what does that mean? Seems like your trying very hard to justify your position. "Methinks thou dost protest too much" comes to mind.

And COMPLETELY wrong is a little strong isn't it? Your admitting that, over the long run, the logic holds.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:06:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:42:21 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/15/2015 1:36:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
As Friedman said:
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output"

Friedman was actually completely wrong on this, and recanted this views in the 90s. This "quantity theory of money" position only holds over extremely long periods of time, but in the short run is subject to nominal rigidities and fluctuations in velocity (i.e., consumers' desires to hold liquid assets, inversely related to money demand).

To use variables, this was Friedman's position for a while:

MV = PY

M = money supply
V = velocity
P = price level
Y = output

Velocity and output were fixed -- though in reality they're not -- so an X% increase in M would translate to an X% increase in P. In reality, velocity fluctuates, as does Y, so we don't know the composition of P and Y, and monetary policy isn't able to directly (though it can indirectly through, say, forward guidance to establish and maintain a nominal anchor, flattening the SRPC) influence that spread, which is determined the elasticity of the AS curve: a flatter AS curve means that per change in output, inflation changes by less; a steeper AS curve, that per change in output, inflation changes my more (i.e., prices adjust faster).

If I make the assumption that the natural world doesn't correct itself fast enough, I can justify any govt. intervention I want. Global warming falls into this category. Slavery: 600,000 dead in order to shave a decade or two off - sure, makes sense (for those that buy the argument the war was fought over slavery). How about LBJ's war on poverty? Oops, that time they really f'd it up, stopping the natural decline in poverty rates.

"The world isn't perfect but we can make it so!"

"Extremely long periods" - what does that mean?

And completely wrong is a little strong isn't it? Your admitting that, over the long run, the logic holds.

Seems like your trying very hard to justify your position. "Methinks thou dost protest too much" ?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 12:04:12 PM, ax123man wrote:
If I make the assumption that the natural world doesn't correct itself fast enough, I can justify any govt. intervention I want. Global warming falls into this category. Slavery: 600,000 dead in order to shave a decade or two off - sure, makes sense (for those that buy the argument the war was fought over slavery). How about LBJ's war on poverty? Oops, that time they really f'd it up, stopping the natural decline in poverty rates.

First, way to completely miss the point of what I said. I was correcting you on an incorrect statement Milton Friedman made -- and a demonstrably false one at that, which even he himself has conceded. I could show you the data if you care enough and prove to how wrong it is. Hell, I have the numbers on the money supply right next to me. Want me to pull a percent change in the price level over the same time period? I'll pull that, and then calculate one over a 40 year period. Guess which one will hold?

And, no, not remotely. Global warming, poverty, etc. are genuine problems, but in no way can you use that to justify exceedingly bad policy. The chief debate over global warming in academia is *how* to solve it, and in many cases people believe (I think rightly) that a carbon tax alone is inadequate. I'm not going to support, in the name of global warming, banning all carbon emissions, so no I cannot justify *any* policy, irrespective of trade-offs. The world isn't black and white.

I have no clue on what the hell point you're making on slavery. Usually slavery like Godwin's law: invoking it, much like invoking the Nazis, is stupid, and few situations actually call for it.

And, nope, you're also wrong on the war on poverty. It actually *was* immensely successful, and there are even conservatives who have admitted as much. The idea that there's some "natural declines in poverty rates," like the self-correcting mechanism, is fundamentally absurd and void of the slightest bit of thoughtful nuance.

Finally, you can't make an assumption that X *doesn't* happen. The burden of proof is not to prove a negative, but to prove a positive. Instead of assuming that the natural world, or the economy, or what have you *does* self-correct, the onus is on you to prove that it does. There's no logical or empirical reason that it must.

"The world isn't perfect but we can make it so!"

I never suggested we could make it perfect. "Decent" ought not be the enemy of "perfect," and I really don't appreciate that you're resorting to strawmen after fundamentally misunderstand (and, for that matter, completely side-stepping) the points I did make.

"Extremely long periods" - what does that mean? Seems like your trying very hard to justify your position. "Methinks thou dost protest too much" comes to mind.

No, this is completely untrue. This is one of those "reading comprehension" things you tend to have trouble with.

What I said was an empirical fact, and it's borne out by textbook theory. Hell, Scott Sumner just wrote a four-part series using a dataset from 79 or so countries from Robert Barro's Macro text. He ran those very numbers, and found that over a 40 year period quantity theory *does* hold. That's completely consistent with textbook theory that quantity theory holds over the long run once prices become flexible and velocity fixed.

Again, the only person actively trying to "justify" his positions with vague platitudes and non-facts is you.

And COMPLETELY wrong is a little strong isn't it? Your admitting that, over the long run, the logic holds.

No, I don't think my language was off at all -- and that you're actually playing a game of semantics demonstrates the extent to which you're willing to get petty, symptomatic of the fact that you lost this argument so badly because you frankly don't know anything -- because I think the nature of shocks *necessitates* that we spend more time in the short run than in the long run. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're perpetually *stuck* in the short run, but Keynes's point that relying on markets equilibrating to their long-run position is naive and destructive, and thus when we talk about inflation, for the most part we're talking about short-run dynamics, and the fact that the short run condition can *undermine* the long run in various ways (structural downshifts, secular declines in potential, etc.). Milton Friedman's statement, generally speaking -- and note that *he* did not state he was focusing on the long run -- was totally wrong, and his understanding of the relationship between monetary growth and NGDP likewise false. He would agree with me today, though, if he were alive.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:24:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:50:39 AM, DanielPeterson wrote:
ax123man:
You are correct I am confusing wealth and money. In my argument I mean money in both cases. Thank you for pointing this out.

Some ideas of how to increase the competitiveness of the middle class would include: increasing the minimum wage, facilitate unionization, raise unemployment benefits, build public institutions, roads and railroads, subsidize healthcare and so on. Basically anything that will leave more money left over at the end of the month for the general population.

ColeTrain:
I agree that this might be a fallacy in my reasoning. I am thinking that this should come as a result of supply and demand. If more people have money to spend on goods and services it will be possible for sellers to increase prices without affecting demand.

I see what you mean.

As for what "rich" do with money, the assumption is that they generally tend to invest in asset classes that are not part of the inflation rate measure.

Sure. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:25:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
^^ so many grammatical errors in my last post, so little time..

Sigh... I doubt ax would get petty and start critiquing my grammar because he so clearly lost on the economics.

*smirks*
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:30:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 12:21:49 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/16/2015 12:04:12 PM, ax123man wrote:

boy you get testy don't you? Do you feel better now? I can see why you enjoy hanging out on DDO. Good ol' ego stroke. I'm surprised your not out on econlib posting between Sumner and Caplan by now. Have you noticed something about their posts btw? I mean the difference between theirs and yours? Theirs actually make sense and they don't have some kind of expectation that a bunch of algebraic equations give them a slam dunk.

The point on slavery was pretty obvious. There was no need to kill anyone re: the civil war (again, for those who claim that was the wars purpose). Slavery was dying out on it's own. Government couldn't wait. This idea of government not waiting, or often, simply jumping on board an existing trend, repeats itself frequently.

I understand that your position is that monetary intervention is helpful in the short run. Do you understand that I think it isn't necessary? So, if you think real hard, you might see the connection. And you can skip the math & econ name dropping (unless it's just there for the groupies)

Also, anyone who invokes the "anyone who invokes Godwins law" statement is a sure sign....... blah blah. See, that works both ways.
Everyone! Just so you know! JMK says it's always silly to use slavery as an analogy, so JUST DON'T do it anymore!

And, nope, you're also wrong on the war on poverty. See, I can just repeat the same words back at you.

The idea that there's some "natural declines in poverty rates," like the self-correcting mechanism, is fundamentally absurd and void of the slightest bit of thoughtful nuance

Really, your saying there has been no natural (and by natural I mean sans government intervention) decline in poverty the last 200 years? Hmmm. Ok, if you say so.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:49:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:30:49 AM, ax123man wrote:
boy you get testy don't you?

Only on Wednesdays.

Do you feel better now?

Yessir.

I can see why you enjoy hanging out on DDO. Good ol' ego stroke.

Lol. I don't need an "ego strike" from this website, I assure you, nor do I need to waste my time kicking people like you around when I can kick around people in real life who know a whole lot more than you.

I'm surprised your not out on econlib posting between Sumner and Caplan by now.

I read Sumner, though not so much Caplan. Both are very reputable and intelligent people whom I like. I don't see how this could be construed as an insult.

Have you noticed something about their posts btw? I mean the difference between theirs and yours? Theirs actually make sense and they don't have some kind of expectation that a bunch of algebraic equations give them a slam dunk.

Lmfao.

First, I didn't suggest that a bunch of equations gave me a "slam dunk." The post I made earlier today contained the most fundamental equation possible because I was responding to a quote which hinged on its validity -- and one where you misrepresented Milton Friedman's position.

Second, it's not that my posts "don't make sense." It's that you, like many others, think you know a whole lot more than you do, and thus they don't make sense *to you.* Instead of asking me to clarify something you don't understand, you choose to safeguard your delicate little ego by pontificating on things wildly out of your depth.

Third, this is just wrong. My response to you was conditioned *by a post from Scott Sumner.* If you think my response to you was mathy, look at his: every single post had a linear regression, and the first contained quantity theory.

The point on slavery was pretty obvious.

No, it wasn't. It was literally you talking out of your ars. People like you liken almost everything to slavery--for all I know, the mere *existence* of government is slavery to you.

There was no need to kill anyone re: the civil war (again, for those who claim that was the wars purpose). Slavery was dying out on it's own. Government couldn't wait. This idea of government not waiting, or often, simply jumping on board an existing trend, repeats itself frequently.

This is just a fundamental misreading of history, but that aside, how in the world is this in any way related to the discussion we were having on quantity theory?

I understand that your position is that monetary intervention is helpful in the short run.

Yes, and it would be pretty stupid to hold a contrary position since I'm.... right. It's not a matter of there being two equal sides to hash this out. I'm right, and 100% of the evidence shows as much. Refer to my post from about a month back proving downward nominal wage rigidity, for instance. I even plotted a Phillips curve by hand.

Do you understand that I think it isn't necessary?

Yes, I do. I *understand* your position. You just happen to be categorically wrong.

So, if you think real hard, you might see the connection.

lol.

If anyone is in a position to condescend, it most certainly isn't you--not in this conversation where I called you out for misrepresenting economic history (the views of one of the most prominent, if not *the* most prominent, monetary economist in the 20th century), and you replied by slandering me.

But there are a whole lot of problems with this premise of just waiting for prices to adjust and for people to liquidate. I've explained all of these before: Fed isn't an arm of the government, so if it does nothing, Congress does something; the Fed is always setting the base, in which case there is no "artificial" intervention; prices can't adjust downward to equilibrate markets at the ZLB because of the paradox of flexibility (read Krugman if I'm not making sense); and waiting too long undermines long-run potential.

And you can skip the math & econ name dropping (unless it's just there for the groupies)

Lol, it's a discussion on economics. I don't need to name-drop to explain to you why you're wrong.

Also, anyone who invokes the "anyone who invokes Godwins law" statement is a sure sign....... blah blah. See, that works both ways.

Lmfao, what in the actual fck...

No, I'm pretty sure invoking Godwin's Law when someone makes a dumb analogy is not analogous to *pointing out* that someone is making a stupid, trite analogy.

Everyone! Just so you know! JMK says it's always silly to use slavery as an analogy, so JUST DON'T do it anymore!

It's pretty much objectively true that you're making a fundamentally stupid analogy, and a lot of libertarians happen to use that--and the Nazis--quite a lot. You're only making yourself look foolish by using it, in the same way that you look foolish when you misrepresent Milton Friedman's views and opine on things wildly out of your depth of understanding.

And, nope, you're also wrong on the war on poverty. See, I can just repeat the same words back at you.

You can repeat them all you want, but the data is on my side--and I know that because I've actually looked at and studied the data. I don't talk out of my ars. I can't say the same for you.

The idea that there's some "natural declines in poverty rates," like the self-correcting mechanism, is fundamentally absurd and void of the slightest bit of thoughtful nuance

Really, your saying there has been no natural (and by natural I mean sans government intervention) decline in poverty the last 200 years? Hmmm. Ok, if you say so.

Yes, I am saying that -- that was a byproduct of government policy and structural reform.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:13:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:49:47 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:30:49 AM, ax123man wrote:
boy you get testy don't you?

Only on Wednesdays.

Do you feel better now?

Yessir.

I knew that you would :)


I can see why you enjoy hanging out on DDO. Good ol' ego stroke.

Lol. I don't need an "ego strike" from this website, I assure you, nor do I need to waste my time kicking people like you around when I can kick around people in real life who know a whole lot more than you.

and yet, here you are.


I'm surprised your not out on econlib posting between Sumner and Caplan by now.

I read Sumner, though not so much Caplan. Both are very reputable and intelligent people whom I like. I don't see how this could be construed as an insult.

let me try this again, since you seem to continually miss the point. Based the arrogance you display on DDO, I'm surprised you aren't there posting now! Do you get it now?


Have you noticed something about their posts btw? I mean the difference between theirs and yours? Theirs actually make sense and they don't have some kind of expectation that a bunch of algebraic equations give them a slam dunk.

Lmfao.

there's that answer again. Works wonders huh?


First, I didn't suggest that a bunch of equations gave me a "slam dunk." The post I made earlier today contained the most fundamental equation possible because I was responding to a quote which hinged on its validity -- and one where you misrepresented Milton Friedman's position.

You don't have to suggest it. It's obviously implied.


Second, it's not that my posts "don't make sense." It's that you, like many others, think you know a whole lot more than you do, and thus they don't make sense *to you.* Instead of asking me to clarify something you don't understand, you choose to safeguard your delicate little ego by pontificating on things wildly out of your depth.

LMFAO


Third, this is just wrong. My response to you was conditioned *by a post from Scott Sumner.* If you think my response to you was mathy, look at his: every single post had a linear regression, and the first contained quantity theory.

The point on slavery was pretty obvious.

No, it wasn't. It was literally you talking out of your ars. People like you liken almost everything to slavery--for all I know, the mere *existence* of government is slavery to you.

Yes it was.


There was no need to kill anyone re: the civil war (again, for those who claim that was the wars purpose). Slavery was dying out on it's own. Government couldn't wait. This idea of government not waiting, or often, simply jumping on board an existing trend, repeats itself frequently.

This is just a fundamental misreading of history, but that aside, how in the world is this in any way related to the discussion we were having on quantity theory?

No it wasn't. I know what I'm talking about


I understand that your position is that monetary intervention is helpful in the short run.

Yes, and it would be pretty stupid to hold a contrary position since I'm.... right. It's not a matter of there being two equal sides to hash this out. I'm right, and 100% of the evidence shows as much. Refer to my post from about a month back proving downward nominal wage rigidity, for instance. I even plotted a Phillips curve by hand.

a philips curve by hand! People! Holy f*in chr*st!
bows down.


Do you understand that I think it isn't necessary?

Yes, I do. I *understand* your position. You just happen to be categorically wrong.

So, if you think real hard, you might see the connection.

lol.

is that a debate strategy?


If anyone is in a position to condescend, it most certainly isn't you--not in this conversation where I called you out for misrepresenting economic history (the views of one of the most prominent, if not *the* most prominent, monetary economist in the 20th century), and you replied by slandering me.

I never did condescend, but you most certainly did and you do it routinely. You have serious ego problems.


But there are a whole lot of problems with this premise of just waiting for prices to adjust and for people to liquidate. I've explained all of these before: Fed isn't an arm of the government, so if it does nothing, Congress does something; the Fed is always setting the base, in which case there is no "artificial" intervention; prices can't adjust downward to equilibrate markets at the ZLB because of the paradox of flexibility (read Krugman if I'm not making sense); and waiting too long undermines long-run potential.

And you can skip the math & econ name dropping (unless it's just there for the groupies)

Lol, it's a discussion on economics. I don't need to name-drop to explain to you why you're wrong.

but you did and it's routine for you, isn't it.


Also, anyone who invokes the "anyone who invokes Godwins law" statement is a sure sign....... blah blah. See, that works both ways.

Lmfao, what in the actual fck...

No, I'm pretty sure invoking Godwin's Law when someone makes a dumb analogy is not analogous to *pointing out* that someone is making a stupid, trite analogy.

You say it was dumb. Fine. You apparently think you can just state something and it become true.


Everyone! Just so you know! JMK says it's always silly to use slavery as an analogy, so JUST DON'T do it anymore!

It's pretty much objectively true that you're making a fundamentally stupid analogy, and a lot of libertarians happen to use that--and the Nazis--quite a lot. You're only making yourself look foolish by using it, in the same way that you look foolish when you misrepresent Milton Friedman's views and opine on things wildly out of your depth of understanding.

NO it isn't. Your calling it stupid is stupid. Categorically.


And, nope, you're also wrong on the war on poverty. See, I can just repeat the same words back at you.

You can repeat them all you want, but the data is on my side--and I know that because I've actually looked at and studied the data. I don't talk out of my ars. I can't say the same for you.

Data after 1965? Or are you saying that there was no reduction in poverty in the 19th century except that which came from government? How about he 18th century? 17th?


The idea that there's some "natural declines in poverty rates," like the self-correcting mechanism, is fundamentally absurd and void of the slightest bit of thoughtful nuance

Really, your saying there has been no natural (and by natural I mean sans government intervention) decline in poverty the last 200 years? Hmmm. Ok, if you say so.

Yes, I am saying that -- that was a byproduct of government policy and structural reform.

Which govt policy and structural reform was responsible for the formation of the division of labor,money, the ideas of capital formation, the industrial revolution, etc ? I guess for you the world didn't start until you were born. Goes hand in hand with your arrogance.

Philips curve by hand everyone!
Posting next to Sumner by next year. Mark my word.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:49:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 2:13:43 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:49:47 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:30:49 AM, ax123man wrote:
boy you get testy don't you?

Only on Wednesdays.

Do you feel better now?

Yessir.

I knew that you would :)


I can see why you enjoy hanging out on DDO. Good ol' ego stroke.

Lol. I don't need an "ego strike" from this website, I assure you, nor do I need to waste my time kicking people like you around when I can kick around people in real life who know a whole lot more than you.

and yet, here you are.

It's late at night... I kick people around irl during the day, and pretentious DDO'ers at night. And I can multitask.


I'm surprised your not out on econlib posting between Sumner and Caplan by now.

I read Sumner, though not so much Caplan. Both are very reputable and intelligent people whom I like. I don't see how this could be construed as an insult.

let me try this again, since you seem to continually miss the point.

LMFAO, oh the unbelievably irony. Just keep shifting the goalposts and ad-hom. That's all your evidently capable of.

Based the arrogance you display on DDO, I'm surprised you aren't there posting now! Do you get it now?

First, that isn't what you said. I know you need to feel powerful by pontificating, but save it.

Second, posting on Econlog isn't a testament to arrogance, nor do either Sumner or Caplan display such traits -- though I'm sure they'd make an exception for you. I think some ideas deserve ridicule. Yours are amongst them.

there's that answer again. Works wonders huh?

I gave you a much longer answer. Did you tire of reading already? Scroll down.

You don't have to suggest it. It's obviously implied.

Are you so stupid that you don't understand that to imply something *is* to suggest it? I did neither. I pointed out--which you keep dodging, because you want to avoid the substance to shield yourself from having to defend your own ignorance--that you fundamentally misunderstood Milton Friedman's position. You have no understanding or knowledge of his position, and you misrepresented. I took it upon myself to call you out and to call attention to your lamentable ignorance. Then you made it personal -- which is the most clarion sign possible that I've won. If that makes me "arrogant," so be it. I'd rather be arrogant and right, than hopelessly confused, wrong, and so ignorant that I couldn't even understand *why* I was wrong.

LMFAO

Laugh all you want, but it's true: you actively dodge substance. That's why you think my posts "don't make sense." They (a) don't comport with you black-and-white, Mises.org world view, so you shut down and (b) aren't overly simplistic with clear answers. This material is complex: if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to opine on economics. May I suggest politics, or marketing, or business? Those might be better suited to your "unique" skill set.

Yes it was.

This just about sums up the amount of actual "substance" you've contributed to this discussion -- or, for that matter, any discussion you've had on this website.

No it wasn't. I know what I'm talking about

All evidence points to the contrary -- including the fact that you cite historical figures, like Milton Friedman, without having the slightest grasp of their positions, the accuracy of your remarks -- I doubt you even understand what he meant by "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon (I challenge you to tell me, and prove that you're not an ignorant buffoon) -- or the ramifications of your worldview. It's black and white. The reasoning center of your brain is a hollow shell full of platitudes, but you're constitutionally incapable of logically reasoning through the most basic of issues.

That's where we differ: you thrive off ignorant people who refuse to call you out for being lamentably ignorant. I'm not one of them.

a philips curve by hand! People! Holy f*in chr*st!
bows down.

I never said it was complex. In fact, I laid out how to create a makeshift SRPC and even provided links. It might be complex for you, but not for everyone else.

But, again, you want to dodge substance. I told you that, if I were right, the slope would be something other than undefined, which proved price rigidity.

Guess what? The slope was extremely low, indicating a relatively flat AS curve and thus a *high level* of price rigidity, consistent with the DSGE model I linked to.

is that a debate strategy?

No, but I need a good laugh in between responding to your paltry points. If not, I would rage at the sheer stupidity.

I never did condescend, but you most certainly did and you do it routinely. You have serious ego problems.

Here you go again, trying to make this personal as opposed to responding to substantive points.

You're also demonstrably and callously unaware of the irony of this. You did condescend, insinuating that, if only I understood the genius points you were making, I'd see the wisdom in your slavery analogy. Hell, you likened my appeal to Godwin's law to merely *invoking* the law, which is as dumb as b1tching to a fact-checker for correctly pointing out how full of sh1t you were.

Even if I do have "ego" problems, they couldn't be more justified. There are a lot of ignorant people on this website, but most of them aren't nearly as abrasive or blissfully unaware of their own stupidity as you are. That's what sets me off. You want to make this personal because you don't want to engage on substance. You keep dodging the fact that this *started* after I called you out for misrepresenting Friedman. You even stooped to, "Oh my goodness, you invoked a textbook equation, which I actually referenced, but am too stupid and ignorant to realize that because I never understood it anyway!"

You were alluding to that math, moron. You just didn't understand it. That's a sign that you *shouldn't* opine on these issues.

but you did and it's routine for you, isn't it.

Lol, this is just so rich. Keep making it personal and dodging substance. The irony is amazing.

You say it was dumb. Fine. You apparently think you can just state something and it become true.

No, I think it's pretty much objectively true that false analogies to slavery, or to Hitler, or to Stalin or what have you are categorically stupid and represent an affront to history and to people who have been directly or indirectly affected by those atrocities. There is no symmetry between fundamentally misunderstanding history and calling someone for not understanding history.

NO it isn't. Your calling it stupid is stupid. Categorically.

Lol. Again, revealing the amount of substance and engagement you're capable of.

Data after 1965? Or are you saying that there was no reduction in poverty in the 19th century except that which came from government? How about he 18th century? 17th?

Did we have an anarchist society in the 17th century, or did we have governments actively investing and subsidizing innovation? Did we not have, for instance, mercantilism, which is even more "big government" than I'd sign onto?

Tell me the mechanism by which poverty would "naturally decline." It doesn't happen, and there's no conceivable way that even if you could find me five people for whom it did happen, that it was statistically significant. People are poor not because they're "lazy," but because of endemic structural inequities. Again, get off Mises.org and think a little: the world isn't black and white.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:52:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Which govt policy and structural reform was responsible for the formation of the division of labor,money, the ideas of capital formation, the industrial revolution, etc ?

I think you need to learn how to read and comprehend, because never once did I say that government policy was responsible for *any* of those things. We were talking about poverty. Try to keep up.

I guess for you the world didn't start until you were born. Goes hand in hand with your arrogance.

Oh the unbelievable irony, especially when *you're* the one who cites historical figures even though you're unbelievably ignorant of their positions and what they believe. All you do is spew bullsh1t you don't understand and pray people won't call you out for it. Then, when they do, you dodge substance and start attacking them personally. Ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

Philips curve by hand everyone!

Again misses the point.

Posting next to Sumner by next year. Mark my word.

Completely uncalled for.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:16:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:35:35 PM, ax123man wrote:
JMK,
related to the welfare question, how do you define government?

Which welfare question? How do I define government, or how do I define the government's role with respect to welfare?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 9:32:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:16:10 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:35:35 PM, ax123man wrote:
JMK,
related to the welfare question, how do you define government?

Which welfare question? How do I define government, or how do I define the government's role with respect to welfare?

Does your answer change depending on which policy question your addressing? Again, how do you define government?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 11:09:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 9:32:26 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:16:10 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:35:35 PM, ax123man wrote:
JMK,
related to the welfare question, how do you define government?

Which welfare question? How do I define government, or how do I define the government's role with respect to welfare?

Does your answer change depending on which policy question your addressing?

Possibly, yeah, but I don't even know what question you're *asking.*

Again, how do you define government?

Your initial question wasn't clear, which is why I *asked* you to clarify because this is hardly related to the "welfare question."

I think we're getting off-topic once again... I wanted to discuss Milton Friedman and your mischaracterization of his view, and you want to rant and rave about how government is force.

Fine, I'll bite: government is a *monopoly.* It's a collective unit of people and institutions pooling together their resources to provide for collective and mutually beneficial aims.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:30:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 11:09:44 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/18/2015 9:32:26 AM, ax123man wrote:

Fine, I'll bite: government is a *monopoly.* It's a collective unit of people and institutions pooling together their resources to provide for collective and mutually beneficial aims.

So is this a type of monopoly that occurs naturally? Because your definition doesn't include anything about whether this entity is voluntary.

And this line of questions relates back to your statements:

"Did we have an anarchist society in the 17th century, or did we have governments actively investing and subsidizing innovation? Did we not have, for instance, mercantilism, which is even more "big government" than I'd sign onto?
Tell me the mechanism by which poverty would "naturally decline." It doesn't happen, and there's no conceivable way that even if you could find me five people for whom it did happen, that it was statistically significant. People are poor not because they're "lazy," but because of endemic structural inequities"

I'm also curious about these endemic structural inequities. What are they? Actually, can you point me to some literature because the terms seem vague.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:30:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
So is this a type of monopoly that occurs naturally? Because your definition doesn't include anything about whether this entity is voluntary.

I don't know of a human society that has or could operate without a government, and even one that did would probably form something resembling a government. It's voluntary insofar as people consent via not moving to Somalia, or something, where they'll be "free" -- they might be hungry, but free.

And this line of questions relates back to your statements:

Let's see.

"Did we have an anarchist society in the 17th century, or did we have governments actively investing and subsidizing innovation? Did we not have, for instance, mercantilism, which is even more "big government" than I'd sign onto?
Tell me the mechanism by which poverty would "naturally decline." It doesn't happen, and there's no conceivable way that even if you could find me five people for whom it did happen, that it was statistically significant. People are poor not because they're "lazy," but because of endemic structural inequities"

Alright, link it for me, though. In the 1800s, for instance, we had heavy tariffs on industry. I don't support those, obviously, and I can't imagine -- and every libertarian I know would say the same -- that your optimal model has every in any way existed.

I'm also curious about these endemic structural inequities. What are they? Actually, can you point me to some literature because the terms seem vague.

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to dig up literature. I'm also not particularly inclined to waste my time source-spamming on things which are well documented, but here's a few:

(a) A disproportionate amount of rich people are able to attend college--particularly prestigious colleges--than poorer kids. This is because (a) they're able to afford it, (b) they come from a line of wealth, and thus have legacies and (c) rich people spend some massive amount of times more on college prep than poor kids.

(b) Student debt has reached about $1 trillion. This is because, to succeed in today's labor market, you pretty much require a college degree. Poor kids can't pay this off, rich kids don't even need to take out loans. Hell, they probably donated their way into Harvard.

(c) Poverty is a natural consequence of capitalism, which is why we have a strong social safety net.

(d) A large amount of Poli Sci research shows that rich people, but not the average person, are able to influence elections via campaign donations, and only their whims are regularly served by governments.

And there are a few more. Note that none of these are "hating" on rich people -- and it drives me crazy when people stoop to that low of a level to (not) rebut a point -- and there are no policy implications from what I said. I'm merely pointing them out to elucidate to you that the world is far from black and white.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 8:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:40:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:30:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
So is this a type of monopoly that occurs naturally? Because your definition doesn't include anything about whether this entity is voluntary.

I don't know of a human society that has or could operate without a government, and even one that did would probably form something resembling a government. It's voluntary insofar as people consent via not moving to Somalia, or something, where they'll be "free" -- they might be hungry, but free.

And this line of questions relates back to your statements:

Let's see.

"Did we have an anarchist society in the 17th century, or did we have governments actively investing and subsidizing innovation? Did we not have, for instance, mercantilism, which is even more "big government" than I'd sign onto?
Tell me the mechanism by which poverty would "naturally decline." It doesn't happen, and there's no conceivable way that even if you could find me five people for whom it did happen, that it was statistically significant. People are poor not because they're "lazy," but because of endemic structural inequities"

I'd answer, but I already know the reply.


Alright, link it for me, though. In the 1800s, for instance, we had heavy tariffs on industry. I don't support those, obviously, and I can't imagine -- and every libertarian I know would say the same -- that your optimal model has every in any way existed.

Ok, so is there anything that government did that improved things? If not, you must believe that social welfare did not improve in the 19th century.


I'm also curious about these endemic structural inequities. What are they? Actually, can you point me to some literature because the terms seem vague.

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to dig up literature. I'm also not particularly inclined to waste my time source-spamming on things which are well documented, but here's a few:

No, I wasn't looking for a bunch of links, etc. Just exactly what you give below.

(a) A disproportionate amount of rich people are able to attend college--particularly prestigious colleges--than poorer kids. This is because (a) they're able to afford it, (b) they come from a line of wealth, and thus have legacies and (c) rich people spend some massive amount of times more on college prep than poor kids.

I'll never forget my mom handing me 20$ when I left for College. Working your way thru univ. isn't fun, but I managed. Not saying that's for everyone, but it's obviously been done by many. And the you can be pretty darn sure the product at the end will be productive.

There are myriad of things to consider here, obviously. It's far from black/white that govt. education welfare is a net benefit. There are so many nuances to it that there is no possible way to unwind it all. Just a few things:
- increased drop out rates due to pushing too many kids to college
- increased cost due to govt financing and lack of innovation. typical monopoly outcomes (free market is addressing that thankfully).
- too many kids pushed thru univ. who then can't find work (cuz, lets face it. they go to interviews and they just suck. I've done at least a hundred interviews. I know)
- definition of the "the rich" constantly changes, although it does take a couple generations, so point taken there, although it can be done, esp. if you consider the inflated cost.
- govt. crowding out private scholarships, and charity in general
- the value of diplomas is falling like a stone. I talk to business people all the time about this. I personally would prefer a resume with no diploma, but showing self-motivated, real world experience over any resume with a diploma only, no matter what school it is. The more govt. pushes this agenda, the worse that's going to get.
- from what I've seen, studies linking productivity/success to a diploma (for those who do make it thru) over-estimate lifetime productivity improvements. Besides, if it's productivity you want, stop preventing educated people from Europe from immigrating (that degree didn't cost us a dime)

Anyway, if you want to practice normative economics, thats fine. The problem I have, it's the norms are often hiding behind the economist (or at least trying to. ha ha)


(b) Student debt has reached about $1 trillion. This is because, to succeed in today's labor market, you pretty much require a college degree. Poor kids can't pay this off, rich kids don't even need to take out loans. Hell, they probably donated their way into Harvard.

I worked with just one guy from Harvard in my career. The guy was a buffoon. I know it depends on career choice, esp. in your case, but there is still too much value on that, IMO (but the "golden ticket" and who issued it)

(c) Poverty is a natural consequence of capitalism, which is why we have a strong social safety net.

this is complete b.s.
capitalism is nothing but voluntary transactions, the division of labor facilitated by money, the application of savings toward capital, resulting in increases in the productivity of labor via technology. It's capitalism that has improved living standards.

Are you saying these things would not occur without government? That entrepreneurs and capitalists aren't responsible for this? Seriously?


(d) A large amount of Poli Sci research shows that rich people, but not the average person, are able to influence elections via campaign donations, and only their whims are regularly served by governments.

The only possible way to "fix" this is to eliminate the politicians. Really, you can only only kid yourself into thinking you can do anything about this (at least without some kind of dictatorship and a much smaller country)


And there are a few more. Note that none of these are "hating" on rich people -- and it drives me crazy when people stoop to that low of a level to (not) rebut a point -- and there are no policy implications from what I said. I'm merely pointing them out to elucidate to you that the world is far from black and white.

wow, I had no idea you were that far left.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 8:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:40:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:30:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
So is this a type of monopoly that occurs naturally? Because your definition doesn't include anything about whether this entity is voluntary.

I don't know of a human society that has or could operate without a government, and even one that did would probably form something resembling a government. It's voluntary insofar as people consent via not moving to Somalia, or something, where they'll be "free" -- they might be hungry, but free.


And this obviously proves nothing. The same argument could be used thru out history to state that societal improvement XYZ is impossible because "it's never been done"

Anyway, the closest example I've seen discussed is Ireland 1500 years ago. And no, this is not based solely on Rothbard and Casey. I've read the replies to them and find them under-whelming. Yea, there was a governance of sorts, but in units of about 3000, each with it's own law. Not much of a monopoly when you can just walk down the road to the next tuath. It's a bit more difficult to move to other countries, especially when they've all decided to take myriad actions to prevent that. (hmm, I wonder why?)

As far as it being voluntary, surely your joking. Bringing up Somalia smells like my bringing up slavery, btw. (I've studied the situation in Somalia a bit. It's not like in the cartoons.).

it seems like your skirting the issue, so lets just cut to the chase. It not only is not voluntary, it is also very difficult to get out of it when every country has many of the same rules (rules the U.S. has forced on those countries). There is ZERO competition. None. Zip.

there's also no justification you can make for establishing it's legitimacy other than what amount's to bully mentality. Social contract theory has been blown up by modern writers like Huemer.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 10:44:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 8:04:08 PM, ax123man wrote:
I'd answer, but I already know the reply.

No, this whole time you've been dodging questions and obfuscating. You've even driven this conversation completely away from its starting point, which was you misrepresenting Milton Friedman's position because you like to feign knowledge you lack.

Ok, so is there anything that government did that improved things? If not, you must believe that social welfare did not improve in the 19th century.

Of course it did, and protectionism to protect industries in their infancies was one of them. The burden is on you, my friend, to demonstrate this "natural decline."

I'm also curious about these endemic structural inequities. What are they? Actually, can you point me to some literature because the terms seem vague.

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to dig up literature. I'm also not particularly inclined to waste my time source-spamming on things which are well documented, but here's a few:

No, I wasn't looking for a bunch of links, etc. Just exactly what you give below.

Perfect.

(a) A disproportionate amount of rich people are able to attend college--particularly prestigious colleges--than poorer kids. This is because (a) they're able to afford it, (b) they come from a line of wealth, and thus have legacies and (c) rich people spend some massive amount of times more on college prep than poor kids.

I'll never forget my mom handing me 20$ when I left for College. Working your way thru univ. isn't fun, but I managed. Not saying that's for everyone, but it's obviously been done by many. And the you can be pretty darn sure the product at the end will be productive.

This is so unbelievably ignorant, and anecdotes of the "I did, therefore you should, too" never end well, because you're drawing an unjustifiable parallel between your experience and that of others. And, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that working your way through college *has to be declared* on your applications for aid. In many cases, it's a perfect one-for-one offset, so on net you don't gain.

There are myriad of things to consider here, obviously. It's far from black/white that govt. education welfare is a net benefit.

"Government education welfare."

Someone I can already tell you're not taking this seriously. p

Yes, it is pretty damn clear that education, 9 times out of 10 (unless you're studying basket weaving, or something) is an extremely productive venture.

There are so many nuances to it that there is no possible way to unwind it all. Just a few things:

Let's see.

- increased drop out rates due to pushing too many kids to college

Find me evidence of causation of this effect.

- increased cost due to govt financing and lack of innovation.

This is complete bullsh1t. Student loans account for a very, very small percent of overall education spending and don't account for the substantial increases in *private* tuition. Tuition is up because of cutbacks at the state and local level, which lets private universities likewise raise their tuitions.

typical monopoly outcomes (free market is addressing that thankfully).

It's not a monopoly... not even close. Hell, even publicly financing it in full like a number of Scandinavian country do couldn't be plotted as an actual monopoly.

- too many kids pushed thru univ. who then can't find work (cuz, lets face it. they go to interviews and they just suck. I've done at least a hundred interviews. I know)

Again, another "anecdote."

- definition of the "the rich" constantly changes, although it does take a couple generations, so point taken there, although it can be done, esp. if you consider the inflated cost.

I think the term "rich" is very clear and doesn't require any further clarification.

- govt. crowding out private scholarships, and charity in general

This is complete bullsh1t.

- the value of diplomas is falling like a stone. I talk to business people all the time about this. I personally would prefer a resume with no diploma, but showing self-motivated, real world experience over any resume with a diploma only, no matter what school it is. The more govt. pushes this agenda, the worse that's going to get.

Lol, another bullsh1t anecdote, usually spouted by rednecks who dropped out of college to make themselves feel better after they couldn't survive.

- from what I've seen, studies linking productivity/success to a diploma (for those who do make it thru) over-estimate lifetime productivity improvements.

I'm sure this isn't true, but even if it is, it's indisputable that *relative* productivity, which is the metric that we care about, is higher.

Besides, if it's productivity you want, stop preventing educated people from Europe from immigrating (that degree didn't cost us a dime)

These aren't mutually exclusive.. at all. At least we agree on one thign.

Anyway, if you want to practice normative economics, thats fine. The problem I have, it's the norms are often hiding behind the economist (or at least trying to. ha ha)

What does this mean?

I mean, sure, I often make policy recommendations when I feel strongly about things, but in this case I was merely highlights *real* problem.

(b) Student debt has reached about $1 trillion. This is because, to succeed in today's labor market, you pretty much require a college degree. Poor kids can't pay this off, rich kids don't even need to take out loans. Hell, they probably donated their way into Harvard.

I worked with just one guy from Harvard in my career. The guy was a buffoon. I know it depends on career choice, esp. in your case, but there is still too much value on that, IMO (but the "golden ticket" and who issued it)

Even if I agreed with it, it doesn't dispute reality.
(c) Poverty is a natural consequence of capitalism, which is why we have a strong social safety net.

this is complete b.s.

Lol, clearly you don't read enough... at all. This position is pretty uncontroversial
.
capitalism is nothing but voluntary transactions, the division of labor facilitated by money, the application of savings toward capital, resulting in increases in the productivity of labor via technology. It's capitalism that has improved living standards.

It has improved living standards, but what your feeble mind wasn't able to register is that the gains are often not broadly distributed -- and exploitation at the hands of the "haves" is often a very well and pressing issue that feeds upon itself.

The world isn't black and white.

Are you saying these things would not occur without government? That entrepreneurs and capitalists aren't responsible for this? Seriously?

Am I saying what would not occur? Now you're not even making sense.

The only possible way to "fix" this is to eliminate the politicians. Really, you can only only kid yourself into thinking you can do anything about this (at least without some kind of dictatorship and a much smaller country)

Lol, no, not at all -- and if you knew anything about countries that *have* done something about this, you'd know that.


And there are a few more. Note that none of these are "hating" on rich people -- and it drives me crazy when people stoop to that low of a level to (not) rebut a point -- and there are no policy implications from what I said. I'm merely pointing them out to elucidate to you that the world is far from black and white.

wow, I had no idea you were that far left.

God, you are such a moron... I'm not to the left *at all.* You make me appear liberal because you're so unbelievably thick-headed and disconnected from reality, but I'm really not. I follow the facts.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 10:47:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 8:37:08 PM, ax123man wrote:
And this obviously proves nothing. The same argument could be used thru out history to state that societal improvement XYZ is impossible because "it's never been done"

False analogy and you know it.

Anyway, the closest example I've seen discussed is Ireland 1500 years ago. And no, this is not based solely on Rothbard and Casey. I've read the replies to them and find them under-whelming. Yea, there was a governance of sorts, but in units of about 3000, each with it's own law. Not much of a monopoly when you can just walk down the road to the next tuath. It's a bit more difficult to move to other countries, especially when they've all decided to take myriad actions to prevent that. (hmm, I wonder why?)

1500 years ago... and you think it's applicable today, lol...

You could've just said you were talking out of ars earlier, and you don't actually know anything about Milton Friedman. This is just sad.

As far as it being voluntary, surely your joking.

No, I'm not. You're welcome to leave at any time.

Bringing up Somalia smells like my bringing up slavery, btw. (I've studied the situation in Somalia a bit. It's not like in the cartoons.).

No, this analogy is actually valid. But replace it with [insert place here that has no government].

That's what you're advocating for. It *literally* typifies your proposal.

it seems like your skirting the issue, so lets just cut to the chase.

lol...

Oh the irony.

It not only is not voluntary, it is also very difficult to get out of it when every country has many of the same rules (rules the U.S. has forced on those countries). There is ZERO competition. None. Zip.

If you don't like it, you're always welcome to leave.

Seriously, dude, just leave -- the collective IQ of the country will rise.

there's also no justification you can make for establishing it's legitimacy other than what amount's to bully mentality. Social contract theory has been blown up by modern writers like Huemer.

The social contract in no way even resembles a bully mentality. That just isn't true, particularly because you aren't forced to do *anything.*
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 6:27:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 8:37:08 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:40:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:30:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
So is this a type of monopoly that occurs naturally? Because your definition doesn't include anything about whether this entity is voluntary.

I don't know of a human society that has or could operate without a government, and even one that did would probably form something resembling a government. It's voluntary insofar as people consent via not moving to Somalia, or something, where they'll be "free" -- they might be hungry, but free.


And this obviously proves nothing. The same argument could be used thru out history to state that societal improvement XYZ is impossible because "it's never been done"

Anyway, the closest example I've seen discussed is Ireland 1500 years ago. And no, this is not based solely on Rothbard and Casey. I've read the replies to them and find them under-whelming. Yea, there was a governance of sorts, but in units of about 3000, each with it's own law. Not much of a monopoly when you can just walk down the road to the next tuath. It's a bit more difficult to move to other countries, especially when they've all decided to take myriad actions to prevent that. (hmm, I wonder why?)

As far as it being voluntary, surely your joking. Bringing up Somalia smells like my bringing up slavery, btw. (I've studied the situation in Somalia a bit. It's not like in the cartoons.).

it seems like your skirting the issue, so lets just cut to the chase. It not only is not voluntary, it is also very difficult to get out of it when every country has many of the same rules (rules the U.S. has forced on those countries). There is ZERO competition. None. Zip.

there's also no justification you can make for establishing it's legitimacy other than what amount's to bully mentality. Social contract theory has been blown up by modern writers like Huemer.

You are correct. Politicians that can take property from one man to give that property to another must be eliminated. A government's only job is to protect the liberty of all its citizens, not just the 51% it takes to win an election.

Economists as only tools of politicians, thus should be talked to like a person talks to a hammer.

A dead guy once said something like, "a lack of trust in free markets is a lack of trust in freedom itself".
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 6:45:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 9:19:39 PM, DanielPeterson wrote:
It seems reasonable to assume that inflation and wealth distribution are somewhat related.

My assumption is that if the poor an middle class gets wealthier then this wealth will go towards consumption that will drive up inflation.

If instead money flows towards the already wealthy then inflation will go down because rich people generally has less tendency to spend additional income.

I hate to say this but that is so f*cking stupid. You haven't thought this through put your self in a rich persons place............

Now here you are with your 100's of millions, what are you going to do just put it in bank ? sounds safe right ? BUT...... the trouble is because money can just be printed it's value is constantly being undermined.

In other words how do you protect your "wealth" from inflation ?..................you buy assets.

You buy..........houses, land, farms, the means of production, stock in companies, mines, oil production, roads, rail, etc etc


This model suggests that in a deflationary environment where real wages are not keeping up with GDP it would make sense for government to use laws and regulations to increase the competitiveness of the poor and the middle class relative to the rich and the business sector. Not necessarily as a moral position but in order to balance the economy.

Is this reasoning correct? Has is been mentioned in recent public debate regarding the current economic situation?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12