Will QE infinity render money worthless?

realitykeeper

If QE infinity does render money worthless, that will be the end of capitalism in the west. If capitalism does fail, there is every chance Communism (by another name) will take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited.

So, here is a reminder of what shopping back in the USSR looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Needles to say, I oppose QE and low ECB interest rates.

dxhound2005

realitykeeper wrote: »

If QE infinity does render money worthless, that will be the end of capitalism in the west. If capitalism does fail, there is every chance Communism (by another name) will take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited.

So, here is a reminder of what shopping back in the USSR looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Needles to say, I oppose QE and low ECB interest rates.

What sort of needles?

Your Face

Yes

EmmetSpiceland

Your Face wrote: »

Yes

As long as there are no follow up questions.

Snow Garden

In many ways we need some form of global communism to fix the problems of this world.

AMKC

No idea what this QE Infinity is you are on about. I know what QE is and low interest rates but would prefer if interest rates in banks, CU etc were high so people could save and make some money. At the moment it costs to keep money in them.

Also needles are bad. Stay away from needles OP.

dxhound2005

Snow Garden wrote: »

In many ways we need some form of global communism to fix the problems of this world.

Bad idea, as is the other plan to abolish nation states, the worldwide Islamic caliphate.

ChikiChiki

Money will have less value with QE at the same time as more jobs become automated.

Fun times ahead.

Zaph

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Bad idea, as is the other plan to abolish nation states, the worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Jaysus, does this sh*te have to be dragged into every thread on Boards these days? This is a thread essentially about the practical effects of a particular economic theory, nobody mention Islam or any other religion.

Markcheese

If governments want to kickstart economic activity, they could chuck vast sums at needed capital projects and at education and training,
Its a little more targeted than helicopter money, and a lot more productive than buying bank bonds...

FanadMan

Zaph wrote: »

Jaysus, does this sh*te have to be dragged into every thread on Boards these days? This is a thread essentially about the practical effects of a particular economic theory, nobody mention Islam or any other religion.

Like the Tayto ad said, "There's always one"

SeanW

Snow Garden wrote: »

In many ways we need some form of global communism to fix the problems of this world.

Yes, because 100,000,000 dead bodies were not enough last time Communism was tried on any kind of scale. Because that is what Communism caused. Mass starvation. Millions sent to concentration camps or just murdered where they are. Genocide on a scale comparable to Nazi Germany.

Like Uncle Joe Stalin once said, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and he would know, he and his buddies Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims of North Korea slaughtered 100 million in the 20th century.

How many billions would have to die to try Communism again, except on a worldwide basis? How many corpses would be too many?

MrMusician18

It's not money that gets rendered worthless, it's debt. QE is a massive exercise in debt forgiveness.

There will always be money and it will always have value, it is only a mechanism to facilitate trade.

s7ryf3925pivug

"Its"

Since we're doing that.

SeanW

Op is correct, "It's" is a contraction for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form of it.

E.g. "That cat likes its milk".

RobbingBandit

Ah but the crafty cat likes it's milk too

why else do they like licking themselves so much

Ipso

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, because 100,000,000 dead bodies were not enough last time Communism was tried on any kind of scale. Because that is what Communism caused. Mass starvation. Millions sent to concentration camps or just murdered where they are. Genocide on a scale comparable to Nazi Germany.

Like Uncle Joe Stalin once said, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and he would know, he and his buddies Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims of North Korea slaughtered 100 million in the 20th century.

How many billions would have to die to try Communism again, except on a worldwide basis? How many corpses would be too many?

Shur it wasn’t real communism. People these days have it all figured out, trust them.

Wanderer78

Looks like we re deciding to move further to the right, this should be fun!

Oh and since the only inflation that qe is causing is further asset price inflation, I think fiat is just fine for the moment

El_Duderino 09

Christian discredits communism in Religio-economic shocker.

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Christian discredits communism in Religio-economic shocker.

People discredit Communism because of the 100,000,000 dead in 50 years or so when it was implemented.

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

People discredit Communism because of the 100,000,000 dead in 50 years or so when it was implemented.

Oh I see the tack you're taking. While I suppose you also have the figure to hand for people killed in the pursuit of accruing capital?

Bob Harris

Capitalism = some people are poor.

Communism = everybody is poor.

seamus

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I see the tack you're taking. While I suppose you also have the figure to hand for people killed in the pursuit of accruing capital?

On the mass industrial scale over the course of 50 years like Communism did.

No.

Wanderer78

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

i think the argument of capitalism v's Communism is far too simplistic, i personally think we urgently require a new form of capitalism to move forward, as our current most predominate form of it, the so called neoliberial/neoclassical approach is a bust, in fact id class it as highly dangerous to the survival of our species

Tom Mann Centuria

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

Imperialism was for profit, behind every jaunt the British and old super powers used to take around the globe there was big business, how many did that kill or enslave over the years, all for the enlightenment of capitalism.

Anyhoo, there's no need for a new model, I already have just what you're looking for. Democratic Socialism.

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

On the mass industrial scale over the course of 50 years like Communism did.

No.

I didn't think you would gave a figure. Do you have a figure to hand for the people killed in the name of accruing capital at all?

Don't worry, I know you don't have any figure because you don't have any clue or interest in finding out. It's funny that, isn't it?

Since you now realised you only have the deaths data on one side, will you adjust your position at all?

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

I do. So do quite a lot of people.

seamus wrote: »

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

Absolutely.

seamus wrote: »

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

At the extreme ends of both you are probably right, but in the middle ground, capitalism although far from perfect is vastly preferable to communism. I can't think of a single example of a "successful" communist regime.

China, being the obvious riposte to that statement only really started to do well after adopting a very loose, very capitalist form of so called communism.

By contrast there are any number of countries who can directly attribute their improving fortunes to capitalism. Our own country being a prime example.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's without a doubt the best of the current bunch by a country mile. Self interest is the human condition, i'm just not busting my balls if it doesn't benefit me directly - most people feel the same. Communism tries to ignore this.

Ignore nature at your peril!

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I do. So do quite a lot of people.



Absolutely.



At the extreme ends of both you are probably right, but in the middle ground, capitalism although far from perfect is vastly preferable to communism. I can't think of a single example of a "successful" communist regime.

China, being the obvious riposte to that statement only really started to do well after adopting a very loose, very capitalist form of so called communism.

By contrast there are any number of countries who can directly attribute their improving fortunes to capitalism. Our own country being a prime example.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's without a doubt the best of the current bunch by a country mile. Self interest is the human condition, i'm just not busting my balls if it doesn't benefit me directly - most people feel the same. Communism tries to ignore this.

Ignore nature at your peril!

absolutely, continual growth is absolutely natural, and we have an endless supply of resources to do so!

Snow Garden

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, because 100,000,000 dead bodies were not enough last time Communism was tried on any kind of scale. Because that is what Communism caused. Mass starvation. Millions sent to concentration camps or just murdered where they are. Genocide on a scale comparable to Nazi Germany.

Like Uncle Joe Stalin once said, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" and he would know, he and his buddies Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims of North Korea slaughtered 100 million in the 20th century.

How many billions would have to die to try Communism again, except on a worldwide basis? How many corpses would be too many?

And you completely missed the very general point. Forget it.

s7ryf3925pivug

SeanW wrote: »

Op is correct, "It's" is a contraction for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form of it.

E.g. "That cat likes its milk".

He used it's in place of its, not as a contraction.

"take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited."

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't think you would gave a figure. Do you have a figure to hand for the people killed in the name of accruing capital at all?

Don't worry, I know you don't have any figure because you don't have any clue or interest in finding out. It's funny that, isn't it?

Since you now realised you only have the deaths data on one side, will you adjust your position at all?

No.

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

No.

Of course not, because your position isn't based on information or facts. So why bother using them to bolster your position when they don't actually have an impact on your position?

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course not, because your position isn't based on information or facts. So why bother using them to bolster your position when they don't actually have an impact on your position?

Where has Communism ever worked?

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Where has Communism ever worked?

Changing tack again, ok. I don’t know any.

Have you finished trying to calculate deaths by capitalism or don’t want to know? Or has the deaths by system argument been abandoned?

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

absolutely, continual growth is absolutely natural, and we have an endless supply of resources to do so!

Continual growth is not the basis of anything, except fantasy. An unfortunate aspect of capitalism is expansion and contraction, boom and bust. The trick is to try stash away some of the booms to lessen the busts, but most people are not particularly good at that - and we're probably among the worst at it in fact.

The general gripe you hear about capitalism is "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" but they don't really, the gap might widen but the people at each end of it are getting steadily better off over time, when the ups and down are smoothed out.

Is the life of the average poor person today not vastly superior to the life of the average poor person 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Only a fool would argue it's not.

Would you rather be "poor" in 2019 Ireland or 1950 Russia? The Russian would likely view the paddy as very well off indeed.

realitykeeper

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did.

I propose a compromise. Communist dictators killed 100,000,000 people. Everyone happy?

Geuze

We have had several years of QE, in several countries, and it has not caused consumer price inflation.

So money has not lost value.


Now, you could argue it has caused asset price inflation.

realitykeeper

Geuze wrote: »

We have had several years of QE, in several countries, and it has not caused consumer price inflation.

So money has not lost value.


Now, you could argue it has caused asset price inflation.

Inflation has to go somewhere and as you point out, it has gone into asset prices. The problem is, when that bubble pops, the inflation will move from assets prices to the prices on everyday consumer goods.

Thelonious Monk

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Where has Communism ever worked?

Well you could say the same about any form of government there's always winners and losers. The Earth is getting pretty f*cked by capitalism right now, as well as some countries caught between superpowers.
Anyway better distribution of wealth would probably help things in the world even out a bit and would be good for us all. So maybe some elements of socialism or communism or whatever shouldn't be ignored.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Inflation has to go somewhere and as you point out, it has gone into asset prices. The problem is, when that bubble pops, the inflation will move from assets prices to the prices on everyday consumer goods.

Do you have the date for the bubble to burst by any chance? so we call all hoard gold.

sbsquarepants

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Anyway better distribution of wealth would probably help things in the world even out a bit and would be good for us all.

For those people yes, for the world at large I'm not at all sure.

The poorest places, tend to be the most heavily populated. Who is to say if tomorrow those places were suddenly much better off that their consumption wouldn't explode and push us over the edge completely?

If you're relying on the altruism of pampered westerners to go without, so that someone in bangladesh for example can get their fair share, you are on paper thin ice.

Look at the example of china say - it has been lifting maybe a million people a month out of abject poverty for donkeys years now. Then those people start using electricity, driving cars, central heating and so on, general consumerist behaviour - fantastic for them, but it takes some toll on the planet. I see a few token gestures, but no real drive by the rest of us to offset increased Chinese consumption of anything. Do you?

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

For those people yes, for the world at large I'm not at all sure.

The poorest places, tend to be the most heavily populated. Who is to say if tomorrow those places were suddenly much better off that their consumption wouldn't explode and push us over the edge completely?

If you're relying on the altruism of pampered westerners to go without, so that someone in bangladesh for example can get their fair share, you are on paper thin ice.

Look at the example of china say - it has been lifting maybe a million people a month out of abject poverty for donkeys years now. Then those people start using electricity, driving cars, central heating and so on, general consumerist behaviour - fantastic for them, but it takes some toll on the planet.

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

If QE infinity does render money worthless, that will be the end of capitalism in the west. If capitalism does fail, there is every chance Communism (by another name) will take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited.

So, here is a reminder of what shopping back in the USSR looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Needles to say, I oppose QE and low ECB interest rates.

Also read The Second Sleep by Robert Harris you would love it.

Thelonious Monk

mariaalice wrote: »

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

Yeah but they consume far more. I think one American consumes as much as 200 Bangladeshis or something. It's a tough nut to crack.

sbsquarepants

mariaalice wrote: »

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

There is a tendency towards that for sure, but is it dramatic enough to offset the rise in general consumption (and lets face it it, quite a lot of it needless consumption + waste)

Your average irish couple with 2 kids could easily consume as much as a couple of families of ten elsewhere, maybe even more. Throw in cars, holidays etc and you could have the carbon footprint of small village!

My missus's parent go on maybe 5 or 6 foreign holidays a year, probably same number of short breaks in ireland....but they're regimented with their recycling:) There must be whole townships out there that have less global impact than 2 well to do Irish retirees!

SeanW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Christian discredits communism in Religio-economic shocker.

Who are you referring to here? Besides, I would have thought that 100 million corpses would have discredited communism, no?

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

We don't blame capitalism because capitalism has elevated almost everyone effected.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Elon Musk? Bill Gates? Nikola Tesla? Quite the opposite, society has been able to benefit from "greed" by forcing the greedy to do something awesome as a means to getting rich.

Wanderer78

SeanW wrote:

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Elon Musk? Bill Gates? Nikola Tesla? Quite the opposite, society has been able to benefit from "greed" by forcing the greedy to do something awesome as a means to getting rich.

Yup, rent seeking behaviour rocks, everybody wins!

El_Duderino 09

SeanW wrote: »

Who are you referring to here? Besides, I would have thought that 100 million corpses would have discredited communism, no?

We don't blame capitalism because capitalism has elevated almost everyone effected.

Referring to the OP.

Clearly you don't hold consider deaths in the name of capitalism as a negative. But in that post you did consider deaths in the name of communism as a negative.

Communism does it = communism bad
Capitalism does it = not a problem (don't even know/care how many deaths)

suicide_circus

SeanW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Referring to the OP.

Clearly you don't hold consider deaths in the name of capitalism as a negative. But in that post you did consider deaths in the name of communism as a negative.

Communism does it = communism bad
Capitalism does it = not a problem (don't even know/care how many deaths)

Yes, I consider 100,000,000 dead people to be a bad thing.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Nikola Tesla? Cornelius Vanderbilt? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Because these are/were capitalists.