nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The consequences of Bitcoin

realitykeeper

Many of you will have heard by now of the computer generated currency Bitcoin. Having done a little research on this currency I have some thoughts on how it could effect the Irish economy and the world economy.

Firstly lets look at why people use bitcoin. From a global citizen`s point of view - bitcoins free you of governments which steal money to fund their own corruption, their inefficiently run public services and their auction politics. Whether or not you agree with the last statement is largely irrelevant because many of the people who buy bitcoin are likely to think like this which is why they use the currency.

Bitcoin is also an attractive currency to criminals who simply do not want to contribute to society even if they happen to live in a country where the Government is lean, efficient and non corrupt.

Finally, bitcoins are used by people who do not like the notion of their wealth being eroded by the printing of money by central banks. It is this final point that I would like to focus on. Bitcoin is not like other currencies because the maximum number of bitcoins that can be "mined" is 21 million. Therefore if all money was in bitcoin - prices would generally go down. In the present system where money can be printed, prices generally go up. Therefore many people with money are drawn to this idea that the money they have can (in theory) become more valuable if they hold bitcoins as opposed to less valuable if they hold a traditional currency.

Consequently, the more money central banks print - the more popular bitcoins are likely to become. Again I should point out that this is how people with money tend to think so on that basis alone the growth in popularity of bitcoin may become a self fulfilling event.

So this brings us to the question of why do central banks "print" money. In many cases it is a mechanism for cheapening a currency to boost exports. It is also used at times of spiraling national debt or in the case or our own country where we cannot print money - alternative methods are devised by creative accountants to try extend the lifetime over which our debt has to be repaid. These measures are designed to alleviate the amount of austerity required to bring public spending under control. Traditionally, the effectiveness of these measures was countered to some extent by the wealthy putting their wealth out of harms way - in this case the harm being quantitative easing. However, with bitcoin there may be no need to change currencies or move money out of the country. People could simply trade tax free in bitcoin without fear of their choice of currency depreciating. Bitcoin is in many ways a virtual black market currency but lets not judge those who use bitcoins to harshly. Bitcoin is a monitory equivalent to the vigilante. If there were no criminals there would be no vigilantes.

So what can the government do about this bitcoin black market? As I see it there is only one thing that will make the bitcoin seem less attractive and that is massive austerity. Why? Because people who believe in austerity also believe in the preservation of existing wealth and in theory at least, the bitcoin enables them to preserve their wealth. To read more about bitcoin: http://bitcoin.org/en/

Declaration of interest: I presently own one litecoin (a sub denomination of the bitcoin)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

If posters are not wrongly using a political argument to imply they have a valid economic argument, then in effect, you all agree that it is economically possible then, but you just disagree about what politicians will do, yes?
That would sure resolve a lot of debate here.

No I don't agree your solution is economically possible, I disagree on the notion of excess capacity, excess capacity to build housing on mass and excess labour yes I agree, excess capacity to do just anything else isn't there. And then you place government in the role of investor, who decide on the advice of a small bunch of technocrats on what to invest in. Large central plans can't allocate as efficiently as a market. And then on the purely political end, it would be ripe for corruption.

Valmont

KyussBishop, considering your support of fiat currencies and printing money in general (and the sticking point of our current disagreement) perhaps you could explain why we don't simply print a few hundred billion euros, dish it out to various government departments and individuals and solve our economic woes? Do you support something along these lines and if not, why?

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes I'm sure the extreme political situation, of massive industrial/output collapse due to land takeovers, and 80% unemployment, had nothing to do with that.

This is why hyperinflation scaremongering is so ridiculous: People espousing it are almost in every case, completely ignorant of the actual causes of hyperinflation in each cited example.

Grand their economy was going through a rough patch. Industrial output was falling unemployment was on the way up, government nationalised certain industries. Obviously things were worse than they are here but replace land with bank and you have something along the same lines just not quite as bad.

The solution was to basically to print money just as you advocate which should result in 100% employment etc. Given you have been able to a reasonably detailed summary of how your theory works could you do the same on why it didn't work here and why Zimbabwe was an exception. Or will you ignore it as you've done above.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Eh? Your prescribed economic policy is inseparable from government politics. You have to defend it on both economic and political grounds.

The arguments being presented, reduce to an assertion about what governments will do, and just repeating "yes they will", "yes they will" again and again, with no actual argument or backing.

If posters are not wrongly using a political argument to imply they have a valid economic argument, then in effect, you all agree that it is economically possible then, but you just disagree about what politicians will do, yes?
That would sure resolve a lot of debate here.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

Kyuss Bishop a question. Could you explain how Zimbabwe benefited from its relatively recently bout of printing money that had the aim of producing full employment. Given as a result it had to abandon its own currency it appear when your printing money theory is put into operation it produces very different results from what it claim it should do.

Yes I'm sure the extreme political situation, of massive industrial/output collapse due to land takeovers, and 80% unemployment, had nothing to do with that.

This is why hyperinflation scaremongering is so ridiculous: People espousing it are almost in every case, completely ignorant of the actual causes of hyperinflation in each cited example.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Yes, I figured as much. I think we can safely place your non-tax funded temporary government jobs program in the pile with the loaves and the fishes, flying pigs, and alchemy. It's funny, with your proclaimed benefits of printing money one would wonder why the government needs to tax anyone at all!

Discard it if you like, but don't pretend to have an actual argument against it.

Almost every argument presented as being against it, is arguing against what it is not; endless straw-men usually, or making false assertions about economics (that it conflicts with), and presenting them as 'fact' or immutable economic law, when that is wrong (in other words, saying it is wrong, because it does not match economic theory that itself is wrong - like saying astrophysics is wrong because it doesn't match astrology).

There has not been a single argument that directly tackles it and doesn't get something major completely wrong (whether that being economic theory it gets wrong, or what it's arguing against).

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh look, a political argument - nothing to do with economics, just the usual anti-government crap.

Eh? Your prescribed economic policy is inseparable from government politics. You have to defend it on both economic and political grounds.

PeadarCo

Kyuss Bishop a question. Could you explain how Zimbabwe benefited from its relatively recently bout of printing money that had the aim of producing full employment. Given as a result it had to abandon its own currency it appear when your printing money theory is put into operation it produces very different results from what it claim it should do.

Valmont

Yes, I figured as much. I think we can safely place your non-tax funded temporary government jobs program in the pile with the loaves and the fishes, flying pigs, and alchemy. It's funny, with your proclaimed benefits of printing money one would wonder why the government needs to tax anyone at all!

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Ah yes, a temporary government program. I can't wait to see the politicians try to sell us that one with straight faces.

Oh look, a political argument - nothing to do with economics, just the usual anti-government crap.

Valmont wrote: »

Let us consider the fact that the private sector can't afford to hire X amount of workers at price Y. The state then taxes the private sector to raise funds to employ these workers until the economy has recovered. With the private sector now paying for the jobs program and contending with an already bad economic environment, they have even less money than before to spend on new workers, with these new workers necessarily finding temporary employment with, hey presto, the job guarantee scheme, which is now starting to grow bigger and bigger. All this program would do is transfer large amounts of wealth from the private sector to the state and its new dependants, strangling the productive capacity of the private sector in the process and of course with it, any hope of recovery. Which of course defeats the point of the whole thing! Price controls have never worked and they never will.

So you want to destroy wage levels, likely affecting working hours too, and depress the private economy further through that (make it reach bottom before it starts to build up again), which will destroy quality of life levels.

The aim is to fix the economy btw, not destroy it.

My solution, retains wages, boosts hours, and instead of having a general fall in quality of life for everyone with some being thrown to the gutters (as we have now), we have a smaller fall in quality of life with nobody going to the gutters.

Your 'destroy the economy' solution can't compete with that.

Also - you know what policies I advocate for funding this, and it is not taxation, so that is a straw-man there; I advocate both stimulus and a cut in taxation.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

it is a temporary job program, with the express purpose of getting all the workers reabsorbed back into the private economy as it recovers.

Ah yes, a temporary government program. I can't wait to see the politicians try to sell us that one with straight faces.

Let us consider the fact that the private sector can't afford to hire X amount of workers at price Y. The state then taxes the private sector to raise funds to employ these workers until the economy has recovered. With the private sector now paying for the jobs program and contending with an already bad economic environment, they have even less money than before to spend on new workers, with these new workers necessarily finding temporary employment with, hey presto, the job guarantee scheme, which is now starting to grow bigger and bigger. All this program would do is transfer large amounts of wealth from the private sector to the state and its new dependants, strangling the productive capacity of the private sector in the process and of course with it, any hope of recovery. Which of course defeats the point of the whole thing! Price controls have never worked and they never will.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Simple logic not assertion, if workers are hired by government for construction projects those same workers can't be hired by the private sector to do something else

There is no 'logic' there, just more (false) assertions - the private sector doesn't want these workers right now.

You know that these workers are unemployed and that these jobs don't exist, and you know the only solution you have for providing jobs, is destroying more of the private economy by wage and working-hour decimation (along with decimation of quality of life).

I debunked that right in the post you are quoting (it is even the bit I explicitly underlined to stand out from the rest of the post):

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Job Guarantee is not aimed at suppressing private sector demand for jobs (or availability of supply of labour for those jobs), but to use up the supply of labour when there is no private demand for these workers, as is the case now (and before we get to the 'at the current wage level' argument: my solution retains wage levels within a reasonable degree, unlike the 'free market' alternative that decimates wages and quality of life for workers).

Even more to the point: I've specifically explained that these workers automatically move back into the private sector, as demand for workers within the private sector improves.

It was extremely clearly laid out in my post, and you are perceptive enough to know this, so I don't know why you went on to make those assertions that you can very clearly see to be false.

It's like you've gone from talking about an economy with massive unemployment, and suddenly switched your arguments to be based on an economy at full economic-activity/employment - even though you know it is an economy with significant unemployment we are talking about.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but, you are asserting again. You have posted nothing to show stimulus delays private sector 'rebalancing

Simple logic not assertion, if workers are hired by government for construction projects those same workers can't be hired by the private sector to do something else, they can't be in two places at one time. So in 2008 whatever % of those 120,000 excess employed in construction you take, if its 20% you take 24,000 of those, you keep them employed and trained in construction, you maintain the imbalance.

Now this is an assertion, and one that goes against logic.

stimulus promotes private sector rebalancing.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

For the love of god give over with this unbacked/idealogical assertion nonsense, this is reality. From 2000-2008 the number of those employed in construction rose from 165,000 to 280,000. It was all unsustainable bubble employment, the economy became completely unbalanced and devoted to and dependent on housing. By hiring those excess workers for state construction projects when they are laid off you prevent them from re-skilling. Reality not ideology.

Sorry but, you are asserting again. You have posted nothing to show stimulus delays private sector 'rebalancing', and I have posted a ton of stuff showing that (particularly due to the starvation of needed money in the private sector), stimulus promotes private sector rebalancing

The entire point of the Job Guarantee program, is to give the workers jobs but at such a wage level that the private sector can easily afford to re-hire them when the money is available - it is a temporary job program, with the express purpose of getting all the workers reabsorbed back into the private economy as it recovers.

The Job Guarantee is not aimed at suppressing private sector demand for jobs (or availability of supply of labour for those jobs), but to use up the supply of labour when there is no private demand for these workers, as is the case now (and before we get to the 'at the current wage level' argument: my solution retains wage levels within a reasonable degree, unlike the 'free market' alternative that decimates wages and quality of life for workers).

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

For example, stuff such as "Stimulus projects using construction workers delays the necessary re-balancing", which is just a totally unbacked/ideological assertion

For the love of god give over with this unbacked/idealogical assertion nonsense, this is reality. From 2000-2008 the number of those employed in construction rose from 165,000 to 280,000. It was all unsustainable bubble employment, the economy became completely unbalanced and devoted to and dependent on housing. By hiring those excess workers for state construction projects when they are laid off you prevent them from re-skilling. Reality not ideology.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I don't have the time to go back over all of your posts in detail. But MMT is just Keynesianism with some of the rougher edges taken a way. The trait that seems to bind MMT is they emphasize money is loaned into existence and emphasize accounting but the prescriptions and promise is little different than what Keynesians have promoted for decades, we can have the boom without suffering the bust as long as governments step in with stimulus, or in your slightly refined version stimulus for the right projects. Despite knowledge of this solution for decades countless countries have gone through numerous booms and suffered painful busts. MMT'ers/Keynesians persist in claiming that these painful busts are needless if government stepped in with the right measures. Most everyone else sees busts as inevitable.

Everyone accepts a certain amount frictional unemployment in economies. So what happens during a boom, more and more people are sucked into the booming industry and become dependent on it. If there is a boom in housing, more and more resources are directed to this end, when the bust sets in, a lot of businesses that should go bust go bust, the excess workers in that industry are laid off. It takes time for industry to rewire itself in a sustainable way and it takes time for laid off workers to re-skill and be rehired in new industry. So instead of small frictional rate of unemployment you get a much larger spike in unemployment. To employ excess unemployed Keynesians assume that excess capacity to build houses on mass can be quickly directed to other infrastructure projects. But paddy the plasterer is not much use in constructing a high speed rail link, the materials needed are different to those for housing, and the factories required to produce those materials are different also, there is no spare capacity ready to be turned on like a switch to engage in such a project. Stimulus projects using construction workers delays the necessary re-balancing.

MMT emphasize loans create savings/deposits as seen in accounting, fine but if MMT thinks they focus on real resources they are missing a trick here. What matter are real savings and accumulation of capital goods, factories machinery etc. yes loans create deposits that someone will save, but increasing lending or even printing money while it increases nominal savings as verified by accounting it does not increase the amount of real capital available to an economy, which is what matters.

You're missing the fundamental difference: Not using national debt - recognizing that you don't need government bonds to fund deficits (which is more inflationary than just creating the money, because you are locked-in to making interest payments on the bonds/debt).
You also miss the job guarantee - which is far more efficient then straight-out unemployment.

You're trying to make an argument-ad-populum, which is again in contradiction to your own point that I quoted in the After Hours thread.

What you are right on though, is that this stuff has been known all along, since the last Great Depression at least, which makes it all the more insane that it's gone on like this.
'Keynesianism' in the form it took since then, actually has very little to do with Keynes, because it is a bastardized amalgamation of classical economics, with some of his views, (making neoclassical economics) but which is not representative of his overall views.

MMT doesn't say busts are 100% avoidable, it provides the right description of the macro-economy, to realize the prescriptive tools/automatic-stabilizers, that can comfortably bring the bust to an end for the entire population, without wasting any labour potential, or getting locked into stagnation.

It doesn't even matter what you put the unemployed workers to work on, because just by them getting money and spending it, that's re-building the private industry (which needs money + time to reconfigure itself more efficiently) - finding them the right/efficient work to do, is actually a tiny problem compared to the bigger issue being solved, you just want to do your best to avoid wasted labour potential in addition to solving the massive problem of deleveraging and general lack of money in the private sector (choking it from recovery).

Even when you consider specialization (an extremely exaggerated problem), we've been 5 years into this crisis already (probably with 5-10-15 years to go if we don't change course) - that's a ton of time to train workers into any specialized tasks you need, if action gets taken early on.
We've got unemployed workers of all skill-sets, all over Europe - there's nothing stopping you trying to make the best of their existing skills, and cross-training workers into related areas (vastly cutting training time).

That really is an overblown problem, used more to muddy debate than anything else, and drag it into minutiae on a search for non-existent stats on unemployed worker skillsets through Europe, where completely unbacked claims (that any useful work that can be done requires too much skill, and can't be resolved during the crisis - even when up to a decade is available) are held onto by remaining ever 'unconvinced'.

With regards to capital/savings etc.; endogenous money shows that Investments lead to Savings, not the other way around, and you get investments through money creation (which debt-based money can't satisfy, thus opening room for debt-free money), or tapping savings (such as through government bonds - but which has the negative of interest payments).
Capital is created by labour, and when you are holding the economy below full potential and wasting massive amounts of labour potential, then you are not creating as much capital as your economy is capable of.

To be honest, a lot of the post seems to just try and draw the debate in a deflected direction.

You're fully aware of the core point, that you can drive the European economy back up to full economic-output/employment through debt-free money, within inflation targets, and sourcing materials from within Europe to greatly lessen any effect on external valuation.

A lot of the rest of the argument seems to just feel like 'let private industry do that instead', even if that takes a decade longer, after massive unemployment and social destruction.
For example, stuff such as "Stimulus projects using construction workers delays the necessary re-balancing", which is just a totally unbacked/ideological assertion - 'sectoral balances' show (as a matter of basic accounting), that stimulus helps the (money-starved) private sector.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Yes it is because hyperinflations are largely political, this is how countless hyperinflations have played out. Speculation yes, but much more reasoned and likely speculation than the one of devaluation and everything is fine after that.

Right, and in almost all cases hyperinflation was accompanied by very extreme political circumstances, such as massive reparations payments demanded in foreign currency (basically, external countries forcing you into hyperinflation), civil war and destruction of industry, massive debts in foreign currency, dictatorships governing poorly.

Almost every one of them is caused by extreme internal/external political conditions, and there's a pretty simple list of things to do to resolve past political occurrences of hyperinflation:
No dictatorships
No (or very little) debt denominated in foreign currency
No civil wars or massive destruction of industry, or in general, massive loss of output

SupaNova2

I don't have the time to go back over all of your posts in detail. But MMT is just Keynesianism with some of the rougher edges taken a way. The trait that seems to bind MMT is they emphasize money is loaned into existence and emphasize accounting but the prescriptions and promise is little different than what Keynesians have promoted for decades, we can have the boom without suffering the bust as long as governments step in with stimulus, or in your slightly refined version stimulus for the right projects. Despite knowledge of this solution for decades countless countries have gone through numerous booms and suffered painful busts. MMT'ers/Keynesians persist in claiming that these painful busts are needless if government stepped in with the right measures. Most everyone else sees busts as inevitable.

Everyone accepts a certain amount frictional unemployment in economies. So what happens during a boom, more and more people are sucked into the booming industry and become dependent on it. If there is a boom in housing, more and more resources are directed to this end, when the bust sets in, a lot of businesses that should go bust go bust, the excess workers in that industry are laid off. It takes time for industry to rewire itself in a sustainable way and it takes time for laid off workers to re-skill and be rehired in new industry. So instead of small frictional rate of unemployment you get a much larger spike in unemployment. To employ excess unemployed Keynesians assume that excess capacity to build houses on mass can be quickly directed to other infrastructure projects. But paddy the plasterer is not much use in constructing a high speed rail link, the materials needed are different to those for housing, and the factories required to produce those materials are different also, there is no spare capacity ready to be turned on like a switch to engage in such a project. Stimulus projects using construction workers delays the necessary re-balancing.

MMT emphasize loans create savings/deposits as seen in accounting, fine but if MMT thinks they focus on real resources they are missing a trick here. What matter are real savings and accumulation of capital goods, factories machinery etc. yes loans create deposits that someone will save, but increasing lending or even printing money while it increases nominal savings as verified by accounting it does not increase the amount of real capital available to an economy, which is what matters.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's basically a political (implied government will spend irresponsibly) and psychological argument, and its entirely speculative.

Yes it is because hyperinflations are largely political, this is how countless hyperinflations have played out. Speculation yes, but much more reasoned and likely speculation than the one of devaluation and everything is fine after that.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

They aren't claims on goods that physically exist here and now, like gold was (not even a fixed fraction of it either), so that comparison doesn't entirely fit. They are a tally of what the rest of society owes you, and the spending of money (demanding of certain goods), determines how society allocates production and configures the economy.

I wish you would realise when we agree, rather than disagree and state exactly the same thing in a different way, it would make things easier. Currencies are claims on physical goods now if you go out and use them now, if you accumulate €100 worth of claims, you can claim €100 worth of goods and services, or society owes you goods and services to the value of €100. Arguing every single point for the sake of it takes a way from the points worth discussing that we disagree on. I'm not interested in point scoring.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

What have I said that would go against that definition? A bank run would be guarenteed, if greece left the euro because of austerity, its obvious they would not decide to pursue just that austerity, so funding the deficit would come from printing drachmas, the people unlucky enough to get trapped by capital controls and wake up to drachmas would quickly look to get rid of them, velocity up prices up. And a government that has shown this level of irresponsibility up to now, is not likely to trim its own fat quick to rectify things, and the cost of government goes up, and the feedback loop begins etc etc. The severity of it depends on the just how bad the government acts.

Don't have time to get to the rest atm.

You'll have an intentional devaluation of the drachma immediately upon its introduction, with there being no logical reason thereafter, for anyone to throw away their drachma - they will still need that money to pay their taxes for starters, and to buy food and whatnot, and it's what they will be getting paid in.

Taxes drive demand for a particular currency.

It's basically a political (implied government will spend irresponsibly) and psychological argument, and its entirely speculative.

Jonny7

Thai gov bans BC for now

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/10210022/Bitcoins-banned-in-Thailand.html

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well I don't read economic textbooks, but history and papers that tickle my fancy. Lets go back a little further, people store/save gold with goldsmith and are issued receipts. People start dealing in receipts, goldsmith lends receipts he doesn't have, lender spends those receipts, people save those new receipts. Those were quickly revealed as artificial/false savings once the inevitable bank run came. Fast forward to Nixon suspending the last of gold convertibility, what is the nature of the artificial claims on gold now that they are no longer claims on gold? Not artificial claims on gold anymore, they were artificial claims on fixed gold, but they continued as real claims on goods and services as before, an evolution and a positive one.

They aren't claims on goods that physically exist here and now, like gold was (not even a fixed fraction of it either), so that comparison doesn't entirely fit. They are a tally of what the rest of society owes you, and the spending of money (demanding of certain goods), determines how society allocates production and configures the economy.

It's how money is spent, and how that affects availability of resources, that determines its 'value' relative to other goods - if everyone in the world dipped into their savings tomorrow and started buying up oil, we would have massive hyperinflation, without any kind of money creation.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

In there somewhere is a hint at a good argument made against the gold standard, and what is funny is the only people I have heard elaborate on this argument were themselves once goldbugs. All those who froth at the mouth over the gold standard still can't criticize it succinctly. Maybe read "Debt the first 5000 years" right up your street, and in there there is also the makings of a better argument against the gold standard, not that many would care or that it would shoot down your other thorn in the side Austrian economics.

I would like to read that alright, certainly on my list, though may not end up getting a round to it for quite a while.

My issue with a lot of Austrian posters (and economists - not necessarily the entire theory itself), is that the same tired debunked arguments, keep getting trotted out all the time, as if the attempt is to muddy debate and control it with rhetoric, rather than engage in it.

SupaNova2

To start with you don't seem to understand the definition of it, or you are wildly exaggerating the effects of a drachma reintroduction (nobody claims that would be pretty, but the claim of hyperinflation is absurd).

What have I said that would go against that definition? A bank run would be guarenteed, if greece left the euro because of austerity, its obvious they would not decide to pursue just that austerity, so funding the deficit would come from printing drachmas, the people unlucky enough to get trapped by capital controls and wake up to drachmas would quickly look to get rid of them, velocity up prices up. And a government that has shown this level of irresponsibility up to now, is not likely to trim its own fat quick to rectify things, and the cost of government goes up, and the feedback loop begins etc etc. The severity of it depends on the just how bad the government acts.

Don't have time to get to the rest atm.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

That banks loan money into existence, means basically that reserve requirements aren't an impediment to money creation (capital requirements would be more of an impediment), particularly since money is loaned first and reserves fixed-up later

Reserve requirements may not, but lack of reserves certainly are. Fine I get this, and this is about the only thing MMT gets right as far as I know.

That also mean savings do not lead to investments, but investments lead to savings (business borrows money, puts it in bank account or into workers pockets - i.e. deposits) - that immediately torpedo's a lot of standard economic textbook writing.

Well I don't read economic textbooks, but history and papers that tickle my fancy. Lets go back a little further, people store/save gold with goldsmith and are issued receipts. People start dealing in receipts, goldsmith lends receipts he doesn't have, lender spends those receipts, people save those new receipts. Those were quickly revealed as artificial/false savings once the inevitable bank run came. Fast forward to Nixon suspending the last of gold convertibility, what is the nature of the artificial claims on gold now that they are no longer claims on gold? Not artificial claims on gold anymore, they were artificial claims on fixed gold, but they continued as real claims on goods and services as before, an evolution and a positive one.

In there somewhere is a hint at a good argument made against the gold standard, and what is funny is the only people I have heard elaborate on this argument were themselves once goldbugs. All those who froth at the mouth over the gold standard still can't criticize it succinctly. Maybe read "Debt the first 5000 years" right up your street, and in there there is also the makings of a better argument against the gold standard, not that many would care or that it would shoot down your other thorn in the side Austrian economics.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I never said Europe was doing well, I said some countries are doing well in response to the aggregate claim the Europe was worsening.

You said: "Its not worsening the economic crisis for Europe, some countries are doing quite well"

If you're going to try and claim that some countries doing 'ok' in Europe, means Europe overall is not doing worse because of the Euro (than without), then that is the fallacy of composition.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Can you explain what I don't understand about hyperinflation?

To start with you don't seem to understand the definition of it, or you are wildly exaggerating the effects of a drachma reintroduction (nobody claims that would be pretty, but the claim of hyperinflation is absurd).

That you claim it can happen on a whim, means you have no understanding of the actual causes of it. Explain how you think hyperinflation will occur (and quantify it too - just a ballpark even).

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If it can be done faster outside the euro, what are they waiting for, are they simply ignorant of your solution?

You said in another thread a while back, in response to "If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen":

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing. "If a system without slaves is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen". Well after enough time it did arise.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical/contradictory to use the same basic argument here, when it is equally valid against your own views? (and contradicts your own argument)

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Its backed by supply and demand, printing currency to avoid default increases the supply of that currency and diminishes its value.

And you've just ignored a huge number of my arguments, to bring this back in circles again.

The private economy has no more demand for debt, but it has plenty of demand for money (which debt-free money would happily satiate) - you want to tell me these unemployed people struggling to pay bills and rent, have no demand for money? (or the money-starved private sector in general?)

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, yes the performance of Europe is judged by 'some' countries doing well, I see.

I never said Europe was doing well, I said some countries are doing well in response to the aggregate claim the Europe was worsening.

You don't understand how hyperinflation works either

Can you explain what I don't understand about hyperinflation?

Explaining what Austrians might not understand is pointless as they have different views. As I have asked you many times, deal with the person engaging with you in the thread not your caricature Austrian gold hoarder redneck from Texas.

How many decades of debt would they not have to repay? How long will they be waiting within the Euro, to restore previous employment levels and quality of life? (a bloody long time at this rate.)

If it can be done faster outside the euro, what are they waiting for, are they simply ignorant of your solution?

Austrians are the first to advocate a massive destruction in quality of life, by immediate budget balancing and massive austerity,

Again, deal with the people in the thread, I don't advocate immediate budget balancing.

That's an assertion without backing.

Its backed by supply and demand, printing currency to avoid default increases the supply of that currency and diminishes its value.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Yes I know full well money spent on worthwhile projects can put downward pressure on prices at some point in the future. And your reply is if government invests in the wrong projects causing inflation, they invested in the wrong project. Fine I agree. And I think this is what would likely happen.

That's a political argument, and a claim without any backing.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

It's all a nice story. I consider myself an average Joe and while I can see idle labour throughout Europe what idle material and productive resources are you referring to?

The massive amounts of raw materials and labour in Europe? All of the jobs that have been shed the last 5 years, ready to be restored with increased availability of money?

Really, this is verging on claiming there is nothing worth doing, or that there is not the manpower/materials for it - that would simply be a lack of imagination.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

My position, is that it isn't solved, it has nothing to do with ideology. I can only assume you bring it up so often because you can't defend or explain your position.

I've explained it fine endless times, and you have no explanation for the arguments debunking endless re-asserted claims of hyperinflation and whatnot, and the more ideologically-oriented arguments that claim (without backing) that government will always spend money in hyperinflationary ways etc..

The whole anti-government-everything line is pure ideology, and when that is used to deny the solutions available with the use of government, it uses ideology to deny that solutions are available, that the (economic side of the) problem is already solved.

You don't give an argument to defend against really - just repeat the same already-debunked ones.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I'm aware that banks loan money/credit into existence, can you expand on how the money multiplier is a myth(I may agree)?

It's explained well in this Steve Keen article:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/10/22/commodities/myth-money-multiplier

That banks loan money into existence, means basically that reserve requirements aren't an impediment to money creation (capital requirements would be more of an impediment), particularly since money is loaned first and reserves fixed-up later
That also mean savings do not lead to investments, but investments lead to savings (business borrows money, puts it in bank account or into workers pockets - i.e. deposits) - that immediately torpedo's a lot of standard economic textbook writing.

So the level of deposits/savings has nothing to do with the ability to extend loans, which (along with other things) kills the money multiplier theory.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Also how I jump from knowledge of both to accepting wide-scale stimulus using debt free money creation?

You look at sectoral balances (this, built upon 'endogenous money', is just basic accounting), and see that the private sector is starved of money, and that the way to add money to the private sector is through public spending, and that you want to do this without massive private debt (thus, utilizing debt-free money).

Info on sectoral balances:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/mmp-blog-2-basics-of-macro-accounting.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/mmt-sectoral-balances-and-behavior.html

It's summed up by the accounting identity:
Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Government Balance + Foreign Balance = 0

Next, now that we know banks create money all the time, we can discard with the silly hyperinflation stuff about money creation: Money creation is happening all of the time, and it is limited by inflation targets, so we have no hyperinflation.

This means, there is no reason government can't create and spend money either (all the arguments against this are entirely political), so long as it stays within inflation targets.

The next thing, is looking at foreign exchange rates to see how it affects currency valuation:
We have the sectoral balances to show us that the private economy is starved of money and will soak up much of the spending (until the private sector recovers), and that so long as we have the resources locally for production in Europe, we can avoid a lot of that money leaking out into the foreign sector.

The demand for money in the private sector stays high, and the fall in demand for our money in the foreign sector is ameliorated heavily because of the physical resources Europe has available - all of this can be determined just by tracing the flows of money with 'sectoral balances' (that's just accounting), and determining what actual physical resources we have and need.

Even Austrians support 'internal devaluation', which aims at destruction of workers wages, so it seems incredibly hypocritical to suddenly become hyper-critical of actual devaluation, even when a huge amount of it can be ameliorated, and even when it provides full employment.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Government will be involved in any solution. So no my argument isn't that government are involved in your solution, it is that government is incapable of carrying out your solution the way you envisage.

You don't provide any argument substantiating that, just assertion.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Okay money is loaned into existence, now how do these MMT guys predict better than any other macroeconomic view? Do you have some examples of someone versed in MMT that might show this superior insight that the ECB are so ignorant of?

They successfully predicted the slowdown in economic recovery when the US entered the sequester, Steve Keen predicted the economic crisis far better than any Austrian did (or any other economist for that matter - he was actually modelling it before it happened), and he routinely makes accurate predictions as to movements within the Australian housing market (which he is watching as a bubble), they (in general) routinely get right their predictions/statements about how many policy enactments (usually relating to austerity/cuts) will hinder economic recovery, rather than help.

If you just look at sectoral balances alone, and the fact that the private sector is starved of money, you can say a huge amount about how effective/ineffective certain policy actions will be.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Its not worsening the economic crisis for Europe, some countries are doing quite well, the currency is not the problem, no difference in the economics of it than how Texas shares a currency with California. Simply put the PIGS ****ed up big time, and most of the blame lays firmly at home for each of the respective countries.

According to you the PIGS must like pain, or are they just ignorant that its "been solved"? Or to take the ultimate basket case Greece, do they just know that sticking with the Euro is there best option? The re-introduction of the drachma would bring chaos, starting with a run on banks ending in hyperinflation. The hyperinflation riots would make the austerity riots look like playground stuff.

Heh, yes the performance of Europe is judged by 'some' countries doing well, I see. Tell that to the massive amounts of needlessly unemployed people throughout Europe.

The currency, minus any kind of a political authority that can exercise fiscal policy, like the US government, absolutely is the problem. Europe is far too easily deadlocked against enacting actual recovery policies.

You don't understand how hyperinflation works either, which isn't surprising seeing as Austrians have successfully predicted 10 of the last 0 instances of hyperinflation.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Greeks would curse that sovereignty if they had their drachma back.

How many decades of debt would they not have to repay? How long will they be waiting within the Euro, to restore previous employment levels and quality of life? (a bloody long time at this rate.)

Austrians are the first to advocate a massive destruction in quality of life, by immediate budget balancing and massive austerity, and wage reductions etc. (in a way that guarantees serious long-term unemployment), yet balk at doing that to a lesser extent, in a way that restores full employment and economic activity - total hypocrisy.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Yeah but the bonds still go to **** just in a different manner and you sacrifice the currency to do it.

That's an assertion without backing. Do you not realize all your arguments go back to these kinds of assertions, and that it's a bit silly to be repeating the same assertions again and again, that are regularly debunked? (it kind of leads to the impression of desiring circular discussions, to muddy debate)