patrick.net

NastySlapper says

You have also insulted yourself by asserting that I started out learning economics from conspiracy theorists without any basis for such a claim whatsoever.

It would seem I wasn't so far off.

I'm faced with an interesting dilemma that is somewhat funny. It is this: I know that I can ask you a question right now, and you will avoid answering it. And once you do so and I tell you that I knew that you would avoid it, you will choose to think I am delusional, and attempt to rally others to support you (since feeling accepted is more important than the truth). However, if I tell you beforehand that you will avoid the question, you will attempt to answer it in spite. (E.g., if I had told you ahead of time that you would quickly post such a response about North, you wouldn't have done it. Get it?) Oh, well, here it is anyway...

-------
I am aware of such things. Yet I've labeled North as the best economist around right now.

Your point is that I am supposed to feel bad about my ability to see through the forest, while you take pride in prejudice and ignorance. (Is it opinion or fact that you are ignorant of North's economics?)

I can only show you the truth; I can't make you drink it.

"There is no subtler or surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debase the currency". Is our government lying to us or just withholding the truth, because our own government is debasing our currency. Isn't our government supposed to protect our rights???

And this classic statement from Richard Doughty "I would burn the Federal Reserve to the ground, letting the burned out ashes remain there forever as a fabulous yet graphic reminder to future Americans as to what the hell will happen when you ignore your own Constitutional requirements that money be backed by gold, and then compound the laughable folly by letting an evil institution like the Federal Reserve create too much money and credit out of a fiat currency, which causes inflation in prices, and especially for the horrifying process of allowing the Federal Government to constantly deficit spend and grow, which causes flammable distortions in the economy."

End the Fed !

Abe--

Remind me again where it says in the Constitution that money must be backed by gold?

NastySlapper says

while you take pride in prejudice and ignorance

I told you already my "bible" years ago on this was Marcia Stigum. The whole point of my question to you was, please help me bridge the gap, by referring me to well respected economists who hold your view. Obviously hundreds of economics PHDs work for the fed, so it can be argued that they overly influence the economics profession. But still, I just wanted to hear an argument that reflected less ignorance of what the fed does, or even how inflation works.

I was looking for someone with undisputed intellect, understanding of the fed, and objectivity who has your opinion, because I am honestly interested in hearing a better explanation than the one from Mises or various conspiracy websites or yours that just make totally unbacked statements, sort of like Abe, as if that were enough.

You're correct, I did not look in to North's economics. When I heard what he did about the Y2k issue, and that he wants to execute gay men, I figured I knew enough.

Yes, I prejudged his expertise in economics. But that's fair, I asked you to give me someone with intellectual credibility.

Tapout - there is no subtler or surer way to overturn a society than to debase its currency. Counterfeiting is illegal for a reason. Here is a very simple question for you before I answer your question: Do you know why counterfeiting is illegal?

Article 1, Section 10.

Honest Abe says

Do you know why counterfeiting is illegal?

Because there is a law against it

And article 1 section 10 does not say anything about money being backed by gold. It speaks to the powers of states....

OK, I'll play along with that childish answer. WHY is there a law against it?

Apparently, North learned about the Austrian School while an undergrad, and later got a phd in History. It isn't clear from my minimal research that he ever took even one basic undergrad macro-economics course. That doesn't mean he didn't. And hey like I said, you may not have any respect for the state of the academic art of economics.

And yes, of course you are correct, economists aren't all that good at predicting economic events. But then logically, how could they be ? If they were, everyone would know that, and they would change the economic reality by actions resulting from people changing their plans based on the economists excellent predictions. This would have to occur until the predictions were no longer reliable.

It's sort of like the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

NastySlapper, here's a question I've been pondering for a while now. Based on the various statistics, housing is set to drop in the next few years as a result of high unemployment, tighter lending standards, ARM resets coming up, etc.

However, since the gov't is printing money thus increasing the money supply leading to inflation, wouldn't that equalize the drop in housing that is happening? Or is the inflation happening at a level that isn't strong enough to overpower the drop in housing?

What are your thoughts on this?

I wonder a lot about exactly that. The Fed could try helicopter drops of money to increase the price of everything else relative to housing, but that would cause some new problems, like:

1. a surge in interest rates as boldholders freak out, pushing many more homedebtors over the edge into default
2. riots as the unemployed realize they not only lack a job and benefits, they now also cannot afford food

For the first one, the Fed could perhaps keep interest rates down by buying every bond on earth itself with newly printed money.

For the second, I don't see any solution. So I think the Fed is not about to do anything too dramatic as long as unemployment remains high.

I have a question... When is the next "home buyer tax credit" going to be introduced? Seems like the last one put a speed bump in the decline. Who thinks this will happen again, and again, an again?

There is a paradox there. When deflationary pressures are high, and the fed "prints money" (simultaneously increasing the govt debt - that is, it isn't really printed out of thin air), it isn't clear to me that it causes prices to go up unless additional money is actually put in to circulation. That is, the amount of lending going on and the so called velocity of money are factors in a addition to the money supply increase.

Put differently, if there was demand for credit now., and if banks and bond markets ( corporates and mortgages and so on) were lending huge amounts at these low interest rates, and if there was NOT basically over capacity in the economy already ( supply a little to great for demand ), then it could cause inflation. This is why some argue that we should have had more stimulus. Because even though the deficit goes up by the amount of money that is "printed," the money can be invested and put to use without causing inflation. That is, according to them, this is when we should run deficits, but we then absolutely must be deficit hawks in boom times (that doesn't seem possible - at least for politicians).

The fed has done some extreme things this time. Taking over some bad debt, participating is the mortgage backed securities markets and so on. And yet here we are still.

I think what you might be thinking of Patrick is some sort of "devaluation" I can't imagine our country doing that, but the thought has occurred to me, when thinking of reasons that maybe I should buy a home sooner rather than later.

I believe the fed used this printed (or electronic) money to buy toxic assets, swaps, etc and to take risky and or non performing loans off the banks books with the intention of returning them to some state of health and get them lending to consumers again. So, this didn't really go into the general economy to cause inflation, its all parked on the feds ballance sheet or being held as reserves at the banks. This is the least distorting form of QE they could devise. In my opinion, they see the housing situation and understand it, but they would never use terms to stop anyone from buying a home, they are in a sense keeping the truth from the people, which is bad. But panic would also be bad.

beauxee says

NastySlapper, here’s a question I’ve been pondering for a while now. Based on the various statistics, housing is set to drop in the next few years as a result of high unemployment, tighter lending standards, ARM resets coming up, etc.

However, since the gov’t is printing money thus increasing the money supply leading to inflation, wouldn’t that equalize the drop in housing that is happening? Or is the inflation happening at a level that isn’t strong enough to overpower the drop in housing?

What are your thoughts on this?

marcus's answer to this is basically correct. In short: inflation is a monetary phenomenon directly related to the amount of money in circulation. However, this is often misinterpreted as the sheer number of bills (or, to be more precise, "credits") in existence. The amount of pretend money sitting as reserves in banks will not, in itself, cause inflation. In order for inflation to occur, that money must be lent out and enter circulation.

It is theoretically possible to suffer a mass deflation in the midst of the greatest Keynesian stimulus assault in history. I would go a step further and state that it is, in fact, inevitable at some point - in the same way that (beware: anthropomorphosis) a single debtor who continues to leverage up, rather than address the core of his debt issue, is destined for ruin.

marcus says

Where exactly did the skimmed profits go ? Was it to the salaries of bank ceos ? Was it to the Hedge fund managers ? Maybe it was to the profits of insiders who knew what monetary policy would be before it happened. Help me out here, give me some specific examples from start to finish.

It sounds like you'd like to audit the Fed.

In my view (What do I know?) and I suspect that this view is shared by the Fed, is that the Fed has policy to fix most of the financial crises that could arise. Since finance has "stabilized" the Fed has done about as much as it will until instability reappears.

Under conditions of slack demand, the Fed is POWERLESS to do any more to reduce unemployment. For that, a COMPLEMENTARY FISCAL POLICY is needed. However, our fiscal policy is currently working at odds with monetary policy by cutting back on state spending and decreasing demand. What makes me more certain that there is no Monetary Fairy (What do I know?) is that NO ONE can produce a model of how monetary policy can increase demand in our current conditions. NO ONE can demonstrate a transmission mechanism whereby monetary policy can restore credit to the lower rungs of our economy and demand for goods and services when they are blocked by balance sheet problems. The monetary arguments are in Underpants Gnome territory. Show me the transmission mechanism. In contrast, the ability of fiscal policy to stimulate demand is clear.

While unemployment is bad for BigF, it is not creating a "financial crisis". I suspect that people who are talking about the need to reduce unemployment and Ben talking about possible Fed action are talking past each other. Yes, the Fed has options to fix a financial crisis and keep the BigF afloat, but no, monetary policy can do little in the face of a fiscal policy that allows demand to further erode by reduction of state spending, suspension of UI and failure to move needed projects forward.

Expectations of the Fed and the power of the Monetary Fairy are misplaced. Fed policy is most useful to address the BigF. Fiscal policy is needed to address the JOBS

@NastySlapper
You make a point that becoming a slave for 30 years is slavery.

Elsewhere in the world it simply wasn't possible to buy land at any price. Many people around the world own nothing, only a few people own the land in these 3rd world countries, especially in cities and other areas.

Don't even think for a second that people in other places have it easier, or people in other times could purchase valuable land. People could plunk down a few bucks and buy undesirable land in ohio, or other places, where farming could make that land useful to them. Buying land in a city or populated area has always been expensive, up to the point that most land in europe is still owned by only a few people. The rest rent.

If you want to avoid the 30 year mortgages, go buy up land in some far far away corner of the US. You could probably pick up 1 acre for a few thousand dollars. You'll be hundreds of miles from anyone, with no roads or any services but no 30year mortgage.

If you want something desirable like water front property, guess what! So does everyone else, hence "desirable", hence longer term loans. Can't afford that water front property? How about something further back, well now you're competing with everyone else who couldn't afford water front yet still wants that land.

This isn't about anyone putting people into slavery, it's what people have deemed acceptable terms to buy a house. People who wanted to upgrade, decided to pay longer and more of their income to housing.

In most countries buying land still isn't feasible, especially in any large cities. At least here we have some kind of option and ability to do it! And a method for passing down that wealth from generation to generation.

There are lots of places where it is harder to buy land than here. Also lots where it is easier. But that isn't really the point, now, is it? And how is it not crooked to steal less than someone else is stealing?

You try to make points about "desirable" property costing more. That is great! You almost sound like you're advocating free markets! The only problem is that there *IS NO FREE MARKET*. If there truly were one, a middle class wage earner would be able to own a decent home in 15 years or less.

It is a fact that we have endured a massive housing bubble. It is a fact that we have had massive inflation for 100 years. Most important of all, it is a fact that the natural market desperately wants to contract the money supply. It wants to make real estate cheaper, and it wants to make the dollar more valuable. What this means - directly - is that it WANTS to make housing MUCH cheaper. If you cannot see this, or you deny this, then there isn't much more you have to offer to a sensible discussion.

Make no mistake, the banks hook you for as long as they can and for as much as they can. This, too, would be fair enough *IN A FREE MARKET*. So:

Let's get those banks to operate in a free market! Let's remove their "special privileges" and set up a system where they cannot print money and where they do not have the power to arbitrarily and artificially adjust interest rates (both enforceable via taxes on citizens), where they cannot manipulate stock markets, and where they do not thoroughly control the government. (Does this all sound familiar, btw?) Let's let them play by the same rules as everyone else, and then let's see how you feel about your 30 year debt.

NastySlapper says

The only problem is that there *IS NO FREE MARKET*. If there truly were one, a middle class wage earner would be able to own a decent home in 15 years or less.

What fairy tale world do you live in? Does it rain gumdrops in this "free market" as well?

NastySlapper says

It is a fact that we have endured a massive housing bubble. It is a fact that we have had massive inflation for 100 years. Most important of all, it is a fact that the natural market desperately wants to contract the money supply. It wants to make real estate cheaper, and it wants to make the dollar more valuable. What this means - directly - is that it WANTS to make housing MUCH cheaper. If you cannot see this, or you deny this, then there isn’t much more you have to offer to a sensible discussion.

And what is the "natural market"?

Absolute freedom would legalize murder. It would be anarchy. But now you are being silly, aren't you? It is a waste of everyone's time for you guys to talk about absolutes and spew cliches from high school texts. It is also a cheap tactic to attempt to make it look like someone else represents such an extreme view based upon whatever you can find to run with.

This nation currently has nothing close to a productive & practical free market. It did for a long time, and that is exactly why we thrived as we did. If you believe that capitalism is the root of the current economic malaise, you haven't paid attention for the past 20 years.

Your need to defend your socialist ideals at any cost impedes your ability to learn.

NastySlapper says

This nation currently has nothing close to a productive & practical free market. It did for a long time, and that is exactly why we thrived as we did. If you believe that capitalism is the root of the current economic malaise, you haven’t paid attention for the past 20 years.

You obviously need to study history. Specifically tax code. How about you study the top tax rates during those periods when America thrived? Then get back to me.

Nomo is 100% correct--the middle class won't survive in a true free market and the last 20 years comprise pretty good evidence to prove this.

So you are saying that we've lived in a 'true free market' for the past 20 years? ;)

How can one defend a centrally controlled financial system and talk about our free markets in the same breath? I suppose you feel that forcing banks to make bad loans falls into the realm of free market economics, and I wouldn't dare debate that one with you. (Btw, did you notice if such bad loans played any significant role in the recent economic catastrophe?) Hey, maybe Greenspan himself has it backwards here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozD8ojH5PJU !

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. Stick to culture and humanities when defending socialism (shaky as well, but at least subjective).

Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah! I might just go hit a bong a couple thousand times so I can catch up with you guys.

NastySlapper says

So you are saying that we’ve lived in a ‘true free market’ for the past 20 years?

No. I don't think we've ever had a true free market. Thank goodness.

NastySlapper says

I suppose you feel that forcing banks to make bad loans falls into the realm of free market economics, and I wouldn’t dare debate that one with you.

Oh please. Not the CRA crap again. Anyone who believes that this was a major cause of the housing bubble needs to have their head examined. It has been thoroughly debunked here in other threads. You won't debate it because you know you'll lose. The data is overwhelming.

Nomograph says

In fact, the last twenty years have had the most unfettered markets in US history. Think about the Internet, China, NAFTA, and globalism for starters.

Wow, you really stepped in the BS there nomo,

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the quintessential managed-trade vehicle sold under the rubric of free trade. The first tip-off should be its size. While we earlier saw how 54 words in the U.S. Constitution established free trade among the states of the Union, NAFTA weighs in at over 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates. (Under true free trade, there is one tariff rate—0 percent.) The agreement does have trade-liberalizing features, to be sure. Consisting of a 10 percent reduction in tariffs to be phased in over 15 years, however, they are all but buried under the profusion of controls NAFTA also establishes.

In the first place, the benefit from those tariff reductions are jeopardized by the agreement’s snap-back provisions. Those permit pre-NAFTA tariff levels to be restored against imported items which cause or threaten serious injury to domestic industry.[5] In other words, NAFTA supports free trade as long as it does not promote international competition which is too hot for favored domestic firms to handle. In addition, NAFTA’s rules of origin are designed to divert trade from the world’s most efficient suppliers to North America’s most efficient suppliers. This hobbles the international division of labor instead of expanding it, as true free trade does."

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-managed-trade-is-not-free-trade/#

AD Ho--

So, are you arguing that NAFTA made trade less free?

Nomograph says

You’ve been reading Libertarian websites without doing any fact-checking.

How do you know what I've been reading? How do you know what facts I am aware of?

You don't.

On the contrary, I now know that you make assumptions and tout them as facts. That much has been objectively proven. (Right?) And would it not follow that someone who does such a thing is a fool?

>>Anthropomorphic arguments are always flawed because they ascribe human feelings and emotions to inanimate objects that are incapable of such characteristics. That is a flaw.

But the problem here is that the Federal Reserve is not an inanimate object. Hence the argument is not Anthropomorphic in the first place.

Big words aside, any institution (such as the Federal Reserve) consists of owners, people and assets. (etc) To think of an institution as an inanimate object that is not capable of feelings and emotions (in a *collective* sense) is naive.

For the record: I agree with NastySlapper that the Fed has its own motivations, but I disagree that a "free market" will solve the problem. What is needed is an honestly regulated market. Wait a minute, that could be a useful concept. "An honestly regulated market". Now if only we could get that.

Regulation to prevent corruption, monopoly, and collusion does not have to compromise the essence of a free market. And this kind of market, though imperfect, is far and away much more efficient and productive than any other.

You would be hard pressed to find a proponent of free market capitalism who opposes any form of regulation. For one to have to resort to assuming he/she is arguing with such a radical viewpoint simply shows how desperate their own arguments are.

justme says

the problem here is that the Federal Reserve is not an inanimate object

I have usually heard the term used in reference to pets. Whether or not you agree with and like the semantics, we all understood the point. NastyS was talking about the Federeral Reserve as if it were a person, and his key arguments are by analogy to how a person or a household would run their finances.

That is a flawed or overly simple argument. Yes, in the long term debt is bad, we can't always run deficits, but that is the fault of the Executive and Legislative branches. The Fed is involved with banking and yes it is also very much involved in some of the complexities of how our debt comes about, i.e, affecting interest rates (SHORT TERM interest rates) etx., and many recent new activities in response to the great recession.

Not to defend our country's deficits or it's debt, the analogy to a household is not that good for many reasons, but here are two big reasons:

1) Time horizon for a country is much different than for a person. Ours lives are short. If a middle aged person were running up debt much faster than the asset side of his finances, he's instantly in big trouble because he has maybe twenty years to not only fix it, but to build his net worth for when when he stops working, but continues living, maybe for many more years.

Hopefully (and yes it is a hope) twenty years from now our economy is much bigger than it is now. In theory our economy never dies. The hope or plan for it to always grow is a problem, one that we are starting to confront now. But it will still eventually grow to be bigger than ever.

Again I am not defending the debt (that our government knowingly takes on).

2) The global complexity and interconnectedness of a rapidly changing world is a factor the Fed and the government deal with that is beyond the understanding of any individual. In contrast an individuals finances are simple. As time goes on, our decision are more and more based on what is happening in Europe and Asia and elsewhere. The Fed is a huge integral part of how we do things which in turn is an integral part of what the world does.

At least most of us understand that we don't understand the whole picture well enough to boil things down to overly simple statements.

IT may even be true that one of the ways we will ultimately deal with our debt is through inflation and it may also be true that that transfer of wealth occurs through a sort of machinery that the Fed runs.

But the problem is politicians, campaign financing, corruption, lobbyists and the ways money gets spent. Taking away the fed isn't going to work any better than cutting taxes does. Some thought that if we cut taxes, we would then spend less. But then you had Cheney and others saying "deficits don't matter." Taking away the fed would only give us a completely different set of problems that go with having a more primitive system.

NastySlapper says

This nation currently has nothing close to a productive & practical free market. It did for a long time, and that is exactly why we thrived as we did. If you believe that capitalism is the root of the current economic malaise, you haven’t paid attention for the past 20 years.

OK--well then how about you explain this comment. To which time period are you refering? When the US had a free market and thrived?

tatupu70 says

To which time period are you refering?

Probably the time when we were importing immigrant labor literally by the boatload and working them to death in our mines, infrastructure projects, and sweatshops. Or, a bit earlier, when most of our agricultural labor was outright chattel slavery, you know, Washington, Jefferson, Madison . . . those noble guys.

In other words, just in case you may be close to realizing that you may be wrong, there is an alternative to learning more and considering other points of view.

Just stick to your guns and call those on the other side of the discussion emotionally challenged. Because that's what people who can exchange ideas and have intelligent discussions do.

Those on the "other"side are not emotionally challenged, they have clinically diagnosed character and personality disorders. Those in politics are sociopaths. This creates the political environment which destroys rights and freedom as well as ultimately crushing social order.

Even with the best "intentions" (and with complete disregard to the resulting unintended consequences) big centralized governments routinely disorganize and ruin the order they are assigned to protect.

In addition to the book I mentioned above, read any of the following:

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological causes of Political Madness, by L.H. Rossiter, M.D.

A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character, by Charles Sykes

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

Man Versus the Welfare State, by Henry Hazlett.

The truth will set you free (from the liberal agenda).

I just find it ironic that you say:
Honest Abe says

In other words you will never be able to have an intelligent discussion, or exchange of opinions with those with personality disorders.

But I think it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who says, I have a personality disorder (which I would say is an emotional challenge - but let’s not quible about the semantics).

You have sought out books that will confirm your position, and that go even further, basically giving you permission to not even begin to consider the liberal point of view,…because “it is sick.”

All I can tell you is that I know people with higher IQs than mine who are republicans. I respect their intelligence and I am able to share my point of view and consider theirs. I still think they are often wrong, and yet I don’t need to label them.

Maybe the issue is that you know many of these so called “liberals” are smarter than you. By labeling them as “sick” you then can logically understand how they could be so much more intelligent than you, and yet still somehow wrong.

Marcus, Marcus, Marcus...I didn't say YOU have a personality disorder. And yes, the liberal agenda is sick. In fact its sociopathic. Not according to me, but according to numerous medical doctors (board certified in forensic psychiatry). Many who have studied and treated mental disorders for 40 years, or more.

And no, liberals are not smarter than me. Liberals have given us the blueprint for Americas future. Crime infested, dirty, littered inner cities with junk strewn shacks in the shadows of gleaming towers built in homage to the liberal social welfare bureaucracies and bloated parasitic government agencies.

The liberal agenda has done its best to kill personal responsibility and replace it with government dependency, welfarism, redistribution, government parental-ism, political correctness, socialist economics and a complete de-emphasis of merit. In other words, liberals are doing everything they can to destroy what made America great in the first place...freedom, liberty and opportunity.

So what I hear you saying is you're still studying the liberal point of view versus the conservative point of view, and you think they both have their merits and you haven't decided yet which one you agree with ?

Just kidding.

I didn't mean to suggest that all liberals were smarter than you. Just many. (more than half of all college professors, including many brain surgeon or nuclear physicist types ). Just as, many or at least some Republicans ( which I distinguish from conservatives) and also conservatives are smarter than I .

Sorry, but as long as we are getting in to psychology, I would say that your position, including your "knowing" ( hey you've seen it in writing) that liberals have psychiatric problems makes you sound a little worse than just ordinarily arrogant.