Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Semantics or Sophistry In Policy Discussions and Economics. Which Do We Want? Our Selections Shape Our Success.

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Don't know the difference between fiat, denomination units, currency, Public Initiative, semantics and sophistry?

Then read this and give it a 'tink:

Issuing sovereign currency gov Treasury securities [eg US, Japan] just allows the non-government to have net financial savings. That maintains a buffer stock of currency in private hands.

So what is the problem?

Why on earth do even MMT economists stoop to calling distributed holdings of denomination units a deficit or debt? That's unproductive use of semantics. It constitutes sophistry.

Better can we do, counsels YodaCredChief, Fedi Master. :)

To expose the semantics, just hold up the 1921 Edison/Ford statement on equivalence of bonds/bills.

I've had fiscal policy discussions with military operations people about the state of economics. They listened, said they understood, and simply replied:
“You’re going nowhere until you create a glossary of new terms allowing coherent discussion to proceed. You can’t prepare coherent operations when there is such high margin of error in interpreting statements.”
So do we want to figure out how to drive the changes we need in order to keep up our adaptive rate? Or do we just want to get people to accept no change?

Soph·ist·ry: noun,
   modern use, the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

Has anything regarding the principles of finance & sophistry really changed?

No comments: