Here from Mr. "General Theory" himself:
“For whilst an increase in the quantity of money may be expected…to reduce the rate of interest, this will not happen if the liquidity-preferences of the public are increasing more than the quantity of money;"
Keep seeking that "General Theory" there guys and see how it keeps working out for you...
Skidelsky on futility of negative rates & Keynes. https://t.co/Axcz01QF0t pic.twitter.com/vRVHbs1nWG— Ann Pettifor (@AnnPettifor) June 6, 2016
23 comments:
That point about liquidity preference is silly. It's like saying turning the central heating up won't warm your house if all the windows and doors are open. Statement of the bleeding obvious.
The point about a money supply increase (base money at least) is that ALL ELSE EQUAL, it will have the desired effect: pretty much what MMTers claim in reference to private sector net financial assets (of which base money is a constituent).
Of course, the market does not fail or require "stimulus" to get it "going" or to provide it with "momentum". It does not have or lack "momentum". Prior funny money injections from the banking system or the government necessarily create an unsustainable price, investment and capital structure which can (for awhile) be kept going with further injections of "fiscal" and/or monetary "stimulus". Without those additional injections, the wheels fall off sooner rather than later. Hence, MMT.
Once a month or so, I like to watch the brilliant (just ask him) Matt Franko demonstrate his unfamiliarity with Austrian analysis. Which he mocks without the slightest understanding of what it is. Fascinating.
BTW, I do not doubt that Mr. Franko and Mr. Norman have discovered insights regarding how government spending "flows" maintain (for awhile) an otherwise unsustainable price, investment and capital structure and that it can be maintained longer than most Austrians think it can be.
Bob I've never said that I'm smart I'm saying they are stupid...
I try to read the least amount of economists as possible whether Austrian or wtf....
Even under the metals people were always trying to prospect to find more mass measures of the metals thus creating a leading flow into the system... today we dont use the metals under our now numismatic system but a leading flow is still required as usual in all material oriented systems ... today its fomented by the US Treasury and its fiscal agents via lawful authority (I know, I know this word is scary for you try to just suck it up....) rather than the gnomes/miners...
Price is involved as a dimensional variable but price isnt dependent on the flows or the quantity of "money!" either...
I agree Ralph.
Perhaps Franko is attempting to smear the idea that equal fiat distributions to all citizens can lower interest rates to near zero if desired?
Is that what you're trying to do, Franko?
"The point about a money supply increase (base money at least) is that ALL ELSE EQUAL, . . . "
The money supply cannot be increased if all else is equal?
“ . . . Again, however, I’m afraid I don’t see a direct answer to my question. I asked what mechanism in the real world the Fed has available to raise money supply above money demand (something that you said above is necessary if inflation is to occur). Money supply can rise if the Fed buys assets or if loans are made from available reserves. To my way of thinking, neither of these can occur without the full and conscious participation of the other side of the transaction. Hence, the supply of money cannot be increased in the absence of demand."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/4/#6e38191ef9f8
Correction:
.... that equal fiat distributions to all citizens can lower interest rates to near zero if desired? aa
Too strong. Should be: .... that equal fiat distributions to all citizens can lower real interest rates to near zero if desired?
Or perhaps merely: .... that equal fiat distributions to all citizens can increase price inflation as much as desired but without cheating anyone? aa
A problem with the Austrians is that they fail to to realize that too slow a growing money supply (not to mention an actual decrease in the money supply!) is no more just than too rapidly a growing money supply, ie. failing to realize that the bust is no more just than the boom and arguably much worse than it (eg. the Great Depression was a major cause of WWII).
They claim that the bust MUST occur to purge malinvestments. This is akin to saying that pulling out a barbed arrow is a proper treatment, ie. that creating even more economic damage is the solution to economic damage!
AA,
How do you demonstrate unmerited favor with a ZERO risk free rate?
AA,
"Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds," Rom 5:20
There are TWO sides to a bank balance sheet bro....
How do you demonstrate unmerited favor with a ZERO risk free rate? Franko
Equal fiat distributions to all citizens are the proper way to increase purchasing/lending power beyond normal deficit spending by the monetary sovereign since those cheat no one.
Interest paying sovereign debt is not a demonstration of grace but welfare proportional to wealth, not welfare proportional to need, ie. a demonstration of wickedness. That's no way to glorify the God of Scripture.
There are TWO sides to a bank balance sheet bro.... Franko
Because of government privileges such as deposit insurance instead of inherently risk-free accounts for all citizens at their respective central banks, the liabilities the banking cartel creates are largely a sham* wrt to the general population.
So how can we have honest accounting when the liabilities are largely a sham? We can't.
*This will be blindingly obvious if physical fiat is abolished since then the general population will have NO way to redeem bank liabilities (bank liabilities are for fiat, not for goods and services) nor even use their Nation's fiat!
"welfare proportional to wealth"
This is just the way it works bro:
"For to everyone who has shall be given, and he shall have a superfluity, yet from the one who has not, that also which he has shall be taken away from him;"
Its not "proportional to wealth" its proportional to SAVINGS.... There are some among us who are put in a position to be able to save and do so... they (should) expect some additional return... an authority sets that 'risk free rate' at some level...
If you set it at zero, essentially wiping out the concept of a risk free return, then the only cohort receiving any return would be the bank as the bank liabilities would pay ZERO risk free rate to savers while the loans would be at some non-zero rate with risk ... unmerited favor would be completely gone from the scene....
this is close to where we are today... as not many people listen to Paul on the subject of our current unmerited favor, you are going to continue to see this ignorance play out within mankind as non-ideal material/economic outcomes...
There are some among us who are put in a position to be able to save and do so... they (should) expect some additional return Franko
Then trade with your savings, invest them or lend them for interest to foreigners since according to Scripture one deserves NOTHING but a severe rebuke for taking no risks.
The case can be made that interest paying sovereign debt is merely compensation for unjust price inflation in fiat. The solution for unjust price inflation in fiat is to eliminate all privileges for the banks and thereby protect even those with no savings.
as not many people listen to Paul on the subject of our current unmerited favor, Franko
The purpose of grace is that we may cease from sin not to enable it.
You can sign up on the Mike Norman MMT Trader course and do soemthign with all that idle capital, or consume it over time.
When you get a $10 bill it doesn't have any 'attached' IR income, do you hate people without bank accounts or people who doesn't buy US govt debt securities?
You can keep USD balances in a demand account and still receive a risk free rate if you use 100% govt money market funds with checking/debit functions or interest checking... you dont need to use the paper notes...
Its not "idle capital" its USD savings....
It's idle financial capital, and what if I want to use notes anyway.
and what if I want to use notes anyway. Ignacio
Your choice of course but notes can be stolen, destroyed or lost.
It used to be, before direct deposit, that people on US Social Security were regularly robbed soon after cashing their checks.
But a deposit is legally a loan so now Social Security recipients are FORCED to lend their payments to a private bank, credit union or other member of the usury cartel, at least until they can cash out, assuming they still can without a substantial bank fee.
Also, while one might think that using notes is a way to disempower the banks, it really isn't since the central bank can easily lend the banks new reserves to replace the reserves used to buy notes.
However, the banks CAN be disempowered by removing their privileges and abolishing much of the debt they own via Steve-Keen-like equal fiat distributions to all citizens, including to non-debtors.
"But a deposit is legally a loan so now Social Security recipients are FORCED to lend their payments to a private bank,"
Nope Andrew this is what the balance sheet looks like:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4kfryPpCB7s/U7JSU7AVObI/AAAAAAAAASM/sELbL6C3Kzg/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-07-01+at+07.16.24.png
Nope Andrew this is what the balance sheet looks like: Random
I don't think so. For one thing you've forgotten the Equity section and have listed common stock (Ord Shares) as a Liability so you've destroyed the fundamental equation of accounting which is Assets = Equity + Liabilities.
But that "quibble" aside, that balance sheet has nothing to do with what I've said which is:
"But a deposit is legally a loan so now Social Security recipients are FORCED to lend their payments to a private bank, credit union or other member of the usury cartel, at least until they can cash out, assuming they still can without a substantial bank fee." aa
In other words, since SS recipients may not have individual accounts at the central bank, their benefit payments MUST be deposited into the account of a depository institution instead. That's undeniably a forced loan.
My point about notes is that they don't come with guaranteed 'risk-free' income. Savings shouldn't guarantee any 'risk-free' income whatsoever, is not written anywhere, specially when you earn those savings.
Savings shouldn't guarantee any 'risk-free' income whatsoever Ignacio
I totally agree since that constitutes welfare proportional to savings and not need.
It's one hell (literally?) of a mess our money/credit system has created.
Post a Comment