tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post5205302559076738112..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Guest Post by Shaun Hingston — Allocation and Equalitymike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-6111020258707357712011-08-13T22:10:18.139-04:002011-08-13T22:10:18.139-04:00@Red Capitalist
I agree that the opposite to what...@Red Capitalist<br /><br />I agree that the opposite to what I'm suggesting is occurring around the world. However survival of the fittest would suggest the social group that distributes resources the 'most evenly' will have the highest chance of becoming the dominate social group. So I think there is a real evolutionary incentive for social groups to distribute resources evenly. <br /><br /><br />@Tom <br /><br />Thanks for clarification. That definition sounds right. <br /><br />shaun.hingston@hushmail.comShaun Hingstonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43459320361954021602011-08-13T11:16:23.354-04:002011-08-13T11:16:23.354-04:00That MV is equivalent to PQ is an identity. All ec...That MV is equivalent to PQ is an identity. All economists recognize this. Different economists interpret it differently, however. <br /><br />According to MMT, a general continuous price rise due to monetary reasons only occurs approaching full employment, where the economy cannot expand to meet increasing effective demand. Velocity is increased by easy private credit. This generally plays a big role in monetary inflations, and it is a cause of financial instability.<br /><br />Price rise due to supply contraint is another matter, since it is not monetary in origin. I would agree with Friedman's formulation that all "inflation" is monetary, and therefore I would not call price rise to supply constraint like an oil crisis "inflation." <br /><br />The approach to handing demand side and supply side price rise is different since the causal mechanism is different, even though the symptoms are the same. MMT does not make the common mistake of treating them the same, e.g., through monetary policy.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79429693214941843062011-08-13T06:42:01.110-04:002011-08-13T06:42:01.110-04:00Shaun, thanks for the response and clarification.
...Shaun, thanks for the response and clarification.<br /><br />However, I do think that whether income from resources can be maximized is a moot point - it may be valid from a theoretical perspective but in practice, if individuals (particularly those with the resources) do not share this view, then it won't happen.<br /><br />I don't see what you are portraying happening around the world at all - in fact, I think the complete opposite is happening - which would conform with social darwinist 'survival of the fittest' principles.The Red Capitalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12873377265509886647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58002579518518017152011-08-13T05:49:22.083-04:002011-08-13T05:49:22.083-04:00Is there a relationship between 'economic acti...Is there a relationship between 'economic activity' and the velocity of money?<br />Is there a relationship between financial inequality and the velocity of money?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49328689445150328162011-08-13T02:09:11.310-04:002011-08-13T02:09:11.310-04:00@MMTers
Does MMT describe how prices respond to t...@MMTers<br /><br />Does MMT describe how prices respond to the velocity of money?Shaun Hingstonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8356248192263569562011-08-12T23:07:12.063-04:002011-08-12T23:07:12.063-04:00Red Capitalist :
1 = gold standard - wealth is a ...Red Capitalist :<br /><br />1 = gold standard - wealth is a fixed resource and must manage what you can grab away from others<br /><br />2 = MMT<br /><br />3 = republicans smoke screening others with supply side voodoo while secretly MMT'ing for themselvesgoogleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79871606473704847782011-08-12T21:58:44.357-04:002011-08-12T21:58:44.357-04:00In terms of evolutionary biology, this is adaptive...In terms of evolutionary biology, this is adaptive rate and return on coordination. The groups with the highest adaptive rate get the greatest return on coordination.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-63245871592646568012011-08-12T20:59:22.019-04:002011-08-12T20:59:22.019-04:00@Red Capitalist
I deliberately have not suggested...@Red Capitalist<br /><br />I deliberately have not suggested how the additional income achieved by distributing resources evenly should be shared. I'm asserting that the income from resources is maximized when they are shared equally.<br /><br />The topic of sharing the additional wealth is very subjective. IMO it is not something that will be easily solved by a rigid set of principles. <br /><br />However, if we were to assume that the additional income is shared evenly, then overtime what is good for everyone will be also good for you. <br /><br />This is because the income from resources would always be maximal. This would ensure that the pie is growing at the fastest possible rate, and faster than any pie not shared evenly. Overtime the evenly shared pie would become multiple times larger than the unevenly shared pie. Lets say that there are 5 people in each case. Then as soon as the evenly shared pie becomes 5 times greater than the unevenly shared pie, a piece of the evenly shared pie is the same size as the unevenly shared pie. <br /><br />That is the extreme upper case, it is unlikely that a capitalist will completely own the whole pie. So the capitalist is likely to receive a larger slice sooner. <br /><br />shaun.hingston@hushmail.comShaun Hingstonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14546033984969933132011-08-12T19:52:52.040-04:002011-08-12T19:52:52.040-04:00Shaun, you have not proven that 'prosperity fo...Shaun, you have not proven that 'prosperity for all' is better than 'prosperity for me', at least from an individual perspective.<br /><br />There are 3 trains of thought here:<br /><br />1) The pie is a fixed size and I'll do my best to grab the most share of the pie I can<br /><br />2) We can enlarge the pie and everyone will get a bigger (more evenly distributed) share, including myself<br /><br />3) We can enlarge the pie and I'll still do my best to grab the most share of the pie I can, at the expense of others<br /><br />What I see in the US and China, is a strong focus on 1 and 3. Obviously, many (or possibly the majority of) individuals within these two nations believe that as long as they themselves prosper, who cares?The Red Capitalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12873377265509886647noreply@blogger.com