5 ms·

When it gets hot, the FED prints money (they call it quantitative easing) (for 5-year-olds: throw money at the problem). Look at 2008, where they ramped up the

by frign 11y ago

When it gets hot, the FED prints money (they call it quantitative easing) (for 5-year-olds: throw money at the problem). Look at 2008, where they ramped up the money stock like crazy. And afterwards, all these upward bumps were quantitative easing steps to "stabilize" the markets. However, just realize this is exponential growth. You don't need a maths degree to realize that you can't keep on printing money like crazy and expect the markets to stay stable for much longer. It takes one person to dig into the matter and ask the question: "But what covers this money?" and bang, you got a stock market crash. And let's not call it money. What the FED "prints" is currency, sheets of paper. Money has inherent value (gold is money for instance), but not this FED-Dollar lie we live in every day. Since 1914, America has been tricked into believing into this system. When Nixon turned off the Gold standard in 1971, the entire Bretton-Woods-System (built on top of the Dollar) sort of went Berserk. It's a system built to fail.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> And let's not call it money. What the FED "prints" is currency, sheets of paper. Money has inherent value (gold is money for instance), but not this FED-Dollar lie we live in every day. You don't get to redefine terms like "money" to make your arguments work better - not if you want to talk to the rest of the world. And by the definitions the rest of us use, you are factually wrong.
- jwallaceparker 11y ago
  I think you're both right. Commodity money and fiat money are both forms of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Types But it's fairly simple to see which money holds its value better over time. Gold/silver have held value over millennia while fiat moneys live and die with the states that oversee them.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Yes, gold and silver have held up over millenia. But, for example, gold fell from $1700 to $1100 over the last three years or so. Meanwhile, the dollar has held its value pretty well over that term. So gold and silver are more stable over decades to millenia. They're more volatile over the short run (months/a few years), presuming a competent central bank.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      That's probably true. The whole benefit of a fractional reserve currency is you can manipulate the money supply to smooth out the peaks and valleys, a bit. On the other, hand the government benefits tremendously from both growth and moderate price inflation, so when one of the "peaks" needs to be moderated a bit it almost never actually happens.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Fiduciary media is money. Money need not have inherent value for value is subjective and thus cannot be inherent beyond people's achievement of various ends. The gold standard was turned off far earlier than 1971. In fact, all commodity money standards have suffered subversion or suspension by financial institutions (suspending convertibility of notes) and governments at various times. Nor was gold arrived at by the will of market forces. It was imposed through bank charter, displacing the then-dominant silver in the process. Nor was the international gold standard well designed, for R.G. Hawtrey and Gustav Cassel presciently anticipated its collapse and resulting great depression thereof. Monetary reform is definitely in order, but commodity money has nothing to do with it. Convertibility requirements can be satisfied with interbank clearinghouses and other means.
- jwallaceparker 11y ago
  > Nor was gold arrived at by the will of market forces. It was imposed through bank charter Haven't gold and silver been used as money for thousands of years? Carl Menger's Origins of Money makes the argument that gold/silver naturally emerge as money through the barter system. Precious metals best satisfy the characteristics of money: - Durability - Portability - Divisibility - Uniformity - Limited supply - Acceptability https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcast-series/episode-9-functions-of-money https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcas...
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Menger provides an evolutionary theory of money's emergence and does devote a chapter to the precious metals, but historically all sorts of commodities have served as media of exchange in various circumstances. The primary standards of international trade during the mercantilist and merchant capitalist eras were silver bullion coins like the Spanish dollar. Formal gold specie standards arose during the 19th century by royal fiat and soon displaced other currencies. It is likely that free currencies would settle on precious metal convertibility because of prior art, but there's no reason to presume it has to be gold in particular, or to single out gold as being "special".
nugget 11y ago
Let's say I buy into the theory that QE indeed caused significant inflation, but in equity assets and specifically housing, rather than in consumer goods and services where people were watching for it. Now rates are near zero, equities and housing are still relatively high (but not in orbit given their yield relative to bonds paying nothing). Consumer goods and services and commodities remain cheap. Given this macroeconomic picture and the Fed's toolkit, what happens next?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I think that depends on what the Fed does next. If it continues to unwind QE, that means that equities and housing come back down, and bond yields slowly rise (presuming that the economy doesn't fall apart too badly in the meantime). If the Feds return to QE, stocks and real estate go up further. I think stocks do so first, and real estate a bit more slowly. And I think that what the Fed wants to do is unwind QE reasonably quickly, without causing the economy to tank (the real economy, not just the stock market). The real question is, how rapidly can the Fed unwind QE without damaging the real economy? Or can it unwind it at all?
  - nugget 11y ago
    It seems that when you put money into the hands of the public broadly, they consume goods and services. When you put money into the hands of the top few %, they have much less need for additional goods and services, so instead they invest it, which drives yields down and (consequently) asset prices up. The real question, then, seems to be how do we get money into the hands of tens of millions of grasshoppers and not just a few ants.
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
You're confusing what money represents with what it is. Money represents an obligation for society to provide you with something of value. Money itself is simply a measure of accounting. Gold isn't money, and many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around.
- jwallaceparker 11y ago
  > Money represents an obligation for society to provide you with something of value. What does that mean? > many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around. This is how commodity money works. The dollar (as well as almost all paper currencies) originated as commodity money. The paper dollar was backed by and convertible to gold.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > > many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around. > This is how commodity money works. No, its how representative (or commodity-backed money) works, as distinct from commodity money. > The dollar (as well as almost all paper currencies) originated as commodity money. The dollar (whether you mean the US dollar or its Spanish predecessor) originated as commodity money -- actual silver coins -- true. But most paper currencies (including the -- later -- paper dollars) originated as representative, commodity-backed, money. > The paper dollar was backed by and convertible to gold. The original dollar was silver. The original paper dollar was ... a trickier question. If you count the 1861 demand notes as "paper dollars", then, as they were initially redeemable for gold (as the US had switched from a silver to a gold standard) money, they were convertible to (redeemable for) gold -- but they were not backed by gold (and redemption was soon suspended.) If you mean the first legal tender paper dollars (U.S. Notes) issued soon after the 1861 demand notes, they were pure fiat currency, not backed by or convertible to anything.
  - ThrustVectoring 11y ago
seoguru 11y ago
Dollars certainly do have value. They are effectively tax credits. watch Warren Mosler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1uWVj0YJ3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1uWVj0YJ3M
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Legal tender laws are likely more qualitatively significant than ability to pay taxes in of itself. I'd be wary of the chartalist/state theory of money, since it's somewhat of a truism (state theory of money is correct for money chartered by the state). It tends to ignore that many local currencies have also emerged through different channels. MMT as promoted by Mosler, Wray, Kelton and Tcherneva is also a syncretic and often uncredited mix of a variety of economic ideas, generally as a clout for the policy activism that its founders promote.
  - seoguru 11y ago
    Certainly there are alternative currencies however their impact on daily lives in the US are small compared to the dollar. Glad to see you know some of the heterodox. Some other names to add: Bill Mitchell, Frank Newman, James K. Galbraith, Abba Lerner. My favorite Bill Mitchell video to date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnyDRwSqp2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnyDRwSqp2E I've learned a lot from him. I'm guessing you know that Bernie Sanders hired Stephanie Kelton as his Chief Economist for the Senate Budget Committee.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Size of impact no matter how minuscule, it still poses problems for a chartalist theory of money. Bill Mitchell's economics frequently take a backseat to his rabid quasi-conspiratorial rantings about the neoliberal order that are in turn instrumental to influencing his economics, unfortunately. James K. Galbraith is far less erudite than his father, who was actually a decent institutional economist, if disagreeable. Abba P. Lerner was a great economist, but his functional finance proposal proved theoretically untenable in light of public choice critiques and has yet to practically materialize anyway. He was also against unions, interestingly enough, in his famous paper "Money as a Creature of the State". I'd overall rank MMTers are some of the lowest quality of the heterodox, honestly. The circuitists like Marc Lavoie are much better out of the broader Post-Keynesian school.
apta 11y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Not only is it the issue of moving money away from gold and other physical commodities, but it's also the fact that the system is built on exploitation (mainly in the form of interest, bonds, and similar concepts).

by frign 11y ago

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> And let's not call it money. What the FED "prints" is currency, sheets of paper. Money has inherent value (gold is money for instance), but not this FED-Dollar lie we live in every day. You don't get to redefine terms like "money" to make your arguments work better - not if you want to talk to the rest of the world. And by the definitions the rest of us use, you are factually wrong.

jwallaceparker 11y ago
I think you're both right. Commodity money and fiat money are both forms of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Types But it's fairly simple to see which money holds its value better over time. Gold/silver have held value over millennia while fiat moneys live and die with the states that oversee them.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Yes, gold and silver have held up over millenia. But, for example, gold fell from $1700 to $1100 over the last three years or so. Meanwhile, the dollar has held its value pretty well over that term. So gold and silver are more stable over decades to millenia. They're more volatile over the short run (months/a few years), presuming a competent central bank.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    That's probably true. The whole benefit of a fractional reserve currency is you can manipulate the money supply to smooth out the peaks and valleys, a bit. On the other, hand the government benefits tremendously from both growth and moderate price inflation, so when one of the "peaks" needs to be moderated a bit it almost never actually happens.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Fiduciary media is money. Money need not have inherent value for value is subjective and thus cannot be inherent beyond people's achievement of various ends. The gold standard was turned off far earlier than 1971. In fact, all commodity money standards have suffered subversion or suspension by financial institutions (suspending convertibility of notes) and governments at various times. Nor was gold arrived at by the will of market forces. It was imposed through bank charter, displacing the then-dominant silver in the process. Nor was the international gold standard well designed, for R.G. Hawtrey and Gustav Cassel presciently anticipated its collapse and resulting great depression thereof. Monetary reform is definitely in order, but commodity money has nothing to do with it. Convertibility requirements can be satisfied with interbank clearinghouses and other means.

jwallaceparker 11y ago
> Nor was gold arrived at by the will of market forces. It was imposed through bank charter Haven't gold and silver been used as money for thousands of years? Carl Menger's Origins of Money makes the argument that gold/silver naturally emerge as money through the barter system. Precious metals best satisfy the characteristics of money: - Durability - Portability - Divisibility - Uniformity - Limited supply - Acceptability https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcast-series/episode-9-functions-of-money https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcas...
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Menger provides an evolutionary theory of money's emergence and does devote a chapter to the precious metals, but historically all sorts of commodities have served as media of exchange in various circumstances. The primary standards of international trade during the mercantilist and merchant capitalist eras were silver bullion coins like the Spanish dollar. Formal gold specie standards arose during the 19th century by royal fiat and soon displaced other currencies. It is likely that free currencies would settle on precious metal convertibility because of prior art, but there's no reason to presume it has to be gold in particular, or to single out gold as being "special".

nugget 11y ago

Let's say I buy into the theory that QE indeed caused significant inflation, but in equity assets and specifically housing, rather than in consumer goods and services where people were watching for it. Now rates are near zero, equities and housing are still relatively high (but not in orbit given their yield relative to bonds paying nothing). Consumer goods and services and commodities remain cheap. Given this macroeconomic picture and the Fed's toolkit, what happens next?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
I think that depends on what the Fed does next. If it continues to unwind QE, that means that equities and housing come back down, and bond yields slowly rise (presuming that the economy doesn't fall apart too badly in the meantime). If the Feds return to QE, stocks and real estate go up further. I think stocks do so first, and real estate a bit more slowly. And I think that what the Fed wants to do is unwind QE reasonably quickly, without causing the economy to tank (the real economy, not just the stock market). The real question is, how rapidly can the Fed unwind QE without damaging the real economy? Or can it unwind it at all?
- nugget 11y ago
  It seems that when you put money into the hands of the public broadly, they consume goods and services. When you put money into the hands of the top few %, they have much less need for additional goods and services, so instead they invest it, which drives yields down and (consequently) asset prices up. The real question, then, seems to be how do we get money into the hands of tens of millions of grasshoppers and not just a few ants.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

You're confusing what money represents with what it is. Money represents an obligation for society to provide you with something of value. Money itself is simply a measure of accounting. Gold isn't money, and many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around.

jwallaceparker 11y ago
> Money represents an obligation for society to provide you with something of value. What does that mean? > many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around. This is how commodity money works. The dollar (as well as almost all paper currencies) originated as commodity money. The paper dollar was backed by and convertible to gold.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > > many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around. > This is how commodity money works. No, its how representative (or commodity-backed money) works, as distinct from commodity money. > The dollar (as well as almost all paper currencies) originated as commodity money. The dollar (whether you mean the US dollar or its Spanish predecessor) originated as commodity money -- actual silver coins -- true. But most paper currencies (including the -- later -- paper dollars) originated as representative, commodity-backed, money. > The paper dollar was backed by and convertible to gold. The original dollar was silver. The original paper dollar was ... a trickier question. If you count the 1861 demand notes as "paper dollars", then, as they were initially redeemable for gold (as the US had switched from a silver to a gold standard) money, they were convertible to (redeemable for) gold -- but they were not backed by gold (and redemption was soon suspended.) If you mean the first legal tender paper dollars (U.S. Notes) issued soon after the 1861 demand notes, they were pure fiat currency, not backed by or convertible to anything.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago

seoguru 11y ago

Dollars certainly do have value. They are effectively tax credits. watch Warren Mosler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1uWVj0YJ3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1uWVj0YJ3M

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Legal tender laws are likely more qualitatively significant than ability to pay taxes in of itself. I'd be wary of the chartalist/state theory of money, since it's somewhat of a truism (state theory of money is correct for money chartered by the state). It tends to ignore that many local currencies have also emerged through different channels. MMT as promoted by Mosler, Wray, Kelton and Tcherneva is also a syncretic and often uncredited mix of a variety of economic ideas, generally as a clout for the policy activism that its founders promote.
- seoguru 11y ago
  Certainly there are alternative currencies however their impact on daily lives in the US are small compared to the dollar. Glad to see you know some of the heterodox. Some other names to add: Bill Mitchell, Frank Newman, James K. Galbraith, Abba Lerner. My favorite Bill Mitchell video to date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnyDRwSqp2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnyDRwSqp2E I've learned a lot from him. I'm guessing you know that Bernie Sanders hired Stephanie Kelton as his Chief Economist for the Senate Budget Committee.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Size of impact no matter how minuscule, it still poses problems for a chartalist theory of money. Bill Mitchell's economics frequently take a backseat to his rabid quasi-conspiratorial rantings about the neoliberal order that are in turn instrumental to influencing his economics, unfortunately. James K. Galbraith is far less erudite than his father, who was actually a decent institutional economist, if disagreeable. Abba P. Lerner was a great economist, but his functional finance proposal proved theoretically untenable in light of public choice critiques and has yet to practically materialize anyway. He was also against unions, interestingly enough, in his famous paper "Money as a Creature of the State". I'd overall rank MMTers are some of the lowest quality of the heterodox, honestly. The circuitists like Marc Lavoie are much better out of the broader Post-Keynesian school.

apta 11y ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Not only is it the issue of moving money away from gold and other physical commodities, but it's also the fact that the system is built on exploitation (mainly in the form of interest, bonds, and similar concepts).