Posts by Nicole Collins13

mistywolf17 said:Regarding the admins, Tyndall already told you on another thread to check back in after 18 months.

Does that mean my partial application for the USA is actually on the table? 😬

Kate Foster12 said:I’ll use this thread to respond to Melody, since she decided to call me out.

That was pure sarcasm. Honestly, feathers are flying everywhere here. If you took that as a provocation or gloating, maybe you should take a beat—take a deep breath, count to ten, or however long it takes to settle down...

Also, having served as a moderator myself, I know exactly how new moderators are selected—and it isn't through revolts on USA. My goal was simply to breathe life back into Trash, which you repeatedly described as dead in your own thread over at Kokošinjac. Sad.

Me, having all of Kokošinjac on my side? I talk to maybe three or four people there, none of whom belong to that "inner circle"...

Furthermore, those who find my comment offensive but haven't been banned are more than welcome to comment—either in the thread or via PM. That's what threads are for: discussion, not for people to mark their territory...

I'm with you. And my buddy Đepika is too. 🙂

Elizabeth Harris11 said:Honestly, it gives me the chills thinking about how countries that leaned hard into Keynesian interventionism during the crisis are now finally seeing the light at the end of the recession tunnel—take the USA and Germany, for example, they’ve technically moved past it. Meanwhile, the folks who put all their faith in the "free market" magic, like Ireland, are basically left standing out in the cold without any cover.

All jokes aside, I was actually arguing this point just two years ago—I kept insisting that we needed massive capital injections into our energy and agriculture sectors, even if it was just a quick fix to stop the bleeding of $2-3 billion leaving the US every single year. Fast forward two years later, and we've already watched an extra $6 billion vanish, and by the time anyone actually decides to get moving, we're looking at another $12 billion flying right out the door.

For the longest time, the big buzzword around here was this idea that "the market will decide everything." Well, the market certainly decided we should focus on retail, and now look at us—we've got massive big-box retailers, distributors, and shopping malls popping up on every single corner.

Sure, the market spoke loud and clear. 🤣

lonehawk5 said:@Maria Thomas48

Quincy:

Once the reform hits, the dollar needs to be locked down tight... we're talking total stability while every other currency just goes up in smoke from inflation.

So, how exactly would you pull that off?

It’s simple. He’d just shrink the total amount of dollars circulating in the economy. 🤣

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, Matthew Patel12, I’ve touched on this before. We are talking about retained earnings or just personal savings. In a purely credit-based system, the Federal Reserve usually tries to push that money back into circulation by cutting interest rates. It's hard to say much more by just reading textbooks, though, because most economic theories don't really distinguish between a strictly credit-driven system and one that includes non-credit inflows. The issue with saving is that it leads to a shrinking money supply and lower spending, which hurts the economy. So, logically, that gap has to be filled with non-credit money.

Still, there is the issue of maintaining the value of money—something you haven't commented on yet—which brings up the whole problem of earning without actually working. Things like overpaying for jobs, rigged contracts, and stuff like that. This is especially critical when dealing with government spending. Most people here probably think I'm pushing socialist ideas, but I honestly believe it's necessary to maintain currency stability. Without some level of oversight, you risk the currency devaluing or seeing a massive spike in bankruptcies because monetary profits ended up in the wrong hands through unfair means.

Best,

🙏 🙏 🙏

crimsonfalcon10 said:Is inflation necessary? Yes! It forces money out of people's mattresses and back into circulation. If we didn't have it, all that cash could theoretically just sit under a bed forever. That's why we need to print money! By using inflation, I'm reducing the power of "mattress money" so that nobody suddenly decides to spend every cent they've been hoarding all at once and crashes the entire financial system!

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Keep it up. 😁

crimsonfalcon10 said:Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

Just when you think this debate has been boiled down to two predictable sides, a new star like Danica shows up to shake things up.

🙏 🙏 🙏

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

Keeping cash under a mattress doesn't hurt the economy.

The current system, with its interest rates and inflation, basically forces people to keep money moving. It prevents people from saving in assets that pull liquidity out of the system—sort of like how things worked when we traded in gold. If you saved gold, it was removed from circulation, which could theoretically lead to a "money shortage." Nowadays, through various loopholes, they've built a system where doing that just isn't profitable, so it doesn't happen.

Not quite. 😉

Listen, Matthew Patel12, wasn't it enough for you back then when Uncle Milton tore you apart and started quoting senior Keynes? 😁

Say's law! 🧐

neonhound10 said:You haven't actually said anything of substance here, other than pointing out that enrollment numbers went up.

Is there any truth to the idea that consumer spending or demand has actually dropped?

And if so, did that trigger issues across various sectors of the economy?

I mean, if the money supply remains the same, then what exactly has shifted compared to how things used to be...

Why are we even talking about a crisis in the first place?

It really rubs me the wrong way when certain people act like they hold the ultimate truth, when in reality, they’re just offering one specific interpretation of events rather than describing the actual state of affairs. Because if everything were as obvious as some people claim, we probably wouldn't be facing these problems at all, or they wouldn't exist to begin with...

So, I just can't get behind someone being contrarian without them presenting a complete and holistic view of the situation.

After all, it's much easier to just say "no" than to actually explain why...

Actually, it’s all quite transparent and painfully simple. The catch is that the solution isn't politically convenient, because no government wants to give up its monopoly on printing money. To solve the issue, they try to force demand by pushing nominal interest rates to 0% and real rates into negative territory. Then they forcibly hike aggregate demand without any real foundation and label it "excessive saving," even though saving is the very basis of that consumption. It’s just a cycle of moving from one recession to the next, naturally accompanied by printing money until the presses overheat.

The fact that you aren't a fan of Andrew Booth29's style or mine is your own issue. You didn't bother to educate yourself on the topics you're debating, yet here you are supporting Keynesian measures. Even within that specific framework, you're making mistakes—not just the inherent flaws of Keynesian economics, but errors stemming from a fundamental lack of understanding of both that view and economics in general.
Then you come at us with analogies like "money is blood" or "money is batteries." What is a person supposed to say when you fail to realize that saving and investment are two sides of the same coin? Even if you stuffed cash under mattresses, the economy would adjust through falling prices, wages, and costs. You can't see that the reason the economic adjustment is broken is due to policy. Yet, when someone points out that printing money leads nowhere but a boom-bust cycle—just like it has a hundred times before—you complain about seeing the same thing over and over. No, it's always the same script: "falling consumption" and "excessive saving" must be stimulated.
How exactly do you plan to stimulate anything when you've already printed money beyond reason, interest rates are negative, and banks are sitting on reserves up to their necks? Use your head. Which government spending could possibly be economically—and I mean economically, not politically—viable right now? If something were actually profitable, someone would have invested in it already.
Worst of all, you're advocating for expansive fiscal and monetary policy in America based on this quasi-Keynesian mindset, and I'd bet you hadn't even heard of Mundell-Fleming until I brought it up a few posts ago.

Jerry Williams41 said:

I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much everything seems to be shifting lately, almost like we're all just watching a slow-motion train wreck that everyone insists is actually a parade. It’s one of those days where you look at the news or scroll through whatever nonsense is trending on social media and realize that the collective attention span of this country has basically evaporated, leaving us all drifting in this sea of superficiality. You see people shouting into the void, convinced they’re making some grand stand, when really they’re just adding to the white noise that defines modern life. I don't know, maybe I'm just getting older and more tired of the constant churn, but there’s a certain heaviness to the way things move now, a sense that we’re all just spinning our wheels in the mud while pretending we’re winning a race. It doesn't really matter what anyone says, because the momentum is already set, and we're all just along for the ride, whether we want to be or not. kaže:
I’m talking about the ultra-wealthy, those people sitting on mountains of cash, because if they actually decide to stop spending, it triggers this massive domino effect where everything just grinds to a halt and consumer demand hits rock bottom.

Look, the reality is pretty simple: we have to figure out how to motivate the healthy ones—and by "healthy," I obviously mean the wealthy—to actually start spending, investing, or donating their capital, because let’s be honest, if the money stays stagnant, nothing moves. It is blindingly obvious that you need a catalyst somewhere to get the gears turning, and it has to start with those who have the most to give.

I mean, I honestly assume it’s just regular folks who paved the way for someone to walk away with that kind of cash in the first place. You could probably argue it from the opposite angle if you really wanted to get pedantic about it, but regardless of how you slice it, we’re all stuck in some sort of symbiosis with one another, whether we realize it or not.

Exactly. And that’s precisely why "luxury goods" play such a pivotal role in this whole equation.

He missed the mark entirely again. 😁

neonhound10 said:hm . . .

Just like every single one of your counterarguments... 😉

It's pretty funny how people love to label certain measures as "populist" even when they're actually happening in real life.

Take Germany or France, for example...

I suppose we have to assume we're somehow more advanced than them, otherwise, it would imply they actually have no idea what they're doing... 🙂

Again, what does it matter if everyone else is doing it? Just because they are doesn't make it right. Even if it were right for them—which they certainly believe—that same policy within that specific mental framework wouldn't work for America. Use some Mundell-Fleming and look at the data.
In reality, increasing savings and cutting consumption happens for a reason and doesn't lead to catastrophe. By your logic, deflationary periods should always result in negative growth, which isn't true. Look at the eras when Great Britain became an imperial power or when the USA saw its greatest growth spurts. Those were deflationary periods. The shift in the ratio of savings to consumption isn't a monster, nor is deflation. In fact, deflation is perfectly natural because organic economic growth is deflationary—something Nostradamus fails to grasp from the jump. Problems arise when politicians try to force the economy away from a new equilibrium for political reasons. That's when you get exactly what ABCT predicts. 😵
I don't know, I just don't see why it's so hard to understand that "excessive saving" isn't a thing. People's time preferences change, and the economy adjusts accordingly. Somehow, this creates a supposed "deflationary spiral" or a "paradox of thrift" that is meant to spin forever until we're all left standing in our underwear.
Bottom line: you don't need to increase the money supply to achieve economic growth, unless it's somehow impossible for prices to fall.

Andrew Booth29 said:Good grief... As if being an academic and holding a PhD wasn't enough already... 🤣
Economics, without a doubt—if you ask me. 😁

He wrote "Economic Crises in Marxist Theory" back in 1964. I'd bet my life the conclusion was just: impossible. 🤣

neonhound10 said:🙂

That's an interesting way to look at it, but there are definitely others out there who feel the exact same way...😉

http://www.nytimes.com/why-the-fed-is-wrong-about-inflation

😉

I had to laugh reading this. Thanks for the link. 🤣 Honestly, at first I thought Nostradamus was just some crackpot, but compared to people like this, he’s basically Color TV. 🤣 Then again, coming from a guy with a PhD in Marxist theory who ran the USDA, built a competitive socialist agricultural system, and spends his time "planning long-term growth," you’d think he’d realize that when you push Keynesian doctrine on a small, open economy, those fiscal stimulus packages are really just subsidies for foreign companies. But hey, let them celebrate. Of course, the actual solution remains invisible.
You're spot on, man. 👍

neonhound10 said:It’s honestly pretty interesting how these massive economies decide to just hand out subsidies to citizens, mostly just to keep the wheels of consumer spending turning...

To me, it feels a bit nonsensical to keep churning out goods when there isn't actually anyone lined up to buy them.

But I suppose some folks here are looking at this strictly through a textbook economic lens...😬

What you just wrote feels more like an argumentum ad baculum or maybe argumentum ad populum. I know you can do better than that.

To me, it doesn't make sense to produce something if there isn't a buyer for it.

Doesn't make sense to me either. So why does the government work so hard to stimulate consumption?

But I guess some people here are looking at this strictly through an economic lens. 😬

Give it a shot yourself. It isn't that hard. 😉

neonhound10 said:That’s just so hard to prove—honestly, it feels almost impossible to truly demonstrate...

Look, people "stopping" their spending isn't some big scary monster. Even if they decide to stuff cash under a mattress, bury it in the backyard, or just burn it—whatever. Honestly, who cares? You're still alive. But fine, just like the supply side got wrecked back in the late 70s, the demand side will eventually go down the drain too. We'll all be going down with them. It’s basic logic. There are plenty of statistical miracles and historical precedents for this; if you don't see it, you've got a problem. I'm not going to waste my time correcting broken Mississippis, though. I'll leave the sandcastle to Nostradamus for his main broadcast. 😁

neonhound10 said:Well, if you're certain about that, who am I to argue with your expertise . . .

It doesn't matter whose opinion it is. What matters is whether it's true or not.

neonhound10 said:I suppose it all just comes down to how you choose to see things...

Perspective has nothing to do with it.

neonhound10 said:From what I understand—or at least, how I see things working—money is printed based on actual backing, meaning every single dollar issued represents some kind of real value, you know, something tangible...

At the same time, there’s always that careful balancing act of pulling money back out of the market just to make sure the currency stays steady and reliable.

Honestly, a government running a deficit isn't the disaster people make it out to be, provided all the other economic indicators are looking healthy and positive; sometimes, you just have to take on debt to reach that next level of growth. Because if that wasn't how the world worked, you and I probably wouldn't be sitting here typing away right now, and we'd likely be freezing somewhere else entirely...

The whole point of money is that it keeps moving. The absolute worst-case scenario is when the people who actually have cash just stop spending it. Think of it like swimming upstream in a river: you're in a surplus if you're making headway against the current, you're in stagnation if you're just treading water, and you're in a deficit if the current starts pulling you back... It doesn't mean everything is falling apart. I mean, remember when Canada ran low on KM in the treasury recently?

And look, the math doesn't always have to balance out to zero perfectly every single time. Some years the plum trees yield a massive harvest, and other years they barely produce anything; when the crop is great, you're in a surplus, and when it fails, you're in a deficit. And then, maybe the following year, it's a bumper crop of olives instead...

It isn't.