17 posts shown.
Mark Gray3 said:So, practically speaking, if anyone actually knows how this works, hit me with an answer:
http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/RUB-...e-history.html
http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/USD-...e-history.html
http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/USD-...e-history.html
If I'm reading these charts right, the Dollar is getting stronger against the Ruble, the Ruble is gaining on the Yuan, and the Yuan is strengthening against the Dollar.
If that’s actually what's happening, I'm stumped—why? How can A be stronger than B, B be stronger than C, and C be stronger than A all at once?
You're reading it wrong. The Ruble weakened against the Yuan.
dustyscout53 said:We can't even get 40% of voters to show up at the polls, and you think we can run a collective budget? Good luck with that!
It's actually the opposite...
We can't even get this 60% who actually vote to stop.
Dennis Myers6 said:So, Max mentioned something once about hearing about that whole Austrian School of Economics thing... so anyway, here’s a link to some free reading on the subject if anyone's actually interested, I guess.
Getting things moving is always the absolute worst part, I guess... everything just feels like such a massive uphill battle at first.🙂
Maybe some of you experts from the Austrian School of Economics can let me know if this reading list is actually legit or just total garbage... I guess I'd appreciate the heads-up.
Hey, what's up?🙂
It's fine. He could have picked something else, but it isn't garbage.
Elizabeth Harris11 said:Were you actually trying to ask what 100 divided by 0 is? ☕ That would actually make sense given the context of what you wrote here. ☕
@Andrew Booth29
you totally missed the point of the rest of the post😁
The real issue is that all of you fall into the trap of believing in "perfect competition" as this magical self-correcting market mechanism—but honestly, that thing just doesn't exist in the real world.
It's pretty neat how you immediately backed me up in the very next reply.
Elizabeth Harris11 said:That’s exactly why aggregation is necessary—it allows us to level out those individual preferences at a broader scale.
What is zero times one hundred? 😁
You clearly missed the point. It reminds me of how some neoclassical economist once reacted to the concept of radical uncertainty. His response was that such uncertainty couldn't be expressed through probability. Well... what is the probability of that kind of uncertainty? He looked for an answer within the specific framework he was trained in, failing to see that the flaw lies in the framework itself.
Not all bad things are purely negative, though. One man's trash is another man's treasure. While some people are busy obsessing over models, others see those exact same things as profit opportunities.😁
Elizabeth Harris11 said:Aggregation is everywhere. It’s not some fancy concept cooked up by economists, mathematicians, or the devil himself—it’s just reality. I know you lot have all read a bit of Mises, and now it sounds great to you, so you're out here peddling this philosophy of "don't aggregate." But honestly? That’s a double-edged sword. The devil really is in the details...
Let me explain how the world aggregates me, whether I like it or not. It forces me into this purely logical equation.
Everyone is blowing trumpets about how we Americans are drowning in debt. You know what I mean—"we Americans"—that's aggregation right there. They say the national debt is trillions, or that every American baby is born $40,000 in the hole, and so on. See what I did there? Aggregation again.
Here’s my situation: I don't owe anyone a dime. In fact, my checking account isn't even in the red. My total liabilities $0.00 are zero dollars; if anything, people actually owe *me* money. So, I'm asking you—based on Mises, Hayk, and the rest of the crew—why should I care if you or the rest of the Americans are broke when I'm not? Free markets, free economy, everyone is responsible for their own mess, free labor, price discovery, all that good stuff.
But look, it doesn't work like that. Since I don't owe anything, my standard of living should technically be better than everyone else's, right? Wrong. Here's the kicker: aggregation. Because someone like Ed Koch blew billions of dollars on vanity projects, local parks, or other nonsense, they’re going to hike up my local childcare costs by like 1000%! See how I'm being aggregated by his debt? Even though I have zero debt and pay every single tax on time, my quality of life is going to take a hit because of his spending. It’ll happen with public transit, too.
Now, Mises would say, "Fine, then shut down the public daycare centers. Who cares? Let them pay for Ed Koch's reckless spending. The market will fix itself, and private daycares will pop up at affordable prices." Sure, maybe they will, but not by tomorrow morning. They have to be built, and private investors have to step up to the plate first. By then, my kid will already be in school, and I'll be stuck dealing with the fallout. (See how I used aggregation there, but in a time context?)
Now, you might argue, "Well, that was a public service, and it failed, so that's why it happened." But listen—aggregation happens in the private sector, too. For instance, if everyone takes out loans and then a crisis hits, bad debt starts piling up. When bad debt rises, interest rates climb so banks can cover their losses. I'm not taking out a loan, so you'd think I'm safe, right? Wrong. Everyone else is taking loans—the farmer for his seeds, the dairy guy for supplies, the manufacturer for materials, or my local wholesaler for inventory. Higher credit costs for them means higher margins, which means more expensive goods for me. (See how I'm being aggregated again?)
You see how it works. I wouldn't want to get involved in this debate, but the problem is that whether I want it or not, aggregation bleeds directly into my daily life.
The issue isn't whether it happens, but what conclusions you draw from it.
The real problem arises when people mistake mathematical precision for actual accuracy.
wiredtinker12 said:Why on earth would you think we can't bake uncertainty right into a mathematical model? I mean, look—the entire foundation of Quantum Theory is built on exactly those kinds of models (which is why some people just hate them, but honestly, there's nothing better). It’s just like how people make "unpredictable" decisions; certain subatomic particles act like they have a mind of their own, too, where they might decide one thing with one probability and something else entirely with another. The point is, you *can* determine those probabilities if you know the initial conditions. Even if we can't pinpoint exactly what’s going to happen, we can at least map out a bunch of possible scenarios based on that uncertainty—and assign a probability to each one—so we can build a strategy accordingly. That’s literally how things are done!
And now we’ve got this situation where the hard scientists are basically spitting on the social sciences because they aren't "exact" enough—claiming they only offer "middle-range theories," as E. Pusić used to say, rather than grand, universal ones like Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But that doesn't mean those kinds of theories won't emerge eventually; in fact, it's impossible to reach true Artificial Intelligence without using mathematical models. If people had always thought like this: "Hey, my dear Galileo, who cares if all objects fall at the same rate due to gravity when everyone knows a rock is going to hit your head much harder than a feather," where would the natural sciences be today? Simply put, we have robust natural sciences because of that mindset, and we’ll eventually have social sciences that hold up just as well. Then we'll finally know if Keynes was an Aristotle or a Galileo—which doesn't take away from the value of an Aristotle, or even a Keynes, in the first place.
Probability doesn't capture all "knowledge." Throwing in a probability and a standard deviation doesn't account for total uncertainty. These models completely ignore human action and consciousness. People aren't marbles or subatomic particles.
How do you model something when you don't even realize what you don't know? And the worst part is trying to deal with the things you don't even realize you *do* know. 😁
brightlynx11 said:So physicists are basically the scapegoats for everything wrong with economics. 😁
Ever since Debre, they’ve stormed into the field and tried to math everything into submission. They lean on these massive assumptions just because actual data is hard to come by. Take Black-Scholes—it relies heavily on a normal probability density function, even though we all know the real-world data being modeled is anything but normally distributed. Look at Lehman Brothers; they went under because a Monte Carlo simulation missed the mark.
By the way, there's a huge difference between models meant for forecasting and those meant to explain relationships. People still misuse them just to churn out papers, even when the results make zero sense intuitively...
Professor Planck, of Berlin, the famous originator of the Quantum Theory, once remarked to me that in early life he had thought of studying economics, but had found it too difficult! Planck could easily master The whole corpus of mathematical Economics in a few Days. He did not mean that! But The amalgam of logic and intuition and The wide knowledge of facts, most of which are not precise, which is required for economic interpretation in its highest form is, quite truly, overwhelmingly difficult for those whose gift mainly consists in the power to imagine and pursue to their furthest points the implications and prior conditions of comparatively simple facts which are known with a high degree of precision.
Bottom line: it's a complex system. And as for forecasting... that's a nightmare even when humans aren't part of the equation. Imagine trying to calculate exactly where and when a single leaf will hit the ground in autumn. 😉
Don't throw the models out entirely, but you have to understand them. No matter how much math you know, you need enough common sense to say "WTF" when MATLAB spits out something totally insane.
Basically, use them only to confirm what you already know. If they don't back you up, scrap them. 😁
There’s a bigger issue here. It isn't just about technical math proficiency. You have to decide what actually warrants being formalized into math and what doesn't. Economics needs more philosophy and epistemology, not more calculus. It's no coincidence Hayek focused so much on epistemology; he saw exactly where the field got stuck.
Known knowns, unknown unknowns, unknown knowns, ...and all that jazz... 😁
Economists rely too much on their models 😁
Luck isn't part of the equation when you're trying to force math where it doesn't belong. I had a friend in management at a major US bank—brilliant guy, arguably the best physicist in the country—who walked away from the industry during the 2007/08 crash after seeing how things actually worked. His parting shot? He told me, "I prefer the Austrian school."
He’d probably lose his mind if he knew I was sharing bits of our private correspondence, but here are a few snippets to illustrate my point.
"...what I like about them (referring to the Austrians) is that they don't overdo the math and statistics. Personally, I find the heavy math approach useful because it creates a hierarchy. It's easy to install someone in a high position just because they can handle complex formulas. They can basically tell you, 'Here is Equation 113a; the vector gradient is anti-correlated with the eigenvalues of the risk matrix BI-I, which justifies the bailout—now deal with it.' But if we're being honest, I agree with them: you can't solve everything with equations. I've read endless papers in physics, math, biology, and even economics—I've even authored a few myself—and I've seen a massive overreliance on models and stats..."
"...saying 'no equations' doesn't mean zero math, but people often try to introduce formalisms that have no chance of working. They build models based on assumptions that kill 50% of reality, and then the results end up being incredibly sensitive to those flaws. Having sat in on numerous board meetings and watched senior management in action, I don't have to guess how things work. I was there doing the work."
....That’s why I prefer the Austrian approach over these self-important modelers; I could outwork any of them. Look at physics: you get actual, useful results there. But you can't do that in this field because a model has to be perfect to be taken seriously. Well, no pain, no gain. I attended a couple of economics conferences recently and met a modeler from the Federal Reserve. He had this inflation model for the US, complete with some charts and graphs. After his presentation, I asked him about the predictive statistics. He looked at me and said, "Oh, we don't look at it that way; we were just fitting it to past data." So, they basically built a model with five or six parameters, slapped it onto historical data, and called it a paper. I could churn out twelve of those a month. In physics, that wouldn't even qualify as a paper. In this field, they'd sell it as a breakthrough.
neonhound10 said:Honestly, I think the biggest mistake anyone can make is closing themselves off to a different perspective...
There was a crucial point mentioned just a few posts up, and it’s something we shouldn't overlook: the idea that "people are unpredictable idiots." When you factor in that kind of irrationality, any model becomes incredibly hard to pin down. It’s likely that trying to account for such an erratic variable makes their entire calculation fall apart, which probably turns into a massive headache for their statistical modeling😬
True. People have spent five pages trying to walk him through this, but he just shuts it out.
neonhound10 said:I'm sorry, but that post wasn't actually directed at you.
Besides, you actually know how to hold a decent conversation, unlike some people around here...
As far as I'm concerned...
👍
A real debate involves addressing someone else's points, not just mindlessly repeating your own mantra. If he spent half the time he uses writing these endless essays actually learning what money is, he might realize where he's wrong. You aren't going to win an argument with him. Either ignore him or mock him. Some people choose to be polite and just ignore.
Maria Thomas48 said:Just one thought here:
Very few people can actually work through the math and wrap their heads around the theory of relativity. So, naturally, it’s probably just some difficult nonsense or a total lie.
Every single point made is just full of inaccuracies, which I can see quite clearly even though I'm not an expert in Macroeconomics. There isn't really a need for me to break it down step by step. Those who get it, get it, and those who don't will probably just end up failing the exam or paying for a passing grade.
I'd have plenty more to say about how amateur this all is, but I should probably try to stay polite.
bye
😂 You should've told him.
Don't stop now; we were just starting to catch a glimpse of what you're actually thinking. It's not fair to gatekeep all that wisdom. We can handle a little profanity if it means getting the truth. 😁
wearysailor71 said:Maria Thomas48, I tip my hat to you for putting in all that effort.🙏
You are clearly brilliant—your logical reasoning is quite something to behold.
In my humble opinion, things are looking bleak... the Government is getting stupider by the day,
while the common people are finally starting to wake up...http://hrsvijet.net/index.php?option...rstvo&Itemid=8
I'm worried—the outlook is grim... once the summer passes (after a failed season), the real chaos is going to hit.☕
Is there any better proof needed that democracy has to go? 😁
Maria Thomas48 said:To save everyone some trouble, I put together an Excel spreadsheet to figure out how much inflationary debt builds up if we want to maintain the same real money supply value over the years.
inflation: 3.50%
bank interest: 6.00%
principal: 100
Columns are:Year; Money Supply; Inflationary Mass; Interest Debt; Accrued Interest; Total Debt
0 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 1996.
1 103.50 3.50 0.00 0.21 3.71
2 107.12 7.12 0.21 0.44 7.77
3 110.87 10.87 0.65 0.69 12.21
4 114.75 14.75 1.34 1.19 17.28
5 118.77 18.77 2.53 1.28 22.57
6 122.93 22.93 3.81 1.60 28.34
7 127.23 27.23 5.41 1.96 34.60
8 131.68 31.68 7.37 2.34 41.39
9 136.29 36.29 9.71 2.76 48.76
10 141.06 41.06 12.47 3.21 56.74
11 146.00 46.00 15.68 3.70 65.38
12 151.11 51.11 19.38 4.23 74.72
13 156.40 56.40 23.61 4.80 84.81
14 161.87 61.87 28.41 5.42 95.70 = 2010.
15 167.53 67.53 33.83 6.08 107.45
16 173.40 73.40 39.91 6.80 120.11
17 179.47 79.47 46.71 7.57 133.75
18 185.75 85.75 54.28 8.40 148.43
19 192.25 92.25 62.68 9.30 164.23
20 198.98 98.98 71.98 10.26 181.22
21 205.94 105.94 82.24 11.29 199.47 = 2017.
22 213.15 113.15 93.53 12.40 219.08
23 220.61 113.49 105.93 13.17 232.58
24 228.33 128.33 119.10 14.85 262.27
25 236.32 136.32 133.94 16.22 286.48
26 244.60 144.60 150.16 17.69 312.44
27 253.16 153.16 167.84 19.26 340.26
28 262.02 162.02 187.10 20.95 370.07
29 271.19 171.19 208.05 22.75 401.99 = 2025.
30 280.68 180.68 230.80 24.69 436.17
Conclusion: total interest tends toward the limit of inflation plus bank interest (3.5 + 6 = 9.5) because the inflationary debt and interest debt hit the principal level after just 14 years. When you factor in the trade deficit on top of that, things look even worse.
A practical take on these numbers. With average inflation at 3.5% and borrowing interest at 6%, we have basically reached the point where the initial money supply equals the debt required to generate extra money for inflation this year. In 7 years, the debt will double, and in 15 years, it will be four times larger. And that is just looking at inflation within a strictly credit-based financial system. Even China won't be able to sustain this for long. I heard they are having issues with inflation. This explains why the USA doubles its debt to the Federal Reserve in periods shorter than 6 years and why the borrowing has accelerated. Standard inflation is a clear indicator, but what about those worsening debt parameters?
Does anyone have an economic explanation for this banking perpetual motion machine? Or are we all just being dense and couldn't see this sooner. Maybe we should have learned it in college.
Note that all the money used for inflation comes from someone else's loan—a loan that was essentially sunk just to increase the money supply (to maintain the same real value)—and that party hasn't paid the debt back.
Someone definitely does, though I doubt you'd actually want to hear it.
Maria Thomas48 said:Here's an example of how competition can be a double-edged sword. You go to a farmers market and look at the price of lettuce. Everyone has it for $5.00. It's unlikely they all have the same supplier. Now, consider another idea. I know my lettuce is lower quality, but I still list my price right alongside the others. In doing so, I ruin those who believe they should charge more because they put in more effort. My lettuce was cheaper to produce and it's worse, but I'm preying on the customer's ignorance. From the outside, the lettuce looks the same. Meanwhile, a great producer goes under.
For instance, your brother Luka could sell you birch wood at a slightly lower price. What are you going to tell him? Pure greed. But he could do it. That's the law of the market.
Competition and earnings can run counter to each other. Take banks, for example. They don't really want to compete with each other because it's basically a monopoly. If one raises rates, the other might raise them too because they see a chance to grab even more clients. Then the first one sees there's still room to hike prices further. And so on. It has nothing to do with brains, it's all about greed. Everyone is wrong when a competitor—a serious predator—invests huge amounts of money just to squeeze a little extra cash out of a business.
Here is another example of "good competition." Higher education. Universities are independent and theoretically could raise tuition enough to balance supply and demand. A true economic endeavor. Turning a school into a profit-driven corporation is desirable if you want higher earnings. It's the same with the pharmaceutical industry. Drugs that work but can't be patented in every possible way get hidden away. They need to make as much money as possible, even if it's at the expense of treating people.
Or take Bill Gates. The man made a fortune. Do you think he's thinking about offering products at lower prices? No way. The shareholders would have him ousted immediately. Grab as much cash as you can while you can. There's the Federal Reserve to print more to cover new debt. And who's going to pay for it? Bill Gates doesn't really care.
So much for competition and achieving optimal profit.
We’ve reached the point where solutions from this whole mess... they start looking like socialist or communist ideas. Sure, but those ideas stem from trying to find a source of profit, which in this case is the federal budget deficit (specifically the version involving printing money). It is a democratic right to vote on whether someone's labor is valued more than others—basically, deciding if there should be a cap on wage ratios. Even now, the government does this by demanding pay cuts for corporate executives.
Supporting pay without actual work leads straight to ruin.
First, we have to agree on where a community's indirect profit actually comes from. People still don't want to admit that.
Second. We have to realize that the current financial system isn't a permanent fix because it creates massive debts out of thin air. Take inflation, for example. You're wrong to conclude that the state profits from inflation. That's only true when the government prints the money. Nowadays, it's the banks making the real money, and they make way more. You mentioned correctly that the bank didn't profit because inflation ate it up, but you forgot that the exact same bank provided the entire inflationary sum in the first place.
For instance, looking at the projection after 14 years, the situation is:
Money supply = 161.87%
Inflationary mass = 61.87%
Interest from previous periods: 28.41%
Current interest: 5.42%
Total debt = inflationary mass + previous interest + current interest = 95.70%
Now, if we assume the money has lost value by 1.6187 times and normalize the resulting debt, we get 59.12% of the normalized money supply.
In economic terms, I see the same 100% real value, plus interest on 59% of that value (the inflationary part and the interest). To put it in plain, almost folksy terms: it's like someone telling you that you owe seven of your monthly salaries and you have to pay interest on that throughout the year. You can't even pay back the principal because that money doesn't exist—it's just part of the inflationary money supply. It works out to about 42% of a monthly salary that needs to be spread over 12 months. Maybe that comparison isn't perfect, but it's close. Except that in 8 years, you have to double your payments, and in 15 years, you have to double them again.
After four of those doublings, you'll have to hand over your entire income just to cover the interest on the inflationary mass. Basically, all your earnings will go toward feeding inflation.
The projection shows that by 2018, the normalized money supply and the normalized debt from the inflationary mass will equalize. In economic language, the bank (or several banks) will hold such large claims (due to the growing principal) that they will exceed the entire money supply. For those who grasp this less easily, it means that by then, we will globally become debt slaves with no way out.
So, in just 22 years, with 3.5% inflation and 6% interest, we become debt slaves solely due to the impact of inflation. If we add constant imports, the profits of other entities, and extra borrowing, it means this will happen much sooner. This is exactly what happened in Greece. We are just following their lead.
The projection isn't a perfect picture of reality, of course, but it shows the direction things are heading (even if different numbers are playing the role).
Inflation within a credit-based financial system is a topic they don't even touch in economics classes.
The indirect sources of profit for a community within a credit system (or any system, really) aren't taught in college either.
Analyzing these issues gives you the answer: the system is flawed and unsustainable.
Anyone can think whatever they want about this, but reality is what proves it.
Scarcity is caused exclusively by the credit system and inflation. There is absolutely no foundation for continuous prosperity because bank interest eats everything we have.
You don't need to be an economist to see the link between the system and the crisis. Everyone in this system is in a crisis (with very rare exceptions).
If someone is studying economics, they should ask these red questions to a competent professor. I'm really curious to hear the answer. They wouldn't give me one.
Cheers
😂
Quote : The | One
David Williams7 said:It’s pretty obvious what’s actually going on here. This isn't about some recession or crisis or any of that nonsense. That's just the cover story. What we're looking at is straight-up financial terrorism. It's the final act—an attempt to dismantle every major global economy to build the New World Order from the ashes. Just keep an eye on the dollar; America will be the first to go down. They're getting sloppy in this final phase, too. They can't hide behind the usual excuses anymore because they have to take action, and their window is closing fast. A lot of people feel that sense of unease in the air, just like you did. Now it just comes down to who wins: us or them. Our edge is numbers; their edge is that most people are asleep at the wheel. We'll see how it plays out.
The New World Order is nothing but pure fascism and debt-based slavery. It’s a prison planet—basically hell on earth. Nothing good in it for us.
But hey, this is an economics forum and I'm just rambling on about nonsense, so I'm sure everything will be fine. I mean, look how long we've been stuck in this "crisis."🤣
So, what’s the deal here? Are the Illuminati actually lurking on this forum and pivoting their entire strategy because of us?
15.7.2009.
Quote : The | One
David Williams7 said:I’ll tell you exactly how global politics is going to play out over the next six months.
A swine flu pandemic is coming. First, the UK and the US will push voluntary vaccinations, then they’ll make them mandatory. It’s all being orchestrated under the WHO. Just a heads-up: this whole swine flu thing is a scam. Don't get vaccinated, not even if they force you. Swine flu isn't lethal.
They’re going to try to force the Treaty of Lisbon through the European Union. Anyone who stands in its way in Ireland will be branded a terrorist.
3. Building an eternal government.
Potential flashpoints on the horizon: Israel vs. Iran, China vs. India, and America vs. North Korea.
So, what exactly would be better—having Eric Adams or John Catsimatidis running the country?
The government works for the voters.
Put together a group of retirees, doctors, professors, judges, cops, farmers, railroad workers, actors... you’ll start seeing those voters in a whole different light.😁
Gregory Williams7 said:Sunscreen is still here 😁 and Cifrek keeps reciting that Latin oath along with that video about the university's history. It was a truly unique experience for me; I had never actually attended a graduation ceremony before, mostly due to the massive crowds at other schools
Look, if that doesn't happen, my MIT degree doesn't count.🧐
He’s just slathering on the lotion...😬
Gregory Williams7 said:My friend... during my graduation ceremony a few months ago, Vedran Mornar stated:
"We taught you very little information at this university, and that is our success and our pride..."
If that sentence doesn't make things clear to you, then I understand why you are right and why you defend him. In that case, I will say nothing more.😉
P.S. This is merely an addition to your thousand pages; nothing personal.😉
Are they still playing that Sunscreen video at graduations?