Posts by neonhound10

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly don't see how one could even attempt a different response to such a mindless analogy—it’s completely disconnected from reality, isn't it? Aside from being equally flawed, of course.

At its core, recursion is really just circling back to where you started, which means there isn't actually any measurement taking place at all...

Why on earth would it be stupid?

It honestly feels like you're just being defensive by leaning on flawed assumptions.

I mean, what is the whole point of money anyway?

Is it meant to just sit there gathering dust, or is it supposed to actually circulate through the economy?

Selfishness is just part of being human, I suppose...

And if we look at why things suddenly grind to a halt, isn't it because people stop spending? Is that it or what?

From where I'm standing, my analogy holds up perfectly fine. We clearly just see things through different lenses, but that doesn't give you the right to jump to conclusions when nobody truly knows for sure or can predict how things will play out. My take is that a massive drop in consumer spending is incredibly damaging to society, because at the very least, it’s the first big sign that people's quality of life and personal standards are starting to slip...

I'm actually pretty bummed that I can't track down that specific interview with that one official from the Federal Reserve who was answering all those strange and fascinating questions... there was even some talk back then about getting rid of physical cash entirely...

That’s funny, you keep circling back like a bit of recursion... 😬

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, they aren't adding blood here—it's just distilled water. Besides, nobody is actually short on blood anyway.

But then again, the same could be said about the money too...

Andrew Booth29 said:So, I guess the best move is to just leave the blood volume alone, right?

Not necessarily.

Have you ever heard that a healthy guy can actually donate about a pound of blood every three months... just to lend a hand to people in need??

Nicole Collins13 said: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.

It seems we clearly missed each other here, as you didn't quite catch my point about the chain reaction...
But it doesn't really matter, we're fundamentally coming from different places, and continuing this would just turn into a game of verbal ping-pong...

Nicole Collins13 said: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.

I actually agree with this, it's a stance I've taken before...

Andrew Booth29 said:It’s just as obvious to you what would happen if someone just shot you—imagine having five liters of distilled water forced straight into your bloodstream...

I'm really glad we finally managed to see eye to eye on this one...

It’s pretty obvious what happens once the heart just stops pumping blood...

Nicole Collins13 said: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. 👍

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... 🙂

Nicole Collins13 said: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. 😉

🙂

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

😉

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...😬

Nicole Collins13 said:It doesn't matter whose opinion it is. What matters is whether it's true or not.

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

I mean, sure, if we’re just talking about tiny amounts of money, that’s one thing...

But let’s look at the bigger picture—if you actually had $500 $0.00 sitting there, would you really feel comfortable keeping all that cash tucked away in a single bank account and stuck in just one currency?

Obviously, there’s no such thing as a foolproof safety net, but you really have to weigh that against what kind of interest rate you're actually willing to settle for...

At the end of the day, every single investment carries some level of risk, and there’s simply no such thing as absolute protection...

Charles Ramos7 said:Why not just stick to the insured limit? 🤷
Spreading it out helps you snag better interest rates and makes you look like a much more solid client to them.

The problem is that everything looks perfect on paper here, but once you run into a real-world situation, you quickly realize how fast the whole thing starts falling apart... 😉

I've seen this happen with all sorts of different insurance policies, and honestly, it seems like we're seeing the exact same pattern with home savings accounts too...

That's just how things work in America.

You can't really expect to find everything you need all under one roof at a single bank 😉
...

Nicole Collins13 said:Perspective has nothing to do with it.

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

Maria Thomas48 said:I'm not entirely sure, honestly. I don't have enough expertise on the subject to say for certain that it's wrong. It just feels like someone has to pay for quality with quantity.

If you're looking for more, there's actually a really solid PDF called PARADOKS.pdf floating around online, which covers a bunch of economic paradoxes that might just spark a fresh idea for you...

Value is something you build from the ground up, and money works exactly the same way.

On the flip side, when you look at import and export dynamics—say, between the USA and the European Union—you don't necessarily have to print more cash to see a shift; sometimes it’s just about the exchange rate adjusting itself, which creates this sort of illusion where the actual amount of money stays the same, but its purchasing power effectively climbs...

Nicole Collins13 said:It isn't.

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

That airport is definitely going to pay off its initial investment—and I’ll admit I might be stretching things a bit there, since an airport is really such a vital public utility—but it’s absolutely going to end up turning a profit...