The consequences of Bitcoin

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Ah yes, a temporary government program. I can't wait to see the politicians try to sell us that one with straight faces.

Oh look, a political argument - nothing to do with economics, just the usual anti-government crap.

Valmont wrote: »

Let us consider the fact that the private sector can't afford to hire X amount of workers at price Y. The state then taxes the private sector to raise funds to employ these workers until the economy has recovered. With the private sector now paying for the jobs program and contending with an already bad economic environment, they have even less money than before to spend on new workers, with these new workers necessarily finding temporary employment with, hey presto, the job guarantee scheme, which is now starting to grow bigger and bigger. All this program would do is transfer large amounts of wealth from the private sector to the state and its new dependants, strangling the productive capacity of the private sector in the process and of course with it, any hope of recovery. Which of course defeats the point of the whole thing! Price controls have never worked and they never will.

So you want to destroy wage levels, likely affecting working hours too, and depress the private economy further through that (make it reach bottom before it starts to build up again), which will destroy quality of life levels.

The aim is to fix the economy btw, not destroy it.

My solution, retains wages, boosts hours, and instead of having a general fall in quality of life for everyone with some being thrown to the gutters (as we have now), we have a smaller fall in quality of life with nobody going to the gutters.

Your 'destroy the economy' solution can't compete with that.


Also - you know what policies I advocate for funding this, and it is not taxation, so that is a straw-man there; I advocate both stimulus and a cut in taxation.

Valmont

Yes, I figured as much. I think we can safely place your non-tax funded temporary government jobs program in the pile with the loaves and the fishes, flying pigs, and alchemy. It's funny, with your proclaimed benefits of printing money one would wonder why the government needs to tax anyone at all!

PeadarCo

Kyuss Bishop a question. Could you explain how Zimbabwe benefited from its relatively recently bout of printing money that had the aim of producing full employment. Given as a result it had to abandon its own currency it appear when your printing money theory is put into operation it produces very different results from what it claim it should do.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh look, a political argument - nothing to do with economics, just the usual anti-government crap.

Eh? Your prescribed economic policy is inseparable from government politics. You have to defend it on both economic and political grounds.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Yes, I figured as much. I think we can safely place your non-tax funded temporary government jobs program in the pile with the loaves and the fishes, flying pigs, and alchemy. It's funny, with your proclaimed benefits of printing money one would wonder why the government needs to tax anyone at all!

Discard it if you like, but don't pretend to have an actual argument against it.

Almost every argument presented as being against it, is arguing against what it is not; endless straw-men usually, or making false assertions about economics (that it conflicts with), and presenting them as 'fact' or immutable economic law, when that is wrong (in other words, saying it is wrong, because it does not match economic theory that itself is wrong - like saying astrophysics is wrong because it doesn't match astrology).

There has not been a single argument that directly tackles it and doesn't get something major completely wrong (whether that being economic theory it gets wrong, or what it's arguing against).

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

Kyuss Bishop a question. Could you explain how Zimbabwe benefited from its relatively recently bout of printing money that had the aim of producing full employment. Given as a result it had to abandon its own currency it appear when your printing money theory is put into operation it produces very different results from what it claim it should do.

Yes I'm sure the extreme political situation, of massive industrial/output collapse due to land takeovers, and 80% unemployment, had nothing to do with that.

This is why hyperinflation scaremongering is so ridiculous: People espousing it are almost in every case, completely ignorant of the actual causes of hyperinflation in each cited example.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Eh? Your prescribed economic policy is inseparable from government politics. You have to defend it on both economic and political grounds.

The arguments being presented, reduce to an assertion about what governments will do, and just repeating "yes they will", "yes they will" again and again, with no actual argument or backing.

If posters are not wrongly using a political argument to imply they have a valid economic argument, then in effect, you all agree that it is economically possible then, but you just disagree about what politicians will do, yes?
That would sure resolve a lot of debate here.

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes I'm sure the extreme political situation, of massive industrial/output collapse due to land takeovers, and 80% unemployment, had nothing to do with that.

This is why hyperinflation scaremongering is so ridiculous: People espousing it are almost in every case, completely ignorant of the actual causes of hyperinflation in each cited example.

Grand their economy was going through a rough patch. Industrial output was falling unemployment was on the way up, government nationalised certain industries. Obviously things were worse than they are here but replace land with bank and you have something along the same lines just not quite as bad.

The solution was to basically to print money just as you advocate which should result in 100% employment etc. Given you have been able to a reasonably detailed summary of how your theory works could you do the same on why it didn't work here and why Zimbabwe was an exception. Or will you ignore it as you've done above.

Valmont

KyussBishop, considering your support of fiat currencies and printing money in general (and the sticking point of our current disagreement) perhaps you could explain why we don't simply print a few hundred billion euros, dish it out to various government departments and individuals and solve our economic woes? Do you support something along these lines and if not, why?

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

If posters are not wrongly using a political argument to imply they have a valid economic argument, then in effect, you all agree that it is economically possible then, but you just disagree about what politicians will do, yes?
That would sure resolve a lot of debate here.

No I don't agree your solution is economically possible, I disagree on the notion of excess capacity, excess capacity to build housing on mass and excess labour yes I agree, excess capacity to do just anything else isn't there. And then you place government in the role of investor, who decide on the advice of a small bunch of technocrats on what to invest in. Large central plans can't allocate as efficiently as a market. And then on the purely political end, it would be ripe for corruption.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

Grand their economy was going through a rough patch. Industrial output was falling unemployment was on the way up, government nationalised certain industries. Obviously things were worse than they are here but replace land with bank and you have something along the same lines just not quite as bad.

The solution was to basically to print money just as you advocate which should result in 100% employment etc. Given you have been able to a reasonably detailed summary of how your theory works could you do the same on why it didn't work here and why Zimbabwe was an exception. Or will you ignore it as you've done above.

Now you're just being facetious - you know full well it's bollocks to compare 80% unemployment because of destroyed industrial capacity, to the current crisis, where we don't face such an enormous effective physical destruction of the economy like Zimbabwe.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

KyussBishop, considering your support of fiat currencies and printing money in general (and the sticking point of our current disagreement) perhaps you could explain why we don't simply print a few hundred billion euros, dish it out to various government departments and individuals and solve our economic woes? Do you support something along these lines and if not, why?

I'm not going to debate from the position of a straw-man or other made-up position; I've posted very clearly and repeatedly over what I advocate, so respond to that, instead of making up positions to pin on me.

Do you have any arguments against what I advocate (what I actually advocate, not what gets pinned on me), or do you agree with the actual economics, just disagree about what politicians will do?

If you do disagree with the economics, you can then provide an economic argument backing that.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

No I don't agree your solution is economically possible, I disagree on the notion of excess capacity, excess capacity to build housing on mass and excess labour yes I agree, excess capacity to do just anything else isn't there. And then you place government in the role of investor, who decide on the advice of a small bunch of technocrats on what to invest in. Large central plans can't allocate as efficiently as a market. And then on the purely political end, it would be ripe for corruption.

Ok, so you need to describe the economic problems with it, separate to the political problems. You (and everyone else) have failed to provide an actual economic argument against it, that holds up (or isn't just an outright straw-man).

Do you disagree, that inflation is primarily a resource problem, and that when using money creation, it is unavoidable(*) primarily when full economic-output/employment is reached, and that inflation caused before reaching that point, is a distributional/efficiency problem with where money is being spent? (with money being spent on resources of limited supply, when it should be reallocated to more abundant resources)

Do you also disagree, that where there is an abundance of physical resources for manufacturing, that inflation in areas of the private economy caused by retooling production, is a temporary problem only? (caused by temporarily constrained supply of manufactured goods - where production will be ramped up to resolve this)

If you agree with that, then it's very easy to draw a path to the policies I advocate - the remaining arguments being largely just political.


(*) and don't cut my post up at this word, which a lot of posters use a cheap rhetorical tactic - that would be misrepresenting me and avoiding my actual argument.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not going to debate from the position of a straw-man or other made-up position; I've posted very clearly and repeatedly over what I advocate, so respond to that, instead of making up positions to pin on me.

Do you have any arguments against what I advocate (what I actually advocate, not what gets pinned on me), or do you agree with the actual economics, just disagree about what politicians will do?

If you do disagree with the economics, you can then provide an economic argument backing that.

I'm not saying you advocate dropping money from a helicopter, but I would like to know why not? Are you going to keep dodging this question? Why can't we print our way to prosperity? If you don't have an answer for this most rudimentary question on 'stimulus' then it is going to be very hard for those reading to take your money-printing solutions seriously going forward.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

And then you place government in the role of investor, who decide on the advice of a small bunch of technocrats on what to invest in. Large central plans can't allocate as efficiently as a market. And then on the purely political end, it would be ripe for corruption.

Actually I missed a bit - this is wrong, and another straw-man, I have never advocated a centrally planned economy.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not saying you advocate dropping money from a helicopter, but I would like to know why not? Are you going to keep dodging this question? Why can't we print our way to prosperity? If you don't have an answer for this most rudimentary question on 'stimulus' then it is going to be very hard for those reading to take your money-printing solutions seriously going forward.

I'm not going to answer that, because it is a question designed to distract from what I actually advocate - what is so hard about arguing against what I am advocating, instead of making up positions that I do not support?

You and most other Austrians will never take money printing seriously, because you are irrationally and rabidly anti-government (even when it leads to advocating policies that ultimately harm you) - I'm not posting to convince you.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Actually I missed a bit - this is wrong, and another straw-man, I have never advocated a centrally planned economy.

I never said you did so stop looking for strawmen that are not there. You don't advocate a centrally planned economy but you do advocate central planning on a large scale involving state technocrats putting masses, possibly hundreds of thousands of unemployed to work.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I never said you did so stop looking for strawmen that are not there. You don't advocate a centrally planned economy but you do advocate central planning on a large scale involving state technocrats putting masses, possibly hundreds of thousands of unemployed to work.

No I don't advocate central planning, I advocate a temporary jobs program (which can have a whole mix of policies for implementation), taking only workers the private sector doesn't want (and, as much as possible, focusing on using resources that are abundant, so as not to affect private sector access to those resources).

That is a world of difference to the usual ideological descriptions of central planning (particularly, most of the standard criticisms used against that, do not apply with this) - calling it that is a huge oversimplification, which ignores how this is directly aimed at avoiding an impact on the private economy.

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Now you're just being facetious - you know full well it's bollocks to compare 80% unemployment because of destroyed industrial capacity, to the current crisis, where we don't face such an enormous effective physical destruction of the economy like Zimbabwe.

I'm being serious. Its fair to argue that the housing boom did destroy some capacity in the Irish economy as it left large number of people with inadequate skills and businesses with assets that were set up to build houses. That like destroying a factory can't be rebuilt/changed overnight. Yet in the Irish case you argue printing money combined with state control would sort out the problem. The only difference you argue is the enormity of it. In Zimbabwe the government printed money and had control over the allocation of the states resources which is exactly what you advocate.

At what rough % unemployment, level of industrial destruction etc does your theory not work. What is the tipping point?

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm being serious. Its fair to argue that the housing boom did destroy some capacity in the Irish economy as it left large number of people with inadequate skills and businesses with assets that were set up to build houses. That like destroying a factory can't be rebuilt/changed overnight. Yet in the Irish case you argue printing money combined with state control would sort out the problem. The only difference you argue is the enormity of it. In Zimbabwe the government printed money and had control over the allocation of the states resources which is exactly what you advocate.

At what rough % unemployment, level of industrial destruction etc does your theory not work. What is the tipping point?

No you know the two are simply not comparable - it's ridiculously obvious that massive destruction of industry causes inflation all over the economy, due to sudden loss in availability of many supplies, causing widespread supply-shock inflation.

Right here we have industry, and a lack of money in the private sector to fund enough of it and consumer spending, and we (Europe) have resources where workers can be put to productive use in temporary employment, until the private sector recovers and retools.

I mean really, comparing massive industrial destruction and 80% unemployment to this crisis, is economically illiterate at best - it comes across more as just downright rhetoric and hyperinflation scaremongering here than anything else.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

No you know the two are simply not comparable - it's ridiculously obvious that massive destruction of industry causes inflation all over the economy, due to sudden loss in availability of many supplies, causing widespread supply-shock inflation.

It would cause a once of inflation or devaluation of the existing currency supply vs goods and services, the spiraling out of control inflation can only come from continuous monetary expansion.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

I mean really, comparing massive industrial destruction and 80% unemployment to this crisis, is economically illiterate at best - it comes across more as just downright rhetoric and hyperinflation scaremongering here than anything else.

Yeah but Peadar has asked at what level of unemployment and industrial destruction does your theory stop working? If a government can print money to successfully allocate unemployed in cases where unemployment is 10-20%, how about over 30%, and where is the tipping point? If 80% is obviously to far, why?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

It would cause a once of inflation or devaluation of the existing currency supply vs goods and services, the spiraling out of control inflation can only come from continuous monetary expansion.

So you agree the hyperinflation was started off by the industrial destruction (and was only continued, not started, with government spending) - grand, we can dispense with Zimbabwe as completely incomparable and an instance of scaremongering then.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Yeah but Peadar has asked at what level of unemployment and industrial destruction does your theory stop working? If a government can print money to successfully allocate unemployed in cases where unemployment is 10-20%, how about over 30%, and where is the tipping point? If 80% is obviously to far, why?

What industrial destruction? We have industry, and plenty of capacity for retooling it and ramping up production in existing industry.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you agree the hyperinflation was started off by the industrial destruction (and was only continued, not started, with government spending) - grand, we can dispense with Zimbabwe as completely incomparable and an instance of scaremongering then.

When Zimbabwe went to ****, when they were in crises and an irresponsible government had set hyperinflation on its way, would your solution not apply in that scenario, if a new government took over and had the chance to implement it?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When Zimbabwe went to ****, when they were in crises and an irresponsible government had set hyperinflation on its way, would your solution not apply in that scenario, if a new government took over and had the chance to implement it?

You just agreed that their government did not set hyperinflation on the way, that it was started by industrial destruction (which makes it incomparable to the current crisis); I don't disagree that their government continued it, that is just totally incomparable to what I advocate because they did not start it.

That's incompetent management of a hyperinflating economy, it is not causing the economy to become hyperinflationary.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not going to answer that

If, as you say, the government can print money to pay for a jobs program that will bring the economy back to full health then why don't they just print money full stop? And further, if printed money can substitute for tax money -- as it does in your program -- why not just stop taxation entirely and print all the money needed?

I'm guessing we're getting a 'no comment' on these questions too?

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

What industrial destruction? We have industry, and plenty of capacity for retooling it and ramping up production in existing industry.

Bastiats seen and the unseen, some of the destruction is very visible, ghost housing estates and all the materials that went into them are as good as destroyed, those 120,000 or so excess that gained employment in construction in the bubble years and created construction capacity at the expense of sustainable capacity in other industry might not be as obvious. Unneeded capacity in construction at the expense of manufacturing or whatever else represents a massive destruction of our industrial capacity relative to where it could have been.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

If, as you say, the government can print money to pay for a jobs program that will bring the economy back to full health then why don't they just print money full stop? And further, if printed money can substitute for tax money -- as it does in your program -- why not just stop taxation entirely and print all the money needed?

I'm guessing we're getting a 'no comment' on these questions too?

There are good/insightful points to be drawn from answering this, but it will lead to a completely sidetracking discussion, when I want to focus on this current one and see if anyone can come up with a competent economic argument against what I advocate.

It seems nobody can (just wildly misrepresenting what I advocate usually, or making false assertions about economics), and I want to press that.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

You just agreed that their government did not set hyperinflation on the way, that it was started by industrial destruction (which makes it incomparable to the current crisis);

No I said it would have caused a one off devaluation, a big difference, there would have been no hyperinflation but for government. The cost of maintaining the same level of government went up, they could have trimmed the public sector, but instead they decided to print and make sure the public sector got theirs, cost of government went up again, and they persisted in printing more and more and set the spiral on its way.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Bastiats seen and the unseen, some of the destruction is very visible, ghost housing estates and all the materials that went into them are as good as destroyed, those 120,000 or so excess that gained employment in construction in the bubble years and created construction capacity at the expense of sustainable capacity in other industry might not be as obvious. Unneeded capacity in construction at the expense of manufacturing or whatever else represents a massive destruction of our industrial capacity relative to where it could have been.

You don't destroy productive capacity when you stop constructing things - that's totally incomparable to Zimbabwe.

Are you seriously saying or trying to imply that we don't have the physical ability to ramp up and/or retool production in our economies?

If you are not saying that, then there is no impediment to what I advocate, because we just do exactly that - ramp-up and retool production where needed (we can even leave that almost entirely up to the private markets).

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

No I said it would have caused a one off devaluation, a big difference, there would have been no hyperinflation but for government. The cost of maintaining the same level of government went up, they could have trimmed the public sector, but instead they decided to print and make sure the public sector got theirs, cost of government went up again, and they persisted in printing more and more and set the spiral on its way.

You said it would cause a once-off inflation, and you left out the hyperinflation part of that.

Prove that there would have been no start to hyperinflation, without government.

I don't disagree that their government managed the economy incompetently, but you are misattributing the start of hyperinflation.

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

What industrial destruction? We have industry, and plenty of capacity for retooling it and ramping up production in existing industry.

Part of our industrial capacity was destroyed in the short term and a small amount longterm(The small number of people who will never retrain an unfortunately never work again.)

The thing about hyperinflation in Zimbabwe everything I have read saying printing money was the major reason hence they had to abandon their own currency. I'll ask you again at what point of unemployment does your theory not work. Why exactly did it not work in Zimbabwe? If you argue industrial destruction why can't the government print money to buy new equipment? This is something if you policies were implemented in Ireland would need to be done anyway. Every project has working capital costs.

Or will you refuse to answer questions as you have done so far. If you want people to adopt your theory it has to be able to stand up to robust criticism.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

Part of our industrial capacity was destroyed in the short term and a small amount longterm(The small number of people who will never retrain an unfortunately never work again.)

Lol - they are just lazy I guess, yea?

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing about hyperinflation in Zimbabwe everything I have read saying printing money was the major reason hence they had to abandon their own currency. I'll ask you again at what point of unemployment does your theory not work. Why exactly did it not work in Zimbabwe? If you argue industrial destruction why can't the government print money to buy new equipment? This is something if you policies were implemented in Ireland would need to be done anyway. Every project has working capital costs.

Or will you refuse to answer questions as you have done so far. If you want people to adopt your theory it has to be able to stand up to robust criticism.

You need to research the case of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe more accurately then - the post I linked earlier on this is very detailed:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773

Your question is irrelevant - you are asking me to answer a question relating to massive industrial destruction, when that does not apply to our current economy.

You are not open to convincing, I can tell by your methods of argument and posting you have no interest in anything other than remaining eternally 'unconvinced' - I don't care about convincing you.

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Lol - they are just lazy I guess, yea?

No they're not. They might not get the opportunity to retrain. Lose the habit of working, depression etc. And I'm taking about a small number in the long term. In the medium term as you can see in the unemployment figures a significant number are long term unemployed. Basically human factors.

KyussBishop wrote: »

You need to research the case of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe more accurately then - the post I linked earlier on this is very detailed:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773

Do you have anything that peer reviewed or thats being actually published in something approaching a respected outlet. Anyone can write a blog site and stick up some fancy credentials. Heck the person writing the blog could be you for all I know.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your question is irrelevant - you are asking me to answer a question relating to massive industrial destruction, when that does not apply to our current economy.

You are not open to convincing, I can tell by your methods of argument and posting you have no interest in anything other than remaining eternally 'unconvinced' - I don't care about convincing you.

I am interested in your views but then again the above is a fairly typical response from you. If someone is actually interested and starts asking questions instead of just agreeing with you don't want to know.

It appear you don't what to answer because Zimbabwe appear to be an example of how your theory doesn't work in the real world where all theories have to be tested. Again feel free to give a detailed thought out response to the questions myself and others have posed to you.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

You said it would cause a once-off inflation, and you left out the hyperinflation part of that.

If you want to call a one off devaluation(a one off inflation) a hyperinflation and remain ignorant of the differences, ok I forgot the hyper part.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

Do you have anything that peer reviewed or thats being actually published in something approaching a respected outlet. Anyone can write a blog site and stick up some fancy credentials. Heck the person writing the blog could be you for all I know.

Do you have anything peer-reviewed showing hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was not caused by industrial collapse? (a peer review showing government contribution to hyperinflation won't cut it - need to show what started it)

PeadarCo wrote: »

I am interested in your views but then again the above is a fairly typical response from you. If someone is actually interested and starts asking questions instead of just agreeing with you don't want to know.

It appear you don't what to answer because Zimbabwe appear to be an example of how your theory doesn't work in the real world where all theories have to be tested. Again feel free to give a detailed thought out response to the questions myself and others have posed to you.

I've learned not to expect honest intent from question around topics like this, they are more designed as rhetoric a lot of the time.

I'm focusing on a specific topic: Can anyone come up with a valid (non-misrepresentative, non-flawed-economic-theory-based) argument, against my views?

None of you have, and none of your seem bothered to even acknowledge whether or not you actually disagree with my statements about inflation and how it relates to full economic-output/employment - you only want to distract.

It's my impression, that posters are just asking random unrelated questions to try and deflect away from my focus, and to manufacture an excuse to avoid my primary argument.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If you want to call a one off devaluation(a one off inflation) a hyperinflation and remain ignorant of the differences, ok I forgot the hyper part.

You called it an inflation. Now you're engaging in semantics over the defintion of 'hyperinflation', where it suits your attempt to pin the blame on government.

If it started because of the industrial collapse (and it did...), then Zimbabwe is totally inapplicable to any of the policies I advocate, and using it as an example is both wrong and an instance of scaremongering, where the people making that comparison also happen to be fully aware it is nonsense.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

You called it an inflation. Now you're engaging in semantics over the defintion of 'hyperinflation', where it suits your attempt to pin the blame on government.

Its impossible to have the continuous spiraling of prices without the government printing part. If you have a stagnant supply of money and the supply of goods and services crashes by 50% you will roughly have a 50% price rise, the spiraling out of control 100%, 1000%, 10000% price rises can't happen unless the government reacts by printing money.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you have anything peer-reviewed showing hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was not caused by industrial collapse? (a peer review showing government contribution to hyperinflation won't cut it - need to show what started it).

I guess that was a no.:D

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Its impossible to have the continuous spiraling of prices without the government printing part. If you have a stagnant supply of money and the supply of goods and services crashes by 50% you will roughly have a 50% price rise, the spiraling out of control 100%, 1000%, 10000% price rises can't happen unless the government reacts by printing money.

Something has to set it off. We all know printing money contributes to hyperinflation, and that government can cause it to continue (even accelerate) is not what is relevant, it is what starts it - which in Zimbabwe's case is massive industrial destruction.

In trying to straw-man the policies I advocate, by comparison to Zimbabwe, you have no explanation of the mechanism that is supposed to set it off in the first place.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I guess that was a no.:D

If he wants to get demanding in details (just for the sake of obstinacy), he should try to back his own claims to the same standards first - I'm not wasting time going on a fishing expedition, when I know there is probable dishonest intent behind the demands (it's not exactly hard for him to do his own searching, to verify the industrial destruction).

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you have anything peer-reviewed showing hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was not caused by industrial collapse? (a peer review showing government contribution to hyperinflation won't cut it - need to show what started it).
[...]

Something has to set it off. We all know printing money contributes to hyperinflation, and that government can cause it to continue (even accelerate) is not what is relevant, it is what starts it - which in Zimbabwe's case is massive industrial destruction.

Lol you have set yourself up well here.:pac:

There have been plenty of examples where industrial capacity has been completely shot to pieces and no government hyperinflation, the thing that is common to all hyperinflations is the government printing, but you want to pin it on what they are printing in response to despite other governments choosing not to print in similar circumstances. Your clinging to that magical money tree for life and your not letting go.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Lol you have set yourself up well here.:pac:

There have been plenty of examples where industrial capacity has been completely shot to pieces and no government hyperinflation, the thing that is common to all hyperinflations is the government printing, but you want to pin it on what they are printing in response to despite other governments choosing not to print in similar circumstances. Your clinging to that magical money tree for life and your not letting go.

I've never said government doesn't contribute to it - it is what starts it that matters.

You fail to show any mechanism to start it, in Europe's current economy.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

You fail to show any mechanism to start it, in Europe's current economy.

I don't expect hyperinflation in the EZ.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I don't expect hyperinflation in the EZ.

Then it's rather pointless even discussing it - hyperinflation isn't going to happen by engaging in the policies I advocate (especially since they are inflation-target limited anyway).

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Then it's rather pointless even discussing it - hyperinflation isn't going to happen by engaging in the policies I advocate (especially since they are inflation-target limited anyway).

It is worth discussing if you can admit your policy would not have come to the rescue of Zimbabwe once hyperinflation was underway, we learn that your theory is only applicable in the bust part of a typical boom bust cycle. Or even before the hyperinflation got underway would your policy have been any use to ZB?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

It is worth discussing if you can admit your policy would not have come to the rescue of Zimbabwe once hyperinflation was underway, we learn that your theory is only applicable in the bust part of a typical boom bust cycle.

Eh? My policies can only ever apply during the bust part of the cycle - the job guarantee is an economic stabilizer that is only activated then.

I don't care about Zimbabwe, people are pretending the Zimbabwe example applies to my policies in Europe - they are wrong.

Once again, there appears to be no actual argument against my policies as applied to Europe? (if not, why do posters dance around that and not just either agree with it, or state what argument they have against it - an argument not involving straw-men or false economic theory)

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Once again, there appears to be no actual argument against my policies as applied to Europe? (if not, why do posters dance around that and not just either agree with it, or state what argument they have against it - an argument not involving straw-men or false economic theory)

OK ZB aside and lets assume no1 has an argument against your theory can you just tell us more about how it works? Just two questions for now.

ECB currently targets 2% inflation, whats your target?
How do you select workers for the job program? I assume it is introduced gradually to test your inflation target?

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you have anything peer-reviewed showing hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was not caused by industrial collapse? (a peer review showing government contribution to hyperinflation won't cut it - need to show what started it)


I've learned not to expect honest intent from question around topics like this, they are more designed as rhetoric a lot of the time.

I'm focusing on a specific topic: Can anyone come up with a valid (non-misrepresentative, non-flawed-economic-theory-based) argument, against my views?

None of you have, and none of your seem bothered to even acknowledge whether or not you actually disagree with my statements about inflation and how it relates to full economic-output/employment - you only want to distract.

It's my impression, that posters are just asking random unrelated questions to try and deflect away from my focus, and to manufacture an excuse to avoid my primary argument.

You want material here's some.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dpa6.pdf

http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/IMF/2007/abril/wp0799.pdf


As you might see both acknowledge there was more to Zimbabwe's situation. I wasn't saying there wasn't any economic problem is complex hence they are difficult to resolve. What I do dispute and you acknowledge yourself is that printing money doesn't work. A small amount for example as done in the USA can help. But thats not what you advocate. You advocate printing money and government control of resource's until we get 100% employment etc.

It would be nice if dropped the personal attacks it doesn't do anything but show how ill thought out your theory is given that that when people go and try to poke holes it they obviously succeed very easily. As your responses to questions evidently show.