Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The consequences of Bitcoin
Comments
-
I've outlined loads how it works, and (sidestepping the above) it all goes back to the arguments on inflation; as I posted earlier: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?KyussBishop wrote: »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.
So the inflation target is only a restriction on the rate that the job guarantee program can ramp-up (and the looser you set that initially, within a limit to avoid excessive inflation e.g. <4%, the faster you can ramp that up)
You might ramp up the inflation target temporarily (lets say 4%), and then pull it right back when the program is up - this is well within safe bounds.
Workers are selected just by being unemployed - since it's a job guarantee.
I encourage looking at the overall macroeconomic description in my quoted post - it sidesteps a lot of minutiae/wrangling over the ins and outs over the precise details of what the final policy would look like; once that general overview is agreeable, then it's easier to flesh out the details.0 -
Workers are selected just by being unemployed - since it's a job guarantee.
I meant how does this happen how do you choose from the unemployed, you are not taking all the unemployed on the program are you? If not you have to choose which unemployed to give these jobs to.0 -
Cato is not peer reviewed neither is it reliable, the second paper might as well only specify "there was hyperinflation", not what triggered it in the first place.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.
We both know printing money doesn't solve hyperinflation, that is not the discussion (and pretending that is the discussion is a straw-man, as I have never claimed that or defended a claim like it).
We are talking about what starts hyperinflation, and there is no indication that it is just magically going to happen with Europe engaging in the policies I advocate.
I also don't advocate government control over resources, so that's another straw-man; I advocate government using up resources private industry does not want, until private industry wants them again.
I'm engaging in personal criticisms of peoples methods of argument - that's not a personal attack.0 -
Yes, a job guarantee will employ all of the unemployed (it might need to ramp up slowly, within inflation targets, but it aims to employ them all).I meant how does this happen how do you choose from the unemployed, you are not taking all the unemployed on the program are you? If not you have to choose which unemployed to give these jobs to.
The details over the specific jobs they can be given, are best to come after hashing out the macroeconomic descriptions (about inflation and how it relates to full employment etc.) in my previous post.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Yes, a job guarantee will employ all of the unemployed (it might need to ramp up slowly, within inflation targets, but it aims to employ them all).
If you need to ramp it up slowly to thread carefully with inflation targets you have to choose, so how?0 -
It depends on the work you want done, and the workers abilities - as I said, the details of the work that can be done, are best left until after the basic macroeconomic argument around inflation is agreeable, otherwise it's going to be endless nitpicking over the details of the job program, while missing the bigger picture.If you need to ramp it up slowly to thread carefully with inflation targets you have to choose, so how?
Once the bigger picture is agreed, it becomes solely a logistical/practical problem.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Cato is not peer reviewed neither is it reliable, the second paper might as well only specify "there was hyperinflation", not what triggered it in the first place.
We both know printing money doesn't solve hyperinflation, that is not the discussion (and pretending that is the discussion is a straw-man, as I have never claimed that or defended a claim like it).
We are talking about what starts hyperinflation, and there is no indication that it is just magically going to happen with Europe engaging in the policies I advocate.
I also don't advocate government control over resources, so that's another straw-man; I advocate government using up resources private industry does not want, until private industry wants them again.
I'm engaging in personal criticisms of peoples methods of argument - that's not a personal attack.
Fair enough if don't want to accept Cato. In the IMF report you will not one of the solutions proposed is a strong monetary anchor. To me after reading the document that means stop printing money.
The topic I am debating with you is how your theory works in the real world. You do advocate government control over resources so specifically what "you believe" to be spare/unused resources. Hyperinflation will happen if you print too much money. On an extreme level hand everyone 1 million tomorrow and watch prices shoot up. If your not doing that your advocating printing money on a limited basis as in the US. Which is presently working. Obviously there is a tipping point between acceptable and hyperinflation. Problem is no one knows where it is and the target moves depending on economy hence some people are uneasy with printing money.
All this means you need to develop your theory further. Within what limits does it work, when does it not, when should it be used when not. I don't expect you to answer these questions because you clearly don't know yourself. However I assume in time if you work on your idea you will in future or if not you'll still be trying to convince people money grows on trees.0 -
You're arguing against a straw-man, I have not been discussing how to deal with hyperinflation once it happens, which you are - I am discussing what starts it.Fair enough if don't want to accept Cato. In the IMF report you will not one of the solutions proposed is a strong monetary anchor. To me after reading the document that means stop printing money.
The topic I am debating with you is how your theory works in the real world. You do advocate government control over resources so specifically what "you believe" to be spare/unused resources. Hyperinflation will happen if you print too much money. On an extreme level hand everyone 1 million tomorrow and watch prices shoot up. If your not doing that your advocating printing money on a limited basis as in the US. Which is presently working. Obviously there is a tipping point between acceptable and hyperinflation. Problem is no one knows where it is and the target moves depending on economy hence some people are uneasy with printing money.
All this means you need to develop your theory further. Within what limits does it work, when does it not, when should it be used when not. I don't expect you to answer these questions because you clearly don't know yourself. However I assume in time if you work on your idea you will in future or if not you'll still be trying to convince people money grows on trees.
You are not debating my policies at all - you are assuming the initial point, starting all your arguments from the position of already being in hyperinflation.
It is exactly that my policies are limited by inflation targets, that makes them not print too much money.
The idea that you can go "whoops! hyperinflation." while limiting spending within inflation targets, is something you will need to back up, because there is zero historical precedence of that, that is not caused by something like massive physical industrial destruction (and thus nothing like that, which is comparable to engaging in these policies with Europe).0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You're arguing against a straw-man, I have not been discussing how to deal with hyperinflation once it happens, which you are - I am discussing what starts it.
You are not debating my policies at all - you are assuming the initial point, starting all your arguments from the position of already being in hyperinflation.
It is exactly that my policies are limited by inflation targets, that makes them not print too much money.
The idea that you can go "whoops! hyperinflation." while limiting spending within inflation targets, is something you will need to back up, because there is zero historical precedence of that, that is not caused by something like massive physical industrial destruction (and thus nothing like that, which is comparable to engaging in these policies with Europe).
No we're not discussing hyperinflation. The reason why I mentioned Zimbabwe was because they seemed to follow the theory you outlined.
and we are discussing how your theory when applied in Zimbabwe failed completely. I'm sure you wouldn't apply it exactly the way they did and have you own specific tweaks but the broad outline of printing money didn't help. State control of spare resources didn't help either.
As myself and SuperNova have indicated there has been destruction of industrial potential during this crisis both material .ie ghost estates and the human element(people unemployed longterm).
The only thing that separates the Zimbabwe situation from the European one is the severity. Even Zimbabwe maintained private industry the black market for foreign currency is clear evidence of that. Zimbabwe is also a country rich in natural resource's arguably more than Europe.
I'll repeat a question I previously asked.
"At what rough % unemployment, level of industrial destruction etc does your theory not work. What is the tipping point?"0 -
-
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »
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?
Because it seems to be along the lines of ..
Print money, but not enough to cause hyper-inflation
Force industry to create jobs.0 -
You're incapable of arguing against anything other than a silly caricature like this, or a straw-man - you're on another thread as well, acting as an apologist for US drone strikes and related acts involving the murder of innocent people by the US government; something that requires such a low level of argument, that I don't feel the need to give any of your posts benefit of the doubt, as an attempt at honest argument.Because it seems to be along the lines of ..
Print money, but not enough to cause hyper-inflation
Force industry to create jobs.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »It depends on the work you want done, and the workers abilities - as I said, the details of the work that can be done, are best left until after the basic macroeconomic argument around inflation is agreeable, otherwise it's going to be endless nitpicking over the details of the job program, while missing the bigger picture.
I agree you can target inflation, it is what is being done now. This doesn't seem like a small detail, I'm not asking you to provide interview questions, just how you hire, this is a basic first step. There is going to have to be an incentive for those on the dole doing nothing to accept a job while others continue getting money for nothing?0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Right, so the last page or two wasted on an unfounded assumption/straw-man, that you know full well is false.
You were the one that brought up hyperinflation and I unfortunately let you drag me off the point I was making. Which was that Zimbabwe essentially followed the outline of what you say we should in our current economic situation and it failed miserably.
Your response has been that your theory doesn't work past a certain point. What that point is and even why it didn't work in Zimbabwe in the fist place you don't know.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You're incapable of arguing against anything other than a silly caricature like this, or a straw-man - you're on another thread as well, acting as an apologist for US drone strikes and related acts involving the murder of innocent people by the US government; something that requires such a low level of argument, that I don't feel the need to give any of your posts benefit of the doubt, as an attempt at honest argument.
If you don't want to respond just say so, no need to rattle off into some ad hominem
As for other posts, stay on topic thanks. Ironically FYI, I am against drone strikes, but skepticism seems to be an affront to certain emotional beliefs0 -
KyussBishop, while accusing everyone else of being dishonest or attacking straw-men, is either unwilling or unable to answer even the most fundamental question on the creation of money as a means to increase the prosperity or wealth of 'society'. He prefers to muddle, confuse, evade, and attack, all in a vain attempt to defend the demonstrably ludicrous economic proposals he is continually trying and failing to explain to anyone (as demonstrated by his nearly incessant reference to straw-men).
I'll ask you once again, if printing pieces of paper creates wealth, why does poverty exist?0 -
So you're agreeing that the economy can be brought back to full employment/output with inflation-targeted debt-free money creation, if it can be spent efficiently (defined as spending in a way that doesn't push resource/supply bottlenecks too much)?I agree you can target inflation, it is what is being done now. This doesn't seem like a small detail, I'm not asking you to provide interview questions, just how you hire, this is a basic first step. There is going to have to be an incentive for those on the dole doing nothing to accept a job while others continue getting money for nothing?
That encompasses the general macro argument that needs to be agreeable, before getting to the details of actual jobs will get anywhere (the jobs/implementation aren't a small detail by any means - I just see the argument going right back into circles, if the above can't be agreed - so will likely drop the discussion if that is used to derail).
The template of a lot of debates like this, is an implied agreement on the above, which then gets reneged by nitpicking over the details of the jobs implementation, even though none of that affects the general macroeconomics, it is just implementation details.
In any case, the job guarantee would be providing a proper wage, but which would be a 'wage floor' in the economy (likely close to minimum wage, but can be adjustable, and may include supplemental income for assuring a minimum decent standard of living), and work would try to be matched to the workers skillset/desires (and training programs can be included as well, which workers can decide whether or not they want to participate in), to try to make the best use of them and try to keep it fulfilling for them.
It really would be a mix of different jobs and programs though - you will have the big infrastructure projects (power, rail, transport, health/emergency-services, and all other infrastructure/public-services needing once-off work), and you will have small local community projects (urban renewal, environmental programs like reforestation/pollution cleanup/control and such, increases in social care for elderly/disabled/diasadvantaged among more), and any other work useful for providing 'social' instead of profit-based benefits (e.g. funding of scientific research/development that is not profitable and such).
You will also (separate to the job guarantee) combine this with restoration of public services, and expansion in areas such as health (particularly the near-non-existant mental health facilities - which the JG can do once-off infrastructure work on) and education, among more (particularly in areas where natural monopolies tend to form).
Work done in the present doesn't have to have an immediate return to the economy either (as much of infrastructure does not), and the same can be said with training workers as well - so a lot of the program can be supplemented with training (perhaps even full-time for a portion of the people in the program), while still receiving payments, which is still adding value to society which pays off in the future.
So any problems of mismatched skills, temporary inflation/resource-bottlenecks from the private economy reconfiguring itself (that will happen anyway, even with private industry left to itself, just taking longer), and ramping up of the program within inflation targets - these are all only a matter of time, not of whether it is comfortably possible, and it won't take the 10-15 years (if not more) that it will take the private industry to sort out on its own (after massive economic/social destruction and wasted labour potential).0 -
You know Zimbabwe is nothing like what I've advocated, because that's what the last two pages are about. That is a deeply economically illiterate comparison (we are not experiencing massive hyperinflation, and trying to deal with that through money creation), and a really facetious straw-man, and now putting words in my mouth in telling me what my response was.You were the one that brought up hyperinflation and I unfortunately let you drag me off the point I was making. Which was that Zimbabwe essentially followed the outline of what you say we should in our current economic situation and it failed miserably.
Your response has been that your theory doesn't work past a certain point. What that point is and even why it didn't work in Zimbabwe in the fist place you don't know.
You couldn't be more obvious in your complete disregard for any desire of honest argument, and lack the skill to execute that in any kind of an intelligently hidden way.0 -
Quote yourself, or anyone, posing this 'fundamental question' anytime before your post in this thread - or are you just completely making stuff up again, for rhetorical effect?KyussBishop, while accusing everyone else of being dishonest or attacking straw-men, is either unwilling or unable to answer even the most fundamental question on the creation of money as a means to increase the prosperity or wealth of 'society'. He prefers to muddle, confuse, evade, and attack, all in a vain attempt to defend the demonstrably ludicrous economic proposals he is continually trying and failing to explain to anyone (as demonstrated by his nearly incessant reference to straw-men).
I'll ask you once again, if printing pieces of paper creates wealth, why does poverty exist?
Ask yourself why every argument you rely on to back your views, depends upon either emotional argument against imaginary Marxists, constant rhetoric, and reams of fallacious argument?
You either delude yourself into ignoring that, or you are perfectly aware of it and don't care - as time goes on with posters, I take the view of the latter, and I don't think people capable of that level of deceit, have any honest intentions in debates like this - neither should they expect others to give them benefit of the doubt.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes just like climate change denialists like to paint themselves as sophisticated 'skeptics'. Skeptics don't cast doubt on or downplay blindingly clear evidence, and act as apologists for the completely immoral killings of innocent people.If you don't want to respond just say so, no need to rattle off into some ad hominem
As for other posts, stay on topic thanks. Ironically FYI, I am against drone strikes, but skepticism seems to be an affront to certain emotional beliefs
When you act one way, and say later you believe something different, that doesn't do much to repair perceptions of honest intent/argument.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You know Zimbabwe is nothing like what I've advocated, because that's what the last two pages are about. That is a deeply economically illiterate comparison (we are not experiencing massive hyperinflation, and trying to deal with that through money creation), and a really facetious straw-man, and now putting words in my mouth in telling me what my response was.
You couldn't be more obvious in your complete disregard for any desire of honest argument, and lack the skill to execute that in any kind of an intelligently hidden way.
The last two pages of discussion I had with you were about hyperinflation. Which to be honest I don't really care, you raised the issue of hyperinflation not me. What I am concerned about is your theory and what you repeatedly ignore is that it didn't work and you can't explain why. I'm open to any idea that can improve our current economic situation. But I sure its understandable that I'm not inclined to support policies that have failed miserably in the past.
I'll repeat a question to you. Since you believe your policies will work in Ireland but failed in Zimbabwe
"At what rough % unemployment, level of industrial destruction etc does your theory not work. What is the tipping point?, within what parameters does your theory work in the real world?
A question any well thought out theory has an answer for.
I hope you'll answer the question but more likely based on your posting history in this thread you'll ignore it and resort to ad hominem attacks.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »So you're agreeing that the economy can be brought back to full employment/output with inflation-targeted debt-free money creation,
No I'm agreeing you can target inflation but with nothing else.if it can be spent efficiently (defined as spending in a way that doesn't push resource/supply bottlenecks too much)?
Your position is as good as saying if the Soviet Union allocated resources efficiently communism would work.
And why in your opinion did social democratic paradise Sweden in the mid nineties, with control of their own currency, cut taxes, deregulate and pull back government spending?0 -
So why did a country so ripe to accept your solution do the opposite and have it work?Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In the 1980s, a real estate and financial bubble formed, driven by a rapid increase in lending. A restructuring of the tax system, in order to emphasize low inflation combined with an international economic slowdown in the early 1990s, caused the bubble to burst. Between 1990 and 1993 GDP went down by 5% and unemployment skyrocketed, causing the worst economic crisis in Sweden since the 1930s. According to an analysis by George Berglund published in Computer Sweden in 1992, the investment level decreased drastically for information technology and computing equipment, except in the financial and banking sector, the part of the industry that created the crisis.[19] The investment levels for IT and computers were restored as early as 1993.[20] In 1992 there was a run on the currency, the central bank briefly jacking up interest to 500% in an unsuccessful effort to defend the currency's fixed exchange rate.[21] Total employment fell by almost 10% during the crisis.
A real estate boom ended in a bust. The government took over nearly a quarter of banking assets at a cost of about 4% of the nation's GDP. This was known colloquially as the "Stockholm Solution". The United States Federal Reserve remarked in 2007, that "In the early 1970s, Sweden had one of the highest income levels in Europe; today, its lead has all but disappeared... So, even well-managed financial crises don't really have a happy ending."[22]
The welfare system that had been growing rapidly since the 1970s could not be sustained with a falling GDP, lower employment and larger welfare payments. In 1994 the government budget deficit exceeded 15% of GDP. The response of the government was to cut spending and institute a multitude of reforms to improve Sweden's competitiveness. When the international economic outlook improved combined with a rapid growth in the IT sector, which Sweden was well positioned to capitalize on, the country was able to emerge from the crisis.[23]
The crisis of the 1990s was by some viewed as the end of the much buzzed welfare model called "Svenska modellen", literally "The Swedish Model", as it proved that governmental spending at the levels previously experienced in Sweden was not long term sustainable in a global open economy.[24] Much of the Swedish Model's acclaimed advantages actually had to be viewed as a result of the post WWII special situation, which left Sweden untouched when competitors' economies were comparatively weak.[25]
However, the reforms enacted during the 1990s seem to have created a model in which extensive welfare benefits can be maintained in a global economy.[18]0 -
I did not raise the issue of hyperinflation and that's something else you know fully as well. Why on earth would I raise the issue of hyperinflation, when it's the most common recurring straw-man attack on the policies I support.The last two pages of discussion I had with you were about hyperinflation. Which to be honest I don't really care, you raised the issue of hyperinflation not me. What I am concerned about is your theory and what you repeatedly ignore is that it didn't work and you can't explain why. I'm open to any idea that can improve our current economic situation. But I sure its understandable that I'm not inclined to support policies that have failed miserably in the past.
I'll repeat a question to you. Since you believe your policies will work in Ireland but failed in Zimbabwe
"At what rough % unemployment, level of industrial destruction etc does your theory not work. What is the tipping point?, within what parameters does your theory work in the real world?
A question any well thought out theory has an answer for.
I hope you'll answer the question but more likely based on your posting history in this thread you'll ignore it and resort to ad hominem attacks.
You don't have any interest in the actual policies I advocate, only in trying to pan them based on completely different policies - usually this is brought about from supporting rabid anti-government ideology.
It's a bit ridiculous that the people so eagerly panning my policies, also seem to be the ones so ready to admit their ignorance of what I actually support as well - and don't see any massive logical inconsistency there.
You want me to engage with your questions (one which 'begs the question' that my policies and Zimbabwe are in any way comparable), when you show zero inclination for honest argument.
You're also incapable of distinguishing ad-hominem, from criticisms of your methods of argument - you're not free from criticism, for using massively fallacious/dishonest methods of argument.
Give up the pretense of trying to engage honestly here - you are only interested in panning.0 -
Right well then forget the jobs argument, because it's utterly pointless unless the overall macro situation is agreed, and we'll go back to that.No I'm agreeing you can target inflation but with nothing else.
Pushing the jobs argument when not even that basic stuff is agreed, is redirecting the debate and avoiding the focus on the macro issues, which are the most important.
What, specifically, do you disagree with about the below:
If you agree with the above, there is no potential economic problem to the policies I advocate, only potential political problems - so if you disagree with that, it would be good to have specific disagreements.KyussBishop wrote: »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.
Here is the command economy straw-man again; this is not an argument for a command economy, and it is not comparable to one.Your position is as good as saying if the Soviet Union allocated resources efficiently communism would work.
Another variation on the "Why aren't people doing this already?" type of argument, that you tried to step around in After Hours:And why in your opinion did social democratic paradise Sweden in the mid nineties, with control of their own currency, cut taxes, deregulate and pull back government spending?
A bit hypocritical to try that here, seeing as it applies equally as much to your own economic views.SupaNova2 wrote:When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing. "If a system without slaves is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen". Well after enough time it did arise.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Another variation on the "Why aren't people doing this already?" type of argument, that you tried to step around in After Hours:
A bit hypocritical to try that here, seeing as it applies equally as much to your own economic views.
So what do you want to do? Use the same answer I gave, that just because no-one has implemented and made it work does not mean it never will be implemented and work?
If so, I'm still interesting to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't happened yet? After all understanding this would be key to making it happen if you believe it can work.0 -
And also it would be interesting to hear why in response to a housing bust and spike in unemployment Sweden cut spending, got their deficit under control, but yet managed to recover? Why do you think a solution the opposite of yours worked in this case?0
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Yes just like climate change denialists like to paint themselves as sophisticated 'skeptics'. Skeptics don't cast doubt on or downplay blindingly clear evidence, and act as apologists for the completely immoral killings of innocent people.
A proper skeptic tries to challenge all views, not just those views that conform or validate personally held beliefs and narratives.
Bringing up views from another thread or indirectly labelling someone an apologist is bit weak.
Your hypothetical policy would probably be better off in it's own thread rather than scattered across multiple forums, prob a good idea to out line it or summarise it in the first post so you could refer those who are going to slate it to that post instead of having to re-explain0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I did not raise the issue of hyperinflation and that's something else you know fully as well. Why on earth would I raise the issue of hyperinflation, when it's the most common recurring straw-man attack on the policies I support.
Grand care to explain this post.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.
I never mentioned hyper inflation before that. Again there's a record there if you want to try prove otherwise. All I said was the Zimbabwe had to let go of it own currency. At the time they were implementing policies which you advocate and I asked you to explain why they didn't work which you have ignored. You brought up the hyperinflation bit.
However I do see your response was exactly as I expected.0 -
Are you going to at least present what issues you have with the macroeconomic views I put forward (regarding inflation and how it relates to full economic-output/employment etc.), or just keep dancing around it to try and flip the debate back to me answering stuff, which avoids that issue? (which is the core of everything in this debate and is the most important part - how can we debate any of this, if we already totally disagree with the macroeconomics? all arguments will just go back to that)So what do you want to do? Use the same answer I gave, that just because no-one has implemented and made it work does not mean it never will be implemented and work?
If so, I'm still interesting to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't happened yet? After all understanding this would be key to making it happen if you believe it can work.
To be honest, your avoidance of it and attempts to just throw questions to put me in defensive, is conspicuous and makes me think you know that attempting to address it, will not be a sustainable line of argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
Being an apologist or denialist, is not skepticism. You are hiding behind the false-application of the 'skepticism' label, as justification for defending and playing-down-criticism of reprehensible acts/murder.A proper skeptic tries to challenge all views, not just those views that conform or validate personally held beliefs and narratives.
Bringing up views from another thread or indirectly labelling someone an apologist is bit weak.
Your hypothetical policy would probably be better off in it's own thread rather than scattered across multiple forums, prob a good idea to out line it or summarise it in the first post so you could refer those who are going to slate it to that post instead of having to re-explain
You can defend any kind of crap, and play the nonsense "oh I was just being skeptical" card after the fact; it's a rather lame/transparent cop-out.0 -
That post was in reply to this one:Grand care to explain this post.
Are you seriously claiming, you brought up Zimbabwe as a completely random example, and that the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe had nothing to do with your mentioning of it whatsoever? That's a pretty massive co-incidence, isn't it?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.
So you weren't in fact implying hyperinflation in any way, and thus weren't bringing it up yourself? Ok then. Right.
Oh Zimbabwe implemented a Job Guarantee? I didn't know that. Can you show me some proof of that? No? Well then they didn't implement the policies I describe.I never mentioned hyper inflation before that. Again there's a record there if you want to try prove otherwise. All I said was the Zimbabwe had to let go of it own currency. At the time they were implementing policies which you advocate and I asked you to explain why they didn't work which you have ignored. You brought up the hyperinflation bit.
However I do see your response was exactly as I expected.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »That post was in reply to this one:
Are you seriously claiming, you brought up Zimbabwe as a completely random example, and that the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe had nothing to do with your mentioning of it whatsoever? That's a pretty massive co-incidence, isn't it?
So you weren't in fact implying hyperinflation in any way, and thus weren't bringing it up yourself? Ok then. Right.
Oh Zimbabwe implemented a Job Guarantee? I didn't know that. Can you show me some proof of that? No? Well then they didn't implement the policies I describe.
Ha Ha so now your trying to put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions. I mentioned Zimbabwe because its a rather recent example and comes to mind quite easily of the top of my head. They followed the basic outline print money and provide supported state jobs It also extreme so it should be very easy to say why it didn't work tipping point etc basically look at the previous questions I asked and actually try to answer them. If you want to talk about hyperinflation be my guest.
For the job guarantee given you don't have a clue how to implement one as can be seen quite clearly in your posts.(Apparently the implementation part isn't important) I don't think its unfair to take Zimbabwe as an example. Given the private sector always needs a pool of unemployed workers to draw(new private sector jobs) from who's to say your job guarantee would only apply to your cronies. Its a very easy way to implement it support your party and get a job.
I could be wrong however but that would require you to develop your vague idea into an actual theory that can withstand robust criticism. Why do you think capitalism and marxism etc are still around. Because when people put questions to the authors they actually provided answers. They didn't go that question is stupid, its not relevant, its a strawman or resort to perosnal attacks.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Being an apologist or denialist, is not skepticism. You are hiding behind the false-application of the 'skepticism' label, as justification for defending and playing-down-criticism of reprehensible acts/murder.
You can defend any kind of crap, and play the nonsense "oh I was just being skeptical" card after the fact; it's a rather lame/transparent cop-out.
It's a debate in a debate forum. You can't just slate anyone who argues counter to your convictions or beliefs as
An apologist
A denialist
or a false skeptic0 -
Come off it. You know the reason you posted Zimbabwe as an example, was because of hyperinflation - why else would you posit it as a negative example then? What exact negative/cautionary effect are you referring to with Zimbabwe, if not that?Ha Ha so now your trying to put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions. I mentioned Zimbabwe because its a rather recent example and comes to mind quite easily of the top of my head. They followed the basic outline print money and provide supported state jobs It also extreme so it should be very easy to say why it didn't work tipping point etc basically look at the previous questions I asked and actually try to answer them. If you want to talk about hyperinflation be my guest.
For the job guarantee given you don't have a clue how to implement one as can be seen quite clearly in your posts.(Apparently the implementation part isn't important) I don't think its unfair to take Zimbabwe as an example. Given the private sector always needs a pool of unemployed workers to draw(new private sector jobs) from who's to say your job guarantee would only apply to your cronies. Its a very easy way to implement it support your party and get a job.
I could be wrong however but that would require you to develop your vague idea into an actual theory that can withstand robust criticism. Why do you think capitalism and marxism etc are still around. Because when people put questions to the authors they actually provided answers. They didn't go that question is stupid, its not relevant, its a strawman or resort to perosnal attacks.
If you admit your own ignorance of the job guarantee policy, how the hell are you meant to criticize something you don't know anything about?0 -
-
KyussBishop wrote: »If there is valid grounds to, based on the content of their posts, yes you can. It is a valid criticism.
AKA
I don't like your views on Man U so your views on French foreign policy are invalid
0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Come off it. You know the reason you posted Zimbabwe as an example, was because of hyperinflation - why else would you posit it as a negative example then? What exact negative/cautionary effect are you referring to with Zimbabwe, if not that?
If you admit your own ignorance of the job guarantee policy, how the hell are you meant to criticize something you don't know anything about?
It would be nice if you actually read the post you were responding to. Zimbabwe printed money and the state provided jobs when they were in trouble which is what you propose. Why did it not work? A very simple question given how badly it worked out.
For the job guarantee you say you support but don't know how to implement it and seem to find it insulting that you such have to explain how it would work. My post gave you one way of implementing it. May be you can come up with another way.
But then again your theory is so good that is above any questioning.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »If there is valid grounds to, based on the content of their posts, yes you can. It is a valid criticism.
The thing is for you there is no such thing as valid criticism. Your idea's are so good that there are no valid grounds to criticise them. As can been seen that were it comes to avoiding questions you could give lessons to most politicians. If you look at the picture provided by Jonny7 you spend your time wandering around in the bottom three levels. The only thing you want to hear is unquestioning support for your idea.0 -
Reading back over what my post replied to there, I'm not criticizing you based on your beliefs, but on your methods of argument; you stated yourself, you don't agree with drone strikes, yet you were playing down criticism of them and acting as an apologist for them, and then presented that as 'skepticism' even when you were playing down direct evidence of attacks, and being so 'skeptical' it seemed as if the US government was the only trusted source to you.AKA
I don't like your views on Man U so your views on French foreign policy are invalid
That leaves no reason to give you any benefit of the doubt, as having honest intention in argument, if you say you defend stuff you know is wrong, and cast doubt/diminish blindingly obvious evidence, and engage in semantic games to further downplay it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Answer your own question then: Why did it not work? That was nothing to do with hyperinflation then was it, you were definitively not alluding to that as you say - then what other reason is there? (nevermind that this policy, government jobs as a solution to hyperinflation, is not what I am advocating)It would be nice if you actually read the post you were responding to. Zimbabwe printed money and the state provided jobs when they were in trouble which is what you propose. Why did it not work? A very simple question given how badly it worked out.
You just said I supported one thing above (what Zimbabwe did), now you are saying I support something completely different; your comparison is as accurate, as saying a public health service is Communist.For the job guarantee you say you support but don't know how to implement it and seem to find it insulting that you such have to explain how it would work. My post gave you one way of implementing it. May be you can come up with another way.
But then again your theory is so good that is above any questioning.
Your level of dishonest argument goes to such an extent, that you cast views on me that you know I don't hold, so you can set up endless straw-men - that is nothing less than self-congratulatory circlejerking, where posters prefer to setup an endless parade of rhetoric and backslapping, instead of engaging in substantive argument.
That's what passes for debate on most of these topics, where posters don't care about the validity of views they are attacking, just on setting up a style of debate for casting doubt on them, because of their personal ideological views.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Answer your own question then: Why did it not work? That was nothing to do with hyperinflation then was it, you were definitively not alluding to that as you say - then what other reason is there? (nevermind that this policy, government jobs as a solution to hyperinflation, is not what I am advocating)
You just said I supported one thing above (what Zimbabwe did), now you are saying I support something completely different; your comparison is as accurate, as saying a public health service is Communist.
Your level of dishonest argument goes to such an extent, that you cast views on me that you know I don't hold, so you can set up endless straw-men - that is nothing less than self-congratulatory circlejerking, where posters prefer to setup an endless parade of rhetoric and backslapping, instead of engaging in substantive argument.
That's what passes for debate on most of these topics, where posters don't care about the validity of views they are attacking, just on setting up a style of debate for casting doubt on them, because of their personal ideological views.
So now you want me answer questions for you? I thought MMT was your idea. I just want to get a better understanding of it but maybe your the wrong person to ask because you don't appear based on your responses you don't know anything about MMT.
For the job guarantee explain how it work and how you would implement it? How would it differ from just giving job to cronies as Mugabe did and does.0 -
You're barely even making an attempt to hide the rhetoric now. Was your question regarding Zimbabwe "Why did it not work?" referring to hyperinflation, or not - and if it was not, what was that supposed to be referring to?So now you want me answer questions for you? I thought MMT was your idea. I just want to get a better understanding of it but maybe your the wrong person to ask because you don't appear based on your responses you don't know anything about MMT.
For the job guarantee explain how it work and how you would implement it? How would it differ from just giving job to cronies as Mugabe did and does.
You're even taking the stupidly transparent position now, of pretending that question was relating to MMT, just for rhetoric.
You're not even hiding either, your own total ignorance of the Job Guarantee program, yet you still think you know it enough to say it is the same as what Mugabe did - a simple argument from ignorance.
When you come up with less deliberately fallacious forms of argument, then I'll bother responding to your questions and requests for information - until then, I know you are only being demanding for sake of circlejerkery rhetoric.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You're barely even making an attempt to hide the rhetoric now. Was your question regarding Zimbabwe "Why did it not work?" referring to hyperinflation, or not - and if it was not, what was that supposed to be referring to?
You're even taking the stupidly transparent position now, of pretending that question was relating to MMT, just for rhetoric.
You're not even hiding either, your own total ignorance of the Job Guarantee program, yet you still think you know it enough to say it is the same as what Mugabe did - a simple argument from ignorance.
When you come up with less deliberately fallacious forms of argument, then I'll bother responding to your questions and requests for information - until then, I know you are only being demanding for sake of circlejerkery rhetoric.
A typical KyussBishop response. If want a more detailed version of "why didn't it work" look back at all the posts and questions you have ignored.
To be honest I find it very funny that your defending MMT and the whole idea of a job guarantee when based on your posts you don't have a clue what either of them are or how to apply them. You could prove otherwise by deciding to actually answer questions but that's clearly something you don't do.0 -
Yes because you were just dying to elaborate on what went wrong in Zimbabwe, in your previous posts - now you're sticking to "oh it's just obvious", and "look back at my previous (imaginary) posts explaining it", yet it's somehow not related to hyperinflation? Very convincing.A typical KyussBishop response. If want a more detailed version of "why didn't it work" look back at all the posts and questions you have ignored.
To be honest I find it very funny that your defending MMT and the whole idea of a job guarantee when based on your posts you don't have a clue what either of them are or how to apply them. You could prove otherwise by deciding to actually answer questions but that's clearly something you don't do.
You're only here to derail any attempt at meaningful debate at this stage, and to sneer at advocated policies, without any attempt at valid argument.
That's usually the method used to control these debates online, it's just so horribly poorly executed on this occasion, that it is blindingly obvious for a change.
The people that do this as well, cannot avoid being fully aware of it either because it is so consistent - such an intellectually and morally bankrupt thing to do, to try and muddy/derail debate for political/ideological reasons, in a way designed to prevent debate over issues that would resolve the economic crisis - given the widespread suffering delaying solutions creates, it's pretty personally reprehensible as well, yet the people indirectly defending that don't give a toss about any of that.0 -
Considering KyussBishop is point-blank refusing to provide the theory behind or the mechanics of his economic policies, I think we should take a different approach towards getting some information on this project. I wonder why governments around the world don't just replace the private sector entirely with the 'jobs guarantee program' given its inherent qualities.
According to KyussBishop, the program:
(1) Gives unemployed workers a job and a good wage
(2) Costs nothing
If people can employed and paid by the state at absolutely no cost, why not employ every single person in the country in this manner? Even on his project's own dubious terms, it makes no sense to wait for a faltering private sector to recover when people can be employed at no cost by the state; no taxes would even be needed to pay them!
I'm guessing KyussBishop will evade or refuse to answer these questions. So that leaves it to the rest of us -- why not just print one million trillion euros, abolish the private sector, and make everybody employees of the state? Remember KyussBishop has explicitly stated that the state can pay a fair wage to new employees without raising taxes or producing hyperinflation; how could this be possible? What are the rest of us missing? Are the boffins in the Dail holding some leprechauns to ransom?0 -
You know straight-off that this is false: Respond to my macroeconomic arguments about inflation and how that relates to full-employment/output, and then we actually are capable of getting on to the functioning of the job guarantee program.Considering KyussBishop is point-blank refusing to provide the theory behind or the mechanics of his economic policies, I think we should take a different approach towards getting some information on this project. I wonder why governments around the world don't just replace the private sector entirely with the 'jobs guarantee program' given its inherent qualities.
Not getting the macroeconomics sorted, means we talk about the job guarantee and you say "that is false because my view on macroeconomics says 'x'", which means it is that which needs to be debated, and which people are very conspicuously avoiding.
I'll repeat it again here (from a reply to SupaNova2 - who steadfastly tries to deflect from addressing this, despite it being core to the entire debate):KyussBishop wrote: »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.
The rest of your post is yet another deliberate and dishonest straw-man, comparing the job guarantee to a command economy - you are utterly incapable of debating this topic, without going right back to some variety of the Communist bashing nonsense.
Every question you ask, begs the question that I am promoting a Communist-like command economy (and in admitting your own ignorance of my policies, you betray again an argument from ignorance, which completely discredits your criticisms), and thus is inherently false, and further bolsters that you are only interested in rhetoric and rhetorical circlejerking with followers of your own ideology, and will do everything manageable to avoid actual non-fallacious argument.0 -
Out of interest, what was the "make work" provided by the guarantee scheme in Zimbabwe? Was it doing anything productive or was it like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Tunnels0
-
Surprise surprise, more evasions and more accusations of straw-men. Tell us, then KyussBishop, since nobody on this thread seems to be able to accurately sum up your position, what is it you are talking about?0
-
Advertisement
-
Are you going to respond to the macro argument I quoted right in that post, or not? I've already explained how all other arguments (including the job guarantee) go back to exactly that, and you pretend you score on some minor 'point' there.Surprise surprise, more evasions and more accusations of straw-men. Tell us, then KyussBishop, since nobody on this thread seems to be able to accurately sum up your position, what is it you are talking about?
You're not going to lead the debate, by forcing it to be about the job guarantee, through being demanding in questions - either you are capable of voicing your disagreements to the arguments I present regarding inflation and full employment/output, or you have no argument there at all.
Repeating again:
If you have no disagreements with that, it makes the job guarantee a matter of logistics only, not of whether or not it is possible - I'm not going to let you skip past the macro argument, so you can nitpick over details of the actual implementation (with the purpose of remaining eternally 'unconvinced', so you can sneer away at it), when submitting to this overall macro argument completely removes the need for that entire debate.KyussBishop wrote: »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.0
Advertisement