The consequences of Bitcoin

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.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

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?

I've outlined loads how it works, and (sidestepping the above) it all goes back to the arguments on inflation; as I posted earlier:

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.

SupaNova2

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.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

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.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

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.

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).

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.

SupaNova2

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?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If you need to ramp it up slowly to thread carefully with inflation targets you have to choose, so how?

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.

Once the bigger picture is agreed, it becomes solely a logistical/practical problem.

PeadarCo

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.

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

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'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).

PeadarCo

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?"

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

No we're not discussing hyperinflation. The reason why I mentioned Zimbabwe was because they seemed to follow the theory you outlined.

Right, so the last page or two wasted on an unfounded assumption/straw-man, that you know full well is false.

Jonny7

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.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because it seems to be along the lines of ..

Print money, but not enough to cause hyper-inflation

Force industry to create jobs.

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.

SupaNova2

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?

PeadarCo

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.

Jonny7

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 beliefs

Valmont

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?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

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?

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)?

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).

KyussBishop

PeadarCo wrote: »

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 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.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

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?

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?

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.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

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.

When you act one way, and say later you believe something different, that doesn't do much to repair perceptions of honest intent/argument.