|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Hero's turn action? | |||
| Check/call |
   
|
11 | 28.95% |
| Check/raise all-in |
  
|
13 | 34.21% |
| Check/fold |
  
|
9 | 23.68% |
| Lead |
  
|
5 | 13.16% |
| Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
11-18-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
Even if the whole world had one currency, I don't see how this can be correct (probably because I'm not educated on economics) because, in my view, China, with a trade surplus of over 20 billion a month, would eventually have all the money. That an extreme statement, as once consumers see they are on a dead end economic street, they'll start producing in their own country. Now that sounds like a win situation for the working class. [/ QUOTE ] If china is the only coutnry producing why shouldnt they have all the wealth? This is the point. The US and other countries will be forced to up their productivity if they dont want to go broke consuming everything they have. [ QUOTE ] That an extreme statement, as once consumers see they are on a dead end economic street, they'll start producing in their own country. Now that sounds like a win situation for the working class. [/ QUOTE ] exactly 
|
|
#12
11-18-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] why do you think the money supply does not need to grow? i guess in the sense that the economy doesn't "need" to grow at a certain rate, but i think it is best htat the economy grow as best it can within certain bounds. if the price of money rises as demand for it rises, the marginal use of it will fall and the economy will not grow as it would had the money supply increased by the rate of growth of the economy (about the "band" i was talking about). [/ QUOTE ] Think about techonlogy. Productivity has been inreasing faster than the money supply for ages. This doesnt stifle growth, innovation, or impose an negative costs on the industry. This what is known as benign deflation. [/ QUOTE ] another thing i wanted to mention is there no bounds by which an economy must be restrained. This is only a factor of situation today since bankers must make trade offs between inflation and growth.
|
|
#13
11-18-2007, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] why do you think the money supply does not need to grow? i guess in the sense that the economy doesn't "need" to grow at a certain rate, but i think it is best htat the economy grow as best it can within certain bounds. if the price of money rises as demand for it rises, the marginal use of it will fall and the economy will not grow as it would had the money supply increased by the rate of growth of the economy (about the "band" i was talking about). [/ QUOTE ] Think about techonlogy. Productivity has been inreasing faster than the money supply for ages. This doesnt stifle growth, innovation, or impose an negative costs on the industry. This what is known as benign deflation. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] can you link data for this? i think productivity has been growing far slower than the money supply in the US (~1-5% vs. ~8%) for a while. [ QUOTE ] another thing i wanted to mention is there no bounds by which an economy must be restrained. This is only a factor of situation today since bankers must make trade offs between inflation and growth. [/ QUOTE ] but keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth. the point about productivity though is a good one and i should restate that the money supply should grow by the economic trend growth rate minus the trend growthrate of productivity. Barron
|
|
#14
11-18-2007, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
can you link data for this? i think productivity has been growing far slower than the money supply in the US (~1-5% vs. ~8%) for a while [/ QUOTE ] I was refering to the techonlogy sector. Prices have been persistently falling and this is reinforced by new innovation because old products lose monetary value very quickly and products dont stay new for long. If productivity was growing slower than monetary expansion prices definitely would not be falling at the rate they have been in this sector. [ QUOTE ] the point about productivity though is a good one and i should restate that the money supply should grow by the economic trend growth rate minus the trend growthrate of productivity. [/ QUOTE ] This im fine with. Any extra savings should allow for increasing investment. The money supply being fixed has similar effects though. The growth of the money supply just occurs internally rather than externally. This happnes through the subdivision of previous wealth to include new wealth but each monetary unit retains a greater value than before.
|
|
#15
11-18-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] can you link data for this? i think productivity has been growing far slower than the money supply in the US (~1-5% vs. ~8%) for a while [/ QUOTE ] I was refering to the techonlogy sector. Prices have been persistently falling and this is reinforced by new innovation because old products lose monetary value very quickly. If productivity was growing slower than monetary expansion prices definitely would not be falling at the rate they have been in this sector. [/ QUOTE ] i haven't studied this so i'm not sure about it. i think innovation not productivity caused the fall in prices as old products become obsolete so quickly in the tech sector that prices are forced to fall in order to keep up sales. productivity is labor hours to produce goods. innovation is increased quality of goods. innovation makes previously produced goods much less attractive and reduces the demand for them. this reduced demand mandates price reductions in order to keep up sales. i'm not 100% sure of these definitions as productivity may be measured in per unit of memory or something like that in which case it is obviously increasing, but if not, then the above case definitely holds. further, i don't think money supply is a good measure within individual sectors. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the point about productivity though is a good one and i should restate that the money supply should grow by the economic trend growth rate minus the trend growthrate of productivity. [/ QUOTE ] This im fine with. Any extra savings should allow for increasing investment. The money supply being fixed has similar effects though. The growth of the money supply just occurs internally rather than externally. This happnes through the subdivision of previous wealth to include new wealth but each monetary unit retains a greater value than before. [/ QUOTE ] what? can you rephrase that b/c i don't think i understand that last part. thanks, Barron
|
|
#16
11-18-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
"keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth."
Let's say we went from 1900 to 2000 without a war. 300 million people now. 100 million in 1900? A lot less dollars per person. Therefore, my father-in-law, who constantly complains about the cost of living, would not be complaining. Correct? I assume I am correct, because his money would be worth a lot more than it is today. He built what he has by buying a ranch, fixing it up, buying another, then going thru 4 houses fixing them up, after retiring from the VA police dept. So, he has a house, worth 350k in a city where the avg house goes for 250k, of which he holds the deed, SSI, retirement from the police dept. and 425k. So, the Federal Reserve, by creating more, is stealing from him and giving to the rich? That's what I tell him. He thinks it was the unions demanding more pay for workers. I can't convince him, but then, he's 85 yrs old. He borrowed to buy his two ranches and never borrowed again. He never owned a credit card until his wife finally convinced him of the need to maintain a credit history. When she died, they owed a total of about $1500.00 on various cards.
|
|
#17
11-18-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
"keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth." Let's say we went from 1900 to 2000 without a war. 300 million people now. 100 million in 1900? A lot less dollars per person. Therefore, my father-in-law, who constantly complains about the cost of living, would not be complaining. Correct? I assume I am correct, because his money would be worth a lot more than it is today. He built what he has by buying a ranch, fixing it up, buying another, then going thru 4 houses fixing them up, after retiring from the VA police dept. So, he has a house, worth 350k in a city where the avg house goes for 250k, of which he holds the deed, SSI, retirement from the police dept. and 425k. So, the Federal Reserve, by creating more, is stealing from him and giving to the rich? That's what I tell him. He thinks it was the unions demanding more pay for workers. I can't convince him, but then, he's 85 yrs old. He borrowed to buy his two ranches and never borrowed again. He never owned a credit card until his wife finally convinced him of the need to maintain a credit history. When she died, they owed a total of about $1500.00 on various cards. [/ QUOTE ] i have no idea what you're saying. can you sum up your point in a coherent sentence please? thanks, Barron
|
|
#18
11-18-2007, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
but keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth. [/ QUOTE ] How? And if true (big if IMO), how does this justify the government stealing money from me to inflate it?
|
|
#19
11-18-2007, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth. [/ QUOTE ] How? [/ QUOTE ] as the economy and country grow (i.e. more people, more companies, more goods etc.) beyond the increase in productivity, a 100% fixed money supply would make the price of money rise thus restraining borrowing, spending and growth. if the money supply grows at the rate of trend growth minus the increases in productivity, then that rate of growth can be comfortably sustained. otherwise, the growth rate would be lower than it otherwise would be. [ QUOTE ] And if true (big if IMO), how does this justify the government stealing money from me to inflate it? [/ QUOTE ] uh, what? i never said anything like that. Barron
|
|
#20
11-19-2007, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which currency system do you think is best?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "keeping the money supply 100% fixed does restrain economic growth." Let's say we went from 1900 to 2000 without a war. 300 million people now. 100 million in 1900? A lot less dollars per person. Therefore, my father-in-law, who constantly complains about the cost of living, would not be complaining. Correct? I assume I am correct, because his money would be worth a lot more than it is today. He built what he has by buying a ranch, fixing it up, buying another, then going thru 4 houses fixing them up, after retiring from the VA police dept. So, he has a house, worth 350k in a city where the avg house goes for 250k, of which he holds the deed, SSI, retirement from the police dept. and 425k. So, the Federal Reserve, by creating more, is stealing from him and giving to the rich? That's what I tell him. He thinks it was the unions demanding more pay for workers. I can't convince him, but then, he's 85 yrs old. He borrowed to buy his two ranches and never borrowed again. He never owned a credit card until his wife finally convinced him of the need to maintain a credit history. When she died, they owed a total of about $1500.00 on various cards. [/ QUOTE ] i have no idea what you're saying. can you sum up your point in a coherent sentence please? thanks, Barron [/ QUOTE ] The money supply has been growing (under the Clinton & Bush Administrations) much faster than the economy, thus deflating the value of the dollar. Right?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
