Can government print more money without causing inflation?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, Apr 8, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. Well, they are both forms of inflation. You still have inflation even in a "booming economy", when low level wages are not keeping pace with the rate of asset price inflation.
    Just look at the lead up to the Housing Bubble, if you don't believe me. Housing wasn't the only thing that got inflated.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've merely referred to Econ 101 terms. I think you need to up your reading.

    Happy of course to help if you're lazy. What terms didn't you understand?
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, other asset prices also increased. But not wages.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You thus disqualify yourself from serious economic discussion.
    Nope.
    Cost-plus pricing is a niche phenomenon, not the rule in competitive -- e.g., commodity -- markets.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Drivel comment! Neo-Keynesian isn't neoclassical, but it is orthodox. Bit obvious really.

    Utterly ignorant comment. Empirical evidence confirms that cost plus pricing is the norm. You really have no understanding of reality. No bleedin wonder you go on and on about Georgism.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly have no idea what you two are going on about.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's getting Econ 101 wrong, I'm correcting him, you don't know any. There you go!
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously wrong.
    Nope. That's just a post hoc fallacy basically equivalent to the Labor Theory of Value.
    I'm not the one who thinks zero tolerance is reality, child. You are.
    I didn't mention Georgism. You, by contrast, seem to incontinently ejaculate "Georgism" whenever facts disprove your false beliefs.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you implying neo-Keynesian is neoclassical or that it isn't orthodox? Hahaha!

    More right wing ignorance. Cost-plus pricing is essentially based on empirical outco,e.

    Without Georgism you're just a right winger without economic knowledge. Its akin to an evil gerbil.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, I don't even have to go past the first Google hit:

    "A group of economists (notably John Hicks, Franco Modigliani and Paul Samuelson), attempted to interpret and formalize Keynes' writings and to synthesize it with the neoclassical models of economics. Their work has become known as the neoclassical synthesis and created the models that formed the core ideas of neo-Keynesian economics"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Keynesian_economics
    Post hoc fallacies typically are.
    Booorrrriiiiinnnnngggggggg.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahaha! You refer to those that mention the obvious: neo-Keynesianism was an attempt to ensure consistency with neoclassicalism. To suggest it was the same thing though is just cretinous. It didn't stop you mind you.

    Hahahahaha, wikipedia economics!
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proving me right and you wrong.
    Which is why you made it up. X being part of the alphabet is not the same thing as X being the alphabet.

    GET IT????
    Hahahahaha even Wikipedia is enough to refute you!
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are two possibilities here. You either aren't well versed in economics, such that you didn't know how neo-Keynesianism was an effort to find consistency between neoclassical micro and macro, or you're a victim of monism. Being a good natured typed, I'm going for the latter. By referring to "truths", on a par with Trump's definition, you cant see the rich critique provided by comparison across political economic schools of thought. A shame really.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good one. You almost had me going for a second, there.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your inability to defend yourself is noted ;)

    Monism is always a bad thing. We saw that with the twinning of Keynesianism with the neoclassical perspective. By stunting macro debate, it didn't just spawn cobblers like the Lucas Critique. It empowered conservatism and ensured there was no coherent challenge to the folly of neoliberalism. Millions have suffered. Millions have died. And you? You sit on your hands cheering it.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know that is false.

    Millions have suffered and died because of capitalism. Millions have suffered and died because of socialism. Capitalism has killed many more than socialism, but only because it has been in place for longer periods and in more societies. The death rate under socialism is much higher. But I am the one who opposes both, and has shown the only possible way out of their murderous false dichotomy, which you embrace.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What an inane ramble! I made no anti-capitalism comment. This has nothing to do with replacing it with socialism. This is about how right wingers like you have given a green light to the misery of neoliberalism.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right: you have already admitted by your fawning over Coase that you are an apologist for propertarian greed, privilege and injustice.
    And thank you for confirming that you embrace the murderous false dichotomy of socialism/capitalism.
    Neoliberalism and the right are all about empowering privilege, which is diametrically opposed to everything I have said. So thanks for proving -- again! -- that you can't do anything but make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a particularly churlish response. Its just amusing that you forget the solution focused on property rights and demand regressivity.

    More nonsense. Use of Pigovian tax is quite standard in neoliberalism. Every wondered why?
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Coase does not offer a solution, because the require property "rights" cannot be adequately specified or implemented.
    Still makin' $#!+ up, I see....
    So is invocation of Coase. Ever wondered why?
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He demonstrates that if they are assigned then, absence high transaction costs, the market solves the problem. You're properly stuck. If you reject Coase then you have to accept regressivity and continued injustice. If you accept Coase then you have to acknowledge the superficial difference with Marx's property rights. A proper conundrum ;)

    You didnt answer the question. Why does neoliberalism favour Pigovian tax? Hint: the clue is in this post.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But they can't be assigned, so invoking Coase just plays into neoliberal market-fundamentalist hands. You're properly stuck.
    Nope. False. Regressivity per se is not necessarily unjust, as I already proved to you multiple times.
    Not for anyone who understands property rights (i.e., not you, Marx, or Coase).
    It doesn't.
     
  23. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the following here:
    Expanding debt works for America, because the world knows (or thinks it knows) that America will pay its debt. It has never failed in that respect - so far, so good.

    But I disagree, here:
    The government has to have a population-related reason for increasing the money-supply. (For instance, the higher the population, the higher are retirements and the need to fund them.

    Just increasing it because you like to help millionaires make megabucks since in that manner they can pay for the reelection of their favorite PotUS is a disservice to the American people. After all, it is THEIR MONEY that is being employed to effect that bit of chicanery.

    But, we've been doing this ever since taxation was employed to fund government expenditures. The law that passed taxation was a "gift from heaven" to any PotUS who liked spending money. And which did not? They particularly liked spending money on wars because winning wars - big and small - helped them get reelected.

    I keep repeating: There are other measures that enhance in a far better manner the lives of Americans than battle skirmishes around the world. Like a decent National Healthcare System and a nearly free Post-secondary Degree - neither of which America has ...
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More twaddle! The Coase Theorem and Pigovian tax build from the same platform. You cant dismiss one, without dismissing the other. As I said, the only difference is that you demand injustice. First, you insist that those suffering from the external costs receive zero compensation. Second, you insist on a blunt mechanism which hurts the poor the most.

    This is merely confirmation that your false sense of justice leads you into a demand to hurt the poor. Crikey, your right wing nature is in full display.

    Zero content as usual. Marx's understanding of property rights was such that he's still impacting on the discipline today. Can we critique New Institutionalism? Certainly. A Hayekian perspective into coercion in the labour market would be useful here. However, that would only further advertise the impact of class conflict.

    If you compare across schools of thought you necessarily derive understandimg of where they are actually complimentary. Of course you ignore that for a redundant 'I'm right and you're all evil' Georgist script. That black and white approach, leading to dismissal of knowledge and subsequent debate, is found by psychologists to be another core feature of right wing trait.
     
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, as shown by Trump's $3 trillion support for the locked down economy; no inflation in sight, (and he's assuming interest rates will be near zero for the foreseeable future, so the debt will not become burdensome) .
     

Share This Page