|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: raylopez99raylopez99 Date: Feb 15, 2008 05:56
On Feb 14, 6:41Â pm, Vide...@ tcq.net wrote:
> you can read this, but i doubt you will understand it. sweden was the
> first country to exit the great depression in 1934. they followed
> keynes to the letter. you will never figure it out. you called me
> names first. so here goes crank, disprove this.
Keep your posts short, nutter. Since nobody reads them anyway.
FYI, Sweden, your socialist poster child, has the highest (in terms of
Gini coefficient) concentration of shareholder inequality in the
world. That's to say in Sweden the smallest number of Swedes own the
largest concentration of stock, relative to the rest of the
population, in the world. So what they give up in income, they make
up for in stock ownership.
Same as in the ex-USS
--the privileged class may have made a small
token in rubbles per year for salary, same as everybody else, but they
made up for it by owning the assets of the state, and enjoyings its
fruits.
RL
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: forbisgarygforbisgaryg Date: Feb 15, 2008 05:56
On Feb 15, 5:08Â am, "Andy F." tesco.net> wrote:
> What do you mean by 'solid monetary policy'? Why do you think US monetary
> policy hasn't been 'solid'?
I will venture this:
A solid monetary policy would have those charged with maintaining the
value of the dollar do just that (as adjusted in a deflationary way
to offset increased productivity except to the extent that unit prices
would be negatively impacted by minimum denomination currency and held
in the human hand.)
Adjusting for business cycles should be in different hands than those
charged with maintaining the value of money. We are screwed because
the
Federal Reserve is taking steps to prop up the economy even though
that
doesn't maintain the value of the dollar. We are screwed because the
Federal government hasn't had its eyes on the economy and planning for
the business cycles and minimizing the impact on the masses.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: raylopez99raylopez99 Date: Feb 15, 2008 09:54
>
> Which doesn't matter. The issue is when the economy started growing
> again.
>
No, you are wrong. The issue is when unemployment goes from 18%% to 5%%
and the economy reaches the same level as 1929. Either and both of
these conditions happened on the eve of WWII.
> No sorry. The economy grew every year after 1933 excepting the 37-38
> recession. Â (Real GDP in 1987 dollars)
>
> And using nominal GDP rather than real GDP after a prolonged period of
> DEFLATION is incorrect and disingenuous. You're writing from a
> perspective where we haven't seen deflation in decades in the US
> economy. But that was not the case then.
Even with your figures, they make my point--in wasn't until 1941 we
saw the 1929 highs again, and inbetween we had massive unemployment.
So Keynes was not the reason the USA got out of a depression.
|
| Show full article (2.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Feb 15, 2008 11:05
On Feb 15, 7:56 am, raylopez99 yahoo.com> wrote:> On Feb 14, 6:41 pm, Vide...@ tcq.net wrote:
> >> you can read this, but i doubt you will understand it. sweden was the
>> first country to exit the great depression in 1934. they followed
>> keynes to the letter. you will never figure it out. you called me
>> names first. so here goes crank, disprove this.
>
> Keep your posts short, nutter. Since nobody reads them anyway.
>
err, you do:) crank
> FYI, Sweden, your socialist poster child, has the highest (in terms of
> Gini coefficient) concentration of shareholder inequality in the
> world. That's to say in Sweden the smallest number of Swedes own the
> largest concentration of stock, relative to the rest of the
> population, in the world.
rotflol!!!!!!!!!!! they have one of the lowest income inequalities in
the world. swedes are not forced into a casino to try and keep their
noses above water. stock ownership does not mean a equitable society.
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Feb 15, 2008 11:08
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:54:20 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
>
> yahoo.com> wrote:>>> And using nominal GDP rather than real GDP after a prolonged period of
>>> DEFLATION is incorrect and disingenuous. You're writing from a
>>> perspective where we haven't seen deflation in decades in the US
>>> economy. But that was not the case then.
>
>>Even with your figures, they make my point--in wasn't until 1941 we
>>saw the 1929 highs again, and inbetween we had massive unemployment.
>>So Keynes was not the reason the USA got out of a depression.
>
> Chuckle. Even the war spending is classic Keynes. If you weren't so
> knee jerk dogmatically anti-Keynes you'd not be doing this whole silly
> dance.
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark M.Mark M. Date: Feb 15, 2008 19:47
Marcello wrote:
>
> To date, we only have a history of a government's controlled currency which
> has included massive inflation and bubbles.
The problem with monetary systems today is not that government is too controlling
but that government is not controlling enough. The best course is to eliminate
private banking's connection to introducing money into circulation and make money a
true government monopoly by spending funds into circulation.
Mark M.
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: raylopez99raylopez99 Date: Feb 16, 2008 05:59
On Feb 15, 11:05Â am, Vide...@ tcq.net wrote: >
>> FYI, Sweden, your socialist poster child, has the highest (in terms of
>> Gini coefficient) concentration of shareholder inequality in the
>> world. Â That's to say in Sweden the smallest number of Swedes own the
>> largest concentration of stock, relative to the rest of the
>> population, in the world.
>
> Â rotflol!!!!!!!!!!! they have one of the lowest income inequalities in
> the world.
Stupido, we're talking stock ownership inequality, not income
inequality. Quit shifting the goal posts; stay on topic.
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: raylopez99raylopez99 Date: Feb 16, 2008 06:02
>
>>Even with your figures, they make my point--in wasn't until 1941 we
>>saw the 1929 highs again, and inbetween we had massive unemployment.
>>So Keynes was not the reason the USA got out of a depression.
>
> Chuckle. Even the war spending is classic Keynes. If you weren't so
> knee jerk dogmatically anti-Keynes you'd not be doing this whole silly
> dance.
Well why are you dancing, PLONK-boy? What is your point, Depressed
Depression-Era Dunce (D3)?
If the Federal Reserve had not controlled the money supply we would
not need the "stimulus" caused by 50 M deaths during WWII. Read
(between the lines, since the author is a Keynesian) Barry
Eichengreen's book on the demise of the gold standard during the 1920s
and 30s.
D3. I like that moniker for you. Henceforth you'll be known as D3 or
De-cubed.
RL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Les CargillLes Cargill Date: Feb 16, 2008 10:09
Mark M. wrote:
> Marcello wrote:
>>
>> To date, we only have a history of a government's controlled currency
>> which has included massive inflation and bubbles.
>
> The problem with monetary systems today is not that government is too
> controlling but that government is not controlling enough. The best
> course is to eliminate private banking's connection to introducing money
> into circulation and make money a true government monopoly by spending
> funds into circulation.
>
> Mark M.
This is a very interesting thing to say. I may be completely wrong, but
I note two things about the money supply:
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Les CargillLes Cargill Date: Feb 16, 2008 10:16
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:54:20 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
>>
>> yahoo.com> wrote:>>>> And using nominal GDP rather than real GDP after a prolonged period of
>>>> DEFLATION is incorrect and disingenuous. You're writing from a
>>>> perspective where we haven't seen deflation in decades in the US
>>>> economy. But that was not the case then.
>>> Even with your figures, they make my point--in wasn't until 1941 we
>>> saw the 1929 highs again, and inbetween we had massive unemployment.
>>> So Keynes was not the reason the USA got out of a depression.
>> Chuckle. Even the war spending is classic Keynes. If you weren't so
>> knee jerk dogmatically anti-Keynes you'd not be doing this whole silly
>> dance.
>
> that...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
