Economics Questions

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

AxelO — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 04:20:27 GMT

About storing income, there is a simple reason for doing that from a financial perspective. It can be left on an account in order to bump up the available margin, increase lot sizes and the potential profits that can come out of trades. As for side-stepping inflation, one possibility is to buy into precious metals.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

liberty student — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:26:50 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Deflation is a natural occurrence in a market economy with a stable monetary supply.

Falling prices are. Deflation qua fall in the money supply is not.

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

scineram — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:37:35 GMT

JonBostwick:
So you can stop a depression by printing money? Let me get Paul Krugman on the line.

I never said that. Freer banking systems like Canada never experienced the huge failure and contraction the US did.

J. Russell Wagner:
Deflation, as you seem to understand the term, is harmful to the economy in one situation: when there are minimum price floors on employment. Falling prices on goods increase the standard of living and real wages, giving workers more purchasing power. However, when price floors are set, the decrease in a good's price can severely hurt a company's profitability and thus cause them to have to downsize their labor force (further forcing prices down as individuals can no longer buy them at high prices; and you'll never guess what that does!). Were wages allowed to adjust to market conditions, this would not be an issue.

Murphy wrote that due to governmental pressures businesses could not cut wages and that caused the huge levels of unemployment in the thirties, as real wages rose in the face of recession even faster than in the roaring twenties. The monetary contraction probably would not have been much problem if not for the ridiculous Hoover and New Deal measures.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:58:45 GMT

Deflation is a natural occurrence in a market economy with a stable monetary supply.

Falling prices are. Deflation qua fall in the money supply is not.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

J. Russell Wagner — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:50:18 GMT

scineram:

JonBostwick:
Yawn. Deflation didn't cause the great Depression. The depression caused deflation. You can't stop a depression by printing money.

It probably excerberated it.

Scineram:

Deflation, as you seem to understand the term, is harmful to the economy in one situation: when there are minimum price floors on employment. Falling prices on goods increase the standard of living and real wages, giving workers more purchasing power. However, when price floors are set, the decrease in a good's price can severely hurt a company's profitability and thus cause them to have to downsize their labor force (further forcing prices down as individuals can no longer buy them at high prices; and you'll never guess what that does!). Were wages allowed to adjust to market conditions, this would not be an issue.

To be fair, inflation CAN help in a depression with sticky wages, but only under the following conditions: the inflation is gradual, to allow prices to adjust (to prevent false demand increases and malinvestment); the inflationary fiat is distributed simulatneously and proportionally to each individual so that they have the same purchasing power they had before the inflation; there is enough inflation so that the sticky wage's monetary value does not change, but its real value decreases to the minimal current market level wage for any possible employment. Of course this would require a wasteless central system completely devoid of corruption or corporate influence, that was able to know precisely under what conditions and for what services certain levels of wages would be accepted (by both provider of the good/service and its consumer). Now, I like fantasizing about wonderful things as much as the next guy, but I think it's fairly easy to see how a government with complete omniscience of its citizens' value systems, time preference, and arbitrary measures of utility- which is simultaneously altruistic, free from outside influence, and perfectly efficient- is nothing more than a dream in the mind of the rare Statist who really doesn't want to bring harm to others (although, they're generally Austrians in the making).

Of course, we can avoid that whole problem of "necessary" inflation to compensate for unemployment by merely abolishing wage minimums so as to allow free adjustment of monetary wages to meet current market demand. That way is more efficient (and realistic) and actually allows for a fall in priecs to benefit consumers.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

liberty student — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:17:42 GMT

Goldenboy219:
I'll take your lack of response to price stickiness as agreement.

Don't play this game with me.

Goldenboy219:
the keynesians would refer to another possibility, AD shortfall.

And they are wrong.

Goldenboy219:
The fact remains, in a system compiled of fixed costs (sticky prices), deflation is much worse than inflation.

Deflation is a natural occurrence in a market economy with a stable monetary supply. Deflation scare mongering is ridiculous. Not to mention you are completely avoiding the misuse of both inflation and deflation, as Austrians understand them. Changes in the price level are not deflation or inflation. Aggregate price level changes are almost always related directly to forced inflation or deflation of the monetary supply.

Goldenboy219:
Because of this, legislation (what many mistake as regulation) is necessary to allow free markets to function.

Assertion. I'm not a statist, I'm a free market anarchist. Legislation (nee regulation) can be provided by the market. Central planning and $2 might get you a cup of coffee here, not much more.

Goldenboy219:
Would that negate current account deficits?

I didn't understand this response. The reason why Western Countries can consistently import more than they export is because they exercise colonial mercantilism.

Goldenboy219:
More than majority of national debt is internally owed.

Irrelevant to my statement. The US is insolvent by all measures. Sure it can default on itself, but the default to foreign creditors will be the deathblow.

Goldenboy219:
To stay on par with your external/internal sentiment, the US has very little foreign held debt relative to gdp, as opposed to the majority of nations.

GDP is an utterly useless and fallacious measure. Most macro measures are.

Goldenboy219:
In terms of sheer population, we are by far the strongest.

Militarily, America is mighty. Productively, America is not. Which is why foreigners have to produce cheap goods for worthless American money, and then loan it back to your government.

Goldenboy219:
I am also a free markets guy

No you are not. Nothing you have posted indicates you have any concept of free markets.

Goldenboy219:
although i am in no way an anarcho capitalist

Of course not. You think it is right to bully your fellow man around with threats of violence.

Goldenboy219:
the Federal Reserve is here to stay

And the sun never sets on the British Empire. How did that work out?

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Bostwick — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:43:24 GMT

scineram:

JonBostwick:
Yawn. Deflation didn't cause the great Depression. The depression caused deflation. You can't stop a depression by printing money.

It probably excerberated it.

So you can stop a depression by printing money? Let me get Paul Krugman on the line.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Fox McCloud — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:57:39 GMT

Goldenboy219:
Deflation does in fact spill over into industries where high efficiency is achieved, whether it be falling asset nomitive values, or heaven forbid wage deflation. The fact remains, in a system compiled of fixed costs (sticky prices), deflation is much worse than inflation. Again, the majority of economic activity is not from a fixed income standpoint.

What's so terrible about wages falling? If a home costs $100,000 one year, and I get payed a total of (assuming no taxes here) $50,000 a year, it'd take me 2 years to pay off (if that's all I used my money towards). Let's assume then, we have 3% price deflation....this results in the house being $97,000 the 2nd year, and if my wages decrease by 3% then I'll get payed $48,500, which still takes me 2 years to pay off.

Of course, in all likelihood, prices for goods and services (this is a guess on my part, I'll admit) are likely to fall faster than wages, due to efficiencies in the market-place.

This topic was covered on RPF a long time ago...sadly, I have no idea where the topic is, anymore.

Humans will always try to game the system, as long as others are willing to follow the rules. Because of this, legislation (what many mistake as regulation) is necessary to allow free markets to function.

legislation is regulation; it always is and always will be...in order for legislation to be binding the use of force must be involved, which, as most people know, here, is coercion.

liberty student:
Colonial mercantilism.

Would that negate current account deficits?

Americans owe their national debt. Americans consume a LOT more than they produce, and when it ends, you will see deflation because no one will be able to print or borrow to keep prices high.

I am also a free markets guy, as i would love nothing more than free banking and minimal government intervention (although i am in no way an anarcho capitalist.), the Federal Reserve is here to stay, and being that it is present and our lacks complete government control, there are ways to work around it.

You sound more like a Monetarist (with maybe a tiny bit of keynesian?) than a Free Marketer....while I love Milton Friedman to death when it comes to things, his monetary policy, is extremely flawed. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist either, as I still have a few things I need to work out, but to say that legislation is required in order to keep the Free Market functioning? That seems to be a bite two-faced...but that's just my opinion.

Why must a system have fixed costs? Contracts can more than make up for that...as you said, mankind always has a way of finding out how to game things to his advantage, under an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist society, who's to say that things would function on a much different scale and style than today?

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

scineram — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:35:17 GMT

JonBostwick:
Yawn. Deflation didn't cause the great Depression. The depression caused deflation. You can't stop a depression by printing money.

It probably excerberated it.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Goldenboy219 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:24:32 GMT

liberty student:
Never met him.

In the same nature that inflation robs people of buying power (especially those on fixed incomes), deflation robs people of buying power (those who have fixed costs). And as we know, the majority of the economy has fixed costs (short run to long run). I'll take your lack of response to price stickiness as agreement.

liberty student:
No. Less transactions is a reflection that people have not produced as much as they have been consuming and inventories are adjusting.

While i agree this could be a possibility, the keynesians would refer to another possibility, AD shortfall. Falling incomes force consumption downward mostly attributed to unemployment and lack of wealth.

liberty student:
I'm not oblivious to it. I'm not an apologist for the inflationary debt system of stealing value from savers and creating artificial growth at the expense of long term economic stability.

Red herring. Your reply to my response shifts the context. Deflation does in fact spill over into industries where high efficiency is achieved, whether it be falling asset nomitive values, or heaven forbid wage deflation. The fact remains, in a system compiled of fixed costs (sticky prices), deflation is much worse than inflation. Again, the majority of economic activity is not from a fixed income standpoint.

liberty student:
As long as people are willing to work, and as long as they have a need to eat, clothe and house themselves, the economy will be fine. Only government intervention (threat of force) by policy (monetary, fiscal, social) can prevent man from pursuing his rational self-interest.

Humans will always try to game the system, as long as others are willing to follow the rules. Because of this, legislation (what many mistake as regulation) is necessary to allow free markets to function.

liberty student:
Colonial mercantilism.

Would that negate current account deficits?

Americans owe their national debt. Americans consume a LOT more than they produce, and when it ends, you will see deflation because no one will be able to print or borrow to keep prices high.

More than majority of national debt is internally owed. Just as many Americans are either holders, or their beneficiaries are future holders, the largest portion of the national debt is a non issue due to origin. To stay on par with your external/internal sentiment, the US has very little foreign held debt relative to gdp, as opposed to the majority of nations. In terms of sheer population, we are by far the strongest.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext-economy-debt-external

As this list shows, the US has a very high segment of externally held debt. And yet.... As far as production.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_pergdp-economy-debt-external-per-gdp

Your premise is moot. And when you implement a regretion that includes population, it absolutley favors the US.

I am also a free markets guy, as i would love nothing more than free banking and minimal government intervention (although i am in no way an anarcho capitalist.), the Federal Reserve is here to stay, and being that it is present and our lacks complete government control, there are ways to work around it.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

liberty student — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:28:47 GMT

Goldenboy219:

Who is the thief?

deflation

Never met him.

Goldenboy219:
Less transactions is a signal that people are not buying goods or services, hence production must curtail to meet demand.

No. Less transactions is a reflection that people have not produced as much as they have been consuming and inventories are adjusting.

Goldenboy219:
While i am quite aware that production cuts are necessary to revitalize an economy, you seem oblivious to the fact that deflationary price spirals spill over into efficient sectors of the economy.

I'm not oblivious to it. I'm not an apologist for the inflationary debt system of stealing value from savers and creating artificial growth at the expense of long term economic stability.

As long as people are willing to work, and as long as they have a need to eat, clothe and house themselves, the economy will be fine. Only government intervention (threat of force) by policy (monetary, fiscal, social) can prevent man from pursuing his rational self-interest.

Goldenboy219:
It just so happens that extremely wealthy nations import more than they export.

Colonial mercantilism.

Goldenboy219:
In fact, the majority of Americans can pay their loans, maybe less than 10% (just guessing) default.

Americans owe their national debt. Americans consume a LOT more than they produce, and when it ends, you will see deflation because no one will be able to print or borrow to keep prices high.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Bostwick — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:39:46 GMT

scineram:

Goldenboy219:
Deflationary price spirals increase unemployment. See our current situation, and that of 1932 as reference.

The question is whether it is good or bad deflation.

Yawn. Deflation didn't cause the great Depression. The depression caused deflation. You can't stop a depression by printing money.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

scineram — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:04:52 GMT

Goldenboy219:
Deflationary price spirals increase unemployment. See our current situation, and that of 1932 as reference.

The question is whether it is good or bad deflation.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

ladyattis — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:56:04 GMT

Goldenboy219:
In the instance of ones 30 year mortgage, is it to be flexed to reflect buying power of the currency? I hardly believe so, because during price deflation, banks have the greatest return in value giving more weight to future earnings.

That's because percentage returns give the illusion of future value as money. If one were to assess the situation from the point of view of actual wealth accrued (a product/service), then the interest rates being measured against that would be a good value regardless of currency.

Goldenboy219:
Theoretically, you can repay interest in goods, but there is a barrier in that scenario. In doing so, you assume that the lender actually demands your good or service.

It's not a matter of theory, it's a matter of fact. You can't eat money.

Goldenboy219:
That is why we need a medium of exchange. The majority of capitol purchases are sticky.

Mediums of exchange are arbitrary in nature, all that matters is that they're rates reflect the actual wealth in the world at any given time (with limits based on practical means of assessment of said wealth). For example, I call up Benny Boy to print me a quadrillion million dollars. Now, I go out and try to buy the world (because in theory a quadrillion million dollars is in fact more valuable at that time than the actual wealth in the world). I get away with it until folks realize I have more money than the world actually has wealth to offer. So what happens? The quadrillion million dollars becomes practically worthless overnight. So, no prices are never absolutely sticky (capital related or otherwise) so long as the medium of exchange is undefined in its bounds.

Goldenboy219:
Friedman proved individual purchase decisions are based on long run income expectations, which confirms our debt system as natural.

No it doesn't. It means that our debt system can be sleighted as dishonest folks in the guise of bankers (particularly those at central banks) utilize obfuscation of the mechanisms that leverage wealth as credit. Thus, leading us to not a valid debt system, where all debts are fundamentally finite and bounded (as all wealth is fundamentally bounded and finite), but to a system where debts can accumulate perpetually in a single organization's name and "inflated out of" with no real gain in wealth creation. In essence, it simply offers a better scam than the Ponzi Scheme.

Re: Usury and the Increasing Money Supply

Goldenboy219 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:07:01 GMT

liberty student:

Why?

When someone purchases an extremely durable good, for instance a piece of real estate, the odds are it will require a considerable amount of financing to complete the purchase. Say a $100,000 for a 30 year duration costs $500/ month for 30 years; of which the $500 dollar payment is a fixed amount. Regardless of inflation/deflation, the person is going to have to pay $500 every month, hence the price is sticky. Since the majority of all durable goods world wide are financed, it is safe to say that the majority of prices are sticky.

Who is the thief?

deflation

Savings are surplus from productive gain or deferred consumption. Disposable income isn't about a wage level, it's about a consumption and production level.

In a scenario of fixed costs, deflation causes a purchaser to "over pay" in terms of buying power. For example, lets say that i pay $500 per month, which is 1/5 of my total income to my home mortgage, which equals $6,000 in year 1 dollars. Now assume deflation exists at a 2% rate in the following year. In terms of year one dollars, i am effectively paying $6,120. Taking this a step further, let us also assume that this deflation rate persists for 10 years, and by year 5, it also effects my wages. By year 10, my wages decrease in excess of 10% while the cost of my home increases in excess of 20%. Not to mention the value of my home would have also fallen 20% in that same time frame. Now that house is only worth $80,000, all the while i am forced to make payments towards the original $100k, with a diminishing income.

Americans and the American economy is in la-la land. They borrow money from the people who make the goods, to buy the goods, then claim bankruptcy.

I know of many people who are able to pay their debt obligations without recourse. In fact, the majority of Americans can pay their loans, maybe less than 10% (just guessing) default. Regardless, the US is the no.3 exporting country in the world. It just so happens that extremely wealthy nations import more than they export.

Yeah, you can't keep spending when your income is gone. Americans are slowly coming to this basic reality that production has to lead consumption.

Deflationary price spirals increase unemployment. See our current situation, and that of 1932 as reference.

This is basic Austrian Economics. Who said there would be lower production? The highest quality goods and production will prosper, people who were consuming capital for unproductive uses, or inefficiently will be squeezed out. This is part of the economy giving itself an enema. Those firms that operate between insolvency and inefficiency are driven out when credit is no longer cheap. Only productive, efficient firms can continue to borrow for investment or operation as interest rates rise (and prices deflate).

Lower velocity of money equals less transactions. Less transactions is a signal that people are not buying goods or services, hence production must curtail to meet demand. While i am quite aware that production cuts are necessary to revitalize an economy, you seem oblivious to the fact that deflationary price spirals spill over into efficient sectors of the economy. As wages begin to fall inversely to fixed prices, loss of wealth occurs at an even greater rate than 2% inflation, because dollar denominated assets have a lower dollar value while many costs are fixed.