Our right wingers are not quite Nazis

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:22:10 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:47:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:32:35 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:

I guess you don't understand economics and the value of a dollar as a commodity, which is what Andre was talking about. http://tinyurl.com/zt6wvyz Ponder the chart.

I don't think you understand what that chart represents. It is nothing more than the value of American currency against that of foreign currencies.. It goes up with the value of foreign currencies going down just as easily as it goes up with increased values of American goods. Please do not misinterpret that simply because it can back your argument to do so.

I understand exactly what the chart represents -- the dollar is rising. It is in demand. Recent Fed policies have not devalued the dollar or, amazingly, caused inflation (with certain exceptions).

The cost of goods in relation to wages is a different issue which may or may not be affected by Fed monetary policy (it really isn't in this cycle). What you are complaining about is the free market system. Keep cost down and revenues up. Wages are costs. Keep wages down -- except when it comes to CEOs, then pay them oodles of money for doing a bad job. Then charge a lot of money for your Chinese made crap. Win-win.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay - what did a Cadillac cost 10 years ago? What does it cost now? What did a top of the line bicycle with top of the line components cost 10 years ago vs what it costs now? As I said - for the cost of ONE BAG of groceries now you could have filled the back of a pickup truck 10 years ago. Hey - the price of gas has only gone up because of increased taxes. But in FACT because of the massive oversupply of oil the price of gas would have fallen like a rock and has been supported at a level FAR above what capitalistic competition would put it.

These are NOT examples of "inflation over time" but of the wholesale printing of money in the mistaken belief that it somehow followed the Keynesian economic theories.

The dollar isn't rising because of any intrinsic increase in the value of the dollar but only because the values of foreign currencies are dropping.

The only way to curb the devaluation of the world's currencies would be to not issue replacement currency as the old worn-out currency is taken out of circulation. But this has problems of it's own.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:09:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:22:10 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:47:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:32:35 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:

I guess you don't understand economics and the value of a dollar as a commodity, which is what Andre was talking about. http://tinyurl.com/zt6wvyz Ponder the chart.

I don't think you understand what that chart represents. It is nothing more than the value of American currency against that of foreign currencies. It goes up with the value of foreign currencies going down just as easily as it goes up with increased values of American goods. Please do not misinterpret that simply because it can back your argument to do so.

I understand exactly what the chart represents -- the dollar is rising. It is in demand. Recent Fed policies have not devalued the dollar or, amazingly, caused inflation (with certain exceptions).

The cost of goods in relation to wages is a different issue which may or may not be affected by Fed monetary policy (it really isn't in this cycle). What you are complaining about is the free market system. Keep cost down and revenues up. Wages are costs. Keep wages down -- except when it comes to CEOs, then pay them oodles of money for doing a bad job. Then charge a lot of money for your Chinese made crap. Win-win.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay - what did a Cadillac cost 10 years ago? What does it cost now? What did a top of the line bicycle with top of the line components cost 10 years ago vs what it costs now? As I said - for the cost of ONE BAG of groceries now you could have filled the back of a pickup truck 10 years ago. Hey - the price of gas has only gone up because of increased taxes. But in FACT because of the massive oversupply of oil the price of gas would have fallen like a rock and has been supported at a level FAR above what capitalistic competition would put it.

If you want to argue costs and the economy you really need to learn a
little about it.

Try calculating costs relative to your salary.

Example:
I bought a new MG-B in 1962 for about $3,000. Based on your claimed
"consulting" salary that is about 2-1/2 days work. Really cheap.

What was your salary 50 years ago?

These are NOT examples of "inflation over time" but of the wholesale printing of money in the mistaken belief that it somehow followed the Keynesian economic theories.

The dollar isn't rising because of any intrinsic increase in the value of the dollar but only because the values of foreign currencies are dropping.


The U.S. dollar has almost no intrinsic value whatsoever. A one dollar
bill costs about 4.8 cents to make. Given that there is essentially no
intrinsic value the "greenback dollar" is actually worth only what
someone will give you for it. Whether in goods or labour.

The only way to curb the devaluation of the world's currencies would be to not issue replacement currency as the old worn-out currency is taken out of circulation. But this has problems of it's own.

Devaluation, or usually inflation, is a normal factor of progress. Not
just some theory, but reality. And it is really a simple thing. Times
get good, salaries go up, people have more disposable income and buy
more. But hidden away, over behind the fence, costs of doing business
is going up to cover these good time salaries so costs of goods go up.

In probably 1896 my grandfather worked as a carpenter making $1.00 a
day, and supported a wife on that. Should we freeze wages at $1.00 a
day?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:28:38 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:

Nope. While the idea sound good it isn't correct. As I stated the
actual value of a dollar is what someone will give you for it. Witness
what happens when a rumor is floated that the Fed is going to approve
an increase in the interest rate. The value, i.e., what someone will
give you for a dollar rises, and exactly the same thing happens when a
rumor is floated that the Fed will decrease the interest rate, the
dollar decreases in value.

If your theory were correct it would mean that literally overnight the
U.S. either scampers around collecting stray dollars so the number in
circulation dropped or frantically gave dollars away on the street to
increase the number in circulation.

John, are you arguing simply to argue? The VALUE of the dollar is NOT what someone is willing to pay for it on speculation.


Your grip on reality is nebulas, to say the least.


I did read Keynes' book(S) "Treatise on Money" which set forth the
theory that employment and interest rates were related. Which, I might
add, pretty well demolishes your theory that you state above about
money in circulation and GDP.

And you just did the same thing again - increased numbers of workers virtually always means increasing GDP. This could not be handily measured in the time of Keynes but they did have an idea of how many people were working from tax rolls.

Since we cannot accurately guess at what the real GDP is going to be ahead of time the Federal Reserve simply allows the printing of money to an estimation or as some people might call "a wild-assed guess". They ALWAYS over-estimate to be sure and this additional amount printed is what caused "inflation" or more accurately "deflation of the value of the dollar".

Tell me more about this printing more money and how it is regulated?
Can you point to some documented reference to support your claims or
is this just another figment of your imagination?

Money is ordered from the Treasury Department which orders it from the Bureau of Engraving which prints money, stamps, awards etc. The Federal Reserve releases this money into circulation via bank orders. Is this something that you didn't know if you read Keynes book?

What are you saying? That this lazy individual finally, after 8 years,
decided to get a job and discovered that, "Hey! Now I can move back
into my house!"

A financial Einstein!

Tell you what - why don't you come here and I'll introduce you to him and you call him lazy to his face. I would guarantee that you would never do that again. This guy was making money to eat from giving tennis lessons and driving for UPS in the holiday season. But you seem to think yourself clever insulting him while he is out of sight. I suppose that pretty much demonstrates your character.

And pretending that what has happened to the economy is the results of
some grand conspiracy of the Federal Reserve Bank, or some other
secret group, is equally as silly, although this seems to be your
forte, just as is spouting "facts" that you are never able to justify.

Too bad you are also incapable of reading and understanding English. But after your last comment I'm not in the least surprised.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:38:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:28:38 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:

Nope. While the idea sound good it isn't correct. As I stated the
actual value of a dollar is what someone will give you for it. Witness
what happens when a rumor is floated that the Fed is going to approve
an increase in the interest rate. The value, i.e., what someone will
give you for a dollar rises, and exactly the same thing happens when a
rumor is floated that the Fed will decrease the interest rate, the
dollar decreases in value.

If your theory were correct it would mean that literally overnight the
U.S. either scampers around collecting stray dollars so the number in
circulation dropped or frantically gave dollars away on the street to
increase the number in circulation.

John, are you arguing simply to argue? The VALUE of the dollar is NOT what someone is willing to pay for it on speculation.


Well, if you say so. But unfortunately the reality is that the U.S.
dollar does vary in value on what people are willing to give for it.
the fact that you cannot understand that says a great deal about your
knowledge of economics.


Your grip on reality is nebulas, to say the least.


I did read Keynes' book(S) "Treatise on Money" which set forth the
theory that employment and interest rates were related. Which, I might
add, pretty well demolishes your theory that you state above about
money in circulation and GDP.

And you just did the same thing again - increased numbers of workers virtually always means increasing GDP. This could not be handily measured in the time of Keynes but they did have an idea of how many people were working from tax rolls.

Where did that come from? Another of your conspiracy theories. How can
you increase the numbers of workers" without first increasing the
amount of business to employee them?

You just keep talking and proving more and more how little you know
about the subject.

Since we cannot accurately guess at what the real GDP is going to be ahead of time the Federal Reserve simply allows the printing of money to an estimation or as some people might call "a wild-assed guess". They ALWAYS over-estimate to be sure and this additional amount printed is what caused "inflation" or more accurately "deflation of the value of the dollar".

Tell me more about this printing more money and how it is regulated?
Can you point to some documented reference to support your claims or
is this just another figment of your imagination?

Money is ordered from the Treasury Department which orders it from the Bureau of Engraving which prints money, stamps, awards etc. The Federal Reserve releases this money into circulation via bank orders. Is this something that you didn't know if you read Keynes book?

Whatever are you talking about? "The Fed releases the money into
circulation via bank orders?"

You mean the banks can just call up the FED and say "Hey! Send us some
of them there dollars" and the Fed fires off a carton or two?

Your grasp of economics is infantile.


What are you saying? That this lazy individual finally, after 8 years,
decided to get a job and discovered that, "Hey! Now I can move back
into my house!"

A financial Einstein!

Tell you what - why don't you come here and I'll introduce you to him and you call him lazy to his face. I would guarantee that you would never do that again. This guy was making money to eat from giving tennis lessons and driving for UPS in the holiday season. But you seem to think yourself clever insulting him while he is out of sight. I suppose that pretty much demonstrates your character.

What? A bloke who couldn't discover a way to earn a living in 8 years?
And pretending that what has happened to the economy is the results
of
some grand conspiracy of the Federal Reserve Bank, or some other
secret group, is equally as silly, although this seems to be your
forte, just as is spouting "facts" that you are never able to justify.

Too bad you are also incapable of reading and understanding English. But after your last comment I'm not in the least surprised.

But I can read and I read your wild eyed assertions about all the
conspiracies, the lying news and the FED shoveling all the new minted
dollars out the door, and all I can do is speculate on what is your
recreational drug of choice? Or whether your often mentioned
concussion really did scramble your ability to think.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 3:54:58 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:38:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:28:38 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:

Nope. While the idea sound good it isn't correct. As I stated the
actual value of a dollar is what someone will give you for it. Witness
what happens when a rumor is floated that the Fed is going to approve
an increase in the interest rate. The value, i.e., what someone will
give you for a dollar rises, and exactly the same thing happens when a
rumor is floated that the Fed will decrease the interest rate, the
dollar decreases in value.

If your theory were correct it would mean that literally overnight the
U.S. either scampers around collecting stray dollars so the number in
circulation dropped or frantically gave dollars away on the street to
increase the number in circulation.

John, are you arguing simply to argue? The VALUE of the dollar is NOT what someone is willing to pay for it on speculation.


Well, if you say so. But unfortunately the reality is that the U.S.
dollar does vary in value on what people are willing to give for it.
the fact that you cannot understand that says a great deal about your
knowledge of economics.

The value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it. If you're selling a dollar to a Canadian, the value is 1.3287 Canadian dollars, which is great, by the way, if you're going to Canada. It sucked when it was nearly 1:1. Now you can go to BC and scarf Poutine all day for hardly anything.. Take the pond boats over to Granville Island and hang out -- ski at Whistler. It's practically free!

-- Jay Beattie.