Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/12/13 02:56 AM, Feoric wrote: I like how you quoted this part but didn't give a response. I'm still waiting for one. Show me the evidence that he was mostly right.

I'd like to add to the specificity of the the example, such evidence that he was right in a non vague way, because anybody can time you markets are going to go up and then go down because that's how markets work. Now why they do that and on what frequency they do that is are very good questions; if you can answer both with even a close accuracy you should be the richest man in the world.

Predicting for certain economic trends in short runs are a lot harder than people think.

At 6/11/13 08:57 AM, Poniiboi wrote: yes. This is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. LMAO

So you're admitting that you are a liar, which means anything you've said so far could be a lie? That's an admission I would not be "laughing my ass off" at.

You just linked me to a self audit of the Fed. Are you kidding?! MOAR LMAO

You wanted an audit, you got an audit. Next be more specific.

"Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

At 6/10/13 09:44 PM, Poniiboi wrote: *sigh* you and your useless Econ 101 equations that don't apply again. They'd be great if people didn't lie.

If people lie how do I know you're speaking the truth? Prove that you're right. Otherwise, you could be lying, like the people you're describing. Are you saying you are a liar?

Yay logical fallacies, which you seem to be full of!

All you guys agree with me on this yet resist me in the other threads, yet this is a central tenet of what I believe. I can only think that you guys agree with me on other issues more than you want to and it bothers you. Just come on over to the right side and quit playing devil's advocate...you'll feel better.

Lol right. The only reason why people agreed with you is because they don't understand how the Fed works, but thanks to what's already been posted, it's pretty darn clear that the government looks pretty darn close at the Fed already for pretty damn good reason: the two closely relate on how there adjustments in the short run to deter recessions from happening due to the free market. Furthermore, I'll link it again: you want an audit of the Fed? Here it is.

And now, for a good Greek quote, but then again, you don't read.

"It's what the hawk said high in the clouds as he carried off a speckle-throated nightingale skewered on his talons. She complained something pitiful, and he made this high and mighty speech to her: 'No sense in your crying. You're in the grip of real strength now, and you'll go where I take you, songbird or not. I'll make a meal out of you if I want, or I might let you go. Only a fool struggles against his superiors, he not only gets beat, but humiliated as well.'"-Hesoid

At 6/8/13 07:41 AM, Poniiboi wrote:

WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THE CONSPIRACY PORTION OF JONES' ARGUMENTS, THE OUTCOME IS THE SAME: Your water and food ARE being poisoned. Your army IS being co-opted as a private military force. Citizens ARE being spied upon. Debate by whom and for what all you want; however, focus on the facts of the results and you will see that no matter who is doing it, the average citizen is getting the worst of the deal. Alex Jones is the only person drawing attention to this.

Let me repeat that, because this point is essential. You do NOT have to believe in the conspiracy portions of Alex Jones' argument for those arguments to have validity. Why? The results are the same no matter if water and food are being poisoned on purpose by globalists or by accident because of the mistakes of some company. The results are the SAME to you - your food is being poisoned and Alex Jones has solutions and information.

The third reason Jones matters: He encourages independent research.

One of Alex Jones' main talking points is not to believe everything that he says but to research it yourself. I'll repeat that: One of Alex Jones' main talking points is not to believe everything that he says but to research it yourself. I'll repeat that: One of Alex Jones' main talking points is not to believe everything that he says but to research it yourself.

Anybody love the hypocrisy going on here besides me?

Let me ask you Poniboii, have you research extensively how all of those this work? That you've gotten the full story, understand mostly what's going on, and then DRAWING YOUR OWN CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANYBODY ELSE's influence? And after finding said research, going back and revising your opinion?

Then you're no better than the rest of us. Sure,you think you're drinking Grape but it's just a different flavor of the Kool Aid.

At 6/7/13 11:48 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Easy answer Fire the assholes and make the Fed part of the Treasury Department therefore it gets audited annually.

Come on Tony, you're making me pull out math again.

So Goverment spending looks something like this:

Government spending=tax revenue + change in borrowing + change in money

Makes sense, government spends (roughly) what it makes in tax revenue, how much it borrows, and how much money it prints. Now why is this important? Let's look back at our quantity theory of money equation,

MV=PY, where M is the total amount of money, V is the velocity of money, P is the price level of money, and Y is GDP. Once again doing log derivatives gives us this equation,

Change of money=inflation+change of GDP.

What the heck does this all mean? Well, as you can see with government spending, government can effectively "pay" for it's own expenditures by printing more money. But, as we can see with the growth theory of money, in doing so would increase inflation to the point of hyperinflation. And guess who gets to suffer from such an act? All of us holding currency. This is called seigniorage, or inflation tax. Governments tend to try to avoid this, because it doesn't end well. So they separate monetary policy from fiscal policy and give it to a central bank, who we hope is independent for this reason.

At 6/6/13 03:06 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Try an English class.

English class now? Is that where you're getting your economic data? Seems more logical to get proof about economics from, say, an economics class, no?

I'm still waiting on that source.

At 6/6/13 02:30 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Again, never used the word "sheeple." Ever. YOU DID. You trying to box me in is SO unoriginal.

Then again, you never claimed to have brain to begin with.

The phrase "wider and deeper" comes to mind, personally.

I'm still waiting on that source besides, "If you can't see if then you must be stupid hurr durr" because no, I can't see how the inflation rate could be artificially higher or if government is controlling it. Can I see your source besides that nut of a head that you have?

At 6/5/13 11:07 PM, Poniiboi wrote: You morons haven't engaged me enough to source anything or give you any more than an inkling of my views. However, you can ask anyone who has argued with me before - I can very easily refute the auto-drone arguments that you people get from mainstream media. You fucking parrots.

We're all eagerally awaiting sources though because we'd love to know what factual base you're getting your opinions from without being called a dumbass.

How about you begin with your claim from the other thread that influation is government made?

Aka "But why doesn't anyone listen to me?" Or "I'm trying really hard to be not insignificant and my opinion matters" thread.

You know what's the funniest thing about all of this? You said it yourself: the game is rigged. There's not a lot you can do. But instead of bitching and whinning like a 5 year old, you can learn the rules and exploit them, like the other people that are ahead. Sure, you still might not be happy, but it's always better to be rich and miserable than poor and miserable. You see a barrier, I see opportunity. And guess what? This kind of behavior is always going to happen! Why? Because we're humans. That's how the world works, and has worked for the past how ever many years of civilization we've had. We're fallible creatures that way. Actually, more than anything, it's a completely American thing to do, screw others out of your deal so you get the majority of the deal. Hurray for unchecked motivation! And this will go on and on. So help yourself to as much pie as you want, make sure you're punching your way to the pie table, because everybody else is doing the exact same thing. Like Adam Smith, and this falls completely in line with neoclassical economics too, is that at the end of the day the person you most care about is yourself. So if that means screwing the other guy so you can eat another day, you're most likely going to do it.

Furthermore: what makes you think you're right? You have an opinion, congratulations. An opinion, by the way, that has been influenced and formed through unique social and cultural experiences/perspectives to yourself. Well so does the rest of the United States, so your opinion is really not important, nor are your ideas that original. Maybe that's why so many people disagree with you.....

So want to be succesful? Learn to exploit a system and stop bitching about it. Human behavior (I.e. greed) never changes, so give in to it, and then worry about your problems. Money has a tendency to make a lot of problems go away. And this is coming from a liberal, lol.

Or, open your mind more. You might learn something. Knowing you though, it might be impossible to get tha message through.

At 5/31/13 10:52 AM, Jackotrades wrote:

There might be one additional part missing, although if you look in between the lines you can see it in Cam's description.
The specific economy in this scenario does thrive, but what really shows its prosperity is the growth of the currency versus others.

That's now an opinionated statement, because overall with fiat currency the economy does a lot better than a fixed standard. We've proven that now like 4 times over. Currency exchange, however, just like any other market, is prone to bubbles and dips. But who cares about other markets anyways? If you 're doing fine, you're going to keep developing right along regardless of the world around you.

The typical citizen during a thriving economy following this scenario wouldn't really notice too much of a difference in how much they can afford in the actual thriving country, but I imagine the currency would start outpacing other currencies internationally, which means they can afford imported goods more and thus we get those nice numbers from the stock market rising overseas. The illustrations where everyone in a prosperous economy has mansions and eats like kings or queens daily really can't exist.

Imported goods, after the likelihood of taxes, are actually subtracted from GDP-meaning if we imported more, we'd see an increase in money supply (people are buying more things!) and thus the demand for you currency will go up as a result. This leads to a higher demand overall for your money, you now catch up internationally.

But none of that lasted very long. Right now I do not see us having inflation for the right reasons...

We're going to have inflation, regardless of what we would. It's natural in a free market economy. Whether its right or wrong doesn't matter. It's like asking why the sun has to be so hot. It just is, and will continue to be.

At 5/30/13 09:42 PM, Poniiboi wrote: I don't care how many times you repeat the same Economics 101 lesson. Bottom line is I know what you're telling me; you refuse to acknowledge what I'm telling you, and that's it.

If you can't respect the models that we use to describe the world, how do you describe it then? You can't look at the whole picture and analyze. You start small and build around your framework.

Do you think Newton got the theory of gravity right in one day? Do you think we have the precise measurements of gravity? No. It's a model, just like anything else, it ignores some aspects but overall as a model of how our world works it works pretty damn well. It's the same thing with these models. They work be we've set the parameters to include almost all of the variables, save one: humans are rational. As we can clearly see, they are not. Yes, that is a fault in our models, which is why they're models and not actual representations. However, with all models, there is something to be learned from them: simply discarding them because we don't think they're applicable or relevant means there's more data and more thought lost. That being said, one has to first look at the specifics of said model before passing judgement. So when models that are used on a federal and international level (and taught at numerous colleges and graduate schools around the world) are being called false, I tend to pay attention, because you are so far from the truth. Besides, like I've said earlier, this information is all online. A lot of the economic data, trends, are publicly known and widely available online. There is nothing stopping you from learning any of these models.

Now, if you want to talk about income inequality, that's a different matter entirely and has little to do with the Fed........

At 5/31/13 04:03 AM, Poniiboi wrote: HOW DO THESE TWO STATEMENTS RELATE TO EACH OTHER AT ALL?? You IDIOT You don't even address what I'm saying

He's addressing how inflation works. Even though you still seem to have trouble understanding it.....

And the trillions of bailout dollars DID go into circulation. STUPID

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE
http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/coin_currcircvo lume.htm

I don't see it. Must be those government dogs hiding data from us again, eh?

Also, the Fed is holding down the interest rate on purpose. STUPID

That's what the FED does. Duh. Did you know read my explanation of what the Fed does, or do you want me to explain the whole shebang again?

Stop being stupid!

Can you? You're making my head hurt.

At 5/30/13 08:58 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Keep your delusion; it's all you have.

So where's your article linking backing what you're saying? That inflation is a conspiracy?

That's what I thought. In the meanwhile, I'll link it again: quantity theory of money. explains with very easy math both why inflation happens (it's just the change in the price of money over time, which makes sense, the demand for money changes with time just like any other good) and why having fiat currency is more beneficial to the economy overall. And trust me when I say you want the economy to be good overall. You think things are bad now? You should see when things really go down the toilet. Which is precisely what happens when you have a gold or silver standard, because now you have to allow for the deflation of your currency whenever you grow overall as an economy.

First of all, comparing the US to Bulgaria to prove your point is not applicable. Two completely different scenarios and I know your argument holds less water because you're trying to bring in the emotinoal aspect of "look how bad it COULD be." I'm talking hard numbers, guy, and the hard numbers point to the average person in the US being less affluent than in the 50s. Don't know about Bulgaria, don't care.

Lol long story short, "I don't care about the applications or know about the specifics, I'm worried about our model."

Which is exactly what you critiqued me for earlier. How did you learn how to use a computer?

At 5/28/13 02:58 PM, Jackotrades wrote: - A guy who likes reading the Politics Forum

Here's my main point of all of this: Fed's super important. By controlling the growth of money by selling and buying bonds (and not printing money) and targeting interest rates it can control otherwise wild fluctuations in inflation and potentially saving us from long term damage to the economy.

I don't care about the applications of it, because economics in itself is theory-based science opposed to model-backed science: we don't have future data points because we can't predict them. So we got with the data we have and base a theory on it. As a result, however, things such as greed, human nature, natural occurrence, etc. is built into our models- it comes directly from the data.

But for some reason these things get off track, probably because Poniiboi keeps trying to change the discussion away from these points.

At 5/28/13 02:12 PM, Poniiboi wrote:

At 5/28/13 12:54 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

First of all, you said, "If PY is positive, we're booming. If PY is negative, we're in a recession," which shows absolutely no application to the real world.

My god you don't understand math at all, do you?

PY is potential output. We're producing on a normal scale when PY=0, that is, we have full employment (sans natural rate of unemployment) and we're using all our available resources.

If we're performing above PY, that is, PY is possitive, then we're producing more goods than ancipiated. Maybe the natural rate of unemployment dropped, maybe exports inches

Because the Fed gave trillions to banks for free who then only loaned it out to big businesses, it is completely within the bounds of this equation for large companies to create supply, buy it themselves, sell it to subsidiaries and mark it down as a profit without a single real sale. They just shift the money between themselves and the Dow goes up. How in the WORLD do you think the Dow can hit an all time high, go past 15,000 for the first time EVER, and unemployment sits at 7.5%, with Detroit and Chicago in shambles, farmers going broke, and single family housing starts below the level they were at in 1989 with millions more people in need of housing today?

Too bad that's entire irrelevant to what I was talking about. Or what you were talking about for that matter. So where exactly are you going with this?

Another quote of yours that just gives away your entire attitude: "There's other models but I'm going with the one I was taught." Of course you have a natural bias to what you were taught. You can't see past it. You want these models to represent the entirety of humanity. They do not. They simply do not. They represent an ideal situation captured at a single moment in time. They are two dimensional without any notion of movement between social classes or access to funds. As if anyone who could solve these equations will magically have enough money for a house and a car and the American dream. Dream on, dude! Just dream on.

So your bias is right? LOL.
Nor did I ever say these equations will bring you riches. Riches in knowledge maybe, but not money riches.

What these equations don't tell you is who has the money. It is being consolidated at the top even though the same amount of money is flowing through the total economy. More, actually. It is being consolidated because it is being stolen, and you will have it stolen from you if you are not careful.

Lol according to who? Your bias?

So don't concede. I know you won't. There is nothing wrong with the math on your equations. The problem is they do NOT account for the soul of the money flow.

If you care about income inequality look at the department of labor and their statistics, but the Fed is the

Let me make this clear for you. Apple is booming because it incorporates a Dutch sandwich to avoid paying taxes along with employing the scheme I mentioned above to increase sales and show sold products on their bottom line, fleecing the investors who are propping up its stock price. Google and Starbucks are the same.

Too bad we weren't talking about companies.

The average American is in a recession because they do not have access to the math in your equations and you know it's true.

First off, this doesn't help the average American gain anything finically, just knowledge of how this system works. After, of you're going to critize a system, you ought to know how it works, right?

Second, I linked to it on Wikipedia.You can take a course in this at your local CC. Maybe not the equations, but the concepts definitely. But that's right; YOU DON'T READ.

Bottom line: Your models are fine and I'm not arguing with the math. You just need to learn how to apply them, and again, you just need real world experience. You want to argue about models, and I'm not that person. I understand exactly how to substitute values for variables. You have no idea how to apply what I'm talking about to the real world.

Do you believe in gravity? Did you know science is a model? Have you realized everything you've been taught is a model? Models are how you look at the real world because otherwise, how do you normalize real world trends?

You must not know how to do anything in the real world then.

Or, consequently, you might be trapped in "the short run trap"-similar to Keynes's "long run" quote. Yes, the short run is made of increasing diverse and constantly changing models, but by taking a picture of moment in time helps us understand the long run that much better. As a result, the long run is just a series of short run graphs, and yes, those are changing too-but it's better to have some picture than no picture at all.

Or I could be wasting my breath because once again you don't understand what you're talking about at all.

At 5/28/13 09:32 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Primary dealer credit facility [edit]
The Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) is an overnight loan facility that will provide funding to primary dealers in exchange for a specified range of eligible collateral and is intended to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally.[110] This new facility marks a fundamental change in Federal Reserve policy because now primary dealers can borrow directly from the Fed when this previously was not permitted.

I will literally post a post conceding this argument if you can tell me what this means.

I'm not joking. Because it you understood economics, you'd realize the following:

a) This has nothing to do with backing money credit
B) this has to do with targeted interest rates in regards to keeping inflation in check
C) if any, as an investor, you gain confidence, because instead of risking default with a normal bank bond that bond is secure per se, the Fed will always have money.

Fuck it, lets do some more math about the Fed.

IS/MP curves are commonly used as models in determining monetary policy. I'm going to use the version I was taught, and while other models exist, I like the math on this one.

IS=(a-b(R-r))/(1-x) =PY

where IS is investment spending,
a is confidence of imports, exports, government, consumers and investors(!)
b is the sensitively of investment demand to real interest,
R is the real interest,
r is the rate of interest set by the Fed
(1-x) is the economic multiplier (this deals with how transactions create more transactions and so forth)
and PY is potential GDP. If PY is positive we're in a boom. If it's negative we're in a recession.

MP is monetary policy. It's the targeted interest rate by the Fed. I'm denoting it here with the Fisher equation, i=R+Pi, where i is nominal interest, R is the real rate of interest, and Pi is inflation. For all intended purposes it's gonna be constant because the fed sets this at r, denoted above. It might help to think of i as an opportunity cost of holding on to a bond versus having cash.

It might also be good to look at our money demand curve (Md) as well, which is typically written in this sort of fashion:
Md=P*L(i,Y)
where
P is the price of the bond,
L is some function of money demand that revolves on nominal interest (i) and GDP (Y)

(Btw, you can take the Md curve and stick it on a graph with money on the x axis and nominal interest on the y axis. As a result, your Md curve is more of a downward sloping line(do some algebra to get this, not too bad). Now, if we were to be on a fixed currency, say gold or silver, that line would be completely vertical on our graph. That means if for some reason Md increases (which happens all the time) the nominal(!) interest rate increases. This leads to hyperinflation quite quickly. This is another way a gold or silver standard fails as a monetary policy)

So now that we have our toys, let's play with them. IS/MP models are set up in a way such the MP line (which is horizontal and set at r) intersects a downward sloping IS line (algebra shows it's downward sloping, you can do that) when PY is zero, ideally. Also note inflation and confidence of everybody (and I mean everybody) fits in this model.

Okay. So now say investor confidence drops, because for some reason they feel like it's a bad time to invest. Why? Again, good motherfucking question. (Keynes called them "animal spirits" lol) So a in our IS curve back up there drops, which means IS decreases, which also mean PY decreases and now is negative, which means we're in a recession for the time being. If we had no central bank (such as the Fed) this is the end of the story. There's nothing we can do until investors get back on their horse and decide to start investing again. When will that happen? If you can tell me that, you're better off playing the stock market than being on this site buddy. Also, since PY is negative, Md is lower than before.

So instead of waiting, let's have our central bank lower their rate. r drops, so where the MP line now intersects our now lower IS curve is much closer to 0 on the PY side than before, which is what we're trying to aim for here: trying to get the economy back to it's potential output. But, since r is now lowered, our IS curve, because it's defined with r as a variable, goes, "Hey, there's now a lower interest rate. I think I might go buy some bonds." (r decreases, so IS increases. Look at the math) now hopefully we're back to 0 at potential GDP. As a result, Md increases.

Without the Fed none of what I said would be possible in case of a drop in investor confidence save an increase in government spending(gasp)......

At 5/28/13 02:30 AM, Poniiboi wrote: And! Quit harping on minutae without understanding what I'm saying. The Treasury prints the paper. The Fed makes money because it is the entity that provides the CREDIT which allows transactions to be made. Seeing as most of the transactions are made off credit, your little "detail" means nothing because it is actually the Fed, in practice, that is creating the transaction. The paper is a formality, kid.

Fed doesn't provide credit. What the Fed does do is partipate in the bond market and set the target interest rate in to counteract inflation. Yes, the fed makes money off these transactions, but that,s just the interest rate like any other investor in the bond market.

So...........what are you talking about again? That's right, nothing.

Can't see the forest for the trees. Get your head out of the books, kid, before you end up slaving your life away to some guy who will use you to become rich.

How about you hit the books? Or even take (gasp) a CC course in macroeconomics? Because you're the type who's going to get expoited by people like me. Oh, don't like government? That only makes you have the most predictable and unoriginal political ideas in the world.

Seriously, read a book on this stuff. It's not rocket science. It's just math.

At 5/28/13 01:43 AM, Poniiboi wrote: 1. If the Fed continues this "quantitative easing," which is just printing money, with every dollar that is printed, the money in your pocket becomes worth less. Same reason that diamonds are worth money and rocks aren't - diamonds are rare. If money is less "rare," it becomes worth less.

The FED doesn't print money- the Treasury does.

You're still wrong. My model, MV=PY, proves you wrong, still.

Keep on living in denial!

At 5/26/13 09:38 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Your dumb shit, which is now currently causing children in Africa to starve further. Good job.

Did you even read what I said again? I guess not. Did you even begin to think that all of these models HAVE HUMAN GREED and STUPIDITY built in to them? How about the fact that one of the core assumptions about economics is that EVERYBODY IS IN IT FOR THEMSELVES?

The quantity theory of money is even before government laws or societal norms (save being the ideas of free markets, which will always exist, and the idea of money, which will continue to exist). Once we start adding more societal layers on top on this some people, believe it or not, will decide not to do the popular idea. Why? Good motherfucking question! You tell me why people are weird. In the meantime though, we can look at the overall general trend and get a feel for the data.

Of course, you don't care, so LOOKIE OVER THERE GOBERNMENT IS TAKIN MAH MONIEZ AGH GAH GSH!DJAJKSDFAADDKNG. Because that what you sound like. A broken record player, discarded by the sands of time and technology, doomed to forever be part of the past and not the present until 30 years from now a bunch of 15 years will dig you out of a yard sale, mess with you for about 30 minutes, and destroy with baseball bats. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Unlike you, I don't wish for you to die. I wish you to live a nice, healthy life with the knowledge that the world is going to keep spinning just fine and that you are wrong in all accounts.

Now on to inflation........

Like Cam said, with the way capitalism is, almost any standard in which you are to base a currency on is going to be limited. Having a floating value of the dollar, while risking minor influation, eliminates risks of hyperinflation. Long story short, your're going to get either one due to natural fluxuations in the investment market, so pick your poision.

At 5/26/13 12:29 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Your shit works on paper just like Communism. However, the stupidity of human folly fucks your whole shit up. Deal with it, faggit.

Your ability to read (or lack of it) is just as appalling as your argument tatics, let alone your personality and probably your face, which is why you probably don't get many girls, leading to a severe social disorder that results in your need to prove yourself on the Internet to strangers you don't know and you probably have a small penis.

See? I can use ad hominem too, and its gets us nowhere. So please at least have the decency to refrain from insulting us, all right?

If you had read what I had written, in NO WAY AT ALL advocating the fed. It was just simple model explain why fiat currency is mathematically superior to a gold (fixed) standard.

Now, your point about human stupidity (or behavior, if we want to be general) fits perfectly in our model. See that part called inflation? In that contains consumer and investor confidence on a day to day level. So, to take your example, if all of a sudden we became stupid and decided today was a bad day to buy anything, we would see that reflected in inflation.

Again, please read before you open your mouth. You might learn something.

At 5/24/13 03:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote: You've drank way too much kool ade & haven't got a clue to the point you actually believe a fiat currency note has real value !

You don't understand math then if you think a gold standard if good.

Fuck it, let's do some math anyways.

MV=PY. (This is David Humes, who did this in the 1700s, so there is no recent political bias. So shaddup)

this is the quantity theory of money, aka currency where M is the quantity of money, v is the velocity of money (how fast transactions are made) p is a price level, and Y is real GDP. Long story short, this function says the quantity of money times how fast translations are made should be equal to the current price level times current GDP. This makes sense, the left side is talking about the total amount of times money is being used in our economy to buy things should equal how much we pay for our stuff over all in the economy.

So lets take some log derivatives, shall we? You guys remember how to do math, right? .........Right?

Fine.

ln(M)+ln(V)=ln(P)+ln(Y)

If we had two points along this equation (which we do, thanks to data collecting) we can do some quick math to get to this equation (since ln(v) is a constant, remove it. Ln(P) is how we measure inflation denoted typically with pi but here I'll just use ¥,and ln(y) is the growth in GDP, denoted (gy))

So

ln(M) (which we'll denote Gm, or growth of money) Gm=Â¥+gy.

WTF does this mean? Well, let's take your gold standard example.

Since there is a limited amount of gold in the world, M is fixed, denoted m. So the growth rate of the amount of money in the world is 0 because money supply is fixed. What does that look like in our equations? Well, lets take a look......

m(V)=YP

That looks fine, that looks like it could be okay here for a bit.....

0=Â¥+gy. Or, equivalently, -gy=Â¥.

Oh no. This doesn't work. Inflation is equal to the negative growth of our economy? Not good. So if inflation went up we want to slow the growth of our economy? I don't care what math you believe, but that doesn't make any sense.

Long story short: you want a currency that inflates with the economy. It's healthier overall in the long run because it allows for GDP growth.

;;; THis sentece should be used by us to refute you ...& you really can only be a Kenysian to actually believe the Fed is a helpful organization ...what bank do you work for ?

The only people who call economists Keynesian are conservative commentators who have no idea what happens at Fed because they were too stupid to learn the math behind the economics. In the academic economic field (which means the Fed and most leading economic institutions) Keynesian thought is taught and widely accepted because, well, the model fits the data pretty damn good. That's not to say everything Keynes did was right (he has notable goof ups in some models, which were corrected later by.....Milton Friedman. History, as they say, does not exist without irony) but he was pretty damn accurate for someone of his time.

As for specifically how his models work........I'll save that for another time and see if you first understand what's going on here with this math.

At 5/23/13 01:55 AM, Poniiboi wrote: the too big to fail

It's called macroeconomics and the aggregate economy yo, and it's integrated into every part of society whether you like it or not. So either,

A) join the rest of society or
B) go leave in a cave somewhere, which I assume you already do.

But you'd end up calling me some rather nasty remarks, so why don't you read up on some more economic theory first?

At 5/21/13 06:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: For instance: I can't wait to see how many people call me a "conspiracy theorist" for simply stating the FACT that the Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank, simply because that is a fact that is most often brought to the public's attention as backing for a conspiracy speculation. Here we go. Social experiment.

Ahem. The Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank.

Go.

Well, first off, it's not the FED's not a private bank in the traditional sense, it's private in the idea that its appointees are nonpartisan, because the last thing we all want is the economy to be taken advantage of in the short gain by politicians. Second we don't pay taxes to the FED, and we don't pay much of their payroll either, in fact, they make about 90% back from investing and trading their own goods. Third, as it relates back to the first, do you know why we like having an independent central bank? If not, go bury your head in a ditch and read some basic monetary policy by Fisher and then come back to the grown up table.

So basically once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Example fail. Try again next time!

At 5/17/13 02:34 AM, LemonCrush wrote: By your logic, slavery was legal...it was legal, but as far as humanity is concerned, not legal. Get it?

This logic in itself.............I'm sorry, what?

I've read this sentence at least 20 times now, and it still doesn't make a lick of sense. Yes, lawful and legal are synonyms, you'd know that if you'd read a dictionary but we all know now that you don't, so first do us a favor and look both them up before coming to this discussion. That being said, if you want to argue while slavery was legal it was morally and ethically wrong in the eyes of many who may have wanted to change the legal status quo, then that's a separate argument entirely. But this sentence in itself makes 0 sense in the way that it is written because if something is legal, it's legal, period. That's the beauty of the nature of laws: they're absolute. Now, if people follow them in an absolute way again, is a different matter.

So what the heck are you trying to say?

At 5/16/13 01:54 PM, Poniiboi wrote: As for Brianwhatever boy, please shut up, you scared little pansy. Just because you are content to be censored because you don't have any kind of life doesn't mean I will be. Drones like you deserve to be subjugated and exploited.

It's called societal contracts my dear boy. You cannot expect the world with nothing in return. Everything has a price, including your freedom. You want to use this service called the Internet? Guess what, you gotta give up some rights in return, including privacy. After all, the computer doesn't put in your credit card for you when you buy something online, you consent to putting in your credit card information.

By the way, for someone who doesn't like the way the Internet is working you sure seem to be on it a lot. In that way, you're no better than the rest of us. If you're online someone out there can find out what your doing. If I were you I'd be more scared of that fact then anything else.

At 5/16/13 06:27 AM, Poniiboi wrote: I want everyone to know that I made a comment about the police getting what they deserved in the case of Christopher Dorner and Facebook asked me for my ID in order to continue posting on that page.

Congratulations. You have a political opinion. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

I didn't give it to them and I continue to post about police brutality.

And why not? You're on a private website after you've agreed to their terms and conditions. It's within in their right to ask you for your identity.

:I also fully advocate for bad police to die slowly and painfully.

I also fully advocate for the elimination of stupid people, but that doesn't make me a good human being.

Government today is a spy agency only concerned with its own protection.

And now you lost me. The government has its own protection from the people need be in your little conspiracy world. It's called the armed forces. I'm pretty sure the Army can protect the government need be.

They (the government supported by the big tech companies, Google, Facebook) are trying to make you afraid to even speak your mind any more. Continue to fight this with me and continue to say whatever you feel, no matter who disagrees with you.

It's not big tech. It's legal stuff. Look, you are on private websites, including this one. As these are private, you technically don't have freedom of speech. For example,if Wade or Tom right now decided that you couldn't post about teacups, this, being their website, could enforce that rule. Facebook, google are all similar that way. When you sign for their serviced you also consent to a while bunch of other stuff too. this is why you read the fine print. When you go online kiss your "rights" goodbye, because you are consenting to all that happens in your computer, whether your aware of it or not.

Moral of the story: if you'e concerned about privacy, turn off your damn computer. It's quite simple like that.

At 5/13/13 03:04 PM, Feoric wrote:
I want my ObamaCave.

If we give them to people it's not choice then because its government handouts.
You gotta go find your own cave.

Curse you liberalism!

At 5/13/13 02:28 PM, Feoric wrote

Okay but they both had big governments. Big governments only arise from liberalism. Checkmate, libtard.

Ergo, the ideal conservative world is one of where each man or woman lives in their own cave and hunts their own food, because the development of societal norms is just government imposing their liberal brand of will upon the people.

.......or am I wrong?

At 5/13/13 12:45 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No one was trying to break the law though, it was about gaining tax-exempt status. And organizations with the words "Patriot" or "Tea-party" were on a list to single out for additional review.

Gee, an anti-government political group trying to gain status so it doesn't have to pay taxes which was one of its main messages. You don't think the government's not going to at least check them out?

Again I repeat: should they have gone after these groups in the way that they did? No. But checking them out in the first place? Completely justifiable.

At 5/13/13 12:26 PM, Ceratisa wrote: the IRS admitted it was in the wrong, so I don't see how you can keep saying they were right.

What I think Cam's saying is not what the IRS did was right, but rather the reasoning behind the actions in the first place were justifiable.

Let's put it this way: if I said I was going to go rob a bank and make that a public message, don't you think the FBI's going to come check me out? Now, I haven't actually done anything illegal, but if it's in the interest of the public then government's going to step in and at least say, "Hey, don't do that." Granted, like I said earlier, in this case what the IRS did was wrong, but their reasoning behind it is sound. A group is threatening to break the law where the IRS has means to prevent them from doing so. GOVERNMENT IN ACTION. OH MY GOD. IT ACTUALLY DOES WORK

Besides, who's stupid enough to say out loud that they don't pay taxes? Of course that's going to get you looked at at least....

At 5/13/13 02:08 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: polls right now show that Rand Paul is the favorite (god help us). And I highly doubt Hilary would win.

Haha have you seen her numbers? They're higher than the Presidents's by a long shot. If she does decide to she'll have the full funding of the Democrats for sure, she'll pretty much run unopposed in the primaries, she won't have the economy as much being in the shithole it was when Obama came in, she has the international experience and has finally worked enough around the circuit to be fairly well respected. Sure, Tea Party types and whatnot will moan and hiss, but for right now 2016 is really Hillary's to lose. This whole Benghazi thing is a sad attempt by the GOP to try to deny this fact.