Actually it makes perfect sense:
1. Increase in goods.
2. Increase in productivity.
3. More credit is created, but due to more goods you don't get hyper inflation.
...
More money only means higher prices.
Make up your mind, please.
Dude how can you NOT know that more goods means lower prices?
So if there are more goods AND more money prices will stay stable... that is like the MOST basic economics theorem/common sense of all time - you didn't quote a cleverly found contradiction, what I said there makes perfect sense...
What matters is not the money investment, but what fraction of ALL humans work on something productive.
Right, and the easiest way to lubricate the greatest and most productive fraction of people is to have enough money to go around.
Money is not oil for engine, its a point system for resource allocation.
Making more money/debt/flow (= points) could easily give priority to NON-productive activities. Again like today in the US with governments giving priority to themselves through inflation/flow resulting in drops in productivity.
Flow=inflation=debt=money.
Heyo, another strawman alert. I have never said nor believed that money creates wealth. The easy flow of money,
I am not trying to make strawman arguments I just can follow your train of thought since you keep changing your definitions and when your theory applies.
How is more money not the same as flow? What if two people pass bills back and forth, that's a lot of flow?
The Romans created fiat-like money very early on and also price fixed and this worked well for hundreds of years before the collapse of the currency. It only failed because of improper control of the money supply. Kind of like the situation we find ourselves in with central banks.
I'm sure the Romans had different things going for them.
But the pattern of their fall fits my theory: First they became decadent and wasteful. Then they collapsed and people were forced into slavery to pay their taxes - presumably after some merchants going bankrupt. A contraction of money supply.
I have never once read in history books that: "The Roman bank started to issue fewer coins, markets froze and they crashed". No it's always "decadence -> collapse" with lubrication being irrelevant.
It does not fit yours because they had lots of coins at hand, money "lubrication" was not absent.
Really? Last time I checked, almost every single country in the world except for about 3 or 4 use a central bank-controlled currency.
Yeah but to a large degree they are NOT fucking up in every other country and there is STILL financial problems.
Because we over-produce due to the fact that we are enslaved by government/central bank debt.
And that enslavement happens because of a fresh flow of money. Which completely clashes with your theory of flow = good.
Quite clearly evidence shows that some flows are BAD, not good. That more money flow in the wrong direction can lead to drops in productivity due to market manipulation.
Which again suggests that we would be better off without any such flow.
?-1990 productivity steadily rises along with money supply. ~1990-2007 all is pretty good with money markets, but the market is obviously wasting human effort and resources on too big houses, hummers and wars while paying no heed to resource depletion or climate change -
a contraction of productivity.
THEN in 2008 money markets crash and have been since.
There is more to money than just "fiat" or "not fiat".
Not really; there are tangible goods of
intrinsic value and there are
promises and point systems = money = fiat = debt.
Just point out one measly example of where more productivity lead to less money/debt in the world total and I throw away my theory.
I don't know why you're asking this or what this has to do with the argument I've made. If I claim that A causes B, that does not mean that I claim that not A causes not B or some other such crap.
In science - NOT economics (neoclassical or otherwise) - if you can find ONE deviation from a theory then it is regarded as entirely and completely false.
There are no "exceptions" or "to some degree...".
I have found several situations your theory does not explain, you can't name one for mine.
Also please agree with the statements in bold or I will consider you an economist/troll and ignore you.
Woohoo, an "agree with me or I deem you a troll" ultimatum. Very mature.
I didn't ask you to agree with me, just the statements in bold. Who is making strawman arguments NOW?
I can't argue with a man that thinks the sky is green and the world flat.
Fiat is equal to debt, its a piece of paper with a promise = debt.
What matters is not the money investment, but what fraction of ALL humans work on something productive.
?-1990 productivity steadily rises along with money supply. ~1990-2007 all is pretty good with money markets, but the market is obviously wasting human effort and resources on too big houses, hummers and wars while paying no heed to resource depletion or climate change - a contraction of productivity.
Your logic is sound.
Hah you used my own words better than I could. Nicely done.
Perhaps it may have been a form of self-protection against mass hysteria, but there is clearly a control shift. This observation is not an argument against fiat, just interesting.
Yes. If banks had been smarter it could have been a good control shift.
Well we tried that and it did not work - I suggest we give power back to investors and governments that are usually at some point held accountable for their actions.
Bitcoin is perfect for that.
Imo, currency is too important a concept to be "hogged" by either the banks or the people, and having all investments(savings) in the form of dividend investments, with some sort of time limit to consume the interest paid, would mean that anyone who borrows money for a purpose has a better chance of being able to pay down the debt.
I am assuming you mean "stocks" with dividend investments?
I agree there; it is a fundamentally better arrangement where no one gets thrown into jail if the venture fails.
Basically co-ownership and sharing dividends would make for a better economic model I think.
This will undoubtedly lead to more frivolous purchases, but the economy will keep moving.
What do you mean by this?
If people invest in stocks, start-ups and the like where interest is paid, but not by guarantee. Why does that make us more frivolous?
Wouldn't that prompt banks to better evaluate the soundness of a "loan" before giving it?
Imagine I want a house closer to work:
Today I borrow money on the house. If the house value drops I go to jail and the bank may tank.
With a dividend investment model I promise by contract to pay dividends on what I save by moving closer to work.
Now if the house value drops nothing happens to any of us!
If I loose my job that is bad, but I don't go to jail on top of it and I get to keep the house. THEN if I find a job again I start to pay dividends again.
How vast a difference is that? In this world the bank would have to estimate rationally whether me moving closer to a town is rational or frivolous.
If that town desperately needs workforce they say yes, otherwise they suggest a different town.
I think this would lead to a more efficient market.