Serious flaws in Bitcoin monetary policy

[twiifm]

True, they might if there's bailouts in it and they can find someone to dump the loss on but they'll never be the ones on the loosing side of the deal and you can bet they'll find a means of slipping some highly favourable necessary changes in somewhere.

After reading a little on CDOs they do make sense, a kind of variable risk mechanism (for a while I've considered risk as a kind of financial currency, maybe a possibility for an alt). Do any of them work without levels? A variable scale, kind of like pressure getting higher the deeper it goes?

Well all derivatives , not the main instruments, but the derivatives are there to mitigate risk.

For example a futures contract, which is just a derivative of a commodity or currency, is there to mitigate the risk of the producer and let traders hold their risk.

If a corn farm is afraid of the depreciation of their corns and thus to the loss of money, they can just make some corn futures at the current price while selling the corn later, to make sure he sells it profitable.

If the price of corn does go down then the traders who hold the risk will pay him, if not then he lost a bit of money, but atleast he can now sell his corns at a good price.

So basically the traders hold the risk in every market, but its not a forced risk, it is voluntary, everyone has to know their risk tolerance and not risk more that they can afford.

So a few traders lose, but the corn market gets saved, and the workers on the corn farm can keep their jobs, otherwise they would be fired because the corn farm would go bankrupt.

So basically a few unlucky traders sacrifice a little bit of their money to save a whole industry from volatility and collapse.

That is basically the role of derivatives.

But when the government starts to bail out wrecklessly them from taxpayer money, thats another story. Because traders voluntarly risked their money, but the taxpayer was forced to pay the taxes.Furthermore, the taxpayer is not even getting any benefit from it. Because the trader atleast has a chance to make money, but the taxpayer is permanently sentenced to lose money...

You see the difference?  

I can't believe you are MS in Econ and you don't know bailouts are loans not gifts.  Your thread started out well but now you are talking about how govt scams citizens?

[1715205759]

1715205759

[1715205759]

1715205759

[1715205759]

1715205759

[GreenStox]

I can't believe you are MS in Econ and you don't know bailouts are loans not gifts.  Your thread started out well but now you are talking about how govt scams citizens?

Obviously they are loans, but they use the tax money as the collateral, so if the loans default, the tax money is lost  

So it is a gift basically and a scam. As for the loan, its just money out of thin air, like the entire fractional reserve banking.

Yes I know what I`m talking about, but you are right ,this may be a little off topic  

[cr1776]

I don't know if it has been discussed yet, or that anybody observed it yet, so I apologize if it has been discussed already...
Ok, I have a M.Sc in economics, so I know what I`m talking about, ...

It has been discussed many times, but your M.Sc in Econ is probably enough to disqualify you right away.  I don't doubt your sincerity, but most Econ departments feed students the pablum needed to justify keeping the authoritarian, control-freaks in power and everyone else under their thumbs, no matter the cost to their students.

[twiifm]

I can't believe you are MS in Econ and you don't know bailouts are loans not gifts.  Your thread started out well but now you are talking about how govt scams citizens?

Obviously they are loans, but they use the tax money as the collateral, so if the loans default, the tax money is lost  

So it is a gift basically and a scam. As for the loan, its just money out of thin air, like the entire fractional reserve banking.

Yes I know what I`m talking about, but you are right ,this may be a little off topic  

No It's not a gift.  The TARP Fund was repaid.  How can tax money be collateral?  When the Fed bailed out AIG.  AIG equity was collateral

Why did you start talking about elasticity in the OP? The reason there is elasticity is because central can create money from thin air.  

[GreenStox]

I don't know if it has been discussed yet, or that anybody observed it yet, so I apologize if it has been discussed already...
Ok, I have a M.Sc in economics, so I know what I`m talking about, ...

It has been discussed many times, but your M.Sc in Econ is probably enough to disqualify you right away.  I don't doubt your sincerity, but most Econ departments feed students the pablum needed to justify keeping the authoritarian, control-freaks in power and everyone else under their thumbs, no matter the cost to their students.

Oh I didn't continued my studies, I left the university after I got my diploma which was quite a few years ago.

Yes it took me much time to realize how fake Keynesianism is. But I was always skeptical, which led me to bitcoin, otherwise I would now just be a teacher spreading more BS to poor students...

No It's not a gift.  The TARP Fund was repaid.  How can tax money be collateral?  When the Fed bailed out AIG.  AIG equity was collateral

Why did you start talking about elasticity in the OP? The reason there is elasticity is because central can create money from thin air.  

I`m not from the US, so I`m not familiar with the TARP program, but what I can tell is this.

Tax money is collateral, what do you think the FED balance sheet is made of ? Pink baloons?

They are funded by X% from government money to do their scams, the rest of it is from their own inflated money.

Last time I checked 3% reserve requirement (in my country) is pretty much a "made for collapse" economy.

Your FED has 77:1 leverage and about 0% margin requirement for smaller loans, that is the definition of money out of thin air.

Also the inflation is also a tax, because guess what, it always the poor consumer who pays more, all taxes are targeted at the middle strata or poor strata, the difference is that the poor strata gets is back from subsidies and welfare, but the middle doesnt.

AIG gave 100$ loan for every 3 dollars , they collapsed under the leverage, then the FED bailed it out, by using his own balance sheet as collateral (and also by printing money , increased taxes).

Now what is the backstop if the FED goes bankrupt (due to 77:1 leverage) ?

The IMF or World Bank ? But where do they get their funds ,from individual government subsidization who are members.

And where do the Governments get their money from?

You guessed it, taxes.

So yes, again, taxes are the collateral. End of story.

[GreenStox]

Why did you start talking about elasticity in the OP? The reason there is elasticity is because central can create money from thin air.  

Please explain to me how is my Elastic Monetary Policy Theory equivalent to Keynesianism?

Because I cannot see the connections.

►Keynesianism is an immoral system where 1 Central Bank dictates the monetary policy, and skew it in the favor of the upper 1%, by creating money out of thin air with 0% fractional reserve systems ,which only the banks are allowed to use.


►My Elastic Monetary Policy, is more a decentralized one, which is supports market determined interest rates, that is interest rates pegged to supply & demand, without any corrupt skewing.Inflation is necessary, but not to ease government debt, of which is used by central banks. Inflation needs to be used to halt bubbles and speculators and increase liquidity in markets, and not to ease government debt.

That is the difference my friend, so by far this has nothing to do with Keynesian BS.

[twiifm]

Why did you start talking about elasticity in the OP? The reason there is elasticity is because central can create money from thin air.  

Please explain to me how is my Elastic Monetary Policy Theory equivalent to Keynesianism?

Because I cannot see the connections.

►Keynesianism is an immoral system where 1 Central Bank dictates the monetary policy, and skew it in the favor of the upper 1%, by creating money out of thin air with 0% fractional reserve systems ,which only the banks are allowed to use.


►My Elastic Monetary Policy, is more a decentralized one, which is supports market determined interest rates, that is interest rates pegged to supply & demand, without any corrupt skewing.Inflation is necessary, but not to ease government debt, of which is used by central banks. Inflation needs to be used to halt bubbles and speculators and increase liquidity in markets, and not to ease government debt.

That is the difference my friend, so by far this has nothing to do with Keynesian BS.

Did I say anything about Keynesianism?  Elasticity is a concept that Monetary supply should expand and contract in reponse to levels of the economy.  

Only the Central Bank has the mechanism and authority to do that.  It's their job after all

What market are you talking about? The global one that runs on 4 major currencies?  So you are going to introduce your own currency without the support of any govt or central bank?  How will you do that?  By soapboxing "fiat is a scam and Keynesianism is BS!"

Give me a friggin break dude.  I seriously doubt you are a MS Econ

[GreenStox]

Did I say anything about Keynesianism?  Elasticity is a concept that Monetary supply should expand and contract in reponse to levels of the economy.  

Only the Central Bank has the mechanism and authority to do that.  It's their job after all

What market are you talking about? The global one that runs on 4 major currencies?  So you are going to introduce your own currency without the support of any govt or central bank?  How will you do that?  By soapboxing "fiat is a scam and Keynesianism is BS!"

Give me a friggin break dude.  I seriously doubt you are a MS Econ

First of all "dude" elasticity is a very sound system, after all the only law in economics is that of supply & demand, everything else is just built on that.

So if you think that the central bank is the absolute only one that can do it, then why are you even here?

So you find it absolutely impossible to decentralize it? It's a joke, everything that can be done,will be done, a few years ago people wouldn't even dream of electronic money, and now they all shop with credit cards like madman.

You must be a hardcore conservative if you think this way, but then again what are you doing here in a bitcoin community with is all about open mindedness?

No I was actually talking about any market, even a stock market, you dilute the shares to prevent bubbles from popping and you recall shares if your demand drops, or just increase the dividents, there are many methods, sometimes even a PR method can fix the price.

Look what I`m saying is that you have to think outside the box, Keynesianism is BS, I say that after 6 years of studying it and + 4 years on my own.

The "aha" moment takes a lot of time and study, I can tell you many PH.D.'s that are delusioned about it, so what is their diploma worth then?

Many Keynesianist got nobel prizes, did they deserved it? It can be debated. When you are a sheep in a pack of wolves, then it's hard to be taken seriously.

So give me your educated argument, and address my points from an objective view and then we can understand eachother better.

[twiifm]

Did I say anything about Keynesianism?  Elasticity is a concept that Monetary supply should expand and contract in reponse to levels of the economy.  

Only the Central Bank has the mechanism and authority to do that.  It's their job after all

What market are you talking about? The global one that runs on 4 major currencies?  So you are going to introduce your own currency without the support of any govt or central bank?  How will you do that?  By soapboxing "fiat is a scam and Keynesianism is BS!"

Give me a friggin break dude.  I seriously doubt you are a MS Econ

First of all "dude" elasticity is a very sound system, after all the only law in economics is that of supply & demand, everything else is just built on that.

So if you think that the central bank is the absolute only one that can do it, then why are you even here?

So you find it absolutely impossible to decentralize it? It's a joke, everything that can be done,will be done, a few years ago people wouldn't even dream of electronic money, and now they all shop with credit cards like madman.

You must be a hardcore conservative if you think this way, but then again what are you doing here in a bitcoin community with is all about open mindedness?

No I was actually talking about any market, even a stock market, you dilute the shares to prevent bubbles from popping and you recall shares if your demand drops, or just increase the dividents, there are many methods, sometimes even a PR method can fix the price.

Look what I`m saying is that you have to think outside the box, Keynesianism is BS, I say that after 6 years of studying it and + 4 years on my own.

The "aha" moment takes a lot of time and study, I can tell you many PH.D.'s that are delusioned about it, so what is their diploma worth then?

Many Keynesianist got nobel prizes, did they deserved it? It can be debated. When you are a sheep in a pack of wolves, then it's hard to be taken seriously.

So give me your educated argument, and address my points from an objective view and then we can understand eachother better.

Yeah absolutely most economists especially Keynesian ones think money supply need to be elastic.  So I don't know why you think that's even a point of contention.

Please expand what part of Keynesianism is BS?  I see people here throw around the word Keynesian a lot but I don't think they understand Keynes work.  For example, QE is not Keynesian.  That comes more from Monetarism which was Friedman.

[GreenStox]

Please expand what part of Keynesianism is BS?

The whole Government intervention scheme. Which is similar to Monetarism but these theories are like siblings, both are crap.

▪Keynesians just can't let prices drop, ever (which I`m partially supporting, however let me explain *).

▪Communist style central planning with Central banks and government treasury

▪They argue against wage decrese, even in a deflationary enviroment, breaking the laws of supply & demand.

▪They basically let the government overextend, and finance everything from debt, DEFICIT SPENDING.

▪They support fractional reserve banking with a backstop of taxpayer money.

▪Basically everything is cured with debt in this theory, they just cant let the market work alone they must intervene everywhere.

▪They are in denial of reality, they don't recognize economic cycles which have been proven already many times, and if a minor recession comes along they freak out and immediately intervene, instead of having a little more realistic tolerance and let the market sort out minor flaws.It's like if you raise a child full on medication, if he gets just a light cold, you immediately give him medication, well that child when will grow up, will 100% be allergic to everything. So in the same way, if you give too much intervention in the economy, it will become allergic to them and will stay in recession  

And many many more flaws...

Now let me explain the * part.

Ok there are some markets which prices should not drop, like the stock market, however there are dozens of others which should like: food,housing,oil,etc

You can't print oranges and bananas but you can print stocks, so why not just separate these markets from eachother and not use a common denominator, a common devalued currency to price them in?

So let the food market drop and make food accesible to poor people, and let the stock market rise to make business startups easier and investors and speculators to keep happy. There is no need to mix these different markets in the same group and enviroment...

Keeping house prices artificially high is inneficient. Supplying a few homebuilders with jobs to the detriment of all young homebuyers who can't afford to buy a house from savings, but only loans, is inneficient, stupid and will not make benefits to the economy.

For example you indebt all the 20 year olds with student loan and house mortgage, how will they be a productive members of the society with all this burden of them?

Millions of people indebted versus a few thousand people's job in the housing market, which one is more important?

So you see, Keynesianism is rotten from the inside, however the elastic principle is good, not because of Keynesianism but despite of it, because it has nothing to do with it.

[A.F.K]

Is Bitcoin money, might be a better starting point for such a discussio.

[twiifm]

Please expand what part of Keynesianism is BS?

The whole Government intervention scheme. Which is similar to Monetarism but these theories are like siblings, both are crap.

▪Keynesians just can't let prices drop, ever (which I`m partially supporting, however let me explain *).

▪Communist style central planning with Central banks and government treasury

▪They argue against wage decrese, even in a deflationary enviroment, breaking the laws of supply & demand.

▪They basically let the government overextend, and finance everything from debt, DEFICIT SPENDING.

▪They support fractional reserve banking with a backstop of taxpayer money.

▪Basically everything is cured with debt in this theory, they just cant let the market work alone they must intervene everywhere.

▪They are in denial of reality, they don't recognize economic cycles which have been proven already many times, and if a minor recession comes along they freak out and immediately intervene, instead of having a little more realistic tolerance and let the market sort out minor flaws.It's like if you raise a child full on medication, if he gets just a light cold, you immediately give him medication, well that child when will grow up, will 100% be allergic to everything. So in the same way, if you give too much intervention in the economy, it will become allergic to them and will stay in recession  

And many many more flaws...

Now let me explain the * part.

Ok there are some markets which prices should not drop, like the stock market, however there are dozens of others which should like: food,housing,oil,etc

You can't print oranges and bananas but you can print stocks, so why not just separate these markets from eachother and not use a common denominator, a common devalued currency to price them in?

So let the food market drop and make food accesible to poor people, and let the stock market rise to make business startups easier and investors and speculators to keep happy. There is no need to mix these different markets in the same group and enviroment...

Keeping house prices artificially high is inneficient. Supplying a few homebuilders with jobs to the detriment of all young homebuyers who can't afford to buy a house from savings, but only loans, is inneficient, stupid and will not make benefits to the economy.

For example you indebt all the 20 year olds with student loan and house mortgage, how will they be a productive members of the society with all this burden of them?

Millions of people indebted versus a few thousand people's job in the housing market, which one is more important?

So you see, Keynesianism is rotten from the inside, however the elastic principle is good, not because of Keynesianism but despite of it, because it has nothing to do with it.

I think you better learn what Keynesianism is first before launching a tirade that has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.  Nothing you wrote has anything to do with Keynesian economics.  Sounds like you are not happy about the economy and you want to blame it on a boogeyman.  The biggest flaw with your thinking is that you think someone is responsible instead of seeing that the economy is like the weather.  Things happen because of forces.  Every school of economic thought contribute these forces to different things and have prescription on how to counteract these forces.   

Here's some crib notes.  Tell me why these things attributed to Keynes are BS.

Aggregate Demand

Liquidity Trap

Animal Spirits

Sticky Wages (Nominal Rigidity)

[Possum577]

Do these flaws only apply if bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange? What if bitcoin ends up being seen as a store of value?

[twiifm]

Do these flaws only apply if bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange? What if bitcoin ends up being seen as a store of value?

Find a means to penalise growth on an exponential scale and the problem is fixed.

Genocide?   

If the Congress were to pass a law tomorrow that no more USD were to be created ever and the money supply is to stay fixed from that day on.  What do you think will happen?  Is this the utopia you've been dreaming about?

[xDan]

I don't know if it has been discussed yet, or that anybody observed it yet, so I apologize if it has been discussed already, but I`ve just observed a serious flaw in Bitcoins monetary policy which is very critical to the Bitcoin's price, and it's probably the main cause why the price of it drops for 1 year without stop.

This is the terrible and secret flaw in Bitcoin that we all have a gentleman's agreement to not talk about EVER. So hush, now.

[GreenStox]

Please expand what part of Keynesianism is BS?

The whole Government intervention scheme. Which is similar to Monetarism but these theories are like siblings, both are crap.

▪Keynesians just can't let prices drop, ever (which I`m partially supporting, however let me explain *).

▪Communist style central planning with Central banks and government treasury

▪They argue against wage decrese, even in a deflationary enviroment, breaking the laws of supply & demand.

▪They basically let the government overextend, and finance everything from debt, DEFICIT SPENDING.

▪They support fractional reserve banking with a backstop of taxpayer money.

▪Basically everything is cured with debt in this theory, they just cant let the market work alone they must intervene everywhere.

▪They are in denial of reality, they don't recognize economic cycles which have been proven already many times, and if a minor recession comes along they freak out and immediately intervene, instead of having a little more realistic tolerance and let the market sort out minor flaws.It's like if you raise a child full on medication, if he gets just a light cold, you immediately give him medication, well that child when will grow up, will 100% be allergic to everything. So in the same way, if you give too much intervention in the economy, it will become allergic to them and will stay in recession  

And many many more flaws...

Now let me explain the * part.

Ok there are some markets which prices should not drop, like the stock market, however there are dozens of others which should like: food,housing,oil,etc

You can't print oranges and bananas but you can print stocks, so why not just separate these markets from eachother and not use a common denominator, a common devalued currency to price them in?

So let the food market drop and make food accesible to poor people, and let the stock market rise to make business startups easier and investors and speculators to keep happy. There is no need to mix these different markets in the same group and enviroment...

Keeping house prices artificially high is inneficient. Supplying a few homebuilders with jobs to the detriment of all young homebuyers who can't afford to buy a house from savings, but only loans, is inneficient, stupid and will not make benefits to the economy.

For example you indebt all the 20 year olds with student loan and house mortgage, how will they be a productive members of the society with all this burden of them?

Millions of people indebted versus a few thousand people's job in the housing market, which one is more important?

So you see, Keynesianism is rotten from the inside, however the elastic principle is good, not because of Keynesianism but despite of it, because it has nothing to do with it.

I think you better learn what Keynesianism is first before launching a tirade that has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.  Nothing you wrote has anything to do with Keynesian economics.  Sounds like you are not happy about the economy and you want to blame it on a boogeyman.  The biggest flaw with your thinking is that you think someone is responsible instead of seeing that the economy is like the weather.  Things happen because of forces.  Every school of economic thought contribute these forces to different things and have prescription on how to counteract these forces.   

Here's some crib notes.  Tell me why these things attributed to Keynes are BS.

Aggregate Demand

Liquidity Trap

Animal Spirits

Sticky Wages (Nominal Rigidity)

Liquidity trap is innefective because the private banks themselves are not an efficient way to loan money. So either you remove the central bank, and let the liquidity be distributed bottom-up, or remove the private banks and distribute the loans Peer-to-peer.

Who said that CB is effective? Why do interest rates have to be set by anyone other than the market itself?

Keynesians think that higher prices and higher interest rate result in lower investment spending which is BS.
You will always have more investors when the interest rates rise, it doesnt matter where, the stock market may suffer but bonds, spread based intruments and other interest rate based instruments will flourish.

When you have more investments then you can give out more loans, because you will have more funds  to use as collateral, thus this pressure in the loan giveaways will decrease the interest rates naturally. Who needs a CB here to do it?

Sticky wages is only due to poor labour laws, and socialist minimum wages. Entepreneours can never pay their workers their direct labour production, because the law says that they should pay them atleast X. The minimum wage barrier will equalize the inefficient workers production, thus all products made by that firm (scale it up to the entire country) will become rigid because the price of the product can't drop as the wage cannot drop, so the consumer always has to pay the inneficient prices which resulted from inneficient wages.

Why don't you see for example the bread price never drop? Yet it's very very cheap, compared to other product.
Because the bakery has atleast 5 workers , the workers are inneficient, as we see now robots can make food aswell.
Yet, the owner has only 2 options, pay them inneficient wages, or make a huge investment (which he cannot afford nor take a huge risk of getting a loan) to buy robots to make bread. The other is to fire them but then you bankrupt your self.

The inneficient wage is reflected in the price of the bread (+ the taxes), while also in the price of the resources like corn and wheat (the agriculture is the same deal: automated robot harvesters vs people in combine harvesters  who must be paid minimum wage yet his work is inneficient).

If you remove minimal wages and liberalize the labour laws, then the wages and every single cost of the product will be market determined, and then you can see a bread which gets cheaper and cheaper.

The animal spirits part actually I agree with, but this has been already observed by other economists, so it's not really his invention, besides any 5 year old can come up with behavioral effects on the economy, speculation etc. The fear & greed response is the markets is totally sound.

I myself been trading for a few years now and I can see practical effects of the economy, not just theoretical BS.

Most academics dont even leave their classroom or their office to see the economy how it really looks like.

My professor has admitted that he never even set foot in a stock exchange. 

Well how the heck can you call yourself an economist when you dont even traded atleast once in your life in a financial market?

I myself have traded mostly futures and forex, and now crypto currencies.

I just made 0.2 BTC Yesterday with a TILECOIN arbitrage 

I experience economics directly in real-time 

[twiifm]

Liquidity trap is innefective because the private banks themselves are not an efficient way to loan money. So either you remove the central bank, and let the liquidity be distributed bottom-up, or remove the private banks and distribute the loans Peer-to-peer.

Who said that CB is effective? Why do interest rates have to be set by anyone other than the market itself?

Keynesians think that higher prices and higher interest rate result in lower investment spending which is BS.
You will always have more investors when the interest rates rise, it doesnt matter where, the stock market may suffer but bonds, spread based intruments and other interest rate based instruments will flourish.

When you have more investments then you can give out more loans, because you will have more funds  to use as collateral, thus this pressure in the loan giveaways will decrease the interest rates naturally. Who needs a CB here to do it?

Sticky wages is only due to poor labour laws, and socialist minimum wages. Entepreneours can never pay their workers their direct labour production, because the law says that they should pay them atleast X. The minimum wage barrier will equalize the inefficient workers production, thus all products made by that firm (scale it up to the entire country) will become rigid because the price of the product can't drop as the wage cannot drop, so the consumer always has to pay the inneficient prices which resulted from inneficient wages.

Why don't you see for example the bread price never drop? Yet it's very very cheap, compared to other product.
Because the bakery has atleast 5 workers , the workers are inneficient, as we see now robots can make food aswell.
Yet, the owner has only 2 options, pay them inneficient wages, or make a huge investment (which he cannot afford nor take a huge risk of getting a loan) to buy robots to make bread. The other is to fire them but then you bankrupt your self.

The inneficient wage is reflected in the price of the bread (+ the taxes), while also in the price of the resources like corn and wheat (the agriculture is the same deal: automated robot harvesters vs people in combine harvesters  who must be paid minimum wage yet his work is inneficient).

If you remove minimal wages and liberalize the labour laws, then the wages and every single cost of the product will be market determined, and then you can see a bread which gets cheaper and cheaper.

The animal spirits part actually I agree with, but this has been already observed by other economists, so it's not really his invention, besides any 5 year old can come up with behavioral effects on the economy, speculation etc. The fear & greed response is the markets is totally sound.

I myself been trading for a few years now and I can see practical effects of the economy, not just theoretical BS.

Most academics dont even leave their classroom or their office to see the economy how it really looks like.

My professor has admitted that he never even set foot in a stock exchange. 

Well how the heck can you call yourself an economist when you dont even traded atleast once in your life in a financial market?

I myself have traded mostly futures and forex, and now crypto currencies.

I just made 0.2 BTC Yesterday with a TILECOIN arbitrage 

I experience economics directly in real-time 

You don't even know what what these terms mean.  LOL

A liquidity trap is a situation, described in Keynesian economics, in which injections of cash into the private banking system by a central bank fail to decrease interest rates and hence make monetary policy ineffective. A liquidity trap is caused when people hoard cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war. Common characteristics of a liquidity trap are interest rates that are close to zero and fluctuations in the money supply that fail to translate into fluctuations in price levels.[1]

It makes to sense to say liquidity trap is ineffective nor effective.  Its just an observation that other economists missed

The market does set interest rate.  But when the market fails the CB steps in.  That's how Volcker ended stagflation

Regardless of the reasons, wages are sticky.  The phenomena is observable.  Again, nobody before Keynes observed this.  They all believed in supply/demand equilibrium

BTW Keynes was an astute investor.  His ideas actually come from studying the market and working in public service.  He was not an academic

[GreenStox]

You don't even know what what these terms mean.  LOL

Are you serious?

It makes to sense to say liquidity trap is ineffective nor effective.  Its just an observation that other economists missed

The market does set interest rate.  But when the market fails the CB steps in.  That's how Volcker ended stagflation

Regardless of the reasons, wages are sticky.  The phenomena is observable.  Again, nobody before Keynes observed this.  They all believed in supply/demand equilibrium

BTW Keynes was an astute investor.  His ideas actually come from studying the market and working in public service.  He was not an academic

That is because before Keynes there was no problems of this sort. All socialist implementations were done after or at the time keynes was alive.

CB doesnt have to step in, if the government destroys the economy by destroying the middle class, then you add more government in the form of CB to cure their own problem? I dont think so.

There is a supply /demand equilibrium, which part of it do you not understand. It is the intervention that destroys it.

In the 1800's before CB's you had no problem with wages, they were all market determined. If they were too low, tough luck , you can't just magically pretend to have economic growth by manipulating the economy.

I just read a book recentrly about the industrial era before CB, and I see that all depressions were caused by CB. Either by them or by private banks lobbying at the governments and threatening them to form one, or else they deliberately destroy the economy.

Yes if was always the CB fault, from Roman times, when they (the government) devalued the silver coins , to the post and industrial age where private banks blackmailed the government to inflate more. It is all documented in history books.

[twiifm]

You don't even know what what these terms mean.  LOL

Are you serious?

It makes to sense to say liquidity trap is ineffective nor effective.  Its just an observation that other economists missed

The market does set interest rate.  But when the market fails the CB steps in.  That's how Volcker ended stagflation

Regardless of the reasons, wages are sticky.  The phenomena is observable.  Again, nobody before Keynes observed this.  They all believed in supply/demand equilibrium

BTW Keynes was an astute investor.  His ideas actually come from studying the market and working in public service.  He was not an academic

That is because before Keynes there was no problems of this sort. All socialist implementations were done after or at the time keynes was alive.

CB doesnt have to step in, if the government destroys the economy by destroying the middle class, then you add more government in the form of CB to cure their own problem? I dont think so.

There is a supply /demand equilibrium, which part of it do you not understand. It is the intervention that destroys it.

In the 1800's before CB's you had no problem with wages, they were all market determined. If they were too low, tough luck , you can't just magically pretend to have economic growth by manipulating the economy.

I just read a book recentrly about the industrial era before CB, and I see that all depressions were caused by CB. Either by them or by private banks lobbying at the governments and threatening them to form one, or else they deliberately destroy the economy.

Yes if was always the CB fault, from Roman times, when they (the government) devalued the silver coins , to the post and industrial age where private banks blackmailed the government to inflate more. It is all documented in history books.

OMG you are a friggin retard.  First you claim to have a MS in Economics and now you can't even get simple shit straight that you can read off of wikipedia.

Keynes got famous because his theories explained the Great Depression.  Things like liquidity trap existed before Keynes that's how he discovered them.  LOL your logic is shite.  Do you think Keynes caused economic problems?

There was no Central Bank in Roman times.  The oldest central bank is the Sveriges Riksbank established in 1668.  Bank of England est. 1694. 

There were plenty of crisis before the Fed appeared.  In fact the Fed was created as a response to Panic of 1907

Even our latest crisis in 2008 was not caused by any Central Bank

[GreenStox]

OMG you are a friggin retard.  First you claim to have a MS in Economics and now you can't even get simple shit straight that you can read off of wikipedia.

Keynes got famous because his theories explained the Great Depression.  Things like liquidity trap existed before Keynes that's how he discovered them.  LOL your logic is shite.  Do you think Keynes caused economic problems?

There was no Central Bank in Roman times.  The oldest central bank is the Sveriges Riksbank established in 1668.  Bank of England est. 1694.  

There were plenty of crisis before the Fed appeared.  In fact the Fed was created as a response to Panic of 1907

Even our latest crisis in 2008 was not caused by any Central Bank

That is rude and inappropriate, so you can't debate me objectively, you start to insult me. What a typical loser.  

He didnt explained anything, nor resolved anything, his theories only aggravated the already weakened economies by WW2.

Of course there was no CB in Roman Times, do you think I`m an idiot? They had quaestors who supervised the financial affairs of the government. The point I was making is that they used impure silver coins, they mixed it with more and more iron,nickel and copper up to the point when shortly before the West Rome collapse they had 10% purity coins, sold at 99.999% purity prices. Or in other words theft, like any inflation,which was used to pay off the military expansion of them, just like now. History repeats itself.

Yes there were plenty of crisises, all done by fraudulent cartels who blackmailed the politicians to give them more power or else they bring down the whole systems. You should check your facts mate, starting from your nice civil war of 1861.

You dont seriously think that the civil war was because they cared so much of the southern slaves?  
Only an idiot with 20 IQ would accept that story.

Actually the civil war was fought because the union desperately wanted to give more power to the banking cartels, where they desperately wanted to control the money supply via a central bank of some sort, which the confederation rejected. There were atleast 3 major attepts to make a central bank way before 1907 crisis.

You should seriously check your facts, I`m not american but I know your history better than you do.

Even our latest crisis in 2008 was not caused by any Central Bank

Ok at this point you demonstrated that you live in a fantasy world completely cutoff from reality.

How do you think your 1 trillion dollar Iraq war was financed, from charities?  Of course the CB gave loans to them.

BTW did you knew that there are some serious funds missing from the FED, you bet that had something to do with the crisis.

Money doesnt just pop out of nowhere and then dissapears? Oh wait, it actually does...