RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say banks create money, is this purely about central banks or crossing over into retail and investment banking? If the latter we're more into gearing than creating. Any which way if anyone wants to pay for a major nationalistion project by printing money then it seems to me beyond stupid, but we've just seen Brexit, we've just seen Trump elected, so maybe stupid is the future.

Just to be clear again I'm not saying certain industries wouldn't perhaps better suited to being run as public services, but there needs to be a coherent narrative around how that would happen, and there's no point trying to do it in a way that'd be aborted/unwound in the next 5 year cycle of government.

Money supply is endogenous, not exogenous. Mainstream economics is only just waking up to this reality.

What do yo think that means as regards financing policy with a magic money tree?

It contradicts the quantity theory of money, which is where this fear of "printing money" comes from. It also means that banks (acting as private monetary institutions) already do create money ex nihilo, so why shouldn't public monetary institutions?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Money supply is endogenous, not exogenous. Mainstream economics is only just waking up to this reality.

What do yo think that means as regards financing policy with a magic money tree?

It contradicts the quantity theory of money, which is where this fear of "printing money" comes from. It also means that banks (acting as private monetary institutions) already do create money ex nihilo, so why shouldn't public monetary institutions?

I don't think banks do create money at a retail/investment bank level. I think they leverage deposits which can create issues with money supply which often times see central banks respond to ensure there's no crunch. Though this is largely a discussion around terminology, and gets away from the fact that whatever one wants to call it that at some level what some people call printing money is inflationary, and it's not a way to pay for things. If government wants to pay for services, assets, investment or whatever then it can generate taxation to cover or it can borrow, you're down the looking glass if you think you can just print money to support wider government policy

Generating money (in whatever format) out of nowhere risks inflation. Those countries that follow a ‘print money’ policy tend to have high levels of inflation.

Sandydragon wrote:Generating money (in whatever format) out of nowhere risks inflation. Those countries that follow a ‘print money’ policy tend to have high levels of inflation.

There do seem to be tolerances. I'm surprised that QE has lasted as long as it has with so little inflationary pressure as a for instance, but what works in a crunch as a temporary solution is still for me a dangerous experiment to carry forward as QE for the 'people'

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
What do yo think that means as regards financing policy with a magic money tree?

It contradicts the quantity theory of money, which is where this fear of "printing money" comes from. It also means that banks (acting as private monetary institutions) already do create money ex nihilo, so why shouldn't public monetary institutions?

I don't think banks do create money at a retail/investment bank level. I think they leverage deposits which can create issues with money supply which often times see central banks respond to ensure there's no crunch. Though this is largely a discussion around terminology, and gets away from the fact that whatever one wants to call it that at some level what some people call printing money is inflationary, and it's not a way to pay for things. If government wants to pay for services, assets, investment or whatever then it can generate taxation to cover or it can borrow, you're down the looking glass if you think you can just print money to support wider government policy

You just don't get it do you. The ILF model of banking is invalid. It is not reality.

Sandydragon wrote:Generating money (in whatever format) out of nowhere risks inflation. Those countries that follow a ‘print money’ policy tend to have high levels of inflation.

Firstly the correlation is weak.
Secondly even if the correlation existed, correlation does not equal causation.

You should keep your oar out of topics you know nothing about.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
It contradicts the quantity theory of money, which is where this fear of "printing money" comes from. It also means that banks (acting as private monetary institutions) already do create money ex nihilo, so why shouldn't public monetary institutions?

I don't think banks do create money at a retail/investment bank level. I think they leverage deposits which can create issues with money supply which often times see central banks respond to ensure there's no crunch. Though this is largely a discussion around terminology, and gets away from the fact that whatever one wants to call it that at some level what some people call printing money is inflationary, and it's not a way to pay for things. If government wants to pay for services, assets, investment or whatever then it can generate taxation to cover or it can borrow, you're down the looking glass if you think you can just print money to support wider government policy

You just don't get it do you. The ILF model of banking is invalid. It is not reality.

M4, endogenous and exogenous, ILF... not sure why you're looking to use such terms but whatever. And it might be that I don't get it, this is very possibly true, but dress it up as you want belief in a magic money tree is no way to plan to finance policy.

If there must be more QE then rather then looking to finance investments or nationalisation I'd be willing to listen to plans to use QE to remove the absurd PFI legacy we've been saddled with, courtesy of a Labour government, but that's off the top of my head as far as I'd go, and that only to listen to plans as I wouldn't in advance endorse without reservation

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Generating money (in whatever format) out of nowhere risks inflation. Those countries that follow a ‘print money’ policy tend to have high levels of inflation.

Firstly the correlation is weak.
Secondly even if the correlation existed, correlation does not equal causation.

You should keep your oar out of topics you know nothing about.

I don't know if you're on a strange attempt to provoke responses or simply barking mad when reading commentary like this. It's depressing too as for all I might not vote Labour anyway there is clearly a space in politics for some sensible left wing thinking, and yet we're being offered the risible Corbyn

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't think banks do create money at a retail/investment bank level. I think they leverage deposits which can create issues with money supply which often times see central banks respond to ensure there's no crunch. Though this is largely a discussion around terminology, and gets away from the fact that whatever one wants to call it that at some level what some people call printing money is inflationary, and it's not a way to pay for things. If government wants to pay for services, assets, investment or whatever then it can generate taxation to cover or it can borrow, you're down the looking glass if you think you can just print money to support wider government policy

You just don't get it do you. The ILF model of banking is invalid. It is not reality.

M4, endogenous and exogenous, ILF... not sure why you're looking to use such terms but whatever. And it might be that I don't get it, this is very possibly true, but dress it up as you want belief in a magic money tree is no way to plan to finance policy.

If there must be more QE then rather then looking to finance investments or nationalisation I'd be willing to listen to plans to use QE to remove the absurd PFI legacy we've been saddled with, courtesy of a Labour government, but that's off the top of my head as far as I'd go, and that only to listen to plans as I wouldn't in advance endorse without reservation

You discredit yourself with this whole money tree nonsense. I don't know how you can criticise the executive for being incompetent but use their childish rhetoric at the same time...

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You just don't get it do you. The ILF model of banking is invalid. It is not reality.

M4, endogenous and exogenous, ILF... not sure why you're looking to use such terms but whatever. And it might be that I don't get it, this is very possibly true, but dress it up as you want belief in a magic money tree is no way to plan to finance policy.

If there must be more QE then rather then looking to finance investments or nationalisation I'd be willing to listen to plans to use QE to remove the absurd PFI legacy we've been saddled with, courtesy of a Labour government, but that's off the top of my head as far as I'd go, and that only to listen to plans as I wouldn't in advance endorse without reservation

You discredit yourself with this whole money tree nonsense. I don't know how you can criticise the executive for being incompetent but use their childish rhetoric at the same time...

I'm happy using terms like magic money tree. Certainly it's far more childish to imagine you don't need to pay for things and can simply have magical access to money without cost(s)

M4 is a precise category of the broad money supply.

Money being endogenous means that its quantity is determined by factors within the economy as opposed to external authority like the central bank. Essentially that demand for money drives its creation.

ILF (intermediates of loanable funds) model of banking is the theory that banks intermediate loanable funds (e.g. Savings) between non-bank lenders and borrowers.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
M4, endogenous and exogenous, ILF... not sure why you're looking to use such terms but whatever. And it might be that I don't get it, this is very possibly true, but dress it up as you want belief in a magic money tree is no way to plan to finance policy.

If there must be more QE then rather then looking to finance investments or nationalisation I'd be willing to listen to plans to use QE to remove the absurd PFI legacy we've been saddled with, courtesy of a Labour government, but that's off the top of my head as far as I'd go, and that only to listen to plans as I wouldn't in advance endorse without reservation

You discredit yourself with this whole money tree nonsense. I don't know how you can criticise the executive for being incompetent but use their childish rhetoric at the same time...

I'm happy using terms like magic money tree. Certainly it's far more childish to imagine you don't need to pay for things and can simply have magical access to money without cost(s)

The alternative is redistribution of money. You know that capitalism sticks money up to the top. That leads to lack of demand at the bottom.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You discredit yourself with this whole money tree nonsense. I don't know how you can criticise the executive for being incompetent but use their childish rhetoric at the same time...

I'm happy using terms like magic money tree. Certainly it's far more childish to imagine you don't need to pay for things and can simply have magical access to money without cost(s)

The alternative is redistribution of money. You know that capitalism sticks money up to the top. That leads to lack of demand at the bottom.

What alternative sees in effect a redistribution, what is the redistribution, and is that desirable?

And I don't know that capitalism sticks money to the top, we've had that happen under every political system including communism.

After yesterday's revelation that the cabinet haven't discussed what they want from Brexiteers (courtesy of our chancellor)
Today, he's blaming Britain's low productivity on disabled people.

Is he TRYING to lose his job? Is this his play to be next PM?

It is comforting to know there are mongs in charge on the other side of the pond too. Maybe "Politician" could be a new category in the next special olympics. They do appear to be disabled.

morepork wrote:It is comforting to know there are mongs in charge on the other side of the pond too. Maybe "Politician" could be a new category in the next special olympics. They do appear to be disabled.

Ever your faithful allies.
You've decided political incompetence is what you want? Well, suddenly, so do we.
You've decided that outing yourself for purgery is desirable? Well, no problem.
Making enemies of your closest allies? Hello Brexit!
An absolutely insane healthcare system that decides that profit motive is the best thing ever? Would you like to meet Jeremy Hunt?
Nepotism in high office? Hi, have you heard of "royalty".

Meanwhile in Cardiff Bay:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42343250

UKIP AM Gareth Bennett has been barred from speaking in Senedd debates in 2018 following a speech about transgender rights.

Mr Bennett refused to apologise for saying society could implode if there was too much "deviation from the norm".

Presiding Officer Elin Jones said on Wednesday some of the comments were "particularly hateful".

Ms Jones wants the AM to say sorry before he can contribute again, but he said he had no intention of doing so.

...

Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

Mellsblue wrote:Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

cashead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

Mellsblue wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

cashead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

cashead wrote:

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.

Mellsblue wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.

And here is my response to that: fuck him and his constituents can go fuck off too. Their rights or views don't override the rights of others, and if they can't respect the rights of others to even exist, then quite frankly, that kind of toxic bullshit shouldn't even be given the time of day.

In some ways maligned, in others not so much. Plenty of attention for trans people in modern media and politics, albeit not all positive, and they must be a much smaller % of the population than all that attention warrants.

Digby wrote:In some ways maligned, in others not so much. Plenty of attention for trans people in modern media and politics, albeit not all positive, and they must be a much smaller % of the population than all that attention warrants.

Define "much smaller % of the population." The Office of National Statistics' official position appears to be "our methodology needs updating so we haven't the foggiest," while UCLA's Williams institute estimates that the number in the US is around .6%, which is about 1.4 million - about on par with people with ginger hair.

What we are also seeing is an ongoing rise in the number of hate crimes being perpetrated against trans, non-binary, etc. people in the US went up by around 40%, and the number of trans people murdered this year surpassed last year's number back in November.

In the UK, based on Stonewall's polling done via YouGov, there has apparently been an 80% increase in incidents involving LGBT victims, but the number of actual incidents is estimated to be significantly higher considering massive underreporting of such incidents to authorities due to discrimination faced on that front as well. With trans people specifically, 2 in 5 (but probably more) have been targets of hate-crimes or incidents.

It's fine and well to argue that a fucking subhuman piece of shit evolutionary glitch like Gareth Bennett should have their chance to have their say, but doing so not only provides hatemongers like him a soapbox to preach their filth from, but it also runs the risk of normalising that sort of bullshit and lending it an unearned legitimacy. If cutting off his microphone and telling him to go sit in the corner like the fucking dunce that he is while the grown-ups have their discussion is the price to pay in order to combat that sort of shit, then it's no price to pay at all.

P.S. Pardon fucking me if I come of like I am of the opinion that hatemongers like this Bennett cunt apparently is don't deserve any sort of platform to have their say. It's just that I have this wacky notion that hatemongers are human garbage and evidence that perhaps the gene pool needs a healthy dose of chlorine. God forbid cunts like him have their feelings hurt.