|
So there's a lot of economic crazyness going on around the world right now that is fairly unprecedented. The US is lending money effectively for free, China is exploding and collapsing, the EU is incredibly experimental and waiting to more than likely fail. Around the boards though a lot of chat turns into political chat about who did what, and how this country did whatever, and not a lot of talk about the two probably sexiest tools for economics, fiscal and monetary policy. (A good video to catch you up to speed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGQBvDt3BqI (Supplementary videos if you want) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=playlist So basically I wanted to have a thread where we can take out a lot of the show of what happens in politics, and talk purely about countries specific fiscal/monetary policies, theories on what would and wouldn't work, and how we can solve real issues in the world using these tools. Or hell if you could. Good things to ask
Bad things to ask
So talk about it here, keep it nice, teach people and ask questions, keep your arguments or points all things equal I understand that politics and this go hand in hand, but try to keep politics out of it!
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Favorite Books Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few- A book on how to change the rules and regulations to work for the middle class Favorite Videos Mark Blyth on the Dangers of Austerity Politics Especially Against the Middle Class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM Favorite Links Alan Kruger on how a $15 Minimum Wage Could be Dangerous http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-minimum-wage-how-much-is-too-much.html?_r=0 Short Read on how Money is Created http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf Veskit fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
So how do I, a typical us citizen, get my hands on a free loan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Keynes won. In 2000/2001 we had a recession and the Enron / Arthur Anderson scandal. The Bush Administration papered over the problems with deficit spending (and the <1% Federal Reserve Rate) on the glorious jihad of freedom  When all the cooked books finally imploded in 2008 they passed TARP to balance the sheets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:So how do I, a typical us citizen, get my hands on a free loan? Get a subsidized student loan! Or get a loan in a market that needs to have its demand increased. A good example was the beginning of the housing market in which we needed to get more americans into homes, so we did so by decreasing the loan rate and increasing the money supply. Though because there was no inflation something had to go up, which ended up being housing prices. Long of the short of it is that free loans will always exist in markets in which they need to increase demand. McDowell posted:Keynes won. In 2000/2001 we had a recession and the Enron / Arthur Anderson scandal. The Bush Administration papered over the problems with deficit spending (and the <1% Federal Reserve Rate) on the glorious jihad of freedom Keynes probably won, but I'd be curious to see a good argument against it here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Lol if you think anyone in DnD understands economic policy (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Lol if you think anyone in DnD understands economic policy I don't know if anyone does or doesn't, but if you do and you have an area of expertise let me know cause I'll have questions at least! Especially with inflation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Lol if you think anyone in DnD understands economic policy Always go more left Keynes is good so just nationalizing everything is even better
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I don't know if anyone does or doesn't, but if you do and you have an area of expertise let me know cause I'll have questions at least! Especially with inflation. Well, ask before this turns into another marxism thread, I might as well see if I'm able to answer it Typo fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:Well, shoot, I might as well see if I'm able to answer it What's a reasonable amount of inflation that the US market could tolerate in the sense of not collapse everything, and wouldn't it be a way bigger gently caress you to the top 1% than to the wages of the many that it'd slightly downgrade through their effective wages? What would happened if Obama came in and gave a target of 5% inflation over the year?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I don't know if anyone does or doesn't, but if you do and you have an area of expertise let me know cause I'll have questions at least! Especially with inflation. Well right now the U.S. economy should be undergoing some decent inflation but due to a global recession in global markets and the U.S. looking like a good safe haven for money so the dollar keeps appreciation. This is basically the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it too since you're printing more money with the same value so its basically free money. Increasing the money supply is good for the poor since it puts out more cash in the economy that they can work for and acquire to pay down debts, the rich hate it since it decreases the real value of their debt holdings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Veskit posted:What would happened if Obama came in and gave a target of 5% inflation over the year? Nothing because he doesn't have that authority over the Fed ColoradoCleric posted:Well right now the U.S. economy should be undergoing some decent inflation It is not, the U.S. is facing borderline deflation right now
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Veskit posted:What's a reasonable amount of inflation that the US market could tolerate in the sense of not collapse everything quote:and wouldn't it be a way bigger gently caress you to the top 1% than to the wages of the many that it'd slightly downgrade through their effective wages? quote:What would happened if Obama came in and gave a target of 5% inflation over the year? Besides, the whole he doesn't control inflation thing, the big question is whether you can even reach 5% inflation per year. Japan has being trying to induce inflation for over a decade with no success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Nothing because he doesn't have that authority over the Fed  I don't know where i got in my head that the president sets a target rate that the feds are more than welcome to ignore. You could change the question to "with influence". Typo posted:Besides, the whole he doesn't control inflation thing, the big question is whether you can even reach 5% inflation per year. But wouldn't everyone with a large loan (like a bad mortgage) then in theory have a much easier time paying it off over the course of years and long term investments get wrecked by inflation? Also it should help with unemployment? Don't the large banking institutions and financial sectors want low inflation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Veskit posted:
quote:Also it should help with unemployment? Don't the large banking institutions and financial sectors want low inflation? In theory, yes inflation helps with unemployment, but it's not an ironclad law anymore. The entire phenomenon of stagflation in the 1970s was high rate of inflation and high rate unemployment existing simultaneously and thus demonstrating that the old philip's curve (which states that there is a straight trade-off between employment and inflation) is faulty. But int he current economic climate yes, inflation would help with unemployment. The big problem is that just because central bank wants inflation, doesn't mean that it appears. Japan for instance aggressively pushed monetary expansion in the 1990s, but all everybody did with the money was put it into savings accounts instead of buying consumer goods with it. Thus you don't get inflation even when you print money. Typo fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
So is the best monetary policy to use to curb a wealth gap between the top and bottom inflation because it'd devalue the items that have generated this wealth, and because marginal propensity to save that the lower income brackets is so low? (at least in america) Or do you run into the problem of getting the money downstream? Or is there a way to do it that I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Veskit posted:So is the best monetary policy to use to curb a wealth gap between the top and bottom inflation because it'd devalue the items that have generated this wealth Inflation essentially depreciates liquid savings and assets, which poor people are going to hold a lot more than rich people as a percentage of their total net worth. In that sense, an overly high rate of inflation hurts the poor more than the rich. quote:and because marginal propensity to save that the lower income brackets is so low? (at least in america) Or do you run into the problem of getting the money downstream? Or is there a way to do it that I'm missing? Marginal propensity to save don't matter as much as the way people choose to save: poor people rarely have diversified stock portfolios and holds their savings in cash, rich people tend to have their savings in things that are not cash and hence don't get devalued with inflation. Typo fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Lol if you think anyone in DnD understands economic policy  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Monetary policy isn't a good way to address the wealth gap anyway, especially given the statutory constraints put on it in the U.S.. That's more fiscal and regulatory policy's domain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
When skullfucking a child, I like to do it through the mouth so I can watch the life slowly drain from their eyes while they choke, but my hedgefund manager buddies tell me that is a scrub move and the real deal is when you puncture the temple and gently caress their still warm, dead body through that hole. I'm confused, so what is the best, most socially acceptable move? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When skullfucking a child, I like to do it through the mouth so I can watch the life slowly drain from their eyes while they choke, but my hedgefund manager buddies tell me that is a scrub move and the real deal is when you puncture the temple and gently caress their still warm, dead body through that hole. what the gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
See, people don't like my methods. The results are pretty much in line with orthodox economic thinking, I'd argue the results are better . . . but because of a small difference in process people get all angry and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Get a subsidized student loan! Or get a loan in a market that needs to have its demand increased. A good example was the beginning of the housing market in which we needed to get more americans into homes, so we did so by decreasing the loan rate and increasing the money supply. Though because there was no inflation something had to go up, which ended up being housing prices. What markets need an increase in demand? Rather, how do I determine if a market needs demand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:What markets need an increase in demand? The ones me and my buddies have invested in!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:What markets need an increase in demand? Rather, how do I determine if a market needs demand? If you're actually curious then go to BFC and they'll be able to help you because that ends up being on a really micro level and not about making money or taking money, but technically green initiatives are being pushed through loan programs so there's an unmet demand there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Trump came out with his new yuuuge and glorious tax plan and it looks dangerously appealing to everyone involved except the mega rich. However on paper it seems ok from a republican standpoint, how enforceable is this plan? If implemented would it increase governmental revenue since most taxes are paid by the top anyway? From a brief look it looks insanely unenforceable to expect that you can collect on it, and the lack of corporate taxes seems really dangerous. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform (please keep it fiscal not political)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Trump came out with his new yuuuge and glorious tax plan and it looks dangerously appealing to everyone involved except the mega rich. However on paper it seems ok from a republican standpoint, how enforceable is this plan? If implemented would it increase governmental revenue since most taxes are paid by the top anyway? From a brief look it looks insanely unenforceable to expect that you can collect on it, and the lack of corporate taxes seems really dangerous. According to the website it's designed to be revenue neutral (which is the latest tax reform buzzword) so it wouldn't grow revenue. The repatriation rate is also ridiculous. e: also it would be very appealing to the mega-rich since it reduces the top tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and eliminates the estate tax. If it does away with the EITC poor people will lose money. Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Trump came out with his new yuuuge and glorious tax plan and it looks dangerously appealing to everyone involved except the mega rich. However on paper it seems ok from a republican standpoint, how enforceable is this plan? If implemented would it increase governmental revenue since most taxes are paid by the top anyway? From a brief look it looks insanely unenforceable to expect that you can collect on it, and the lack of corporate taxes seems really dangerous. One thing it is likely there is going to a greatly increased deficit from the plan even has populist elements, cutting the top rate to 25% and increasing the tax threshold substantially is going to have a genuine issues. That said, Bush's plan is probably even worse. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:According to the website it's designed to be revenue neutral (which is the latest tax reform buzzword) so it wouldn't grow revenue. The repatriation rate is also ridiculous. The mega rich don't ever pay 39 so I'm guessing he'll have to ante up how he plans to collect. Also what the gently caress is a repatriation tax I can't even figure it out looking it up  Ardennes posted:One thing it is likely there is going to a greatly increased deficit from the plan even if it populist to some degree. It's a weird republican plan for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Trump came out with his new yuuuge and glorious tax plan and it looks dangerously appealing to everyone involved except the mega rich. However on paper it seems ok from a republican standpoint, how enforceable is this plan? If implemented would it increase governmental revenue since most taxes are paid by the top anyway? From a brief look it looks insanely unenforceable to expect that you can collect on it, and the lack of corporate taxes seems really dangerous. Its a terrible idea since we'd have to operate a government already in debt with interest on a neutral income.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Also what the gently caress is a repatriation tax I can't even figure it out looking it up A lot of firms (especially Apple and Google I think) keep their earnings abroad - Ireland or the Caymans or wherever - because if they bring them into the US they would have to pay taxes on them. He's proposing lowering the rate to 10% as a one-time repatriation holiday to get the money back. This has been tried before in 2004 and wasn't very successful - most of the money was used to pay dividends, buy back shares, or complete mergers/acquisitions. quote:It's a weird republican plan for sure. It's not that weird. It's the standard conservative plan of late, except it also eliminates the carried interest loophole. That's the only novel thing about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Veskit posted:So is the best monetary policy to use to curb a wealth gap between the top and bottom inflation because it'd devalue the items that have generated this wealth, and because marginal propensity to save that the lower income brackets is so low? (at least in america) Or do you run into the problem of getting the money downstream? Or is there a way to do it that I'm missing? The problem is that there really isn't much sense in trying to shrink the wealth gap by monetary policy when there are far better tools to use. In fact, by limiting the debate as you have done, you're also severely limiting the available topics than can be meaningfully discussed, because monetary policy is only one part of our political-economical system. Not to say that you're wrong in limiting the topic, but one needs to keep the drawbacks of that approach in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The problem is that there really isn't much sense in trying to shrink the wealth gap by monetary policy when there are far better tools to use. In fact, by limiting the debate as you have done, you're also severely limiting the available topics than can be meaningfully discussed, because monetary policy is only one part of our political-economical system. Not to say that you're wrong in limiting the topic, but one needs to keep the drawbacks of that approach in mind. That was me being selfish in trying to understand from that side what you can do. There a lot of tools on the fiscal policy side however, though if you'd like to talk about some of the underutilized ones or more inventive I'm all ears, especially if you talk about the where to put in fiscal policy. Individuals vs corporations, consumption vs income ect ect. I'm not here to lead the conversation or try to stifle it you're all encouraged to talk about whatever just keep it fiscal/monetary! Veskit fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Get a subsidized student loan! Or get a loan in a market that needs to have its demand increased. A good example was the beginning of the housing market in which we needed to get more americans into homes, so we did so by decreasing the loan rate and increasing the money supply. Though because there was no inflation something had to go up, which ended up being housing prices. The direct subsidized loan rate has crept up to 4.3% for the upcoming year and only applies to first time post-secondary students. Graduate students can only take unsubsidized loans (5.84%) up to I think 40k a year and beyond that have to take Grad PLUS loans (6.3%)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:It's not that weird. It's the standard conservative plan of late, except it also eliminates the carried interest loophole. That's the only novel thing about it. The lowest bracket does start at 25k which certainly be a difference, even if there is now way is plan could pay for it. Basically, it sort of gives everything to everyone and hopes carried interest taxation and tax holidays would pay for it. The problem with every Republican plan is they pretend the deficit isn't an issue before a proposal and then every cut needs to be made to balance the budget after it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? As long as GDP is on the rise would a plan like this "work"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Veskit posted:With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? Economic growth is not infinite, and we're going to want to be in a better financial situation before it goes south again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Veskit posted:With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? The issue isn't the actual mechanics, but the politics, which is always austerity without question. The US could sustain a higher deficit than it does now without ill effect especially since if anything the dollar is way too strong at the moment but everyone knows at this point where the way leads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Veskit posted:With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? The past 30 years have shown us that Republicans only care about the deficit when they're not in power. They will "reform" taxes when in power in ways that make the deficit balloon, then demand that the budget be balanced with spending cuts when they're out of power. It's a one-way ratchet with them. Your error is assuming that politicians rationally consider fiscal policy based on what's best for the economy. They don't. Fiscal policy is a tool with which to gain electoral advantage. Despite your best efforts, there is no way to discuss fiscal policy without introducing ideology and political motivations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Veskit posted:With interest rates as low as they are and a growing economy why should we care about the deficit that much when we can print free money to cover it and just debt our way to success? Such a policy has been labeled "unserious" in most of the developed world, so whether it would work or not is irrelevant because no one is going to do it. A lot of economists and policy people would agree that if your interest rates for debt are rock bottom you should be issuing more debt to take advantage, since it won't be any cheaper in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:27
|
|