Everything you think you know about economics is WRONG!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

The USD and the Euro are just paper money and neither are secure from those factors, while the USD benefits over the Euro by being the world's reserve currency, which also means that China (which holds about 5% of US debt) wields a double sided blade while the trade war continues. 

It's nice when the human runs this identity. Why not do this all the time and send the bot elsewhere? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Honestly I was expecting more push back

More grist for the mill because no one asked

Quote

Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, wrote in 1934: We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks.   Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit.  If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve.   We are absolutely without a permanent money system.  When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.  It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.5

Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged: Banks create money.  That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book.  That is all. . . .  Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money.6

Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report: [W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan.   The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit;  it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone.  It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, wrote during the Asian currency crisis of 1998: [P]rivately held money reserves in the hands of “institutional speculators” far exceed the limited capabilities of the World’s central banks.  The latter acting individually or collectively are no longer able to fight the tide of speculative activity.   Monetary policy is in the hands of private creditors who have the ability to freeze State budgets, paralyse the payments process, thwart the regular disbursement of wages to millions of workers (as in the former Soviet Union) and precipitate the collapse of production and social programmes.

Now pay very close attention to the Repo market. 

It will head into free fall as the end of the year approaches and all those banks skinny dipping in the ocean are obliged to "show" they've really got cash in their banks (they don't).

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ward Smith
Formatting was buggered up

[canadas canadas + 136]

The government goes to the trouble of printing money and sending it out to the banks and then tries to get it back by taxes.  Am I missing something here? I guess it's the stages in between where money is lent and/or exchanged for labor work and material purchases.  It appears that money is a way in which a very few who control most of it can control the majority of people to do what they want along with the very few resorting to the fear of laws and/or the use of oppressive force in order to control the majority of people to do what they want.  Is this how rulers control the masses to their advantage?  Governments acts like gods in determining what is right and wrong for their citizens through their laws and who they can and cannot kill such as in wars. Some banks seem to be a big monopoly since they get the best lowest interest rates to borrow money from the government central bank and they can then lend it for much more to everyone else who is not as privileged to get such a good low rate.

Edited December 11, 2019 by canadas canadas

[specinho + 470]

On 12/6/2019 at 10:35 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Australia has a huge amount of coal and iron ore. So does Brazil. The value of an Australian dollar is driven, in part, by their success in mining the iron and coal, transporting it to a port, loading it on to a ship, and delivering it to China. 

 A lot of the value of the USD is driven by either the uniqueness of the product or it's dominance.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 8:19 AM, Marcin said:

I know that negative real interest rates have very negative impact of US, EU and Japan economies but I cannot prove it on the basis of economics. This is against underlying principles of economics as future benefits are smaller than the same benefits received together. The difference is the interest rate "price of money"

 

On 12/8/2019 at 10:50 AM, Jan van Eck said:

We have serious problems with finance and the development of capital, and discussions off the mark are not helpful. 

I have been wondering how the currency exchange rates were determined since I dreamt of being a One-Day-Millionaire by trying to convert 100 bucks of a nation to a currency that gives a rate of 1: 10 000 many years ago.........

Are they comparing

1. products quality and volume sold??

2. asset /  liabilities of country A : asset /  liabilities of country B??

3. profit or loss of country A : profit or loss of country B??

4. miscellaneous e.g. interest rates and purchase capability??

 

And there was a concept mentioned in a course "macroeconomics for a sustainable planet"..... here's the quote:" Purchasing power parity and interest rate arbitrage. It all starts with the law of one price. What does the law of one price states? Well it states that a good must cost the same everywhere when it is expressed in a common currency.…………Expressing it in Chilean pesos, 2450 Chilean pesos in Chile and 3431 pesos in the US. The Big Mac was more expensive in the US. In reality, the law of one price is an interesting concept, but it is met rarely due to the existence of transport costs, trade barriers, governmental regulations, and non-tradable inputs.”

Here's my reflective point to be considered:"The minimum wage in Chile is USD 400 (the minimum wage in the USA is ~ USD1000). By equalizing Big Mac with one price across the countries is probably not a good idea because the production price and costs of operation in Chile are certainly cheaper than in the USA. A big Mac of USD 5 over USD 400 earning in Chile could be considered expensive and probably an inflation. Hence by putting the exchange rate aside….. Chile can afford to offer Big Mac at the price of may be at 2 USD (in USD 400 earning) or 2 pesos local money (in 400 pesos earning) and the USA USD 5 (in 1000USD earning). The ratio is 5/1000 or 2/400 = 0.005 across the countries. Unless the Big Mac is imported from the USA, the price should be locally calibrated??"

I noticed this because the potato chips that I used to purchase at 80 cents per package is costing 6 bucks of local currency and of local source of origin but of the same quantity or size ........... the above concept was realized might have been the major contributing reason................ Are we doing this right?? 

Edited December 11, 2019 by specinho

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

Are we doing this right??

 

No.

[specinho + 470]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

No.

May be not us...... but IMF has done it not correctly?? 

Edited December 11, 2019 by specinho

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Quote

Examining our principles of economics textbooks, one finds the following type of logic: Markets have systematic failures such as externalities, monopolies, business cycles, and public goods, and there is a benevolent omniscient government that can and will come in, properly identify, and correct these things by imposing the ideal solution to the problem. What a disservice we as economists have done to our students! For those readers who have had this type of education in your principles of economics curriculum, I apologize. We, as a profession, have misled you. And for any economics instructors reading, let me tell you how you can do a better job for your students.

Source Here

Edited December 12, 2019 by Ward Smith
Cleaned URL

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

The government goes to the trouble of printing money and sending it out to the banks and then tries to get it back by taxes.  Am I missing something here? I guess it's the stages in between where money is lent and/or exchanged for labor work and material purchases.  It appears that money is a way in which a very few who control most of it can control the majority of people to do what they want along with the very few resorting to the fear of laws and/or the use of oppressive force in order to control the majority of people to do what they want.  Is this how rulers control the masses to their advantage?  Governments acts like gods in determining what is right and wrong for their citizens through their laws and who they can and cannot kill such as in wars. Some banks seem to be a big monopoly since they get the best lowest interest rates to borrow money from the government central bank and they can then lend it for much more to everyone else who is not as privileged to get such a good low rate.

You're missing it. The government doesn't print the money, only banks "get" to do that. You have been hypnotized into believing the government "controls" the Central Banks. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Central Banks control the government. 

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

You're missing it. The government doesn't print the money, only banks "get" to do that. You have been hypnotized into believing the government "controls" the Central Banks. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Central Banks control the government. 

So much for the flat earth theory when we have this to contend with.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, remake it said:

So much for the flat earth theory when we have this to contend with.

Glad to know you're incapable of escaping your programming.

If you were a competent AI (you're not) things could get scary. 

[Papillon + 485]

Whether we agree or not sir, I have to admit that was a good line. He has quite the sense of humour sometimes. I'm still unsure and a little baffled by this whole bot issue, but if it is true, he shouldn't bother, as some of his quips are great. You have to give him that surely? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

May be not us...... but IMF has done it not correctly?? 

No.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Whether we agree or not sir, I have to admit that was a good line. He has quite the sense of humour sometimes. I'm still unsure and a little baffled by this whole bot issue, but if it is true, he shouldn't bother, as some of his quips are great. You have to give him that surely? 

No.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

30 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The Central Banks control the government.

To be entirely accurate, the Central Bankers that make up the Directors of the Central Banks control both the money supply and the discount rate, which in turn sets interest rates for just about all negotiable instruments.  This has a dramatic effect on the ability to issue debt instruments and securities.  The Governments themselves still control matters of social policy, e.g. whether or not your health plan will pay for your daughter's birth control pills, that sort of thing. Governments also control other aspects of social behavior, such as if a white person can marry a black person  (so-called "anti-miscegenation laws"),  arbitrary detention in Guantanamo, that sort of thing.  Central Bankers do not control everything (at least, not quite yet). 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

16 minutes ago, Papillon said:

You have to give him that surely? 

No.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 minutes ago, Papillon said:

I'm still unsure and a little baffled by this whole bot issue

The whole idea behind a bot is to baffle you, and to make you unsure.    AI Bots are the today version of Goebbels and propaganda. The idea is to mislead you.  

[Papillon + 485]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

No.

@Tom Kirkman  See sir, I told you we would disagree in some areas ... 

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The whole idea behind a bot is to baffle you, and to make you unsure.    AI Bots are the today version of Goebbels and propaganda. The idea is to mislead you.  

Surely that is the role of this site as there is no arbitration of accuracy in content and instead it seems this determination is based on how many trinkets are collected or in some cases that appeasement trumps content.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

From the AI Bot:     

"Surely that is the role of this site as there is no arbitration of accuracy in content and instead it seems this determination is based on how many trinkets are collected or in some cases that appeasement trumps content."

-----------------------------

And that, folks, is how the Chinese spyware war machine does electronic combat with the minds of Americans  - or, perhaps more accurately, tries to.  

 

You do have to give the Bot handler credit for staying the course;  this guy just never gives up.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Not at all sure what that Meme is supposed to portray, but hey, I'll give it a Ha! Ha! just on creativity!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

50 minutes ago, Papillon said:

@Tom Kirkman  See sir, I told you we would disagree in some areas ... 

We are not "disagreeing" at all.  YOu asked a perfectly straight-forward question.  I gave you a succinct answer.  Cheers.

[Guest]

He thought Remake's line was funny. You did not agree and so by definition ''disagreed''.

That is disagreeing ...?   Wake up @Jan van Eck  LOL

Cheers    

Edited December 12, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

By definition nothing an AI Bot writes can be "funny." Therefore, my (very correct) answer is "No."

[Guest]

That seems a non sequitur ...