CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 3, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Geez...you guys are splitting hairs and missing the big picture. No kidding? Here? The Bass Forum? No f'in way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 I taught economics for several years. Too much money is bad, mkay?If leaves were money, I would spend days raking my yard and collecting money. However, when I went to get a gallon of milk, the store owner knows that I have plenty of leaves, so he jacks the price up. Besides, if I don't pay it, everyone else has plenty of leaves, too. One (or more) of them will pay it. Same with gas, same with cars, same with rent, same with utilities, etc.Even Mark Twain wrote about the cost of living way back in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." Higher wages for everyone equals higher prices for everyone. His assistant could comprehend it, either. Ok. So explain to us what the thinking is when the gov't prints more money. And, are they actually just printing more money or is it being borrowed from somewhere? I can't even believe that video enough to accept that the gov't is just plain ol' printing money. And I'm gonna re-state my point: nothing is bad.There is an objective that someone is trying to meet, even if that objective is to completely wreck the economy. If that's the objective, and printing money will do it, then printing money would be the thing to do. So, I start thinking about this. I remember paying 14 cents for the same candy bar that costs $1.50 today. But it is the same candy bar?Today's candy bar exists in a world with a whole lot more people.There is real global competition in goods and services. With significant global changes in technology, trade, etc.; is it ever "right" to just print money? Also.Is money a "zero sum" type of thing? What if I make an investment that triples my original amount? Does that money necessarily come from someone or someplace else? Does my gain from Nike stock come out of Reebock's pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 And I'm gonna re-state my point: nothing is bad. You could say "we don't know if something is bad unless we have more information" but just to say "nothing is bad" is still an oversimplification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 You could say "we don't know if something is bad unless we have more information" but just to say "nothing is bad" is still an oversimplification. Without context, bad is indeterminate. An economic situation may be "bad" for sellers yet "good" for buyers, or vice versa. Also the concept of "bad" is not really attached to any point in time: what is "bad" today may yield "good" tomorrow. Without context, who can tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Without context, bad is indeterminate.An economic situation may be "bad" for sellers yet "good" for buyers, or vice versa. Absolutely. But that's not the same as saying "nothing is bad". The guy in that video could be right. Or he could be wrong. But he is one or the other. Saying "nothing is bad" is over simplifying it. It lacks as much substance as that video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 3, 2009 No kidding? Here? The Bass Forum? No f'in way.+1. We would never do that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 You could say "we don't know if something is bad unless we have more information" but just to say "nothing is bad" is still an oversimplification. Give me an example of how "nothing is bad" is an oversimplification? In a very casual sense, I know what a person means by a "bad refrigerator." Somehow it's unreliable or can be relied on to function in some peculiar way. But someone might put that refrigerator on Freecycle and admit that it's always way too cold. That might be fine for someone, and they'll be glad to come get that thing. But this issue of just printing money. It's too complex to say that absolutely, universally, from moment zero to 500 years from now, and for everyone everywhere forever, "printing money is bad." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 But this issue of just printing money. It's too complex to say that absolutely, universally, from moment zero to 500 years from now, and for everyone everywhere forever, "printing money is bad." That's just it - time has a way of changing situations from bad to good.... Printing money may lead to the near immediate collapse of our economic system as we know it - yet in 500 years a new and perhaps more effective system may very well have replaced it. In this case: is printing money bad or good? The simple qualification is to categorize ill effects as either short or long term, and quantify the ill effects at specific projected points in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Absolutely. But that's not the same as saying "nothing is bad". The guy in that video could be right. Or he could be wrong. But he is one or the other. Saying "nothing is bad" is over simplifying it. It lacks as much substance as that video. No. The guy isn't right or wrong. He's not saying anything. He's just trying to scare people. He never said "printing money is bad, and here's why." Let's say that printing money will hurt us in the long run. But in the short run we get the warm feeling that the government is in action, and that we have some short term measurable benefit, is printing money bad? Is it good? Good for whom & bad for whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Give me an example of how "nothing is bad" is an oversimplification? I'll use the printing money idea. Right now, as we sit here today, I can say "printing money is a bad idea for fixing out economic troubles." Forget context and substantiation. I'm either going to be right or wrong. Can I prove it to you? No. Not knowing the result does not my statement "printing money is bad" wrong today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 He's not saying anything. He's just trying to scare people. He never said "printing money is bad, and here's why." He doesn't have to tell you why in order to be right or wrong. I can tell you "the moon orbits the earth". Just because I don't tell you why doesn't make me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'll use the printing money idea. Right now, as we sit here today, I can say "printing money is a bad idea for fixing out economic troubles." Forget context and substantiation. I'm either going to be right or wrong. Can I prove it to you? No. Not knowing the result does not my statement "printing money is bad" wrong today. Even "fix" is contextual, eg: "fix" today, have no effect tomorrow? A fear monger has a friend in time...he merely has to wait for passage of time to provide the correct situation for him to be "right". If the economy makes a short term rebound, the proponent of whatever mechanism was used will cry victory. if a year later the economy takes a dump, the opponent of whatever mechanism was used will cry victory. In the end, both will have been "right" - just at different points in time.... This is why I'm with Mango: these types of predictions must be given within the time domain - at the very least so that they can be categorized as "short term" or "long term" risks. This level of attention to detail also lends credibility to both the model and the presenter. I don't think it's enough to merely predict the nature of the failure - the model must also take into account passage of time and changing market and economic conditions in order to be valid. There are also recursive qualities to this type of prediction that should be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Also.Is money a "zero sum" type of thing? What if I make an investment that triples my original amount? Does that money necessarily come from someone or someplace else? Does my gain from Nike stock come out of Reebock's pocket? that one is easy. No. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created. If I make more that doesn't mean someone else makes less. Not at all. However, simply putting an influx of cash into the system by printing money when it is not backed with anything real (assets) is not a creation of wealth. It will devalue the currency eventually. This can have many different effects. Some of them good, and most of them bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Give me an example of how "nothing is bad" is an oversimplification?In a very casual sense, I know what a person means by a "bad refrigerator." Somehow it's unreliable or can be relied on to function in some peculiar way.But someone might put that refrigerator on Freecycle and admit that it's always way too cold. That might be fine for someone, and they'll be glad to come get that thing.But this issue of just printing money. It's too complex to say that absolutely, universally, from moment zero to 500 years from now, and for everyone everywhere forever, "printing money is bad." Raping a 3 year old is bad. All the time, every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Raping a 3 year old is bad.All the time, every time. his point is coming from a relativist standpoint. If raping a 3 year old will save the lives of 1000 3 year old, is it still bad? The problem is that involves a known outcome, this issue does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 3, 2009 .....However, simply putting an influx of cash into the system by printing money when it is not backed with anything real (assets) is not a creation of wealth. It will devalue the currency eventually. This can have many different effects. Some of them good, and most of them bad.One of those effects will be an extremely high inflation rate. For some people that's a good thing. It reminds me of an old SNL skit when Carter was POTUS. I think Dan Akroyd played him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 that one is easy. No. Economics is not a zero-sum game. No it isn't (I'm agreeing with you) It's a system that must be observed over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 The problem is that involves a known outcome, this issue does not. At what point do you "stop time" and say: "here is the outcome"? I'm taking the quantum physics style view of things: we have a system in motion, so it makes sense to take measurements that take this into account. For example: measuring inflation at a single point in time versus graphing inflation over a period of time. The graph is far more useful overall, especially if some external influence ("printing money") were applied to the situation during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 However, simply putting an influx of cash into the system by printing money when it is not backed with anything real (assets) is not a creation of wealth. It will devalue the currency eventually. But what if the recipients of this money did not spend it? The devaluation is tied to the presumption of increased demand, and presumes that these recipients will then make a run on the supply side, which then leads to the raising of prices to cover the increased demand. What if the supply side receives none of this printed money? What if demand remains constant or even declines? Hmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 his point is coming from a relativist standpoint. If raping a 3 year old will save the lives of 1000 3 year old, is it still bad?The problem is that involves a known outcome, this issue does not. Yes it is still bad, it's just not as bad as the deaths of 1000 3 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 3, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 He doesn't have to tell you why in order to be right or wrong. I can tell you "the moon orbits the earth". Just because I don't tell you why doesn't make me wrong. With an issue like money and the economy, you'd need to explain everything. To explain ebb and flow of bodies of water, you'd need to explain the moon's orbit. This isn't a question about right or wrong. It'd be about measuring the effectiveness of your communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes it is still bad, it's just not as bad as the deaths of 1000 3 year olds. It's not bad at all if "demand" is not increased to the point where inflation must occur. The "demand" (consumer spending) is so low right now that the printing of money makes economic sense - the predicted outcome is increased demand in order to prevent further collapse on the supply side. As long as the demand is carefully monitored, it should be possible to avoid inflation. Debt? That's another story. And aren't these stimulus packages being funded through loans? That's not the same thing as creating more currency with no backing....or maybe I'm missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 With an issue like money and the economy, you'd need to explain everything. To explain ebb and flow of bodies of water, you'd need to explain the moon's orbit.This isn't a question about right or wrong. It'd be about measuring the effectiveness of your communication. But it's so easy to deal with absolutes..... Like the absolute assumption that printing money with no backing will create inflation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 3, 2009 Members Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes it is still bad, it's just not as bad as the deaths of 1000 3 year olds. And what if that 3-yr old grows up to commit his/her life to preventing such things from happening to anyone else? This is the kind of bizarre game we get into by trying to evaluate something as being good, or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.