/sci/ - Science & Math

[poopy No.3596647]

hey smart people,

Can you tell me why the global economy is in shambles?

Please explain it in terms that a 5th grader can understand.

[Anonymous No.3596656]

because government economic policy usually involves sacrificing one thing to fix something else.

like, trying to increase GDP whilst letting inflation go batshit insane high.
so things eventually go out of hand to the point no one can do shit.

[poopy No.3596660]

>>3596656
one or the other huh? i wonder how long that system will last

[Anonymous No.3596672]

>>3596647

Too many useless people vs too little useful people

Image America without drug wars and fat people, they'd conquer the galaxy

[poopy No.3596679]

>>3596672
I agree. Call me heartless but welfare only serves as an enabler and does nothing for the betterment of society

[Anonymous No.3596680]

fat americans

[Anonymous No.3596683]

Well you see timmy, there is this thing called money.

Money as a technical term is the common means of exchange between two people. If you have chickens and i have cows, and i want chickens but you dont want cows we have to agree to some means of exchange that other people will also want.

This is how gold became money, and eventually people decided that gold was too heavy and easily stolen to transport so they made paper notes that were certificates of gold ownership and could be exchanged for the gold they represented.

Then one day the rich people in america hatched a plan to have their banks become way more powerful and have them become way the fuck richer.

They got rid of the gold and created fiat currency, which is basically a piece of paper and is only backed by the faith the people using it have in its value. At this point they also stole all the gold.

Because this paper could not be exchanged for anything that wasnt as infinite as paper the government thought it would be cool to create extra pieces of paper of of thin air in order to pay off special interest groups and to give people lavish promises.

By doing this they could reap massive rewards and after 4-8 years when they left the inflation and debt would pass on to the next politician, who would continue the cycle in order to not be "that guy" who cut a bunch of shit, pissed off the entitlement fags, and was therefore not reelected.

Flash forward to modern times, where the cycle has continued but the "have to deal with it" is getting ever closer and closer.

[poopy No.3596688]

>>3596683
5 star post, bro. thanks.
printing new dollars is so stupid to me

[Anonymous No.3596711]

- repeal of financial sector safeguards like Glass Stenal act and tax cuts for the rich
- "house for every american" policy of the Clinton administration and government owned Fannie and Freddie causing huge mortgage market bubble, FED fueling it with cheap money
- irresponsibility of european PIGS governments, generous welfare policies favoring the lazy breeders and mass immigration of inferior cultures also contributed to the shit we are in now. Not to mention two expensive wars.

[poopy No.3596729]

>>3596711
>mass immigration of inferior cultures
i wouldnt say inferior cultures, we're just not getting the best the countries have to offer like we used to. lookin at you illegal immigrants

[Anonymous No.3596733]

[Anonymous No.3596736]

>>3596683 cont

As all 8 year olds know if every kid on the playground has a charizard card then they are worthless, but if only 5 kids have them they are worth at least 2 weeks of your lunch dessert.

So inflation continued as planned until one day another stupid government program in the housing sector fucked up.

The government wanted the niggers in the ghetto to vote for them so they told the banks to give them loans for houses.
The bankers, being rich businessmen were not about to simply give a bunch of crack smoking welfare riding niggers giant loans to buy houses because that would be fucking stupid and they would never see their money back.

So the gov told them that they would buy all the nigger loans from them with fannie may whjich would give the banks a nice profit for bringing in as many nigger loans as possible.

So now all the poor people started buying houses, which was basically every kid wanted a charizard so the price went up to 30 years of lunch dessert.

Eventually people realized that charizard just wasnt worth it, so they stopped buying more, gave back the ones they bought, or just stopped bringing desserts to pay for them.

[Anonymous No.3596739]

>>3596683

Or, you know... Maybe something that doesn't rely on paper money not being 'real'.

[Anonymous No.3596751]

>>3596739

>yfw american companies are doing great because they are getting rid of manual labor and replacing the worker bees with machines that do the exact same things faster, better and most importantly cheaper

So inflation will increase in order to keep welfare going, poor people will riot and the military will kill them all. Problem solved and we get to colonize mars.

[Anonymous No.3596755]

>creating a bubble and then bursting it

[Anonymous No.3596763]

>>3596736 cont

So the price of houses drops a lot due to an overinflated price bubble because of these government programs and the no risk loans the banks were handing out.

And since a house is the biggest investment that the average people would ever make its like they all lost 50% of their money in the stock market over a few months time.

Then the gov comes along to save the day with STIMULUS, no not that thing your uncle did to you last summer, but rather the creation out of thin air of 800 billion dollars to make things all better.

Unfortunately for the people, they have been educated in american public schools, so when they heard the word stimulus they didnt realize that their money was being worth less and that in reality they were being taxed to pay whatever politically connected company or bank got the money.

So this continues and people think they dodged a bullet and life goes on, but it would not be so.

Inflation has a delayed effect, the created money is worth 100% at the time of creation, but its like blowing smoke into a room, eventually it disperses to an equal level throughout.

Now we may not notice it right out, a lot of the things that we buy actually become cheaper due to new technology, but ipods are not apples that you can eat.

Food prices increased to a level that would not support 6000 calorie a day american diets.

Food prices go up > riots > police state enforcement > more riots > revolution > strongman takes over.

Hold on to your butts.

[Anonymous No.3596797]

>>3596647
nobody has any confidence in the economy

[Anonymous No.3596799]

>Please explain it in terms that a 5th grader can understand.

The banks tell poor people "hey, you can buy a nice house and all the other shit you've always wanted, we'll lend you the money, but you'll have to pay us back more then we lend you".

Poor people say "derp, ize always wanted monies, sounds good".

Bank tells other people (including other banks) "hey, this faggot is going to pay me a fuckton of money in the future... want to buy his debt from me?"

Others say "derp, yeah, looks good, you will have so much money, business is good".

Everyone starts counting on the poor people to pay back shit. Everyone things these debts are worth a shitload of money.

Someone finally tells the poor fuck he has to pay. He can't. Everyone suddenly realizes that being owed money by some poor faggot doesn't mean shit. They all realize that all they have are IOUs from poor faggots and no real assets. Everyone panics and starts selling their shares in banks and everything else.

When more poor faggots show up asking for loans to buy houses, electronics, dildos and whatever the fuck else, the banks now say "fuck off, you're a poor faggot and I know you won't pay me back".

part 1/2

[Anonymous No.3596803]

>>3596799
part 2/2

Poor faggots can't get loans so they can't buy shit. Now companies can't sell their shit to poor faggots, so their profits start dropping. This scares shareholders who panic and start screaming that the company is fucked and the end is nigh

Everyone starts selling their shares in companies and banks, so the price drops and the markets start to crash (the market numbers that you see are just average prices of shares, so when share price drops, the market drops). Anyone who wasn't panicselling starts panicselling. Fuck, it crashes.

Basically, the market is full of fucking retards who look at each other to see what to do. If one person gets scared and starts selling, everyone say "oh fuck, he must know something, sell", and a wave of shit spreads over. The smart people wait until the price drops enough then start buying, and all the retards see this and copy him.

[Anonymous No.3596819]

>>3596803
You forgot the part where the people were acting retarded because it was the law.

You think the banks would give loans to a bunch of loans with no collateral and no down payment to the poorest people if:
> law saying they cannot discriminate against poor blacks when giving loans, have to give same amount of loans to blacks as whites ect.
> government program set up to buy loans from the banks, go watch some interviews, they were like sure we can just sell this to fannie at profit.
> the absolute knowledge that if things went bad the government would bail them out.

Basically it was like going to vegas and knowing that if you win you keep your winnings, if you lose an insurance company will cover all your loses. All you have to do is keep paying that monthly fee (reelection donations!)

[Anonymous No.3596831]

Nice scapegoating there. Wahhh it's entirely the fault of those poors for not making sure the paperwork is perfect and those who make the loans are blameless angels who were taken advantage of!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/rich-mortgage-defaults_n_640288.html

[Anonymous No.3596857]

>>3596831

I dont blame the poor, i blame the government.

What you subsidize you will increase.

What you tax you will decrease.

Apply this to every shitty thing around and you will see the governments anus above.

for example, and as a significant factor in whats going on in england atm.

Single mothers with no jobs - get payed for each child they have, subsidized housing, welfare.

Children grow up with no dad, likely a series of "uncles" who will probly molest them, never get to see a man work to support his family or a mother who takes care of her family.

Grow up to be criminals or unemployed at a massive rate compared to 2 parent households.

In england you lose ~100 pounds a week in government subsidies if the man lives with you and the child.

[Anonymous No.3596900]

>>3596857
Taxation doesn't decrease anything. Taxes are just the idea that everyone should invest together, in some areas, for the benefit of all. Roads, school, defence and health care. Middle class prosperity has always gone up when taxes went up.

If you're an optimist: bake a bigger pie metaphor. For cynics: do you really want to trust a sociopath CEO with your life? They aren't going to stop being money making sociopaths, not matter what magic numbers are on the big boards.

[Anonymous No.3596907]

>>3596683
god damn that's beautiful.

thanks.

[Anonymous No.3596941]

>>3596683
Even better that they do the same shit for physical products, such as gold. Pick any random bank that allow you to invest in gold and look up their supplies. Their total physical gold reserve could be something like 2000kg, yet the gold-as-promised-to-investors-currently-in-paper-format can easily be 20000kg.

Now this isn't really a problem for them right now as people are happy to be "paper gold" owners, but as a part of the paper gold agreement is that you're allowed to cash out the physical reserve...

Now what happens when 2000kg of gold is cashed out physical and someone asks for 1kg more? Oh the bank have to buy for fiat dollars, from other suppliers the physical gold, and given how gold is spiking in an exponential curve manner that would make Kurzweil shit his pants it will be hellishly expensive for the banks...

And at the current going people will lose trust in their paper gold eventually and demand the physical product and that will create an unimaginable shitstorm and drive up gold prices even further and ram the banks into the ground so hard they explode or fuse to iron. Those too late to cash out their massive gold profits the banks owe them will probably riot and set bankers and everyone else on fire.

WELCOME TO THE BRIGHT ECONOMIC FUTURE /SCI/!!!

[Anonymous No.3596983]

>>3596900

>Taxation doesn't decrease anything.

Of course taxation decreases that which is taxed more than the other thing. If the tax burden was spread equally then there will be no market deformations. But it is not, therefore market deformations ensue.

[Anonymous No.3597112]

>>3596647
> Please explain it in terms that a 5th grader can understand.
Rich people can lie and steal without getting caught and punished. This kills the econocrab.

[Anonymous No.3597127]

>>3596983
the only non-distortive taxes are head taxes

[Anonymous No.3597187]

>>3597127

Nope, income and sales taxes can also be non-distortive, as long as it is a flat tax agnostic of the way income was earned (wage, profit, interest, rent...), or sales tax equal for all products.

[Anonymous No.3597201]

>>3597187
Well, a sales tax will undoubtedly make people less prone for consumption and more prone for savings.

[Anonymous No.3597228]

>>3596647 Can you tell me why the global economy is in shambles?
Three entities control everything: The Builderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Only way to fight them is to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments as well as the Federal Reserve Act.

Until that happens, enjoy your serfdom.

[Anonymous No.3597258]

>>3597228


The 16th I get, but what's wrong with the 17th amendment?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597260]

Answering OPs question:

>Here is a bunch of money!

>Oh no I lost all the money!

>Oh no what are we going to do??!?!?

>I dont know!

>BIG SAD FACE

[Anonymous No.3597278]

>>3597258
When the 17th Amendment passed, it destroyed our Federal system of government. The Senate was supposed to represent the various state LEGISLATURES in Congress. The citizenry already had their own House of government, the House of Representatives.

When the various States lost their representation in Congress, all hell broke lose as there was no longer any check to the expansive growth of the Central Government.

Our Founders set up a system of Checks and Balances, and this included checks and balaces of State vs Federal government, not merely between the branches of the Federal Government itself.

[Anonymous No.3597287]

>>3597278

Ahhh, got it.

So what's the difference between the Senate and the HoR at this point?

[Anonymous No.3597288]

>>3597278
Also, with the various State Legislatures picking the Senators out of the picture, the bribery became far more concentrated and easier to pull off. Now instead Those In Power paying off entire state legislators to keep Their Man in office, they merely had to pay of Their Man himself (through "campaign contributions" hint hint, wink wink).

[Anonymous No.3597292]

>>3597287
Nothing. Which is not what it was meant to be.

[Anonymous No.3597303]

>>3597292
>>3597288

My mind is blown.

Thanks for the quick lesson.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597306]

>>3597292
>>3597287
>>3597278

I agree, that is very bad. Im also very disappointed that our HoR is a fixed amount, rather than representing a fixed number of people. We should have a few thousands representatives like it was originally written.

[Anonymous No.3597308]

>>3596683
Are you suggesting that gold has that much more value that a piece of paper? It has inherent value as a good conductor but other than that the gold standard is just as bullshit as a fiat currency. A currency based on Joules or Watts/Power would be much more awesome.

I have come to the conclusion that Capitalism alone is outdated. It worked fine through slavery and the industrial revolution but now that science has the ability to double the effective power/value of our goods at no additional cost per unit every few years, we need a new economic system that promotes scientific advancement over capital gains and maybe even production.

I look around and see all the things that make me happy(besides the basic services that government provides such as keeping warlords out of my house, building roads, subsidizing power, yada yada) come more from scientific advancement than my right to own capital. The problem with capitalism is that the guys at the tip top have no incentive whatsoever to help humanity unless it gets them profits. Trickle down/Voodoo economics do not work on their own and just lead to greater income disparity and no great increase in productivity. However, scientific discovery by nature is trickle down. A discovery helps every human as further discoveries make it more efficient. A government that regulates a capitalist market should place heavy emphasis on incentivising R&D and punishing/deincentivising hoarding your money in a pile. There is no incentive to change this so I don't see it happening(I really hope the US and china get into a "science race" pissing contest though).

Honestly though, the US wouldn't be in trouble if the rich people actually paid the taxes they owed instead of finding loopholes to make their effective tax-rate even lower than the lowest brackets.

[Anonymous No.3597309]

explainlikeim5.reddit.com

[Anonymous No.3597311]

The American Economy is in shambles because the American Government got payed off by rich people so that they could get the American Government to subsidize the moving of the manufacturing base and workforces outside the United States so they could make an extra 5% on their stock portfolio in the short term, without thinking about the long term consequences of undermining the largest consumer middle class in the world.

A lot of rich people have hooked their wagons to the global economy, thinking that places like India or China will become a super consumer like the US is, which is a total fallacy.

The American Government keeps turning a blind eye to the abuses of the corporations and banks because the corporations and banks run American and thus can get away with the economic murder of the US.

The key here is that the American people are too ignorant to really understand this and take action against it as they are too busy being distracted by the bread and circuses act which is our media and the political circus which surrounds"elections".

As for Europe, the economic strength of Europe has always been an illusion and the social entitlement programs eat away at their already weak and dessicated economic infrastructure. Now that all the countries are attached economically, the weak countries are pulling down the strong and the Euro will eventually collapse under it's own weight unless dissolved, which will not be easy.

It is all about the evil of man and the funny thing is that what is happening has happened before, but not on this scale. Globalization is bad because when the EU or US falls, the rest of the world goes with it, which means 6 billion people going apeshit. That is not good.

[Anonymous No.3597315]

>>3596647
fractional reserve banking
every dollar out there is debt
there is more debt than there is actual real physical money because of interests on loans
thus it is logically impossible to be 100 debt free.

It's interest, really, it kills us all. it enables banks to take away your possessions you gave as collateral for their loans, which they pulled out of their asses via bookkeeping.
"as long as we keep a fraction of the real physical money in our vaults, the few people who actually want to use and see its physical form will be placated, and since those people are rare we can just loan out virtual money, as long as those people promise to pay us back of course, oh and with interest."

That is the reason why bank runs would happen if all people with accounts wanted to withdraw their physical money at the same time.
There simply isn't enough real money to cover the virtual, yet legal, because the world is fucked up and loves rotschilds, money.

etc

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597336]

>>3597308

The value of the standard is less important than the value of having a standard. It wouldnt matter if its gold or toilet paper.

I dont think a Joules standard would work. Mostly because I cant withdraw my joules. Its not mine its just something someone owe's me when I want to consume it.

This thread is getting too crazy all the sudden.

[Anonymous No.3597346]

>>3597336
We currently don't have the battery technology to facilitate it. But when you go to the bank, you wouldn't(in the past) withdraw your gold unless you need it. I don't see the problem with having a power based currency though if it was physically possible(big problem).

[Anonymous No.3597348]

ITT: A couple people: Conspiracy theorist butt-buddies having a circle jerk over gold in fantasy land, libertarian soapboxes, and a few economists who understand what a bubble is.

OP, listen to the bubble people.

Unfortunately, all of you have forgotten one important thing: why is recovery so slow now when it wasn't so slow after 9/11.

You see, there was a bubble in the 90's called the tech bubble that burst in the early 2000's.

Definition-Bubble: A market that has unsustainable growth where it's collapse will cause sudden rise in unemployment.

Now, there a two ways to fix an economic crisis (sometimes you need both or just one depending on the severity of the situation): Fiscal policy (the Gubment) and Monetary Policy (The Fed [I can already hear tinfoilers moaning]).

When the tech-bubble was growing, a bunch of people took out loans so that they could start their own tech business and make a bunch of money in the growing economy. When it burst, a bunch of companies filed bankruptcy and said, "Woops! Can't pay your loan!" wherein the banks started to rage. So people are getting laid off in the tech industry and the banks are less likely to lend money now that everyone and their girlfriend is calling bankruptcy and not paying back their loans. Then 9/11 happens and people are afraid to go shopping, which further stifles the economy. It's the reason why Dubya went in front of the nation and said, "Remember to go Christmas shopping!"

[Anonymous No.3597349]

>>3597308 Are you suggesting that gold has that much more value that a piece of paper?
Yes, because there's only a fixed amount of it, and it's a natural substance, not man-made. All the gold ever mined in the world wouldn't fill up two Olympic swimming pools.

Paper is literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.3597350]

>>3597348
So the Fed comes in and says, "Okay banks. I'm going to increase the money flow so that you're more likely to give loans to businesses, which will slow down unemployment if not reverse it." So the Fed increased the money flow when they decreased the interest rates (the price of money) and lowered the discount rate (what the Fed charges other banks for borrowing money from the Fed). The banks then feel more comfortable about giving loans, entrepreneaurs are starting up businesses again, employment starts rising, and we end the recession with strong growth. This growth is further accelerated by the Bush tax cuts (some argue this helped create the bubbles).

Unfortunately, the Fed forgot to increase the interest and the discount rate after the economy fixed itself (he should have decreased the money flow in late 2003). Interest rates remain at 1% and the discount rate is still too damn low.

Fast forward to the housing-bubble burst. It's the same thing as the tech bubble, but with houses. The Fed looks at the economy and says, "Fuck!" because it can only lower the interest rate to near 0% and the discount rate is already to damn low. The stimulus (fiscal policy) is released and stops the recession, but growth is so damn slow because banks are afraid to loan money since so many people defaulted (and the government keeps yelling at them that they should of been more comfortable with their money, which they should have).


TL;DR We're out of the recession, but growth is so slow that we still feel poor and don't want to spend money, start businesses, or hire people. The reason behind this is because the Fed lost their tools after the tech bubble, so they can only twiddle their thumbs and do marginal things for the current crisis.

[Anonymous No.3597361]

>>3597349
So if you don't devote actual resources to mining this overvalued useless thing and never trade, your money is worth shit and your economy won't grow? I'll take the fiat currency. I thought the metagame that was Mercantilism died a while ago.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597366]

>>3597346

Isnt there also the problem of transporting electricity? I might sound stupid, because I dont know a lot about this. but, I thought I heard an analogy comparing power lines being like leaky pipes.

>>3597348
>>3597350

I agree.

[Anonymous No.3597372]

Economists don't know, OP, why the economy is in shambles. That's why there are so many theories about it, becuase economy is hardly an empirical, replicable science.

My own theory about it is that it's a moral crisis, but it's not something a 5th grader would understand. The reason why economists don't know how to fix it is this, the underlying causes are not economic.

[Anonymous No.3597374]

>>3597366

I like you. Econfags of AZ unite!

[Anonymous No.3597377]

>>3597372
*I meant "economics"

[Anonymous No.3597380]

>>3597361 I'll take the fiat currency.
Knock yourself out with your $100 Trillion Zimbawbe dollar bill. Meanwhile, gold is $1850 USD/oz.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597387]

>>3597372

>Economists don't know, OP, why the economy is in shambles.

We dont? I think we do. At least I think a lot of economists have similar ideas.

The real disagreement fundamentally comes about whether bubbles are a natural phenomenon, or are because of poor policy.

>>3597374

Aw thanks AZbro!

>MFW

>>3597380

Does their currency have a rocks on it? Thats really cool.

[Anonymous No.3597401]

>>3597366
Yes, that is true. But there is also a cost to transporting gold and physically transporting money. With banks, power here equals power there. If you don't like the pure power currency and want something physical, I could see an economy based fuels working out. I honestly don't mind the fiat currency, but if there is a standard, I want it to be based on something more useful than gold. Imagine if we had made the standard on the most valuable element before gold, Aluminum. Even though a process for the benefit of humanity would have been discovered(ability to make aluminum), the values of currency would have fluctuated insanely. A standard needs to have a strong and inherent premise that it is based on. Gold's premise is "people like shiny things". Sorry if I don't feel comfortable with that.

[Anonymous No.3597413]

>>3597372
We're in a liquidity trap. You're gonna hate my solution, but I'm gonna say it anyway:

1. Bank optimism. If the banks feel optimistic, they'll loan more money, more people will start businesses, more people will be hired, problem solved. Unfortunately, the only way to make the banks feel better currently are the solutions below, one which you'll enjoy, the other two you'll probably hate.

2. Innovation: As things are being invented, more people will start businesses if the goods are consumer goods and businesses can make their products cheaper based on these new inventions if the inventions are capital goods. Unfortunately, the Gov shut down NASA, so this may be harder to do. However, people will keep inventing, so there is still hope.

3. Free trade: People will moan about "Dey took our jerbs." However, free trade will actually increase our exports due to the income effect. Stop by in an India tech support building. Do you know what's on their desk? Cokes, Microsoft desktops, and Samsung telephones. They can afford that now that they have jobs. Give them a job, they'll buy your products, then you get more jobs and can now buy cheaper goods.

4. Immigration: Same reason as above. Just make it easier for people to immigrate legally.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597430]

>>3597401

>But there is also a cost to transporting gold and physically transporting money.

Well, how much does it cost to lug gold around? Its a transportation cost which represents a relatively small amount that applies to all goods. I think, with electricity, because of resistance in wires, you are losing like 60% of the energy. And then when you put it into batteries it fades away too. Thats kind of apples and oranges dont think you?

> I want it to be based on something more useful than gold.

Why?

I dont think the value matters at all. It just matters that we all agree to use it.

>>3597413

Regardless of their impact on banks I agree with 3 and 4 a lot. Free trade, and free immigration are really great.

[Anonymous No.3597437]

>>3597401 Gold's premise is "people like shiny things". Sorry if I don't feel comfortable with that.
Your Asspie is showing. Just because YOU don't feel comfortable with it doesn't mean that 99.9997% of all the people who ever lived on this planet don't feel comfortable with it.

BROFACT: in Roman times, a gold coin could purchase a nice toga, a nice belt and a nice pair of sandals. In modern times, a gold coin can purchase you a nice suit, a nice tie and a nice pair of shoes.

In 2000 years, the value of gold hasn't changed. Shit is rock-fucking-stable. Which is why it's such a good standard to base currency on.

[Anonymous No.3597440]

>>3597401

That's not a good idea. I like the way you think, but I don't like the idea. Here's why:

When you use aluminum or something functional, you can't use as much of that good for what you want. If we use aluminum, we have to keep some aluminum in a bank just sitting there instead of using it to build things.

We use paper precisely because it is so useless. By using paper, we can use aluminum to build things instead of having to always keep some in a bank. The point is money is just good for book keeping. If we start using barter or (insert material)-standard, we can't use as much of said items because they also serve as money.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597457]

>>3597440

To be fair, we dont have a "paper standard." We do use paper, but not the same way we would use gold in a gold standard.

Thats an interesting insight about functionality.

I think the ideal standard is one that has a stable value over time, and and grows in a relatively fixed percentage of the economy. I believe gold and most metals are pretty good about that.

[Anonymous No.3597461]

>>3597437
Actually, by that logic gold has decreased in value. In Roman times, it took a fucking long time to make a toga, a nice belt, and sandals. Today, it takes not nearly as much time to make a suit, a tie, and some shoes. It took a lot more resources to make things like togas in Roman times than it does to make a suit today. Everything is decreasing in value as we become more productive (using less to make more).

[Anonymous No.3597473]

>>3597461
>implying anybody spends $1850 on an off-the-rack suit
>further implying that a "nice suit" means off-the-rack
lrn2Tailored

Oh wait, that's right, you're an aspie and this is your version of Formal Wear.

[Anonymous No.3597477]

>>3597413

>4. Immigration: Same reason as above. Just make it easier for people to immigrate legally.

Nope.jpg
While free trade of products is always beneficial for both sides (infinite harbor fallacy proves it), free immigration is not, because people are not wealth. Unemployed people are a burden. So unless you want to kill off unemployed, mass immigration will damage a country, especially in the recession, when there is no work even for domestic population

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597484]

>>3597461

>Actually, by that logic gold has decreased in value. In Roman times, it took a fucking long time to make a toga, a nice belt, and sandals. Today, it takes not nearly as much time to make a suit, a tie, and some shoes.

Yeah but we dont measure stuff in time.

Not that any of us have any kind of citation about the relative value of togas, suits, or gold over time.

>>3597477

>Unemployed people are a burden

How? For who?

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597487]

I'm adopting a trip just for this thread since I'm already pretty invested into it.

>>3597457

Well, fiat currency is pretty stable if it is done correctly. Right now, the dollar is strong, if not too strong.

Money is like irrigation in an ever expanding farm. You want to make sure that there is enough money in circulation otherwise your markets will shrivel up or die. You don't want to flood it or else it will drown. However, markets may grow a lot at once or grow really slowly. It depends. We need the Fed to control the water flow according to those times.

[Anonymous No.3597506]

>>3597487 Right now, the dollar is strong, if not too strong.

[Anonymous No.3597521]

>>3597506
Compared to the Chinese yuan? He's right.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597523]

>>3597487

But the fed comes with its own problems. Like, it fails to predict how much water to feed to the farm.

I remember I emailed my old intro to Macro professor about this. He said he believes a standard would be better than having a federal reserve. Not to suggest he is correct by authority.

This is really interesting. I really wish I knew more about how economies behave with standards. No modern country has had one in so long.

If I had to guess, in a circumstance where there isnt enough "water on the farm" could be substituted by faster circulation of the water.

[Anonymous No.3597524]

>>3597484

>How? For who?

For the social system of course. Unemployment and child welfare, unemployment health insurance, public school expenses.. Unemployed dont pay any taxes, but use benefits provided by them the most.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597534]

>>3597524

Who's fault is it that by policy the government gives money to unemployed? We arent obligated to give people money, but our government chooses too. You cant hold that against the recipients.

>Unemployed dont pay any taxes

wat

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597543]

>>3597473

Even if we're talking about a Seville Row suit, it's still easier to make. Back then, farmers had to pick the resources (cotten, wool, or what have you) transport it by horse cart. The they had to refine it by hand into a useable fabric. Now, we have tractors, cars, planes, and textiles.

If you can only resort to ad hominem attacks instead of thinking about an issue may I point you to a board more fitting for your type.

>>/b/

>>3597477

They want to work hard, even if it is for low pay. Tell me, how is that unproductive?

[Anonymous No.3597551]

>>3597523

Yeah, it would be really interesting to see how would 21.st century take on full 19.st century style gold standard turn out.

>>3597487

>You want to make sure that there is enough money in circulation otherwise your markets will shrivel up or die.

Why dont just stop removing water from the circulation? (no money as debt). That way you dont need to add more. It would be enough to prevent monetary deflation, and only deflation due to increased production will happen. But that is not a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.3597607]

My theory is that there is not enough raw labor and resources to go around to sustain a middle class. Everyone wants to be upper class, no one wants to actuality do labor; so people just invest in assets to make money. But what good is money if on one works. There is a way to fix this, and that is if every country when with automated manufacturing and resource gathering; it's just that every country is afraid to use it, because they think they will lose manual labor. Which i think is complete bullshit

[Anonymous No.3597608]

>>3597534

>Who's fault is it that by policy the government gives money to unemployed? We arent obligated to give people money, but our government chooses too. You cant hold that against the recipients.

Abolishing the whole welfare state will only turn the problem of welfare spending increase to problem of huge poverty and crime increase. It will create myriad other worse problems.

You simply cant expect the net effect of allowing masses of hardly employable people into a country already suffering from recession and high unemployment will be beneficial. Thats just common sense.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597624]

>>3597506

When your currency is strong, foreigners don't want to buy your crap; they want to buy your currency (as evidenced by the high value in your currency). This is because a strong currency also makes it more expensive in other nations. When your currency is weak, they want to buy your goods since your goods are now cheaper in their nation due to their increased purchasing power.

TL;DR Our currency's high value is choking our exports. Lower our value (a little not a lot), exports will increase and our employment will rise.

>>3597523

I don't mean to sound alarmist, but that can cause another Great Depression. In the Roaring Twenties, the economy was growing really fast. However, our currency couldn't keep up with it since no one didn't want to put money into banks because of bank runs and our currency was still tied to gold which limited how much money we could print. Then the markets realized we didn't have as much capital as we though we did, everyone panicked, then

BAM!

Great Depression.

Sure, the Fed may make mistakes every now and then (i.e. Greenspan not raising interest rates and discount rates after tech bubble burst was fixed), but they do really well. We haven't gotten any Fed related problems until recently. The Fed fixed the tech bubble, helped stop the 70's stagflation, and more. I wouldn't replace them.

[Anonymous No.3597628]

>Unemployed dont pay any taxes
>wat

They dont. How can they? All of their income is from taxes (welfare). They can only return a portion of it back at best.

[Anonymous No.3597655]

Greed, hubris, and apathy...

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597681]

>>3597551

Actually, increased productivity will require more inflation if we want to avoid a Great Depression. As population grows and more businesses spring to life, you'll need more currency.

It's better to have an economy of 10 people with 5 dollars than an economy of 10 people with 1 dollar.

>>3597607

India under Ghandi tried that. They devoted themselves to RGO's and self-sufficiency. It sucked. Then around when the Cold War ended, India opened their markets and said, "My people, you don't have to be resource-gatherers! You can answer telephones for a living!" Their living standard has only increased because of that.

You can look at it another way: Would you prefer to be Best Korea or USA? One's Resource gatherer almost exclusively, the other is service economy.

There is not a set limit of jobs in the world. As more people enter the service economy, they'll want more services, further increasing employment.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597699]

>>3597608

Its up to you whether you feel that welfare is preferable to crime. Not that I believe such a dichotomy exists. But if you willingly choose to give people welfare dont hold it against who you decide to give welfare too.

I think, that you could just as easily think that an increase supply in labor decreases the costs of production and help get us out of the recession.

>>3597624

Lately Ive been kind of worshipping this formula which is

GDP *CPI = Velocity of Money * Money Supply.

I think, in a gold standard, money supply represents the amount of money, which is different than the amount of Gold because of fractional reserve banking. Prior to the great depression the federal reserve mandated that banks keep their reserve rates at 40% (according to wikipedia), which is high. If they hadnt mandated that then the money supply would have grown. And that is my belief as to why the great depression happened. The Fed fucked up like it always does and accidentally the whole economy via misakenly shrinking the money supply. If the reserve rate was lower, then there would have been money floating about.

>Sure, the Fed may make mistakes every now and then

I think one of the cool things about disliking the fed is that you can literally blame every problem on them. Every recession from the great depression until now can be attributed to them. Regardless of the way the recession manifested itself, it could have been avoided if the fed just controlled the money supply better. That was the opinion of one of my profs, and it resonates well with me.

The fed might have fixed the tech bubble, but it also caused it, and I think some people might view the solution as only delaying the problem until now. "Oh Ill just give them more money to compensate the loss of all the money that disappeared because I just gave them more money"

[Anonymous No.3597700]

The rich became greedy and the poor became lazy.

As the poor became lazy, the rich decided to exploit them more and more to maintain the same profit. That made the poor get even lazier, seeing as how "the man" was making life hard on them. It's a cycle that gets worse and worse.

The government didn't do anything about it because the rich hired people to influence the poor to elect people who would favor the rich. It's because poor people are dumb.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597703]

>>3597628

There are lots of taxes, income tax being one of them. In the mean time they pay property tax, and sales tax, etc.

[Anonymous No.3597727]

>>3597681

>Actually, increased productivity will require more inflation if we want to avoid a Great Depression. As population grows and more businesses spring to life, you'll need more currency.

Why? As long as you dont inflate bubbles with monetary inflation (which was happening before the great depression in the whole 20s) and then wont tighten (as happened in 1928), there will be no depression.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597758]

>>3597699

>I think, in a gold standard, money supply represents the amount of money, which is different than the amount of Gold because of fractional reserve banking.

Are you saying that we are still free to print money in a Gold standard system? If so, why should we switch? If not, we would have a Depression like scenario since we cannot control the money supply.

>Prior to the great depression the federal reserve mandated that banks keep their reserve rates at 40% (according to wikipedia), which is high. If they hadnt mandated that then the money supply would have grown. And that is my belief as to why the great depression happened. The Fed fucked up like it always does and accidentally the whole economy via misakenly shrinking the money supply. If the reserve rate was lower, then there would have been money floating about.

You are correct. The Fed screwed up in the Great Depression because they didn't have enough money in circulation. However, wouldn't the same have happened if we didn't have a control over the money supply? If we chose a permanent interest rate that was too high, the Great Depression would still happened. If we chose one that was too low, either the tech-bubble or the housing bubble would have been our Great Depression.

It is much easier to control your own fate even if you maybe wrong sometimes than have something else do it for you because we can learn from our past and get better at making right descisions.

>I think one of the cool things about disliking the fed is that you can literally blame every problem on them.

Every problem? Like the oil crisis in the 70's started by price ceiling?

The tech bubble was made less harmful since the Fed was prepping for it before it happened and then went straight to work when it happened. The same with when Reagan was in power. Greenspan did a terrific job as chairman except for the Housing Bubble.

[Anonymous No.3597760]

>>3597700
On the whole, I agree.
You seem to be implying that all poor people are dumb though. There are lots of poor peeps that don't vote for the guys that will benefit only the rich.
Fucking Cameron.

[Anonymous No.3597768]

>>3597699

>I think, that you could just as easily think that an increase supply in labor decreases the costs of production and help get us out of the recession.

That hugely depends on the development level of the country and quality of incoming labour.. Not all labour is created equal.

The increase in labour supply for which there is shortage on the market (currently its highly qualified work like IT) will surely help.
The increase in labour supply in areas where demand is already saturated to the point that the cost of said labour approaches minimum wage will not help at all (currently its unqualified manual labor). It will actualy be harmful because of the abovementioned effects (either increased welfare expenses or increased poverty and crime).

Now, the majority of immigrants today fall into the latter category. So the pros of huge immigration in our case outweight the cons.

[Anonymous No.3597784]

>>3597768

Correction:>So the cons of huge immigration in our case outweight the pros.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597788]

>>3597727

But that wasn't a bubble! Monetary inflation was at an all time low!

Look at it this way. Capital is a resource along with food, water, and land. As more people and businesses come into existance, you'll need more resources. Otherwise, people will starve, dehydrate, or get crowded out. You'll need money to circulate. Just not too much. We want a little inflation, not Zimbabwe inflation.

[Anonymous No.3597793]

>>3597387
Bubbles are a natural phenomenon in markets. I learned this watch/reading Spice and Wolf.

[Anonymous No.3597810]

>Gold in 1968: $39.31/oz
>Minimum Wage in 1968: $1.60/hr
>time in hours to buy an ounce of Gold: 24.6 hours

>Gold in 2011: $1850/oz
>Minimum Wage in 2011: $7.25/hr
>time in hours to buy an ounce of Gold: 255.2

The Minimum Wage needs to be set at 75.20/hr.

[Anonymous No.3597816]

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597819]

>>3597784
>>3597768

You're right! Seriously! When we come up with better education institutions for our citizens and others who will pay for it, we'll allow more immigrants. Until then, we'll bide our time.

[Anonymous No.3597824]

>Please explain it in terms that a 5th grader can understand.
Okay, let's say there's a certain amount of skittles in the world. What's happened is that sweet shops have given a load of someone else's skittles to people who have no skittles to give back. So now there are a lot less skittles in the world, and most of the skittles left are in the hands of a very few people. So now skittles are more expensive.(Apply this to any commodity)

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597836]

>>3597824
Great job! I wrote a whole wall of text and you summed it up in several sentences.

[Anonymous No.3597837]

>>3596647 Please explain it in terms that a 5th grader can understand.
Watch this (it's even a cartoon!): youtube dot com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597838]

>>3597758

>Are you saying that we are still free to print money in a Gold standard system?

Yes and no. Im actually really glad this talk reminded me of this concept.

Its not that banks print money. With a standard we shouldnt look at money as we do. Its like a contract, or promise that represents an amount of Gold. And they are promising the same Gold to multiple people. Its like, there is $100 of gold promised and only maybe $10 of gold in the bank. Its still tied to something, but its multiplied at the banks discretion. And when you have a lot of banks each doing this, they are kind of competing and and indirectly through market forces determining the adequate money supply.

>However, wouldn't the same have happened if we didn't have a control over the money supply?

I think, if the fed didnt force a set reserve rate, the banks would have lowered their reserve rate, which would increase the money supply. Ive heard a normal federal reserve rate is like 10% about. So 40% is very high.

>Every problem? Like the oil crisis in the 70's started by price ceiling?

I think my prof said he believed that was the only exception. But I think as he explained it, since the price of oil went up, the price of everything went up since the cost of everything relies on gasoline. Which is essentially inflation.

>The same with when Reagan was in power. Greenspan did a terrific job as chairman except for the Housing Bubble.

I think I agree.

>>3597768

>The increase in labour supply for which there is shortage on the market (currently its highly qualified work like IT) will surely help.

I dont think thats an appropriate usage of the word shortage. A shortage implies that there is excess demand. You have have 10 IT guys in the country, being paid a brazillion dollars each and thats not a shortage as long as no one else would like to pay a brazillion dollars for an IT guy.

CONT

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597849]

>>3597768

>The increase in labour supply in areas where demand is already saturated to the point that the cost of said labour approaches minimum wage will not help at all (currently its unqualified manual labor). It will actualy be harmful because of the abovementioned effects (either increased welfare expenses or increased poverty and crime).

I think this implies to wrong things

1. That illegal immigrants are working for minimum wage

2. That money give away in welfare is less capable of getting out of a recession that money not given away in welfare

>>3597793

Whats spice and wolf?

[Anonymous No.3597878]

>>3597788

>But that wasn't a bubble! Monetary inflation was at an all time low!

Monetary inflation (rise in money supply) was not low. Only CPI inflation was, even slightly negative.

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Scroll to Part II: The Inflationary Boom: 1921–1929

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597882]

>>3597838
>Its not that banks print money. With a standard we shouldnt look at money as we do. Its like a contract, or promise that represents an amount of Gold. And they are promising the same Gold to multiple people. Its like, there is $100 of gold promised and only maybe $10 of gold in the bank. Its still tied to something, but its multiplied at the banks discretion. And when you have a lot of banks each doing this, they are kind of competing and and indirectly through market forces determining the adequate money supply.


But this sounds exactly like the same system we have now, we would just have it backed up by gold which would contract how much gold is in supply as a commodity instead of a currency. I must be misunderstanding something, aren't I?

>I think my prof said he believed that was the only exception. But I think as he explained it, since the price of oil went up, the price of everything went up since the cost of everything relies on gasoline. Which is essentially inflation.

Except it was stagflation. The Fed couldn't do much until Carter got rid of the Price Ceilings and floors.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597899]

>>3597882

>But this sounds exactly like the same system we have now

This might not satisfy you but this is the difference.

Regardless of anything that goes on in the economy, my money still represents a fixed amount of Gold, regardless of the amount of money in circulation produced by banks. With the Fed, there is nothing I can do short of spending all my money on hard material things that can protect my money from changes in the economy.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597912]

>>3597878

I don't mean to be rude, but could you please give us the snippet data that says inflation was high. I don't think this thread will last long at the rate we're posting.

[Anonymous No.3597920]

big money bet on the fact that there will be a certain ammount of growt
It turned out a little bit less than that.

[Anonymous No.3597958]

>ask about the crisis
>nobody mentions USA is China bitch right now
/sci/ I'm disappoint.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597966]

>>3597899
You could invest. The system we currently have actually incentivizes investments so that production can keep increasing.

Plus, with your idea, it sounds like we would still face inflation if we control the money supply. I mean, there is a fixed amount of gold backing up your dollar just like there is a fixed amount of nothing backing my dollar. Or did I get something wrong?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3597967]

>>3597958

Hao we china bitch?

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3597970]

>>3597899
No, your money doesn't represent any amount of gold. Nothing backs your money. This is the definition of fiat currency.

[Anonymous No.3597983]

>>3597849

>I dont think thats an appropriate usage of the word shortage. A shortage implies that there is excess demand. You have have 10 IT guys in the country, being paid a brazillion dollars each and thats not a shortage as long as no one else would like to pay a brazillion dollars for an IT guy.

Yes, not shortage, higher demand would be more appropiate.

>1. That illegal immigrants are working for minimum wage

Overwhelming majority work in sectors in which demand is already very low and unemployment is the highest from all sectors (unqualified and manual job market).

>2. That money give away in welfare is less capable of getting out of a recession that money not given away in welfare

I dont understand the sentence. Are you implying more deficit spending due to increased unemployment welfare expenses is actually a good idea? How?

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3597985]

>>3597958

No. We can't work without the other. Doing otherwise would result in a vastly decreased living standard for both of us.

[Anonymous No.3597999]

BUSHBUSH BUSH BUS, NO BLOOD FOR OIL HE HATES BLAC PPPLS!!!!!11

[Anonymous No.3598001]

because people are greedy

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598022]

>>3597966

>You could invest. The system we currently have actually incentivizes investments so that production can keep increasing

How does it incentivize investments?

>Plus, with your idea, it sounds like we would still face inflation if we control the money supply. I mean, there is a fixed amount of gold backing up your dollar just like there is a fixed amount of nothing backing my dollar. Or did I get something wrong?

Uuh. It doesnt do anyone any good if I got back to my bank and ask for $10 worth of nothing. Nothing is promised without a standard.

Im having a hard time thinking about a fixed amount of nothing.

>>3597970

We are talking about the gold standard vs the fed. I was talking about a hypothetical circumstance, not the present day.

>>3597983

>Yes, not shortage, higher demand would be more appropiate.

Shortage is defined as "excessive demand." I think thats synonymous with "more than what is appropriate"

>Overwhelming majority work in sectors in which demand is already very low and unemployment is the highest from all sectors

It doesnt matter how much demand there is if they arent being paid minimum wage. The market can clear.

>I dont understand the sentence. Are you implying more deficit spending due to increased unemployment welfare expenses is actually a good idea? How?

It doesnt have to be deficit. Deficit doesnt come into play. If the gov takes a brazillion dollars and spends a brazillion dollars its not a deficit. If they take 400 billion dollars (which is the actual figure) and spend 400 billion its 400 billion whether it was taxed or not. Its not even really spending, its just redistribution.

[Anonymous No.3598096]

>>3598022

>It doesnt matter how much demand there is if they arent being paid minimum wage.

By that logic there will never be unemployment, since noone works below minimum wage. Yet there is high unemployment. Minimum wage is set by law, not by the market.

If you increase the supply of labor in a given field, either the wages drop or (when further wage drop is forbidden by law or the wage is already so low noone will work for it) unemployment increases. Thats just basic supply and demand.

>It doesnt have to be deficit. Deficit doesnt come into play. If the gov takes a brazillion dollars and spends a brazillion dollars its not a deficit. If they take 400 billion dollars (which is the actual figure) and spend 400 billion its 400 billion whether it was taxed or not. Its not even really spending, its just redistribution.

But why?
If its deficit spending then maybe you can justify it by keynesian theory (recession demands deficit spending increase), although it would be far easier to just pay it directly as a stimulus and not as a welfare to immigrants.

But increasing redistribution and tax burden during recession to pay for easily preventable increased unemployment welfare expenses due to easily preventable huge immigration of hardly employable labor force seems like a good way to end the economy for good. You dont increase tax burden on whats left of productive sectors of the economy in a recession.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3598106]

>>3598022

>How does it incentivize investments?

If you put all your money in a box and hid in your attic, inflation would take its toll and you would be a little bit poorer next month.

So you put it in a savings account, a mutual fund (if you feel like a gambling man), an index fund, or a Roth IRA. Each of these things provide capital to a business. Each of things also will pay you back your money with interest depending on the success of each bank, firm, etc.

The point is that you'll lose money for sure if you do nothing with it.

>Uuh. It doesnt do anyone any good if I got back to my bank and ask for $10 worth of nothing. Nothing is promised without a standard. Im having a hard time thinking about a fixed amount of nothing

Well, why do we like gold? It's shiny and can be used as a semiconductor, but I doubt the Aztecs and English kings knew about the semiconductor part. With paper, we can write things and fold it into really neat origami. My point is gold is kind of worthless too when it comes to functionality.

Also, having a standard still doesn't limit us on how much we can print. The way I see fiat is that we say the currency holds value as long as the country is standing where as gold standard says the currency holds value as long as gold holds value.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3598143]

>>3596647
Well see Jimmy. Let say theres a pile of toys over there. Now, usually, when all the kids come to play, they each get a toy, and they exchange the toys and they all have fun, and things go well.

But Jimmy, what do you think happens when theres two children out of the large group who claim all the toys are theres, and they refuse to share?

Well, thats whats happening with the economy. The wealthy have all the toys and they're refusing to share, and they seem to think toys will just keep coming to them despite themselves.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3598154]

>>3598096
You do if they're not hiring people. You can't tax the unemployed, no matter how hard you try.

>blood, meet turnip.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598187]

>>3598096

>By that logic there will never be unemployment, since noone works below minimum wage. Yet there is high unemployment. Minimum wage is set by law, not by the market.

Wait a minute... but they dont work for minimum wage. Regardless of the law illegal immigrants manage to work for below minimum wage.

And hypothetically minimum wage SHOULD great an amount of unemployment.

>If you increase the supply of labor in a given field, either the wages drop

I agree.

>If its deficit spending

Its not implicitly deficit spending. I just said it wasnt.

>a welfare to immigrants.

You cant get welfare if you are an immigrant

>But increasing redistribution and tax burden

The fact that we tax it doesnt change anything. Its like if I took a dollar from you and spent it, it is still getting spent by a human being. There is no tax burden in welfare. There is a tax, its not a burden.

> pay for easily preventable increased unemployment welfare expenses

Maybe unemployment would go down if we kicked all them dirty mexicans out of the country. But the cost of everything would go up to. So its like, you are paying people more, and charging them more. Thats what I think.

>>3598106

>If you put all your money in a box and hid in your attic, inflation would take its toll and you would be a little bit poorer next month.

This is a good point and I am not sure how to respond to it. On one hand, the amount of money you have doesnt inflate or delfate away from the amount of Gold is represents. On the other hand, the fact that gold is the standard, I think, increases demand and creates an incentive to mine it more than you would otherwise, which inflates the amount of Gold in the economy relative to the economy itself, and decreases the relative amount of money you would have.

>Well, why do we like gold?

I think Ive read that most of its used for jewelry. Wikipedia has some info about gold consumption.

CONT

[Anonymous No.3598194]

>You do if they're not hiring people. You can't tax the unemployed, no matter how hard you try.

But the point is you dont create more unneeded unemployed people needing welfare benefits if it can be easily prevented by securing the borders. Of course when there is no other option how to prevent unemployment increase then you have no choice but to raise taxes. But this is not the case with unemployment caused by immigration.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3598204]

>>3598143

Except that's not true. Our standard of living has always been increasing since the industrial Revolution. It's just the rich's increases faster. The poorer are not getting poorer. They're getting richer at a rate slower than the rich.

Now does that mean the rich should not be taxed more? It depends on where you are. In America, yes, since tax loopholes have created a practically regressive tax system. Should they be taxed more than the middle class or the poor? It depends. I will admit my fault and say I do not have enough data to make a descision. However, we should at least have the rich paying the same rates everyone else is.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598207]

>>3598106

>With paper, we can write things and fold it into really neat origami. My point is gold is kind of worthless too when it comes to functionality.

Id be all for a paper standard, but unfortunately we dont have a paper standard.

>Also, having a standard still doesn't limit us on how much we can print.

It doesnt, but it would be suicide for a bank to print too much. The more you print the riskier you are running your business.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3598228]

>>3598207
>It doesnt, but it would be suicide for a bank to print too much. The more you print the riskier you are running your business.

Yes. But my point is both of our systems have the same issue. I'm just trying to understand where the processes differ.

[sage No.3598240]

>>3598194
Eh? You're really claiming immigrants are taking your jobs?

No, sorry man. Reality is that factory jobs were outtsources. Alot of labor was replaced by automation, and the internet thingy took a nose dive in 2000.

Your immigrasnt labor hypothesis is completely wrong, unless you can show that in the past 4 years, 5% of the the US population has been invaded by immigrants.

Cause as far as I can tell, we've never stopped immigration for the past 20 years, and we still have good unemployment numbers.

Try again.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598251]

>>3598228

I think the differences is, banks as individuals are trying to stay in business and they do that by controlling their reserve rates. I think banks are more capable of staying in business, than the fed is as predicting the appropriate interest rates.

However, we have had bank runs before the fed, and I think that suggests that regardless of how capable banks are of staying in business, one will still screw up and spark a whole recession. I believe the solution to that is the Alrich Vreenland act, which was enacted and then repealed and replaced by the federal reserve act.

[Anonymous No.3598319]

>>3598187

>Wait a minute... but they dont work for minimum wage. Regardless of the law illegal immigrants manage to work for below minimum wage.

Yes, those that work illegaly work below minimum wage. That means the job market is so saturated with supply the cost of their work is even below minimum wage, and legally they are unemployable. So unless you break the law, unemployment ensues.

>You cant get welfare if you are an immigrant

Oh come on, we know how thats enforced in the real world. There are millions of illegal aliens collecting welfare in California alone, millions more across the US. Welfare fraud is so common its ridiculous.

>The fact that we tax it doesnt change anything. Its like if I took a dollar from you and spent it, it is still getting spent by a human being. There is no tax burden in welfare.

Its harmful in the recession for the same reason increasing other taxes is harmful. It wont help (unlike deficit spending), and it will only cause further damage to the profits of businesses and households, already hit by recession.

>Maybe unemployment would go down if we kicked all them dirty mexicans out of the country. But the cost of everything would go up to. So its like, you are paying people more, and charging them more. Thats what I think.

Yes, but not very much.

The negative effects are:
- slightly increased price of some products

The positive effects are:
- lower taxes due to decreased government welfare expense (this far offsets the negative)
- less unemployment
- less crime

[Anonymous No.3598324]

>>3598251
I'm concerned about who'd print the money when the Fed is gone. Would the banks do it? What if one bank tries pulling a George Soros and starts gathering the gold? How would we stop that?

[Anonymous No.3598361]

>>3598240

>Eh? You're really claiming immigrants are taking your jobs?

Of course they are, unless supply and demand itself is wrong.

>Cause as far as I can tell, we've never stopped immigration for the past 20 years, and we still have good unemployment numbers.

wat. Unemploment numbers are unprecedently high. Look around.

In the last 20 years there was no depression, but instead there was huge growth. Inapplicable to current situation.
I am not saying immigration is always harmful. I am saying in our current economic situation it is, or that its at least not beneficial, because it was implied earlier that it is.

[Anonymous No.3598392]

Because virtually all governmental policies are set up to redistribute wealth from the majority to the minority, keeping an unsustainable class division of the type that tends to cause collapses and riots.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598394]

>>3598319

>So unless you break the law, unemployment ensues.

Yeah, and they do break the law. They break the law all the fucking time.

> There are millions of illegal aliens collecting welfare in California alone, millions more across the US. Welfare fraud is so common its ridiculous.

There are also immigrants who pay into social security via their employers, for fake social security numbers. Maybe some of them get welfare, its a very foggy thing managing illegal immigrants.

> it will only cause further damage to the profits of businesses and households, already hit by recession.

By giving money to households that dont have a source of income you are helping them. And with that money they are demanding goods, which people who arent in poverty might not demand, and you increase "profits" to businesses. Although I dont think profits is the right word here.

>The positive effects are:

I think you are exaggerting the burden illegal immigrants have. If anything they indirectly pay property taxes and sales taxes for facilities they dont use. This "less crime" thing is also ridiculous. I think you are making this stuff up.

>>3598324

>I'm concerned about who'd print the money when the Fed is gone. Would the banks do it?

The banks wouldnt print money. I mean, literally, they would print money, but money in this circumstance is like a social contract that says "This can be exchanged for an amount of Gold." versus the connotation when we talk about "printing money" is that they are inventing value, and the dollar cant be exchanged for anything.

CONT

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598410]

>>3598324

>>What if one bank tries pulling a George Soros and starts gathering the gold? How would we stop that?

I dont think thats feasible. I was reading about one really rich guy who tries to corner the silver market in the 70s. Its basically impossible if the market is in the very least bit competitive. I think there were a lot more banks back in the day when we had a gold standard, and thus it was more competitive. I think it is a source for concern that our industries, like banking, dont have more firms. However, that becomes an anti-trust problem which I think applies to all industries.

I dont actually know anything about George Soros, I just suspect you were refering to people buying up most of the market and manipulating it to their advantage.

>>3598361


> am not saying immigration is always harmful. I am saying in our current economic situation it is

How does immigrant suddenly become harmful when we are in a recession? "dey tuk our jerbs" regardless of economic growth

[Anonymous No.3598463]

>>3598361
I see, assert not actual evidence for anything.

Good job.

[Anonymous No.3598490]

>>3598463
TThese slides are like pokemon.

>gotta presentt them all

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3598497]

>>3598410
>>3598394

I'll think about it. Right now, I've become depressed from reading this thread.

>>3597908

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598500]

>>3598463

Whats that supposed to show?

Here is a graph of unemployment over time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

Anyway, I just remembered something I once read about. When the US goes into a recession, the number of illegal immigrants coming into this country goes down.

>>3598497

Okay. Its been nice talking to you! I didnt see that thread I am going to check it out.

[TheBenBernanke !gbOEVZElhM No.3598513]

>>3598500
You too.

[Anonymous No.3598590]

>>3596672


>Too many useless people vs too little useful people

Spot on chap. Some people try to fix it (pic related)

[Anonymous No.3598694]

>Then one day the rich people in america hatched a plan to have their banks become way more powerful and have them become way the fuck richer.

>They got rid of the gold and created fiat currency, which is basically a piece of paper and is only backed by the faith the people using it have in its value. At this point they also stole all the gold.

>Because this paper could not be exchanged for anything that wasnt as infinite as paper the government thought it would be cool to create extra pieces of paper of of thin air in order to pay off special interest groups and to give people lavish promises.

This isn't how it happened at all, FDR seized all the gold so that he could print money for his new deal programs, we went off the gold standard after we printed to much money to back up the number of dollars we had with gold so people couldn't clean out the government, this was due to massive printing because of newly enacted welfare programs and the vietnam war during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. The FED is a different story all together.

[Anonymous No.3598708]

I'm just gonna sit around here till someone gives me a job.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3598714]

>>3598708

Make me a sandwich

[Anonymous No.3598990]

>>3598324 I'm concerned about who'd print the money when the Fed is gone.
Jesus fucking Christ the ignoramce in this thread is absolutely ASTOUNDING.
Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 5:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

The Fed printing money IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. John Kennedy knew it, tried to do something about it, and he got his head opened like a mellon because of it. Look up Executive Order 11110. It's the reason that JFK was assassinated.

[Anonymous No.3599452]

I'm all for immigration if we get rid of welfare, the minimum wage, and land use laws. When European immigrants came here there was no welfare state to help them yet they prospered after some time.

[Anonymous No.3599628]

ITT People still believe outsourcing is bad.

Enjoy your overpriced consumer goods with terrible quality.

[Anonymous No.3599880]

>>3599628

>implying China makes quality goods

>enjoy your lead products and poisons

I bought a replacement phone charger (Chinese-made) for my phone. I plugged it into the wall to charge my phone. Once it was charged, I unplugged it. It broke as I unplugged it. The metal leads were still in the wall.

>Chinese product

[Anonymous No.3600538]

>>3598990
>the Fed is printing money

That's just silly. The Fed does not print money. That would be counterfeiting, which is illegal, as you point out. The Fed is actually the Federal Reserve Bank, and what they do is extend a line of credit to their member banks,

The Treasury Department owns and controls the money presses; they're the ones printing the cash (and T-Bills).

I understand your discontent with the failure of the Federal Reserve chairman to do his job, which is keep inflation under control, but if you're going to criticize him, at least gets your basic facts straight.

[Anonymous No.3600559]

Cash is printed on demand. "Printing money," used by those who actually know what they're talking about, is when the reserve requirements are altered directly, or indirectly through open market transactions.

[Anonymous No.3600572]

It's not. The global economy is growing. You have just been living in a fantasy land where labor has an unrealistically high value and interest rates were unrealistically low.

The recession is just the market fixing itself.

[Anonymous No.3600647]

>>3600559
>printing money

I understand the colloquial use quite well, thank you. I was objecting to a specific argument that >>3598990 made, that in fact the Fed was manufacturing coins of the realm, which is a false statement, and obscures the actual problem, as well as misstating the function of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Misrepresenting our institutions is distorting facts which lead to false resolutions of problems.

The ongoing problem is not that the is "printing money," but that its current and former chairmen went outside their legal mandates, for instance and specifically, shoveling cash to foreign banks, which action is illegal, and was done by a person or persons, not the institution known as the Federal Reserve system.

Get your shit together, and then maybe we can arrive at some proper actions to rectify the situation.

[Anonymous No.3600656]

>>3600647
I was backing your post, asshole.

[Anonymous No.3600678]

>>3600656
I just reread your post. In neither tone nor citations are you backing any particular argument other than a reiteration of the colloquial definition of "printing money."

Your help was no help.

Asshole.

[Anonymous No.3600684]

There are many issues to take note of, including bad decisions by companies and governments themselves.

However, the greatest cause is the very thing the economy thrives from feeding on: The people. Consumers, your every day Dick and Jane that decide they want to buy something.

For example, if everyone started buying salads from McDonalds and never bought another burger, they would stop selling burgers and sell more salads. But people don't get that for some reason. If you buy something, you create demand. If you don't buy anything and hold onto your money, you are leaving less money for others to use to buy the things they need.

So both non wealthy and filthy rich people could have easily saved the economy by just buying things, and not over spending.

[Anonymous No.3600706]

>>3600678
Wow, really? You reread it and still think I was posting against you?

Go to sleep. Maybe the thread will be here in the morning, after you've calmed the fuck down.

[Anonymous No.3602974]

>>3600678
allef, ebyam ouy od deen a pan.