Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest worthless_site

All It Takes Then Is A Few Billion

Recommended Posts

Guest Barebear

So we're coming out of the worst recession in modern history and all it took was a few billions of made up money, really low interest rates, a 20% HPC and a few job losses.

How come they didnt think of this in 1929 ? I assume they had printing presses then.

Looking forward to the future we can have bigger and bigger bubbles coz all we need to do is the above to get out of it.

Simples.

Where are all these billions coming from and dont say the future as the future is endless, therefore the billions would be endless to.

It doesn't stack up !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we're coming out of the worst recession in modern history and all it took was a few billions of made up money, really low interest rates, a 20% HPC and a few job losses.

How come they didnt think of this in 1929 ? I assume they had printing presses then.

Looking forward to the future we can have bigger and bigger bubbles coz all we need to do is the above to get out of it.

Simples.

Where are all these billions coming from and dont say the future as the future is endless, therefore the billions would be endless to.

It doesn't stack up !!

its easy to come out of a recession.

you just get the government to spend more.

and if the rest of the economy falls a bit next quarter, you just spend even more.

next, ALL the economy is government spending and hey presto, all is 100% right and dandy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because when the fundamental problem is a lack of money in the system, from a debt deflation spiral... the solution is pumping enough money into the system to get out of the spiral. The whole way fractional reserve banking works with a technologically advancing society is to pump bubbles that are a little larger than the last bubble, forever.

I am not convinced they have actually done that though. On almost all indicators we are right on pace as they were in summer 1930.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barebear

Still doesnt answer the question.

Will it all end up like star trek where they just abolish money as there was never any reference to paying back the billions that were spent at the start of the 21st century.

Somewhere along the line we're going to end up being slaves to a system paying everything back in taxes and only having just enough left to buy food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1929 interest rates were increased, and the cost of borrowing increased, people couldn't pay debts and it refused to bail out banks and let them fail. They didn't do the printing/bailing path because they throught it was better to make the people who got into debt to pay for there mistakes. The great depression finally ended when borrowing was eased and spending resumed, but as the world was already in a deflation spiral it was much harder to get out of. This time the reverse has happened, the deflation spiral is being avoided at ANY cost through excessive printing. Clearly not bailing banks in 1929 and making the debtors pat (and the Leemans experiment in this crash) shows that the financial carnage out when you don't bail is really really bad.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/.../190197277.html

In essence 1929 and 2008 are similar but they are being dealt with in completely different ways. 1929 is was blame, 2008 all money is created. Why did they blame in 1929, well I can only assume they thought it was better to let some people hurt, and didn't think of the implications on the world economy. What is interesting is that there is a big subsection of HPC forum members who think bailing is bad and you need to hurt the people who made the mistakes (ie repeating the 1929 mistake)

Edited by moosetea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still doesnt answer the question.

Will it all end up like star trek where they just abolish money as there was never any reference to paying back the billions that were spent at the start of the 21st century.

The system of political economy demonstrated in Star Trek is, undoubtedly, post-scarcity communism , with all citizens engaged in a quest for personal improvement through non-monetary enrichment - from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. (All be it with a worryingly large Department III.)

It's the 'post-scarcity' thing that's difficult to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for where is this money coming from. Well if you are a gov and you make/print/create money, you can create as much as you need and give it to anyone you want. It is only electrons in a computer, it doesn't need to balance. When you create money the money and everything priced in it is worth less. It is money that didnt exist, it is created out of thin air/comes from the future where money is worth/buys less than it currently is/does.

Simples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we're coming out of the worst recession in modern history and all it took was a few billions of made up money, really low interest rates, a 20% HPC and a few job losses.

How come they didnt think of this in 1929 ? I assume they had printing presses then.

Looking forward to the future we can have bigger and bigger bubbles coz all we need to do is the above to get out of it.

Simples.

Where are all these billions coming from and dont say the future as the future is endless, therefore the billions would be endless to.

It doesn't stack up !!

It is endless. Think of a municipal swimming pool over the course of day. There are pretty much the same number of people making use of the facilities but not necessarily the same people. So long as the pool remains wee free people will continue to come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barebear
The system of political economy demonstrated in Star Trek is, undoubtedly, post-scarcity communism , with all citizens engaged in a quest for personal improvement through non-monetary enrichment - from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. (All be it with a worryingly large Department III.)

It's the 'post-scarcity' thing that's difficult to achieve.

What is post scarcity ? And what is department 111 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barebear
It is endless. Think of a municipal swimming pool over the course of day. There are pretty much the same number of people making use of the facilities but not necessarily the same people. So long as the pool remains wee free people will continue to come and go.

What ??

They would come and go anyway, how would they know there was wee in it ?

Sorry don't get that analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip This time the reverse has happened, the deflation spiral is being avoided at ANY cost through excessive printing. Clearly not bailing banks in 1929 and making the debtors pat (and the Leemans experiment in this crash) shows that the financial carnage out when you don't bail is really really bad.

snip

I disagree, in part.

bailouts have been for banks only....the beleif being that without all the banks we currently have, there would be no economy. the printing is just to counter the deflation in the banks other assets....its an accounting scam.

the rest of the economy, which is shrinking, is fighting through the deflationery spiral on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1929 interest rates were increased, and the cost of borrowing increased, people couldn't pay debts and it refused to bail out banks and let them fail. They didn't do the printing/bailing path because they throught it was better to make the people who got into debt to pay for there mistakes. The great depression finally ended when borrowing was eased and spending resumed, but as the world was already in a deflation spiral it was much harder to get out of. This time the reverse has happened, the deflation spiral is being avoided at ANY cost through excessive printing. Clearly not bailing banks in 1929 and making the debtors pat (and the Leemans experiment in this crash) shows that the financial carnage out when you don't bail is really really bad.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/.../190197277.html

In essence 1929 and 2008 are similar but they are being dealt with in completely different ways. 1929 is was blame, 2008 all money is created. Why did they blame in 1929, well I can only assume they thought it was better to let some people hurt, and didn't think of the implications on the world economy. What is interesting is that there is a big subsection of HPC forum members who think bailing is bad and you need to hurt the people who made the mistakes (ie repeating the 1929 mistake)

I'm not sure it's that black and white. The unstable system that would inevitably follow on from repeatedly bailing out mis-allocated capital is surely worse than the 1/2 a generation or so of depression that follows on from allowing the whole corrupt mess to go down. We risk a strangling oligarchy of entrenched power bases that stiffle all innovation and creativity and suppress the living standards of everybody (i.e. what we have now).

And there's still lots of untried ideas to lessen the experience that wouldn't involve using government money to retrench the corrupt eilte power base that caused the mess in the first place e.g. creating a government backed bankruptcy of major banks (which would let business run down), lowering barriers to entry in banking, shifting of the tax burden onto bubble wealth (e.g. land tax) to create space for productive endevour, significant deregulation of markets, genuine infrastructure projects (as opposed to the disorganised money fligging that's going on now), removing everybody responsible from positions of power and replacing them with people who clearly weren't deluded.

In the long run we'd be better off without the huge corrupt self feeding owners of capital. Even if that means we must endure a decade of pain our kids would seriously thank us for it (well, they would if they understood the alternative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure it's that black and white. The unstable system that would inevitably follow on from repeatedly bailing out mis-allocated capital is surely worse than the 1/2 a generation or so of depression that follows on from allowing the whole corrupt mess to go down. We risk a strangling oligarchy of entrenched power bases that stiffle all innovation and creativity and suppress the living standards of everybody (i.e. what we have now).

And there's still lots of untried ideas to lessen the experience that wouldn't involve using government money to retrench the corrupt eilte power base that caused the mess in the first place e.g. creating a government backed bankruptcy of major banks (which would let business run down), lowering barriers to entry in banking, shifting of the tax burden onto bubble wealth (e.g. land tax) to create space for productive endevour, significant deregulation of markets, genuine infrastructure projects (as opposed to the disorganised money fligging that's going on now), removing everybody responsible from positions of power and replacing them with people who clearly weren't deluded.

In the long run we'd be better off without the huge corrupt self feeding owners of capital. Even if that means we must endure a decade of pain our kids would seriously thank us for it (well, they would if they understood the alternative).

id agree, in 29 they were sensible and let the recession take its course (although it was prolonged to some extent by FDR intervention. Recessions are a natural healthy part of any business cycle, their purpose being to erradicate moral hazard and mal investment that has built up.

I believe the current lot by messing with things spending money they dont have will result in one thing only, the depression lasting longer and being far more painful than that of the 30s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1929 interest rates were increased, and the cost of borrowing increased, people couldn't pay debts and it refused to bail out banks and let them fail. They didn't do the printing/bailing path because they throught it was better to make the people who got into debt to pay for there mistakes. The great depression finally ended when borrowing was eased and spending resumed, but as the world was already in a deflation spiral it was much harder to get out of. This time the reverse has happened, the deflation spiral is being avoided at ANY cost through excessive printing. Clearly not bailing banks in 1929 and making the debtors pat (and the Leemans experiment in this crash) shows that the financial carnage out when you don't bail is really really bad.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/.../190197277.html

In essence 1929 and 2008 are similar but they are being dealt with in completely different ways. 1929 is was blame, 2008 all money is created. Why did they blame in 1929, well I can only assume they thought it was better to let some people hurt, and didn't think of the implications on the world economy. What is interesting is that there is a big subsection of HPC forum members who think bailing is bad and you need to hurt the people who made the mistakes (ie repeating the 1929 mistake)

The reason many believe that is because when you remove moral hazard, the system itself is on a path to destruction. Banks will take on silly risks knowing they will be bailed, and the attitude of all shifts such that the underlying assumptions on which a functioning economic system are based are broken. We might emerge in a silly better shape that the 30's in the short term but we will literally destroy the system in the near future because we are telling all parties involved in it to adopt idiotic behaviours in pursuit of gains with impunity against loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason many believe that is because when you remove moral hazard, the system itself is on a path to destruction. Banks will take on silly risks knowing they will be bailed, and the attitude of all shifts such that the underlying assumptions on which a functioning economic system are based are broken. We might emerge in a silly better shape that the 30's in the short term but we will literally destroy the system in the near future because we are telling all parties involved in it to adopt idiotic behaviours in pursuit of gains with impunity against loss.

+1

We have crossed a moral rubycon and I'm not sure that we can go back to sound money. From here on in the talk will be less of how to stop printing and more about how much more to print.

All moral hazard has been swept aside - all it takes is for Joe public to realise that even they do not have to or cannot ever possibly pay their mortgages then the true face of the situation will become apparent. Default and be damned will the the option excersiced by the masses and then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is post scarcity ? And what is department 111 ?

"Post-scarcity"

Link

Department III (3) is a concept in Marxian analysis.

Department I - machine goods (manufactures and tools)

Department II - wage goods (services and consumables)

Department III - 'sink' sector which soaks up surplus value to prevent exponential rise in living standards and the moral fallout implied by same. Usually defence/military.

('The Book' within the book in Orwell's 1984 explores this in some detail.)

If we apply Marxian analysis to the Star Trek universe, we can conclude that the post-scarcity political economy seen in the 'United Federation of Planets' is nothing more than the civilian hinterland of a permanently expanding war economy engaged in colonial conquest. A bit like how the final version of Stalin's "war communism" would have turned out had he not been stopped at the Elbe, and were the world infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we're coming out of the worst recession in modern history and all it took was a few billions of made up money, really low interest rates, a 20% HPC and a few job losses.

How come they didnt think of this in 1929 ? I assume they had printing presses then.

Looking forward to the future we can have bigger and bigger bubbles coz all we need to do is the above to get out of it.

Simples.

Where are all these billions coming from and dont say the future as the future is endless, therefore the billions would be endless to.

It doesn't stack up !!

Its called learning learning from past mistakes. Scholars have studied that event for 70 years. Its fair to say they would know where and why it failed, they took appropriate action this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1929 interest rates were increased, and the cost of borrowing increased, people couldn't pay debts and it refused to bail out banks and let them fail. They didn't do the printing/bailing path because they throught it was better to make the people who got into debt to pay for there mistakes. The great depression finally ended when borrowing was eased and spending resumed, but as the world was already in a deflation spiral it was much harder to get out of. This time the reverse has happened, the deflation spiral is being avoided at ANY cost through excessive printing. Clearly not bailing banks in 1929 and making the debtors pat (and the Leemans experiment in this crash) shows that the financial carnage out when you don't bail is really really bad.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/.../190197277.html

In essence 1929 and 2008 are similar but they are being dealt with in completely different ways. 1929 is was blame, 2008 all money is created. Why did they blame in 1929, well I can only assume they thought it was better to let some people hurt, and didn't think of the implications on the world economy. What is interesting is that there is a big subsection of HPC forum members who think bailing is bad and you need to hurt the people who made the mistakes (ie repeating the 1929 mistake)

In 1929 they could not print their way out as they were on the gold standered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
Still doesnt answer the question.

Will it all end up like star trek where they just abolish money as there was never any reference to paying back the billions that were spent at the start of the 21st century.

Somewhere along the line we're going to end up being slaves to a system paying everything back in taxes and only having just enough left to buy food.

That's the whole idea.

They are reducing everyone to serfdom. Once they have destroyed the wealth of the people, they can advance their New World Order ambitions, globalised poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The system of political economy demonstrated in Star Trek is, undoubtedly, post-scarcity communism , with all citizens engaged in a quest for personal improvement through non-monetary enrichment - from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. (All be it with a worryingly large Department III.)

It's the 'post-scarcity' thing that's difficult to achieve.

I wish we had the old left back who wanted to get beyond scarcity - and did great public works to get us a long ways there. Today's left is always trying to create scarcities which imo is reactionary and anti-progressive.

Already in Britain it is amazing how we could provide nearly free things for everyone. For example just 50 Areva EPR nuclear reactors could provide all the electricity for Britain year round. Each one needs a staff of 400. So that is just 20,000 people to produce all the electricity we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Post-scarcity"

Link

Department III (3) is a concept in Marxian analysis.

Department I - machine goods (manufactures and tools)

Department II - wage goods (services and consumables)

Department III - 'sink' sector which soaks up surplus value to prevent exponential rise in living standards and the moral fallout implied by same. Usually defence/military.

('The Book' within the book in Orwell's 1984 explores this in some detail.)

If we apply Marxian analysis to the Star Trek universe, we can conclude that the post-scarcity political economy seen in the 'United Federation of Planets' is nothing more than the civilian hinterland of a permanently expanding war economy engaged in colonial conquest. A bit like how the final version of Stalin's "war communism" would have turned out had he not been stopped at the Elbe, and were the world infinite.

In Britain I believe our Department III is never ending bureaucratic growth everywhere. The post war Soviet Union went to this too, but eventually the bureaucracy became so huge they choked to death from it.

I knew of Star Trek's communism.. but I didn't think of the colonial expansion as a way to soak up the excess production. That is interesting. I sort of looked at Roddenberry's colonialism as the protestant yeoman farmer ideal of spreading out in a rugged new hinterland.

I couldn't stand Voyager as by then they had all the new left ideas like radical feminism, radical environmentalism(in one episode they said they went for a smaller, weaker engine because the warp drive was harming the environment, military intervention for moral reasons; abandoning the prime directive)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the current lot by messing with things spending money they dont have will result in one thing only, the depression lasting longer and being far more painful than that of the 30s

That's two things.

;)

Agreed otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.