Posted by: graemebird | February 6, 2009

RETRACT YOU LIES CAMBRIA.

I think this thread pretty much speaks for itself. 

Jason and Cambria, for some bizzare reason, have tried to mislead people as to what I said on the last thread.

They are charging about saying that I want to force up pay rates in a recession. Like they are implying that I wanted the government to force up wages. Or to get the unions to force up wages. When the whole thread is about falling nominal wages.

This is an important issue because people correctly note that GDP equals national income. And they correctly note that if you reduced consumer spending and government spending therefore GDP would fall and therefore national income would fall. Hence wages would have to fall if everyone were to  remain employed in the situation where Gross domestic revenue sayed flat. 

Well this is all true. But if Gross Domestic revenue was flat and all these things happened, consumer prices would fall far faster than nominal wages. They would both fall but consumer prices would fall much faster. Hence it is in the natural way of things for our real incomes to grow even as our nominal incomes would be falling.

“Bird’s an idiot.

Raising nominal wages in a recession with downwards tending prices is lethal to the economy.”

So far neither of these two have backed away from this lie that I claimed we ought to try and push up nominal wages in a recession.  Truly these people are bizzare.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I don’t want to push up nominal wages Tillman. Three liars and counting.

  2. “Fisk
    Perhaps I didn’t explain my self well, so here goes.

    I am against increased spending in any shape or form. What I am also against however is fiscally tightening the budget in a recession as that has serious consequences.

    So I suggest, lowering taxes in all sorts of ways, even going to the extent of eliminating the corporate tax and as you began to see the economy improve begin shedding parts of the government workforce as the unemployment rate began to fall.

    I was critical of bird’s comment that you cut spending. Tightening up fiscally is a dangerous thing to do in a recession. Increase the deficit, but do it through supply side initiatives that i mentioned.”

    He’s lost it hasn’t he Fisk. The fellow is mentally retarded. He can no longer seem to apply any sort of logic. Supposing you think that deficits are needed as Cambria seems to. Well great. Then if you slash government spending ruthlessly you can have a bigger wish-list of tax cuts.

    Did Cambria not think of that? If you lined up every government department that could be axed without risking mass-death and you axed them leaving only a tax vouchers in the hands of the former public servants, then, and particularly if you were Cambria and thought that deficits were marvellous in a recession, then you would have A MORE EXTENSIVE WISHLIST OF TAX CUTS TO CHOOSE FROM.

    Really it makes no difference either way in the short run. Government Borrowing or government taxing is still coming out of business-to-business spending or its putting us in debt to foreigners. Neither is good.

    But supposing we cannot shift Cambria on this point. Well he’s stil wrong in logic since with the massive spending cuts thats the long list of tax cuts secured.

    HERE ARE THE TAX CUTS YOU WANT.

    1. No company taxes on retained earnings.

    2. No interest earnings tax.

    3. No Payroll tax.

    4. No diesel, liqified-coal, carbon-tax, but perhaps more road charges. We have to find a good way to limit the thieving on these road charges though. It might be that you could limit the stealing by forcing them to have the roads free 18 hours a day. And the thieves can choose which six hours they want to have the toll.

    5. Increases in the tax free threshold in conjunction with reduced family payments and moral suasion to get (nominal) before-tax-earnings down.

    Well thats a pretty extensive list. So even if Cambria erroneously takes the word “tight” and invests it with magical meaning no matter what the context, and decides tight budgets are no good…. Suppose he decides that the Hoover story is all about this mystical word “TIGHT”……

    … well it still doesn’t follow that he is right in logic, since you can slash government spending and still have an extremely loose budget if your tax cuts are extensive enough.

    Cambria wouldn’t be belligerently making these idiotic logical mistakes 18 months ago.

    Notice always that Soon, Sinclair, and all the other too basically share this voodoo of Cambrias. Or are too gutless to speak out against unscience in economics.

  3. “…fiscally tightening the budget……”

    You see what he’s done? He’s a moron because he’s alighted ON THE PHRASE AND NOT THE MEANING. And so he’s transferred the phrase over to say I’m wrong when he’s wrong.

    The bootnigger thinks that if you say massively increasing taxing and spending, but trying to balance the budget….. IS FISCAL TIGHTENING….

    And then if you say massively slashing spending and cutting taxes and trying to balance the budget…….. IS FISCAL TIGHTENING…..

    Well under Cambria primitivsm, since the same words are used it will be the same effect. Even though the policies are radically different. I’ve seen JohnZ and Soon go with this primitive lost tribe style thinking as well. Proving that that Cambria is more the Vanilla-Goth then the last Roman holdout.

  4. Fisk it takes a bit of time for the mind to shift. I want you to try and force some logical rigour on these nutballs as I try and explain all aspects of these subjects so it becomes easy to understand why spending cuts are urgent in a recession. I will persist with this subject given the massive damage these bastards are putting in motion for this country, and the utter mindlessness of pretty much all the people we know who affect to have some understanding of these matters.

    I’ll start by collecting examples of the know fact that for 1000 years, longstanding periods of falling prices and rising real wages are strongly correlated. Just to show that the reality is no different from the theory.

  5. The theory says that real wages will rise faster in a situation of growth deflation. In a situation of falling prices. Savings will tend to be higher, more resources will be retained in business rather than distributed, business decisions will be such that their interests are in accordance with wider society. Money will be spent up front and primarily to reduce recurring costs. Investments will tend to rely on cash-flow and not on capital appreciation which will happen here and there but will likely be incidental rather than a driver of decisions.

    As prices fall, the improved purchasing power will not be funneled into asset price appreciation, but rather in capital formation. Therefore this state of affairs will lead to further price reductions, and therefore more spare purchasing power, that people will be mentally predisposed into funneling back into equity investment, fully backed stored commodities or producer goods that are expected to go up in price, and savings, rather than in speculative borrowing for capital gain, or even excess consumption for what the reality of ones situation is. Its not just what your situation is. The right monetary conditions harmonise peoples interests with that of society. So that under good money the signals that you are being sent are there to reward you for assisting society longterm.

    One of the first posts on my blog was inspired by boris. Boris ended world poverty without knowing it but since then he’s slipped into ignorance and error. This post was from right back in May 2006:

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/08/boris-ends-world-poverty-without-knowing-it/

  6. “Boris:

    We already have the central bank doing what it needs to do, and yes most of the things advocated here should be done any time, I agree.

    However if you want to soften the ride down cutting taxes and costs incurred by businesses is the best thing you can do to reduce the damage done by a recession.

    However the best cure and only real cure for a recession is time. You leave things alone.

    A good example of leaving well enough alone and not tinkering with anything is the example the depression of he early 20’s during which US industrial production fell 45%. It was as deep and the trough of the 30’s. Harding simply did nothing allowed the market to clear and 18 months later the economy was growing again.”

    BULLSHIT HE “DID NOTHING” CAMBRIA. Thats wrong. He did exactly what I am advocating you dope.

    Now lets get away from the SUPERSTITION OF THE WORDS.

    What is meant by DOING NOTHING? Our various governments steals a billion dollars off Australians every day, as measured by their resources used.

    If a recession comes along and you continue to steal a billion dollars off Australians every day IS THAT “DOING NOTHING?”

    Well in the usage of English it might be the case that you could say this. But in the context of this problem IT IS NOT DOING NOTHING. Its is the continuation of stealing a billion dollars a day.

    Now thats the relevant meaning of doing nothing. Cambria is saying that stealing a billion dollars a day is doing nothing. Or he’s just fucked it up, and fixated on the phrase and lost the context of the problem.

    Stealing a billion dollars a day is no good way to end a recession. Do you understand that Cambria you stupid boot-nigger.

    And you cannot have it both ways. Harding didn’t do nothing. He reduced spending. He did what I told you is the right thing to do you fucking dumb mongrel-Goth.

  7. Can someone kick that fucking lying cunt Cambria in the head. He has to say that Harding was wrong, or he has to admit that I was right and HE, CAMBRIA was wrong.

    Since Harding didn’t “DO NOTHING” rather he slashed spending. The opposite of Cambria’s blatant Keynesianism.

  8. Admit you are full of shit Cambria. Cambria claimed in a shitrain of incredible deluded-certainty, and without any justification whatsoever, that you don’t cut spending during a recession.

    Now the stupid cunt is mischaracterising President Hardings successful response to a monetary crash. And Cambria claims he DID NOTHING.

    He didn’t fucking do nothing. He reduced government stealing like I insisted must be done. He reduced spending and taxes as well. But stupid Keynesian cunt Cambria swore black and blue that spending cuts in a recession are Verbotten.

    They are fucking mandatory you stupid know-nothing. And now you have got to own up and disavow Hardings behaviour or admit that I am right and you are wrong.

  9. Harding slashed government spending almost in half. This is precisely what we ought to do. This is the right AND PROVEN way to deal with recession. There is absolutely no fucking doubt about this at all. The theory and the practice are hand in hand.

    The recession cannot be helped by the stealing of 1 billion dollars a day in resources. It is half of those one billion dollars a day in resources that could immediately refurbish private business into a flying start and a new era of economics dynamism.

    But that stupid cunt Cambria swears black and blue that you don’t cut spending in recessions.

  10. Harding never once ran a deficit. In contrast to delusional make-believe economics giant Cambria Harding kept the budget always in surplus.

    “Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes were cut from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922.”

    Harding was absolutely ruthless with spending.

    “In 1922, the House passed a veterans’ bonus bill 333–70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. Harding let senators know that if they passed the bill, he would veto it. The senate passed it 35–17.

    Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19 – just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers.”

    Come on Cambria. Admit I am right and you are wrong or disavow Hardings solution to the crunch.

  11. Now that we have the facts lets go over it again:

    “A good example of leaving well enough alone and not tinkering with anything is the example the depression of he early 20’s during which US industrial production fell 45%. It was as deep and the trough of the 30’s. Harding simply did nothing allowed the market to clear and 18 months later the economy was growing again.”

    LIES!!!!!! HARDING CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN HALF WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IT IS WE OUGHT TO DO.

    RETRACT YOUR LIE CAMBRIA.

    Its one thing for you to lie about me. But I’m not having you lie about Warren Gamaliel Harding.

  12. Just two months after Martin Van Buren became President there was a sudden bank-cash-pyramiding collapse. A banking crisis which is always and everywhere a crisis of fractional reserve.

    Anyway Van Buren responded in accordance with reason and economic-science and immediately went into retrenchment.

    “Although total national expenditures suddenly spiked to $37.2 million in 1837, overall they declined through Van Buren’s four years, from $30.9 million in 1836 to $24.3 million in 1840.

    That represents a 21 percent fall in nominal terms, no more than half as much if you adjust for price changes, but somewhere in between if you also adjust for population growth or the economy’s size.[26] Many of these spending cuts came in the realm of internal improvements, especially for rivers and harbors, where Van Buren was far more stringent than Old Hickory had been.[27]

    As for revenue, tariff rates were already falling as a result of programmed reductions worked out during the compromise over nullification. So the president threw his weight behind two measures that would bring the allocation of public land into closer alignment with the homestead principle: preemption, giving settlers who cultivated the land first option to buy; and graduation, reducing the price on unsold land. Graduation failed to pass, but Congress renewed earlier preemption acts twice during Van Buren’s term.[28] At the end of the four years, with significant cuts in both national spending and revenue, the depression-generated debt was holding near $5 million.[29]

    Closer examination of the economy’s fluctuations reveals the enormous benefits of this retrenchment. The two banking crises that dominated the Van Buren administration had similar causes but different outcomes. In both cases, the proximate cause was a decline in foreign inflows of specie precipitated when the Bank of England raised its discount rate.

    The panic of 1837, however; was a sharp and short correction that followed right on the heels of two years of price inflation at an annual rate approaching 15 percent.

    After wholesale prices fell back nearly 20 percent over a year; and output less than 5 percent, the economy seemed to recover. The suspension of 1839, in contrast, hit fewer banks but foreshadowed a protracted deflation.

    The country’s total money stock — specie, banknotes, and bank deposits — declined by one-third during the next four years, and prices plummeted 42 percent.[30]”

  13. Notes on Van Buren’s economic success in spite of the fractional reserve banking collapse that happened suddenly only two months after he came to office.

    Below are facts taken from a recording at Mises.org by Hummell.

    Van Buren didn’t just DO NOTHING. He called Congress in order to get a program through to cut spending and taxes. In contrast to economic genius Cambria who reckons that you cannot reduce thieving in a recession. The spending must be untouched in a recession according to Cambria. The taxeaters activities must not be truncated. But he supports Warren Harding slashing spending in half apparently.

    VAN BUREN SPECIFICALLY CUT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING. This spending was then known as INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.
    Van Buren destroys allocations of federal monies to the States.

    Spending drops from 30.9 million to 24.3 million. Every way you look at it thats a cut, real terms, nominal terms as a percentage of GDP and per capita.

    At the same time Van Buren reformed monetary policy by having an independent treasury and accepting only gold and silver for both payments and taxes. A separation of banks and government. Mayhaps one of the few times and places in the last 1000 years where this has happened.

    “During the monetary contraction of 1839-43 output not only did not fall. It actually went up 16%. This was a full-employment deflation…..”

    All the special interests were demanding favours from government just as they do now. But Van Buren wouldn’t help them. Clearly he had a bit of spine and smarts unlike Kevin.

  14. “In a progressing economy on a gold standard prices will be declining because falling production costs are increasing the supply of goods while simultaneously maintaining profit margins. If Bernanke interprets a situation where improved techniques and capital goods are driving down prices as one of deflation he will expand the money supply and create malinvestments by distorting prices.

    Apart from Bernanke’s views, there is also the extraordinary view that inflation generally occurs because of economic weakness. The only weakness that causes inflation is to be found in the economic fallacies that rule the central banks.”

    This from Gerrard Jackson. He has some statistics showing falling prices along with massively improving real wages. I shall find them.

  15. OK here is exactly what I’ve been telling you guys from Gerry Jackson.

    “It should be noted that though money incomes fall during a deflation real purchasing power rises…..”

    Got it guys? Got it now dummies? At least that is the norm under capitalism.

  16. “In fact, during the nineteenth century Britain experienced more than 50 years of falling prices, even though living standards rose at an unprecedented rate. From 1875 to 1895 wholesale prices fell by about 45 per cent while industrial output and real wages continued to rise.”

    From Gerry Jackson again. Cannot seem o track down the figures I wanted.

    But the fact that WHOLESALE prices can keep falling like that means that it is possible for retailers to maintain their profits in the face of falling prices. So long as revenues in total are rising. Its true that retailers will be amongst the first people to cop it in the adjustment when savings increase and wages fall as we boot everyone out of the public service and onto the real job market. But that is a one-off thing. Thereafter wholesale prices will fall fast enough for retailers to make a profit and prices WILL FALL FAR FASTER THAN WAGES as a reflection of the extra manhours put to productive use.

    It must be noted that this will not work unless NOMINAL wages are allowed to fall, and Gross Domestic Revenue is not allowed to grow except very slowly.

  17. graeme you dumbshit

    the reason there is a deflation is because nobody is spending. they hoard the money.

    DO YOU KNOW IF CASH BALANCES HAVE INCREASED A GREAT DEAL? ACTUALLY THEY WILL NEED TO IF WE ARE TO BE FREE FROM THE NEED FOR DEBT. NOT RELYING ON DEBT MEANS CARRYING HIGHER CASH BALANCES. YOU DON’T KNOW THAT THIS HOARDING IS THE CASE. YOU ARE MAKING IT UP.

    THE REASON I SAY YOU DON’T KNOW IS I DON’T KNOW. I’D HAVE TO RELATE CASH TO GDR AND I DON’T HAVE THE GDR FIGURES….

    …so the increase in PP is irrelevant because nobody wants to spend.

    YOU IDIOT. IF THEY SAVE THATS SPENDING ALSO. YOU’VE CONFUSED YOURSELF BETWEEN INCREASING CASH BALANCES AND SAVING. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

    so the trick is to get people spending… so you increase govt spending.

    THAT REDUCES PEOPLE SPENDING IDIOT. IF THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS MORE THATS LESS FOR YOU AND ME TO SPEND UNLESS YOU INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY.

    you don’t cut spending.

    YES YOU DO

    that just increases the hoarding.

    NO IT DOESN’T INCREASE HOARDING. NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. AND AS DISCUSSED NEITHER US KNOW HOW THINGS ARE GOING WITH THE DEMAND FOR MONEY FOR HOLDING.

  18. Deflation is not a fall in spending on consumer goods. Which is no problem. Since the money will be spent elsewhere.

    Tillman I was yelling at the people at Catallaxy and rubbishing the Reserve Bank early and middle of last year. Because they had been creating AUTHENTIC MONETARY DEFLATION. The money supply was allowed to drop about 18 billion dollars. THATS DEFLATION. Thats deflation and its no good. But it didn’t bother even one person at Catallaxy. Bludgers that they are and not connected with the real economy.

    But deflation is not money going from consumer spending to business spending. Deflation is not more savings. Deflation is not falling consumer prices.

    I don’t know where things are now in terms of business spending since they don’t compile the figures. And I haven’t looked how money supply has been going but it may be alright now.

    Tillman. Listen very closely.

    INCREASING GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING. IT MOVES SPENDING FROM BUSINESS-BUSINESS SPENDING SO THAT IT IS PICKED UP BY GDP.

    Do you understand that now you stupid cunt?

    Only direct cash injection can immediately increase spending. If thats indeed what you wish to do.

    Go forth and be not a dumb, ignorant, cunt no-more.

  19. The problem with the Keynesian rubbish is that it stooges you because its NEVER THE SAME DEFINITION TWICE.

    Thats how the stooge is performed. You don’t know what hoarding is, you cannot differentiate it from saving, You don’t know what liquidity is, you don’t know how to differentiate it from cash balances or from access to easy and cheap loans.

    So thats how this wrong understanding has been grafted onto your feeble brain. By the complete misuse of the language by Keynes and his Utopian followers.

    Hoarding means increasing your cash balances, which means increasing your liquidity. You call it hoarding but its an attempt to increase liquidity. Access to cheap loans is something else. And can happen in three ways, other people saving, money printing by the government, or bank-cash-pyramiding.

    A person whose done economics 101, and maybe year two, he thinks he understands stuff but he’s just got himself confused.

    Whereas the Austrians and other serious people are very clear about definitions and they can see through a Keynesians bullshit even the Keynesian himself has deluded himself that he is an expert.

  20. This is funny

    YOU CAN LAUGH AT IT CAMBRIA BUT WHY NOT UNDERSTAND IT?

    Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
    A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers..

    Q. Where will the government get this money?
    A. From taxpayers.

    HENCE NO SPENDING INCREASE WHATSOEVER. ITS NOT JUST A JOKE. ITS REALITY. SOMETHING THAT MARK HILL WILL NEVER GRASP.

    Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
    A. No, they are borrowing it from China.

    THEY ARE DOING BOTH AREN’T THEY

    Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.

    FOREIGN BORROWING DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING. IF IT DID IT WOULD BE USELESS SINCE IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS BORROWING FROM THE RESERVE BANK. THAT IS TO SAY IT WOULDN’T INCREASE REAL RESOURCES. IT WOULD BE INFLATIONARY. IT INCREASES REAL RESOURCES AND IS NOT INFLATIONARY AND ONE REASON THIS IS THE CASE IS BECAUSE IT DOESN’T!!!!!! INCREASE SPENDING.

    Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
    A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

    Q. But isn’t that stimulating the economy of China?
    A. Shut up.”

    THE LAST IS THE KICKER. THEY JUST DON’T WANNA FUCKING KNOW.

  21. FOREIGN BORROWING DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING.

    Oh so a current account deficit doesn’t increase spending, Dagwood?

  22. NO IT DOESN’T.

    And if it did it would be pointless. Since the foreign borrowing would then be inflationary and so it may as well have been borrowed of the reserve bank.

    The foreign lender has to indirectly get the money out of our own market if he wants to provide local spending ability. If he’s lending in foreign dollars for the borrower to buy something overseas then thats no new spending here.

    Its such a stupid fucking rort this Keynesian crap because there is nothing easier to produce in this world then more spending.

    Get it together Cambria.

  23. YES ITS TRUE THAT IT IS THE LEVEL OF NOMINAL SPENDING WHICH IS WHAT IS EITHER INFLATIONARY OR DEFLATIONARY.

    YOU SEEM TO BE DOING AN ECONOMICS PHD WITHOUT RECOURSE TO ACTUALLY LEARNING ANY ECONOMICS.

    THE LEVEL OF NOMINAL SPENDING IS PRETTY MUCH ONLY AFFECTED BY MONETARY FACTORS. IT IS CERTAINLY UNAFFECTED BY BORROWING OFF FOREIGNERS OR BY FISCAL POLICY.

    NOTE THAT YOU WERE ENTIRELY UNABLE TO PUT UP A CASE FOR THE MULTIPLIER. BUT WE WOULDN’T WANT A MULTIPLIER EVEN IF THERE WAS ONE. SINCE WE CAN CREATE ALL THE SPENDING WE WANT VIA MONETARY POLICY.

  24. ISN’T IT ABOUT TIME YOU RETRACTED YOUR LIES ALREADY CAMBRIA?

    DON’T SHOW UP HERE AS A WALKING LOGIC-FREE-ZONE IDIOT.

  25. Man up Graeme.

  26. Mark Hill is such an idiot he appears to have gone through an economics PHD without realising that EXTRA SPENDING is the easiest thing in the world to create if that in fact is what you want to do.

    After I pointed this out the stupid cunt then claimed I was “busted” for something. And then the boot-nigger Cambria came through with some bizzare incomprehensible comment in the same vein

    All I can do is repeat:

    The current talk of increasing spending through fiscal policy is idiotic. It cannot happen. It does not work. And increasing spending is easy anyway. Thats just a fact. The way to do it quickly is direct cash injection. The only way to make this non-inflationary is having a reserve asset ratio so that the spending is increased to where you want it and no further.

    All the above is just facts of reality. Get used to them and for fucksakes learn some economics Cambria and Hill you morons.

  27. If you think I’m busted for something you idiot Mark, say clearly what it is. The fact is that fiscal policy does not affect spending. It affects GDP, but not GDR.

    The only way to affect nominal spending is monetary policy. If you want more spending its direct cash injection that will do it in a hurry and NOTHING ELSE. And if you do that you need a reserve asset ratio to stop spending overshoot.

    For economists to fail to realise this and clearly articulate it is the cause of immense damage. It might be the death of civilisation.

    How is it possible to explain the idiocy of a spending-spree during a recession, if not by the failure to grasp the simple truths stated above?

  28. So I’m busted for nothing!!!! You were just being a moron. It remains a fact that you can create all the nominal spending you want from monetary policy.

    But doing so won’t create the sustenance for all these people on the bludge. Take some pills and stop being a moron for the love of God Mark. Why are you such a DUMB CUNT.

    Still the fact is that you can create any amount of spending you want. See Zimbabwe for example.

    Fucking go and learn some economics you stupid cunt.

    You too Boris. If you can be taken in by dim bulbs like Mark, Cambria and Adrien there is something fucking wrong with you.

  29. Eventually of course, I’m going to have to wipe the whole of this bullshit you’ve created Mark.

    You are such a sloppy thinker that every minute you will have to repeat to yourself….. A is A. A thing is what it is and it is not something else. Nominal spending is not real production no matter how many years you spend at university.

    So as I correctly stated, governments on fiat currency can create all the spending they want. As Zimbabwe has shown us. But only taxpayers can support the public servants.

    Which is why there is no doubt whatsoever that we need to cut government spending in a recession.

    Now do you understand that now you stupid cunt Mark?

    There is no use getting a PHD in economics if you refuse to understand the subject.

  30. Fucking hell. Its just depressing that Mark is going to get out there with a degree. If anything he’s more confused and delusional then people like Gruen. And here he’ll be. A laughing stock charging about saying apple pie things about free enterprise while discrediting by the example of his stupidity every step of the way.

    I’ll have a great deal of posts to erase to clean this thing up down the track.

    We see that good economics would be easy but for one thing. For some reason when a person who understands economics starts explaining some new concept every dumb sonofabitch who doesn’t understand economics, but thinks he does, starts charging in and talking flat out nonsense and starts confusing the laity. We have seen this to an unparalled degree this weekend with the fools Cambria and Hill.

    The only bright note was that Fisk appears to have been wading through the murk and sorting out the bullshit from the truth.

    The laity cannot trust the economists. They must work out the logic of economics for themselves. Its a real science and its an important one. But it must be remembered that it attracts all sorts of delusional thinkers and in fact they do tend often to be upwardly mobile.

  31. I wouldn’t mind getting some feedback on the above essay. Its hard to think of anything more important than the above. And its pretty important that people do understand this. That nominal profits are in no way a sign of economic health, and that doing things to hurt the economy (monetary deflation alone excepted) actually increases nominal profits.

    Its pretty important to understand why this is the case or else you will be easily bullshitted by Keynesians and other economics cranks. In the same way that everyone who fell for the idea of a stimulus package was stooged. And no doubt about that at all. These spending packages are traumatic for the economy. They are like what a bombing raid would be. But they do stimulate nominal profit-share.

  32. Bird:

    Is a CAD not an example of additional spending?

    WELL DID YOU WANT TO FUCKING KNOW OR NOT? I’M WAITING FOR YOU TO SPELL OUT TO ALL AND SUNDRY WHAT A CAD IS. SO THAT WE CAN DIFFERENTIATE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM SOME UPPER CLASS TOFF WHO TRIFLES WITH THE AFFECTIONS OF WOMEN AND DOES OTHER THINGS TO BRING THE UPPER CLASS INTO DISREPUTE.

    IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER ASK THE QUESTION.

    • Right. You are saying a current account deficit is an example of additional spending? Are you talking about an example of additional nominal or real spending? Are you talking about additional spending for us here in Australia or for people overseas?

      A current account deficit is a current account deficit. So no its not an example of extra nominal spending. Its an example of a current account deficit. Like Hill Cambria is constantly confusing entities, just like his idiocy with fiscal TIGHTENING.

      But extra spending brought on by fast monetary growth can cause a current account deficit supposing your currency holds up against other currencies. Also on fractional reserve if you have had fast monetary growth and you try and slow it down, you can get a blowout in your current account deficit. Simply because banks under fractional reserve are inherently insolvent, and they will likely start borrowing off foreign banks in a futile effort to sure up their cash balances. Futile when their efforts are taken as a whole,since ultimately the borrowed money has to come from us locally. This would seem to have happened last year when our money supply was tanking and the AUD almost came up on a par with the USD.

      A current account deficit isn’t extra spending. Its a current account deficit. It may be caused by any number of things. It comes about when we borrow more than we lend as a country in total. This may or may not be indirectly related to some monetary event. Or it could be a problem that is fiscal in nature. Or it could merely mean that the country in question is an attractive destination for investments.

  33. Speak English. Don’t use acronyms.

  34. An honours degree is simply another year or two at university doing 2 or 3 more papers.

    Its no use Mark and Jason talking about there honours degrees when its manifest that neither of them understand economics.

    Neither of these guys has come out for massive fiscal triage. And thats because they don’t understand economics.

    Marks economics is so unsound he spent hours yesterday in a mental block where he could not see the difference between nominal spending and the real resources needed to support taxeaters.

    Both Jason and Marks economics is so without merit that the two of them are great believers in the Keynesian multiplier and yet they are totally unable to prove this unicorns existence.

  35. Think of Marks lunatic campaign yesterday. This idea that he’d busted me for something. And all it was is he was getting confused between nominal spending and a host of other things that aren’t nominal spending.

    And there he was getting confused, and that bailout supporter Cambria shows up and supports Marks confusion.

    We are really dealing with idiots here.

  36. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25025517-5013479,00.html

    YES WELL WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT JASON YOU DOPE? WHAT IS WITH THE HIT AND RUN LINK??

    HENRY ISN’T DOING VERY WELL HERE. HE IS SAYING THAT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE MAY NOT HELP. IT WON’T HELP. THERE IS NO WAY IT COULD POSSIBLY HELP. SINCE IT IS INCREASING GOVERNMENTAL THIEVING DURING A RECESSION. WHEREAS A RECESSION REQUIRES MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS.

  37. It was just jibber. I’m telling you. You must learn economics. For three years now you have refused to learn the basics. You don’t even so much as understand the money creation process as just one example.

  38. There is simply no substitute for understanding economics Mark.

    Yesterday you claimed that increasing nominal spending wasn’t inflationary. Actually it is the only thing that can possibly BE inflationary.

    You cannot cure yourself of your total non-understanding of economics unless you realise the problem.

    Also you have shown further total ignorance of the subject by claiming that fractional reserve money creation is not inflationary. YOU FUCKING MORON!!! OF COURSE IT IS. PEOPLE SPEND THE NEW MONEY YOU DOPE.

    You must not fool yourself that you understand economics.

  39. We cannot have you getting a job in economics Mark. Its too risky to have people who don’t understand economics winding up in Canberra.

    So my advice for you is to shut up, stay off the internet, don’t annoy me, and learn economics while you still have the chance.

    Or else I will campaign against you ever getting a job in the field. We’ve seen what happens when an ignorant anti-economist like Nick Gruen winds up in Canberra. Don’t make me think that I have to go to work scuppering your job plans.

  40. You fucking moron Mark. New money will get spent you shithead.

    Now learn some fucking economics. When a bank creates new money for a mortgage the new money gets spent.

    Now fuck off and learn your subject you cunt.

    You cannot have money being created without it being inflationary.

    Fuck off and learn your subject. If I have any say in the matter you will never get a job in this field.

  41. Get this straight you stupid cunt. If you have new money creation, ponzi or cash, it will be inflationary. Thats just a fact. Now go and learn your material you stupid cunt.

    You fucking moron. As if your idiocy can overcome the basic rule that you don’t have money creation without inflation.

    You are a fucking dumb cunt. 3 years and you cannot even get that right.

    You are a moron Mark.

    And I will try and stop you getting a job. I’m not wiping any of this stuff. And these guys are likely to look you up on the net.

    Now fuck off and go and learn some economics you cunt.

    Imagine being such a fuckhead that you think you can have money creation without inflation. What a moron you are.

    • I cannot believe the stupidity of this cunt. He actually thinks he’s overturned monetary theory. Therefor in his view ponzi-money is neutral and if we got rid of it all tommorrow there wouldn’t be a crash.

      Mark is just a moron. And idiots like Jason Soon have done him no favours by allowing him to speak constant stupidity these last three years.

      Apparently in Marks view you could start off with 100% backing….. the banks could then pyramid 20 times on top of that cash, and in Marks idiotic view this could never be inflationary.

      MARK HILL MUST NEVER HAVE A JOB IN ECONOMICS.

      We already have Nick Gruen and thats enough.

  42. So the silly cunt thinks that the banks can create any amount of money and its never inflationary. FUCK OFF MARK.

    I cannot put up with you anymore. You are just a lunatic mate. A mad spammer.

    Three fucking years, I’ve explained money creation so many times, and you still have no idea.

    Imagine being so dimwitted that you think they can create endless money and its not inflationary. What a fucking twit you are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: