Inflation Vs. Unemployment

[Vlerchan]

In economics it's generally accepted there's a trade off between Unemployment and Inflation. It's where we get the idea of the Phillips Curve from. It works like this:

In a boom, demand is strong relative to what your economy is producing. In a situation like this where firms are trying to keep up with excess demand they have to hire more workers. As the unemployment rate falls workers find that they can demand more in terms of wage compensation because labour becomes scarcer. This pushes up operating costs for firms which translates to higher prices on your goods (i.e., inflation).

I should add that the Phillips curve is also expectation-augmented. Because firms do not change prices every day (re: sticky prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity)) we get a situation wherein firms also adjust prices in the present for future expectations too. That means that inflation depends on expected levels of inflation as well as levels of excess demand. Though you can disregard this bit. It's the first paragraph we should be concentrating on.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global%20macro-economics%20graphs/Phillips-curve-basic.png

---

It's notable that in this instance "unemployment" is really just a benchmark for demand levels.

I'm not actually going to argue with what's posted below. I just want people after taking into account the above to give an indication about how they feel about the inflation-unemployment trade-off. Because we need more economic discussion.

[Hyper]

Well I can't form a coherent response because I am what people would call a ''conspiracy nut'' I think the whole boom and bust cycle economics is a load of absolute crap.

But if someone stuck a gun to my ahead, and told me this is how the world works deal with it, I'd have to say maintaning low inflation takes priority over unemployment.

In my small mind a high inflation is a sign of economic instability and will, and has, lead to economic panic over the future inflation.

And in my small mind I am also trying to figure out how does a government prioritize unemployment? Do we create temporary social jobs? They don't create any real value and are temporary measures.

In my opinion the only way to keep a low rate of unemployment is for the government to have an understanding of the local economies industries demands. And try to adjust education accordingly, more tuition for highly needed degrees and so on...

Ultimately this question itself seems sort of silly to me. I happen to believe in the money supply controlling the majority of inflation fluctuation. So this relation with unemployment and inflation is secondary and I don't see a reason why an economy with low inflation and low unemployment shouldn't exist over a long period of time, if only legislation and control of the money supply was properly handled.

[Vlerchan]

I happen to believe in the money supply controlling the majority of inflation fluctuation.
Would you mind explaining this?

ABCT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory) springs to mind but I honestly don't know enough about it to really be certain.

[Hyper]

Would you mind explaining this?

ABCT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory) springs to mind but I honestly don't know enough about it to really be certain.

I'll try to write a good explanation tomorrow

[phuckphace]

As the unemployment rate falls workers find that they can demand more in terms of wage compensation because labour becomes scarcer.

I would think that falling unemployment implies an increase in the size of the labor pool, which I assume would cause wages to fall. how does labor become scarcer if more people are going to work?

[Vlerchan]

how does labor become scarcer if more people are going to work?
Because the labour pool (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-labor-pool.htm) is defined as all people who are available and qualified to work.

As more people go to work (unemployment falls) there then becomes less people now available to be hired (in the labour pool).

---

edit: I also see where your confusion lies. I should have used "labour supply" instead of "labour" the first time.

[Hyper]

Because the labour pool (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-labor-pool.htm) is defined as all people who are available and qualified to work.

As more people go to work (unemployment falls) there then becomes less people now available to be hired (in the labour pool).

---

edit: I also see where your confusion lies. I should have used "labour supply" instead of "labour" the first time.

Doesn't that just assume that the demand for employees stays the same?

As to money supply.

Basically I don't know a lot about economy but the entire money supply being the biggest influence on inflation is definitely a monetarist viewpoint.

I do know that the QTM theory is flawed in short term economics but many would agree it is true for long term. It's a pretty complicated thing to delve into and economists argue and defend their own viewpoints like fanatical priests so getting around that literature takes a lot of commitment, that I don't really have.

On the basic level money is a commodity, in my eyes, especially since the vast majority of money is now a fiat currency. A commodity used to facilitate the trade of goods and services.

So by that logic it should adhere to the same laws of supply and demand that all other commodities and goods adhere to.

Too much of it? It's value drops.
Too less of it? It's value rises.

Value being ultimately it's purchasing power.

Feel free to ask more and I could try to explain but as I said I'm not super confident and all this is just what I so far having read what I have believe to be a logical and true state of affairs.

[Vlerchan]

Doesn't that just assume that the demand for employees stays the same?
No, it assumes that the labour supply stays the same.

Demand for labour is rising, as demand for a firm's output rises.

---

As to money supply.

I never argued that growth in the money supply didn't result in inflation - it works to heighten levels of aggregate demand - and I don't doubt it's an important contributor to inflation levels, but what I have a hard time accepting is that it produces a majority of the inflation we see. edit: I should add that since I'm not massively knowledgeable about monetary policy (etc.) I'm totally open to any and all convincing here.

I'm going to address your first post now:

And in my small mind I am also trying to figure out how does a government prioritize unemployment?
It might lower interests rates in order to promote investment and create more jobs.

It might subsidise employment and make it cheaper to hire more workers.

It might change around taxation and social-security levels to promote entrepreneurship.

In extreme circumstances it might engage in deficit spending and introduce a fiscal stimulus.

Etc.

In my opinion the only way to keep a low rate of unemployment is for the government to have an understanding of the local economies industries demands.
This seems very long-term orientated.

I don't see a reason why an economy with low inflation and low unemployment shouldn't exist over a long period of time, if only legislation and control of the money supply was properly handled.
I outlined the mechanism. I can explain exactly how it works if you prefer.

[Hyper]

I never argued that growth in the money supply didn't result in inflation - it works to heighten levels of aggregate demand - and I don't doubt it's an important contributor to inflation levels, but what I have a hard time accepting is that it produces a majority of the inflation we see. edit: I should add that since I'm not massively knowledgeable about monetary policy (etc.) I'm totally open to any and all convincing here.



Well to me it seems the whole ''boom & bust cycle'' economics assumes that booms are the direct or mainly the result of increased demand and production? Or am I getting something wrong here.

While to me it seems that all the booms and busts are simple over-extensions of credit and then rapid contraction of said credit.

The credit created is used to ''speculate'' and by speculate I mean make investments in capital, investment in something that doesn't really produce anything.

And when the supply of credit becomes plentiful, low interest rates, that leads to more lending and yes as a result of that there might be more money in the economy and more businesses trying to expand but it also leads to malinvestment practices like the US morgage market...

Ultimately this can't go on forever sooner or later malinvestments shatter coupled with poor lending practices you'll get legitimate investments going under as well and individuals going bankrupt and ultimately you get economic panic so credit almost violently contracts - everybody tries to save their wealth and by everybody I mean those wealthy enough to play on the capital market.

Basically I just think that those ''market makers'' and the central banks themselves through creating credit and overextending it or contracting it manipulate the markets and ultimately manipulate demand as well by influencing the income and purchasing power of ordinary citizens.

But maybe that's just poor understanding of economics or ''conspiracy theorism'' I just can't get around the way the banking system in general works, the central bank oriented system that most of the world uses.

Ehh I am getting the feeling though that this is far from your original question.

[phuckphace]

Well to me it seems the whole ''boom & bust cycle'' economics assumes that booms are the direct or mainly the result of increased demand and production? Or am I getting something wrong here.

While to me it seems that all the booms and busts are simple over-extensions of credit and then rapid contraction of said credit.

The credit created is used to ''speculate'' and by speculate I mean make investments in capital, investment in something that doesn't really produce anything.

And when the supply of credit becomes plentiful, low interest rates, that leads to more lending and yes as a result of that there might be more money in the economy and more businesses trying to expand but it also leads to malinvestment practices like the US morgage market...

Ultimately this can't go on forever sooner or later malinvestments shatter coupled with poor lending practices you'll get legitimate investments going under as well and individuals going bankrupt and ultimately you get economic panic so credit almost violently contracts - everybody tries to save their wealth and by everybody I mean those wealthy enough to play on the capital market.

Basically I just think that those ''market makers'' and the central banks themselves through creating credit and overextending it or contracting it manipulate the markets and ultimately manipulate demand as well by influencing the income and purchasing power of ordinary citizens.

But maybe that's just poor understanding of economics or ''conspiracy theorism'' I just can't get around the way the banking system in general works, the central bank oriented system that most of the world uses.

I agree with this post, and what you've hit on is far from a conspiracy theory too...it's really happening and has been happening for years right under our noses.

I don't think it needs to be said that the real purpose of fiat currency (i.e. casino chips of arbitrary "value") is to manipulate the market for the financial gain of a certain few individuals. according to some (economists), the fact that the US dollar hasn't yet experienced hyperinflation is solid proof that it never will, and we just need to stop worrying and keep playing the slot machine.

on the other hand, I'm thinking back to the turn of the 20th century when money that most people carried with them was in the form of silver and gold coins. large transactions such as purchasing a car or house were usually done with gold coins or gold certificates. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_certificate) not all of these gold coins were US coins either, you could also encounter British sovereigns and older Spanish ones in circulation as well. doesn't matter though, the point is that folks used to get paid in real, cold, heavy gold and it was Au-wesome. nuke Wall Street

[Vlerchan]

While to me it seems that all the booms and busts are simple over-extensions of credit and then rapid contraction of said credit.

I agree for the most part. Sort of. It goes something like this (as far as I know - again: not big on monetary policy).

During an economic downturn Central Banks lower interest in order to make borrowing more attractive and saving (in banks) less attractive. This results in more people borrowing to invest and more people taking their savings and investing them where higher yields might be got. This gets the economy going again - it become self-powering. Once this is happening the Central Bank then heightens interest rates. By "self-powering" I mean "chugging along without the need for injections of liquidity due to other factors (http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/business-cycles.html).

In some cases the Central Bank might keep interest rates too low for too long. This happened in the run-up to the Great Recession with both the ECB and the FED - I'm not sure about the BoE. It's extra bad when combined with a highly deregulated financial sector - like in the US particularly and Ireland too. In cases where monetary policy is properly handled though it can be a powerful force when it comes to dampening the extremes of the business cycle - which is why literally every mainstream economists supports its use and not a reversion to the gold standard and/or letting the free market decide.

It's lastly notable that the Boom-Bust cycle existed both before Central Banks and whilst we were on the Gold Standard.

The credit created is used to ''speculate'' and by speculate I mean make investments in capital, investment in something that doesn't really produce anything.
Poor financial regulation and fiscal policy play as much a role in this as monetary policy.

It's also notable that speculative capital is a distinct subset of capital.

... manipulate the markets and ultimately manipulate demand as well by influencing the income and purchasing power of ordinary citizens.

This is the point of monetary policy if it wasn't clear from the above.

This is the point of economic policy-in general too.

Ehh I am getting the feeling though that this is far from your original question.
Yes. But then my original question was fairly boring.

---

I've seen everything now. Phuckphace arguing the Austro-Libertarian line. Surreal. Just surreal.

(casino chips of arbitrary "value")
And you support the gold standard.

Where does golds value come from?

... is to manipulate the market for the financial gain of a certain few individuals.
Please explain this process. Thank you.

... the fact that the US dollar hasn't yet experienced hyperinflation is solid proof that it never will, and we just need to stop worrying and keep playing the slot machine.
Hyperinflation! Weimer!! IT'S JUST AROUND THE CORNER!!!

I've no idea where you're drawing these conclusions from.

nuke Wall Street
It's ironic because nobody would benefit more from a return to commodity money than the bourgeoisie on Wall Street.

Unless the growth of the money supply matches the growth of the economy we get deflation. That means your commodity-money becomes worth more relative to everything else. That means debtors find that there real debt has gotten larger. This is obviously bad for working-class people.

[phuckphace]

I thought it was obvious that, like pretty much every policy I support, switching back to commodity money now wouldn't be feasible for a number of reasons. no we most certainly can't do it next Monday, or even in 10 years. that said, I think a silver standard would be more practical.

I'm also aware that the value of gold is arbitrary too, but it differs from fiat paper in that its value is intrinsic and permanent. gold has unique physical properties that people have always found desirable, and it exists in limited and finite quantities. the same can be said for silver as well.

I do feel a bit dirty for supporting something lolbertarians like, but unlike most of their proposals I can't exactly say I'm against this one, at least for the moment. but let's say I turn Wall Street into a radioactive crater first (not literally but you know what I mean). now with the pesky bourgeoisie out of the way, how feasible is it? kinda? not very?

[Vlerchan]

I thought it was obvious that, like pretty much every policy I support, switching back to commodity money now wouldn't be feasible for a number of reasons. no we most certainly can't do it next Monday, or even in 10 years. that said, I think a silver standard would be more practical.
I never criticised golds infeasibility. I do believe it's infeasible now - and I do believe it will be even more infeasible in 10 or 100 years - but I'm sure you are aware of its limitations in this regard so I'm not going to base a critique around it. I should add that silver would be even more infeasible to transition to.

I'm more interested why you believe it's desirable at all.

I'm also aware that the value of gold is arbitrary too, but it differs from fiat paper in that its value is intrinsic and permanent. gold has unique physical properties that people have always found desirable, and it exists in limited and finite quantities. the same can be said for silver as well.
None of this refutes the notion that gold's value is also arbitrarily defined.

I mean to say though that unless you're about to tell me you've read Rothbard and decided to go anarchist on me I don't see the difference between gold and marked government-guaranteed slips of paper here - both possess qualities that cause them to be in regular demand except we can manipulate the latter to benefit us and it's not susceptible to random bouts of volatility.

but let's say I turn Wall Street into a radioactive crater first (not literally but you know what I mean). now with the pesky bourgeoisie out of the way, how feasible is it? kinda? not very.
It's banking and not Wall Street you'd need to eliminate to avoid damning working class people to a lifetime of ever-expanding debt.

---

I'd also suggest that Hypers read through this page ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States) which documents the frequent pre-FED recessions.

[Hyper]

I don't think there is anything wrong with fiat currency.

It is all down to policy/regulation like Vier said, I was just pointing out how I THINK the system works and why it fails.

Also I don't think currency tied to gold is a solution either. Any commodity or resource that is low in quantity can be monopolized and thus manipulated, this has happened in history before especially in England.

I'll read that Vlerchan it seems interesting

[Miserabilia]

More intuitively, though I don't have nearly enough insight on economics as I should, I feel like neither should be prioritised over the other.

[phuckphace]

I should add that silver would be even more infeasible to transition to.

why?

I'm more interested why you believe it's desirable at all.

I was led to believe that the silver and gold standards prevent governments from spending like there's no tomorrow (like the American gov't is doing right now) because each unit of currency corresponds to a fixed and physical amount of silver or gold sitting somewhere in a vault. furthermore, it's been my understanding that the transition to fiat money happened after the military-industrial-complex got up to full speed and the government realized it can't print silver or gold. is this fiction from the fanciful imagination of a Austrian economist? sounds just crazy enough to be true if you ask me.

surely you can understand my frustration here, though. I'm envisioning my socialist utopia where workers are paid in a precious metal that is valuable, has always been valuable, and will only become more valuable as time goes on. on the other hand, the Austrian school supports it enthusiastically which makes me nervous.

funnily enough, I talked to a libertarian once who was against commodity money for a rather odd but very specific reason: he said that, after the free market gives us a scientific utopia, space mining will give us so much gold and silver that they will become essentially worthless and hence fiat currency is inevitable anyway.

It's banking and not Wall Street you'd need to eliminate to avoid damning working class people to a lifetime of ever-expanding debt.

that's the plan.

I feel like I need to add that I don't believe hyperinflation is all that likely, although I can see inflation levels eventually becoming severe enough to necessitate revaluation of the dollar. Ron Paul has been telling us since the 80s that a scenario where people need a bucket of banknote bundles to buy a loaf of bread is COMING SOON...I don't think so. my prediction is that by about 2060 the hourly minimum wage will be something like 80 - 100 nominal dollars (and still about 7.25 in real dollars).

[Vlerchan]

I haven't forgotten about you. It's just that posts that take thought take time. And I don't have massive amounts of time at the moment.

why?
Because silver is scarcer than gold and is currently valued at a lesser amount: a transition to a silver standard would be a lot more painful and a lot more shocking for an economy. If you want my advice you'd be better off going for a bimetallic (gold-&-silver) standard which would still be an awful idea (in my opinion) but not to the same extent as just going for a single metal to back your currency.

I was led to believe that the silver and gold standards prevent governments from spending like there's no tomorrow (like the American gov't is doing right now) because each unit of currency corresponds to a fixed and physical amount of silver or gold sitting somewhere in a vault.
It's still possible to debase your currency and deficit spend on the gold standard.

I also don't see deficit spending as always bad so I have a hard time seeing this defence as valid.

furthermore, it's been my understanding that the transition to fiat money happened after the military-industrial-complex got up to full speed and the government realized it can't print silver or gold. is this fiction from the fanciful imagination of a Austrian economist? sounds just crazy enough to be true if you ask me.
It's generally not considered that the years proceeding the Bretton-Woods system and the Gold Standard. It intended to create a stable currency exchange rates as to facilitate better trade as opposed to create a stable currency (i.e., look at this randomly selected year for US inflation (http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/cpi-inflation-1957.aspx)). So the Nixon Shock never ended the Gold Standard because the Gold standard had been ended since 1932(-ish) - and this was because it was the foundations of a deflationary spiral.

In 1971(-ish) the US abandoned the Bretton Woods system because it was becoming more and more difficult to maintain a stable conversion rates. This was because of a number of factors: growing trade deficits; import inflation being incurred through that OPEC-business; deficit spending in relation to LBJs social-welfare reforms and the Vietnam war causing inflation, so there's some tiny sliver of truth in your good Austrian friends imagination but not enough to support her conspiracies. It's notable however that the transition away from trying to maintain stable exchange rates with reference to gold did make it much easier for Reagan to expand the military-industrial complex when he did.

I'm envisioning my socialist utopia where workers are paid in a precious metal that is valuable, has always been valuable, and will only become more valuable as time goes on.
Quick question: If you knew that something was going to be cheaper the tomorrow would you bother to purchase it today?

funnily enough, I talked to a libertarian once who was against commodity money for a rather odd but very specific reason: he said that, after the free market gives us a scientific utopia, space mining will give us so much gold and silver that they will become essentially worthless and hence fiat currency is inevitable anyway.
He's probably correct about the premise. He's not correct about the conclusion.

Just because gold is unusable doesn't mean that some other commodity with similar distinctions (recognisable, homogeneous, durable, scarce, and preferably divisible into smaller units) wouldn't naturally arise in its place. You just need to look at any non-gold producing country/region pre-coinage (etc.) in history to see that this has and does happen: bartering is cumbersome so expect human beings to find some means to facilitate easy and efficient exchange - In Ireland we generally priced in cattle for lack of anything better.

that's the plan.
As far as I'm aware banking isn't a necessity in market-rejecting socialism so that's workable I think.

I feel like I need to add that I don't believe hyperinflation is all that likely, although I can see inflation levels eventually becoming severe enough to necessitate revaluation of the dollar. Ron Paul has been telling us since the 80s that a scenario where people need a bucket of banknote bundles to buy a loaf of bread is COMING SOON...I don't think so. my prediction is that by about 2060 the hourly minimum wage will be something like 80 - 100 nominal dollars (and still about 7.25 in real dollars).
The FED has a mandate to keep inflation "low but near" to 2% (it's like 0.1% now) so I'm not expecting any drastic increase in prices. It helps that since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world at the moment the inflation incurred from the money it does print tends to be largely imported to other countries who keep dollars in reserve.

[phuckphace]

I haven't forgotten about you. It's just that posts that take thought take time. And I don't have massive amounts of time at the moment.

all good bruv. how's that thesis coming along?

Because silver is scarcer than gold and is currently valued at a lesser amount...

woah woah woah back up - I didn't know that. but I just Googled and this is apparently because world reserves of silver are being rapidly depleted by its use in electronics and whatnot. I already knew that most electronic devices contain small amounts of silver and gold, but I was also thinking that most of it is recovered from electronic scrap. perhaps some of it is, but I guess not enough to matter?

a transition to a silver standard would be a lot more painful and a lot more shocking for an economy. If you want my advice you'd be better off going for a bimetallic (gold-&-silver) standard which would still be an awful idea (in my opinion) but not to the same extent as just going for a single metal to back your currency.

I'm not married to the idea at all...if it were demonstrated to me that fiat currency systems can be superior to commodity money and not economically disadvantageous to the proletariat, I'd say fuck it and go with a fiat system. however I still can't shake the impression I have of the Federal Reserve basically consisting of a few men hitting jackpot after jackpot on a slot machine that they themselves programmed. I mean, I could be wrong but that's sure what it looks like to me.

It's still possible to debase your currency and deficit spend on the gold standard.

of course. the idea was that a new government with better fiscal policy wouldn't arrive at a scenario where debasement was necessary to begin with. though admittedly I guess better policy is the key phrase, whether we're talking about BernakeBux or gold.

I also don't see deficit spending as always bad so I have a hard time seeing this defence as valid.

I recall reading a Krugman column in which he asserted that fiscal conservatives erroneously view government finances the same way they view individual finances - in that deficit spending by national governments is LITERALLY THE SAME THING as a guy maxing out his credit card at the mall. just to clarify, that's not my line of thinking here. I am however concerned that deficit spending can or will necessitate foreign loans, which in turn puts the country into inextricable political arrangements with other governments. that set-up right there is just begging to become infested with neoliberals or other similarly unsavory financial parasites. Nazi Germany for example was supposed to have been National Socialist, but they were in fact ordinary Keynesians spending Keynesian funny-money loaned to them by international bankers. as tempting as that sounds (not at all) I think I'll pass.

Quick question: If you knew that something was going to be cheaper the tomorrow would you bother to purchase it today?

I think I know exactly where you're going with this, and my answer is of course "no."

It helps that since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world at the moment the inflation incurred from the money it does print tends to be largely imported to other countries who keep dollars in reserve.

for the moment, anyway. what do you think of those predictions that other countries will, for political reasons, eventually say "fuck the US dollar" and switch to something else? the US government has been systematically retaliating against countries which reject its global economic influence, at a rate that makes me wonder when the rest of the world will say "Enough" and do something.

[Vlerchan]

all good bruv. how's that thesis coming along?
I'm actually in the middle of an assignment that's having me discuss the rise in the current-era European far-right.

[on silver:] perhaps some of it is, but I guess not enough to matter?
I'm wrong actually. (http://www.wealthwire.com/news/metals/1436)

There's apparently 17.5 times more silver underground than gold. It just all gets used up in wiring (etc.).

How much do you think it would cost to recycle all the silver though?

I'm not married to the idea at all...if it were demonstrated to me that fiat currency systems can be superior to commodity money and not economically disadvantageous to the proletariat, I'd say fuck it and go with a fiat system.
Under Capitalism or Socialism?

In terms of Socialism I don't think I'm sure enough of how their monetary policy works to formulate a proper answer. I would presume that you wouldn't want your market-rejecting economy to be subject to the market conditions that would be found under a gold-standard or system of commodity-money: It would allow a proletariat-orientated commission to better further the interests of the proletariat if it had full control over all aspects of the economy (in your opinion right?).

I mean, I could be wrong but that's sure what it looks like to me.
Could you please explain how exactly you reached this view of the FED.

I don't quite see it.

I am however concerned that deficit spending can or will necessitate foreign loans, which in turn puts the country into inextricable political arrangements with other governments. that set-up right there is just begging to become infested with neoliberals or other similarly unsavory financial parasites.
This isn't that much of an issue with the US. You come from a very strong bargaining position.

That's an interesting objection though. However don't you think that crippling austerity to make up an emerging deficit would be a lot more harmful for the proletariat to bear? - i.e., look at Europe.

Nazi Germany for example was supposed to have been National Socialist, but they were in fact ordinary Keynesians spending Keynesian funny-money loaned to them by international bankers. as tempting as that sounds (not at all) I think I'll pass.
When NS Germany took over the world their debt to other countries and their banks wasn't going to matter.

I think I know exactly where you're going with this, and my answer is of course "no."
I'm looking to point out that during times of uncertainty you're asking for a deflationary spiral, which isn't good, at all.

I'd imagine you guessed that.

for the moment, anyway. what do you think of those predictions that other countries will, for political reasons, eventually say "fuck the US dollar" and switch to something else?
I don't think the US will every be in much trouble as long as oil-producing nations continue to sell oil in dollars. I also can't imagine any sort of collective retaliation against the US.

Though really we're touching on something I can't say I've much of a clue about honestly.

[phuckphace]

I'm actually in the middle of an assignment that's having me discuss the rise in the current-era European far-right.

the Reich shall rise again :D is your body ready?!

How much do you think it would cost to recycle all the silver though?

gonna go with "an infeasible amount"

Under Capitalism or Socialism?

In terms of Socialism I don't think I'm sure enough of how their monetary policy works to formulate a proper answer. I would presume that you wouldn't want your market-rejecting economy to be subject to the market conditions that would be found under a gold-standard or system of commodity-money: It would allow a proletariat-orientated commission to better further the interests of the proletariat if it had full control over all aspects of the economy (in your opinion right?).

pretty much. I have to say that this a pretty compelling argument, too.

Could you please explain how exactly you reached this view of the FED.

might just be left over from my RON PAUL 2012 days but affluent money men who do their thing with (apparently) little oversight is unsettling.

That's an interesting objection though. However don't you think that crippling austerity to make up an emerging deficit would be a lot more harmful for the proletariat to bear? - i.e., look at Europe.

I'm operating under the assumption that a stripped-down socialist version of the US government would spend a lot less anyway, plus you'd need to figure in the initial population reductions that would come with my planned mass deportations and the associated voluntary emigration. killing the MIC, the space program, and even a "simple" reorganization of the government and the Alphabet Agencies would save an untold amount and cut enormous amounts of bureaucracy. in other words, I hadn't actually considered EU-style austerity because I don't see it being necessary.

I'm looking to point out that during times of uncertainty you're asking for a deflationary spiral, which isn't good, at all.

I'd imagine you guessed that.

I couldn't think of the term but yeah, that.