an argument for a deflationary policy in the You Ess of Heeeeey

[Disco Pickle]

didn't mean you.  sorry for the confusion.

If you are talking about me, I've stated elsewhere that I'm a Hobbesian.

that's right, I did read that on another thread.

allow me time to devour it, as I've heard it, but it passed me by.. 

LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.

I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.

that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all..  because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.

anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.

 

What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.

and that jives with your sense of discord..  how?

at least my proposal, while admittedly rough, aprovides a reboot of sorts, allowing for and even *gasp* encouraging self education on all things finance.

you've still offered nothing to this thread, except ridicule with no ideas. 

maybe I really am on the wrong board.

I clearly asked for

holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.

Maybe you're just lazy fucks who aren;t actually interested in answers..  maybe you're "REAL DISCORDIANS"

I expect much lulz out of that last one.

You want an alternative answer? Free-market capitalism has to go. A new economic model replaces it. It works as well as your suggestion, and is just as easy to implement. And much less wordy.

does free market capitalism, in it's death throws, allow for whatever system you have in mind to take over smoothly, with minimal loss everyone?  do you have a system to replace it with?

(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that..  I am curious.)

[Phox]

Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?

[Adios]

This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.

I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down, and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.  

So here it is, in all it's roughness.

what I mean by controlled deflation is this:  

After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's..  except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working.  Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.  

The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply.  The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise.  This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.  

Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.

There will be pain for some.  That cannot be discounted.  but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.

We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down.  The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them.  If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.

The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it.  Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.

I will rebut.

Paragraph 1.
Pure speculation. Since we're not really real Discordians we insist you back drivel up with some form of realistic facts.

Paragraph 2.
Seriously? The '80's is the last example of the Fed raising the prime? Also you honestly expect wages and costs to go down?  

Paragraph 3.
 

Paragraph 4.
Study Economics. Upturns and downturns are necessary evils, they will always be with us.

Paragraph 5.
Good gods. I get it now, you are a magik user with special powers. There will be no other way to drop wages and costs of products as you suggest. I am glad this one was paragraph 5.

Paragraph 6.
At least you almost admitted money doesn't exist. But the rest is repetitive nonsense.

[Phox]

This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.

I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down, and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.  

So here it is, in all it's roughness.

what I mean by controlled deflation is this:  

After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's..  except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working.  Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.  

The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply.  The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise.  This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.  

Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.

There will be pain for some.  That cannot be discounted.  but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.

We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down.  The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them.  If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.

The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it.  Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.

I will rebut.

Paragraph 1.
Pure speculation. Since we're not really real Discordians we insist you back drivel up with some form of realistic facts.

Paragraph 2.
Seriously? The '80's is the last example of the Fed raising the prime? Also you honestly expect wages and costs to go down?  

Paragraph 3.
 

Paragraph 4.
Study Economics. Upturns and downturns are necessary evils, they will always be with us.

Paragraph 5.
Good gods. I get it now, you are a magik user with special powers. There will be no other way to drop wages and costs of products as you suggest. I am glad this one was paragraph 5.

Paragraph 6.
At least you almost admitted money doesn't exist. But the rest is repetitive nonsense.

To put it more simply:

 

[Disco Pickle]

Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?

alright, ideas I can discuss.

Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent.  

Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.

I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say..  the size of the USSR..

I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.

Romania comes to mind.

My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.

how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people..  I admit I should do more reading.

that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.

[the other anonymous]

This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.

Thinking isn't free. Or was that "freedom isn't thinking"?

I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down,

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers. 

Cap and trade Viagra?

So here it is, in all it's roughness.

Ugh. Soften us up first. Everything is better with lube.

what I mean by controlled deflation is this: 

THIS. Controlled deflation is I mean what.

See? interwebbing your language provides a gentler, more youth-friendly introduction to your plan to euthanize Grandma.

After whatever recovery from this recession we will have,

So, you're speaking in the past-tense?

the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's..

I TOLD YOU DISCO WASN'T DEAD!

except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working.

Hooray! Let's stop reading Ayn rand and start reading Bob Black! That'll fix everything!

Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.

Risk!? I thought it was a feature?

The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply.  The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise.  This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.

Are you sure we want to take our economic policy from the 1980s?

Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.

I doubt they'll allow that. Part of their prosperity is having us in their debt. <b>They own us.</b> Any attempt to financially liberate ourselves will be seen as an act of economic war. They will stop shipping goods and parts to us and we will end up standing in line for toilet paper.

There will be pain for some.  That cannot be discounted.

Oh please. This and the roughness crack earlier. Why is it that everyone sexualizes economics? Is it because we keep economizing sex? I say we need a performance model of economic policy. "Buy, buy, oh god buy!" means buy, anything else means "no sale!"

but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.

Eh, this too shall pass. I'm pretty sure deep space nine can handle it. Those Bajorans kick ass.

We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down.

My daddy told me, if you ain't a union man, you ain't crossing this line.

Why not remove competition through legislation? Tariffs or whatever.

The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them.  If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.

Damn liberals, taking all our hard-earned money just because some damn immigrants get paid less than us.

The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it.

If the delusion is collective, is it still a delusion?

Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.

And then never ask for a raise or give yourself a Christmas bonus ever again, because raises are terrorism. Will all these single mothers please stop destroying our great nation with your hungry mouths and diapered masses?

-toa,
people behaving rationally is like a fish riding a bicycle

[Kai]

 

Thnx for contributing to the discussion Kai.

you're a credit to you're university.

 

This. But a helpful hint. Problem 1: People living beyond their means make up a large portion of the population. What do you tihnk is going to happen to them in your system?

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

Any plan that depends upon rational human actors WILL fail. I don't mean, might fail but looks really good after a while, I don't mean fails just a little for some unfortunate people, I mean, will completely and utterly fail.

And that is why I am laughing. 

[Phox]

alright, ideas I can discuss.

Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent.  

True.

Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.

I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say..  the size of the USSR..

Objection. USSR was not communist, technically speaking.

I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.

Objection. False Assumption.

Romania comes to mind.

Objection. Irrelevant.

My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.

Objection. Speculation.

how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people..  I admit I should do more reading.

All your previous arguments are hereby negated.

that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.

Objection. Speculation again.

[Thurnez Isa]

The few problems I have so far; as far as I know (and I maybe wrong, but probably not) the government has done nothing to regulate derivative trading as well as break up the US bank monopolies. So even if there is going to be a little recovery without something unforeseen in the end it will all collapse again. Your back at square one, in fact for most people their in worse position.

Also I think your confusing doing whats best for your country and whats best for the people of your country. They aren't the same.
I know you admit there would be pain for some, but unless your willing to share that pain it's easy to say - and yes I do mean complete financial destruction of your homestead.

Now having said that in the 90's the Canadian government's basic economic policy was to deflating the dollar ie. keep the Canadian dollar weak. This worked at the time cause we're such a resource based economy that much of our GDP relies on raw exports. Also our biggest trade partner had a strong dollar at the time.
I don't think deflation would be wise in a service based economy, especially in the US where resources to population is lower and manufacturing has all but left the country

[East Coast Hustle]

Jesus, TOA, shut the ever-loving fuck up and go back to wherever you were when you weren't here. you're honestly my least favorite poster at PD ever, including Eldora and Hugh.

as for the OP, my grasp of economic theory is feeble at best, so I can neither confirm nor deny the plausibility of your idea.

That said, I totally agree that we shouldn't be hampered by what will happen to people who live beyond their means. I also realize that this is easy for me to say since:

1) I don't know the full scope of what the consequences would be

and

2) My job and pay rate are secure no matter what, since the government will never stop spending obscene sums of money on mad science.

[the other anonymous]

alright, ideas I can discuss.

Admitting you lack the skill to discuss any and all ideas is the first step to DISCOvery.

Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent. 

What good is letting the government have full control over production if you can't produce a decent dissent?

Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.

There's a sometimes-workable French system? How'd they manage that!?

I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say..  the size of the USSR..

Mostly snow, booze, and porn; and not a country anymore.

I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.

Who was supposed to eliminate class? Was it class mobility? Because you can't have class mobility without classes.

Romania comes to mind.

Ah, Romania. Sweet home to the summers of my youth. Yes, I concur. Romania always comes to mind.

My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.

We have a democratic republic? I thought we had a corporatist plutocracy?

how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people..  I admit I should do more reading.

Yes, and this time, read something that wasn't written by H.J. Herpaderp.

that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.

What's wrong with suppressing dissent, if that's what you want to do?

-toa,
dangerously misquoting Eris

[Phox]

(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that..  I am curious.)

Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?

[Adios]

(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that..  I am curious.)

Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?

Present. But I was going to let the lulz ride.

[Adios]

Jesus, TOA, shut the ever-loving fuck up and go back to wherever you were when you weren't here. you're honestly my least favorite poster at PD ever, including Eldora and Hugh.

as for the OP, my grasp of economic theory is feeble at best, so I can neither confirm nor deny the plausibility of your idea.

That said, I totally agree that we shouldn't be hampered by what will happen to people who live beyond their means. I also realize that this is easy for me to say since:

1) I don't know the full scope of what the consequences would be

and

2) My job and pay rate are secure no matter what, since the government will never stop spending obscene sums of money on mad science.

Keep holding back like this and you're going to get ulcers.

[Phox]

(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that..  I am curious.)

Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?

Present. But I was going to let the lulz ride.

Fair enough then.