Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[The Rabbi]

Other way round. If you can't produce as much of something the price has to rise. You're right, it is very basic. Yet again, you fail to understand it. If you feel there's a problem with my logic, pick the part of my argument where you think I've gone wrong and tell me why. If you want to continue just insulting me, that only shows you don't have sufficient understanding to grasp these concepts. If you can't see these things as intuitively obvious, maybe you should pick up a textbook?

I've picked apart every single post of yours, noting the absurdities, unsound arguments, and logical fallacies.
And you still don't get it.

No you haven't. You've responded with insults and statements which fail to address the bulk of what I'm saying. I've even made the effort to break it down into concise numbered parts. You've made no effort to understand anything I'm saying. I don't mind so much that you're dumb, I have patience, it's just that you're so fucking arrogant about it that's annoying.

You're the one mixing jargon and nonsense and coming up with whopper after whopper.
Tell me again how inflating a currency increases real wages. This ought to be good.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Yeah, if you raise the price of something you sell less of it. It's kinda basic.
Put away the textbook until you actually understand what you're writing.

Other way round. If you can't produce as much of something the price has to rise. You're right, it is very basic. Yet again, you fail to understand it. If you feel there's a problem with my logic, pick the part of my argument where you think I've gone wrong and tell me why. If you want to continue just insulting me, that only shows you don't have sufficient understanding to grasp these concepts. If you can't see these things as intuitively obvious, maybe you should pick up a textbook?

I've picked apart every single post of yours, noting the absurdities, unsound arguments, and logical fallacies.
And you still don't get it.

no u havent retard

 

[starcraftzzz]

I've picked apart every single post of yours, noting the absurdities, unsound arguments, and logical fallacies.
And you still don't get it.

No you haven't. You've responded with insults and statements which fail to address the bulk of what I'm saying. I've even made the effort to break it down into concise numbered parts. You've made no effort to understand anything I'm saying. I don't mind so much that you're dumb, I have patience, it's just that you're so fucking arrogant about it that's annoying.

You're the one mixing jargon and nonsense and coming up with whopper after whopper.
Tell me again how inflating a currency increases real wages. This ought to be good.

well to u anything above 2nd grade is jargon and nonsense

 

[DSGE]

I've picked apart every single post of yours, noting the absurdities, unsound arguments, and logical fallacies.
And you still don't get it.

No you haven't. You've responded with insults and statements which fail to address the bulk of what I'm saying. I've even made the effort to break it down into concise numbered parts. You've made no effort to understand anything I'm saying. I don't mind so much that you're dumb, I have patience, it's just that you're so fucking arrogant about it that's annoying.

You're the one mixing jargon and nonsense and coming up with whopper after whopper.
Tell me again how inflating a currency increases real wages. This ought to be good.

It increases the nominal wage; it temporarily lowers the real wage. Real wage = nominal wage / price level. If there's a demand shock from printing more money, a shock which doesn't change the equilibrium real wage like a supply shock does, then prices go up. If prices go up, wage/price (the real wage) falls.

You with me so far? Demand inflation reduces the real wage. Now if this is permanent, then we have a Phillips curve. The central bank can choose the real wage by adjusting the rate of inflation, and thus can assure permanent full employment by holding the real wage below equilibrium. They can't do that, obviously. That theory was disproved in the 70s.

So if it can't permanently affect the real wage, the real wage must return to its equilibrium value, right? P can't fall, since all the new money is still in there, so to increase W/P back to normal, W, the nominal wage, must rise.

Now if you want to disagree with something here, don't just hurl insults. Pick the statement that you think is in error, and explain why you think it's in error like a civilized human being.

 

[ilia25]

...spending cuts in depressed economies cause/worsen reccesions

Spending was cut from 2009 to 2010 and again from 2011 to 2012. Would you say the economy went from "depressed" to "worsened" those two times?

The economy could not and did not notice a 2% change in federal spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you haven't. You've responded with insults and statements which fail to address the bulk of what I'm saying. I've even made the effort to break it down into concise numbered parts. You've made no effort to understand anything I'm saying. I don't mind so much that you're dumb, I have patience, it's just that you're so fucking arrogant about it that's annoying.

You're the one mixing jargon and nonsense and coming up with whopper after whopper.
Tell me again how inflating a currency increases real wages. This ought to be good.

It increases the nominal wage; it temporarily lowers the real wage. Real wage = nominal wage / price level. If there's a demand shock from printing more money, a shock which doesn't change the equilibrium real wage like a supply shock does, then prices go up. If prices go up, wage/price (the real wage) falls.

You with me so far? Demand inflation reduces the real wage. Now if this is permanent, then we have a Phillips curve. The central bank can choose the real wage by adjusting the rate of inflation, and thus can assure permanent full employment by holding the real wage below equilibrium. They can't do that, obviously. That theory was disproved in the 70s.

So if it can't permanently affect the real wage, the real wage must return to its equilibrium value, right? P can't fall, since all the new money is still in there, so to increase W/P back to normal, W, the nominal wage, must rise.

Now if you want to disagree with something here, don't just hurl insults. Pick the statement that you think is in error, and explain why you think it's in error like a civilized human being.

What point were you trying to make again?

 

[DSGE]

You're the one mixing jargon and nonsense and coming up with whopper after whopper.
Tell me again how inflating a currency increases real wages. This ought to be good.

It increases the nominal wage; it temporarily lowers the real wage. Real wage = nominal wage / price level. If there's a demand shock from printing more money, a shock which doesn't change the equilibrium real wage like a supply shock does, then prices go up. If prices go up, wage/price (the real wage) falls.

You with me so far? Demand inflation reduces the real wage. Now if this is permanent, then we have a Phillips curve. The central bank can choose the real wage by adjusting the rate of inflation, and thus can assure permanent full employment by holding the real wage below equilibrium. They can't do that, obviously. That theory was disproved in the 70s.

So if it can't permanently affect the real wage, the real wage must return to its equilibrium value, right? P can't fall, since all the new money is still in there, so to increase W/P back to normal, W, the nominal wage, must rise.

Now if you want to disagree with something here, don't just hurl insults. Pick the statement that you think is in error, and explain why you think it's in error like a civilized human being.

What point were you trying to make again?

That incomes rise with inflation from monetary growth, incomes don't rise with inflation from supply shocks.

 

[The Rabbi]

It increases the nominal wage; it temporarily lowers the real wage. Real wage = nominal wage / price level. If there's a demand shock from printing more money, a shock which doesn't change the equilibrium real wage like a supply shock does, then prices go up. If prices go up, wage/price (the real wage) falls.

You with me so far? Demand inflation reduces the real wage. Now if this is permanent, then we have a Phillips curve. The central bank can choose the real wage by adjusting the rate of inflation, and thus can assure permanent full employment by holding the real wage below equilibrium. They can't do that, obviously. That theory was disproved in the 70s.

So if it can't permanently affect the real wage, the real wage must return to its equilibrium value, right? P can't fall, since all the new money is still in there, so to increase W/P back to normal, W, the nominal wage, must rise.

Now if you want to disagree with something here, don't just hurl insults. Pick the statement that you think is in error, and explain why you think it's in error like a civilized human being.

What point were you trying to make again?

That incomes rise with inflation from monetary growth, incomes don't rise with inflation from supply shocks.

That contradicts what you just wrote.
Sorry.

 

[DSGE]

What point were you trying to make again?

That incomes rise with inflation from monetary growth, incomes don't rise with inflation from supply shocks.

That contradicts what you just wrote.
Sorry.

Can you please try a little harder? How about putting in some fucking effort?

What I just wrote was that inflation initially lowers the real wage, and equilibrium is restored by nominal wages increasing. An increase in the money supply can't make you permanently worse off, as was the assertion of the original post I responded to. Incomes will increase in response to it.

 

[The Rabbi]

That incomes rise with inflation from monetary growth, incomes don't rise with inflation from supply shocks.

That contradicts what you just wrote.
Sorry.

Can you please try a little harder? How about putting in some fucking effort?

What I just wrote was that inflation initially lowers the real wage, and equilibrium is restored by nominal wages increasing. An increase in the money supply can't make you permanently worse off, as was the assertion of the original post I responded to. Incomes will increase in response to it.

Are you fucking serious?
Real wages rise when nominal wages rise. Is that your position, really?
Geezus, where do they teach this shit?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is the type of thinking surrounding main stream economists today. Backwards equals forward if you pretzel it up enough. Inflation lowers real wages, and more inflation llowers them even further. There is no equilibrium achieved if the inflation forces never let up.
DSGE, if i remember correctly, is also of the position that coming off a monetary inflation hangover such as the real estate blowout, one would need to severely loosen restraints to combat the symptoms of said inflation.

In other words, do the exact same shit that puts us here, only give it a dose of steroids.

 

[expat_panama]

...spending cuts in depressed economies cause/worsen reccesions

Spending was cut from 2009 to 2010 and again from 2011 to 2012. Would you say the economy went from "depressed" to "worsened" those two times?

The economy could not and did not notice a 2% change in federal spending.

Great to hear that spending cuts don't have to "cause/worsen reccessions", let's have another 2% cut today!

--and another tomorrow, and then next day...

Hey, if a 2% cut's ok, how about a 2.01% cut?

3%?

30%?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, according to Krugman and Obama, the economy is suffering because the deficit is not big enough.

Is that about right?

 

[ilia25]

Real wages rise when nominal wages rise. Is that your position, really?

No, you little troll!.. Monetary growth causes a rise in nominal wages, leaving real wages intact.

 

[ilia25]

So, according to Krugman and Obama, the economy is suffering because the deficit is not big enough.

Is that about right?

Not quite. The economy is suffering because the government spending is not big enough.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, currency devaluation keeps real wages intact! Now I get it!

 

[ilia25]

Spending was cut from 2009 to 2010 and again from 2011 to 2012. Would you say the economy went from "depressed" to "worsened" those two times?

The economy could not and did not notice a 2% change in federal spending.

Great to hear that spending cuts don't have to "cause/worsen reccessions", let's have another 2% cut today!

--and another tomorrow, and then next day...

Hey, if a 2% cut's ok, how about a 2.01% cut?

3%?

30%?

Any cut in goverment spending harms a depressed economy. Small cuts have little effect. Big cuts create a disaster.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, according to Krugman and Obama, the economy is suffering because the deficit is not big enough.

Is that about right?

Not quite. The economy is suffering because the government spending is not big enough.

We're already running a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. How much more spending should the govt. do to get the economy out of suffering?

15 trillion? 100 trillion?

How about the fed just print up 100 trillion dollars and helicopter that load onto the public? That woul dcertainly cure the economy, right?!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, according to Krugman and Obama, the economy is suffering because the deficit is not big enough.

Is that about right?

Not quite. The economy is suffering because the government spending is not big enough.

You know we're running a deficit right now, right?

If we spend more useless government money do you expect us to magically turn a surplus?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, yes they do. They actually think that devaluing the currency by continuous monetary inflation will fix the economy. I really do not know how they come to this conclusion. It takes a lot of acid to make this kind of sense.