Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: The counterfeiter makes fake versions of genuine stuff. Can you really call the government and/or Fed counterfeiters if they're the people who create the money in the first place? It sort of seems like saying Louis Vuitton is counterfeiting all those bags they flood the market with.

I have tried to keep the FED out of the scenario so the principle can be learned without adding other topics that lead to tangents and supposing this or that.

It is like sweeping fleas across a barn trying to keep this to the basic principle being discussed here.

But we already understand the principle. You keep trying to inject moral lessons into this discussion when what we really care about is the mechanics of how the system works. We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works. You keep trying to teach us things that we already know!

Pointedstick wrote: But we already understand the principle. You keep trying to inject moral lessons into this discussion when what we really care about is the mechanics of how the system works. We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works. You keep trying to teach us things that we already know!

You know that counterfeiting (creating perfect dollar copies) redistributes purchasing power away from one group and onto another? You recognize that this distorts the economy and missaligns resources causing everyone it total to be poorer but enriching some?

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: But we already understand the principle. You keep trying to inject moral lessons into this discussion when what we really care about is the mechanics of how the system works. We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works. You keep trying to teach us things that we already know!

You know that counterfeiting (creating perfect dollar copies) redistributes purchasing power away from one group and onto another? You recognize that this distorts the economy and missaligns resources causing everyone it total to be poorer but enriching some?

Honestly, KShartle, I could care less about the moral implications. You are using economics to make political points. All I care about is inflationary pressures and you have never shown that doubling or tripling M0 (while removing other financial assets) does anything to inflation.

You keep trying to teach us political lessons and we just don't care about them.

Until you can show that increasing M0 — while removing other financial assets — does anything to inflation, I really don't care.

Kshartle wrote: You know that counterfeiting (creating perfect dollar copies) redistributes purchasing power away from one group and onto another? You recognize that this distorts the economy and missaligns resources causing everyone it total to be poorer but enriching some?

Yes, of course. We all get it. That's just how the system works. Credit expansion and contraction has a variety of effects on the economy. It's good for some, but bad for others.  That's just how the system is set up.

We recognize this. And given that we recognize it, we're additionally interested in peeling back the layers and understanding the mechanisms behind the visible effects.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: You know that counterfeiting (creating perfect dollar copies) redistributes purchasing power away from one group and onto another? You recognize that this distorts the economy and missaligns resources causing everyone it total to be poorer but enriching some?

Yes, of course. We all get it. That's just how the system works. Credit expansion and contraction has a variety of effects on the economy. It's good for some, but bad for others.  That's just how the system is set up.

We recognize this. And given that we recognize it, we're additionally interested in peeling back the layers and understanding the mechanisms behind the visible effects.

You might get it but others do not. Many here do not believe that the FED printing money results in more purchasing power for some at the expense of others. They will admit that no new purchasing power is created and sort of admit that some have more than they did before but they never come to the full understanding of where it came from. I tried to use a very simple example to demonstrate this. If you don't understand why this is so then you don't understand why they (FED) keep doing it and you don't understand the effects or the likely effect when it ends.

And then we can never discuss those topics which at least I (maybe the only one) would be interested in.

TennPaGa wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Yes, of course. We all get it. That's just how the system works. Credit expansion and contraction has a variety of effects on the economy. It's good for some, but bad for others.  That's just how the system is set up.

We recognize this. And given that we recognize it, we're additionally interested in peeling back the layers and understanding the mechanisms behind the visible effects.

You might get it but others do not.

I don't know of anyone here who would disagree with what PS wrote.

Well since he's saying he agrees with my statement I will take yours to mean you believe no one here would disagree with my statement. I will take any progress.

Pointedstick wrote: We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works.

I don't

Kshartle, What we're really arguing over is what's a big deal, and how much of a big deal these possible things are. You seem to think government credit expansion is a big deal. Personally I don't feel like it's any bigger of a deal than private credit expansion that banks routinely initiate, which was present even in the gold standard days.

I have worked really hard to try to reduce my feelings of moral outrage when I examine government and am deliberately trying to look at it like a scientist might look at a specimen in a petri dish, rather than how a rebel might view an overwhelmingly powerful oppressor. I remember those days, and they weren't any fun at all. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I find that it doesn't really gain me anything to constantly look at the government through the lens of "victimizer/counterfeiter/robber/kidnapper". It's helpful to know that stuff, but being obsessed with it limited my viewpoint.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works.

I don't

Doodle, I appreciate that you do not let anyone speak for you. Even if I vehemently disagree with you, at least something was said to disagree with.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works.

I don't

Thank you. You have completely validated my opinion of you.

Libertarian666 wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: We all take it as a given that the government is stupid, immoral, hurts people, etc. We get it. We build it into our mental models of the way the world works.

I don't

Thank you. You have completely validated my opinion of you.

No point in getting personal.  Stating that government can do good, productive things, while it does unfortunately have to engage in some coercive acts to do so, is no different than saying that an individual can do some very good, productive things, while he might have to unfortunately illegitimately claim lordship over land and decimate it from its natural sate, dislocating any native animal or human populations, shooting trespassers, and potentially spewing out externalities.

We're all on this island together.  It might get a little bit fuzzy what constitutes illegitimate force, and if we can't avoid it, how we harness force to prevent the worst of it.

That's just his opinion.  He's clear and honest about it.  Which is more than we can say for most Americans who like to hide their true positions and motivations under ambiguous shrouds like "patriotism," or "equality," or whatever thing they want to use to excuse using force without addressing the subject of force on its own terms.

We've chosen to meet the people who want to discuss force on their turf.  Just discussing organized forms of force, and never trying to justify it unless we see it as unavoidably prevalent in the first place.