Gyroscopic Investing

I would like to introduce MR to a friend, but no way he's going to read the 40 page primer.  is there a shorter primer you could recommend?  Also, I know there have been MANY threads discussing this topic, but I don't know offhand which threads to refer him to.

Thanks for your time.

Perhaps this should be a FAQ?

MR seems to be very simple:
1. Ignore everything von Mises, Hayek, etc., proved about economics.
2. Pretend that the Fed is part of the government, so there will never be a problem funding the deficit.
3. Profit!

(Edited: Apparently some people are humor-challenged, so let me add this:  )

Libertarian666 wrote: MR seems to be very simple:
1. Ignore everything von Mises, Hayek, etc., proved about economics.
2. Pretend that the Fed is part of the government, so there will never be a problem funding the deficit.
3. Profit!

I'm sure that Gumby or moda can provide something more detailed than that.

Oh boy. Here we go again

Lock the thread already!

Maybe the people who disagree with MR could avoid this thread, which is basically just a request for information.

Mdraf wrote: Oh boy. Here we go again

Lock the thread already!

Let's just establish now and forever that everyone is a doo-doo head before pursuing this. It will save time re-typing it.

Pointedstick wrote: Maybe the people who disagree with MR could avoid this thread, which is basically just a request for information.

I will stay out unless it becomes an actual discussion and someone says something completely insane.

Scouts honor

I wanted to type so many things to tech.

But none of those would allow Benko's friend a chance to find an efficient way to assess MR's assertions for himself, as many libertarians, liberals, independents, conservatives, etc have for themselves, many finding that it at least holds some merit.

So I'll avoid feeding the troll.

I think that primer is too much.. they should have a 6 page abbreviated primer that asks some questions and describes some fundamentals that change the nature of how we think about deficits, balance-sheets, demand/supply equilibrium, what "money" is, etc., while maybe getting into some high-level details of how the circle-jerk works between the fed, member banks, and the treasury.

Maybe this?
http://pragcap.com/understanding-the-mo ... m-part-1-2

Just search this board for the word "bankrupt" and scroll down a couple posts, looking for responses from Gumby and moda0306.

Then tell him to read the next 30 pages of board discussion.

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: Oh boy. Here we go again

Lock the thread already!

Let's just establish now and forever that everyone is a doo-doo head before pursuing this. It will save time re-typing it.

+1.

If the reading gets rough, tell him to youtube Warren Mosler.

If he get's really ambitious, tell him to read the work of JKH on monetaryrealism.com.

moda0306 wrote: I wanted to type so many things to tech.

But none of those would allow Benko's friend a chance to find an efficient way to assess MR's assertions for himself, as many libertarians, liberals, independents, conservatives, etc have for themselves, many finding that it at least holds some merit.

So I'll avoid feeding the troll.

I think that primer is too much.. they should have a 6 page abbreviated primer that asks some questions and describes some fundamentals that change the nature of how we think about deficits, balance-sheets, demand/supply equilibrium, what "money" is, etc., while maybe getting into some high-level details of how the circle-jerk works between the fed, member banks, and the treasury.

Let's not call each other trolls.

Everyone thinks that their own beliefs are correct.

As for this thread, let's confine it to information that is responsive to the OP.

Feel free to start another thread if the cease fire to celebrate the passing of Mdraf's beloved dog has concluded, but please be friendly with one another.

It simply isn't possible to debate controversial topics if people aren't willing to be courteous to each other.  It just turns into a noisy mess that isn't of much value to anyone.

We can discuss anything anyone wants to discuss here if we will just keep it cool.

MT,

After seeing the smiley that tech added, I withdraw my troll comment.

I agree. I will remain in mourning but the embargo is lifted for the rest of you

moda0306 wrote: MT,

After seeing the smiley that tech added, I withdraw my troll comment.

Thanks!

I agree. The two links and the summary, above, are the simplified version.

If, for some reason, those resources are too confusing, or unconvincing, I personally found that Warren Mosler's, "Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy" does a good job of explaining many of these concepts.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/p ... s/7DIF.pdf

However, Mosler is an "MMTer", and while his book does a good job explaining why the US can never go broke and how the deficit represents private sector savings, he offers liberal prescriptive policy solutions (such as the "Job Guarantee") that can be off-putting to anyone who isn't a government-spending liberal. MMT and MR are two completely different frameworks — even though they have some similarities when describing the monetary system (i.e. Descriptive MMT). So, I would just ignore Mosler's liberal prescriptions when trying to grasp the descriptive concepts. The book is divided into 7 short chapters — each dispelling a common economic policy myth.

MR on the other hand offers no prescriptions. (The tagline for MR is, "Economics without politics"). MR is nothing more than a description of the banking system and how the government's spending influences the banking system and the private sector. Most people who use MR are using it as a framework for investing purposes — they aren't even interested in politics.

And for those who have political opinions, MR is agnostic in that regard:

Cullen Roche wrote:That’s the thing about MR – you can understand the basics of MR and then decide what policy YOU prefer. You could go full on Anarchist, Marxist, Fiscalist, Monetarist, etc. There is no one size fits all approach and I think that’s one of the key lessons from MR. But just make sure you understand the operational realities before building a policy position

Source: http://pragcap.com/the-taxonomy-of-nerds

And that really is true. MR is really just an accurate description of the banking system. Those of us who understand MR, even on this forum, tend to have very different political perspectives. If the MR critics on this board took the time to ask questions and really understand MR — rather than just ridiculing it — they would soon realize that MR would allow them to enhance and hone their political beliefs.

This one posted by Gumby a while back helped me a lot.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1075

It's short.

AdamA wrote: This one posted by Gumby a while back helped me a lot.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1075

It's short.

That is an excellent example. Definitely worth reading to start off and grasp the modern monetary system.

However, MR doesn't buy into the MMT/Chartalist idea that taxes are the only thing legitimizing our currency. MR suggests other factors are at play. Still, an excellent example and it can really help explain a lot.

i struggled with getting the implications of MR and what i found most helpful was imagining it as magic beans, unicorn paddy's (fertilizer) and complex rituals describing how the magic beans get fed to the unicorn to produce the fertilizer and the promise of more fertilizer to be created in the future to grow more magic beans...   

i don't have any links to help build a real understanding of MR but the above (somewhat tongue in cheek) visualization helped me disconnect what money is today (fiat) from gold standard era thinking...