What would a liberal Federal Reserve do:

[DSGE]

so then why be so afraid to tell us the basis for your liberal belief??

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

False analogy.

 

[Oddball]

He worked with and enabled some of the greatest authoritarian economic witch doctors of all time, including FDR....In fact one of Friedman's greatest regrets is that he foisted income tax withholding upon the nation.

Unlike some, I don't consider Friedman to be an economic demi-god.

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone. In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

What most all modern day economists have in common is they believe in the control/plan model of economics. There is a concensus that economics is a hard science, when it is not. In order to prove their a priori values correct in mathematics, they must eventually succumb to controlling it all.

Economics is a human action and can not be quantified in natural science. Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

Friedman wasn't for central planning at all. He ideally wanted Free Banking. The point of monetarism was that given that central banks exist, which isn't to say that they should, they should be constrained by binding rules and have any discretion taken away from them. Strange to call that being "for central planning". But that's part and parcel of the whole libertarian/anarchist internet culture. Anybody that holds opinions based on contingencies that occur in reality rather than constantly pounding the same extreme views is a "statist".

Problem with Friedman is that he failed to recognize what Basiat did in "The Law"...That given the choice between work and plunder, most people would choose the latter...Which exposes the fatal conceit of monetarists: They actually believe that you can put imperfect humans in charge of the money supply without them rigging the game to benefit themselves and their friends.

 

[Oddball]

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

False analogy.

It's the entire underlying premise of economic central control in general and Keynesian economics in particular.

Fluffing that flawed premise with a flurry of incomprehensible semantics can't change the fact.

 

[DSGE]

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

False analogy.

It's the entire underlying premise of economic central control in general and Keynesian economics in particular.

Fluffing that flawed premise with a flurry of incomprehensible semantics can't change the fact.

And now we have a strawman. Is there any fallacy you won't invoke?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone.

he advised Pinochet only about how to manage monetary policy. In fact, he gave him the same advice he gave our Presidents.

In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

he said that? Then why be so afraid to prove it?

Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

and your best example of this would be??

 

[DSGE]

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone. In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

What most all modern day economists have in common is they believe in the control/plan model of economics. There is a concensus that economics is a hard science, when it is not. In order to prove their a priori values correct in mathematics, they must eventually succumb to controlling it all.

Economics is a human action and can not be quantified in natural science. Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

Friedman wasn't for central planning at all. He ideally wanted Free Banking. The point of monetarism was that given that central banks exist, which isn't to say that they should, they should be constrained by binding rules and have any discretion taken away from them. Strange to call that being "for central planning". But that's part and parcel of the whole libertarian/anarchist internet culture. Anybody that holds opinions based on contingencies that occur in reality rather than constantly pounding the same extreme views is a "statist".

Problem with Friedman is that he failed to recognize what Basiat did in "The Law"...That given the choice between work and plunder, most people would choose the latter...Which exposes the fatal conceit of monetarists: They actually believe that you can put imperfect humans in charge of the money supply without them rigging the game to benefit themselves and their friends.

So I take it you're not at all familiar with Friedman or monetarism then. He wanted a k-percent rule so that a computer could control the money supply. The entire point was removing human discretion from monetary policy.

 

[Oddball]

False analogy.

It's the entire underlying premise of economic central control in general and Keynesian economics in particular.

Fluffing that flawed premise with a flurry of incomprehensible semantics can't change the fact.

And now we have a strawman. Is there any fallacy you won't invoke?

No strawman at all....I know bullshit semantics when I hear them...I'm well trained and versed in the practice.

Amongst the biggest bullshitters on the planet are neo-Keynesian economists and their kissing cousin Chicago monetarists.

 

[DSGE]

It's the entire underlying premise of economic central control in general and Keynesian economics in particular.

Fluffing that flawed premise with a flurry of incomprehensible semantics can't change the fact.

And now we have a strawman. Is there any fallacy you won't invoke?

No strawman at all....I know bullshit semantics when I hear them...I'm well trained and versed in the practice.

Amongst the biggest bullshitters on the planet are neo-Keynesian economists and their kissing cousin Chicago monetarists.

Well it sounds like you've already got your mind made up. I guess it's easy to disagree with a group when you can just make up what you think their argument is. Talk to me when you pull your head out of your arse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You've taken Econ 101. I'm sure you're well versed in how shocks to monetary velocity that aren't offset, combined with nominal rigidities, can cause unnecessary recessions.

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

False analogy.

so then when are you going to explain how monetary GDP targets don't produce mal investments and recessions. Come on, you've got to share. If the liberal can produce the desired GDP level we're all home free. You're Nazi-like faith in liberal government is absurd at best.

 

[DSGE]

I sure you're well versed in the fact that you still can't push a rope.

False analogy.

so then when are you going to explain how monetary GDP targets don't produce mal investments and recessions. Come on, you've got to share. If the liberal can produce the desired GDP level we're all home free. You're Nazi-like faith in liberal government is absurd at best.

Since you're claiming it does, the onus is on you to explain yourself.

Also, stop misrepresenting my position. I've told you time and time again, I'm a centrist.

 

[Oddball]

And now we have a strawman. Is there any fallacy you won't invoke?

No strawman at all....I know bullshit semantics when I hear them...I'm well trained and versed in the practice.

Amongst the biggest bullshitters on the planet are neo-Keynesian economists and their kissing cousin Chicago monetarists.

Well it sounds like you've already got your mind made up. I guess it's easy to disagree with a group when you can just make up what you think their argument is. Talk to me when you pull your head out of your arse.

When people start talking frankly and comprehensibly, my mind can be changed....I'm easy like that.

Continue to vamp with incomprehensible academic ivory tower theorist jargon (something at which Greenspan excelled, BTW), and you get treated like the detatched-from-reality bullshitter that you are.

So come back and talk to me when you come to the realization the world's 6 billion people aren't a bunch of playthings for your charts, graphs and fairy tale economic matrices, which assume that said people can be herded like so many cattle.

 

[Oddball]

False analogy.

so then when are you going to explain how monetary GDP targets don't produce mal investments and recessions. Come on, you've got to share. If the liberal can produce the desired GDP level we're all home free. You're Nazi-like faith in liberal government is absurd at best.

Since you're claiming it does, the onus is on you to explain yourself.

Also, stop misrepresenting my position. I've told you time and time again, I'm a centrist.

No central controller is a centrist.

 

[DSGE]

No strawman at all....I know bullshit semantics when I hear them...I'm well trained and versed in the practice.

Amongst the biggest bullshitters on the planet are neo-Keynesian economists and their kissing cousin Chicago monetarists.

Well it sounds like you've already got your mind made up. I guess it's easy to disagree with a group when you can just make up what you think their argument is. Talk to me when you pull your head out of your arse.

When people start talking frankly and comprehensibly, my mind can be changed....I'm easy like that.

Continue to vamp with incomprehensible academic ivory tower theorist jargon (something at which Greenspan excelled, BTW), and you get treated like the detatched-from-reality bullshitter that you are.

So come back and talk to me when you come to the realization the world's 6 billion people aren't a bunch of playthings for your charts, graphs and fairy tale economic matrices, which assume that said people can be herded like so many cattle.

Hmm, so in a discussion thread on economics, you don't want anybody to use economics words. You realise the entire point of jargon is so that people can talk about complex ideas without constantly having to do long rambling explanations? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing on an economics thread if you can't handle economics jargon?

But hey, I guess I can't blame you. You clearly have the kind of arrogance that only a fucking moron can justify. "I want to be in the conversation but I shouldn't have to learn any new words or concepts!", "People who study this for a living don't know shit, but I have insights nobody else has!", "Your 'empirical evidence' is bullshit! I only want personal anecdotes which confirm my bias!".

You need to wisen the fuck up dude.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Since you're claiming it does, the onus is on you to explain yourself.

I love the way the liberal can't explain himself in the end!!

Also, stop misrepresenting my position. I've told you time and time again, I'm a centrist.

you're a screwball who just said a little intelligent monetary policy could get us to full employment and 2% inflation! Have you written to Ben and told him that 20 million are suffering and losing their homes unnecessarily???

 

[DSGE]

Since you're claiming it does, the onus is on you to explain yourself.

I love the way the liberal can't explain himself in the end!!

You're the one making the positive statement that monetary expansion causes "mal-investment and recessions". The onus is on the person making the positive statement to prove that statement. I don't have to prove that NGDP targeting doesn't cause mal-investment, or inflation targeting doesn't cause mal-investment, or that a gold standard doesn't cause mal-investment, or that a giant teapot doesn't orbit Jupiter. It's up to you to show that it does.

you're a screwball who just said a little intelligent monetary policy could get us to full employment and 2% inflation! Have you written to Ben and told him that 20 million are suffering and losing their homes unnecessarily???

He already knows.

 

[samjones]

Problem being that a significant portion of the relatively poor people might do things with their unexpected windfalls, like save or pay down credit lines, that have absolutely no "stimulative" effect.

No - those are things that the relatively rich do. The poor catch up on a couple of their bills and use the rest for lottery tickets.

 

[Oddball]

Problem being that a significant portion of the relatively poor people might do things with their unexpected windfalls, like save or pay down credit lines, that have absolutely no "stimulative" effect.

No - those are things that the relatively rich do. The poor catch up on a couple of their bills and use the rest for lottery tickets.

What the hell do you think catching up on your bills is?

On top of that, the completely snobbish notion that the poor would just piss the remainder away on lottery tickets wouldn't have any real stimulative effect either.

 

[Oddball]

Well it sounds like you've already got your mind made up. I guess it's easy to disagree with a group when you can just make up what you think their argument is. Talk to me when you pull your head out of your arse.

When people start talking frankly and comprehensibly, my mind can be changed....I'm easy like that.

Continue to vamp with incomprehensible academic ivory tower theorist jargon (something at which Greenspan excelled, BTW), and you get treated like the detatched-from-reality bullshitter that you are.

So come back and talk to me when you come to the realization the world's 6 billion people aren't a bunch of playthings for your charts, graphs and fairy tale economic matrices, which assume that said people can be herded like so many cattle.

Hmm, so in a discussion thread on economics, you don't want anybody to use economics words. You realise the entire point of jargon is so that people can talk about complex ideas without constantly having to do long rambling explanations? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing on an economics thread if you can't handle economics jargon?

But hey, I guess I can't blame you. You clearly have the kind of arrogance that only a fucking moron can justify. "I want to be in the conversation but I shouldn't have to learn any new words or concepts!", "People who study this for a living don't know shit, but I have insights nobody else has!", "Your 'empirical evidence' is bullshit! I only want personal anecdotes which confirm my bias!".

You need to wisen the fuck up dude.

The arrogance is on the part of people who think that they can use economics as a form of mass social control.

I don't need to learn new words, when the overall thematic structure of that being said starts out with the supposition that billions of people are basically mindless meat puppets, waiting for self-proclaimed geniuses like you to save them from themselves...The same overbearingly narcissistic attitudes can be found amongst pimps for the socialistic welfare state, anthropogenic gullible warming, eugenicists and many, many more authoritarian control freak types.

You're really not nearly as sophisticated as you've led yourself to believe.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Friedman was a lead in the Chicago boys economics. Think south America...Pinochet, anyone.

he advised Pinochet only about how to manage monetary policy. In fact, he gave him the same advice he gave our Presidents.

Thanks for proving my point. Would you like to dissect his monetary analysis on what to do?

In other words, yes, Friedman was for central planning in monetary policy. Keynes was too. He himself said his theories would work best under authoritarian style governments. Shocker, he was right.

he said that? Then why be so afraid to prove it?

In talk and in practice are two separate occasions and realizations. Which one would you like?

Monetarists have some things right, but fall right into the planning trap.

and your best example of this would be??

Refer to post #42.

 

[DSGE]

When people start talking frankly and comprehensibly, my mind can be changed....I'm easy like that.

Continue to vamp with incomprehensible academic ivory tower theorist jargon (something at which Greenspan excelled, BTW), and you get treated like the detatched-from-reality bullshitter that you are.

So come back and talk to me when you come to the realization the world's 6 billion people aren't a bunch of playthings for your charts, graphs and fairy tale economic matrices, which assume that said people can be herded like so many cattle.

Hmm, so in a discussion thread on economics, you don't want anybody to use economics words. You realise the entire point of jargon is so that people can talk about complex ideas without constantly having to do long rambling explanations? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing on an economics thread if you can't handle economics jargon?

But hey, I guess I can't blame you. You clearly have the kind of arrogance that only a fucking moron can justify. "I want to be in the conversation but I shouldn't have to learn any new words or concepts!", "People who study this for a living don't know shit, but I have insights nobody else has!", "Your 'empirical evidence' is bullshit! I only want personal anecdotes which confirm my bias!".

You need to wisen the fuck up dude.

The arrogance is on the part of people who think that they can use economics as a form of mass social control.

Who thinks that? I certainly hope you're not suggesting I do.

I don't need to learn new words, when the overall thematic structure of that being said starts out with the supposition that billions of people are basically mindless meat puppets, waiting for self-proclaimed geniuses like you to save them from themselves...The same overbearingly narcissistic attitudes can be found amongst pimps for the socialistic welfare state, anthropogenic gullible warming, eugenicists and many, many more authoritarian control freak types.

You're really not nearly as sophisticated as you've led yourself to believe.

Do you think you're somehow attacking my position? Because all you've presented so far are strawmen. You've invented this outlook I supposedly have which is just total bullshit. Maybe it's fun for you attacking shit you just plain made up, but I'm not interested.