Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[psikeyhackr]

That we are dealing with economic game thwory where the smart people want the dumb people kept ignorant.

this is space cadet gibberish can you explain what you mean??????

Ever heard of John von Neumann?

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of IBM?

I worked for them. The curious thing is that I never heard of John von Neumann while I was there. But IBM hired him as a consultant in 1952. IBM introduced a computer called a Datamaster 23 to replace another device known as the 5100.

IBM 5100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No benchmark data was provided on either machine. Since I was working the night shift and sometime had some free time and both computers were on a table I wrote my own benchmark programs to do tests. One program was a bubble sort and the other was a prime numbers program. The old machine was almost twice as fast as the new one in both tests.

It is not whether what you are told is the truth, but what you need to know but never hear.

psik

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I didn't watch your entire video, but from the few minutes I did watch, I assume it is similar to other sources I have seen on the subject.

It should be noted, that generally when money is created thru the issuance of debt it is a natural expansion of the economy. If there were a finite supply of money it would be difficult for the economy to grow, because a dollar can only be divided so many times. What should also be noted is how our central bank, the Federal Reserve, tries to manipulate the natural curve of the economy thru money policy. When we accept that it is reasonable to create money in unison with a growing economy, we can see what our central bank is doing is putting the cart before the horse. They are creating money at a greater pace than the economy is growing. They are working under the misguided notion that the can create growth by expanding the money supply, rather than the natural method of creating money thru a growing economy. This will almost always lead to inflation because the amount of money increases with out a corresponding increase in growth.

The problem is made worse because not only is our central bank printing excess money, but most of the major banks around the world are doing the same thing, Japan, Great Britan and the Euro zone are all practicing dovish monetary policy thru low, zero, or even negative interest rate policies (Japan) as well as quantitative easing. It will end badly for most people, especially people who save wealth in any fiat currency.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That we are dealing with economic game thwory where the smart people want the dumb people kept ignorant.

this is space cadet gibberish can you explain what you mean??????

Ever heard of John von Neumann?

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever heard of IBM?

I worked for them. The curious thing is that I never heard of John von Neumann while I was there. But IBM hired him as a consultant in 1952. IBM introduced a computer called a Datamaster 23 to replace another device known as the 5100.

IBM 5100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No benchmark data was provided on either machine. Since I was working the night shift and sometime had some free time and both computers were on a table I wrote my own benchmark programs to do tests. One program was a bubble sort and the other was a prime numbers program. The old machine was almost twice as fast as the new one in both tests.

It is not whether what you are told is the truth, but what you need to know but never hear.

psik

more space cadet gibberish. Do you have any idea what your point is????????????

 

[psikeyhackr]

more space cadet gibberish. Do you have any idea what your point is????????????

ROFLMAO

Ever notice that people who just throw around insults and say stuff like "What's your point?" never have anything significant to say? They are just intellectual robots that expect everyone to think what they are told.

psik

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

more space cadet gibberish. Do you have any idea what your point is????????????

ROFLMAO

Ever notice that people who just throw around insults and say stuff like "What's your point?" never have anything significant to say? They are just intellectual robots that expect everyone to think what they are told.

psik

Dear, subject is how to run economy efficiently. Can you tell us how to do that in non space cadet english??

 

[psikeyhackr]

Dear, subject is how to run economy efficiently. Can you tell us how to do that in non space cadet english??

There is all of this talk of "Market Forces" but no one suggests mandatory accounting in the schools. But if everyone knew accounting what would that do to market forces.

How do we measure the so called "Economy"? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. If each car lost $1,500 in depreciation per year that would be $300,000,000,000 lost per year by American consumers. But where do our economists mention that. When do whe hear about NET Domestic Product? Oh yeah, economists only subtract the depreciation of Capital Goods and don't talk about that.

I am sorry that 8th grade algebra is over your head and you regard it as space cadet English.

psik

 

[phoenyx]

But the idea that some people should starve while others have multiple homes is criminal.

a liberal is anti-science, and anti reason so does not believe in evolution and in effect seeks to reverse evolution with his pure ignorance.

So you're saying that you think it's ok that some have multiple homes while others starve?

 

[phoenyx]

I think our society focuses far too much on competition and far too little on cooperation. .

absurd since we have capitalism. When you join a corporation you must cooperate with the team to survive.

Setting aside the fact that workers in corporations aren't always the picture postcard of co-operation, I think it's far better to focus on what corporations do to regular citizens. Tell me, have you ever seen a documentary called "The Corporation"? If not, I ask you to atleast take a look at its trailer, which can below, and let me know what you think:

The corporation is not competing with its customers but rather trying to please them or cooperate with them in order to survive. 1+1=2

I find it interesting that you keep on using the word "survive". I'm not sure if it's intentional, but capitalism has at times been compared to evolution, or "survival of the fittest". As mentioned previously, I'm all for this type of thing when it comes to ideas, but it can become criminal if applied to people. We should strive for more then to simply get "ahead" in a capitalist rat race, clawing our way to the top.

 

[phoenyx]

Accounting is not the end all and be all,what you really need is common sense and some discipline. When you enter the workforce you live below your means for a couple years and become master of interest rates instead of a slave to interest rates by living above your means.95% of the time that determines the economic situation for the rest of your life.Unless your starting salary is high enough,that means no kids, no car, no party time ,minimal clothes until you establish a financial base i've lived the sixty years of my life in new york and chicago and that simple formula still works.I see it all the time with european and asian immigrants. But it takes common sense and DISCIPLINE that evidently a lot of people can;t handle,TOO BAD

Would you agree that everyone is driven by 2 things- maximizing their happiness and minimizing their unhappiness?

So that is a starting point, way back in third grade for most. Normal folks assume that.

You sure? It actually took me a long time to come to this conclusion, but I'm certainly glad we agree to its validity .

It is the very basic concept that those with the power in our world work, to cause the population to do what they want them to. So, if you are a libertarian, you convince people that what they want is money. and belonging. Bucks and stuff. And that is what you are to believe will maximize your happiness. Lack thereof will maximize your unhappiness. So, that is the basic precept that works for politicians, wealthy capitalists, politicians, and others with the authority to use that concept.
In fact, if you were not too smart, that would be all you would need. But we are all different in our ability to understand what maximizing happiness requires. Those with economic power and resources work to make themselves more wealthy and powerful. And there, for this forum, is where the rubber meats the road.
The politicians and powerful corporatists want more power and wealth. And power and wealth gives them the ability to convince the sheep that doing and believing in a certain way will provide them with happiness. And, being sheep, they believe, and act as told. The circle is then complete. Sheep work to provide the powerful with more money and power, and the sheep get told they are good sheep, and deserve a couple bucks which they are taught to believe will bring them happiness. And the beat goes on.
That, in fact, sumarises the USA. Other countries provide for the needs and wants of the population, In the USA, we are in the business of chasing dollars and making the rich and powerfull more so

I agree with the general gist of what you're saying, but I think some points you make can be misleading. I think we should be clear that everyone wants to maximize their -own- happiness, and minimize their unhappiness. I should probably also mention that one's sense of self varies from person to person- for some, it is only about their own bodies, for others, it includes their families as well, for others still, it includes those things as well as the communities they live in. This being the case, it should be clear that the working/middle class's primary goal certainly isn't to make the wealthy more rich and powerful, but to make themselves (and possibly their communities) happier.

Ofcourse, the middle class can be taught that those who have more wealth than they could possibly need got it because they deserve it, and that they, too, could become wealthy if only they worked hard enough and/or got lucky. I think there's a reason that things like gambling and lotteries are so popular in the U.S.- so many people are just hoping to score their big break, when they too can live what many might consider the real "American Dream". But as John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans".

I think a little history would be good. After the reforms of the New Deal, and with productivity booming after the second world war, the middle/working class generally had a fair amount of resources. Since then, however, their resources have been getting slimmer and slimmer, as the unions that protected them have become scarce and the elite continue to sponge up more and more of the total wealth. It's a pattern that needs to not only stop, but be reversed, back to the times when excessive wealth was taxed at 90%. It can happen, and if enough people cry out against the yacht club, it will.

 

[phoenyx]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I didn't watch your entire video, but from the few minutes I did watch, I assume it is similar to other sources I have seen on the subject.

It should be noted, that generally when money is created thru the issuance of debt it is a natural expansion of the economy.

Counterfeiters could say the same thing, so why aren't they congratulated instead of arrested? The reason they are arrested and banks aren't is relatively simple- banks are allowed to balloon the money supply and counterfeiters aren't. Oh, to be sure, there is a little complexity involved, enough to hoodwink the layman into thinking that banks are doing a good thing. Banks are only allowed to create money from signatures on loans, essentially promises to repay the money they're about to create for a given borrower, plus interest. Furthermore, banks can't actually create physical money, they can only type it into their computers. But as anyone who has used a debit or credit card knows, you don't actually need physical cash to buy an awful lot of things. Furthermore, banks can (and do) buy physical cash from the government mint with their debt created money.

If there were a finite supply of money it would be difficult for the economy to grow, because a dollar can only be divided so many times.

An economy is based on resources, not dollars. Natural resources (wood, metal, food) as well as human resources (labour). Dollars are just a medium to exchange one resource for another. If there is a short supply of dollars, that just means deflation of the currency- a dollar would become worth more, encouraging people to save money instead of spend with abandon, knowing that if you don't spend your money, it'll just be worth less next year anyway. What is needed for an economy to truly grow is increased productivity. But as the documentary in my OP makes clear, there is a limit to how much productivity can grow- there is only so much natural resources on this world. The depressing trend of modern society creating consumables, most of which then goes to landfills, is not something that can continue into the indefinite future. Not only that, but we're making a mess of the planet with our current economic system that places such little value in the future of the eco system of this planet and by extension, to our own future.

What should also be noted is how our central bank, the Federal Reserve, tries to manipulate the natural curve of the economy thru money policy. When we accept that it is reasonable to create money in unison with a growing economy, we can see what our central bank is doing is putting the cart before the horse. They are creating money at a greater pace than the economy is growing. They are working under the misguided notion that they can create growth by expanding the money supply, rather than the natural method of creating money thru a growing economy.

Money can only be created one way- by someone creating it. In the UK, banks create around 97%:
How Banks Create Money - Positive Money

I have heard that in the U.S., it's around 95%, with the government creating the rest (all the printed dollars). While I read this somewhere, I haven't been able to find it again despite searching. Again, it's pretty sad how few people know where most of our money comes from.

This will almost always lead to inflation because the amount of money increases with out a corresponding increase in growth.

You're right- inflation can only be avoided if the increase in money is matched by a corresponding increase in resources.

The problem is made worse because not only is our central bank printing excess money, but most of the major banks around the world are doing the same thing, Japan, Great Britan and the Euro zone are all practicing dovish monetary policy thru low, zero, or even negative interest rate policies (Japan) as well as quantitative easing. It will end badly for most people, especially people who save wealth in any fiat currency.

Agreed. Essentially, we're allowing the banks to get rich at everyone else's expense.

 

[Supposn]

... What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's, [i.e. sander's] policy platform, and why.

Phoenyx, some 216 presidential candidates believed that we should better negotiate our international agreements and their updates; the remainder of those candidates contend our foreign trade’s detriments to our nation’s economy are the consequences of USA’s extremely poor negotiating practices. Trump and Sanders were among those remainders.
Trump believes himself to be the most superior of all negotiators. I do not suppose you can negotiate anyone to act contrary to what they believe to be in their best interests.

I’m among those that contending USA should generally refrain from entering international trade agreements with economic purposes. We are proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. It’s a UNILATERAL, (i.e. not negotiated internationally), substantially market driven policy for conducting its nation’s international trade.

ALL of USA’s trade agreements have provisions for modifications and for participants (upon giving proper notice of their intentions), terminating their participation within the agreement. USA has no trade treaties. The qualifications of treaties are mentioned within USA’s Constitution and have particularly high legal status within federal law.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[phoenyx]

... What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's, [i.e. sander's] policy platform, and why.

Phoenyx, some 216 presidential candidates believed that we should better negotiate our international agreements and their updates; the remainder of those candidates contend our foreign trade’s detriments to our nation’s economy are the consequences of USA’s extremely poor negotiating practices. Trump and Sanders were among those remainders.
Trump believes himself to be the most superior of all negotiators. I do not suppose you can negotiate anyone to act contrary to what they believe to be in their best interests.

I’m among those that contending USA should generally refrain from entering international trade agreements with economic purposes. We are proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. It’s a UNILATERAL, (i.e. not negotiated internationally), substantially market driven policy for conducting its nation’s international trade.

ALL of USA’s trade agreements have provisions for modifications and for participants (upon giving proper notice of their intentions), terminating their participation within the agreement. USA has no trade treaties. The qualifications of treaties are mentioned within USA’s Constitution and have particularly high legal status within federal law.

Respectfully, Supposn

Are you saying you like what Trump and Sanders are trying to do? I can't say I like what Trump is trying to do, but I certainly liked what Sanders was trying to do.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I certainly liked what Sanders was trying to do.

???Sanders is a llib commie and libcomieism slowly starved 120 million to death. Do you have any idea why you like what Sanders was trying to do?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Dear, subject is how to run economy efficiently. Can you tell us how to do that in non space cadet english??

There is all of this talk of "Market Forces" but no one suggests mandatory accounting in the schools. But if everyone knew accounting what would that do to market forces.

How do we measure the so called "Economy"? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. If each car lost $1,500 in depreciation per year that would be $300,000,000,000 lost per year by American consumers. But where do our economists mention that. When do whe hear about NET Domestic Product? Oh yeah, economists only subtract the depreciation of Capital Goods and don't talk about that.

I am sorry that 8th grade algebra is over your head and you regard it as space cadet English.

psik

so we would manage the economy efficiently by telling people how much their cars depreciate each year??????????? See why we say space cadet??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the idea that some people should starve while others have multiple homes is criminal.

a liberal is anti-science, and anti reason so does not believe in evolution and in effect seeks to reverse evolution with his pure ignorance.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that you think it's ok that some have multiple homes while others starve?[/QUOTE]

Its like asking if evolution is ok? Is it ok that China now has many multi billionaires while 500 million still live at subsistence? Of course its ok. Without evolution we'd all be dead. Survival of the least fit means more people die, not less. Do you understand the basic science now or are you religiously anti science.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Setting aside the fact that workers in corporations aren't always the picture postcard of co-operation.

stupid of course!!! if they don't cooperate almost perfectly to get the best products in the world on the market the corporation (or, cooperation, you might say)goes bankrupt and no longer exists. Capitalism teaches us to cooperate with our fellow workers and to be slavishly devoted to our customers most trivial needs. libcommieism the exact opposite. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

have you ever seen a documentary called "The Corporation"? .

libNazi propaganda I'm sure. Is that why you are so afraid to tell us the best
"argument" it makes? What do you learn from your fear?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

capitalism has at times been compared to evolution, or "survival of the fittest". As mentioned previously, I'm all for this type of thing when it comes to ideas, but it can become criminal if applied to people. We should strive for more then to simply get "ahead" in a capitalist rat race, clawing our way to the top.

dear, getting ahead in a capitalist system is basic science or evolution. Liberals are stupid and so reject science and evolution. Getting ahead in capitalism mostly means, like Jobs Ford Gates Brin Bezos Zukerburg inventing great stuff people love because it improves their standard of living more than anything else. Do you understand

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it[capitalism] can become criminal if applied to people..

actually dear evolution does apply to people!! Being lilberal stupid and anti science would prevent you from knowing that. Sad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the unions that protected them have become scarce.

the unions protected them by making them lazy and over paid so that their jobs were shipped to China? That's protecting them??? Liberals are stupid and anti reason -right??