row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 16 hours ago, Foxx said: what does full employment have to do with creating money out of thin air? are you saying that if employment goes under full, then all that money that was created will come home to roost in hyperinflation? or are you saying that only when you have full employment it won't return as hyperinflation? we were no where near full employment when that money was dreamt into existence. if it didn't come home to roost by now, it can be logically be argued that it never will. i agree, the wage growth has been on the uptick since Trump took office, i don't know that it is a direct result of his stimulus though. often wages rise when there is full employment due to several factors. one being the supply and demand aspect and another being companies wanting better employees so they have to pay more. the reason why the FED didn't raise rates was because Trump backed them into a corner. had they raised them and the economy started to tank , then Trump would have lambasted them, whether they were the real reason or not. TPS is copying from the Liberal Dummies Guide to Utopian Economics letters to Santa Claus are more useful
Foxx Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, row_33 said: TPS is copying from the Liberal Dummies Guide to Utopian Economics letters to Santa Claus are more useful i dunno, economics is complicated. i mean, some people still think socialism is the best way even though there is really no large scale success story that has ever been tried. all large scale attempts have ended in ruin but that doesn't stop some from saying that all of those attempts have not been a true form of socialism. i find it all very interesting. Edited February 3, 2019 by Foxx
plenzmd1 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, row_33 said: TPS is copying from the Liberal Dummies Guide to Utopian Economics letters to Santa Claus are more useful do any of your posts ever have anything substantive in them? ot just name-calling ???? Why don't you contribute to the conversation with facts and ideas and thoughts @TPS posts very well thought ideas and theories, @foxx disagrees with some points and come back with well thought out opposite ides and points..and thay have a conversation ..that is how adults do it! Edited February 3, 2019 by plenzmd1 1
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 58 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: do any of your posts ever have anything substantive in them? ot just name-calling ???? Why don't you contribute to the conversation with facts and ideas and thoughts @TPS posts very well thought ideas and theories, @foxx disagrees with some points and come back with well thought out opposite ides and points..and thay have a conversation ..that is how adults do it! You forgot to put in a jab about Trump in this post. You're slipping.
B-Man Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 THE TRUMP BOOM, CONT’D The Wall Street Journal’s Real Times Economics email newsletter featured the monthly jobs report released on Friday. Lest we take the good times for granted, let us take a break from the continuing Russia hoax to take in signs of the boom. The Journal newsletter headlines 304,000 jobs added in January along with the slight increase in the unemployment rate to 4 percent from 3.9 percent. 1
TPS Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: do any of your posts ever have anything substantive in them? ot just name-calling ???? Why don't you contribute to the conversation with facts and ideas and thoughts @TPS posts very well thought ideas and theories, @foxx disagrees with some points and come back with well thought out opposite ides and points..and thay have a conversation ..that is how adults do it! row is probably still mad at me because I borrowed Tom's patented line (I believe I did use quotes) in a response to him. He's yet to prove me wrong.... 1
TPS Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 21 hours ago, Foxx said: what does full employment have to do with creating money out of thin air? are you saying that if employment goes under full, then all that money that was created will come home to roost in hyperinflation? or are you saying that only when you have full employment it won't return as hyperinflation? we were no where near full employment when that money was dreamt into existence. if it didn't come home to roost by now, it can be logically be argued that it never will. i agree, the wage growth has been on the uptick since Trump took office, i don't know that it is a direct result of his stimulus though. often wages rise when there is full employment due to several factors. one being the supply and demand aspect and another being companies wanting better employees so they have to pay more. the reason why the FED didn't raise rates was because Trump backed them into a corner. had they raised them and the economy started to tank , then Trump would have lambasted them, whether they were the real reason or not. Sort of. I've tried to describe MMT positions here, and that is their view. Deficits inject spending into the economy, so if you inject too much spending via deficits as labor becomes scarce (low unemployment levels), then that additional demand will put upward pressure on prices--higher inflation, NOT hyperinflation. They would argue you need to scale back deficits (either through reduced spending or higher taxes) to reduce that inflationary pressure. One more important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand--the nature of modern money. Money is no longer a commodity or backed by a commodity. When money was a metal, once it got put into circulation it tended to stay in circulation. Gold discoveries caused inflation. Most money is now made up of bank deposits. New money gets created when banks make loans, and gets destroyed when the public pays off more loans than are created in any given time period. Money isn't something created by the Fed and then stays in the economy. For the most part, The Fed only creates electronic reserves which are used by the banking system to meet the Fed's reserve requirements which is a (pretty weak) tool that helps the Fed restrain loan creation by the banking system. The Fed creates (destroys) reserves when it buys (sells) an asset. When the FED bought $1 trillion of bad mortgages, they did so by crediting BANK reserve accounts held on the Fed's balance sheet--they open up their spreadsheet and increase the value of bank reserves by the amount they "paid" for the assets. [If you want the balance sheet changes: The Fed now has $1 trillion in additional assets--the bad mortgages, "purchased" by increasing bank reserve accounts by the same value, and those are a liability on its balance sheet; the banks now have $1 trillion in reserves on their asset side offset by a decline in mortgage loans by same--it's a swap of assets for them] Btw, the amount of paper money in circulation is determined by us--how much do we want to carry around rather than leave in our demand deposit (debit and credit cards reduce the need for physical cash). In fact, The majority of the paper money in circulation is driven by illegal activity--drug cartels, the Mafia, CIA, etc.... The Fed's actions from 2008 to 2014 raised the level of bank reserves by over $2 trillion. Excess reserves give banks the ability to make more loans which is the only way this "money printing" by the Fed will have an impact on inflation--new loans create new money because they create new demand deposits. Hopefully you'll now see the connection between "money and inflation." Money (demand deposits) is created when banks make more loans to the private sector than are paid off, and if there is too much financed demand relative to the ability to produce more goods (this comes back to the level of unemployment), then it will tend to cause inflation. Too much private sector demand or too much government deficit spending when unemployment is very low can generate inflation--not hyperinflation, just good ol' inflation. If you think this explanation is "utopian," then maybe you should take a seat in row_33.... 1
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 Quote Donald J. Trump was burning through cash. It was early 2016, and he was lending tens of millions of dollars to his presidential campaign and had been spending large sums to expand the Trump Organization’s roster of high-end properties. To finance his business’s growth, Mr. Trump turned to a longtime ally, Deutsche Bank, one of the few banks still willing to lend money to the man who has called himself “The King of Debt.” Mr. Trump’s loan request, which has not been previously reported, set off a fight that reached the top of the German bank, according to three people familiar with the request. In the end, Deutsche Bank did something unexpected. It said no. Senior officials at the bank, including its future chief executive, believed that Mr. Trump’s divisive candidacy made such a loan too risky, the people said. Among their concerns was that if Mr. Trump won the election and then defaulted, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between not collecting on the debt or seizing the assets of the president of the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
BeginnersMind Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 23 hours ago, Foxx said: i dunno, economics is complicated. i mean, some people still think socialism is the best way even though there is really no large scale success story that has ever been tried. all large scale attempts have ended in ruin but that doesn't stop some from saying that all of those attempts have not been a true form of socialism. 2 Depends on what you call socialism. China is not in ruin. Don't confuse me with a China advocate, but just noting it. Many EU countries are doing well (not ruinous) with what most would say is a form of socialism. I'd say that one of the only things we've not truly tried is laissez faire capitalism. Almost all the more successful countries (now) operate on some sliding scale between utopian capitalism and utopian socialism.
B-Man Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 REAL CHANGE: Trump Economy: Blue-Collar Wages Rise Faster than White-Collar. “Salaries for college graduate Americans are growing much slower than for Americans who are working in transportation, restaurants, services, construction, and sales, according to federal data. . . . Poll ratings shows that Trump’s support is weaker among university graduates than among blue-collar workers.” . 1
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 53 minutes ago, B-Man said: REAL CHANGE: Trump Economy: Blue-Collar Wages Rise Faster than White-Collar. “Salaries for college graduate Americans are growing much slower than for Americans who are working in transportation, restaurants, services, construction, and sales, according to federal data. . . . Poll ratings shows that Trump’s support is weaker among university graduates than among blue-collar workers.” . The weird thing about this upcoming civil war is that it's going to start with a revolution by the American nobility, not the sans-culottes.
TPS Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, B-Man said: REAL CHANGE: Trump Economy: Blue-Collar Wages Rise Faster than White-Collar. “Salaries for college graduate Americans are growing much slower than for Americans who are working in transportation, restaurants, services, construction, and sales, according to federal data. . . . Poll ratings shows that Trump’s support is weaker among university graduates than among blue-collar workers.” . I wonder if this explains part of it....? Here are the states with new minimum wages, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that tracks minimum wage legislation (the change over 2017): Alaska: $9.84, $.04 increase Arizona: $10.50, $.50 increase California: $11.00, $.50 increase Colorado: $10.20, $.90 increase Florida: $8.25, $.15 increase Hawaii: $10.10, $.85 increase Maine: $10.00, $1.00 increase Michigan: $9.25, $.35 increase Minnesota: $9.65, $.15 increase Missouri: $7.85, $.15 increase Montana: $8.30, $.15 increase New Jersey: $8.60, $.16 increase New York: $10.40, $.70 increase Ohio: $8.30, $.15 increase Rhode Island: $10.10, $.50 increase South Dakota: $8.85, $.20 increase Vermont: $10.50, $.50 increase Washington: $11.50, $.50 increase 1
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 53 minutes ago, TPS said: I wonder if this explains part of it....? Here are the states with new minimum wages, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that tracks minimum wage legislation (the change over 2017): Alaska: $9.84, $.04 increase Arizona: $10.50, $.50 increase California: $11.00, $.50 increase Colorado: $10.20, $.90 increase Florida: $8.25, $.15 increase Hawaii: $10.10, $.85 increase Maine: $10.00, $1.00 increase Michigan: $9.25, $.35 increase Minnesota: $9.65, $.15 increase Missouri: $7.85, $.15 increase Montana: $8.30, $.15 increase New Jersey: $8.60, $.16 increase New York: $10.40, $.70 increase Ohio: $8.30, $.15 increase Rhode Island: $10.10, $.50 increase South Dakota: $8.85, $.20 increase Vermont: $10.50, $.50 increase Washington: $11.50, $.50 increase An observant person that actually drives around a state like NY would wonder why they are seeing signs everywhere begging for help and offering $11.75 and more for entry level jobs. Sorta makes one wonder how the minimum wage in NY caused the wages to jump way over what was mandated by law.
Numark3 Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 3 hours ago, B-Man said: REAL CHANGE: Trump Economy: Blue-Collar Wages Rise Faster than White-Collar. “Salaries for college graduate Americans are growing much slower than for Americans who are working in transportation, restaurants, services, construction, and sales, according to federal data. . . . Poll ratings shows that Trump’s support is weaker among university graduates than among blue-collar workers.” . This sounds like something generally true, doesn’t it? I could be wrong. I just imagine in a great economy with rising wages, jobs with lower wages would reflect higher growth percentage wise. Heck, A two dollar raise would reflect a 20 something percent increase for me when I worked retail. But now, a much larger raise wouldn’t be near that.
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 17 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This sounds like something generally true, doesn’t it? I could be wrong. I just imagine in a great economy with rising wages, jobs with lower wages would reflect higher growth percentage wise. Heck, A two dollar raise would reflect a 20 something percent increase for me when I worked retail. But now, a much larger raise wouldn’t be near that. But still not connected to any state's minimum wage, eh?
Numark3 Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: But still not connected to any state's minimum wage, eh? I don’t know if it’s connected to minimum wage laws. That seems complicated. im just talking about the general principal that if salaries are rising, wouldn’t lower salaries generally reflect a higher percentage increase? Like, on a basic math and common sense level (granted, I’m bad at common sense and math, which is why I am asking). Edited February 4, 2019 by Crayola64
Foxx Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t know if it’s connected to minimum wage laws. That seems complicated. im just talking about the general principal that if salaries are rising, would lower salaries generally reflect a higher percentage increase? Like, on a basic math and common sense level (granted, I’m bad at common sense and math, which is why I am asking). it's all common core, isn't it?
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t know if it’s connected to minimum wage laws. That seems complicated. im just talking about the general principal that if salaries are rising, would lower salaries generally reflect a higher percentage increase? Like, on a basic math and common sense level (granted, I’m bad at common sense and math, which is why I am asking). Not to get too complicated for you but yes, in a booming economy the lower end wage earners are going to get the largest percentage boost. It's the law of supply and demand, which has nothing to do with minimum wage laws. The market determines wages. When government tries to make the minimum wage higher than what the market is willing to pay then we get robots taking orders in places like Mickey D's or minimum wage earners in Seattle requesting fewer hours so they can still get government benefits.
Recommended Posts