While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Tee Kay]

Or, or, you could say, he marx you dumb

 

[Angst]

oh god that's bad xD

 

[Crezth]

He refers to Marx and calls himself a Marxist. I am simply connecting dots.

"connecting dots" now ur thinking with portals

 

[Daftpanzer]

Honestly do I understand this right: central banks control the money supply, lend money to big businesses / banks to allow them to get even bigger by buying up smaller things, and then we call this 'growth', even though the net effect has only been to increase debt owed to central banks?

 

[ChiefDesigner]

Honestly do I understand this right: central banks control the money supply, lend money to big businesses / banks to allow them to get even bigger by buying up smaller things, and then we call this 'growth', even though the net effect has only been to increase debt owed to central banks?

D:

i dont even

not even wrong

 

[Ophorian]

Honestly do I understand this right: central banks control the money supply, lend money to big businesses / banks to allow them to get even bigger by buying up smaller things, and then we call this 'growth', even though the net effect has only been to increase debt owed to central banks?

With my rudimentary grasp of economics from first year university, the money that the businesses borrow cycle through the economy cycles through and gets used multiple times. I was under the impression that the effect of X amount of money lent out by the central banks has an affect on the economy that's far larger than X. The difference being some sort of growth. I think it was called a money multiplier or something?

Again, I'm not an expert. Or even very good. Masada don't lynch me.

 

[Thlayli]

On an interesting subject, what's the general economist's opinion on the co-dependency of global population growth and global GDP growth? Obviously there's some sort of correlation, but it's unclear to me what/how strong that is.

In the long run, though, is it really possible to have continued statistically significant global economic growth with a functionally static population?

To put this in other terms, is long-term slowing Western economic growth due to reaching some kind of hypothetical development saturation, or is it due to demographics?

 

[Immaculate]

In the long run, though, is it really possible to have continued statistically significant global economic growth with a functionally static population?

Population while highly correlative with production, capital, or market, is not the sole driver for these forces- and haven't been since the beginning of the industrial colonial age. So simple answer: Yes. Simply because there are other factors beyond population that drive production and consumption.

 

[Crezth]

see: technology

 

[Amon Savag]

With my rudimentary grasp of economics from first year university, the money that the businesses borrow cycle through the economy cycles through and gets used multiple times. I was under the impression that the effect of X amount of money lent out by the central banks has an affect on the economy that's far larger than X. The difference being some sort of growth. I think it was called a money multiplier or something?

Again, I'm not an expert. Or even very good. Masada don't lynch me.

By this logic, the economic crash that happened in the US never should have, because banks were lending in record amounts. That should mean record amounts of growth right?

 

[ChiefDesigner]

By this logic, the economic crash that happened in the US never should have, because banks were lending in record amounts. That should mean record amounts of growth right?

lolwut

 

[Daftpanzer]

ChiefDesigner your opinion would be valued. Please make use of sentences.

 

[Sonereal]

With my rudimentary grasp of economics from first year university, the money that the businesses borrow cycle through the economy cycles through and gets used multiple times. I was under the impression that the effect of X amount of money lent out by the central banks has an affect on the economy that's far larger than X. The difference being some sort of growth. I think it was called a money multiplier or something?

lurker's comment: The money multiplier "reflects the process of multiple expansion of bank deposits," or the growth of the money supply. Using the textbook example in front of me, if you deposit $1000 into a bank, and the reserve ratio against deposits is 10%, $900 of that $1000 can be lend out. In other words, $1000 * (1/r) = 1000 * (1/.1) = $10,000.

This doesn't take into account things like excess holdings by banks and different reserve requirements, and probably a lot of other things though.

Source: International Economics, 8th Edition. Appleyard and Field.

Somebody around here can probably explain it better.

 

[Thlayli]

see: technology

Yeah sure dude, I know that, but is tech always going to give us a perpetually increasing return on investment until the heat death of the universe?

 

[Luckymoose]

Yeah sure dude, I know that, but is tech always going to give us a perpetually increasing return on investment until the heat death of the universe?

Yeppers.

 

[Thlayli]

Yeppers.

Well that sounds like an article of faith to me.

 

[Luckymoose]

Tech has been giving us increasing returns on investment since we picked up a rock and hit a jaguar in the mouth with it for the first time.

 

[Thlayli]

Tech has been giving us increasing returns on investment since we picked up a rock and hit a jaguar in the mouth with it for the first time.

So much so that we've killed all the jaguars. >_>

 

[Amon Savag]

So much so that we've killed all the jaguars. >_>

Valid point.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

ChiefDesigner your opinion would be valued. Please make use of sentences.

Actually, I'm certain it's not, given that the person I was responding to there is so bitter and defensive about losing an argument that they've resorted to ineffectual sniping of other people's points, but I'm not going to let that stop me!

'lolwut' is in fact shorthand for "Amon, you are regurgitating an argument that is, frankly, both racist and repugnant at its core; you're implying that the root cause of the 2009 economic crisis was all the loans and mortgages banks gave to unworthy [and for 'unworthy', you should read 'poor, dumb, and black, but I repeat myself'], not derivatives and shadow banking"

(You're from the UK, daft; I assume you don't understand just how much racism underlies everyday political conversation in America. That said, it's everywhere.)

But you know what? This response took me fifteen minutes to compose, Amon's going to swear up and down that he's a not a racist, despite privately thinking that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown totally had it coming because they were thugs, and this is in no way worth my time to engage.



As for your post, I'm sorry to say that it's so far off the mark that it's not even wrong. There are cogent critiques about quantitative easing and the role of central banks in the inequality rate; real economists make these claims, some of which post here frequently. What you're saying, though, isn't one of those; it's not even an argument. It's a rhetorical device to encourage us a las barricadas.

And you know what? I'm unlikely to persuade anyone, so why bother spending the time to write long, thoughtful replies? 'lolwhut' takes me thirty seconds, expresses my dissatisfaction with an argument, and will have exactly the same amount of influence on other people's thought processes as this post.

So... yeah.

Moderator Action: Sigh. Not 12 hours after chatting with you and some others in #nes, and this is how you chose to post. Absolutely nothing Amon said had anything to do with race. You have to take several leaps of faith and several words put into his mouth to get to that point.

I get that there are some personal disagreements between posters on this forum, but posts like this do nothing to come to terms and only serve to further animosity on both sides.

The "lolwut" post in and of itself was probably worthy of some attention, but this just puts the icing on the cake.

I'll say this yet again – if you think someone is trolling or flaming in their posting hit report instead of reply. Direct attacks like this one will earn points.