h a l f b a k e r yViva los semi-panaderos!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Jim has seen some pretty remarkable things on the tight rope and the slack rope for that matter. Just recently a few people managed to traverse a massive ravine --- at the same time on the same 50mm rope in different directions! Jim was impressed by the ability of the tight rope walkers to redistribute
their weight using a balance beam.
For any economy the government plays the role of the tight rope walker and the balance beam is the various mechanisms at its disposal. In short government needs to balance the economy ensuring that there is no single part that cannot meets its obligations.
Currently governments face the problem of massive debt --- across all sectors of the economy. This in itself is not a problem if those sectors can meet their obligations. At present they cannot without near zero cost of borrowing, ‘in addition’, to printing money.
Governments are currently looking for a better faster way of ensuring that the balance sheet of the banking sector is balanced by the balance sheet of the rest of the economy --- without distortion caused by uncontrolled inflation.
Clearly a redistribution of the economy is required and this redistribution is required to be controlled. It is difficult to see how a free market policy is going to achieve such a distribution of funds. Governments are talking of a ‘helicopter drop’, which is essentially a deposit of funds to individual’s accounts financed by the reserve bank.
This policy is pure monetarist --- and a monetarist government cannot entertain any other type of policy. It appears to Jim that this is like a tight rope walker taking a balance beam with them but refusing to use it.
What the governments want/need to achieve is an increase in the ability of the economy to finance debt, that is an increase in income of every sector of the economy while maintaining their relative size, except one of course.
For instance the government can very well double the minimum wage while doubling the price of essential goods and services.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Yes, inflation reduces debt, but non-totalitarian
governments are limited in the ways they can
induce inflation, especially in a slow economy.
While increasing the minimum wage is
inflationary, it is not sufficient to cause inflation
on its own. Nor can government arbitrarily
increase the price of goods and services unless it
is providing those services, which in the countries
in question it typically isn't. |
|
| |
Finally, a sudden, significant, jump in inflation
would not be a good thing, since it provides no
incentive to borrow after the jump. A slow,
steady inflation is what's desirable, since the
trend allows someone to predict a slow decrease
in borrowing costs. |
|
| |
//A slow, steady inflation is what's desirable, since the trend allows someone to predict a slow decrease in borrowing costs.// |
|
| |
I'm wondering if this conventional wisdom is actually correct. Why should we encourage debtors (which inflation encourages) at the expense of savers/lenders (which inflation discourages)? |
|
| |
This already exists: it's called Marxist Economics. It doesn't
work. |
|
| |
What [Alterother] said. [marked-for-deletion] (Woo!!
Three in a row!) |
|
| |
Oh, and Jim gets a fishbone just for talking about
himself in other than the first person. When [8th] does
it, it's quirky. When Jim does it, it's obnoxious. Sorry.
The truth must be spoken. |
|
| |
[Xavier] As a rule, money flowing is better for the economy
than static money. It also encourages investment instead of
savings. It may not be ideal from the individual standpoint,
but I think it is better over all. |
|
| |
so your idea is to cause hyperinflation? |
|
| |