inflation versus deflation part 2 (1); offer Part 2 (1); reply Part 2 (1).
Mon 2010-09-20 19:04 EDT
Minyanville Professor Satyajit Das' "Traders, Guns & Money" is a wickedly comic exposé of the culture, games, and pure deceptions played out every day in trading rooms around the world. And played out with other people's money...
Tue 2010-06-01 18:24 EDT
Today, I offer Part 2 of my responses to the comments raised in the debate so far...Modern monetary theory does not use the term ``money'' in the same way as the mainstream because it creates instant confusion. As Scott said ``Money is always someone's liability, so better to be precise about whose liabilities we are talking about than saying money.'' That is why we emphasis fully understanding the asset-liability matches that occur in monetary systems. And that leads you to realise that transactions between government and non-government create or destroy net financial assets denominated in the currency of issue whereas transactions within the non-government sector cannot create net financial positions...So modern monetary theorists prefer to concentrate on what is going on with balance sheets after certain flows have occured rather than narrowly defining some financial assets as money and others not...There is no doubt that the non-government institutions can increase credit. Some slack analysts call this an increase in money. But the accurate statement is that, as a matter of accounting it increases the (in Scott's words) ``the quantity of financial assets and financial liabilities 1 for 1 in the non-govt sector. So, with private credit, there is BY DEFINITION no NET increase in private sector financial assets created.'' Once we understand that and note that typically the non-government sector seeks to net save in the currency of issue then modern monetary theory tells you that the public sector must run a deficit to underwrite this desired net saving or else see an output gap widen...Who is in control is an interesting question. Clearly, the government cannot directly control the money supply which renders much of the analysis in mainstream macroeconomics textbooks as being irrelevant. The Monetarists via Milton Friedman persuaded central banks to adopt monetary targetting in the 1980s and it failed a few years later -- miserably...Then you might like to consider it from the other angle -- a government which accepts responsibility for full employment can ``finance'' the saving desires of the non-government sector by increasing its deficit up to the level warranted by the spending gap (left by the full employment non-government savings)...Orthodox macroeconomic theory struggles with the idea of involuntary unemployment and typically tries to fudge the explanation by appealing to market rigidities (typically nominal wage inflexibility). However, in general, the orthodox framework cannot convincingly explain systemic constraints that comprehensively negate individual volition. The modern monetary framework clearly explicates how involuntary unemployment arises. The private sector, in aggregate, may desire to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. In this case, if this gap in spending is not met by government, then unemployment will occur. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending...to maintain high levels of employment and given that the public generally desire to hold some reserves of fiat money, the government balance will normally have to be in deficit...modern monetary theory demonstrates that if you want the non-government sector to net save...
Tue 2010-06-01 14:35 EDT
[Henry Liu considers privatization] ...privatization, a movement to abdicate government by declaring the people out of the government's protection and placing them at the mercy of the market, has since gathered much ideological support in the name of liberty...Ronald Reagan viewed government as an enemy of the people. Instead of allowing government to protect the weak from the strong, Reagan wanted to protect the strong from government...
Wed 2010-05-19 11:53 EDT
Part 2 in a series I am running about the propensity of self-proclaimed progressive commentators and writers to advance arguments about the monetary system (and government balances) which could easily have been written by any neo-liberal commentator. The former always use guarded rhetoric to establish their ``progressive'' credentials but they rehearse the same conservative message -- the US has dangerously high deficits and unsustainable debt levels and an exit plan is urgently required to take the fiscal position of the government bank into balance. In doing so, they not only damage the progressive cause but also perpetuate myths and lies about how the monetary system operates and the options available to a currency-issuing national government...
The Wall Street Examiner Sun 2010-05-09 09:58 EDT
...Now for the Minsky part. The theory above, in layman's terms, argues that over time, when an economy expands without serious contractions, finances will become increasingly risky. Minsky wrote of a shift from hedge finance (when debt, both principal and interest, can be serviced from cash flows) through speculative finance (when debt must be rolled over as only interest payments can be serviced from cash flows) and into Ponzi finance (when cash flows cannot cover interest payments and thus new debt must be added or assets sold). The idea in the Ponzi finance stage is that asset appreciation will compensate for the extra risk...I don't mean to suggest we (collectively) are broke, just that, as Minsky argued (and the data bears out) our balance sheets are increasingly betting on real estate and equity price appreciation with borrowed money...
Sun 2009-10-11 18:48 EDT
We're just as scroomed as we were a year ago--skying stock markets and gold-hating trolls posting "Gold isn't money" notwithstanding. There is absolutey ZERO chance that the Fed raises their Fed Funds Politburo rates, and a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY that both the Fed and Uncle Sugar MUST continue their monetizations, back stops and being the "lenders, insurers, and market of last resort" for all things credit, but especially the McHousing market where they have multi-trillion fiatsco exposure. So, it is little wonder that the U.S. fiatsco is getting pounded in the currency casino and that people are piling into PMs in droves--even going so far as to DEMAND physical delivery from the corrupt exchanges, even as the jawboning and pie-holing by the Fed Heads and Treasury twerps continues unabated. Because we are still very much in the midst of the "convulsions" of collapse AND the massive monetary and fiscal insanity the Fed and Uncle are undertaking to fight them.
Tue 2009-02-24 00:00 EST
Thu 2008-07-24 00:00 EDT
"We interrupt regular programming to announce that the United States of America has defaulted " Part 2, by Satyajit Das
America; announced; default; interrupt regular programming; Part 2; United States.
Fri 2008-03-28 00:00 EDT
2; AA; CDS Explosion; Market Ticker; Mayyyybe; Part 2.
Tue 2007-07-10 00:00 EDT
The Foreclosing of America (Part 2): Freddie Gets Rich, by Rick Perlstein | Campaign for America's Future
America; America s future; campaign; foreclose; Freddie; Part 2; rich.
