Yet another economic dogmatist

[Travis Retriever]

Forgot about the Anarchists for the time being.  I already figured out what was wrong with most of their arguments.

This douche that's currently spewing economic bogosity like a Keynesian economist.


Me:  I fail to see how an increase in savings would "lead to a recession."

macrofocus1988: Nothing personal Surhotchaperchlorome, but you're opinions on economics are clearly based on your own personal feelings and impressions, rather than any actual academic knowledge of the science of economics. I guarantee you have never taken a class on economics in your life. again, nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious.

Me: "but you're opinions on economics are clearly based on your own personal feelings and impressions, rather than any actual academic knowledge of the science of economics."
Bullshit and appeal to ridicule.
I cited sources. Look at some of my other posts.

"I guarantee you have never taken a class on economics in your life. again, nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious."
FYI: I took Macroeconomics and got an A.

macrofocus1988: econ 101 my friend. When people save they don't spend. When they don't spend the economy contracts. when the economy contracts enough a recession happens.

Me:  *facepalm*  Watch the video (Shane's video about the recession and how to get out of it and his video about the Trade Deficit) I provided in another comment.  The video that clearly shows that overspending is the CAUSE of this crap in the first place.

macrofocus1988:   I do love your sources though. two random youtube vids featuring some random guy talking in his basement and another random guy with flash charts. talk about credibility. i am impressed. My opinions are based on hours reading books written by nobel prize winners and college professors. No need to state the obvious about that comparison

Me: Basically ad hominem attack.  He (referring to Shane of course) gets his information FROM those people and government figures, dipshit.

macrofocus1988:  there is no way I can disprove this, but two of your statements make me seriously doubt that.
1. that we should be back on the gold standard and
2. how does saving lead to a recession

both of which blatantly show ignorance. if we went back to the cold standard, the money supply in our economy would be handcuffed to the value of gold owned by the treasury, e.g. to a fraction of the US money supply in 2009, e.g. a fraction of our econ. activity. your opinion is glaringly incorrect

Me: 1. Before the gold standard, inflation was nonexistent. The government wouldn't be able to just print out money at will, which would make so the dollar doesn't get even further devalued, and would make less of a mess.
2. We're going to be in a recession regardless.
If we cut back on spending and get back to savings again (increasing investment), allowing the LR A Supply curve and A Demand curve to re stabilize.
So you're the one with glaring ignorance, asshole.

macrofocus1988: dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Saving and investing are two totally different concepts--again, crack open an econ textbook.

you were right about one thing. inflation was virtually non-existent under the gold standard. but the problem was that in the 1800s our economy outgrew our supply of gold. The only way our money supply could keep pace was to shed the gold standard and issue currency based on fiat.

Me:  "Saving and investing are two totally different concepts--again, crack open an econ textbook."
You need to look at how banking works.
When a person puts their money in the bank, the bank can lend it out to people thereby investing it.
I'm not talking about hoarding money under a mattress. Read "economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt And watch one of the videos from afq2007 about Keynesian economics for verification.

Redefine the dollar as a smaller amount of gold.

macrofcosu1988:  either you're putting your faith in yellow metal with very little actual utility, or you're putting faith in the good word of the US government. In essence both are the same thing. the debate about the gold standard became obsolete over 100 years ago. just saying.


Me:  "either you're putting your faith in yellow metal with very little actual utility"
Irrelevant.
Paper dollars don't have much utility per se either.

"the debate about the gold standard became obsolete over 100 years ago. just saying."
Maybe it's about time it was brought back to the table.

[Travis Retriever]

Judging by the lack of response, I take it I'll need to do a synopsis of this one too if I want any feedback.
I suppose I'll do that when this fizzles out.

The video this is taking place on:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk ("The inevitable collapse of the dollar" by GHoeberX)

[Travis Retriever]

macrofocus "Paper dollars don't have much utility per se either." Sure, but how does that support the argument that the gold standard is any better? If you redefine the dollar as a smaller amount of gold you are doing nothing more than devaluing your own currency. So what, you keep redefining and redefining until a dollar that was once worth .02 oz. is now worth .001 oz? It doesn't make any sense.

He says the gold standard isn't realistic because of the size of our economy.
Is this true?

[MrBogosity]

No. Size of the economy has NOTHING to do with it.

[Travis Retriever]

No. Size of the economy has NOTHING to do with it.

Then it sounds like his statement: "but the problem was that in the 1800s our economy outgrew our supply of gold. The only way our money supply could keep pace was to shed the gold standard and issue currency based on fiat."
Is bogus.

[MrBogosity]

Absolutely. The problem in the late 1800s was the fractional reserve standard put into place by the 1863 National Banking Act. Before then, we had over 40 years of the Free Banking Era with no economic woes.

[Travis Retriever]

He seems to be convinced that for the gold standard to work, the supply of gold must be equal to or greater than the economy, otherwise we'll have to devalue the currency.

He also goes on about how if we stop spending and start saving, it will cause a recession.
I showed him your video about that and he just did an ad hominem attack on you, and said that because the US economy is 70% consumer spending, it would hurt the economy.

[MrBogosity]

He seems to be convinced that for the gold standard to work, the supply of gold must be equal to or greater than the economy,

What does that even MEAN?

otherwise we'll have to devalue the currency.

The value of the currency automatically adjusts to where it needs to be.

He also goes on about how if we stop spending and start saving, it will cause a recession.

Saving (investing) is how you get OUT of a recession. Too much consumption, not enough production.

I showed him your video about that and he just did an ad hominem attack on you, and said that because the US economy is 70% consumer spending, it would hurt the economy.

Maybe the fact that our economy IS 70% consumer spending is the problem!

[Travis Retriever]

What does that even MEAN?
The value of the currency automatically adjusts to where it needs to be.

He seems to be arguing something like this:
Say the money supply in a hypothetical economy $100 billion dollars and the amount gold is only $50 billion.
As the economy grows (more money, GPD, etc) unless more gold can come in, the amount of dollar value per unit of gold must drop, ex:
economy grows to $200, but there is still only $50 billion of gold, then the economy will experience inflation of 100%.
His argument/line of thinking seems something like that.

Saving (investing) is how you get OUT of a recession. Too much consumption, not enough production.

Makes sense, now if only he'd listen to reason, instead of using ad hominem attacks.

Maybe the fact that our economy IS 70% consumer spending is the problem!

No kidding, something made worse by inflation.

[MrBogosity]

He seems to be arguing something like this:
Say the money supply in a hypothetical economy $100 billion dollars and the amount gold is only $50 billion.

Can't happen.

As the economy grows (more money,

Money DOESN'T grow unless something affects the gold supply. In the gold standard, gold IS money.

No kidding, something made worse by inflation.

Actually, inflation is the cause of it.

[Travis Retriever]

Can't happen.

Money DOESN'T grow unless something affects the gold supply. In the gold standard, gold IS money.

So basically, this guy doesn't even know what the gold standard even is.

Actually, inflation is the cause of it.

That's what I meant. ^^;

[MrBogosity]

So basically, this guy doesn't even know what the gold standard even is.

Yep!

[MrBogosity]

I just realized: this is the same guy I've been dealing with here:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=DCspQL6quG4

He's a clueless moron, and he thinks he's intelligent and educated. When I told him that the Great Depression was caused when the Fed didn't create the money to match the gold that had come in, he said, "Besides, our government should have been using that money to stimulate economic growth, not buy gold bricks."

[Travis Retriever]

*nod*
I noticed that too earlier today.
I'm also very offended at how arrogant he is (e.g. "You should crack open a textbook", "I'm so dissappointed in you surhotchaperchlorome").
It'd would be one thing if his arguments had any merit, but because they don't, that makes it all the worse.
You should see what he said when I gave him the replies that you helped me with:
"I agree with you on this. I never said the recession caused by saving would be bad. Rather, it is vital and absolutely necessary. Medicine may taste bad but sometimes you have to take it. We should be buying up LOTS of gold, but not basing our currency on it."
Even though he went on for almost half a dozen posts about how saving is a BAD thing to do in a recession.
So not only is he clueless and arrogant, but he's also a dishonest prick.

[MrBogosity]

In other words, just like a creationist.

What do I keep saying?