It’s been a year since Assad was overthrown

Da force

VOO ETF for S&P, very cheap in terms of expense ratio. JNK ETF for a bit of junk bonds. XCCC for junkest of junk. I am not American so I can’t say much about taxes.

Cumtown

Soda

The derivatives worth nothing is their payment.

Says Law attitude. Thinking supply creates it’s own demand. In reality the bet would barely have any liquidity, the person won’t be able to buy the contracts at the price they imagine.

That’s the loanable funds model, and it’s not the reality. In reality banks lend according on profitability, yes even in China where priority lending is a thing because otherwise it’ll need capital injections from the Government. Capitalists take loans on if they think they get expected profits.

Also there are stocks of debts vs flows of debts, deflation mechanically makes servicing of existing debt difficult, your argument is whether it will lead to lower rates on future debt which may spur investment.

Interest rate is set by the Central Bank, not the market. Reserves then adjust according to demand. Given the nonsense ‘inflation targeting’ (which isn’t real, CBs can’t target inflation reliably), in a deflation scenario, it may lower rates to zero and try QE, but QE failed and will fail to create inflation or raise demand because the only effect it has on the real economy is via lower long term rates (since CB buys up a significant amount of long term gov securities). Regardless, fiscal policy will be needed, and it must be one which replaces the income lost by workers (via employment or transfers). Which goes to my point “Will the state take over to create employment that’s been lost?”.

Savings does not fund investment. It is investment that creates savings.

You can rearrange the Kalecki profit equation as :

Worker Saving = Investment + Gov Deficit + Foreign Surplus - Profits

So investment via bank loans comes first, and that creates profits for capitalists and savings for workers.

Page 45

I think is validity to the argument that capitalism as a system built on private debts should avoid deflation. True, from the worker’s perspective it appears as if the prices are getting cheaper under deflation, but is that the case in the aggregate in the long term? Are capitalists laying off workers because debt servicing is more difficult? Does it discourage future investments? Will the state take over to create employment that’s been lost?

In that sense, true price flexibility downwards can only happen in a centrally planned or heavily state interventionist economy as the state isn’t financially constrained in the way private entities are. Under capitalism, it’s best to have money wages rise than have the prices fall. But neither is happening in the West.

i don’t think even system apps have root access on android. but they have access to more permissions. but yea, sus af.

#SoyRight

Raise wages then? Oh wait, that’s bad too.

“housing providers”

Wolf Among Us 2

This will go on forever, I’m just describing reality. Please read the book.

Regards.

Interest rates exist. It’s set by the central bank.

Please read the book to understand more. This has been a long thread.

I’m not proposing anything this is how all economies work. This is just the accounting reality.

Gov can’t take a loan when people don’t have money. Spending will always come before income. That part is just standard Keynesian economics. Keynes limited it to private sector but it’s exact same for Government.

Please tell me, a new country is formed on another planet. The newly formed state wants to spend, it imposes tax obligations. How will people pay taxes when money hasn’t been spent yet?

No I am saying all money that exists comes from Government or Government authorised commercial banks.

Also economy is circular. Money goes round. Money is only deleted when you pay your debts whether tax debts or commercial bank debt.

Not to mention people are going to be using that money for foreign products where parts of it flow outward and not back to government coffers.

Nope. Money never goes out of the country. All money exists as electronic entries at banks or Central bank. When you exchange say Euro for Dollars, you are giving Euros to a bank who then gets the Euros and gives you Dollars from the market. The amount of Euros doesn’t change.

But yes imports are a drain on demand, which is exactly why any leakage from imports must be countered to prevent drop in output and employment.

This is why US Govt must run fiscal deficits to counter Trade Deficits given rest of the world’s desire to accumulate US dollar assets. Otherwise the local private sector will be indebted.

Where do you think the Government gets any money in general? You may say taxes. But where do people get the money to pay taxes? The Government itself.

That’s what I’m saying, spending creates income. Spending logically comes before taxation because if Gov doesn’t spend people won’t have money to pay taxes. The two sources of widely used money are

1. Government spending

2. Bank lending

Banks make their own money ie your deposits at bank convertible to Government money, to prevent bank runs, the Central Bank provides reserves on demand. By managing reserves, the interest rate is maintained at target set by the CB.

There are no loans. All money you have came from the Government. what I’m suggesting ie the Government replacing lost spending with its own does NOT raise aggregate demand in any significant way, it’s a stabilizing policy.

Government deficit in this case keeps income of workers and employment unchanged relative to before.

It may be inflationary if the Govt decides to build new industries as that Increases aggregate demand. But keeping existing production doesn’t do that.

I think it was Abba Lerner who said that imports cause unemployment and output losses only if there is no full employment policy in place by the Government.

You can read the book I linked if you want to.