Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#11

Post by Rerarom »

qubex wrote: post #4

Paywalled, couldn’t read. As an economist, strongly allergic to this kind of title. The theory of endogenous money (as opposed to non monetary and/or fractional reserve banking theories) accounts for what is described in the title fairly effectively: money needs to be viewed as a medium of exchange, and it needs to be plentiful so that information never gets bottlenecked: this will surprise no software developer if t…

There's something I don't get about endogenous money vs. fractional reserve. Namely, the factual claims.

So fractional reserve says that money is created by loans between banks as restricted by the money multiplier and endogenous money says that banks can create unlimited money. [1]

My question is not which of these is true but rather how can this be under dispute? Aren't the workings of banks established by laws and regulations? Can't one just ask the relevant people what are they actually doing?

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Where-Does-Money-Come-Ryan-Collins-eb...

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#12

Post by koheripbal »

qubex wrote: post #10
martindale wrote: post #6

Satoshi got it right; "Chancellor on Brink of Second Bailout for Banks" — 10 years and running strong. Seems the Austrians are winning back a century of lost ground!

Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came of…

Bingo. Money is only a useful medium of exchange if it is stable, and deflationary currencies are inherently volatile.

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#13

Post by sol_remmy2 »

lbotos wrote: post #9
virmundi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT is not enough to google for. Who are they and what do they think/teach?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

More like Post-Modern Monetary Theory (What really is money anyways? Why can't we just print as much as we want?)

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#14

Post by qubex »

Rerarom wrote: post #11
qubex wrote: post #4

Paywalled, couldn’t read. As an economist, strongly allergic to this kind of title. The theory of endogenous money (as opposed to non monetary and/or fractional reserve banking theories) accounts for what is described in the title fairly effectively: money needs to be viewed as a medium of exchange, and it needs to be plentiful so that information never gets bottlenecked: this will surprise no software developer if t…

There's something I don't get about endogenous money vs. fractional reserve. Namely, the factual claims. So fractional reserve says that money is created by loans between banks as restricted by the money multiplier and endogenous money says that banks can create unlimited money. [1] My question is not which of these is true but rather how can this be under dispute? Aren't the workings of banks established by laws and…

Indeed the Bank of England famously proclaimed that it adheres to the Endogenous Theory of Money in an unexpected set of articles its economists published to dispense with the nonsense.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#15

Post by claudeganon »

joshuaellinger wrote: post #2

Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.

Do you know does MMT says about printing money for the express purpose of infrastructure development? I’d be interested to see what their take would be on doing so for doing things like high speed internet expansion, decentralized green grids, etc. In housing, the fed doing this has obviously led to real estate asset bubbles, but what would happen in the case of public assets?

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#16

Post by DanTheManPR »

koheripbal wrote: post #12
qubex wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came of…

Bingo. Money is only a useful medium of exchange if it is stable, and deflationary currencies are inherently volatile.

Double bingo. Money is only useful insofar as it has velocity. If speculators are just sitting on it, it's not facilitating economic activity.

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#17

Post by lawn »

koheripbal wrote: post #12
qubex wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came of…

Bingo. Money is only a useful medium of exchange if it is stable, and deflationary currencies are inherently volatile.

Don't delude yourself to thinking that the volatility of Bitcoin is due to it's constrained supply. It's because it's used for speculation almost exclusively, and not for it's intended purpose: buying stuff.

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#18

Post by drcode »

qubex wrote: post #10
martindale wrote: post #6

Satoshi got it right; "Chancellor on Brink of Second Bailout for Banks" — 10 years and running strong. Seems the Austrians are winning back a century of lost ground!

Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came of…

Satoshi used his/her economic theories to create a 100 billion market cap asset from literally zero... what would they have to do to convince you folks that they were on to something with their ideas? Also cure cancer?

Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high

#20

Post by larrysalibra »

qubex wrote: post #10
martindale wrote: post #6

Satoshi got it right; "Chancellor on Brink of Second Bailout for Banks" — 10 years and running strong. Seems the Austrians are winning back a century of lost ground!

Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came of…

"we" came off of the gold standard because Nixon was having trouble paying for the Vietnam war. Printing money doesn't create wealth, it redistributes it to the printer: this is seigniorage and it is a tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage
Post reply on HN