ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Kraonomics

It occurs to me that we're going to need a new name for this debt-based economics that is gradually coming to the intellectual fore. And we're going to need an introductory book to it, given that Steve Keen's severing of the link between micro and macro renders almost completely irrelevant all those Robinson Crusoe stories meant to illuminate the first foundations of the microeconomy.

Everything you know about economics is wrong. Also, everything the professional economists know about economics is wrong.

That may sound arrogant. That may sound crazy. It is certainly a very strong statement. Nevertheless, it is true, because math does not lie.

You see, professional economists make one single very important assumption that underlies their entire profession. This one assumption underlies all of their models, all of their statistics, and all of their fundamental understanding of their studies of human action. They assume that demand is cumulative. What that means is that they assume your preferences, and my preferences, and everyone else's preferences, can be added together to make one giant set of preferences which can then be utilised in their calculations.

Or, to put it in a way that those of you with an economic background will recognize, they assume that all individual demand curves are a) stackable and b) follow the same downward-sloping trajectory.

As it happens, this is not true. What is more, this has been known to not be true since 1974.

Of course, it would be excessively brutal to follow that up by dropping the Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem on them without warning and a considerable amount of explanation.

I have elected to call this debt-based economics "kraonomics", from the Greek χρέος, or chréos, which means "debt, duty, indebtedness". Why that particular spelling? For one, English-speakers will instinctively read the pronunciation correctly. For two, never use accents when you can avoid it. For three, as Psykosonik fans are aware, I always prefer using a "k" to a hard "c" or "ch". And for four, it suggests just a hint of the chaos theory that it almost certainly requires.

On a tangential note, I wonder how many people noticed perhaps the most intellectually exciting note of the recent Brainstorm with Steve Keen. The professor mentioned, almost off-hand, that he was currently reading the work of one Robert Prechter. It strikes me that whatever comes out of the meeting of those two brilliant minds is almost guaranteed to be significant, revolutionary, and mind-blowing.

Just for starters, it may well be that outstanding private debt is a more useful metric for measuring social mood than the stock markets.

Labels:

86 Comments:

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 11:11 AM  

Just for starters, it may well be that outstanding private debt is a more useful metric for measuring social mood than the stock markets.

I addressed this very question with someone at Elliott Wave International a couple years ago and got nothing. I agree with you completely. Stocks, commodities and all other asset classes rose and fell these past 35 years on the rising tide of debt-based liquidity that sloshed around the world.

Debt. It's all about the pseudo cycle of borrowing one unit and creating thereby at least two units of wealth, one cascading through the economy to "make" GDP and a second added to the "wealth" in the bond market.

Talk about "what is seen and what is unseen." Bastiat remains in the pantheon along with Say.

Blogger efc June 25, 2017 11:21 AM  

I must admit I fail to see how individual demand schedules do not stack. Is this something that is addressed in the brainstorm?

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 11:25 AM  

I must admit I fail to see how individual demand schedules do not stack.

Read the Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem. If you don't understand that, read Debunking Economics. It is laid out in detail there. And if you don't understand or can't be bothered with either, just relax and take our word for it.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 25, 2017 11:27 AM  

Can we also toss in that all "professional economic statistics" are intentionally false? They measure things to measure, working very hard to avoid the important stuff. It's how they hide inflation and everything else.

Plus they use Debt Growth as part of GDP, which makes the statistic useless. We're going to need an entirely new set of economic statistical gather approaches, but that's also something of a given.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 25, 2017 11:29 AM  

@2 efc & @3 VD

To rope Stickwick into this, every natural function, no matter how massive, if bounded & constrained by other forces. No natural function goes to infinity, and any place where it's assumed breaks all follow-on assumptions.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 11:42 AM  

Can we also toss in that all "professional economic statistics" are intentionally false?

No. That is irrelevant.

Blogger efc June 25, 2017 11:55 AM  

@3

Thanks for the references. It's just that I'm reading "Man, economy and state" at the moment and, of course, adding up individual demand / supply schedules is a fundamental step in the analysis of "direct exchanges" and the determination of equilibrium price.

It still remains to be seen (to me) whether or not this theorem applies to Austrian economics. Since I'm seeing references being made to Walras and Samuelson in the info galactic articles, I'm not too sure.

Anonymous Teapartydoc June 25, 2017 11:55 AM  

And we can call academic economics "crayonomics".

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 25, 2017 11:59 AM  

efc wrote:I must admit I fail to see how individual demand schedules do not stack. Is this something that is addressed in the brainstorm?

Having read the Infogalactic account, I'd say that while what you bought and what I bought certainly add up to what we bought, your choices and my choices may not add up to our choices. It's the difference between the quantity vector and the demand curve.

The point I took away was that equilibria need not be unique, which leads to the possibility of jumping from one equilibium to another.

I vaguely remember spending a semester studying Kakutani's fixed point theorem, so we could spend another semester studying the Arrow-Debreu theorem. It seems that the work of Sonnenschein, et al came later.

For me the sticking point in GE theory was always the idea that you could add utility curves to maximize aggregate utility. Obvious utopian nonsense.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 12:08 PM  

Having read the Infogalactic account, I'd say that while what you bought and what I bought certainly add up to what we bought, your choices and my choices may not add up to our choices. It's the difference between the quantity vector and the demand curve.

Correct. If the price goes up, perhaps I am more inclined to buy it while you are less inclined. Demand curves simply don't all follow the same curve.

Blogger Shimshon June 25, 2017 12:25 PM  

Austrians don't resort to equations. Could the same argument be said of them (ie are they "professional")?

Blogger efc June 25, 2017 12:32 PM  

@11

Austrians do, however, make a ceteris paribus supposition that the demand curve, while not continuous, is downward slopping as prices decrease.

Blogger Lew Rand June 25, 2017 12:35 PM  

Side note: Anyone else think of Krakatoa economics (which isn't the worst analogy) when they read that?

Anonymous Jack Amok June 25, 2017 12:38 PM  

Regarding stackable demand curves, just look at the relationship between the demand curves for Government and for AR-15s. Where some SJW reaches equalibrium on xer demand curve for Government impacts my demand curve for AR-15s. But other people will have their AR-15 demand curves impacted differently than me. Simultaneously, my demand curve for AR-15s impacts some Pajama Boi's demand curve for government. So how do you propose to sum heterogenous multivariate functions? That influence one-another? Not to mention most of the functions are path-dependant.

Of course, talking about equilibrium on a demand curve for government is rediculous on it's face, as large segements - lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, regulatory facilitators, government union members, etc. - have upward sloping demand curves for government since it makes them more wealthy. Yet "Government" is the single largest line-item on my annual budget.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 12:41 PM  

One way to characterize the mainstream folly is that they assume homogeneity from a mix of heterogeneous inputs.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 12:46 PM  

Where is it still being taught or espoused that all demand curves are the same? The different general types of curves, and even empirically-determined curves, were presented in my 200-level microeconomics course... That was about 10 years ago now.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 25, 2017 12:56 PM  

One way to characterize the mainstream folly is that they assume homogeneity from a mix of heterogeneous inputs.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it?


What's the Econ Theory equivalent of dirt? Debt? Magic Debt Theory?

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 12:56 PM  

Where is it still being taught or espoused that all demand curves are the same?

Everywhere.

The different general types of curves, and even empirically-determined curves, were presented in my 200-level microeconomics course.

Review your statement. It contains the answer to your conundrum.

Blogger pyrrhus June 25, 2017 1:00 PM  

To steal a concept from Steve Sailer, professional economists are well paid to make sure they don't "notice" that their models don't work, and their predictions are worthless....

Anonymous noxious windy June 25, 2017 1:04 PM  

Even if you tried to actually stack every participant's demand curves on top of one another and tried to syncretize one or several composite curves from that information, they still have to be mutated continuously over other dimensions like time, money available to the participant, illness, sentiment about the market, irrational happiness, etc. The key insights of Soros were that people's feelings about the market dominate these other dimensions and that those feelings themselves were shared by other players.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 1:08 PM  

"Review your statement. It contains the answer to your conundrum."

Maybe I'm just being slow this morning, but I don't see it. Is it not widely known or presented that demand curves are inexact, aggregate models with lots of weird quirks? Hell, you can find models that show an increase in demand as prices increase because of status association or unjustified assumptions of quality.

So I guess my question is this: do professional economists not know this? Are they just lying about it?

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 1:08 PM  

VD, why do you include only private debt for your sociometer?

Anonymous map June 25, 2017 1:11 PM  

I don't know if you can draw very many conclusions from the Sonn-Arrow-Debreu model.

According to Info-Gal, this model is dealing with the special case of the excess demand function, a demand function where the market does not clear. In other words, it is a thought experiment on a circumstance unlikely to happen. For example, a case of excess demand implies that supply is being created that is not being sold in the market. When would that ever happen?

So, if you make bizarre and unusual assumptions, then you will get bizarre and unusual models. Yes, demand curves would not be stackable, there would be no equilibrium price because there would be no arbitrage between markets. Yes, normal microeconomic assumptions break down.

But, why would Steve Keen rejecting what is essentially a novel thought experiment be so revolutionary?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 1:14 PM  

10. VD June 25, 2017 12:08 PM
If the price goes up, perhaps I am more inclined to buy it


two possible reasons for increasing demand with increasing price off the top of my head are:
- price as a proxy for quality ( i can buy cheap Chinese milk with free melamine or more expensive milk from Wisconsin ) or scarcity ( which is why lumber prices go through the roof after a hurricane, often resulting in people buying *more* than they need simply to insure that they won't have to try to search for it later )
- price as a method of displaying status ( Vox's Armani shoes )


there may, of course, be other reasons. not everyone is sane.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 1:14 PM  

"For example, a case of excess demand implies that supply is being created that is not being sold in the market. When would that ever happen?"

Diamonds. Oil. Food. This is very common, whether it's due to cartel control or government regulation.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 25, 2017 1:21 PM  

VD, why do you include only private debt for your sociometer?

Because private debt is more indicative of the mood of the borrower than public debt.

Blogger SouthRon June 25, 2017 1:22 PM  

My instinctive pronunciation was like the dipthong in kraut or out. The -ao- sound in English is very non-deterministic. Consider aorta, pharaonic or the multiple pronunciations of kaon and baobab.

You may want to avoid accents, but they would help disambiguate things.

Traditionally a diaeresis would clear this up and for good or bad looks metal, kraönomics. Not that MPAI's know what a diaeresis is.

That's probably why we see postmodern marketers using the macron as a long vowel sign, like krāonomics, but I think that trend looks ridiculous.

Personally any spelling that get the crayon-omics pronunciation wins for me. It's like children pretending their outside-the-lines coloring is high art. Awe, how cute lets tack Keynes drawing up on the refrigerator.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 1:22 PM  

BTW, it appears to me that the moment the USA went Full Fiat for its monetary system, the psychology-based Socionomic Theory of Finance took complete control over economic calculation above the level of the grocery store.

Fiat money + a secular bull market for bonds = fertile soil for a social mood mania to yield an unprecedented lurch into Fantasyland.

Under Kraonomic theory, you can have your cake (an ocean of promises to pay future cash flows) and eat it, too (pure consumption paid for by issuing IOUs) on a scale never before imagined.

Something unseen is surely occurring.

That something is certainly capital consumption & misallocation on a scale too vast to confront.

A world grown as complex as our allows for aggregate stupidity to grow to equal measure. Truly are we collectively self-destructive in ways that exceed the aggregate of individual self-destructive impulses surrounding us.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 1:22 PM  

23. map June 25, 201
For example, a case of excess demand implies that supply is being created that is not being sold in the market.


wat?

why would you ASSUME that unsatisfied Demand implies Production being kept from Market?

i'm hungry, therefore i have a Demand for fish.

no one has caught any fish today.

my continued hunger implies that I ought to get off my ass and go catch some fish.

it does NOT imply that somebody caught fish and is now hiding those fish from me.

although that is not unpossible, my working assumption would be that i wouldn't want to do business with someone who was attempting to create an artificial scarcity in the first place.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 1:24 PM  

two possible reasons for increasing demand with increasing price off the top of my head are:

Financial instruments.

See the socionomic theory of finance.

Blogger Chesapean June 25, 2017 1:25 PM  

Idries Shah used the term "hydraulic assumption" to describe a certain kind of thinking.

I am reminded of it every time I hear someone use the term "demand" in its economic sense.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 25, 2017 1:27 PM  

voxday.blogspot.com: come for the like-mindedness, stay for the economics lessons.

Anonymous MendoScot June 25, 2017 1:40 PM  

I always wonder whether economists are not the prophets of our modern age.

And whether they should be held to the Biblical standards of true and false prophets.

Especially with regards to the punshment for false prophets.

Skin in the game, nyet?

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 1:53 PM  

You may want to avoid accents, but they would help disambiguate things.

Only for the spergs. And I never care what the spergs think.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 1:54 PM  

Maybe I'm just being slow this morning, but I don't see it.

How is a micro course going to teach you anything about the assumed link between micro and macro phenomena?

Anonymous Causal Lurker June 25, 2017 1:54 PM  

@15 and @17, this sounds like an application of the Central Limit Theorem if the heterogenous inputs are allowed to accumulate to a very large number. It all looks Gaussian if enough gets accumulated.

That doesn't sound like the case here. The different demand and supply curves may not be stationary in the same sense, in the same variables. This looks more like a set of stochastic responses with some variables in common across different subsets. The zeroes and discontinuities (poles) don't match. The economists don't have enough of the right kind of math, or they were ordered not to use it.

Dang, now I have to do more research in probability theory and stochastic processes. This post and some previous ones ring a bell.

Hail Papoulis!

Blogger Dave June 25, 2017 1:59 PM  

Vox, what did I win for my Brainstorm question why the fed gov't should stop collecting taxes? I didn't catch what Professor Keen said; was it naming rights to the research center he's planning? All he needs is that single Patron at $150g a momth to get the ball rolling.

If I misheard the Professor concerning the naming rights, I would gladly accept an honorary Keen Supporter ($1/mo.) Patron membership.

On a serious note, I hope to see Castalia team up with Professor Keen for future books; perhaps a collection of his satire and comics.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 25, 2017 2:00 PM  

Kraonomics is really a Time-based Arbitrage system. The Central Bank operates to hide the massive inflation it's causing, using the delayed response within the economy to prevent any realization of the Cause & Effect relationship.

Due to specific sector bubbles being able to self-sustain and absorb the Inflation, any "bubble burst" is actually Pro-System and Anti-Consumer. The Bubble Cycle actually creates little in the way of Net Value or Net Wealth, with the Inflation due to Currency Debasement flowing more actively to the Bubble. (In a neutral-actor situation, it would, as the Bubble has more "return", but the Central Banks operate to push money there as well.)

In this viewpoint, the Boom & Bust cycle isn't a natural consequence; it is a necessity so they system doesn't collapse in on itself when the Food Prices spike 100% in a year. The exported Deflation from China became key for the 90s to operate the way they did. If something external wasn't driving down the price of goods, then inflation would have skyrocketed.

To explain the Time-based aspect, think of the Central Bank taking 10 dollars and making it 20 dollars, but they put 10 dollars in their pocket for a few years. At Year 5, they're suddenly using that second set of 10 dollars, which actually means they've dropped the value of the currency in half without anyone noticing. In that "space between" time frame, they've "printed" the 10 dollars, but it's really just a currency devaluation function.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 2:07 PM  

"How is a micro course going to teach you anything about the assumed link between micro and macro phenomena?"

It was discussed in broad strokes, as is standard for an intro class, but it's not particularly relevant. The key part here:

"Or, to put it in a way that those of you with an economic background will recognize, they assume that all individual demand curves are a) stackable and b) follow the same downward-sloping trajectory.

As it happens, this is not true. What is more, this has been known to not be true since 1974."

Is not a macro issue. It's solely a micro issue. And it's not an error that should be made by anyone who knows even as little as I do about economics.

So my question remains: do professional economists not even know very basic economics, as asserted in your quotation, are they deliberately lying, or is the public perception so dramatically different from what they're really saying? The latter answers wouldn't surprise me, but the first one makes me very incredulous.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 25, 2017 2:12 PM  

@38 S1AL

Climate Science is the Gender Studies of the Hard Sciences. We know how much of a mess of True Believers that is.

Now, Economics, where there's power & presitage available. Who has an interest in being correct?

Anonymous AlanP June 25, 2017 2:39 PM  

@38 S1AL

To quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Steve Keen talks about this in his book. There is only so much time in a day, and economists spend all of their time during their student years studying orthodoxy. After which they are intellectually, as well as financially, invested in its being true.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 25, 2017 2:58 PM  

The Central Bank operates to hide the massive inflation it's causing,

Kraonomics boils down to Central Banksters using their control of the money supply to capture profits from large gains in productivity that otherwise would have gone to the producers. The inflation they create goes mostly unnoticed as long as they don't fiat currency significantly faster than productivity goes up.

But the death spiral is baked in. Capturing profits draws more and more people into the bankstering business, generating an ever-expanding number of beaks to wet, so they can never reduce the speed at which they create new currency. It's their "product" and without it, they have no revenue to pay their salaries.

At some point, whatever innovations sparked the productivity boom will run their course and productivity will more or less flatline for an extended time. The Banksters can no longer hide the volume of currency they are creating. At that point, we get to find out if Vox or Nate is right. Either people reject the debt-based currency, causing it to evaporate and deflation to set in, or they stick with it and hyperinflation takes off.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 25, 2017 3:07 PM  

BTW, when I say this: "Either people reject the debt-based currency, causing it to evaporate and deflation to set in", I am really restating Vox's theory about private debt being an indicator of social mood.

An individual taking on private debt represents that individual accepting debt-based currency. They are exchanging something - whatever collateral they put up for the loan, which may include their future earnings - for debt-based dollars. I give the bank a promise to repay them $30,000 in the future, they give me $30,000 current debt-dollars. People taking on private debt are buying (literally) into the monetary system. People cutting back on private debt are rejecting it.

As to whether we'll have inflation or deflation, for those who assume the banksters will pull the levers, consider what is most beneficial to them as creditors? But, one of the problems of going so deep into the rabbit hole for so many years is at this point, it's unclear to a lot of TPTB whether they are net creditors or net debtors, so I figure it's going to be a crap shoot which direction they lurch.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 3:54 PM  

> Demand curves simply don't all follow the same curve.

Indeed, there is always the "you get what you pay for" standard that was extremely common at one time and is still around today. It actually inverts the classic demand curve, within the buyer's ability to pay.

> Hell, you can find models that show an increase in demand as prices increase because of status association or unjustified assumptions of quality.

See above. And the assumptions are not always unjustified.

> For example, a case of excess demand implies that supply is being created that is not being sold in the market. When would that ever happen?

All the time. To start with, many items are perishable, and must be sold within a limited time frame.

> why would you ASSUME that unsatisfied Demand implies Production being kept from Market?

I agree that he seems to have his example backwards, but I and others answered the question he asked.

And of course unsatisfied demand happens all the time. If my wife were agreeable, I'd probably take all the supermodel mistresses I could get, but the supply just doesn't seem to be there.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 25, 2017 3:55 PM  

@41 Jack Amok

The real issue is that the Financial world gets even more complex. And it's not even necessarily Profit they're seeking to capture. In a controlled Fiat, Debt-based Kraonomic system, the ones at the top actually aren't trying to maximize Profit in the classic sense. They are working to profit, personally, while making sure the System keeps moving forward.

The system atomizes the Personal Interests from the Company Interests, regardless of what industry you find someone in. A worker, no matter the level, now profits "from" rather than profits "with" a company. This itself lowers social mood.

Three other points: 1) they can extract all of the Value they can find from Currency differentials. They don't even have to touch your country, but they can extract it from the proper value differential with the USD. 2) Central Banks don't "print" the virtual money. Most of the monetary base expansion comes from the Commercial Banks recycling their deposits & loans. The Bank of England finally admitted it in a report from 2014. 3) The USD, as it currently exists, will exist so long as the US Military exists. The "currency" vs "money" discussions are pretty worthless so long as you have an army with guns.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 4:02 PM  

So my question remains: do professional economists not even know very basic economics, as asserted in your quotation, are they deliberately lying, or is the public perception so dramatically different from what they're really saying? The latter answers wouldn't surprise me, but the first one makes me very incredulous.

Just read his book. I'm really not interested in teaching it to you.

Anonymous map June 25, 2017 4:04 PM  

bob kek mendo,

Follow the links on excess demand shown in that infogalactic on the sonn-arrow-debreu model.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Excess_demand_function

Quote:

"n this situation it is said that the market clears. If the price is higher than the equilbrium price, excess demand will normally be negative, meaning that there is a surplus (positive excess supply) of the product, and not all of it being offered to the marketplace is being sold. If the price is lower than the equilbrium price, excess demand will normally be positive, meaning that there is a shortage."

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 4:04 PM  

On a serious note, I hope to see Castalia team up with Professor Keen for future books; perhaps a collection of his satire and comics.

That is very likely to happen.

Blogger RobertT June 25, 2017 4:22 PM  

It appears to me that the Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem takes economic theory out of the hands of run-of-the-mill practitioners, college professors and government appointees; and places it firmly in the hands of the very bright. If that ever happened, we would get better results at a fraction of the cost.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 6:30 PM  

Back to the op,

It would be fascinating to see Keene parse Prechter's Socionomic Theory of Finance. Economics stripped of mass psychology is nothing but sophistry.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 6:32 PM  

Mises as much as said so, titling his Magnum Opus Human Action. He never so much as implied it was rational action.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie June 25, 2017 7:44 PM  

VD, why do you include only private debt for your sociometer?

People's willingness to take on private debt is an indication of how optimistic they are about the economy.


Blogger 1100 June 25, 2017 8:46 PM  

I like the term Kraonomics because as an American speaker I hear the word Crayon and Economics here. The short lived crayon markings by children seem like a good fit with the childish thinking that promotes this debt based economic model.

Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 9:23 PM  

Fed Up Aussie wrote: VD, why do you include only private debt for your sociometer?

People's willingness to take on private debt is an indication of how optimistic they are about the economy.



Last charts I saw, Canada had the largest private debt load per GDP but it is largely corporate. Aus must be quite similar. Corporate interests seem rather risk on. Maybe assuming a bail-out?

Anonymous 罗臻 June 25, 2017 9:33 PM  

Just for starters, it may well be that outstanding private debt is a more useful metric for measuring social mood than the stock markets.

Given the correlation between debt and economic peaks, I believe this is true. Nations such as China refute the idea that the stock market is a good signal for nationwide social mood (even if the market is under developed, its supposed to reflect mood). China even manipulated a counter-cyclical (to socionomics) stock market boom as an offset to the cooling stock market in 2014 and 2015. It blew up in their face, but credit growth kept rising and now they're back to trying to stop another housing boom.

Another thing is Prechter originally called the peak in 2000 and if you use non-financial market signals such as immigration policies, the turn in social mood looks to be in the early 2000s.
I wrote about it in this post: Can the Central Bank Boost Social Mood?

Blogger Antonio scalzone June 25, 2017 11:39 PM  

Hello everyone. I've been running some numbers and I found out that if you exclude Jews the white demographic is actually stable. Believe it or not the ashkenazi Jewish ethnic group and the Jewish faith along with there languages have been in massive decline in the US since 2000. I also heard the oldest part of America is the most Jewish and that the heavily white senior population in America is Jewish can anyone confirm this? Should Jews get there own category?

Blogger Antonio scalzone June 25, 2017 11:40 PM  

*is heavily jewish*

Anonymous Dismal Farmer June 26, 2017 2:24 AM  

Only losers care what the Constitution says.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 9:42 AM  

Anyone who starts their thesis with the assumption that the Fed and banks create money, has already disqualified their thesis because it demonstrates that they do not know what they're talking about.

Here's a little quiz I developed that can readily determine whether or not you understand the system we're in.

1) Do deposit accounts contain/hold the money deposited?
2) What are the reserves held by the banks?
3) What is fractional reserve banking?
4) What is the U.S. money supply?

Quiz: Make all four answers logically and factually congruent.

If you don't understand the money, then you cannot understand the system.

I have yet to find anyone in the field of 'economics' that can do it.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2017 11:58 AM  

Dwain, try talking about currency instead of money and you might get a better picture

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 12:51 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Dwain, try talking about currency instead of money and you might get a better picture
Ah, the old 'money' vs 'currency' canard, what an ignorant joke.

OK, substitute the word 'money' with the word 'currency' and let me know if it makes a difference in your ability to formulate a coherent response to the quiz.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 26, 2017 3:15 PM  

" 58. Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 9:42 AM
...
Here's a little quiz I developed that can readily determine whether or not you understand the system we're in.
...
"



When you use your credit card, did the dollars you spend exist before you used the card?

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 3:37 PM  

Athor Pel wrote:

When you use your credit card, did the dollars you spend exist before you used the card?



Better Question: When you use your debit card, did the 'dollars' you thought you were spending exist at all?

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2017 7:01 PM  

Dwain, you have a lot of catching up to do before you can make sense of the debate around here. Your quiz is juvenile. Athor and I both gave you hints. You might try to follow up on them.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2017 7:06 PM  

But, I'll play along and answer your quiz.

1-they hold the currency deposited.
2-debt from other banks
3-creating currency by issuing debt mostly unbacked by anything but more debt

4-mostly debt

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 11:17 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Dwain, you have a lot of catching up to do before you can make sense of the debate around here. Your quiz is juvenile. Athor and I both gave you hints. You might try to follow up on them.
I stumped you, didn't I? You can't formulate a coherent response so now you want to get all pissy with me. That's OK, no one can do the quiz, not even Vox, because it can't be done. The quiz is meant to highlight the compartmentalization used to make what passes for 'monetary system knowledge' work. That 'knowledge' is just a collection of mentally masturbated, incongruent, compartmentalized crap in support of a big lie, which, by the way, the quiz highlights.

So, the notion that I need to 'catch up to you' is funny because you're at least 15 years behind me.

As far as your 'hints' are concerned, 'currency' is 'money' in circulation, a widely accepted, standardized medium of exchange. The FRN is legal tender money in circulation, the official currency of the U.S.A. As for the credit card question, no 'dollars' existed before or after its use. An accounting entry denominated in dollars, is not a dollar.

There is a total of $1.5-Trillion U.S. legal tender dollars in circulation around the globe. Of that, $280-Billion is in circulation within the U.S. Of that, $74-Billion is held in bank vaults.

That $74-Billion in bank vaults backs the $1.9-Trillion in credited demand deposit accounts. It also backs the $9.3-Trillion in credited savings accounts. It also backs all credit transactions from Main Street to Wall Street and all points between and beyond. It also backs all U.S.G. payments. And that $74-Billion is all the money that is currently held by the entire U.S. banking system. And that, is the stark reality of Fractional Reserve Banking.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 26, 2017 11:21 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:But, I'll play along and answer your quiz.

1-they hold the currency deposited.

2-debt from other banks

3-creating currency by issuing debt mostly unbacked by anything but more debt

4-mostly debt
And you are 100% WRONG. The quiz stipulates "logically and factually" congruent, not any old line of crap you can pull out your ass.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 12:23 AM  

I expected as much. I think you're an idiot who's way, way, way too short for this ride. But maybe that's just because you have bad posture. Maybe you can hang with us if you give up the preening.

Sure, nobody ever figured out the scam of fractional reserve banking before you came along. My answer of "mostly debt" to "What is the U.S. money supply?" doesn't clue you in to the fact maybe some of us are a little farther down the path than you think?

You've got the basics, you realize the scam. That's good and you'll find a lot of sympathetic voices here, and a lot you can learn. But ditch the pissy attitude. You won't last if you don't.

If you don't believe me, then answer this question:

-what is that $74 Billion you claim is held in bank vaults and backs our entire system?

Blogger Thucydides June 27, 2017 1:20 AM  

Likely a tangent, but I came across an interesting article which points out that productivity increases are no longer being measured in the creation of new wealth, but rather the decrease in prices. You don't get a raise, for the most part, but gasoline and consumer electronics (to name two examples) continually drop in price, so you effectively can make your stagnate income go farther.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/17/the-new-oil-reality/

Now the counterpoint to that is the government seems determined to capture even that pittance with people can wring out of increased productivity, through increasing fees and taxes (in Canada, depending on how you measure things, a family of four spends between 40 and 45% of their income on government fees and taxes), and crony capitalism in Ontario is pushing energy prices through the roof through the artificial subsidization of uneconomical and unreliable "Green" energy.

A reality with built in deflationary pressures from technological advancement might or might not impact on the main argument about debt driven economics (I suspect it will but lack the technical training or rigour to really figure that out). Still a very interesting debate all around.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 2:06 AM  

Thycidides, I don't think it's a tangent at all. The more government regulation and taxation there is, the less the Econ 101 theory of Supply and Demand curves applies.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 8:42 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:I expected as much.I think you're an idiot who's way, way, way too short for this ride. But maybe that's just because you have bad posture.Maybe you can hang with us if you give up the preening. Sure, nobody ever figured out the scam of fractional reserve banking before you came along. My answer of "mostly debt" to "What is the U.S. money supply?" doesn't clue you in to the fact maybe some of us are a little farther down the path than you think? You've got the basics, you realize the scam. That's good and you'll find a lot of sympathetic voices here, and a lot you can learn. But ditch the pissy attitude. You won't last if you don't.

Wow, it appears I've triggered you. So, you've decided to put on your asshat and strut around like you own the blog and bully anyone who dares to challenge what you perceive as your 'superior knowledge' while illustrating you don't know Jack, not even the basics.

You're funny.

Jack Amok wrote:If you don't believe me, then answer this question:

-what is that $74 Billion you claim is held in bank vaults and backs our entire system?


That $74-Billion is part of the debt free, U.S. legal tender money supply. That's what bank's owe to their deposit account holders, upon their demand, which means that all bank deposit accounts are bank debt. And no, the Fed does not own the FRN, it rents it from the U.S.G. and represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2017 9:44 AM  

> My answer of "mostly debt" to "What is the U.S. money supply?" doesn't clue you in to the fact maybe some of us are a little farther down the path than you think?

He doesn't even seem to understand that there are multiple definitions of "money supply" and thus multiple correct answers to his question. https://infogalactic.com/info/Money_supply

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 10:18 AM  

James Dixon

Bank managed accounting entries are not money.

If you believe a bank's debt to you, is your 'money'. then you're not "further down the path", you haven't even reached the starting gate.

The definition in infogalactic.com is just a reiteration of Federal Reserve propaganda.

Here's the actual 'definition' of what constitutes the U.S. money supply:
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title31/html/USCODE-2010-title31-subtitleIV-chap51-subchapI-sec5103.htm

You will not find Fed and bank managed debt-based accounting entries designated as being a U.S. 'money', or a 'money/currency' of any type, anywhere in U.S. law. The only laws associated with their debt-based accounting entries, resides in the debts incurred with its use.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 10:56 AM  

That $74-Billion is part of the debt free, U.S. legal tender money supply.

But what is it?

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 11:06 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:That $74-Billion is part of the debt free, U.S. legal tender money supply.

But what is it?


It's the current, designated by law, money. Ergo, legal tender. It is 'public money' property, and while it is in your possession, it is your property.

That line of bank credit you access with your debit card, belongs to the bank.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 11:08 AM  

He doesn't even seem to understand that there are multiple definitions of "money supply"

Yeah, and his $1.5 Trillion figure is less than half of M0, so he appears to be making up his own definitions too. Hey, the kid's got promise as a government economist.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 11:17 AM  

It is 'public money' property, and while it is in your possession, it is your property.

That line of bank credit you access with your debit card, belongs to the bank.


Fascinating. I imagine next you'll tell me that if I take that $100 bill in my pocket and deposit it in my bank account, I haven't actually given it to the bank for safe keeping, instead I have loaned it to the bank at a rather poor, possibly negative, interest rate.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 12:03 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:
Fascinating. I imagine next you'll tell me that if I take that $100 bill in my pocket and deposit it in my bank account, I haven't actually given it to the bank for safe keeping, instead I have loaned it to the bank at a rather poor, possibly negative, interest rate.


Fascinating. I imagine you actually believe that you're arguing from a position of higher understanding.

So let's say that you have $100 in your pocket that you want to put in the bank. You take the $100 to the bank and hand it to the teller. The teller takes your money, counts it, then pulls up your account information and credits your account in the amount of $100, puts the cash in the drawer, hands you a receipt and you walk out happy, you have $100 in the bank.

What you may not realizes is that, the moment that teller accepted that $100 from you and credited your account with the amount, that $100 became the property of the bank. This means that a bank customer can come in right behind you and withdraw that same $100 you just deposited, the teller deducting that amount from their account. If no one withdraws that $100 by the end of the business day, the money goes into the bank's vault and is counted as reserves held by the bank This also means that deposit accounts are nothing more than a bank managed record of transactions and represent a legal liability of the bank to pay to the deposit account holder the cash sum, as reflected by the amount credited to their account, upon their demand, which means that, all deposit accounts are, at their core, bank debt. (Banks currently owe a total of about $11-Trillion to their deposit account holders.)

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 12:38 PM  

What you may not realizes is that, the moment that teller accepted that $100 from you and credited your account with the amount, that $100 became the property of the bank.

Well, I suppose technically my prediction was wrong in that you didn't call it a loan.

But, do go on. This is all very interesting, having you carefully explain - in a comment to a post titled "Kraonomics" - how our monetary system is primarily based on debt. Quite an astonishing revelation.

But maybe skip a head a few chapters. Why does it matter?

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 2:00 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:
Well, I suppose technically my prediction was wrong in that you didn't call it a loan.

But, do go on. This is all very interesting, having you carefully explain - in a comment to a post titled "Kraonomics" - how our monetary system is primarily based on debt. Quite an astonishing revelation.

But maybe skip a head a few chapters. Why does it matter?


You should try to reading for comprehension because reading to fuel your desire to be a smartass isn't working in your favor.

Our monetary system is not "primarily debt based", that's the Fed fostered fiction repeated by 'economists'. Our's is a "Legal Tender Monetary System", has been since 1933. The parasitic Fed and banksters have attached their Asset-Backed, Debt-Based Private Credit System to our monetary system and has used their debt to rob us of our labor and wealth.

As for "Kraonomics", it would go a long way in furthering understanding to correctly identify the "private debt-based credit system" the Fed and banksters have attached to our monetary system, don't you think? After all, it's their debts to us that originates our debts to them.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 3:04 PM  

You still haven't said why it matters

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 4:22 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:You still haven't said why it matters

Why do you believe it's my responsibility to do your thinking for you? You claim to be intelligent then you should be able to figure out why the right to self determination as expressed via property ownership is preferable over debt slavery.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 5:11 PM  

Just seeing if you were capable of thinking, cupcake. Got the answer I was expecting.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 5:22 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Just seeing if you were capable of thinking, cupcake. Got the answer I was expecting.

And the answer is you're a witless fool and a willing debt slave and the only contribution you can make to any conversation is noise, as exemplified by our one sided conversation. So the real question becomes, why are you here, why does any of this matter to you?

Anonymous Jack Amok June 27, 2017 9:18 PM  

I'm here to learn from smart people. You aren't one of them.

Gamma retards. Always the same.

Blogger Dwain Dibley June 27, 2017 9:53 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:I'm here to learn from smart people. You aren't one of them.
Gamma retards. Always the same.


You're SJWing on me. You proved you're stupid, a coward and a bully and now you're doubling down. What a loser you're proving yourself to be. Give up fool, you've lost the argument.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts