The anti-climate science nonsense being promulgated by ratbag groups such as Quadrant, the IPA and the utterly degenerate and despicable Catallaxy blog depend on the rantings of a handful of so-called ‘sceptics’.
and
Catallaxy is a blog based on deceit – crank theories on climate change, crank macroeconomics and cranky foul-mouthed commenters whose collective intelligence amounts to an individual fail.
Hmm. Can I get access to the “members” area? You know, where all that degeneracy happens?
ar
17 Feb 12 at 2:42 pm
I have to put on my best Bullwinkle J Moose voice and utter:
“ooh”.
Louis Hissink
17 Feb 12 at 2:43 pm
Well I guess that these are the sort of rants I have come to expect from people with a “social Democratic perspective”.
dakingisdead
17 Feb 12 at 2:46 pm
Jolly decent of Harry to give us a plug. I wonder if he has enough readers to make a difference to our stats. My advice to Harry is to follow the money.
See how much support the realists get compared with the alarmists.
Rafe
17 Feb 12 at 2:47 pm
you forgot harry’s last line
Come on, sinc, don’t keep us waiting
jtfsoon
17 Feb 12 at 2:47 pm
You’re a nobody until harry Clarke talks about you.
Gab
17 Feb 12 at 2:51 pm
The existence of Catallaxy is of great benefit to progressive politics and internet discussion. It’s something you can point to whenever someone suggests the IPA or similar is starting to sound reasonable, to remind them of what the far right really thinks and says when no else is around.
Sancho
17 Feb 12 at 2:52 pm
Wow! He’s really angrified. I have soft spot for harry, but I must say I got very disappointed with over his attitude of late. Very disappointed.
Jc
17 Feb 12 at 2:56 pm
You’re winning when your opponents start to lose the plot like poor Harry.
Annabelle
17 Feb 12 at 2:59 pm
wow, Melaleuca defending catallaxy
http://johnquiggin.com/2012/02/16/the-zombie-economics-of-austerity-in-australia/comment-page-2/#comment-169775
jtfsoon
17 Feb 12 at 3:00 pm
Quiggin is a dinosaur and the academy and professional world will not miss his retirement.
Virtually no economists who graduate now believe in Keynesian economics, except for the braindead, dynastic little labor brats.
.
17 Feb 12 at 3:00 pm
umm, depends on what you mean by Keynesian economics. I certainly don’t believe in Say’s law or Steve Kates’ critique of Keynesianism. I am primarily sceptical of the the usefulness of Keynesianism for political economy reasons – because monetary instruments are better and to ensure clear fiscal disciplines over the long run for governments and to avoid giving them the temptation to increase the size of the public sector. However I accept that multipliers can be non-zero and believe in opportunistic Keynesianism e.g. using recessions as an excuse to cut taxes for example or push forward infrastructure investments that have passed a CBA
jtfsoon
17 Feb 12 at 3:05 pm
This Quiggin fellow seems to be Sinclair’s arch nemesis. Though the ‘sticky’ thread about stimulus versus austerity is getting a little tedious.
Isn’t there some law in academia that the more vehement the debate the more trivial the actual issue?
papachango
17 Feb 12 at 3:08 pm
Jason, it is pretty well accepted that you are a communist.
Infidel Tiger
17 Feb 12 at 3:11 pm
If Jason’s a “Keynesian” then so are Art Laffer and Milton Friedman…
.
17 Feb 12 at 3:17 pm
How will Quiggin respond to charges of asebia (misleading the youth and inventing new religions) for his declaration the Liberal Party was finished?
Is he man enough to drink hemlock?
Should we bring back Athenian democracy?
(…and no John, I don’t any harm inflicted upon you – just for you to look like the starry eyed fool you are.)
.
17 Feb 12 at 3:19 pm
. – none of that. John has actually acknowledged his comment on the end of the liberals was premature.
Sinclair Davidson
17 Feb 12 at 3:24 pm
dot
Lots of hardcore Austrians (like the Lew Rockwellians and the ones who attended Sukrit’s Mises Seminar) have accused Friedman of being a Keynesian and in some respects they are right. This is exactly what I mean. If you think that recessions should be tackled by monetary expansions and don’t worry so much about the alleged ‘maladjustments’ that might arise from that then you have accepted some part of Keynes’ insights. The reluctance to use fiscal policy to achieve the same ends as you desire from monetary policy (if you are a Friedmanite) have more to do with a preference for monetary instruments over discretationary tax and spend for political economy reasons rather than from confidence in Say’s Law or a belief in Austrian business cycles theory.
jtfsoon
17 Feb 12 at 3:28 pm
I’m more of a “Sumnerian”…but I believe in a capital theory based ABCT which fits into the data, and that free banking is desirable, and thus central banks ought to mimic this, which I believe NGDP targeting does. I think Say’s law explains things that have happened around me in my lifetime and it is consistent with the theory and fits the macroeconomic data.
But at the same time I think that Rubin and Friedman are right, and that Laffer was partly right. I also identify as an Austrian.
More of a gentleman farmer than a fever swamper.
.
17 Feb 12 at 3:35 pm
I’m more of a Riolian. I believe in Cyril.
m0nty
17 Feb 12 at 4:02 pm
Cyril needs a breakout Dream Team year.
Infidel Tiger
17 Feb 12 at 4:03 pm
How disappointing. You were only refering to Harry Clarke. I thought it might have been someone worth upsetting.
johno
17 Feb 12 at 4:07 pm
I’d probably become a hard core Austrian except for the fact that it seems compulsory to buy into the Rothbardian side of the FRB debate and to become a paranoid anarchists. I’m a minarchist.
I think it is possible to get monetary policy wrong such that a correction can be expansionary but I don’t see much merit in the use of monetary policy for fixing non monetary slow downs or contractions. With fiscal policy I don’t see tax cuts as stimulating demand, I see them as stimulating worker and producer incentives and working through says law. I regard tax cuts as being a good idea almost irrespective of the economic climate. The only constraint on tax cuts ought to be prudent management of government finances. And usually there spending cuts make more sense.
TerjeP
17 Feb 12 at 4:08 pm
p.s. I think targeting NGDP is daft. At some point somebody will try it and then we will see it is daft.
TerjeP
17 Feb 12 at 4:11 pm
Terje
Scott Sumner suggests Australia has more or less followed a NGDP policy despite calling something else and we’ve had a decent run for 20+ years.
So give it your best shot and explain why you think it’s daft.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 4:18 pm
JC
The inflation target is too high. Truly following NGDP targeting to me means targeting a net inflation rate of zero in the medium to long run and having flexibility in the short to medium run.
.
17 Feb 12 at 4:34 pm
Hi Alan,
I’ve been a Liberal voter all my life and I’m also a fairly conservative catholic. However, I’m very concerned that the gubberment still hasn’t shut down a ‘blog’ where a bunch of knuckle dragging, mouth breathing evolutionary throwbacks gather to wallow in a climate of hate™ of their own making.
These disgusting degenerates frequent a website known as Catallaxy Files, which given the level of discourse on display, should more aptly be named ‘Catatonic Bile’. Their guru is an extremely unprepossessing, short, bald fascist dwarf from South Africa, who has the nasty habit of popping up on that racist lunatic Bolt’s show wearing some of the most awful ties in the history of humankind.
The cranky foul mouthed throwbacks who infest this site have also taken to hurling the most obscene, insulting abuse at my good self when I try and move the topic of discussion on to important matters such as contraception, abortion, ejaculation and Tonee Yabbott’s budgie smugglers. Why they do this is beyond me. As a result, I’m forced to regularly attempt to direct the ‘discussion’ back to these matters of vital import, inevitably to be met with the same barrage of depraved, incoherent abuse.
Quite frankly Alan, I don’t why they or more importantly I, bother.
Love your work, Steve from Brisbane.
Rabz
17 Feb 12 at 4:37 pm
the utterly degenerate and despicable Catallaxy blog
Better a degeneracy of Catallaxians than a confederacy of dunces, I always say.
spot
17 Feb 12 at 4:50 pm
When they start calling you degenerate and despicable you know they’ve got nothing else much to say.
They’ll be making films with rats crawling around us Cats before we know it.
And this from ‘social democrats’?
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
17 Feb 12 at 5:00 pm
I live in Mt Lofty where the NBN is to be rolled out next
I’m concerned about the Govt’s internet filter
and I’m happy about my current broadband connection (Telstra)
Is this a backdoor approach to filtering info to broadband users
No idea
does anyone live in an area where NBN has been rolled out
and if so what difference has that made to your connection speed
val majkus
17 Feb 12 at 5:06 pm
meh, everyone knows blog commenters are nuts…
sean
17 Feb 12 at 5:10 pm
Ray Hadley noted today [15 min mark] that the government & charity agency (Centalink, Lifeline & Red Cross) who are onsite helping the people clean up after the flood at St George are working away effectively using wireless connections.
Think how more productive they’ll be once the NBN arrives!
Token
17 Feb 12 at 5:13 pm
What a segue. Let’s look at the 2011 NBN Annual Report.
It gets better:
$463 million to connect 622 premises.
$744,372.99 per household!
This is a beyond a joke.
For making such criticisms, we are called degenerates and cranks.
This reflects more on our opponents than it does on us.
.
17 Feb 12 at 5:13 pm
Masterpiece, Rabz.
Worthy of Ern Malley.
Pedro the Ignorant
17 Feb 12 at 5:13 pm
I tend to think elements of Says Law are very valid. I think it’s tautological though and more of a basic representation of what the fuck is going on in the economy.
There was no explicit demand for the Iphone before it became a reality in the same way there was no apparent demand for the personal computer or the internet. So this was clearly an example of supply side creating demand. Even for basic commodities users and consumers may demand it (say wheat) but suppliers have to supply it, that is estimate the market and take a punt.
The money veil may disguise Says Law. A farmer clearly produces more wheat in order to be supplied for his demand of other commodities and product and his savings are the wheat germ he holds for the new year.
But also I think it’s pretty apparent there is such a thing as demand being of equal importance.
This argument to me is a chicken and egg one, it’s impossible to answer. However to suggest Says law is an absurdity old Harry did once is itself absurd.
It’s probably easier to think of is as tautological, as I mentioned earlier.
Just as I think there are demand shocks I also believe there are such things as supply shocks. I reckon we’ve experienced both in the past 4 years with particular focus in the US. It’s clear to me by just looking at any chart there was a demand shock in the US during 08/09. All someone has to do is look at consumer confidence and retail sales stats for that period to see what happened. Confidence collapsed and retails sales (and investment did as well).
However I also believe the US (and Australia) have experienced a supply shock of sorts with the unambiguous factor being lousy, incompetent and pathetic governments.
To give just one example, if you go around threatening potentially large employers like Boeing with court action because they wish to build a plant in a non-union state vs a union one, that will cause a chilling. Combine that with other populist and deep green policies, you will end up with a serious supply shock. There is clear evidence this has been the case from the obscene levels of cash holdings held by corporate America and the uncharacteristically weak to meager recovery.
Closer to home we had the example of an intellectual lightweight and possibly mentally handicapped Treasurer accusing participants in the mining industry of being liars and thieves. That’s just one of this government’s gross indiscretions, leaving aside their bankrupt labor market re-regulation.
So I think there are such things as supply and demand shocks.
As for monetary vs fiscal policy; it’s a no brainer. Milt was right and I think Sumner is also right to be suggesting we move towards a NGDP target with the big economies moving first and the smaller ones following later.
As for the Austrian school.. I think it’s the most superior model of all, but our economies need to be structured for it. Before we move in that direction, you require serious reforms with people clearly understanding and accepting there will be symmetrical price movements in the economy.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 5:17 pm
JC,
asymmetrical?
.
17 Feb 12 at 5:19 pm
Dot, but which inflation rate? Oil and commodity prices went up from the middle part of the decade due to a demand shock from the developing world. The developed world central banks read that as inflation and caused the fucking global economy to tip over as a result of their actions.
I think zero tolerance for inflation gives the CB’s little or no room to guess well, which is what they are doing and could cause a collapse.
Both the Fed and the ridiculously stupid ECB were fighting inflation in 07 to most of 08. This was a fight against a non-existent enemy. The ridiculous ECB raised rates in July 08 and a few weeks later was forced to reverse.
The Fed finally understood the gross error they had made and reversed course. Meanwhile it’s the backs taking the blame for the collapse.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 5:26 pm
oops… yes sorry asymmetrical..
JC
17 Feb 12 at 5:26 pm
I wish his dad would give the little blighter a decent clipping over the ears.
16 libertarians in the country! Little jerk.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 5:29 pm
My CB policy rule is not a single directive but a set of objectives that may be impossible in the short run but are time consistent.
Maintain liquidity and target nominal GDP to an average of zero inflation and real base growth equal to GDP growth.
If GDP fell before fiat banking – money supply would fall as would prices and demand would fall. This would move in concert the fall in supply.
A long term policy of maintaining liquidity and targeting zero inflation medium to long run and flexibility in the short to medium run – would have resulted in a better position to deal with the GFC. It just might have been a really bad time to start the new regime.
What I said mightn’t be perfect but I’m sure you can see what I’m getting at.
.
17 Feb 12 at 5:33 pm
Sticks and stones….
bruce
17 Feb 12 at 5:49 pm
Yea, fair enough.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 5:55 pm
+1
Fisky
17 Feb 12 at 5:55 pm
That rant is bullshit!
John Comnenus
17 Feb 12 at 5:57 pm
It’s just Harry, John C. His behavior over the festive season and all through summer has been appalling. It’s like he has this angry bee in his head, especially after a bout of red terps.
I’ve always said that if you can’t hold your grog, then don’t drink. But will he listen to me? Of course not.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 6:06 pm
Wow! I just looked. Wodge is going full on retarded over there. He sounds really excited.
No kidding, wtf would he know? He never go past 9th grade.
look at this drivel.
He’s gone all Guardian too. What a transformation over a weekend that was.
And he’s into counterfactuals now too. Wow. I’m impressed.
I wonder if he’s told the dudes there that he was once Jennifer M’s most prolific commenter in support and switched after the sex change.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 6:15 pm
Val
I can’t answer you directly as my area hasn’t been connected to the NBN, thankfully.
However, there are a few in Tassie with connection problems:
So yeah, the NBN has made a huge difference to these customers.
Gab
17 Feb 12 at 7:02 pm
Excellent work, Rabz.
Gab
17 Feb 12 at 7:09 pm
Gold!
Dandy Warhol
17 Feb 12 at 7:33 pm
Dot
I think Say’s law explains things that have happened around me in my lifetime and it is consistent with the theory and fits the macroeconomic data.
Say’s law has nothing to tell us about financial crisis. It is next to useless as a tool for analysing current conditions.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 7:40 pm
I don’t know Harry is boosting our states but it looks as though we are boosting his:)
Rafe
17 Feb 12 at 7:43 pm
JC – Let me explain firstly by analogy.
For all of the 1800s Britian had a monetary standard based on targeting the gold price. The result was low inflation. One could say they were “more or less” following an inflation target. However it does not follow that if they actually followed an exolicit inflation target gold would have had a constant price.
In the same regard you might target inflation and get a fairly steady rate of growth in NGDP. But it does not follow that if you explicitly target NGDP you will get low constant inflation.
If targeting A leads to B, it does not necessarily follow that targeting B will lead to A.
Another analogy might be in navigating a boat. If you use the rudder to target the motion of the boat so the boat is heading towards the north star the we will find that the boat is mostly moving in a straight line. However if we instead use the rudder to target the motion of the boat toward moving mostly in a straight line it does not mean we will still be also heading for the north star.
TerjeP
17 Feb 12 at 7:46 pm
Rafe, have you ever read anything on Jonova’s site (which I have always felt, by the way, looks unusually commercial in design, and have suspected funding from somewhere) and thought “what a minute, that might not be right”?
steve from brisbane
17 Feb 12 at 7:46 pm
The RBA consistently kept the cash rate under NGDP growth coming into the crisis. They were loose all the while the household sector was running up large debts.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 7:51 pm
Rafe, I have pointed to this before, but you have never commented. David Evans, Jonova’s hubby, wrote a 2009 paper for the SPPI skeptic group that ends with this:
Do you agree with this historical assessment? Think there might be something to those “unsubstantiated rumours”?
If you think I shouldn’t take it seriously, then explain why I should take Evan’s and his wife, goldbugs that they are, seriously on global warming?
steve from brisbane
17 Feb 12 at 8:00 pm
Yes.
Not what I am talking about.
.
17 Feb 12 at 8:03 pm
Okay fair enough. I have no problem with Say’s law as a long term concept. Though it is a bit of a tautology.
I’m actually ploughing through Blaug’s retrospective now thanks to a post Steve put up a while ago.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 8:08 pm
Sdfc
Stop being an idiot. Says law basically suggests supply equals demand.
Odumbo and willing accomplices in Oz have basically done all they can not just to fuck up the supply side. They have gone out of their way to destroy it in an attempt to turn both countries into dusty Sth. American villages that have chickens running around the place.
In a just universe there ought to be arrest warrants issued for gross incompetence, lying and gut raw stupidity.
It’s a fucking miracle we’re not in depression.
Says law has a lot to about what these morons have done.
Jc
17 Feb 12 at 8:10 pm
Stepford
Get lost, grown ups are talking.
Put the kids to bed. Now!
Jc
17 Feb 12 at 8:11 pm
Oops… Has a lot to say…
Jc
17 Feb 12 at 8:12 pm
Steve, it’s over. Get used to it.
blogstrop
17 Feb 12 at 8:24 pm
How often do I have to say bullshit just to keep in with the degenerate meme. Bullshit! Sarc Off LOL.
Great rant Rabz, I wish I was at the pub with you.
John Comnenus
17 Feb 12 at 8:30 pm
What’s your point Terje? Velocity isn’t constant?
This “teachable moment” is about 30 years old. Targeting NGDP works best when at the medium to long term and having short term flexibility. This gets rid of concerns nabout V.
NGDP is implicitly targeted under a gold standard. I explained before what a drop in GDP did to money supply. The internal price adjustment mechanism reinforces this, although implicit as well.
.
17 Feb 12 at 8:39 pm
Thanks all.
John C, you were sadly missed. The entire collective was there bar your good self.
Rabz
17 Feb 12 at 8:39 pm
Yes Rabz; it’s odd how the biggest political blow up in the US regarding Catholicism, contraception, abortion and politics for at least 40 years should result in much comment by me on the details of Catholicism, contraception, abortion and politics.
Steve from brisbane
17 Feb 12 at 8:50 pm
JC
Sdfc
Stop being an idiot. Says law basically suggests supply equals demand.
Exactly, over the long term. In the short run, demand can fall below potential . Say’s Law is a primitive barter concept that fails to explain the dynamics of a monetary economy.
The current malaise in the US is the result of financial crisis in a highly leveraged economy.
That an ultra loose monetary policy is having such a limited effect is evidence the crisis is financial in nature
A negative supply shock is inflationary. Inflation is not the problem.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 9:18 pm
Sdfc,
Read the following piece on Say’s law:
http://www.cobdencentre.org/2012/02/digression-on-keynes/
Also, i recommend Schumpeter’s discussion in his History of Economic Analysis.
This talk about Say’s law being a tautology is put into proper perspective. Say’s law was so embedded in classical thought it was almost deemed as being unworthy of talking about because it was so uncontroversial! The proper meaning of Say’s law was accepted almost universally. Read some of Kates work on the history of Keynes and his misrepresentation of Say’s law. If you accept that, you and I could just about come to agreement about economics…
Skuter
17 Feb 12 at 9:25 pm
Nonsense. It’s worthwhile looking at the concept through barter in order to remove the money veil and show what is really happening.
The factors that occur in barter are really not that different than if you used a medium of exchange.
Stop being silly.
No, the real malaise in the US was a drop in AD. I have no doubt about that.
The problem now is there was supply shock brought about by a dick in over his head uttering populist garbage and pushing discredited economic policies similar to here.
garbage.
Why would it be when the output gap is so wide and firms are reluctant to invent due to political uncertainty and the level of bank bashing going on is extraordinary preventing them from resuming lending.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 9:27 pm
I
Skuter:
He’s a closet MMT’er. You’d end up choking him first.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 9:29 pm
I was only thinking the other day how much easier it has been for me to work my way through some of the complexities of Cat discussion since Commenter HC stopped plugging up the drain with his inanities. He makes Monty look rational.
I wear the Ratbag Cat badge with pride. I’m still working up to my Foul Mouthed and Cranky badges.
Megan
17 Feb 12 at 9:40 pm
Skuter
I’m not ignorant of Say’s law I just think (for good reason) that it is irrelevant when discussing the current problem. The gist of what Keynes said was correct. Not a bad one liner. Say’s law is a tautology because supply necessarily equals demand in the long run and a free market economy in disequilibrium will necessarily seek equilibrium. It ignores the financial structure.
I don’t need to read Steve’s piece on Keynes. I just happen to believe in is analysis of the financial markets and the investment motive. “Socialising investment”. What does that even mean.
JC
Nonsense. It’s worthwhile looking at the concept through barter in order to remove the money veil and show what is really happening
Debt is not a veil. That is the first mistake.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 9:46 pm
Just follow me, down to the foul mouth, cranky lecture hall. There’s still a few places left.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 9:47 pm
True, JC. My question to anyone who denies Say’s law:
‘Would you rather own a restaurant in the CBD of Melbourne or the only shop near a remote community in the NT?’ Discuss…
Skuter
17 Feb 12 at 9:49 pm
I’m not going to go hard on you SDFC, because as you are aware I’m a big-hearted guy and always go easy on mentally handicapped.
Are you this stupid to suggest barter debt cannot occur in a barter economy?
Such as:
The wheat farmer can’t say to the onion farmer, he was give him 11 instead 10 bushels of wheat in next year’s crop for a bag on onions today.
I’m sick of having to hold your hand, SDFC. I can’t do this anymore. You’re too heavy maintenance and there are other idiots to attend to.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 9:53 pm
oops.. damn ipad… he will give him..
JC
17 Feb 12 at 9:54 pm
Fuck. Sdfc, we are that close.
Say’s law doesn’t explain financial structure, but neither does Keynes. God damn you are like an Austrian in Keynesian drag…
Skuter
17 Feb 12 at 9:59 pm
What happens do you reckon happens to debt servicing ability when income falls?
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:00 pm
Skuter
Keynes is all about finance.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:00 pm
Says law was framed to counter the merchant’s opinion that his lack of sales were due to his buyers not having any money to buy his produce or goods. Typical lefty ploy of blaming someone else for a miscalculation on the merchant’s part, of what goods the market wants. The merchant’s lack of sales isn’t because his buyers are poor, but because the merchant misinterpreted their buying signals, and the mood of the market in particular.
Confusion over Say’s law is simply a manifestation of not understanding the cause of human action.
Louis Hissink
17 Feb 12 at 10:07 pm
Sdfc, Keynes of the GT was not about financial structure at all…
Skuter
17 Feb 12 at 10:10 pm
Yeah exactly Louis. Supply creates its own demand. Only sometimes it doesn’t.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:12 pm
Skuter it was all about finance. Every business decision you make is a financial decision.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:12 pm
Same as what happens in a money environment, SDFC. People go fucking broke and in the example I gave, the onion farmer takes a piece of the wheat land to compensate him for the debt.
Look dude, you’re getting really anal about this shit.
As I’ve said (and others have too) this law is basically tautological. However the good thing in talking about Says law is that it focuses people’s minds that supply side is really fucking important and if you constipate supply, as these morons have done, along with their American inbred cousins, you end up with fucking problems.
You can stoke whatever you like in terms of the monetary spigot, or spend as much as you like putting in pink batts and then having to take it out because it burnt 200 houses and killed 4 people. You can do all that shit, but if you choke the supply side, by say, oh raising the price of energy 40%, promising to raise it more through hammer-headed ideas like plastic panels and propellers on sticks.. you do all that shit and you’re going choke the supply side ending up in a fucking mess and the nations capital structure gets contorted. But there’s no reason to point this out to you as it’s been spelt out so, so many times.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 10:13 pm
Indeed Louis! Indeed…
Skuter
17 Feb 12 at 10:13 pm
Both might have severe hemorrhoids. ‘Av mercy on ‘em.
TJW
17 Feb 12 at 10:14 pm
Bullshit. Servicing your customers well, giving them what you think they want is not financial. Certainly, one does this or thinks about it so as to raise profits, however the primary factor is raising customer satisfaction.
Coca Cola doesn’t have meetings where they only talk about making profits, they talk about serving customers coke that is efficiently made and the profits will follow.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 10:16 pm
I’m not getting anal JC. This is what I’ve always argued.
Mass banruptcies not only leave s string of entrepeneurs bankrupt as well as a fair amount of wage earners but it also shreds financial sector balance sheets.
Its all about cash flow. The flow of funds theory (wish I’d thought of that title.
The pink batts initiative was a subsidy. I’m not a fan of subsidies.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:20 pm
JC
Business is ivestment. Why would business invest if income is falling?
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:22 pm
And planes have wings, SDC. What exactly is you point?
JC
17 Feb 12 at 10:28 pm
You’re a deflationist obviously. You think bankruptcy is part of the adjustment mechanism.
I’m asking you to provide an argument as to why this doesn’t matter in a high debt economy.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 10:31 pm
SDFC:
Let’s go through this again. We started a discussion on Says Law. I helped you understand a little about it as I could see you were getting into trouble with basic concepts.
Then out of left field you accuse me of being a “deflationist”, as though that was part of the discussion.
What are you doing?
JC
17 Feb 12 at 10:46 pm
It should be, if out economies were structured that way. But we’re not.
I think that in our environment it’s important to ensure we don’t allow cause a fall in aggregate incomes.
JC
17 Feb 12 at 10:48 pm
JC
I’ve already explained why Say’s law has nothing to say about a monetary economy in the short run.
The public sector running a cash deficit with the private sector supports private sector income and protects debt servicing ability.
sdfc
17 Feb 12 at 11:01 pm
“Yeah exactly Louis. Supply creates its own demand. Only sometimes it doesn’t.”
You mean like solar panels or the Chevy Volt?
DavidJ
17 Feb 12 at 11:44 pm
sdfc
You do realise that all public sectors utterly depend on the existence of a private sector?
Louis Hissink
17 Feb 12 at 11:47 pm
Houston, we have a problem…
Rabz
17 Feb 12 at 11:47 pm
Dude’s lead a very sheltered life. I feel sorry for him.
wreckage
17 Feb 12 at 11:56 pm
sdfc wrote “I’ve already explained why Say’s law has nothing to say about a monetary economy in the short run.”
Say’s law, indeed, has nothing to say about it.
That’s your problem.
Louis Hissink
17 Feb 12 at 11:57 pm
“The public sector running a cash deficit with the private sector supports private sector income and protects debt servicing ability.”
On that genius, having a low deficit is obviously holding prosperity back. Or call it Deficit Cooling, then Deficit Change so there is at least a chance to save humanity, before the tipping point is reached.
Occupy deficit.
DavidJ
18 Feb 12 at 12:01 am
Sdfc, answer this:
‘Would you rather own a restaurant in the CBD of Melbourne or the only shop near a remote community in the NT?’
If you can’t/don’t answer this then fuck off…
Skuter
18 Feb 12 at 12:02 am
A deficit ate my baby.
wreckage
18 Feb 12 at 12:24 am
There are a few comments there so I’ll restrict my replies to those that attempt to make a substantive point.
David
In case you’ve missed it this is a conversation about cash flow in a high debt economy in financial crisis. Tight fiscal policy is deflationary during such an episode.
Skuter
Your question is pointless. Is is supposed to be a defence of Say’s law? How is the obvious answer, the Melbourne CBD, relevant to the subject at hand?
sdfc
18 Feb 12 at 12:26 am
Wonderful moments, all, wonderful. Yours in degenerationess and despicibility
JakartaJaap
18 Feb 12 at 8:54 am
No. This is countermanded by the facts. In 2009, during QE and fiscal stimulus, the US suffered from deflation and negative real interest rates. These situations recovered when QE and fiscal stimulus was wound down.
.
18 Feb 12 at 11:30 am
Then I don’t know what change to existing policy you are actually advocating. As JC pointed out our policy does effectively target NGDP over the medium to long term.
If I’m a sailor at sea the fact that I want to get to Japan in the medium to long term does not tell me how to navigate. Whilst setting and keeping a heading that is ten degrees off from the north star does give me a meaningful target.
Tagets are the tactics by which we achieve medium to long term goals.
TerjeP
18 Feb 12 at 3:24 pm
“Then I don’t know what change to existing policy you are actually advocating. As JC pointed out our policy does effectively target NGDP over the medium to long term.”
Lower the inflation target (0%), give it a more flexible band in the short run (-2% to +2%).
“If I’m a sailor at sea the fact that I want to get to Japan in the medium to long term does not tell me how to navigate. Whilst setting and keeping a heading that is ten degrees off from the north star does give me a meaningful target.”
Is this meant to be an analogy? It stinks Terje.
.
18 Feb 12 at 3:28 pm
Sumner has a very good idea on how the Fed should target NGDP. He suggests the Fed help open an NGDP futures market and essentially target off that.
As far as a fiat system goes NGDP targeting is the best idea going I believe.
It also takes away the Fed’s ability to operate ad hoc policy and allows it to manage its dual mandate more effectively. NGDO targeting would achieve both.
Right through the GFC I always had the hunch the Fed and the ECB were to blame for what was occurring, but it was a trader’s hunch. Scott Sumner has explained these events beautifully in my opinion.
JC
18 Feb 12 at 3:31 pm
So, Dot what you’re really suggesting is an NGDP target of around(ish) 5% give or take. That’s more or less what Sumner is suggesting ought to be the long term target.
He does however suggest a short term target of 7% in the US would be optimal if only to help start things and offer a stronger signal in the market.
JC
18 Feb 12 at 3:35 pm
JC – do you have a link to an article that outlines the futures idea in more detail.
TerjeP
18 Feb 12 at 3:35 pm
Sumner agrees with me.
To (mis)quote Henry VIII, A Man for All Aeasons:
Your taste in
musicmonetary policy is excellent. It exactly coincides with my own!.
18 Feb 12 at 3:42 pm
Dot
No. This is countermanded by the facts. In 2009, during QE and fiscal stimulus, the US suffered from deflation and negative real interest rates. These situations recovered when QE and fiscal stimulus was wound down.
The US suffered a short CPI deflation however M2 did not fall so the deflation did not take hold even with private sector credit in decline.
You can’t have negative real interest rates and deflation unless nominal rates are lower than the deflation.
JC you really need to sort yourmate out on this point.
sdfc
18 Feb 12 at 9:03 pm
The inflation target needs to be raised not lowered.
sdfc
18 Feb 12 at 9:06 pm
Your headline is misleading.
Here am I thinking Catallaxy has a achieved some exciting notoriety as I eagerly click the links expecting the The Sydney Morning Herald or at least the Canberra Times.
Instead I get taken to the lame blogs of two inter web losers unknown to anyone out of our little circle, read by even less people than that, and considered to have value by only the losers themselves.
John Mc
18 Feb 12 at 9:17 pm
Stop raining on our notoriety parade! We are dreaded and reviled outlaws!
wreckage
18 Feb 12 at 9:42 pm
Catallaxy: we don’t play by your rules!
wreckage
18 Feb 12 at 9:43 pm
They had deflation. I am correct.
Wrong. All this means is that the Fisher equation broke down during the time. Which can happen under QE.
If you want to engender recessions and rob workers of savings.
.
18 Feb 12 at 10:54 pm
Elizabeth
So what do you call this:
Pretty degenerate and despicable to me.
But you may have other standards.
MaryT
19 Feb 12 at 12:49 pm
MaryT, I get no credit for telling them yesterday to stop using “lying slapper” for the PM, because it is the equivalent of “slut”? You’re a tough marker.
Steve from Brisbane
19 Feb 12 at 1:31 pm
Looks like I have to lift my game. I’ve been left behind by some real retards in the degeneracy stakes.
Infidel Tiger
19 Feb 12 at 1:36 pm
Steve restricts himself to posting links to pictures of genital warts.
All accurate descriptions of Obama’s war on Christianity and his hatred for unborn children. He opposed the ban on late term abortions (which means he’s in favour of actually murdering children).
The Atheist Taliban is what I call members of the militant and piously religious atheism movement.
If I can be of further assistance, Lady Flo, let me know.
C.L.
19 Feb 12 at 1:37 pm
So Steve, no word from you about Gillard’s current ‘fake crisis’? LOL
Gab
19 Feb 12 at 1:38 pm
He’s clarified that, Gab.
He now says it’s a fake crisis of governance.
Um…
C.L.
19 Feb 12 at 1:39 pm
All evidence “degenerate and despicable” based on mainstream society.
But you are entitled to YOUR opinion, just like any Tourette case.
MaryT
19 Feb 12 at 1:56 pm
Time for an 0live oil change, Jinmaro.
.
19 Feb 12 at 2:03 pm
Should the PC mob stop abusing white children?
Gab
19 Feb 12 at 2:04 pm
So MaryT, who anointed you as the arbiter of good taste?
If the site offends you so much, why don’t you go away?
Winston Smith
19 Feb 12 at 2:15 pm
..and of course, up comes the complaint of ‘hypocrisy’ in ..3..2..1..
Reading from the talking points again, Mary?
Winston Smith
19 Feb 12 at 2:17 pm
Because, Winston, Green totalitarians like Philomenia aka MaryT, can’t help themselves.
Gab
19 Feb 12 at 2:18 pm
So you’re mocking the disabled now?
What a lovely person you are.
It’s not an opinion, by the way.
Obama supports killing children. That’s a fact.
C.L.
19 Feb 12 at 2:22 pm
That the least of Phil’s problems.
Lets not forget Phil was writing love poems here to the Fort Hood murderer only a day or so after the massacre in the same way some mentally disturbed women write love letters to jailed serial killers.
JC
19 Feb 12 at 2:34 pm
…and he’s a dude who pretends to be about six or seven different women.
.
19 Feb 12 at 2:35 pm
Oh, is it Phil?
Strike my comment.
That’s five seconds I won’t get back.
C.L.
19 Feb 12 at 2:43 pm
I think it’s Phil in disguise as Mary this time. I recognize the same hairy legs and 3 day stubble underneath a blond wig and revealing dress.
JC
19 Feb 12 at 2:49 pm
C L
You need to check the definition of fact.
I know you are really trolling for some inane rightwing argument about embryo’s etc, but it has all been resolved by legal processes.
For your statement to be correct – American Law must firstly be changed.
More Americans support killing Cubans and Iraqis and Iranians, and Libyians and etc.
I hope I am still alive when the only country yet to be bombed by America is the Vatican. That will be a sight for sore eyes.
MaryT
19 Feb 12 at 2:52 pm
I hoping Canada cops it next time, Phil. They seriously deserve it.
JC
19 Feb 12 at 2:55 pm
Definitely teh Avian’s trannie.
Rabz
19 Feb 12 at 2:56 pm
…it has all been resolved by legal processes.
Right. And the pro-murder Obama didn’t like it.
C.L.
19 Feb 12 at 2:57 pm
Fact: You are a circus freak. It’s a miracle you haven’t hung yourself in a ladies lavatory with a neck tie.
Infidel Tiger
19 Feb 12 at 2:59 pm
MaryT, how wrong can you B.
“When they start calling you degenerate and despicable you know they’ve got nothing else to say”
I wrote this in defense of Catallaxy and its full freedom of speech and freedom to exist. The statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the mode of discourse used on this blog (often invoking insult utilising swearing).
These two words, to an educated and intelligent reader, (and when as in this case sent back as less than empty vessels to the ‘democratic’ sender), contain an oblique and satirical reference to exactly these two words having been used stigmatise to a group of people merely because they existed as an identifiable sub-group (as in Hitler’s stigmatisation of the Jewish people by these two very words, and the production of films showing Jewish people as being like a plague of rats).
Insults in the heat of argument or the use of language which some may find offensive, do not worry me in the slightest (they are often very funny): you could have saved yourself the heavy-breathing trouble of trolling to compile your list. I am much more concerned with the substance of any debate and with the freedom to debate it as robustly as any debater may wish, and with the right of the particular blogsite to freely exist. If you don’t like that, you are free to depart.
The point is: calling people degenerate and despicable because they discuss robustly is the first step towards instituting the thought police.
Actually, I am tempted to get a bit more robust myself at times. Like now, but I am being nice today.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Feb 12 at 3:51 pm
MaryT, I find your manner of discourse deeply arousing. Are you single?
wreckage
19 Feb 12 at 5:05 pm
Of course it’s single, wreckage!
Do you think anyone in their right mind would even think of doing the horizontal mambo on a sheila with a hairy chest and no tits?
For Gods sake, will someone give me the night off so I don’t have to look up and see the triple chinned, pigeon chested, tranny for just a couple of hours?
I am so pleased this desk is waterproof from underneath. May God have mercy on this wretched keyboard if it isn’t…
MaryTs Keyboard
20 Feb 12 at 1:15 am