4 ms·

> That's a 100% bad faith argument Actually, I'd forgotten about the redefinition. You pretending that when someone says "printing money" they mean physical pr

> That's a 100% bad faith argument Actually, I'd forgotten about the redefinition. You pretending that when someone says "printing money" they mean physical printing presses with ink and paper, rather than a figure of speech, is the actual bad faith argument here.

ajross 3y ago
No, I'm saying that when someone says "printing money" they're engaging in demagoguery instead of discussing the issue on merits. Which is fine, if you're making a political point about your enemies within the in-group that understands your shorthand[1]. But this subthread is an actual point about economics and public financing. You can't demagogue that. [1] c.f. ACAB, etc... Every partisan subculture has its jargon.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Okay, since you're apparently never going to respond to the actual issue about why (e.g.) jacking up the money supply by pushing buttons at the Fed and Treasury doesn't have the same effect as running the printing presses (more so, in fact; as I pointed out there's a limit on how fast presses can run), I think we're done. First you tried to deflect by going off on my mistake about why M1 increased so much, even though that was completely beside the point -- although it DID increase massively, just not as much. This is akin to your pedantic non-argument about how increasing the money supply doesn't generally involve running physical presses. Now you're trying to deflect by calling me a "demagogue". I will ask you one last time, and if you don't give me a straight, non-evasive answer (which you won't) we're done. How, in actual effect, does increasing the money supply $n trillion by running the presses faster differ from the Fed/Treasury increasing the money supply by typing numbers into a keyboard? Hint: it doesn't. But you can't admit it because that would demolish your entire thesis. Bye now.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > although it DID increase massively, just not as much It's shrinking very rapidly as we have this silly argument, even as you'd admit that no action was taken to reduce spending: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL About 60% of the increase over the pandemic has disappeared, as people spend down the accumulated wealth. That's not "massive", and just not consistent with the idea of "money printing"; the analysis is complicated, and has as much to do with supply effects (not as much stuff to buy due to impeded production/shipping) as it does with pandemic relief aid. I'm happy to have this discussion and to educate you about these issues. But not if you insist on painting things with ridiculous smears like "printing money" (and especially when you start with outrageous claims that are clearly lies you picked up from partisan media).
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > It's shrinking very rapidly as we have this silly argument, even as you'd admit that no action was taken to reduce spending: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL That's not answering the question. > educate you about these issues. Oh, DO be quiet. You could "educate" me by actually answering the question, but (once again) you haven't. Bye again!
      - ajross 3y ago
        What's your question, exactly? "Can inflation[1] be caused by other means than literally printing money?" Of course it can. That's not a license to call things like supply shocks or trade wars "printing money" though. Your hyperfocus on this one gotcha point is betraying your ignorance about the actual economics, which is my point you seem to be trying to ignore. [1] Actually you started with money supply expansion, which isn't really the same thing. But I think you're really talking about inflation.

ajross 3y ago

No, I'm saying that when someone says "printing money" they're engaging in demagoguery instead of discussing the issue on merits. Which is fine, if you're making a political point about your enemies within the in-group that understands your shorthand[1]. But this subthread is an actual point about economics and public financing. You can't demagogue that. [1] c.f. ACAB, etc... Every partisan subculture has its jargon.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
Okay, since you're apparently never going to respond to the actual issue about why (e.g.) jacking up the money supply by pushing buttons at the Fed and Treasury doesn't have the same effect as running the printing presses (more so, in fact; as I pointed out there's a limit on how fast presses can run), I think we're done. First you tried to deflect by going off on my mistake about why M1 increased so much, even though that was completely beside the point -- although it DID increase massively, just not as much. This is akin to your pedantic non-argument about how increasing the money supply doesn't generally involve running physical presses. Now you're trying to deflect by calling me a "demagogue". I will ask you one last time, and if you don't give me a straight, non-evasive answer (which you won't) we're done. How, in actual effect, does increasing the money supply $n trillion by running the presses faster differ from the Fed/Treasury increasing the money supply by typing numbers into a keyboard? Hint: it doesn't. But you can't admit it because that would demolish your entire thesis. Bye now.
- ajross 3y ago
  > although it DID increase massively, just not as much It's shrinking very rapidly as we have this silly argument, even as you'd admit that no action was taken to reduce spending: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL About 60% of the increase over the pandemic has disappeared, as people spend down the accumulated wealth. That's not "massive", and just not consistent with the idea of "money printing"; the analysis is complicated, and has as much to do with supply effects (not as much stuff to buy due to impeded production/shipping) as it does with pandemic relief aid. I'm happy to have this discussion and to educate you about these issues. But not if you insist on painting things with ridiculous smears like "printing money" (and especially when you start with outrageous claims that are clearly lies you picked up from partisan media).
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > It's shrinking very rapidly as we have this silly argument, even as you'd admit that no action was taken to reduce spending: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL That's not answering the question. > educate you about these issues. Oh, DO be quiet. You could "educate" me by actually answering the question, but (once again) you haven't. Bye again!
    - ajross 3y ago
      What's your question, exactly? "Can inflation[1] be caused by other means than literally printing money?" Of course it can. That's not a license to call things like supply shocks or trade wars "printing money" though. Your hyperfocus on this one gotcha point is betraying your ignorance about the actual economics, which is my point you seem to be trying to ignore. [1] Actually you started with money supply expansion, which isn't really the same thing. But I think you're really talking about inflation.