4 ms·

Independent central banks have such solid empirical support for making economies more stable that all 200+ countries in the world chose them. As a simple entry

Independent central banks have such solid empirical support for making economies more stable that all 200+ countries in the world chose them. As a simple entry into the evidence start with https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/recent-trends-central-bank-independence https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/recent-trends-central-bank-in..., and follow up via google scholar.

ty6853 2y ago
I have no trouble beleiving having a central bank that can buy government debt with newly created money, essentially taxing the populace via inflation without exposing representatives to voting on a tax, might be highly attractive to governments worldwide. It is a fairly reliable way to burden the populace under an illusion they don't well see through.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  > I have no trouble beleiving having a central bank that can buy government debt with newly created money, essentially taxing the populace via inflation without exposing representatives to voting on a tax, might be highly attractive to governments worldwide. Then I recommend you learn some economics and how to look at past evidence. First, it's not taxing people - pretty much zero people hold all their money in cash. Without targeted low inflation, countries run the risk of a deflationary spiral, which means massive unemployment and wealth destruction. At no point did a person pay them a tax. And any govt debt they buy is exactly the result of elected officials spending more than they take in. Don't want the Fed buying govt debt - tell your politicians to raise taxes to pay for what they use, or to cut (and note - the current DOGE idiocy looks at best to cut a fraction of a percent of the budget, while the GOP looks, once again, to add trillions to the debt under the never-once-worked belief that somehow tax cuts will pay for themselves... That is sheer idiocy of the highest form: not a single time has that done it, yet they and their ignorant followers try and try and try.... - this is where your debt comes from). Assets other than cash inflate along with inflation, which is where most people hold assets (houses, stocks, pension funds, pretty much everything). Inflation also lowers payments for fixed loans, like mortgages, so inflation generally gives value to borrowers (they have less effective to pay back over time) at the cost to lenders. So most people at some point have a longer term loan (house, education), and inflation adds to their wealth by making them owe less. So your argument is both ignorant and doesn't understand basic econ or reality. It's this ignorant, self-righteous and frankly incredibly stupid view nearly unique to Americans that is right now destroying trillions in wealth for Americans through equivalently stupid, ignorant, and short sighted policy. So congrats - you are the problem for America. I do not understand how the US went from an economic powerhouse with decent policy and an educated populace to support itself to the current idiot cycle of discredited ideas and such ignorant masses thinking they understand topics they clearly do not. Good luck tanking your economy. It looks like your health system is going along with it.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Lol I am paraphrasing Milton Friedman [0 1]. A very ignorant, stupid person with a Nobel prize in economics. [0] “Do We Need Central Banks?” by Milton Friedman In Monetary Management in Hong Kong, Proceedings of the Seminar on Monetary Management organized by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority on 18-19 October 1993, pp. 44-47 [1] Free to Choose lecture films series
    - SideQuark 2y ago
      The problem with appealing to authority is they become obsolete. The 2022 Nobel in Econ went to work specifically about the value and importance of central banking surpassing Friedman’s long outdated view (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). And nothing he said that you “paraphrased” supports your claims. Heck, the word “tax” never even appears in his essay. If you’re going to appeal to authority, I recommend you at least look over the list of Econ Nobels after Friedman - there’s plenty after him actually on topic or much closer than his field of expertise. You may want to learn from them.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        I'm not appealing to authority (I did not even mention economists who thought this way until YOU chose to make it personal about problem people for America), I am providing examples that the counter argument does not make you stupid, which was a cheap ad hominem attack. Its just a cheap underhanded attack to call people ignorant and stupid and then call it an appeal to authority as soon as an example is presented of someone who beleived same but was not. I am not saying the argument is correct because milton said it (t hat would be appeal to authority), I'm saying he disproves that the view must come from stupidity/ignorance. >tax The also cited lectures explain why he believed it was an invisible tax. Milton friedman beleived inflation was an invisible tax. Then he characterised our central bank as a source of inflation. We could dig up additional sources, but I think you know this if you know so much of nobel laureates in economists, it would merely be a make work exercise you would promptly discard. Deliberately feigning ignorance doesn't mean I haven't paraphrased him correctly, although really he is one of many I paraphrase because many economists have held this view. > (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). Both Friedmans and Bernankes nobel prize brief mention research that includes the central bank. Friedman's nobel brief specifically called out research on the federal reserve during the great depression in A Monetary History of the United States. But neither prize narrowed central banks as the center focus of the prize.

ty6853 2y ago

I have no trouble beleiving having a central bank that can buy government debt with newly created money, essentially taxing the populace via inflation without exposing representatives to voting on a tax, might be highly attractive to governments worldwide. It is a fairly reliable way to burden the populace under an illusion they don't well see through.

SideQuark 2y ago
> I have no trouble beleiving having a central bank that can buy government debt with newly created money, essentially taxing the populace via inflation without exposing representatives to voting on a tax, might be highly attractive to governments worldwide. Then I recommend you learn some economics and how to look at past evidence. First, it's not taxing people - pretty much zero people hold all their money in cash. Without targeted low inflation, countries run the risk of a deflationary spiral, which means massive unemployment and wealth destruction. At no point did a person pay them a tax. And any govt debt they buy is exactly the result of elected officials spending more than they take in. Don't want the Fed buying govt debt - tell your politicians to raise taxes to pay for what they use, or to cut (and note - the current DOGE idiocy looks at best to cut a fraction of a percent of the budget, while the GOP looks, once again, to add trillions to the debt under the never-once-worked belief that somehow tax cuts will pay for themselves... That is sheer idiocy of the highest form: not a single time has that done it, yet they and their ignorant followers try and try and try.... - this is where your debt comes from). Assets other than cash inflate along with inflation, which is where most people hold assets (houses, stocks, pension funds, pretty much everything). Inflation also lowers payments for fixed loans, like mortgages, so inflation generally gives value to borrowers (they have less effective to pay back over time) at the cost to lenders. So most people at some point have a longer term loan (house, education), and inflation adds to their wealth by making them owe less. So your argument is both ignorant and doesn't understand basic econ or reality. It's this ignorant, self-righteous and frankly incredibly stupid view nearly unique to Americans that is right now destroying trillions in wealth for Americans through equivalently stupid, ignorant, and short sighted policy. So congrats - you are the problem for America. I do not understand how the US went from an economic powerhouse with decent policy and an educated populace to support itself to the current idiot cycle of discredited ideas and such ignorant masses thinking they understand topics they clearly do not. Good luck tanking your economy. It looks like your health system is going along with it.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Lol I am paraphrasing Milton Friedman [0 1]. A very ignorant, stupid person with a Nobel prize in economics. [0] “Do We Need Central Banks?” by Milton Friedman In Monetary Management in Hong Kong, Proceedings of the Seminar on Monetary Management organized by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority on 18-19 October 1993, pp. 44-47 [1] Free to Choose lecture films series
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    The problem with appealing to authority is they become obsolete. The 2022 Nobel in Econ went to work specifically about the value and importance of central banking surpassing Friedman’s long outdated view (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). And nothing he said that you “paraphrased” supports your claims. Heck, the word “tax” never even appears in his essay. If you’re going to appeal to authority, I recommend you at least look over the list of Econ Nobels after Friedman - there’s plenty after him actually on topic or much closer than his field of expertise. You may want to learn from them.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      I'm not appealing to authority (I did not even mention economists who thought this way until YOU chose to make it personal about problem people for America), I am providing examples that the counter argument does not make you stupid, which was a cheap ad hominem attack. Its just a cheap underhanded attack to call people ignorant and stupid and then call it an appeal to authority as soon as an example is presented of someone who beleived same but was not. I am not saying the argument is correct because milton said it (t hat would be appeal to authority), I'm saying he disproves that the view must come from stupidity/ignorance. >tax The also cited lectures explain why he believed it was an invisible tax. Milton friedman beleived inflation was an invisible tax. Then he characterised our central bank as a source of inflation. We could dig up additional sources, but I think you know this if you know so much of nobel laureates in economists, it would merely be a make work exercise you would promptly discard. Deliberately feigning ignorance doesn't mean I haven't paraphrased him correctly, although really he is one of many I paraphrase because many economists have held this view. > (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). Both Friedmans and Bernankes nobel prize brief mention research that includes the central bank. Friedman's nobel brief specifically called out research on the federal reserve during the great depression in A Monetary History of the United States. But neither prize narrowed central banks as the center focus of the prize.