RobertoG

27 ms·

271.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I'm not a physicist, so, please take my opinion like you would take the opinion of somebody chatting in the groceries shop queue, but I find the subject fascinating and I just want to share my crazy theory. At least, I think it would m
272.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I think that's what they call "pushing on a string" (1). Central banks can make lending/borrowing a worst business (higher interest rate) but they can't force people to borrow. So, monetary policy is very limited wh
273.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I think we agree on everything.
274.
by RobertoG 5y ago
The difference between nominal and real interest rate is inflation and the main mandate of Central Banks is the control of inflation. So, I don't think it's accurate to say they have no control.
275.
by RobertoG 5y ago
1. The Federal Reserve have to add reserves to the system when there is demand from the economy in order to keep the interest rate that they want. Otherwise, the interest rate would go up because the offer and demand dynamics between the pr
276.
by RobertoG 5y ago
To clarify a little further, the central banks have some kind of control through the interest rate. The interest rate, at the end, it's not decided by bond markets or private banks lending one to another, but by the central bank adding
277.
by RobertoG 5y ago
It's just that, from a evolutionary standpoint, the kind of work that we do nowadays, is totally unnatural. So it's not strange that we have chaotic behaviors.
278.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I didn't say anything about the ideal savings rate being 0% The quantity of savings is divorce of the quantity of money available for investing or, in other words, lending money doesn't come from savings. That's an empirical
279.
by RobertoG 5y ago
The public deficit is the surplus of the private sector (1). Without that deficit you would have or a fall in GDP or an increase in private debt (that it's a lot worst than public debt). (1) https://www.youtube.com/watc
280.
by RobertoG 5y ago
It has not changed, the problem is that the normal narrative has the causality wrong. The explanation we get is this: private banks have a quantity of reserves and they can lend only what the money multiplier allows them. So, they are limit
281.
by RobertoG 5y ago
What are those instruments? Let's say I'm only interested in keep pace with inflation with not risk. I don't know a lot of options nowadays.
282.
by RobertoG 5y ago
>"Savings don't sit in a vault somewhere. They get reinvested into the economy, providing capital. " No they don't. Savings is only a number in a computer and lending is not limited to the available savings because pr
283.
by RobertoG 5y ago
The answer is corruption? Was that comment necessary? Do you have information that we don't have? Also, it's not like corruption doesn't happen everywhere. For instance, not so long ago the Estonian government (that would be
284.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I think you feel that way because you can't appreciate the argument from only a small quote. They get it right. The reason QE was (is) not inflationary is because that money it's not being spent in the economy, it's only addi
285.
by RobertoG 5y ago
>"Didn't happen... for <insert reasons that are now thought to be obvious but nobody knew before hand>." That's not exactly true, MMT was right about that beforehand, this is from 2009: "There are also thos
286.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I think we are talking pass other. What I'm saying is not so complicated (maybe I complicated it): any human organization will have the same kind of problems. You seem fixated in public vs. private, I don't think that distinction
287.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I have asked myself about this calculation sometimes. If a lot of private companies go bust, we compare governments that not go bust with the surviving companies. In terms of resources wasted, how the inefficient of public services would fa
288.
by RobertoG 5y ago
">>Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt." Because the system is not "clearly corrupt", it's just a human organization and it's always going to be some corruption and inefficiency (
289.
by RobertoG 5y ago
The fed just credit the account of the government. The securities buying part is just a legal requirement.
290.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I think you are confusing monetary policy with fiscal policy.
291.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I suppose that's true for some countries, but in most countries you can do something about it, even if it takes a lot of work. You can vote different, join transparency organizations and so on. Small stock owners have not more power th
292.
by RobertoG 5y ago
I can only assume that you guys have not worked for big private companies. What you are saying is typical of almost any big organization, public or private.
293.
by RobertoG 5y ago
>>"How do proponents of govt run services and production units address this core flaw. I've asked many people but have never gotten a good response. " You are assuming two things that are not true. First, that this alwa
294.
by RobertoG 5y ago
It would depend on how is done. Here there is a video with a good explanation by Warren Mosler. It mentions the appreciation effect that you comment about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2iBD1x5ofw
295.
by RobertoG 5y ago
Yes, but then, people get all puzzled and surprised when they read that, median household wealth, is bigger in Italy or Spain than Germany.
296.
by RobertoG 5y ago
Well, I suppose that Warren Buffet and similar are all renting then. I think that part of the problem is thinking of your home only in terms of an financial investment. A home is a place for living, you are always going to need a place for
297.
by RobertoG 5y ago
Until you pay the mortgage. Then, your bigger expense, rent, disappear and you can start saving. Also, the thread of homelessness disappear from your life. That's something never will happen if you keep just renting.
298.
by RobertoG 5y ago
>>"Owning your own home is, in my view, the first step towards financial freedom." I totally agree. It's obvious to me that home ownership is what allows the existence of a "middle class". That makes it a targ
299.
by RobertoG 6y ago
Ah, that's it, thanks! For some reason I was thinking "this little book" was Darwin book (that it's actually quite small).
300.
by RobertoG 6y ago
>>"I am sure that many of the erudite readers of this little book know On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin inside and out. " I can't parse that sentence. Does it make sense? (English is not my first language)

More ›