Precious Metals Forum

Go Back   Precious Metals Forum > Precious Metals and Economic News > Fiat Ponzi

Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By fishfryer
  • 2 Post By DCFusor

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-29-2012, 02:00 AM   #1
Fly on the wall
Island_Dweller's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: South Island, New Zealand
Posts: 86
Liked: 53 times
More Phd Economist propoganda.

More bullshit; Here's my favorite line:

This is, of course, the goal of the government deficit spending that so many economically-ignorant people are trying to stop right now.
Here's the rest if you can stomach it.

He knows what he's talking about because he has a degree and they told him some economic "laws".
Island_Dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 06:07 AM   #2
Golden Cockroach
PMBug's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In Scrooge McDuck's vault
Posts: 7,307
Liked: 2502 times
lol. I notice he doesn't define inflation anywhere. I can help him out:
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. - Lao Tzu

Important stuff: PMBug 101 * Forum Guidelines * Support PMBug
PMBug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 07:14 AM   #3
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Liked: 1 times
I think if you put that equation MV =Py in terms of real money (gold) in a country without a trade deficit it would hold true.

But with the dollar being reserve currency, V is being reduced by a trade deficit, inflation being calculated by liars, the equation becomes meaningless.

Economists are not scientists, scientists have to be cognizant of the natural laws, economists can ignore them for quite a while.

Matter (money) can neither be created or destroyed it can only change forms.

Gold can be neither be created nor destroyed it can only change forms.

Dollars bills can neither be created nor destroyed??????

We know you can create dollars, so lets not confuse economics with anything but fantasy. This is why ALL FIAT currencies fail. Economists can ignore reality for a while.
PMBug likes this.
fishfryer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 12:02 PM   #4
Yellow Jacket
DCFusor's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Floyd, Virginia
Posts: 1,682
Liked: 1233 times
I got straight A's in economics in college (along with A's in science/math/computers, but F's in most all other things - if it's not interesting to me, I can't make myself do it it seems).

I never practiced it, outside how I use it to guide my trading - and that's not quantitative at all, I just use it to guide my gut.

My takeaway was this - yes, some fairly simple rules can tell you quite a lot, and be very predictive - BUT! (and it's a huge hairy ugly butt) - you have to have the right numbers to plug in and the details really matter, like with any equation-set that can go divergent through iteration (fractals).

Thus, it's just like predicting the weather, which only takes 6 or so pretty simple equations. BUT! For the weather, this means all you need is 6-7 values measured for every small packet of air in a rather large area - you need both resolution and scale, and it's very dangerous to interpolate any holes in the data (which might contain a microburst - or a tornado). Then you can just grind through this simple stuff (but a lot of it!) and get to the weather on the next roundy round - any errors in original data or the calculation of course can do worse than add up - that's the basic thing we mean when we say "divergent". Also, errors in assumptions at the sample border (no one has yet managed to get a full snapshot of the entire atmosphere) can come screaming into the middle of your set real quick.

Economists don't have these numbers. It's pretty hopeless for them to ever get them, and they all matter, from what the crack dealer on the corner gets on up - they ALL are important, and the black market (far larger than estimated), barter, cooked books, and so on mean they'll never have them.

But I guess once you pay all that money for schooling, you have to do something to eat and pay back the student loans anyway. There are an awful large number of other PhD's in the same boat it seems these days.

A lot of it comes down to the fact that there are as yet, no closed form (feedforward) solutions to quite a number of apparently simple problems - it's not just economics.
The three body problem in gravitation is one that comes to mind in physics. There is no math you can plug in say, the masses, speeds, locations of all the stuff in the solar system and ask "where is Jupiter in 100 years". You can only calculate where it's going to be in a millisecond - everything moved, so all the numbers for the next roundy round have changed, repeat till you get to 100 years. You can see how utterly error-prone this is going to be with any finite time slice above zero, or any error in initial conditions.

Folding@home is facing the same set of issues. It's all over science of all kinds.
You can tell what's going to happen in some simple case next, but that's it.

The general invert-ability problem is another. You can give me a chemical lattice structure, and if need be I can go all the way down to the wavefunctions of the pieces and generate all the properties this thing will have (at least, the simple physical ones, not perhaps how it would interact with other things as a drug).

But! There's no way to say - gee, I need something that's this strong, with that melting point, strain rate - and then use that math to design the compound.

The more you know, the more you know you don't know...still true.
DCFusor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 01:52 PM   #5
Predaceous stink bug
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 130
Liked: 95 times
You can prove almost anything if you start with an incorrect assumption.
dali lambone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 06:14 PM   #6
Ground Beetle
bushi's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
well to be honest he has some good points, and some things he said are still quite obvious and easy to grasp by intuition, but I can't agree with him on one thing: the amount of money being printed, even if it does not create inflation just NOW (rightly he said - that most of QE money sits right in the banks - and quite often, not just because customers do not want to get more loans - try to go & get some credit in Ireland today, bwuahaha!). But for how long? Banks are not making money from sitting on money, so they will need to start lending it again, at some stage. That is when tires kick the dust, and prices start to soar. And multiply the fresh money supply provided by "stimuluses" of all sorts by a factor of 10, roughly (fractional reserves banking), and you will see how much new money will be available, at SOME stage in the near future. Even if P,V, y or whatever letters are not constant but prone to some fluctuations, (as they undoubtedly are), $22 trillion of new money available, will not pass unnoticed.
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 10:10 PM   #7
PM Bug Supporter
DoChenRollingBearing's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SE USA
Posts: 1,275
Liked: 691 times
@ DCFusor

They STILL have not solved the Three Body Problem? That makes your comments (a month or so ago?) even better re risks of nuclear power designs...

DoChenRollingBearing is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® from Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Content of copyright © 2011 - 2020 Measuring Up. All Rights Reserved.