Re: [TNF] Re: [A-List] FW: znet/weisbrot on deflation - critique?

["Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Henry,

First, I am in agreement with what you have said. I picture the dollar to be
backed by the lakes and mountains of New England, on all of its natural
resources and as claims on the productive machinery and labor of the United
States.

But, I would think that, in a real world sense, it is a matter of true or
false and we must demand from it a logic that goes beyond the theoretical.
We must ask the question whether spending more government fiat will result
in a recovery in aggregate demand in a self-sustaining manner. Will the
economic returns sufficient to cover the economic costs? Or, will continuous
infusion of national equity (more fiat spending) be required indefinitely?
The money that is on the table, so to speak, is being spent with the vision
that the private sector eventually takes over. That is what we are talking
about, is it not?

I have no problem understanding that "wise" government spending can lift a
sinking boat. My problem is in the specifics, i.e. after the principle is
accepted, to be tried in practice, exactly what sort of plans and spending
programs will be sent to Congress for budgetary allocation. Rebuild bombed
out factories? Restore farm productivity on farmer abandoned land? We are
not in 1945, no sarcasm intended. The situation is far removed from the
ravages of a World War.

Each country has a desperate need to regain domestic employment where ever
"domestic" is. We have steel mills highly competitive in one country that
force other countries to abandon local industrialization. The poultry and
swine industries outside the US are being brought to marginal profitability,
if not worse, because the US has the cheapest corn. Low paid jobs in
developing countries only mirror the loss of higher paying jobs of developed
country labor.

If proposals of restructuring international trade and those akin to Vickery
(moderate 10% inflation with 1% unemployment) attract attention and
increasing support, I fear it is because it is more of a lack of
alternatives than their inherent logic. We are not in 1936. There is just
too much debt and, without specifics or some road map, we might find
ourselves even more lost and desperate. Maybe spending only for 10%
inflation only gives unemployment a 1% decline. I'm sure Vickery exactness
was only said to make a point. Today's technology for efficiency, after all,
requires less labor both in absolute number and unit cost. If anything, the
proposal, whatever form it takes, must address income distribution above all
else. Money as credit is just part of a brand new General Theory.

Gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "EGroup TheNewForum"
<TheNewForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel" <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: [TNF] Re: [A-List] FW: znet/weisbrot on deflation - critique?


> You need to understand that fiat money is not funny money.  It is backed
> by the asset of the issuing nation.  Prudence in this case will be
> measured by the size of the economy, not some grandmother admonishment.
>
> The fact that government issued money is government credit does not mean
> that government can spend without limits. The limits is the national
> wealth. If the national wealth is monetized at x units of money, that is
> the limit of how much money the government can issue.  If the government
>   issues x+ units of money, then the national wealth will be
> re-monetized at x+ units.  If government credit is spent only on
> productive enterprises, meaning those enterprises that lead to economic
> growth, then there is no limit to how much  money the government can
> issue, as long as the rate of money increase tracks the rate of growth.
>   Also, issuing money is not the same thing as spending money. Money not
> spent is merely pieces of paper.
> That is what a liquidity trap is alll about. Sometimes the government
> can try to increase the money supply, but broad money amount will not
> increase because loans are not being made.  Merely issuing more money
> can end up as pushing on a credit string.  This is why monetary policy
> alone cannot solve all economic problems.
>
> This is not a matter of true or false.  It is a matter of logical
> consistency evolving around a particular but useful view of money.
> Others can hold different views, but those views are less useful, if
> full employment and growth are the objectives.
>
> Henry C.K. Liu
>
>
> Gary Santos wrote:
>
> > Henry,
> >
> > The debate on whether money is a credit or debt is not as interesting as
its
> > follow through ("there is no need for capital formation, because state
> > credit can be issued to finance them") if money is a credit. But, it
gives
> > license to spend well beyond levels what common opinion considers
prudent.
> > We are, after all, dealing with "fiat" whose value can be subject to a
> > downward change value much greater than real assets when hyperinflation
sets
> > in.
> >
> > If, indeed, money is credit and this credit can be freely spend, I fail
to
> > see any assurances that the economic return on these patrimonial
investments
> > will turn out higher than its economic cost, the creation of more claims
on
> > fiat assets. Put another way, if we were to translate the concept of
money
> > as credit into a 5 year Medium Term Plan for a developing economy, what
> > would it look like? Surely, the decision to spend is easier than
deciding
> > what should be spent on. Investment in education with lousy teachers is
> > exactly like a badly made bridge built leading to nowhere. Both are
total
> > wastes of money.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [A-List] FW: znet/weisbrot on deflation - critique?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Ann,
> >>
> >>There is plenty of time for us for duel when our common enemy,
> >>neo-liberalism, is defeated.
> >>
> >>But a few comments below:
> >>
> >>Anyutka wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sorry, Jim, but your analysis is based not on a critique of capitalism,
> >
> > but
> >
> >>>on one of central banking.  Only in a monetarily, centrally-planned
> >
> > economy
> >
> >>>(which central banking creates) in which the medium of exchange is
> >
> > declared
> >
> >>>to be such by a government with a printing press and is bereft of
> >
> > commodity
> >
> >>>backing and therefore enters the economy as debt, is deflation a
threat.
> >>>Under free market capitalism (which by definition requires
> >
> > commodity-backed
> >
> >>>money, which is based on an asset, not debt) deflation is a boon - it
> >
> > clears
> >
> >>>out malinvestments, thereby freeing capital for productive pursuits
> >>>beneficial to all.
> >>
> >>It is true that if money acquires a fixed intrinsic value, it becomes
> >>more clear that holding it is an asset, not a debt.  When government
> >>issues money, with or without backing by valuable commodities, it is
> >>issuing a credit instrument of government asset.  Since all that is not
> >>yet assigned to the private sector is government asset, the government
> >>issued money has intrinsic value, more solid than gold, until the
> >>government falls or owes more foreign debt than its asset (national
> >>wealth) can afford.  Through taxation, the government claim legitimately
> >>a portion of the privat sector.  Now for all "productive pursuits",
> >>meaning all activities beneficial to the common goods, since avtivities
> >>beneficial to the private good cannot logically be defined as
> >>productive, although at times it is possible to have activities that are
> >>beneficial to both public and private good, which is why a private
> >>sector is permissible.  Now for all productive pursuits, there is no
> >>need for capital formation, because state credit can be issued to
> >>finance them.  Only non-productive private pursuits need private capital
> >>formation, being that a person enjoys the right to squander his own
> >>assets and resources, but only to a certain limit, because when we own,
> >>we do not command full authority over an asset, we only control the
> >>right to use it and pass it on to our designated heirs.
> >>
> >>As prices fall due to increased productivity and
> >>
> >>>efficient capital allocation, the value of money grows.  (As a
> >
> > consequence,
> >
> >>>so do domestic savings - the only investment capital of which any
nation
> >
> > can
> >
> >>>truly be assured.)  This is especially important for the working class,
> >
> > who
> >
> >>>pay the greatest price in a fiat system which can only work -
> >
> > temporarily
> >
> >>>and inefficiently - under a regime of perpetual inflation, i.e. theft.
> >>>Funny how nobody gets this right - people cheer when the value of their
> >>>homes rise, but are supposed to be threatened when the value of their
> >
> > money
> >
> >>>does the same?  The only ones truly under the gun from deflation are
the
> >>>govt and their bankster allies - all scam artists, villains, and rogues
> >>>living well off the labor of others. -A.
> >>
> >>When your house increases in price, you enjoy a monetised increase in
> >>value. When prices fall, the value of money in private hands increases
> >>but the value of money as state credit do not necessarily increase.  The
> >>same face value of state credit in the form of money now command more
> >>tangible assets to redeem.  In other words, the seller of the house get
> >>less money (state Credi) with which to do other things with.
> >>
> >>Deflation is neither good or bad except for two factors.  It creates
> >>unemployment and its shrinks the economy.  Those factors are bad for
> >>people who need to work to make a living and for a nation which needs a
> >>growth economy.
> >>
> >>Valuable money is not good for those who have to do or sell things to
> >>get moeny, which is most people.
> >>
> >>Henry C.K. Liu
> >>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:50 PM
> >>>Subject: [A-List] FW: znet/weisbrot on deflation - critique?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There are several reasons why deflation, especially sustained, may
cause
> >>>>some problems for capitalism that monetary policies or indeed fiscal
> >>>>policies cannot fix. First of all deflation, or sustained decreases in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>general price level (as opposed to disinflation or decreases in a
> >
> > positive
> >
> >>>>rate of inflation) can produce dislocations in the following ways:
> >>>>
> >>>>A) Because some business costs are relatively fixed and locked-in in
the
> >>>>short-run (e.g. interest rates fixed for terms of loan agreements,
rents
> >>>>fixed for terms of rental agreements, wage rates fixed for terms of
> >>>>empoyment agreements) sustained deflation can cause a profits squeeze
> >>>>leading to cumulative and self-reinforcing downward effects: e.g.
> >>>
> >>>Deflation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>leads to disinvestment or putting off planned investment, leading to
> >
> > more
> >
> >>>>layoffs, leading to falling real incomes leading to falling aggregate
> >>>
> >>>demand
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>leading to more deflation and falling aggregate supply (partially
> >>>
> >>>cushioning
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the fall in the general price level) and even further rising
> >>>
> >>>unemployment...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>B) Deflation can lead to expectations effects on the demand side (when
> >>>>people expect lower prices or lower future incomes they decrease
present
> >>>>demand in anticipation of the future low incomes and/or future even
> >
> > lower
> >
> >>>>prices thus creating feedback and self-fulfilling/reinforcing effects
on
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>demand side leading to the same on the supply side);
> >>>>
> >>>>C) Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Everbody
> >
> > wants
> >
> >>>>the prices of what they sell to go up while the prices of what they
buy
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>>go down but deflation doesn't work that way often. When the general
> >
> > price
> >
> >>>>level is falling, or better the weighted-average price level (itself a
> >>>>highly suspect construct), it does not mean that every and all prices
> >
> > are
> >
> >>>>falling. Often businesses may find that prices of what they sell are
> >>>
> >>>falling
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>while input prices are not falling as fast, not falling and/or even
> >
> > rising
> >
> >>>>causing profits squeezes and or on the worker side even more dramatic
> >>>>decreases in real wages thus feeding into the cumulative and
> >>>>self-reinforcing spiral downward;
> >>>>
> >>>>D) Falling general prices might stimulate some sales (in the
> >
> > conventional
> >
> >>>>models, a falling general price level stimulates increases in
Aggregate
> >>>>Quantities Demanded leading to increases in real GDP and employment,
> >>>
> >>>leading
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>to increases in employment and real incomes, leading to increases in
> >>>>aggregate demand, profits, investment and ultimately  short-run
> >
> > aggregate
> >
> >>>>supply--the anti-Keynesians start out with supply-led growth)
depending
> >>>
> >>>upon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the overall domestic and global contexts operating. For example, with
> >>>>widening income/wealth inequalities (U.S. is number one out of 22
> >>>>industrialized nations in wealth/incomes inqualities), with masses of
> >>>
> >>>people
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>maxed-out on their credit cards, with real tax burdens being
> >
> > increasingly
> >
> >>>>dumped on the so-called middle-class and below, with increasing
> >>>
> >>>uncertainty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>about the future (employment, real incomes, prices, interest rates,
> >
> > costs
> >
> >>>of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>education, globalization effects, downsizing, outsourcing etc) among
the
> >>>>general mass-demand-producing segments of the population, tax cuts,
> >>>>expansionary monetary policies leading to even lower interest rates
etc
> >>>
> >>>may
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>not and will likely not have the usual intended effects of stimulating
> >>>>employment, output, investment, savings, moderate/necessary increases
in
> >>>>prices, increases in aggregate demand and short-run aggregate supply
> >
> > etc.
> >
> >>>>For example, with the last supposed "tax cuts" and rebates, only about
> >
> > 17%
> >
> >>>>of those who got them spent them; the rest went into drawing down debt
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>>into spending as predicted.
> >>>>
> >>>>E) Often deflation is portrayed as having some positive effects on
> >>>>international trade side and making prices of exports more competitive
> >>>>globally and making imports relatively more expensive and less
> >>>
> >>>competitive;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>this is supposed to simulate net exports and even reverse some slides
in
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>general exchange rate of the dollar. This assumes that prices and
> >
> > relative
> >
> >>>>prices are the only or even significant basis for global demand for
> >>>
> >>>exports
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>and imports. In the context of global recessions and widening global
> >>>>inequaltiies in wealth/incomes, no matter how far prices fall, they
may
> >>>
> >>>well
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>not have any stimulative effects on net exports--especially in the
> >
> > context
> >
> >>>>of nations, like U.S. citizens, maxed-out with their own credit cards;
> >>>>
> >>>>F) Deflation can have effects on preventing future investment,
business
> >>>>start-ups, etc; plus, deflation is usually associated with the most
> >>>
> >>>extreme
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>troughs of a typical business cycle (in most recessions at most we
find
> >>>>disinflation but actual deflation is rare since the Great Depression)
> >
> > thus
> >
> >>>>having negative effects on both investor and consumer--and
> >>>>saver--expectations and psychology; Further, even those deflation,
> >>>>especially unexpected, favors lenders at the expense of borrowers (at
> >>>
> >>>least
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>in theory), and helps to lower real interest rates, the bottom line is
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>bottom line and now matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low
> >
> > real
> >
> >>>>interest rates go, this will not likely simulate significant
investment
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>>real plant and equipment, output and jobs in the context of global and
> >>>>domestic masses suffering falling real incomes and increassing debt
and
> >>>>unable/unwilling to demand any real output that could be produced (who
> >>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>start up a business, no matter how cheap the borrowed money with
little
> >>>>prospects of effective demand); this will but stimulate more
> >
> > wealth/income
> >
> >>>>inequalities and the increased hegemony of financial capital over
> >>>
> >>>industrial
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>and agricultural capital--more paper chasing and short-run
speculation.
> >>>>
> >>>>I could go on, and notice I am looking only from the standpoint of
> >>>>contradictions in bourgeois economic theory, when we bring in a
> >
> > full-blown
> >
> >>>>Marxist analysis, departing from the linear and unidirectional "chains
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>>causality" and ultimate "independent/dependent" variables of bullshit
> >>>>neoclassicism, it gets even worse--or better from the standpoint of
> >>>>destabilizing the whole system.
> >>>>
> >>>>Got to run, more later, this is just for openers.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jim C.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada.
Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/qkHolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> TNF has two guidelines designed to maintain a positive tone.
>
> (1) If you take offense at another member's message, write to that person
privately; if you think the moderators should be informed, CC your private
message to thenewforum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (2) Avoid on-list meta-discussions or co-moderation; address such matters
to the individuals involved and/or to the moderators.
>
>
>
> Address to unsubscribe: TheNewForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>