Then they must have be doing something wrong?
Obviously people would not be foregoing free money if it was easy to get.
You are arguing that people would not spend "free" 100 usd on their rent if the money/voucher was directed towards rent.
No, this is absurd. So you would let all media companies censor someone "because they don't like him"?
The only reason you trust private media companies is because they are supposed to be as neutral as possible, not political.
If not neutral, then perhaps society should start treating them for what they really are - private political machines.
Furthermore censorship is stupid. You might like it when it's Trump getting censored, but you wont be laughing once the censorship comes back and hits you. Free speech fuck yes.
> When the government releases more cash into the market, the supply of cash is increased. When people have a larger supply of cash, they can pay more for goods and services. If the cash infusion is at a certain level, prices may not increase nominally(compared to before a recession) because the increased supply of money prevented their drop.
So how is that a bad thing? You keep demand high and you keep companies from LOSING money, ie., they keep people employed.
> Markets exist without government and with governments.
Maybe, maybe not. But it sure is a shitty market without a government. If governments don't set up regulations, rules, and intervene, you're pretty fucked. I could easily be a big scammer then.
> When a business or person is making decisions based on market dynamics and a government steps in to alter the dynamics, that is artificial, because it is produced by a political agency. It is not a natural quality of the market.
Okay. So you are saying markets should rule and the people should not have a say in what is going on the country? Why is it bad other than you don't seem to like government?
> Companies pay less for material because demand has gone down, this allows them to continue to employ people and be competitive and profitable.
But you need to think in cycles. As you state yourself:
> There will be temporary imbalances of course, which will result in job losses and business closures.
This will lead to a recession if the government doesn't intervene. As observed, in reality, capitalism works in cycles. Up and down. What happened when we had the sort of capitalism that you want? A depression. The depression wasn't solved before government stepped in during WWII to increase demand. Magically waiting for demand to pick up aint gonna happen.
> Misallocation refers to capital that was directed to unprofitable sectors of industry at a macro and micro scale.
There is no such thing as misallocation. In real life, people set up businesses because they believe they can start a company that is profitable. Some people set up businesses where they think they can create a demand for their product or service, others set up knowing that demand is pretty much there. If you cant sell your product or demand isn't there, the company goes bankrupt. It didn't work. A new company will start somewhere else, where the workers are needed. So are the ways of capitalism.
> When governments print money and allow business unfettered access to this money via low interest rates, companies take advantage of it...
Let me stop you there. I am not talking about money printing in the form of debt. I am talking about debt-free money printing which the government has the capability to do.
> Please explain. How does pegged(commodity) dollar hinder growth, given the history of the US dollar peg and substantial economic growth? Avoids inflation for the rich?
"So, on every score, the gold standard period was less stable. Prices were less stable; growth was less stable; and the financial system was less stable."
and more importantly:
"(...) The loss of gold forced the deficit country’s central bank to shrink its balance sheet, reducing the quantity of money and credit in the economy, and driving domestic prices down. Put differently, under a gold standard, countries running external deficits face deflationary pressure. A surplus country’s central bank faced no such pressure, as it could choose whether to convert higher gold stocks into money or not. Put another way, a central bank can have too little gold, but it can never have too much."
"This brings us back to where we started. Under a gold standard, inflation, growth and the financial system are all less stable. There are more recessions, larger swings in consumer prices and more banking crises. When things go wrong in one part of the world, the distress will be transmitted more quickly and completely to others. In short, re-creating a gold standard would be a colossal mistake."
Since the currency is pegged, it will constrict the supply of money. When production increases, but the money supply is constant, it will create deflationary pressure. Deflationary pressure = prices fall. Prices falling = recession. So whenever the economy was growing, the gold standard made sure to halt that growth by letting prices fall and introducing fiscal austerity.
So why does this system fit the rentier class?
Well.
If you have a high inflation, then assets will deliver smaller returns over time. And the rich don't live on wages, but assets like stocks, land, property, bonds etc. If you are only getting 3% on a loan/bond, and the inflation is 3%, then in the end, you get 0.
> Inflation literally is money printing. Price increases is not inflation. Price increases can be caused by inflation. Prices can remain nominally the same while money supply has increased.
Well, in today's world it is. Yes, not according to your 'old-school' definition of it. But if anyone says "inflation" today - it means price increases. Nothing more, nothing less.
> The prices while having not risen nominally are still artificially inflated.
Care to explain?
> It is just the economy. If you are referring to a recession, printing money during a recession arguably may not cause prices to rise nominally, but it artificially inflates them.
Yes, I meant a recession. Please, once again, elaborate what you mean by "artificially inflated prices"?
> During a recession prices typically go down due to falling demand. This is a good thing. It allows people who are suffering to enjoy lower prices.
Ehh, ok. So what happens to those people when companies start making less money?
> Recessions are a healing process for a previous period of misallocation of resources.
Care to explain how resources are "misallocated"?
> Money printing only serves to exacerbate and extend the misallocation.
Lol, no it doesn't. Sounds like a neoclassical fairytale.
In a recession, you are arguing that one shouldn't print money, because it only "extends misallocation".
Please explain me a proper allocation and a misallocation.
Makes no sense. Newly printed money would add demand - as it should. It would create jobs and have nothing to do with "misallocation", That "misallocation" sounds like a conservative argument. No one can explain or prove it, or even make sense of it, but if you keep repeating it, then people will believe it.
> We left the gold standard because we were afraid to deal with the recession from the spending of '60s
No, America left it because it was a shit system. Capitalism is inherently monetary. Having a currency pegged hinders growth and only serves to avoid inflation for the rich. Rentier capitalism doesn't like inflation.
Printing money does not automatically lead to inflation.
Since inflation is just the price of stuff rising, the question becomes, when do prices rise?
The price can rise for multiple reasons:
The price can rise because the company just wants to charge more, like Apple.
The price can rise because a company's underlying cost rises. Maybe some type of metal became more expensive.
Either way, the only way that money printing can lead to inflation is if that money creates so much demand that a company needs to expand production capacity to produce more, and if that capacity has rising costs.
If a company expands from, let's say 65% capacity to 75% capacity, and has constant costs, then it doesn't matter. Then more people will be employed due to increased demand, and the economy will boom. This makes money printing a good policy.
If, however, the company goes from 85% to 95%, then the company might start to invest in extra capacity, which might add costs, and thereby might raise prices.
So, do prices rise just because a certain amount of dollars were added to an economy ? No, certainly not. Which is why the money printing should only happen when the economy is dysfunctional. Basically Keynes in a nutshell. :-)
This article makes no sense?
There is a fundamental difference between issuing a random "IOU" (like anyone can do) and an "IOU" which is universally accepted as payment (ie money - which banks do).
I'm sure I could issue a OMGPWNIOU, but difference is, that no one will accept it as payment.