[Rancid]

Currency is worth as much as someone else is willing to exchange for it Rancid. Flood the market with it and the price crashes.

Also, if I am going to be frank, I would even go as far as to say the Dollar is already over valued. Demand for it being a reserve currency and being the currency used for commodity exchange keeps it inflated. But one day, no doubt during a crash, hyperinflation awaits the Dollar and the financial system will reset itself at the expense of the capitalist. But of course, I could just be a doomsayer. Time waits to find out.

You've provided no insight.

You're a doomsayer with no concrete evidence. You rely on the fact that you will be right at some non-discernible point in the future. At which point you will claim "Ah ha!! I was right! you see!"

Give me more than just "something bad is going to happen... eventually". I agree with that statement, but you don't even know how/when and under what conditions it's gonna go bad.

Hell, I would argue the US dollar could use some inflation at the moment.

[RhetoricThug]

Hell, I would argue the US dollar could use some inflation at the moment.

Central banks regulate inflation.

@B0ycey is right to simply say when supply outstrips demand (which determines value)... But the US dollar or federal reserve note hasn't had fixed rate convertibility since 1971 (see Gold standard). The U.S. treasury department prints fiat money. Currency exchange rates float and fluctuate due to trade (imports exports, supply/demand), but a central bank's fixed interest rate lessens market volatility (and cushions market forces) and encourages growth/circulation/spending. Federal reserve notes = debt (but we call it credit) and debt = money (whether it can be repaid or not) and money = growth. Most banks need to meet minimum capital requirements (and they will borrow from other banks to do so) and this is why a bank-run can create insolvency, banks do not actually have enough reserves to match the bank-run demand.

If things get real ugly, expansionary monetary institutions (see what the Fed did during 08 recession) use quantitative easing (buy bonds & securities) to artificially stabilize markets.

Hyperinflation will occur when a majority of other countries lose faith in the U.S. dollar. This will produce a global economic reset. Technologists will benefit greatly from the next great crash. Cryptocurrencies will end central banking as we know it.

Faced with hyperinflation, I'm not sure what would happen to the U.S. economy. Other nations/markets would suffer greatly... Hence why global debt levels continue to climb. It's mutually assured destruction for the world economy.

[Rancid]

Central banks regulate inflation.

Not exactly.

They TRY to regulate it by manipulating interest rates. In the last few decades that lever hasn't worked as well. it's why we haven't had hyper inflation with such historically low interest rates we have.

[Steve_American]

1] Currency is worth as much as someone else is willing to exchange for it Rancid.
2] Flood the market with it and the price crashes.

3] Also, if I am going to be frank, I would even go as far as to say the Dollar is already over valued. Demand for it being a reserve currency and being the currency used for commodity exchange keeps it inflated.
4] But one day, no doubt during a crash, hyperinflation awaits the Dollar and the financial system will reset itself at the expense of the capitalist. But of course, I could just be a doomsayer. Time waits to find out.

1] I agree.
2] Yes, if the market is "flooded" it will crash. However ---
. . . a] Rain is a good thing, right?
. . . b] But, so much rain that there is a flood is bad, we agree.
. . . c] So, what is too much rain?
. . So, why do you think the current US amount of deficit spending is too much and will cause a "flood". MMTers assert that deficit spending is a good thing in moderation, just like rain. MMTers assert that flooding the economy with too much deficit spending is a very bad thing and will cause the 'flood' you are worried about.
. . MMTers define precisely what is too much deficit spending. You don't. You are vague. Obviously you have read very little produced by MMTers. Probably you mostly read stuff by Neo-liberals. So, of course you spew Neo-liberal stuff.
3] Maybe this is true, I'm not sure and I can't get MMTers to reply to this either. This lack of reply makes me worry a little.
4] In a crash [pretty much by definition] there is a drop in prices. Right?
. . . So, in the coming crash, how can prices shoot up? I don't understand how both are possible at the same time.
. . . But, maybe you didn't mean 'crash'; maybe you meant 'crisis'.

Look, the thing is --- What will cause the next crisis? Will it be personal or private debt OR will it be US Gov. debt? So, far in US history I see no case where US Gov. debt caused a crisis. I do see many cases where private debt caused a crisis. Every bank panic of the 1800s was caused by private debt.
. . . You assert without any evidence that it will be because of US Gov. debt or worse because the US Gov. funds deficit spending by creating dollars [i.e. prints (to use the common but wrong phrase) a small amount of dollars]. The US has shot up the debt to over $20T by some experts over the last 38 years, a 2000% increase. And yet this isn't enough to have caused even big inflation let alone hyperinflation. This is at least evidence that the national debt is not a problem.
.

Also, in another reply you said that intra-gov. debt plus public debt == national debt. This is true.
. . . But Rancid didn't say public debt, he said 'personal and corp. debt'.
. . . Did you get confused or were you replying to someone else?

[Steve_American]

Central banks regulate inflation.

@B0ycey is right to simply say when supply outstrips demand (which determines value)... But the US dollar or federal reserve note hasn't had fixed rate convertibility since 1971 (see Gold standard). The U.S. treasury department prints fiat money. Currency exchange rates float and fluctuate due to trade (imports exports, supply/demand), but a central bank's fixed interest rate lessens market volatility (and cushions market forces) and encourages growth/circulation/spending. Federal reserve notes = debt (but we call it credit) and debt = money (whether it can be repaid or not) and money = growth. Most banks need to meet minimum capital requirements (and they will borrow from other banks to do so) and this is why a bank-run can create insolvency, banks do not actually have enough reserves to match the bank-run demand.

If things get real ugly, expansionary monetary institutions (see what the Fed did during 08 recession) use quantitative easing (buy bonds & securities) to artificially stabilize markets.

Hyperinflation will occur when a majority of other countries lose faith in the U.S. dollar. This will produce a global economic reset. Technologists will benefit greatly from the next great crash. Cryptocurrencies will end central banking as we know it.

Faced with hyperinflation, I'm not sure what would happen to the U.S. economy. Other nations/markets would suffer greatly... Hence why global debt levels continue to climb. It's mutually assured destruction for the world economy.

Cryptocurrencies IIRC require large amounts of electricity to be created. This is a total waste of coal, oil, or natural gas. Or of what it took to make new solar panels. Why is this a good thing?

Hyperinflation is what exactly? Is it 5%, or 10%; or is it 1000% in a year.
I seriously doubt the current level of US national debt could result in 1000% inflation. It might cause 10% in a year. But then it would stop unless the US kept printing dollars. MMTers have strongly said that if high inflation starts then the US should react by doubling or tripling tax collections. Tax new things if necessary to suck up the excess dollars. Germany in the 20s just kept printing because it needed to buy gold to pay the reparations. The US does not and will not owe reparations. So, the analogy is not correct, it is a lie, in fact. A story to scare people. It is just Propaganda.

And if I understand your point; for the world to impose hyperinflation on the US would likely crash the whole world economy and that is a lot like mutual assured distruction.
. . . This also why I doubt the US will ever default on its whole national debt. To do so would crash the world's economy. Far better to just create dollars as the bonds come due and flood the world with dollars. OTOH, insurance comp. need US bonds as assets to keep the required funds on hand to fund their liabilities.
. . . Note: MMTer very strongly assert that all nations with fiat currencies, floating exchange rates, no foreign debts in other currencies and no treaty requirement to not print money are not like a person, family, or corporation. Such nations don't need to (and in fact can't) fund their liabilities. Recently in this thread just above, someone asserted the the SS Trust Fund should have been invested in some asset to keep it safe. What asset would do that? Well ---
. . . a] It must be in the US so it can't be appropriated, right?
. . . b] If it were corp. stocks, what would putting $3T into the stock market over the last 35 years have done to the stock market? Would that effect have been a good thing? What would be the effect now of drawing down that investment over the next 20 or so years? Would this effect be a good thing/
. . . c] If it were real estate do the same questions apply? I think they do?
. . . d] Despite propaganda, the original law of 1983 that upped the tax rates and created the bigger SSTF required that the SSTF buy US Bonds, special bonds just for it. So, all the Presidents were just following the law.
. . . e] I can now see that upping the tax was a dumb thing. All it did was to allow the Gov. to fund its spending with a regressive tax instead of a progressive tax. Now, we aren't raising a tax to fund paying off those bonds, we are just rolling them over. We could have just funded the SS payments with newly borrowed dollars instead. This would have left more money in the workers hands and they could have spent it for the last 35 years and had a better life. Also, the (I hope) higher tax collections on the rich over the last 35 yr would have reduced income inequality.

[skinster]

[RhetoricThug]

Not exactly.

They TRY to regulate it by manipulating interest rates. In the last few decades that lever hasn't worked as well. it's why we haven't had hyper inflation with such historically low interest rates we have.

Nothing will ever be exact. They don't try to regulate it, they DO regulate it. IN-fact the only thing that has been consistently inflationary (as far as demand goes) is the cost of living. Stagnate wages and an inflationary cost of living affects the wealth gap (income inequality).

Hence why more debt is held by the middle and lower class. The money supply is actually a credit line, while REAL wealth, resources/assets, accumulate at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy. I'm not saying class plays a large role in the accumulation of real wealth, there's some mobility in the West; nevertheless, a fiat money supply encourages income inequality because it's issued as legal tender and doesn't become anything more than that until it is exchanged for something tangible. In an obscure way, poor people are in debt because fiat money doesn't offer any form of tangible convertibility when it's printed, fiat money is designed to protect real wealth from volatile market forces. Wealth is created by the rich for the rich, while the rest trickles down for political leverage. It's sophisticated economic warfare.

And to think, we haven't discussed taxes.

Side-note
A rising standard of living across the board is mainly due to a derived demand for perpetual economic growth. A fiat money supply can always meet autonomous demand. For the most part, growth occurs across the board as long as you can regulate the money supply.

Cryptocurrencies IIRC require large amounts of electricity to be created. This is a total waste of coal, oil, or natural gas. Or of what it took to make new solar panels. Why is this a good thing?

True. Furthermore, imagine a market based on CC without a protective measure like net neutrality...

EDIT: I've pondered two more points... simplified for quick discussion.

1 - Rich people can afford new technologies, new technologies speed up exchanges and accelerate income inequality.

2 - Globalism and global trade redefine nationalism as culture myth. There's absolutely no financial incentive to be economically nationalistic in a global economy. Nevertheless, Nationalism can be used to retool or engineer culture (engineer demand), shape opinion (rally markets), and gain political leverage (lobby business/monetary policy).

When I said: It's sophisticated economic warfare, above, I contemplated how global trade is largely class warfare. A kind of vertical escalation that has everyone trying to catch up to ever-changing rates of wealth (at the expense of Earth's biosphere)... Flags, borders, and tax codes become hurdles and barriers for business, while socioeconomic competition (earning a living) is institutionalized to make sure the ultra-rich can manage (you know, the other invisible hand) a balkanized populace. And yes, power struggles can occur at the top, but a power struggle is carried out by proletarians under the guise of tribal conflict (dogma, religion, country, culture, etc). Physical force is used to protect investments or create new markets. After-all, a country is a business and its citizens are employees.

(soundtrack)

[skinster]

Even though these protests have been completely censored on the mainstream media, they're still very much happening and remain very much massive.

[Patrickov]

Even though these protests have been completely censored on the mainstream media, they're still very much happening and remain very much massive.

If things become a big stalemate without any breakthrough event (e.g. someone getting killed, some government brought down), I very doubt it deserves mentioning. Indifference will very soon kick in if things just drag on like this.

The same thing happened in Syria, as well as Venezuela if not for the recent change of events. Intoxicating others with propaganda, with the target of rallying people to your course, does not always work.

[skinster]

If things become a big stalemate without any breakthrough event (e.g. someone getting killed, some government brought down), I very doubt it deserves mentioning. Indifference will very soon kick in if things just drag on like this.

A lot of the country is protesting, thousands and thousands of people every weekend in cities and towns all over France and you think that's not newsworthy?

People are being shot with rubber bullets and also being killed.

We don't know if indifference will kick in at this stage. It doesn't look like it from the pics and videos I'm seeing.

The same thing happened in Syria, as well as Venezuela if not for the recent change of events. Intoxicating others with propaganda, with the target of rallying people to your course, does not always work.

Not sure what you're talking aboot.

[Steve_American]

@Patrickov,
It sounds like you are comparing this to a lot of stories that are not covered.
Stories like --- Many children die every day from malaria in the 3rd world, corruption still rules in Russia, illegal drugs still flow into the US, etc.
My wishful thinking wants this story covered because I want the protesters to win.
The media blackout started in week 2, so it was hardly caused by its ongoing but inconclusive nature.
Clearly [to me] the blackout resulted from the owners of the media [read the oligarchs] hope it fizzles out if it is ignored.

[Patrickov]

Let me rephrase.

Media not covering the event doesn't mean they are censoring stuff for malicious purposes. Claiming this at the first opportunity is common propaganda technique and it doesn't always work, because the public may think either of the following:

1. you are exaggerating things, or
2. you are campaigning for a lost cause

For the case of France, this protest is not the first time (I think when Sarkozy was president there was a pretty serious one) and will probably not be the last. Frankly it is a country that is past its golden ages and decline is inevitable. Thing like this will only be more and more common.

Therefore, I need to know what exactly you want me to know beyond what I already know. For me, no news coverage never means resolution (the sales-hungry media will jump on the first sign of it). It actually means things are in a stalemate.

Reporting things in stalemate should only serve ONE purpose: Rally more people to join your cause. However, I don't see how anyone joining your cause helps things. Does toppling Macron really solve stuff? Do you not think the Le Pens will jump at such opportunity to seize power for themselves (not that I oppose them)?

[RhetoricThug]

Let me rephrase.

Media not covering the event doesn't mean they are censoring stuff for malicious purposes. Claiming this at the first opportunity is common propaganda technique and it doesn't always work, because the public may think either of the following:

1. you are exaggerating things, or
2. you are campaigning for a lost cause

This protest is indicative of Western socioeconomic unrest. The mediasphere represents soft power.

I point to this study as a microcosm of mass communication dynamics: How Media Covered “Arab Spring” Movement: Comparison between the American Fox News and the Middle Eastern Al Jazeera



Al Jazeera and FOX News seem to have not objectively presented the events occurring in Northern Africa and the Arabic countries during the 2010-2011 Arab Spring. The motives hidden behind these prejudiced broadcastings are, of course, differentiated and based on the different network conditions; the FOX News opinion seems to be dictated by the network’s conservative and religious audience contradicting Obama’s progressive government and the non-Christian Muslim Brotherhood, while Al Jazeera seems to be driven by the Qatari government’s political views and by the network’s recently appointed chief, who as a member of the Qatari regime family, is reasonably supportive of this regime’s opinions and interests in the region.

Nonetheless, the main conclusion is that two major television networks most possibly failed to present unbiased information regarding the events of Arab Spring, thus, leading their local public’s views and beliefs towards not necessarily objectivity. Consequently, issues whether or not television networks in modern times have managed to surpass political control, ratings motives and all other factors sacrificing objective journalism still stand; should these issues be adequately addressed by television networks, the public should become more suspicious in terms of one-source news presentation, and must progress towards the investigation of multi-source information and use their rationale in order to successfully comprehend different global events and shape their own personal opinion.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... ?aid=65342

You're right to point out the power-dynamics which will always be appear in the mediasphere. It is true, different parties have different agendas. AS stated earlier, look at Syria and Venezuela.

For the propagandist, not covering France is just as powerful as covering it, both techniques represent mediasphere soft power.

For the case of France, this protest is not the first time (I think when Sarkozy was president there was a pretty serious one) and will probably not be the last. Frankly it is a country that is past its golden ages and decline is inevitable. Thing like this will only be more and more common.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Therefore, I need to know what exactly you want me to know beyond what I already know. For me, no news coverage never means resolution (the sales-hungry media will jump on the first sign of it). It actually means things are in a stalemate.

No news coverage is a solution not a resolution. I'd like to see a thorough explanation here for why you think the protest is at a stalemate.

Reporting things in stalemate should only serve ONE purpose: Rally more people to join your cause. However, I don't see how anyone joining your cause helps things. Does toppling Macron really solve stuff? Do you not think the Le Pens will jump at such opportunity to seize power for themselves (not that I oppose them)?

Here you acknowledge the power of news reporting, but proceed to ask loaded questions.

[Rancid]

Apparently there's an other group called the red scarves protesting now?

[Steve_American]

@Patrickov, @Patrickov,
So, you accept that the US media is now owned by the oligarchs. At least, you didn't dispute the claim.
I ask you, why would the US media owners want to see the Yellow Vests covered in depth?
I ask you, to what extent does the BBC bow to the wishes of the UK Gov.?

I have said several times that the YV need to up their demands and call for a referendom on getting out of the EU.
The French Gov. is constrained by the EU Constitution (contained in the treaties) and can't increase the deficit much at all.
To remove the new fuel tax [for example] it must create a new tax [not on the YV protesters, so the well off?] OR cut programs. There are no other choices allowed under the EU rules.
This situation is rather like the one in 1789. Then the King needed to raise taxes on someone to pay down his debts. Because he was on the gold standard he could not just deficit spend. The rich and nobles had many tax exemptions and didn't pay much. And, the rich didn't think they should pay more or much, like now (especially in the US, is France as bad as the US in this way?). All we need now is a poor harvest, and so food prices rising to make the situation more similar.

[XogGyux]

Apparently there's an other group called the red scarves protesting now? :?:

Where do these people find so much time to protest.

[Rancid]

Where do these people find so much time to protest.

[Beren]

Apparently there's an other group called the red scarves protesting now? :?:

It will be a colourful cavalcade. Red Scarves, Yellow Vests, Blue Jeans, White Socks, Black Shoes...

[Patrickov]

@Patrickov, @Patrickov,
So, you accept that the US media is now owned by the oligarchs. At least, you didn't dispute the claim.
I ask you, why would the US media owners want to see the Yellow Vests covered in depth?
I ask you, to what extent does the BBC bow to the wishes of the UK Gov.?

I have said several times that the YV need to up their demands and call for a referendom on getting out of the EU.
The French Gov. is constrained by the EU Constitution (contained in the treaties) and can't increase the deficit much at all.
To remove the new fuel tax [for example] it must create a new tax [not on the YV protesters, so the well off?] OR cut programs. There are no other choices allowed under the EU rules.
This situation is rather like the one in 1789. Then the King needed to raise taxes on someone to pay down his debts. Because he was on the gold standard he could not just deficit spend. The rich and nobles had many tax exemptions and didn't pay much. And, the rich didn't think they should pay more or much, like now (especially in the US, is France as bad as the US in this way?). All we need now is a poor harvest, and so food prices rising to make the situation more similar.

The questions are quite easy to answer, although whether my answers serve your interest is another thing.
1. It makes France look bad, thereby making themselves look good.
2. Not sure it's more than the like of The Times or the Telegraph.

[Patrickov]

No news coverage is a solution not a resolution. I'd like to see a thorough explanation here for why you think the protest is at a stalemate.

Unless there are mass death of people, military intervention, Macron being lynched... etc.

As long as no one (including the protesters themselves) is losing their ground, I call it a stalemate. It doesn't has to be a quiet one if you are at the venue, but I am using that term from an outsider's perspective.