Can you have a sustained tight labor market in capitalism?

[Spoonist]

"The next time you're engaged in a political discussion with someone who has very strong views different from your own, ask them if they can name two famous thinkers or politicians whose politics are opposed to theirs who they also think are very smart and genuinely concerned with making the world a better place. If they can't, it's not clear they are able to grant the good faith such discussions should have."

This is a perfect example of the the "golden mean" fallacy thinking.

If you are debating with someone who has no clue how the world functions and argues stuff like the earth is flat. Then you will be hard pressed to find two famous proponents who you think are "very smart".

Also Iosef you are consistently assuming that your knowledge about how the rest of the world works is true while being repeatedly shown that you did not. How come you never question either yourself or your conclusions?

[Simon_Jester]

"The next time you're engaged in a political discussion with someone who has very strong views different from your own, ask them if they can name two famous thinkers or politicians whose politics are opposed to theirs who they also think are very smart and genuinely concerned with making the world a better place. If they can't, it's not clear they are able to grant the good faith such discussions should have."

This is a perfect example of the the "golden mean" fallacy thinking.

If you are debating with someone who has no clue how the world functions and argues stuff like the earth is flat. Then you will be hard pressed to find two famous proponents who you think are "very smart".

That said, most social issues aren't as simple as "the Earth is flat." I can name people I disagree with on social issues who I respect as human beings (though a fair number of the ones that come immediately to mind are dead; dead historical figures are easier to assess than living people). It's not that difficult.

I'd be much harder pressed to do the same for "the Earth is flat," at least in the historically recent past, but that's perfectly understandable, I think.

[Spoonist]

That said, most social issues aren't as simple as "the Earth is flat." I can name people I disagree with on social issues who I respect as human beings (though a fair number of the ones that come immediately to mind are dead; dead historical figures are easier to assess than living people). It's not that difficult.

I'd be much harder pressed to do the same for "the Earth is flat," at least in the historically recent past, but that's perfectly understandable, I think.

Completely agreed.
Given the immediate context of politics it is not as flawed as standing on its own. But it was used as a quote, so I took it for its value as if on its own. Also given the larger context of Iosef Cross its clear that he is not applying the same principles to his adversaries positions, so its a bit strange to be asking it from them.

[J]

In the fiat money system the state would have total control over the money supply. In your system the state has limited control over the money supply.

You didn't understand what I posted.

Wrong yet again. Fiat money means the State declares what is and isn't money, it has nothing to do with control of the money supply. Funny how you do not know this or fail to understand the distinction.

Only true in a fiat money system. We live in a credit-money world, fiat money rules do not apply.

So, banks do not expand money supply though fractional reserve banking? Yourself said:

The retail banks and other financials set the money supply through loaning out money via fractional reserve lending, with the interest rates being set by the market.

I am wrong if you you said before wasn't true.
So you are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. The credit-money system contains a fiat money subset. I would explain futher, but seeing how you don't know what a fiat money system is in the first place there's no point in doing so. If you don't know what a fiat money system is I can't explain the more complicated credit-money system to you.

If the regulators had actually enforced all the rules as they existed in 30 years ago, the bubble couldn't have started in the first place even if interest rates were zero. A housing and credit bubble cannot get underway if 20% downpayments, 30% DTI, and proper underwriting standards are enforced. Banks cannot blow up if their leverage limits are restricted to 10:1 given the above mortgage underwriting guidelines as the historical default rate of those mortages is and continues to be well under 1%.

The monetary base still increased. So even with a constant money multiplier, the volume of credit would expand and a cycle would develop. However, the money multiplier increased, with accelerated the credit expansion and increased the size of the cycle, including the boom and the bust.

Credit has little correlation with the fiat money base. The amount of credit in the system is dependent on the amount which creditors are willing to lend AND that which debtors are willing and able to borrow.

However, in the real world, uncertainty exists and bank must have reserves. So the central bank can indeed prevent credit expansion by contracting the money base. The fact is that in the last 10 years the US money base increased, while the money multiplier increased, with added to the total money supply.

US money supply:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... upply2.svg

It shows that money supply increased between 2000 and 2009, but M3 increased much more, showing that the banking multiplier increased as well. However, if the money base had contracted, the same money multiplier would have resulted in a constant money supply and the lack of credit expansion associated with the present crisis. So monetary policy is responsible for the present crisis as well as the private banks.

Currency component of M1
MZM Money supply
Total credit supply

So despite the base money supply being goosed in 2009 and 2010 the broad money supply has flatlined and the total credit supply is shrinking. Which means...you're wrong again.

You clearly didn't understand anything that I argued, but I was expecting that. Of course, if you didn't understand anything it would look like "crap". I didn't intend to educate you since you are clearly hostile to anything that doesn't fit your crude conceptions of these problems.

I fully understand everything you've said, I flat-out reject it on the basis that it's utterly and COMPLETELY WRONG.

1) You do not understand the workings of central banks
2) You do not know what a fiat money system is
3) You do not know what a credit-money system is
4) You do not understand why our world is a credit-money system

You've been proven wrong on all the above points multiple times yet you persist in trying to fit reality to your simplistic and mistaken worldviews. You are the one who does not understand and furthermore, refuses to learn. Then again you're the moron who believes China can tool up overnight and build thousands of nuclear devices in months so I suppose this level of stupidity, dishonesty and denial is to be expected.

[Iosef Cross]

"The next time you're engaged in a political discussion with someone who has very strong views different from your own, ask them if they can name two famous thinkers or politicians whose politics are opposed to theirs who they also think are very smart and genuinely concerned with making the world a better place. If they can't, it's not clear they are able to grant the good faith such discussions should have."

This is a perfect example of the the "golden mean" fallacy thinking.

If you are debating with someone who has no clue how the world functions and argues stuff like the earth is flat. Then you will be hard pressed to find two famous proponents who you think are "very smart".

You didn't understand the meaning of this passage.

Also Iosef you are consistently assuming that your knowledge about how the rest of the world works is true while being repeatedly shown that you did not. How come you never question either yourself or your conclusions?

Usually, here people don't understand my point. As you are doing right now.

[D.Turtle]

When everybody else doesn't understand you, maybe the problem isn't with everybody else.

Just sayin'.

[Iosef Cross]

I fully understand everything you've said, I flat-out reject it on the basis that it's utterly and COMPLETELY WRONG.

1) You do not understand the workings of central banks
2) You do not know what a fiat money system is
3) You do not know what a credit-money system is
4) You do not understand why our world is a credit-money system

You've been proven wrong on all the above points multiple times yet you persist in trying to fit reality to your simplistic and mistaken worldviews. You are the one who does not understand and furthermore, refuses to learn. Then again you're the moron who believes China can tool up overnight and build thousands of nuclear devices in months so I suppose this level of stupidity, dishonesty and denial is to be expected.

Simplistic? You are saying that my worldview is simplistic while you post a truckload of absurd stuff here. You have only show that you don't have the theoretical understanding nescessary to make the type of remarks that you did. You don't understand or at least don't appear to understand some of the basics of modern economic theory. Though you did use the word "opportunity cost" once, which is remarkable, since it is very common economic jargon. Therefore you know some rudiments of the jargon used by the economist.

And yes, China doesn't have a nuclear arsenal as large as the US's because they don't want to. I meant which that statement that China's nuclear arsenal is much smaller than the arsenal that they could have if they focused their resources like the US did in the cold war. If China made a national mobilization effort to produce nuclear weapons they could have produced a very large number of nukes in a really short time. To get this interpretation of my post is too hard for you to do.

[Iosef Cross]

When everybody else doesn't understand you, maybe the problem isn't with everybody else.

Just sayin'.

Well, when I talk with PHD's in economics or fellow students of economics they usually understand, or at least have a greater degree of understanding than it is show here. While if a layman here voraciously disagrees with the same argument, that only could mean that he didn't understand it. You should note that in economics people always have strong opinions while they don't understand the basics of theory necessary to effectively tackle these problems.

I reach the conclusion that the main problem that I have here is the lack of didactic skills for communicating with layman.

Also I have a certain penchant for bombastic statements (like that "china could make thousands of nukes in months"). These statemtents aren't well received by many people.

[Iosef Cross]

So despite the base money supply being goosed in 2009 and 2010 the broad money supply has flatlined and the total credit supply is shrinking. Which means...you're wrong again.

I said that during the boom period the money multiplier was increasing. During the bust (which is the 2008-2010 period) the money multiplier tends to decrease as some banks fail, others reduce their leverage, etc.

The central bank is inflating the money base so that the reduced money multiplier doesn't translate into monetary contraction and deflation. Many people believe that a monetary contraction will lead to depression.

Anyway, don't try to answer these posts J, because I don't care about what you are going to say. I already know that it will be pure horseshit.

[J]

Well, when I talk with PHD's in economics or fellow students of economics they usually understand, or at least have a greater degree of understanding than it is show here. While if a layman here voraciously disagrees with the same argument, that only could mean that he didn't understand it. You should note that in economics people always have strong opinions while they don't understand the basics of theory necessary to effectively tackle these problems.

Oh do shut up. You're attempting to debate economics and monetary theory when you do not even know what a fiat money system is. You're the one whose understanding of economics is completely lacking, and who relies on jargon to appear knowledgeable. Fiat money is basic introductory economics and you no apparent understanding of it. Good grief, and you expect people to think you're qualified for this discussion? Get out.

[Spoonist]

"The next time you're engaged in a political discussion with someone who has very strong views different from your own, ask them if they can name two famous thinkers or politicians whose politics are opposed to theirs who they also think are very smart and genuinely concerned with making the world a better place. If they can't, it's not clear they are able to grant the good faith such discussions should have."

This is a perfect example of the the "golden mean" fallacy thinking.

If you are debating with someone who has no clue how the world functions and argues stuff like the earth is flat. Then you will be hard pressed to find two famous proponents who you think are "very smart".

You didn't understand the meaning of this passage.

Fucking bullshit. Its in plain english. My response was also so clear that Simon Jester could disagree to its nuance. Fucking care to try to back up your dismissive?
Otherwise I could just similarly claim that you didn't understand my passage. Which would be useless ad infinitum.

Also Iosef you are consistently assuming that your knowledge about how the rest of the world works is true while being repeatedly shown that you did not. How come you never question either yourself or your conclusions?

Usually, here people don't understand my point. As you are doing right now.

Uhm, it was me making a statement right there. How could I not get your point when it was my statement and not yours? That is some serious communication malfunction right there. But lets ignore that and go for what you are trying to convey:
You are infallible while everyone else misundestands you...
You should add a *rubs hands together and cackles* in your sig then to remind us who is the misunderstood genious. You might want to read that EO list to keep the heroes misinformed from getting to you.

Well, when I talk with PHD's in economics or fellow students of economics they usually understand, or at least have a greater degree of understanding than it is show hereh.

That is because you are in the same circle of reasoning and use similar terms given similar meanings within your circle. It should be obvious that you are all tought from the same professors, if you where not able to communicate with them you would be failing at basic language skills.
But what I am trying to convey to you is that the world view of you and your school is not omniscient. Yet you treat it as if that is the only worldview that exists and that since you have been tought differently everyone else must be wrong. That is a very ignorant approach to the rest of the world.