So when will the sharemarket crash in 2014?

[Winston001]

Times change. New economic models are required.


Really? We're suddenly going to go backwards because we've given up printing money? I don't think we will at all.

Keynesian modern economic theory is still the major school taught in economics. The others are the Classical school as from Chicago in the 1980s and the currently popular Austrian Neo-Classical school. Both of the latter disaprove of money printing and corectly so - the Weimar Republic and more recently Zimbabwe illustrate the foolhardiness of relying on currency expansion alone.

Keynes did not say print money without restraint - do it in a carefully controlled way. And its the government who spend it so the new money is used to help the people at the bottom. When they spend it trickles up.

The American freeway system was built by out of work labourers paid under the New Deal.

[husaberg]

Keynesian modern economic theory is still the major school taught in economics. The others are the Classical school as from Chicago in the 1980s and the currently popular Austrian Neo-Classical school. Both of the latter disaprove of money printing and corectly so - the Weimar Republic and more recently Zimbabwe illustrate the foolhardiness of relying on currency expansion alone.

Keynes did not say print money without restraint - do it in a carefully controlled way. And its the government who spend it so the new money is used to help the people at the bottom. When they spend it trickles up.

The American freeway system was built by out of work labourers paid under the New Deal.

When will the share market crash in 2014 better be soon if it is going to happen.

[Brian d marge]

Keynesian modern economic theory is still the major school taught in economics. The others are the Classical school as from Chicago in the 1980s and the currently popular Austrian Neo-Classical school. Both of the latter disaprove of money printing and corectly so - the Weimar Republic and more recently Zimbabwe illustrate the foolhardiness of relying on currency expansion alone.

Keynes did not say print money without restraint - do it in a carefully controlled way. And its the government who spend it so the new money is used to help the people at the bottom. When they spend it trickles up.

The American freeway system was built by out of work labourers paid under the New Deal.

see my two links brother nate and ineam hosien . . hmmm

[mashman]

Keynesian modern economic theory is still the major school taught in economics. The others are the Classical school as from Chicago in the 1980s and the currently popular Austrian Neo-Classical school. Both of the latter disaprove of money printing and corectly so - the Weimar Republic and more recently Zimbabwe illustrate the foolhardiness of relying on currency expansion alone.

Keynes did not say print money without restraint - do it in a carefully controlled way. And its the government who spend it so the new money is used to help the people at the bottom. When they spend it trickles up.

The American freeway system was built by out of work labourers paid under the New Deal.

Every economic model offers stability, or at least stability for the greatest length of time possible before the implementation of a new economic model to greet a new economic environment. They all seem to think that there's an inherent issue with just printing more money because more money is needed. Yet that is exactly what they do, and what they have to do to keep a financial economy going. They just can't find the right model/mechanism to justify printing wads of cash without feeling the need to have to print associated debt, for some reason. Have we ever had a stock market economy backed financial system yet ?

I wasn't saying that Keynes wanted to print money with gay abandon, shame no one heeded his words of caution... but I bet he knew that that was going to be the case. It only ever trickles up, back to its original owner .

Everyone loves a boom.

[Ocean1]

They all seem to think that there's an inherent issue with just printing more money because more money is needed.

That's because they mostly weren't proposed by raving fucking lunatics.

Printing money is instant inflation, it reduces the value of every asset in the economy and benefits only those wanting to borrow money at the low end of the market. Wanting to. Not needing to.

[mashman]

That's because they mostly weren't proposed by raving fucking lunatics.

Printing money is instant inflation, it reduces the value of every asset in the economy and benefits only those wanting to borrow money at the low end of the market. Wanting to. Not needing to.

... of course they weren't, they were proposed by indoctrinated slaves.

Yet the UK managed to print 350 billion quid and inflation didn't blip. As for inflation, deflation, hyperinflation etc... money problems yo.

[bogan]

Printing money is instant inflation, it reduces the value of every asset in the economy and benefits only those wanting to borrow money at the low end of the market. Wanting to. Not needing to.

Unless it is printed to combat deflation, as it should be; then shit be all g and plebs can keep borrowing with gay abandon.

[Ocean1]

... of course they weren't, they were proposed by indoctrinated slaves.

Yet the UK managed to print 350 billion quid and inflation didn't blip. As for inflation, deflation, hyperinflation etc... money problems yo.

In which case the extra money corresponded with extra assets.

That's what inflation means: consistent value of goods/services, you simply can't arbitrarily increase the quantity of currency without increasing asset value and not have inflation. I know you reckon it's limited only by the elite refusing to pull it out of some fairy's arse but you're wrong. Again.

Unless it is printed to combat deflation, as it should be; then shit be all g and plebs can keep borrowing with gay abandon.

Correct. In fact any time plebs borrow it with gay abandon it's associated with the asset securing that loan. Cash value = asset value: no inflationary pressure.

[danchop]

fuckin crashed for me in 2010,$172500 in that fuckin pike river fuckin mine....
thanks for fuckin reminding guys,youve made my sunday shit,gunna open a bourbon now

[Brian d marge]

That's because they mostly weren't proposed by raving fucking lunatics.

Printing money is instant inflation, it reduces the value of every asset in the economy and benefits only those wanting to borrow money at the low end of the market. Wanting to. Not needing to.

why is the inflation rate nearly zero and yet they are qe printing money like its going out of fashion then . hmhmhm

[Ocean1]

why is the inflation rate nearly zero and yet they are qe printing money like its going out of fashion then . hmhmhm

In which case the extra money corresponded with extra assets.

That's what inflation means: consistent value of goods/services, you simply can't arbitrarily increase the quantity of currency without increasing asset value and not have inflation.

An' more mfc

[Brian d marge]

An' more mfc

nice try

they are printing money , and yet the inflation rate is zero almost

aka japan......So

the cost of living should be through the roof

Stephen

[carbonhed]

Oooh, oooh the sharemarkets are crashing... in Russia, Brazil, India... Was that the way it was supposed to happen?

Vlad the Impaler finds his nuts in a vice. Man I LOL'd Couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

[mashman]

In which case the extra money corresponded with extra assets.

That's what inflation means: consistent value of goods/services, you simply can't arbitrarily increase the quantity of currency without increasing asset value and not have inflation. I know you reckon it's limited only by the elite refusing to pull it out of some fairy's arse but you're wrong. Again.

Of course it does... at the bare minimum it's govt bonds that are plucked out of thin air to back money being printed out of thin air.

You lost me at consistent, coz, damn that's a beauty.

[Winston001]

In which case the extra money corresponded with extra assets.

...you simply can't arbitrarily increase the quantity of currency without increasing asset value and not have inflation.

Good man, you've solved the conundrum for me.

The answer to the "printing money but no inflation" puzzle is that the public and the media who tell us stuff simply have it wrong.

There is no vast overtime at the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, nor at the Royal Mint, or at the Bourse. No squadges of loot being loaded into trucks.

The way Quantitative Easing is carried out is that the Federal Reserve grants federal bonds to banks and at the same time requiring the banks to pass over an equivalent amount of the bank's own paper assets. The nett effect is Zero money expansion but a significant strengthening of the banks balance sheets.

Exactly as Ocean says.