When is Reality more important than your Political Ideology? With graphs.

More transactions does not equate to more wealth. More wealth results in more transactions. Like always, you have everything backwards. You have economic dyslexia or something.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

The "monetary system" was already "organized and controlled" by the market. It seems you will never grasp how markets actually work.

The differences are purely superficial. Fundamentally, they are the same, which is why they're both called "FIAT money".

You always dismiss "philosophy" and "old" concepts and then you accuse people of being illogical, even though "logic" is philosophical concept that was made by a bunch of old Greek men. You are so full of contradictions that you can't even keep track of them at this point. It's crazy.

 

That's your response to everything. You are clearly overcompensating for something.

You don't even know what "standard of living" means. Real GDP per capita is just a simple ratio of aggregate output to total population, it says NOTHING of how that output is distributed across the population. There could be a high degree of income inequality even though there is a large increase in GDP per capita. As usual, your overly simplistic thinking and economic dyslexia plague your every statement and argument. You come across as more and more foolish each day.

 

You are just making up your own definitions.

Basic education. I realize you will have to refute this with your philosophical bullchit because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear

It was most definitely not organized or controlled. A free for all mess. You seem to just use semantics and strawmans to push weak arguments. Not even sure what point you are trying to prove any more. Just trying to play word games.

There are many differences in our fiat money system versus your ancient fiat money systems. You are desperate.

No contradictions. You are just trying to play word games and pick any little statement that you can make a little semantically targeted argument against. It's embarrassing. Let me know when you want to make a substantive point.

 

It's just to a comment to show I'm not taking what you are saying very seriously because of how laughable it is... but I respond just because it's fun to see you guys keep going.

Of course you will make up your own definition of standard of living. That's what Austrians do. If they don't like something, they just say it's not true and make something else up. Must be fun to be, I'm the one who has to go through the trouble of proving what I say while you can just say whatever you want. Then when you don't like something you say "correlation does not imply causation" or you just simply dismiss it.

It is hilarious how Austrians work.

 

No, I'm simply correcting your erroneous assertion about more transactions equating to more wealth. It's actually the other way around. The more wealth there is to exchange, the more transactions there will be. Your simplistic thinking would have us believe that exchanging the same item a million times creates more wealth than if we simply exchanged it once.

Then produce the evidence for your claim if it's so "basic", or is this just another example out of dozens where you make a claim and then refuse to back it up?

It was "organized and controlled" by the market forces of supply and demand, which clearly you don't understand at all.

If there are "many" differences, then they are purely superficial. Nothing changes the fact that the FIAT money of the Song Dynasty is fundamentally no different than the FIAT money of FEDRES. That's why they're both called FIAT monies.

You're just full of them, but you don't even realize it because you're in such deep denial. Your latest line of contradictions is in dismissing "philosophical" concepts and then trying to use them in your arguments.

 

You don't take us seriously yet you spend hours arguing with us. More contradictions from you. Hilarious.

Now you're just crying. That's what you do when your arguments are destroyed. You starting whining and lashing out. Sad...

 

akphidelt's threads are great for demonstrating how idiotic MMT and Keynesian economics are. There couldn't be a better way to get people to subscribe to free market economics than his inane blathering.

 

Because I find it very intriguing and entertaining how convinced you are in something that doesn't exist. It amazes me, lol.

You're just playing games. Not even trying to sound intelligent. You are here everyday and never say anything of substance or anything that reflect real world decision making. Just a clown.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't even use data, lol. You simply talk about your crazy anti-government theories. MMT is about operational realities. Real transactions, real balance sheets, real data. You are about philosophy and ideology. It is absolutely embarrassing. But you bring me great entertainment every time you post so I encourage you to keep doing it.

 

without money, money creation and monetary transactions, not much wealth gets created

 

I never said otherwise.

 

You said...

More transactions does not equate to more wealth. More wealth results in more transactions.

Dujac said to you..

without money, money creation and monetary transactions, not much wealth gets created



Seems to me you are contradicting yourself. I think we have an explanation needed but knowing you it will be a very broad annoying semantic interpretation that really doesn't prove anything except how far you are willing to go to push your failed ideology.

 

Have you read these arguments against this OP? It's absolutely embarrassing. Absolutely no data has been presented to me that has discredited my argument. Simply subjective viewpoints about debt, you have some clown who even admits he doesn't have time to look at data, you have Ethereal who says stuff like fiat money existed in the 10th century or that gdp is more important than real gdp per capita. I mean this is a clown show. I have never seen such embarrassing attempts in my life. I haven't even been able to open up my repertoire of intelligence because of how amateur and embarrassing these arguments have been.

 

cut out the malarkey

 

How am I contradicting myself? Try using some of that old philosophical crap like logic to explain it.

 

You said more transactions doesn't create more wealth, more wealth creates more transactions. Then when someone says not much wealth gets created without monetary transactions, you say "I never said otherwise". When you did specifically say otherwise, lol. There is a reason no one takes your ideology very seriously.

I agree, you guys are laughable people

 

I never said or implied that "much" wealth can be created without monetary transactions. That is just a strawman that Dujac made up and that you are attempting to perpetuate.

 

here's exactly what you said:

now you seem to be backpedaling

 

I'm not backpedaling at all. I never said or implied that "much" wealth can be created without monetary transactions.

 

what a joke, your semantics game is amusing

 

Okay, now that we've dealt with Dujac's little strawman, why don't we get back to the thread topic, which is "graphs", apparently, even though graphs are just "old" concepts made up by a French philosopher...

Here is a "graph" that shows how median household income in the US has performed under Ben Bernanke, akphidelt's hero:



SOURCE

And here is a video detailing Ben Bernanke's analytical skills as a Fed chairman:

[video=youtube;9QpD64GUoXw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw[/video]

And here is a quote from Paul Krugman, another akphidelt hero:



Their record has been truly abysmal, but the OP is celebrating them as geniuses. Too funny!

 

Nice logical fallacies. For someone who tries to pride himself on being so scientific, you definitely don't show it.

 

"Logical fallacies" are just stupid old philosophical crap that they test people on in philosophy 101. I thought you said you were an economist operating in the real world...

 

Not your best showing Ethereal, I'd bow out of this thread. You're acting very childish, you are playing games, it's really embarrassing.

 

This thread has been pure comedy gold! There is just a treasure trove of material to work with in the next thread. I look forward to discussing "graphs" with you, akphidelt, even though they were made up by an old French philosopher while he was sick in bed... LOL

 

Here's another "graph" that shows how our economy grew before the federal reserve even existed: