Why do people think countries need centrally planned money?

BECAUSE THEY OWN THE MEDIA AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS.

After all, have you ever had a conservative professor at a major university? Nope. They are all big government ra, ra, sis, boom, ba kind of guys. Then Big Brother pats them on the back for indoctrinating the society by ignoring escalating tuition prices that have gone up some 500% since the 1990's. The only interest government seems to have is how to get that massive college loan for ya!!

Next question?

 

Except that they did record it, and that link contains it!

 

You keep repeating the word velocity, what about velocity??? Good grief. So you are not saying there is a specific quantity of money that is more desirable than any other?

 

Show me the link. And they did not record it. Historians have made estimated guesses of it. But there was no official record keeping of GDP during the 1800s.

 

Obtuse. Your posts haz it.

 

Yea, I think that might have a lot to do with it.

 

Oh my God, you are beyond capable of understanding these things. I'm saying monetary policy tries to put in the amount of money (qty) that can create the number of transactions (velocity) that they want for sustainable growth. If I have to say this again, I will never respond to another one of your idiotic posts.

 

Show the link... or leave me alone and admit your defeat. You guys are so stubborn it is mind-boggling.

Comparing the 1800s to the 1900s... lol!!!

 

Personal attack noted. There is already a cited chart. Your posts are obtuse.

And yet...you must compare year over year in order to justify your monetary system, so your complaint is stupid.

If anything, it should have been FAR more difficult to grow GDP in the 1800's, because the Government didn't spend anywhere near as much then as it does now, and technology, infrastructure and quality of life wasn't anything near today's.

And yet, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that we grew like crazy.

Stop offering obtuse posts.

 

Good grief indeed. Now your point is that the optimal quantity of money is the quantity that leads to the optimal velocity of money. Ignoring for a second the shaky relationship between qty and "velocity," how do you know there is an optimal rate that each dollar is transferred?

 

Capitalism works sorta like a giant ponzi scheme in that it must always grow to exist. The Fed is supposed to prevent the giant swings that happened after the exponental expansion of the economy after the industrial revolution started, in short, it was too volatile. For the most part it has worked but deregulation started in the 80's led to the "unforseen" collapse of 2007 and 08. Look up "bucket shops" of the 1800's and see the similarity.

 

Lol, I finally read your post just to see what you were talking about. Really... really???



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

You finally read my post. Uh huh.

So the rest of the crap you were claiming didn't even read what I posted.

I think we're done here.

 

Capitalism does not require growth to exist.

 

Did I say that? Now you are just making things up.

I said the optimal qty of money is the quantity that leads to the NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS (velocity) that lead to the objective economic growth target.

I did not say that leads to optimal velocity.

And there is an optimal rate because every dollar transferred is one individual giving up their dollar for something they want. And this is where inflation comes in to play.

 

We are done... because your very post validated my claim that the economy has been much better off since we managed monetary policy.

Thanks buddy!! I will bookmark that site.

 

No, it didn't - and only the most obtuse ideologue wouldn't admit that our GDP expansion from 1800-1900 was comparable to the rate of the present - and without the mathematic rigging of GDP due to massive deficit spending.

Source?

Thomas Weiss, "U.S. Labor Force Estimates and Economic Growth, 1800-1860,"American Economic Growth and Standards of Living before the Civil War, edited by Robert E. Gallman and John Joseph Wallis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), table 1A.9, p. 51.

 

whatever dude. its taken like 30 posts to get the simplest of answers out of you in response to your first statement in this thread. to any rational observer you have made an assertion that an optimal quantity of money exists that leads to the right velocity of money that leads to some subjectively desirable amount of growth. that is the weakest case for the federal reserve I have seen.

 

Lol, how so? It's a weak case that they want to make sure the economy grows more this year than last year?

How dare those monsters!!

 

All that needs to be said... time for you to take a time out and rethink your position.

 

you didn't say grow more. you said grow according to the whims of the economists in charge. there is no reason to believe one amount of money would be better for growth than any other.

 

Are you serious? Lol!!! Like are you actually being a serious individual right now?

Because what you just said is beyond stupid.

 

You are confused regarding what that chart says.

When graphing exponential growth - as that chart does - shows that the trajectory of our growth was exponential regardless the advent of the FED.

The point is that the dotted line displays the projections of GDP growth without false injection of debt expenditure towards total GDP.

The blue line includes the massive debt expenditure. That's why that chart was included in the site that refutes your position; not supports it.

Curiously, however, you are extremely anxious to accept data that now becomes credible in your mind, when a bit ago, you were rejecting it.

Hypocrisy is fun!

 

Lol, there is no such thing as exponential growth in economics. It is an impossibility. You can take the 1990s growth and expand it in to exponential growth. You are lying like crazy and it is hilarious to see. How far will you go to perpetuate your hatred for the Government?

You guys are so crazy that I can't even fathom it. Everything I'm saying is basic 100% proven facts about how economies work. Which is why America does it and every other developed country does it. You guys are peons trying to tell the most educated people in America that they don't know what they are doing. I would suggest you stick to your day job.

 

Once something has been adopted by an economy as money, no other quantity of it is better.