peaceful_life wrote:Me?......you want be to whack an abstract square into a reality hole?...no can do, but I thought, Steve Keen, came somewhere kinda close to utilising the existing mechanisms with the Jubilee, no?
I'm sorry PL, but if you are going to to state that a classical understanding of supply and demand theory, as it relates to monetary supply and the consequent demand for it, is bunk by citing the work of a given academic, then the very least you are obliged to also do is provide a basic schematic of that refutation. If you are unable to do so due to a lack of understanding of even the basic principles of his work as it relates to your citing of it, then you are in no position to be citing it.
I'm not, give over with the 'classical' bullshit eh?...it's all abstract, either print for the status quo or print to alleviate for the common good, I don't need to 'get' Minsky or any other abstract theorist.
For me, it's about the obvious of EROEI and equity, I think, Illich hit that nail long before,Keen.
The autopsy of the monetary system is as dead as it's *agreed* existence, you want me to justify my knowledge of bullshit (in an academic fashion) with more bullshit?...who are we bullshiting here?...economics isn't a science, it's a myth.
ps...In essence, you mean the 'control' of supply and demand, the hidden hand that even Smith never envisaged.
peaceful_life wrote:Me?......you want be to whack an abstract square into a reality hole?...no can do, but I thought, Steve Keen, came somewhere kinda close to utilising the existing mechanisms with the Jubilee, no?
I'm sorry PL, but if you are going to to state that a classical understanding of supply and demand theory, as it relates to monetary supply and the consequent demand for it, is bunk by citing the work of a given academic, then the very least you are obliged to also do is provide a basic schematic of that refutation. If you are unable to do so due to a lack of understanding of even the basic principles of his work as it relates to your citing of it, then you are in no position to be citing it.
I'm not, give over with the 'classical' bullshit eh?...it's all abstract, either print for the status quo or print to alleviate for the common good, I don't need to 'get' Minsky or any other abstract theorist.
For me, it's about the obvious of EROEI and equity, I think, Illich hit that nail long before,Keen.
The autopsy of the monetary system is as dead as it's *agreed* existence, you want me to justify my knowledge of bullshit (in an academic fashion) with more bullshit?...who are we bullshiting here?...economics isn't a science, it's a myth.
ps...In essence, you mean the 'control' of supply and demand, the hidden hand that even Smith never envisaged.
I'm well aware of EROEI and how altering the supply of money does not change the physical facts that give rise to that formula. What is does change, however, is the allocation, equitous or otherwise of said resources.
And by the way, while there are many myths in the field of economics, the fundamental relationship between supply and demand is not one of them. Supply and demand are simply the facts on the ground in any arena of market participants, no matter how flawed the market in which they participate. Many many piles of bullshit have been erected on top of those facts to be sure. But, all else equal, if there is only one thing that can be held as something approximating to a law in economics, it is supply and demand and their essential interaction.
Nature abhors a vacuum, so the saying goes. However, this saying is really merely derivative and not axiomatic. Nature abhors a gradient and so will always entropically tend towards equilibrium. The essential interaction of supply and demand is merely an expression of that entropic tendency.
stevecook172001 wrote:I'm sorry PL, but if you are going to to state that a classical understanding of supply and demand theory, as it relates to monetary supply and the consequent demand for it, is bunk by citing the work of a given academic, then the very least you are obliged to also do is provide a basic schematic of that refutation. If you are unable to do so due to a lack of understanding of even the basic principles of his work as it relates to your citing of it, then you are in no position to be citing it.
I'm not, give over with the 'classical' bullshit eh?...it's all abstract, either print for the status quo or print to alleviate for the common good, I don't need to 'get' Minsky or any other abstract theorist.
For me, it's about the obvious of EROEI and equity, I think, Illich hit that nail long before,Keen.
The autopsy of the monetary system is as dead as it's *agreed* existence, you want me to justify my knowledge of bullshit (in an academic fashion) with more bullshit?...who are we bullshiting here?...economics isn't a science, it's a myth.
ps...In essence, you mean the 'control' of supply and demand, the hidden hand that even Smith never envisaged.
I'm well aware of EROEI and how altering the supply of money does not change the physical facts that give rise to that formula. What is does change, however, is the allocation, equitous or otherwise of said resources.
and by the way, while there are many myths in the field of economics, the relationship between supply and demand is not one of them .Supply and demand are simply the facts on the ground. Many many piles of bullshit have been erected on top of those facts to be sure. But, all else equal, if there is only one thing that can be held as something approximating to a law in economics, it is supply and demand and their essential interaction.
Ergo..equity.
BTW, Steve, I come from a place where 60% unemployment *HIT* within 18 months, it was...a collapse and all that went with it, I 'know' the meaning of value and worth.
NO!...'control' of supply deems worth to PR demand, that's NOT economics, that's bullying, so let's stop the bullshit.
peaceful_life wrote:
I'm not, give over with the 'classical' bullshit eh?...it's all abstract, either print for the status quo or print to alleviate for the common good, I don't need to 'get' Minsky or any other abstract theorist.
For me, it's about the obvious of EROEI and equity, I think, Illich hit that nail long before,Keen.
The autopsy of the monetary system is as dead as it's *agreed* existence, you want me to justify my knowledge of bullshit (in an academic fashion) with more bullshit?...who are we bullshiting here?...economics isn't a science, it's a myth.
ps...In essence, you mean the 'control' of supply and demand, the hidden hand that even Smith never envisaged.
I'm well aware of EROEI and how altering the supply of money does not change the physical facts that give rise to that formula. What is does change, however, is the allocation, equitous or otherwise of said resources.
and by the way, while there are many myths in the field of economics, the relationship between supply and demand is not one of them .Supply and demand are simply the facts on the ground. Many many piles of bullshit have been erected on top of those facts to be sure. But, all else equal, if there is only one thing that can be held as something approximating to a law in economics, it is supply and demand and their essential interaction.
Ergo..equity.
BTW, Steve, I come from a place where 60% unemployment *HIT* within 18 months, it was...a collapse and all that went with it, I 'know' the meaning of value and worth.
NO!...'control' of supply deems worth to PR demand, that's NOT economics, that's bullying, so let's stop the bullshit.
Firstly, you are going to need to re-explain that bit in bold, I don't understand what you mean there.
Secondly, I am not sure if you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that supply and demand cannot be manipulated. Far from it.
However, what I am saying is that if one side of that equation is manipulated, there will be consequences on the other side of it.
stevecook172001 wrote:I'm well aware of EROEI and how altering the supply of money does not change the physical facts that give rise to that formula. What is does change, however, is the allocation, equitous or otherwise of said resources.
and by the way, while there are many myths in the field of economics, the relationship between supply and demand is not one of them .Supply and demand are simply the facts on the ground. Many many piles of bullshit have been erected on top of those facts to be sure. But, all else equal, if there is only one thing that can be held as something approximating to a law in economics, it is supply and demand and their essential interaction.
Ergo..equity.
BTW, Steve, I come from a place where 60% unemployment *HIT* within 18 months, it was...a collapse and all that went with it, I 'know' the meaning of value and worth.
NO!...'control' of supply deems worth to PR demand, that's NOT economics, that's bullying, so let's stop the bullshit.
Firstly, you are going to need to re-explain that bit in bold, I don't understand what you mean there.
Secondly, I am not sure if you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that supply and demand cannot be manipulated. Far from it.
However, what I am saying is that if one side of that equation is manipulated, there will be consequences on the other side of it.
UndercoverElephant wrote:I honestly believe the best contribution I can make to solving those problems is to contribute to increasing both my own and other people's understanding of what is wrong with that prevailing ideology, and what might be possible in terms of improving or replacing it. And right now that means trying to make sure that nobody is fooled by Biff Vernon into thinking that house price inflation is a mere "distraction" from more important things.
It's almost depressing to counter someone who thinks that arguing on the internet is the most important thing he can do. However given that changing the ideological base is your stated goal I can scarcely think of a more counter-productive way to go about it than continually launching ad hominem attacks against a man who's understanding and ideology differ only minutely from your own on most issues.
On the issue, I still like the Land Value Tax. Mostly intended to open up unused land, could be of relevance in terms of home building.
AndySir wrote:
It's almost depressing to counter someone who thinks that arguing on the internet is the most important thing he can do. However given that changing the ideological base is your stated goal I can scarcely think of a more counter-productive way to go about it than continually launching ad hominem attacks against a man who's understanding and ideology differ only minutely from your own on most issues.
I'm struggling to find where even this minute difference is when it comes to housing.
peaceful_life wrote:
UE, I don't want to embroil myself in the angst here, it's just a genuine question. Rather than give yourself hemorrhoids playing linguistically intellectual jenga with, Biff, wouldn't you find it far more cathartic to put a plan into action to try to address social housing?
No, because the reality on the ground can't significantly change until the ideology underpinning it changes. This "intellectual jenga" is part of a more general "war of ideas" that has been going on for a very long time, but which in recent years has spilled out of academia and into places like this on the internet. The existing economic/monetary/political system, and the prevailing ideology in the modern western world, are a rigged game being presented by the powers that be and the mainstream media as an honest game (i.e. not only do free markets not solve socio-cultural problems in the way the old political right and economic/political elites claim they do, but we don't even live in a truly free market anyway).
There are some things I do in "real life" which I do find cathartic. I can help to do environmental conservation work in my local area, and I can teach people about fungi and ecology, for example. But when it comes to big social, economic and political problems then working on the ground to try to solve them is soul-destroying once you understand the underlying reasons why things are the way they are. I honestly believe the best contribution I can make to solving those problems is to contribute to increasing both my own and other people's understanding of what is wrong with that prevailing ideology, and what might be possible in terms of improving or replacing it. And right now that means trying to make sure that nobody is fooled by Biff Vernon into thinking that house price inflation is a mere "distraction" from more important things. I honestly believe that fixing our broken monetary/economic system so it serves the people instead of the banks is so important that without addressing it, trying to solve problems like climate change and social inequality is little more than a waste of time.
And by changing things on the ground we change the ideology.
I do comprehend the lineage of the underpinnings and I think it's deeper than ideology, it has more to do with entropy, but I'll not digress.
We cannot fix the monetary system until we fix 'us', we can use it as a tool to assist that process, but ultimately it's an 'us' thing.
Feck it, set up a community land trust, do the P2P thing, get the grants, get people back on the land, teach some stuff..and then say......'there's fkn equity for you'
You'l not conquer the 'hlaford' via pixels my friend.
I'm not sure where you're saying something about physics (entropy) or spirtuality (fixing "us") here. Or both maybe? This is not an either/or anyway. There is nothing stopping me attacking these problems from multiple angles at the same time - practical, spiritual and ideological.
peaceful_life wrote:
Ergo..equity.
BTW, Steve, I come from a place where 60% unemployment *HIT* within 18 months, it was...a collapse and all that went with it, I 'know' the meaning of value and worth.
NO!...'control' of supply deems worth to PR demand, that's NOT economics, that's bullying, so let's stop the bullshit.
Firstly, you are going to need to re-explain that bit in bold, I don't understand what you mean there.
Secondly, I am not sure if you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that supply and demand cannot be manipulated. Far from it.
However, what I am saying is that if one side of that equation is manipulated, there will be consequences on the other side of it.
I haven't 'misunderstood' anything.
Well have. I have asked you to clarify a part of you post I found impenetrable. Is there a reason you have not done so?
UndercoverElephant wrote:Have a go now. Please respond to the actual point I've made in this thread about the relevance of house price inflation to structual inequalities in society.
Ok, I'll have a go now. There are, obviously, structural inequalities in society. This is a Bad Thing.
Much of personal wealth is in the form of property values so any house price inflation above the level of general inflation will tend to increase the inequalities. This is a Bad Thing.
House price inflation has been encouraged by various measures (my first house was bought with a £7000 mortgage that attracted 'mortgage tax relief') that have benefitted the property owner, embedding and increasing structural inequalities in society. These have been Bad Things.
Does that cover your point? If not, tell me in what ways it doesn't. I really don't see where it is we disagree on housing.
UndercoverElephant wrote:I honestly believe the best contribution I can make to solving those problems is to contribute to increasing both my own and other people's understanding of what is wrong with that prevailing ideology, and what might be possible in terms of improving or replacing it. And right now that means trying to make sure that nobody is fooled by Biff Vernon into thinking that house price inflation is a mere "distraction" from more important things.
It's almost depressing to counter someone who thinks that arguing on the internet is the most important thing he can do. However given that changing the ideological base is your stated goal I can scarcely think of a more counter-productive way to go about it than continually launching ad hominem attacks against a man who's understanding and ideology differ only minutely from your own on most issues.
Yawn. What a helpful interjection into the debate! Not a snide personal attack or anything? Oh wait, yes, that's exactly what it was, again.
On the issue...
Ah! So you do actually have something to contribute to the actual debate?? WOW!!!
AndySir wrote:On the issue, I still like the Land Value Tax. Mostly intended to open up unused land, could be of relevance in terms of home building.
A human's point of view. Land is never unused, as long as it hasn't been poisoned by human activity, something will live there. Probably with more rights than humans have to concrete over it.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
AndySir wrote:On the issue, I still like the Land Value Tax. Mostly intended to open up unused land, could be of relevance in terms of home building.
A human's point of view. Land is never unused, as long as it hasn't been poisoned by human activity, something will live there. Probably with more rights than humans have to concrete over it.
One of the strongest argument against the LVT is that it would encourage green field building, however there's a lot to be said for reclaiming properties and land that simply sit empty because there is no penalty for simply sitting on them. I'm sure we could deal with that issue with exemptions - lots of exemptions for nature, none for second home owners.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Have a go now. Please respond to the actual point I've made in this thread about the relevance of house price inflation to structual inequalities in society.
Ok, I'll have a go now. There are, obviously, structural inequalities in society. This is a Bad Thing.
Much of personal wealth is in the form of property values so any house price inflation above the level of general inflation will tend to increase the inequalities. This is a Bad Thing.
House price inflation has been encouraged by various measures (my first house was bought with a £7000 mortgage that attracted 'mortgage tax relief') that have benefitted the property owner, embedding and increasing structural inequalities in society. These have been Bad Things.
Does that cover your point? If not, tell me in what ways it doesn't. I really don't see where it is we disagree on housing.
Thankyou, that is much better. House price inflation is a bad thing, not a mere "distraction".
Although it is not really the property owners who have felt the greatest benefits of the artificially bloated housing market. As pointed out much earlier in this thread by several other people, owners only gain if they have multiple properties to sell, or are downsizing, or are moving to areas where property prices are relatively lower. The real winners, every time, are the banks. The banks even win when they get it all catastrophically wrong, because the supposedly-socialist Gordon Brown decided to socialise their losses instead of allowing them to go bust. This is not just "bad", but a vicious, chronic disease at the heart of our economic system.
