because you don't understans that alot of america's inflation is being exported right now.....if the dollar is falling because of all the money printing but then china buys dollars in order to prevent the dollar from falling against the yuan then this prevents the inflation via higher chinese products from showing up on store shelves in america, however, since now its the yuan that is also falling then raw materials priced in yuans are falling and so there is a price squeeze on manufacturers in china...this is why I say temporary as eventually the chinese merchants need to pass those higher prices to america anyways...there is just a longer time lag thats all! PS its not just china but also japan and singapore and canada....all buying dollars to prevent their own currencies from rising! I believe the middle east also!
You've referred to relatively low inflation rates and used a conspiracy theory to hide from the lack of content. I can't see you getting yourself out this hole
Keynesianism is an abundant (and multifaceted) approach(or approaches) for political economy. To compare that with your 'David Icke approach' really won't wash
name me one economy where keynessian economic policies have ever worked? Look at japan for failed keynessian policies!
Actually it would be difficult to refer to a country where Keynesianism hasn't been important. You can of course refer to countries where economic crisis occurs, but that is expected as capitalism is inherently unstable (and of course a primary explanation for the need for Keynesianism)
no....all keynessian economic policies do is prolong the pain.......look at housing in the US for example.....housing will fall anyways, but with all these intervention policies they are making it take much longer to fall thus prolonging the pain!
You show no understanding of economics. Without Keynesian economics you'd expect hysteresis to be the norm as shocks lead to the destruction of human capital A very poor example, given the state of the housing market reflects neo-liberalism (and housing tenure choice is warped by inefficient personal insurance requirements)
I can guarantee you that had the government just left things alone then housing would be much lower now, no questions, and yes many banks would of failed and many overly leveraged home owners would of lost their home. But by now houses would of been cheap enough for first time buyers to re-enter the market and also many smaller banks would of filled in the gap of the void created by the banks that failed. I dont see why the taxpayers should pay for the bad investment choices both banks and home owners have made!
You can't guarantee anything, you can only propose utopianism in order to hide from the nature of capitalism. As I said, the housing market and financial crisis reflects neo-liberalism. It makes no sense to huff and puff about Keynesianism as that disaster reflects the influence of 'free market economics'. The reaction to that crisis has been about defending the system and ensuring the reproduction of capitalist profit
how was the system defended? By rescuing a bunch of rich bankers that made some bad bets? Why should the average joe pay for the misfortunes of a bunch of multi millionaires?
What evidence do we have for this? i.e. how do we know personal insurance requirements have a significant effect on tenure choice?
Its about linking the welfare system and housing tenure. We find, for example, that high home ownership countries typically also have low levels of old-age pension provision. Of course we have complex relationships within that. For example, an economic approach would refer to life cycle theory (with home ownership becoming the means to protect from future low income). A sociological approach would consider how political hostility to welfare reform could be induced through the housing tenure decision ("I'm alright when I'm old so hand's off my money with your taxes"). Empirical testing is widespread. An early example is: Castles, F.G. (1998 ) The really big trade-off: home ownership and the welfare state in the new world and the old, Acta Politica 33(1): 519.
assuming that the average buyers / home-owners are on even grounds with the big corperation / banks in terms of information and the relative cost for enforcing the law is also similar between them, then maybe, but given that is almost impossible... Likewise, it's the same problem with banks, the people keepign their money in the banks are obviously not in the same playground as the banks themself are about the bank's financial well being, if they're savings gets wiped out because of this, we'd simply return to what happened after the bank crash ni teh 1930s, aka people return to storing money under matress or institutions that don't invest with money only safekeep (for a sum of course.) the chain effect of this shouldn't be hard to see.
people shouldn't be storing money in banks anyways...they pay virtually no interest.....better to be in precious metals ...at least they will keep pace with inflation and all the money printing Bernacke is doing!
That's a pretty bad analogy, yes banks pay no interest, but if everyone pulls their money out of banks we're in for a world of pain, the 1930s are a good example where everyone just hogged cash and economy essentially grinded to a halt do to the complete lack of credit flow. expecting every average joe to be a (good) invester is unrealistic at best, taking all the money out of banks will simply result in either massive volitility (if everyone start investing in random stuff directly) or simply no liquidility (since most common folks probably can't directly invest themself that often) The current near 0 interest in the US (and much of the west) is indeed a very large problem, but it woulda helped if the they raised the interet rate before the house of cards came crashing down .
remember something.....the 30's depression was actually caused by the keynessian nonsence caused by the new deal. As for your comment that if everybody pulled their money out at the same time?? Well don't worry as the average Joe is too stupid to understand what damage inflation does to their currency! And besides, if everybody pulled their money then interest rates would rise making it attractive to put money in the banks again. Sure it will also make many banks fails but many of the are zombie banks on life support anyways!
That's your opinion (and around 5000 banks went out of busniess before FDR even got into office and half of America' banks went out before the New Deal even started, which puts severe question into your claim. ), and sticking with the 30s analogy, while the average Joe may not be smart enough to invest themself, they are smart enough to pull money out of banks when things look bad. that was exactly what happened in the 30s, and also what happened in Argentina in the 70s. At the end of the day, the #1 priority of any economic well being is stability and predictability, without those two everything else is just talk.
Chinese defaults are growing. Yes, its a default. If you defer payments it's a default. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-12/26/content_14326726.htm
Japan seems to be one of those countries that survive off investing, as their manufacturing of products have gotten so expensive the rest of the world will do without. China on the other hand, still has the labor and infrastructure to manufacture common goods. And that will always be the case, but they also have a trend of growing technology manufacturing as well. And many other countries now rely on it for their economic growth. Particularly the green technology products and equipment they sell to South America and the rest of Asia that can afford it. Not to mention computers, LCD TVs, Game consoles, and the popular apple products world wide. The Chinese government's ability to keep the yuan low allows them to profit on the smallest margin of each product. Also, it allows other countries to become dependent on their manufacturing ability, giving corporations a larger profit on their sale. The elite class in Taiwan and China are very small, and the massess will alwasy be a major factor in their economy. But the key to their ability will be the Chinese government's aability to say in charge of the country and it's economics. Can you imagine what a runaway capitalist country of China would turn into if the corporations dictated economic policy?
Yes, we've all heard this argument before from Obama and other leftists. "Chinese State Capitalism without the headache of Democracy or Private Property Rights is superior to the Western Economic/Social Models." Even if true, we in the west find such State commanded capitalism to be morally abhorrent, at least Americans do.
I am not so sure I agree with what you say about Japan.....its still an industrial powerhouse compared to the US!
