Argonaut Gone Wild 2
Continuing on this Argonaut Gone Wild trolls path... we responded as follows: The transactions you provide show volumes and dollar values of transfers for the Fedwire Funds Service and the Fedwire Securities Service. Much like the ERA of left handed pitchers in odd years and your comment, these transactions are useless as a proxy for GDP, income or inflation.
Argonaut: "income is not movement of money." Nobody here said income is the movement of money.
Argonaut: "Transactions are not income." Nobody here said transactions are income.
Argonaut: "the missive doesn't have a point. It is fundamentally confused about both transactions and monetary economics, and has nothing to teach us." Those who think they know everything cannot be taught.
The point of the missive which you completely missed, was to posit that the exponential growth in non GDP transaction number and dollar volume (financial-ism and speculation) has had a reverse relationship with the velocity of the monetary base. There are many scholarly papers demonstrating that velocity has declined in those countries where financial and real estate transactions increased disproportionately due to an increase in speculative credit creation.
The only confusion here is coming from the person who makes pointless comments and erects straw-men for arguments that do not exist. But this is a "free" country and those who exhibit confusion and fail to teach us anything with their pointless comments are allowed free reign to troll and comment in these forums. Witnessed by the fact that two people actually liked your latest comment. So people give us comments, in which they speculate about transactions (financial system ones, at that) and their supposed lack of relation to the value of money and the function of the demand for it....
Argonaut: "In which, transactions have precisely nothing to do with it. The value of money is a function of the demand for it, and the demand for money is not transactions, or measured by transactions. Transactions have no direct relationship even to income." Salmo correctly said wrong. I will go a step further, dead wrong and so far detached as to sever contact with reality on the one hand, and the main body of economic theory on the other.
Think solely of oil transactions, then be aware that the dollar accounts for 80% of trade finance and 87% of foreign currency market transactions. According to the beanie baby swapping theory, all those global transactions denominated in dollars, could not possibly have ANY influence on supply, demand for or value of said dollar. The value of said dollar is solely due to the demand for it and that demand exists solely because of our ROBUST GDP, economy and global likeability. Right?
Following this the US government has never needed nor will continue to militarily or otherwise enforce their global dollar hegemony. Right? What this comment forgets is the reality of the street as opposed to seat time in academic fantasia. Values go up and down and much like a credit card company, the churn or sheer number of transactions denominated in the "currency" and the vigorish thereof makes money no matter what. I guess this would be a great example of transactions having no direct relationship to income? or influencing demand? Alrighty then.
Argonaut: "The whole thing is the worst possible morass of pseudoscience and insulating a failed theory against empirical falsification, a welter of confusion and sloppy thinking, devoid of economic principle. Hiding in a pretense of mechanical analogy and pretended definitional rigor, which is entirely specious, and exists only to sever contact with reality on the one hand, and the main body of economic theory on the other."
No kidding and how. The only thing hidden in pretense, pretended or specious is the morass of pseudoscience which insulates the failed theories promulgated against empirical falsification in a welter of confusion and sloppy thinking, which has trapped the rest of us in a horror story written by academic economists who have a theoretical narrative that doesn't actually reflect our reality or any reality. And the multitudes of innocents who have been victimized by these voodoo witch doctors (who collectively seem to have their craniums stuck in their rectal cavities) and the pack of jackals that employ them, would gladly en-devour to sever those craniums from the reality of attachment to those very pencil necked geeks. I know I am not alone in this sentiment.
Much like the irrelevant beanie baby theorem, and subsequent diatribe served on Tack and Salmo, your comments are wrought with rigid thinking, non sequitur's and straw-men in an attempt to make your case, no matter how off point it is and create an argument where none exists. As opposed to good healthy debate, making it ad hominem and from which... and countering redundancy with redundancy here... well there you go again, it is evident in the case of Salmo's correction of your egregious error, you have completely missed the point. I will give credit where it is due, much like the academic economists, you do seem to be good at this.
In the future, if you don't understand or beg to differ, rather than the trite, snarky, Mr. Know-it-All, ad hominem attacks which you have issued in this comment chain (and be aware that SA editors have cleaned up your act by editing out a large chunk) just ask nicely and perhaps someone might take the time to explain the facts to you.
Trebek queries: if one chooses not to rely on government of central bank econometric falsity and disingenuous media narrative, what would be the best proxy for GDP (which includes most non black market income) and inflation? Hint, in the end, most all money winds up cycling through this system in one way or another and its reserve requirements are therefore a reflective mirror of most all economic transactions, income, GDP and inflation.
More to come in Part 3.
Argonaut: "income is not movement of money." Nobody here said income is the movement of money.
Argonaut: "Transactions are not income." Nobody here said transactions are income.
Argonaut: "the missive doesn't have a point. It is fundamentally confused about both transactions and monetary economics, and has nothing to teach us." Those who think they know everything cannot be taught.
The point of the missive which you completely missed, was to posit that the exponential growth in non GDP transaction number and dollar volume (financial-ism and speculation) has had a reverse relationship with the velocity of the monetary base. There are many scholarly papers demonstrating that velocity has declined in those countries where financial and real estate transactions increased disproportionately due to an increase in speculative credit creation.
The only confusion here is coming from the person who makes pointless comments and erects straw-men for arguments that do not exist. But this is a "free" country and those who exhibit confusion and fail to teach us anything with their pointless comments are allowed free reign to troll and comment in these forums. Witnessed by the fact that two people actually liked your latest comment. So people give us comments, in which they speculate about transactions (financial system ones, at that) and their supposed lack of relation to the value of money and the function of the demand for it....
Argonaut: "In which, transactions have precisely nothing to do with it. The value of money is a function of the demand for it, and the demand for money is not transactions, or measured by transactions. Transactions have no direct relationship even to income." Salmo correctly said wrong. I will go a step further, dead wrong and so far detached as to sever contact with reality on the one hand, and the main body of economic theory on the other.
Think solely of oil transactions, then be aware that the dollar accounts for 80% of trade finance and 87% of foreign currency market transactions. According to the beanie baby swapping theory, all those global transactions denominated in dollars, could not possibly have ANY influence on supply, demand for or value of said dollar. The value of said dollar is solely due to the demand for it and that demand exists solely because of our ROBUST GDP, economy and global likeability. Right?
Following this the US government has never needed nor will continue to militarily or otherwise enforce their global dollar hegemony. Right? What this comment forgets is the reality of the street as opposed to seat time in academic fantasia. Values go up and down and much like a credit card company, the churn or sheer number of transactions denominated in the "currency" and the vigorish thereof makes money no matter what. I guess this would be a great example of transactions having no direct relationship to income? or influencing demand? Alrighty then.
Argonaut: "The whole thing is the worst possible morass of pseudoscience and insulating a failed theory against empirical falsification, a welter of confusion and sloppy thinking, devoid of economic principle. Hiding in a pretense of mechanical analogy and pretended definitional rigor, which is entirely specious, and exists only to sever contact with reality on the one hand, and the main body of economic theory on the other."
No kidding and how. The only thing hidden in pretense, pretended or specious is the morass of pseudoscience which insulates the failed theories promulgated against empirical falsification in a welter of confusion and sloppy thinking, which has trapped the rest of us in a horror story written by academic economists who have a theoretical narrative that doesn't actually reflect our reality or any reality. And the multitudes of innocents who have been victimized by these voodoo witch doctors (who collectively seem to have their craniums stuck in their rectal cavities) and the pack of jackals that employ them, would gladly en-devour to sever those craniums from the reality of attachment to those very pencil necked geeks. I know I am not alone in this sentiment.
Much like the irrelevant beanie baby theorem, and subsequent diatribe served on Tack and Salmo, your comments are wrought with rigid thinking, non sequitur's and straw-men in an attempt to make your case, no matter how off point it is and create an argument where none exists. As opposed to good healthy debate, making it ad hominem and from which... and countering redundancy with redundancy here... well there you go again, it is evident in the case of Salmo's correction of your egregious error, you have completely missed the point. I will give credit where it is due, much like the academic economists, you do seem to be good at this.
In the future, if you don't understand or beg to differ, rather than the trite, snarky, Mr. Know-it-All, ad hominem attacks which you have issued in this comment chain (and be aware that SA editors have cleaned up your act by editing out a large chunk) just ask nicely and perhaps someone might take the time to explain the facts to you.
Trebek queries: if one chooses not to rely on government of central bank econometric falsity and disingenuous media narrative, what would be the best proxy for GDP (which includes most non black market income) and inflation? Hint, in the end, most all money winds up cycling through this system in one way or another and its reserve requirements are therefore a reflective mirror of most all economic transactions, income, GDP and inflation.
More to come in Part 3.
Comments