Argonaut Gone Wild 3
Continuing from Argonaut Gone Wild 2...
We dropped another carpet bomb on McTroll: Argonaut: "Since your article was making a claim about a supposed impact of financial circulation on that velocity "income velocity" - and there isn't any, and they all have nothing to do with each other - that is kind of an important omission."
Wrong. Well, there you go again with circular logic and straw-men. I never claimed an impact on income velocity. But thank you for bringing that up as there are numerous scholarly papers to the effect of financial circulation on income velocity. Google it.
Argonaut: "Those who do not write flip and inaccurate things like "increasing transactions have caused a fall in velocity" and think it tells us something meaningful. You are certainly free to hypothesize about relationships between actual transactions and any of the other items.... then it becomes necessary for your readers to provide the context and corrections that will enable other SA readers how basely your claims based on such evidence or reasoning, actually are."
Wrong. You chose to comment in an ad hominem fashion, making misleading statements regarding the missive, constructing straw-men and attempting to create an argument where none existed. My actual conclusions which are neither flip nor inaccurate, are listed in the conclusion section, please feel free to read it.
Argonaut: "your article directly made claims about a supposed relationship between financial transactions and a monetary velocity."
My conclusions lead to a hypothesis as stated: "Exhibiting that non consumption PCE or non GDP generating type (2) transactions would seem to have a reverse relationship with both monetary base and credit creation velocities."
Key phrase: WOULD SEEM. This quote "the quantity and velocity of money is dissipated not only through GDP but through non-GDP asset liability transactions." led me to creation of this missive which is NOT a scholarly paper and was never held out as such. I have merely pointed out a seeming casual relationship of which the claims and reasoning are not base, as again, there are numerous scholarly papers to this effect. Google it.
"And no, as a purely factual matter, it is untrue that SA editors have removed any of my comments."
Wrong, as a purely factual matter, SA editors have redacted your responses and removed most of the offensive content but could not remove the snarkiness without a complete deletion.
Argonaut: "transactions are not incomes"
Being literal such as yourself, in and of themselves no. However, income + or - is a byproduct of most transactions, necessary for the existence of brokers, escrow, banks, exchanges and markets. Many derivative products exist as conduits solely to provide income streams. These phrase's come to mind:
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
"Neither a buyer nor a seller be; thou shalt be a broker and profit from each and every transaction regardless of consequence."
Finally, in your attempt to be academic and literal, you missed the point in both the missive and Salmo's correction of your erroneous statement, Argonaut: "transactions have no direct relationship even to the income" You either get it or you don't, and if you don't get it or can't get along, get along. I have neither the time nor the inclination to further explain myself or the obvious to you or anyone else so predisposed.
I hope this helps.
Argonaut Gone Wild
Argonaut Gone Wild 2
More to come in Part 4
We dropped another carpet bomb on McTroll: Argonaut: "Since your article was making a claim about a supposed impact of financial circulation on that velocity "income velocity" - and there isn't any, and they all have nothing to do with each other - that is kind of an important omission."
Wrong. Well, there you go again with circular logic and straw-men. I never claimed an impact on income velocity. But thank you for bringing that up as there are numerous scholarly papers to the effect of financial circulation on income velocity. Google it.
Argonaut: "Those who do not write flip and inaccurate things like "increasing transactions have caused a fall in velocity" and think it tells us something meaningful. You are certainly free to hypothesize about relationships between actual transactions and any of the other items.... then it becomes necessary for your readers to provide the context and corrections that will enable other SA readers how basely your claims based on such evidence or reasoning, actually are."
Wrong. You chose to comment in an ad hominem fashion, making misleading statements regarding the missive, constructing straw-men and attempting to create an argument where none existed. My actual conclusions which are neither flip nor inaccurate, are listed in the conclusion section, please feel free to read it.
Argonaut: "your article directly made claims about a supposed relationship between financial transactions and a monetary velocity."
My conclusions lead to a hypothesis as stated: "Exhibiting that non consumption PCE or non GDP generating type (2) transactions would seem to have a reverse relationship with both monetary base and credit creation velocities."
Key phrase: WOULD SEEM. This quote "the quantity and velocity of money is dissipated not only through GDP but through non-GDP asset liability transactions." led me to creation of this missive which is NOT a scholarly paper and was never held out as such. I have merely pointed out a seeming casual relationship of which the claims and reasoning are not base, as again, there are numerous scholarly papers to this effect. Google it.
"And no, as a purely factual matter, it is untrue that SA editors have removed any of my comments."
Wrong, as a purely factual matter, SA editors have redacted your responses and removed most of the offensive content but could not remove the snarkiness without a complete deletion.
Argonaut: "transactions are not incomes"
Being literal such as yourself, in and of themselves no. However, income + or - is a byproduct of most transactions, necessary for the existence of brokers, escrow, banks, exchanges and markets. Many derivative products exist as conduits solely to provide income streams. These phrase's come to mind:
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
"Neither a buyer nor a seller be; thou shalt be a broker and profit from each and every transaction regardless of consequence."
Finally, in your attempt to be academic and literal, you missed the point in both the missive and Salmo's correction of your erroneous statement, Argonaut: "transactions have no direct relationship even to the income" You either get it or you don't, and if you don't get it or can't get along, get along. I have neither the time nor the inclination to further explain myself or the obvious to you or anyone else so predisposed.
I hope this helps.
Argonaut Gone Wild
Argonaut Gone Wild 2
More to come in Part 4
Comments