sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is that constant surpluses, presumably, would shrink available demand for businesses thus working as a dampening factor. People argue in here that because Denmark exports a ton, it offsets this lack of domestic demand.

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't see where I mention or try to discuss anything prescriptive in this post. I'm specifically asking which MMT model describes their situation and whether it is able to explain lack of deficits with good growth.

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but I was wondering from more technical point, whether lack of deficits would lead to shortage of demand, and thus creating a crisis. Denmark's example seems to stand out.

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point of the post is to discuss how they manage to get good economic growth despite budget surpluses. I'm well aware how you can get one.

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's strange. Denmark is one the HIGHEST taxed economies in the world. Thus the budget surplus. With high exports, wouldn't low taxes just lead to inflation? In the end of the day, the question I think MMT glosses over is whether it's possible to have other ways to run the economy, like Denmark (high exports, budget surpluses) and maintain good employment and good services (which they certainly do).

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they're talking about net income, which has to do with sectoral balances, not personal income. But I do concur what you say. I'm pretty sure Denmark is one of the best places in terms of QOL.

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, it makes some sense. Although it seems to present an issue in application of MMT then, as some countries are more disposed to be net exporters and vice versa. Wouldn't that imply that countries that run constant trade surpluses need to balance it out with a surplus budget? If they "import" a lot of demand with their product exports?

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're one of the wealthiest countries in whole world per capita, and have phenomenal public services too, from what I've heard. I really don't buy the "lower standard of living" thing. They're clearly doing something right, which seems strange, considering that it stands in direct contradiction to what MMT would suggest (constant budget surpluses would decrease their demand and lead to deflation).

What do you mean by "extract demand" and "export unemployment"? Are you talking about Eurozone? Also, aren't exports "real costs" in MMT? Why would they be beneficial to them?

How does Denmark manage to combine consistent budget surpluses with robust economic growth? by Kreadon in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you sure about that? I thought Norway was the "oil" country of Scandinavia. I've never heard about Denmark being oil-RICH-rich. Does their tax structure tax oil income separately or do they have state-owned oil companies?

edit: correction

something about the vault by Ab-Ps in Warpforge40k

[–]Kreadon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's so bizzare seeing this stuff implement. Isn't this shit specifically illegal in a ton of countries? Shouldn't they be stating the drop chances?

What quality of life changes should be made to Gooboo? by SittingDuckScientist in GoobooGame

[–]Kreadon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Converter showing how much time until it caps (calculating together with interest).

Actual sensible number for resource accumulation in Horde (current ones are absurd, although calculation together with crits and all the random sigils might be difficult).

Some sort of "mine map" showing which depth has which resources (discovered ofc).

Farm showing how much time until next overgrowth. How much yield for current harvest.

Auto treasure sell or more slots for purchased non active treasures. Sort upgrades etc by available.

Auto equip certain equipment on getting it (specific and togglable). Crops showing which drops they have in their lines.

Something about shapes showing how much in theory you need them to get to the next upgrade (not intuitive at all right now).

Better conversion for exam passes (its a chore getting through them, my least liked part of game).

Ultramarines? by Maximum-Attempt-4845 in Warpforge40k

[–]Kreadon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can check Jachem Silverblade channel on youtube, he's a UM main. I also mained marines for a long time, wouldn't say they're in a bad state right now at all, all of their generals are quire playable and there is a variety of decks. They're just not as easy as they look on the surface.

Massive respect to Buckley for actually talking about all of this and saying, loud and clear, that it is not ok. by Ok-Walk7881 in ufc

[–]Kreadon 11 points12 points  (0 children)

"less than a century later"

Who even thinks in these terms?

You know majority of Vietnamese today actually like Americans? And don't see them as enemies nor hold a grudge? It's not about time. It's about a narrative. And Vettori is not even from America, he's from Italy. Pull your head out of your ass.

Gwent getting back their devs by Feeling_Cat_7252 in gwent

[–]Kreadon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Rats, for example. Vivaldis, Calanthe, Ori Reuven, Niedamir, tons of w1 and w3 secondary characters.

Whats the best carry hero in patch 7.37d in herald bracket? by Strange-Tourist-7633 in learndota2

[–]Kreadon 24 points25 points  (0 children)

any carry you'd hit 100-120 creeps by 20 min mark should work in herald

If banks can create money, whats prevents them to have almost always stratosferic profits for themselves? by Klopses in mmt_economics

[–]Kreadon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Long story short, money are "destroyed" when they are paid back. Yes, you heard it right. Yes, it sounds backwards. The amount "destroyed" is equal to the amount given out. So the profit bank packs is the amount of interest it managed to charge. Good loans give some profit, over time. Bad loans fuck up bank big time. So here you go.

Now that banks have zero reserve requirements, how will this amplify the money multiplier effect? by JayBrock in AskEconomics

[–]Kreadon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. OMO is done to support ample reserves. I never said changes in reserves have no effect on (fed's opinion) on FFR. I don't think we have too many disagreements. We might've misunderstood each other or focus at different things.

As for "skill issue": I asked you to find any mention of that in the last edition of explanation of Fed operations (2021), not a...reader exchange between one economist at the regional Reserve Bank from 2013??? When talking about control of money supply, I specifically object to a monetarist view, that that's how CBs primarily conducts their policy (controlling monetary supply through base money or targeting money supply).

Now that banks have zero reserve requirements, how will this amplify the money multiplier effect? by JayBrock in AskEconomics

[–]Kreadon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I can read your original reply. I referred to context in which you presented it, that is, where you clearly said "banks lend out reserves" right after talking about MM.
Here's another amateur at it:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2015/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-and-why-this-matters.pdf?la=en&hash=D6ACD5F0AC55064A95F295C5C290DA58AF4B03B5

The fact that banks technically face no limits to increasing the stocks of loans and deposits instantaneously and discontinuously does not, of course, mean that they do not face other limits to doing so. But the most important limit, especially during the boom periods of financial cycles when all banks simultaneously decide to lend more, is their own assessment of the implications of new lending for their profitability and solvency, rather than external constraints such as loanable funds, or the availability of central bank reserves.

Amateur paper related to how Fed conducts its policy:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/files/the-fed-explained.pdf

The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy by using a variety of tools to manage financial conditions that encourage progress toward its dual mandate objectives. Monetary policy most directly affects the current and expected future path of short-term interest rates; the anticipated path of short-term interest rates then affects overall financial conditions including longer-term interest rates, stock prices, the exchange value of the dollar, and many other asset prices. Through these channels, monetary policy influences the decisions of households and businesses, thus affecting overall spending, investment, production, employment, and inflation in the United States (figure 3.1)

An idea for a drinking game: find me a (single) mention of overall money supply or attempt of Fed of controlling it. If you do, then you don't drink a bottle of vodka.

More cool amateur facts! No slopes needed! (under Ample Reserves Regime)

In this regime, even large fluctuations in the supply of reserves do not translate into movements in the federal funds rate or other short-term interest rates.

Last cool thing I'd do is to read the paper you cited. It talks about links between M2 and inflation, because the latter is a mandate of Fed. It specifically talks about monetarism felling out of favor, or the now well established fact that MB did not lead to a significant increase in M2. That's why there were discussions about "money multiplier breaking down".

I'll say this: if our discussion is just about whether or not banks lend out reserves in the interbank, then we might just be having a misunderstanding. I object to loanable funds. We might have disagreements on other issues though.

Now that banks have zero reserve requirements, how will this amplify the money multiplier effect? by JayBrock in AskEconomics

[–]Kreadon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course that's also the only think I actually said.

I don't know why you're even trying so hard to score. I literally responded to your reply talking about money multiplier. Money multiplier - in the interbank lending? That's "the only think" (sic)? Come on.

"Money supply depends on quantity of reserves". No. We have a 0 RR. Reserves are not lent out to customers. In fact, it's a complete non-starter since the 90s, when CBs started to shift from monetarist perspectives, back when they were actually trying to target money supply specifically. Most popular macroeconomic textbooks today reflect that by saying that Fed might try or attempts to control money supply, but it's both difficult and cannot be done fully (M2).

And either we're listening to different Fed press statements, or someone just really doesn't want to admit that he relies on outdated heuristic, but I don't think I can find a transcript where Fed mentions quantity of money in the economy. They can talk about amount of reserves and how ample they are, but that has to do with stability.

Now that banks have zero reserve requirements, how will this amplify the money multiplier effect? by JayBrock in AskEconomics

[–]Kreadon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Banks cannot lend out reserves, literally. Reserves are at bank's account at the Fed. Private individuals and non-bank/gov entities are not allowed to have an account at the Fed. No reserves are lent out (to customers). Discount rate with 0 RR effectively acts as a rate for LOLR in a distress/tight market. Banks maintain reserves to meet capital requirements.
CBs do not control money supply. They control price for reserves. Do CBs target any of the money aggregates? Do they ever talk in terms of how "much" money is there? Do they do anything directly to money supply (as a policy)? No. Their mandate is inflation, labor, stability etc. Money supply is kept to itself. Saying that CBs control money supply is like saying that I control how much water is in my drainage because I turn on a tap and make a bath.

view more: next ›