The problem with intervention
-
A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such
as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery
expansions.That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.
The world is large and complex. The infinite interrelationships between causes and effects are not understood on even the most rudimentary levels (which is why the stock market can't be modelled). Whenever a government interferes the natural progression of the market, regardless of how good its intentions or goals are, the result is more often than not negative as the repercussions of its actions simply can't be predicted. In this case, the US government (in its zeal to capitalize on anti-Big Oil sentiment) is pushing for ethanol production increases to reduce energy costs. As a result, we have seen a 7% increase in food prices in the US, expensive tortillas in Mexico, overcapacity of ethanol refineries and now, scaled back investment into oil refining capacity, which is the bottleneck causing gasoline prices to be so high. Add that to legislation criminalizing arbitrarily defined "unconscionably high" profits and a new set of taxes on oil companies, and the problem is only worstened. The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
-
I'm not advocating financial anarchy (ask Zeppelin for that). I'm pointing out the fact that the free market system is both complex beyond modelling and is self-balancing. Whenever the government (which has the authority of force) attempts to intervene and alter that balance, it affects other unforseen aspects of the economy. Humanity simply cannot adaquately govern economies, which is why communism and socialism inevitably results in a far greater degree of misery for many more people. That does not, however, preclude policies designed to create a stable environment (which is certainly required) for free markets. That includes currency, national security, etc..
H.U.A. I just wanted to make sure the point was made that "free markets" aren't actually "free" or even really all that "natural", the way many people who rail against "leftists" seem to believe. They are governed by complex bodies of law, and those who write those laws become surrogates for direct manipulators. Many of the laws that govern commerce in America today are practically written by lobbyists on behalf of powerful corporations that have purchased access to the legislative process. So on the one side, we have a few people who want government to directly intervene and say that certain things such as, for example, the rampant despoiling of our natural resources is not OK. But what we currently have in America is a bit more like the fox guarding the hen-house, as companies that are allowed to "self-regulate" rarely fail to take advantage of this trust and make profits by doing things that have negative externalities. The classic example of this was Enron and the whole California electric supply deregulation mess that resulted in the brown-outs a few years ago. But I think you and I aren't really all that widely in disagreement. Maybe I'm not as much of a lefty as I think.
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
So then record profits are a bad thing? You should realize that about 30% of the "record profits" experienced by Exxon are artificial compared to previous years because the value of the dollar has declined by that much and because almost all oil is imported from abroad. Adjusted for inflation (and neglecting the plummeting dollar), it's also at a historic average. But if you think that buying oil stocks is a sufficient hedge against rising prices, then why don't you do that?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Your argument is based entirely on secret conspiratorial clubs. Being sane, I therefore dismiss it.
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
Red Stateler wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets.
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
H.U.A. I just wanted to make sure the point was made that "free markets" aren't actually "free" or even really all that "natural", the way many people who rail against "leftists" seem to believe. They are governed by complex bodies of law, and those who write those laws become surrogates for direct manipulators. Many of the laws that govern commerce in America today are practically written by lobbyists on behalf of powerful corporations that have purchased access to the legislative process. So on the one side, we have a few people who want government to directly intervene and say that certain things such as, for example, the rampant despoiling of our natural resources is not OK. But what we currently have in America is a bit more like the fox guarding the hen-house, as companies that are allowed to "self-regulate" rarely fail to take advantage of this trust and make profits by doing things that have negative externalities. The classic example of this was Enron and the whole California electric supply deregulation mess that resulted in the brown-outs a few years ago. But I think you and I aren't really all that widely in disagreement. Maybe I'm not as much of a lefty as I think.
Conservatives don't oppose a legal construct that determines its course and society-imposed limits. The SEC is recognized as a necessary entity to ensure market transparency (to prevent Enron-type debacles...But that was due to fraud) and there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good. However, those are restraints on the free market and not active participation in it. The point that I was making was not an endorsement of anarchy, but a comment on what happens when individuals who believe their market interference will produce an expected result. Being an exceedingly complex system, such interference (whether it be "mandating" production or nationalizing an industry) typically produces highly undesirable and unforseen consequences.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets.
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
Andy Brummer wrote:
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
I didn't. I said markets are inherently stable. I also said that chaos theory can't model markets (at least not in any usable way). He's the one who said that markets are governed by chaos theory and therefore unstable (at least that's what I gathered).
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
I didn't. I said markets are inherently stable. I also said that chaos theory can't model markets (at least not in any usable way). He's the one who said that markets are governed by chaos theory and therefore unstable (at least that's what I gathered).
You're right. What happened to the old espier going off on random rants ignoring responses to just post whatever crap you felt like going on about that minute? Have you been taking your medication?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Conservatives don't oppose a legal construct that determines its course and society-imposed limits. The SEC is recognized as a necessary entity to ensure market transparency (to prevent Enron-type debacles...But that was due to fraud) and there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good. However, those are restraints on the free market and not active participation in it. The point that I was making was not an endorsement of anarchy, but a comment on what happens when individuals who believe their market interference will produce an expected result. Being an exceedingly complex system, such interference (whether it be "mandating" production or nationalizing an industry) typically produces highly undesirable and unforseen consequences.
Red Stateler wrote:
there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good.
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia. From 'United States Banker's Association Magazine, 1924 "Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." Need I say more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good.
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia. From 'United States Banker's Association Magazine, 1924 "Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." Need I say more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia.
Where did I say "universally shared". I said "shared".
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Need I say more.
Yes you do. What's the relevance of this unsubstantiated and unreferenced (you mention a magazine, but not the author) quote? Can you reconcile the fact that this quotation seems to urge that people lose their homes with the fact that there are currently more homeowners in the US than every before in history? Can you also explain why it references a goal to create a 2-party system as a means to divide voters, when there has been a 2-party system in this country since just a few years after its founding (i.e. over a hundred years before this quote)? Can you reconcile why the central bank was founded some 60 years after the 2-party system?
-
You're right. What happened to the old espier going off on random rants ignoring responses to just post whatever crap you felt like going on about that minute? Have you been taking your medication?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
Strange attractors only seem to occur when the scalars involved are small. I'm no math guru but I gather that's what Faignbaums constant is all about? I don't think markets where you can get double digit growth and six figure inflation would be orbitting a strange attractor or even several. I could well be wrong but we'll never find out because as I said it's all a moot point anyway when the table isn't flat in the first place. Red can dismiss me as a Tin Foil Hat wearer ( I can't stand hats ) but that doesn't negate any of the evidence. The first prerequisite of a free market is freedom and when so many of those involved never had it and the rest of us are loosing it then there really is no such thing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You're right. What happened to the old espier going off on random rants ignoring responses to just post whatever crap you felt like going on about that minute? Have you been taking your medication?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
Andy Brummer wrote:
Have you been taking your medication?
Typical atheist.
-
Strange attractors only seem to occur when the scalars involved are small. I'm no math guru but I gather that's what Faignbaums constant is all about? I don't think markets where you can get double digit growth and six figure inflation would be orbitting a strange attractor or even several. I could well be wrong but we'll never find out because as I said it's all a moot point anyway when the table isn't flat in the first place. Red can dismiss me as a Tin Foil Hat wearer ( I can't stand hats ) but that doesn't negate any of the evidence. The first prerequisite of a free market is freedom and when so many of those involved never had it and the rest of us are loosing it then there really is no such thing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and six figure inflation
:wtf:
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Yeah, now. That's why the Federal Reserve was established, and accompanying regulatory law. Much of the stability we enjoy is enforced.
They control monetary stability. Stable currency is one of those contructs required for free markets to function. That, however, is quite a separate thing than my topic: The results of attempts to manipulate the market.
The pertinent phrase was "accompanying regulatory law." Things like regulation of stock trading and mandatory reporting requirements to reduce speculation. That's beside the point though, because yes, they aren't direct manipulation of the market (although setting the base interest rate could qualify as direct manipulation). But let's turn the tables for a second and presume that a little direct manipulation of the market isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the case of developing alternative fuels. The hit has to be taken somewhere, because oil is a limited resource. It's a price we'd pay eventually (in the form of economic and social chaos) in the extremely unlikely case that we wait until all the oil is gone before we develop new fuel sources. Anything less extreme than that is merely a discussion of the degree and speed at which society pays that bill. WHO pays that bill isn't particularly relevant. If we wait for industry to develop the fuels, we all pay ever-rising gas prices as scarcity becomes an issue, along with the associated environmental damage. I don't rather like the idea of a bureaucracy in control of the development either, but in the face of an industry that has a vested interest in preventing such development, I don't see much choice. There have been many attempts to expand the use of alternative fuels for quite some time, but none of them are taking off, and it's reasonable to suggest they won't until gas prices are MUCH higher than they are now. I don't know, frankly we've painted ourselves into a corner where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We've caused a situation where steps more dramatic than those we'd wish to take are necessary.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia.
Where did I say "universally shared". I said "shared".
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Need I say more.
Yes you do. What's the relevance of this unsubstantiated and unreferenced (you mention a magazine, but not the author) quote? Can you reconcile the fact that this quotation seems to urge that people lose their homes with the fact that there are currently more homeowners in the US than every before in history? Can you also explain why it references a goal to create a 2-party system as a means to divide voters, when there has been a 2-party system in this country since just a few years after its founding (i.e. over a hundred years before this quote)? Can you reconcile why the central bank was founded some 60 years after the 2-party system?
Red Stateler wrote:
I said "shared".
Yes you did. My point was that such sane desires, not being universally shared are inadequate to restrain those that laugh at them. But they are useful for blinding those that have them that 'everthing possible is being done' because of course it would be wouldn't it. The quote is one I've seen before and a quick Google search brought it up here http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/moneygame.htm[^] If you doubt its voracity that's fine I don't because it chimes with too many others.
Red Stateler wrote:
there are currently more homeowners in the US than every before in history
I can't speak for the US but in the UK the fourth largest bank is owed enough mortgage debt to buy every square inch of Scotland at current 'market' prices. People may think they own their homes and say so to polsters. It just shows the con is working.
Red Stateler wrote:
a goal to create a 2-party
Not a goal to create one but a goal to corrupt and maintain one against all odds and without regard to the will of the people which can be managed if necessary by attaching its desires to one party logo or the other in turn and calling them policies only to ignore them completely and carry on as before. Another pertinent quote that I'll have to give from memory because I can't find it at the moment. Paul Voelker (before he was Fed Chaiman) was asked by a puzzled potential political fund contributor who he was squeezing for Democrat funding, "But aren't you a Republican." He replied, "Don't worry about that. We own both parties". I don't expect you simply to believe me. You're an intelligent guy and can probably dig up more than me with very little effort. All I'm saying is start looking behind the curtain and don't believe everything Ronald Reagan told you, he didn't.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
The pertinent phrase was "accompanying regulatory law." Things like regulation of stock trading and mandatory reporting requirements to reduce speculation. That's beside the point though, because yes, they aren't direct manipulation of the market (although setting the base interest rate could qualify as direct manipulation). But let's turn the tables for a second and presume that a little direct manipulation of the market isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the case of developing alternative fuels. The hit has to be taken somewhere, because oil is a limited resource. It's a price we'd pay eventually (in the form of economic and social chaos) in the extremely unlikely case that we wait until all the oil is gone before we develop new fuel sources. Anything less extreme than that is merely a discussion of the degree and speed at which society pays that bill. WHO pays that bill isn't particularly relevant. If we wait for industry to develop the fuels, we all pay ever-rising gas prices as scarcity becomes an issue, along with the associated environmental damage. I don't rather like the idea of a bureaucracy in control of the development either, but in the face of an industry that has a vested interest in preventing such development, I don't see much choice. There have been many attempts to expand the use of alternative fuels for quite some time, but none of them are taking off, and it's reasonable to suggest they won't until gas prices are MUCH higher than they are now. I don't know, frankly we've painted ourselves into a corner where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We've caused a situation where steps more dramatic than those we'd wish to take are necessary.
Patrick Sears wrote:
That's beside the point though, because yes, they aren't direct manipulation of the market (although setting the base interest rate could qualify as direct manipulation).
The Fed did indeed used to do that and at least one Democrat in Congress has said we need to go back to doing that. However, interest rates are adjusted to control the supply of money and inflation. It isn't an intervention into the market.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I don't know, frankly we've painted ourselves into a corner where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We've caused a situation where steps more dramatic than those we'd wish to take are necessary.
Why? The market is actually moving quite naturally in this direction without government intervention. Rising oil costs have not stalled the economy (in fact the S&P 500 is up 25% since the beginning of 2006) and investment in alternative energy has become financially feasible, so there has been a dramatic increase in investment in those areas. As a result of higher gasoline costs, Toyota has sold over 1 million hybrid cars (with fuel efficiencies much higher than the government has mandated). If gasoline goes up to $5/gallon, pretty much every car sold will be a hybrid (as the additional cost of the engine would be quickly justified) and there would be far more investment in alternative energies.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and six figure inflation
:wtf:
Yep, that sort of thing used to happen all over the place when it was convenient to destabalise the odd slightly left of Ghengis Khan South American or African president. If it wasn't due to manipulation then the economists have got to explain it with their model. Along with why it suddenly stopped and today seems only to be occuring in Zimbabwe which is clearly being deliberately issolated and leant on for very good reasons along with being smashed from within by a lunatic.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I said "shared".
Yes you did. My point was that such sane desires, not being universally shared are inadequate to restrain those that laugh at them. But they are useful for blinding those that have them that 'everthing possible is being done' because of course it would be wouldn't it. The quote is one I've seen before and a quick Google search brought it up here http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/moneygame.htm[^] If you doubt its voracity that's fine I don't because it chimes with too many others.
Red Stateler wrote:
there are currently more homeowners in the US than every before in history
I can't speak for the US but in the UK the fourth largest bank is owed enough mortgage debt to buy every square inch of Scotland at current 'market' prices. People may think they own their homes and say so to polsters. It just shows the con is working.
Red Stateler wrote:
a goal to create a 2-party
Not a goal to create one but a goal to corrupt and maintain one against all odds and without regard to the will of the people which can be managed if necessary by attaching its desires to one party logo or the other in turn and calling them policies only to ignore them completely and carry on as before. Another pertinent quote that I'll have to give from memory because I can't find it at the moment. Paul Voelker (before he was Fed Chaiman) was asked by a puzzled potential political fund contributor who he was squeezing for Democrat funding, "But aren't you a Republican." He replied, "Don't worry about that. We own both parties". I don't expect you simply to believe me. You're an intelligent guy and can probably dig up more than me with very little effort. All I'm saying is start looking behind the curtain and don't believe everything Ronald Reagan told you, he didn't.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
All I'm saying is start looking behind the curtain and don't believe everything Ronald Reagan told you, he didn't.
Don't you get it. I AM behind the curtain. One more word from you, and I'll dispatch the black helicopters.
-
Yep, that sort of thing used to happen all over the place when it was convenient to destabalise the odd slightly left of Ghengis Khan South American or African president. If it wasn't due to manipulation then the economists have got to explain it with their model. Along with why it suddenly stopped and today seems only to be occuring in Zimbabwe which is clearly being deliberately issolated and leant on for very good reasons along with being smashed from within by a lunatic.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yep, that sort of thing used to happen all over the place when it was convenient to destabalise the odd slightly left of Ghengis Khan South American or African president. If it wasn't due to manipulation then the economists have got to explain it with their model. Along with why it suddenly stopped and today seems only to be occuring in Zimbabwe which is clearly being deliberately issolated and leant on for very good reasons along with being smashed from within by a lunatic.
Uh...You're really wearing your ignorance on your sleeve now. Inflation occurs because of government intervention. America restricts the flow of money to ensure monetary stability. Zimbabwe prints money to pay off debts, thereby lowering their debts but also devaluing their currency and economy. Inflation, being harmful to an economy but beneficial in the short term to government, is not an American fiscal policy. But again, you're diverging from my point of intervention in markets by talking about monetary policy, which governments are (and must) be in charge of.