He needs our help.

Quote from: Cheat on June 18, 2015, 08:28:13 PM

I would totally do this. I don't even have to think about it.

EDIT: And for all those millionaires out there, I am open to making this hypothetical a reality.

O_o

Hell, wouldn't you?

For you non-German speakers:

"Thanks for twelve "beautiful" years, Laura. You have the half you deserve".

lol, look at this bitch.

Verbatim.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 18, 2015, 05:09:34 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 18, 2015, 05:07:44 PM

You assume that tranny pussy and cisgen pussy are substitute goods

In what economy is cisgen pussy actually considered a superior good by the marginal consumer? Come on, man, be real.

That's exactly what a Keynesian would ask.

Stop oppressing me!

Bernanke bad touched my Bitcoin!

You assume that tranny pussy and cisgen pussy are substitute goods

In what economy is cisgen pussy actually considered a superior good by the marginal consumer? Come on, man, be real.

Trannies should have to tell people they're trannies before they have sex.

What? Why?

Like. . . What?

Even if they're a Trap, you'll be able to tell what sex they are by the nice Cock and Balls you might find when they remove their underwear.

simple economics

increase the supply of pussy

value of pussy goes down

easier to get pussy

what a glorious result. gotta get dat PUSSEH

Come down to Lodon man we can fuck the city up. I'll pay for your hotel room real talk.

You're still in London?

Soooo either that's the wrong question or they both are the ICB thing >_>

They are both independent central banks.

translation for econotards?

Countries with an independent central bank (and thus control over monetary policy) have a fiscal multiplier of roughly zero, meaning austerity or stimulus on the tax/spending side of things can be completely offset.

Mark Sadowski has done a lot of empirical work on the impacts of fiscal austerity in the past couple of years. Most of you will probably know I tend to be pro-austerity (although David Romer makes an interesting case for the use of fiscal tools, and I'm open to things like counter-cyclical social security taxe rates, as was proposed by the NZ Labor Party). Of course, there is a debate to be had on whether or not monetary policy becomes ineffectual at the zero-lower bound.

Personally, I don't think so. I think the Wicksellian view of monetary policy is a flawed one. However, I want to look at some data today. The two competing ideas I want to look at today are the Keynesian idea (fiscal austerity is contractionary at the lower bound) and the Monetarist idea (fiscal policy can be offset by monetary policy, even at the lower bound). Sadowski has done some nGDP regressions on the correlation between fiscal austerity and growth, which seem to support Keynesian expectations at prima facie as there is a clear negative correlation:


Then Sadowski isolates the Eurozone countries, which lack an independent central bank and the regression is consistent with both ideas.


Finally, Sadowski does a regression for countries with independent central banks and we have a regression which supports the Monetarist line of thinking:



And Sadowski's findings are, of course, in line with certain case studies such as the Sequester in the US in 2013 wherein growth outpaced predictions assuming no austerity thanks to Fed easing. And I have a couple of graphs here drawn from IMF data which supports Sadowski's findings above:


Takeaway: Euro: less government spending correlated with less growth
Non-Euro: Fiscal multiplier is an observed zero.

Euro p = 0.04 y=0.8315 - 1.3306*x
Non-euro p = 0.8 y= 2.3166 + 0.1914 *x

Disclaimers:

(I) Average Real GDP per Capita is the y-axis. Average changes in Structural budget is the x-axis. What is a structural budget? It's the percent of potential GDP a country is deficit spending (or building up a surplus). I took the average of changes to account for austerity measures [otherwise many countries would seem to be deficit spending, like Greece, when they made large reductions in their budget] Positive changes mean austerity; negative changes mean more deficit spending

(II) Data excludes Estonia, Cyprus, and Sao Paulo as either one or the other lacked data for Real GDP per capita growth or balanced budget spending.

(III) AFAIK all the other countries have indep. Central Banks. However, Hong Kong and Switzerland at that time had pegs; there's a regression later on down that moves them to the other side to see the affect.

(IV) Why 2007-2013? I would like to include as much as the business cycle as feasible, 2007 touches on periods when the boom is ending, and 2013 takes us up to theoretical areas for recovery (regression for 2010-2013 later on down)

(V) This is a reg x y, and not a replacement for any serious studies on fiscal multipliers. For that see this IMF paper:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1152.pdf
and Ramey (2011)
http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/JEL_Fiscal_14June2011.pdf

Data Source: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx (To be exact, I selected "Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP" and "General government structural balance Percent of potential GDP")


Same as above but without Greece. p = 0.81; y=0.8819 + 0.1973*x (Euro)

Takeaways: Fiscal multiplier closer to zero, but this is odd. Are the effects of ECB's monetary policy disproportionally bad for Greece? Anything to do with structural account surpluses/deficits? (Export/import ratios)


And here's a graph moving Hong Kong and Switzerland to the non-independent side on account of their monetary pegs at the time, although whether or not we ought to do this is open for debate.

So, I was wearing my "Free People, Read Mises" T-shirt at my Intro Micro class when the Keynesian teaching at the front of the lecture hall was like, "That shirt isn't science." I couldn't believe it.

"Actually," I explained, "Praxeology was the only epistemologically sound study of human behavior, not mainstream economics."

I considered walking out then and there but was really hungry for debate. So, I handed the praxgirl sitting next to me my copy of Man, Economy, and State, but--and I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering the level of education in this country--she refused to accept it.

"It all follows logically from undeniably true axioms of human action!" I said. "You cannot refuse it! It is my right to prax it!"

She wouldn't budge, claiming that there was no place in academia for extreme apriorism. (For fuck's sake.)
"Alright," I said, handing her a copy of Human Action. I was half expecting her to raise a stink about that, but she didn't. I guess there's still some hope.

"No need to be so statist," I said.

She flipped.

"Statist," I said, "not statistics. Don't you know there is no difference?"

Anyways, as I left, I offered my bar of gold to the professor to make up for my interruptions, and the old Keynesian bitch shrieked: "Goldbug! Oh my god, he's a conspiracy theorist!"

I couldn't believe what I was hearing; I am not a goldbug; I also like Bitcoin.

"Actually," I calmly and coolly explained, "before the gold standard was destroyed by the Keynesians, it was the reason for America's prosperity before the end of Bretton Woods, and before that, it brought decades of beneficial deflation. But I guess they don't teach you that in grad school anymore, do they?" Seriously, why should the decades after 1973 overrule almost two hundred years' worth of American history?

Anyways, as I left, an older gentleman came up to me, and placed his hand on my arm. "Thank you," he said. "I fought the Keynesians as FDR's advisor during the Great Depression, and I'll be damned if we let the statists win."

"No," I replied, "thank you for your service." (Although, I sort of suspected that the Federal Reserve had placed him there for propaganda purposes.) I got into my car and read Mises Institute blog posts with a feeling of accomplishment.

Why the fuck does that matter? -_-

Because it could make the relationship more difficult.

OT: Probably not.