"Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can ... "
John Lennon
Imagine that everyone can "decree" something. We could do anything, but suppose there are any restrictions: for example, that we can not definitely the "private" ownership of the others but if we can "borrow" and choose the way in which we will return.
Now let's imagination side. We looked at the following note Nation with public debt data that showed us The 0.33%. We also find that Bulat Thomas in the Chronicler , think close to what we proposed here , regarding the payment of debt reserves and inflation.
One of the questions motivated me to study economics, was why it did not end poverty and economic problems of those issuing more money.
That is, if anyone has the little machine and you can print and distribute it to whom you want, then the problem would be political. Unfortunately
time and some liberal friends taught me that the economy has certain other restrictions *. That may be one of many steps to take to "mature."
However, I must admit that that question for many years of my childhood and adolescence had gone unanswered. Monetary macro classes helped somewhat, though I never considered a supporter of monetarism by what, the end, seems to be open ...
If anyone could print anything I wanted, what would be the effect on the economy?.
liberals understand very well about the problems this causes and often make ad nauseum. Any adherent of the quantity theory of money is going to argue that prices will rise because the government or the central bank would be conducting a very loose monetary policy (issuing more money than necessary to ensure that transactions are carried out in appropriate measure.)
Those who believe in the intervention, but try to be moderate and not marry anyone, understand the liberal critique and understand how much it may cost us the vices of the political end of ruining our currency. So the question arises: who or who is the currency?. If for example we all had some money, or debts and credits referred to is money, from a certain perspective, monetary stability would be a public good (a good that we can all derive satisfaction and the satisfaction they get around not limit the ability of satisfaction other) **.
If all we are interested in monetary stability (read inflation moderate, or none) or to put it in terms more democratic if the majority of us are interested in monetary stability, it is because we have something to lose if that is not observed. If we have anything to lose is because: i) On one hand, we have both cash holdings and deposits of various types and receivables and payables denominated in local currency; ii) have a horizon of predictability helps us to have a better quality of life (something similar to what happens with job security, applied in the monetary field.) Reading the post by Rodrigo I realize that predictability is not enough. At least if disputes are not resolved markets symmetrically. That is, if I know that inflation will be at least 25% annually, but I have no chance to grow my income in the same way as prices rise, then I find missing. The biggest problem is that not even know if someone is winning (although for those who believe in the concept of "inflation tax" and "seigniorage", possibly makes it easier to link these phenomena to some of the achievements of the ruling political In recent years, and possibly to come). Furthermore, those who may suffer the greatest consequences are non-unionized workers and particularly those in more precarious working conditions and lower income (in addition to those who have no work).
I do, if I had a chance to enact something, there would still be the problem of legitimacy: no one chose me for that. But anyway, there is also that many of those elected will not compete the authority to issue. And do not sympathize much with these asymmetries and representative election system, so for now, if I could just declare something to quench your own share of selfishness, then maybe you would decree something similar to what is decreed.
could, for example, that the Banco de la Nación Argentina (or another bank) lend me the money that I choose me to buy a house. And not only that. also stipulate unilaterally when pay. possibly choose to pay it all at once at maturity in a period when I no longer have the responsibility to do no way to pay and that it affects my reputation (the most logical thing would be to secure a date and go to better life).
I am also very nice being able select the rate of interest payable (but always best to agree a 0% rate. Or why not a negative?. I pay and get paid for me to use).
Or perhaps you when you go to borrow money to the bank do not ask gently: "Mr. / Ms. How much would you, when we want to pay and what rate you would pay or get paid? ".
Perhaps this is a fine example of the trilemma of the impossibility of the indebtedness of most mortals, firms and governments ... for everything else, there DECRET-CARD ...
Greetings
MI
* An interesting oddity is the restriction that has the capacity of machines and men to produce an increasing amount of notes and coins increasingly buy less (have less purchasing power).
**
really is relative, in an inflationary context creditors are harmed depending on the magnitude of the nominal interest rate and inflation in the period, which determine some real interest rate.
By contrast, in a deflationary context, adversely affected the debtors.
0 comments:
Post a Comment