In many ways compared to the US. I’m well aware they’re the current bogeyman. There’s plenty I don’t like about China. But you mentioned “horrible results” regarding private property. And China just isn’t that horrible. In fact economically it’s a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty. — Xtrix

It is true that they have raised millions from poverty and don't face starvation as they did in truth with the failed Maoist experiments. But what is has been is a gigantic building spree and the use of cheap labor only goes so far. And their self-made hurdle they made for themselves with the one-child policy is now going to bite them hard. So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years.

Having lived in several cities and towns in the US - That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions. — Xtrix

I've worked in corporations, but have you?

China isn't so horrible. — Xtrix

Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll:

Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. Basically it's a fascist state: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and government control of strategic industries. It's only been given this Socialist veneer in rhetoric.

Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. — Xtrix

I refer here to the Nordic countries. Do note that this is an international forum

The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't. — Xtrix

Yet wouldn't that "community outreach" look to you as window dressing? And if they have meetings with local governments, what's on the issue? Increasing job positions in the community? I guess every local government would usually like that. And what about the people?

In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. Now if that complaint is justified, wouldn't it be ought to be covered by laws and regulations?

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. — Xtrix

Zero? That is simply not true. Your picture is far too black and white exaggerations. And I notice you have the urge to talk about "the workers", perhaps referring to them as this mythical downtrodden class. Even to talk about employees, you would have to admit that there's many types of employees, mid-level staff and managers below the executive class. These are people that executive have to listen. And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company.

Ah, I see your mistake where you confuse legal accountability with moral accountability. — Benkei

I don't confuse the two. I think that usually those think that capitalism is immoral and a world without private property would be moral. Yet all we have is laws. Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results.

The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations— or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing. — Xtrix

That is a good topic to discuss, I agree.

Still just a handful of people — owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what I’m arguing against. — Xtrix

And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism

So what democracy do you have in mind?

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. — Xtrix

And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does?

Workers have no input either. — Xtrix

:roll:

Have you had a job? I would disagree here.

They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. — Xtrix

Well, I guess if they don't pay the workers, the workers will not work. If they don't follow the laws the government has given, they will be in trouble quickly anywhere.

For you this "oligarchy" seems to be part of some kind of "Illuminati".

The Fortune 500 companies I’m talking about are run undemocratically. They’re run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the “owners”). These people — a small group of 20-50 — make all the major decisions. That’s the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy — your talk of “accountability” notwithstanding. — Xtrix

As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. The owners of a corporation, which is represented by the board, which that the CEO's and other employed managers report to, are themselves similar managers. Hence you have a true managerial class, where the few rare Bill Gates / Elon Musk types are more of an oddity. This is the world we live in: few large oligopolies in every market segment and then thousands of small companies.

The definition of accountability is "an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".

Whatever you say, the responsibility of one's actions are defined in law. You can have an effect on many thing, but it's another thing to be responsible for them. Corporations can increase the wealth of the society and also when the stop their activities, those effects can be detrimental to the region where they in the past have been a large employer.

But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law.

You simply have to define more accurately just where do you see the problem of accountability.

Even the FSB personnel don't seem happy to go to Ukraine:

Employees of the Federal Security Service of Russia massively refuse to go to war in Ukraine. They do not agree even for a salary increase of 6-8 times and additional benefits.

The Telegram channel “We Can Explain” authors shared the relevant information, citing a source in the FSB.

The Russian Federation is trying to form new special service units in the temporarily occupied territories of the Kherson, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions. Military counterintelligence officers are needed and at all levels: from assistants to the commandant on duty to operatives and middle managers.

Very few people want to go to Ukraine, so the FSB is trying to put pressure on employees under whom the “chair wobbles.” If a person is on the verge of being fired or “warned about incomplete service compliance,” then he is offered to go to war. Calling and former secret service employees who lost their jobs on discrediting grounds.

However, the efforts lead to almost nothing. The source said that people are refusing, even though they are offered a lot of money: “Of the 200 people who were called, only three said they would think. And this despite the promises of huge payments and benefits.”

FSB officers are promised to be paid from 450,000 to 600,000 rubles per month if they agree to a “business trip.” This is 6-8 times more than the salary under the contract.

Similar news and that some Russian troops don't want to serve in Ukraine (see here) or some officers have been even officers have been prosecuted for sending conscripts to the Ukraine war (see Russia Prosecutes 12 Officers Over Conscript Deployments to Ukraine) just point to one obvious issue: low morale among the Russians fighting troops in this war.

Thanks, this is interesting.

What’s missing, of course, is that we don’t yet know exactly which animals were involved in the transfer of SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Live wildlife were removed from the Huanan market before the investigative team entered, increasing public safety but hampering origin hunting.

The opportunity to find the direct animal host has probably passed. As the virus likely rapidly spread through its animal reservoir, it’s overly optimistic to think it would still be circulating in these animals today.

...and furthermore:

The lab leak theory rests on an unfortunate coincidence: that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in a city with a laboratory that works on bat coronaviruses.

Some of these bat coronaviruses are closely related to SARS-CoV-2. But not close enough to be direct ancestors.

Sadly, the focus on the Wuhan Institute of Virology has distracted us from a far more important connection: that, like SARS-CoV-1 (which emerged in late 2002) before it, there’s a direct link between a coronavirus outbreak and a live animal market.

Conveniently (and some would say too conveniently). the research community can sigh of relief. Hopefully they found which animal it was.

No it doesn’t. Unless you’re talking about some co-ops - but that’s not what I’m talking about. — Xtrix

A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think.

Corporations have zero accountability to the public. — Xtrix

They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that.

I’m not talking about government ownership either, although it’s preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input. — Xtrix

Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions.

The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur.

As this is a philosophy forum, the underlying theory should be considered. Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". And there otherwise is this seemingly huge divided between owners/entrepreneurs and workers.

Let's understand what a company / a business is. It actually is just a longer contract of a service. This is crucial to understand:

Let's say you go a get a haircut from a barber. Now, what is your responsibility to the barber? Many would say nothing: you just pay for the service of the barber and everything rest the barber takes care himself or herself. But hold on, what if you would be the barber's only customer? The income of the barber would depend only on you coming to get a haircut. Would it be the same? Actually no. If the barber only cuts your hair, somehow doesn't have the option to take any other customers, then the barber is like a worker to you, even if you don't have the contract of service like when a company hires an employee. You might try to act like it's just a normal service when actually you have a private barber. The barber can only opt to cut your hair or find a totally new job.

Hence every business enterprise can basically outsource everything: a business doesn't need employees as it can use hired workers, entrepreneurs or other companies and just buy their services. Yet you can see the obvious downside here: after every contract, the service provider can just walk away and opt to give its services to another customer. And this is why the need for longer contracts, where the service provider is an employee.

When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise.

Gorbachev Feels His Life's Work Being Destroyed by Putin, Close Friend Says (Jul 23, 2022)

At 91 and at poor health, he's probably not going to get killed for his words. Then again...you never know. — jorndoe

Bit ironic when your life's work was actually the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Think about it, the Soviet Empire was basically the continuation of the Russian Empire, and they got Russia to be against it's own empire.

Yet, Putin could end the war whenever. Blames the entire "west" while bombing Ukrainians. Is his propaganda/diversion working? — jorndoe

To those that think everything bad that happens is because of the actions of the US, yes. They take it all in without any problem.

2 Days and 26 posts... that was quick.

I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane. — Benkei

If you own something, you are responsible for it. What's insane about that?

Private power has no such accountability. Corporations are run undemocratically. — Xtrix

Ownership creates that accountability. If you have started a business, invested in it and operate it, it's success or failure depends on you. Even in an cooperative it's the members of the enterprise, not others, who have this accountability. What is collective (effects others) should regulated the laws your business operates in.

Besides, government ownership means that power is in the hands of a managerial class and the citizens have their few representatives to act as owners.

Although it’s claimed that 1999 was the year of its repeal, it was essentially destroyed long before that. — Xtrix

I would suspect that with the financial deregulation in the 1980s.

The Savings & Loans crisis still went along "the old" lines with people actually ending up in jail. But they weren't Wall Street. Financial markets have for a long time (if not always) been like the henhouse guarded by foxes.

You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin: — Athena

Old time mourning and repentance!

Classic things that philosophers also have cherished.

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. That’s why I referred to Bretton Woods. — Xtrix

Observation:

Financial regulation of the financial sector was done after the '29 crash and usually referred to laws like the Banking act of 1933 (the Glass-Steagal act). Bretton Woods refers to a currency system where the dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies to the dollar and was done after WW2.

Financial deregulation meant that the Glass-Steagal act was overturned in 1999 and, as usually happens with financial deregulation, things ended up in a speculative bubble, a crash and a banking crisis in 2008.

But luckily the underlying problems were not addressed, the market's natural response of deflation wasn't allowed and ...we are here were we are now.

Anyway — I’d let go of monetarism. It simply doesn’t explain inflation, except at the margins. At least in this case. — Xtrix

There's one thing to know about schools of economic thought: they all have a point. Taken as an ideology is wrong. Yet they have, be it Keynesianism, monetarism, the Austrian school or anything else, have a point and make a reasonable argument about some aspects of the economy. A huge naive error is made when someone thinks that one school is "wrong" and the other one is "right". Yes, they are indeed political, hence the old name for economics, political economy, is far more accurate. But one shouldn't put on political blinders, even MMT can be reasonable and it's supporters did admit that inflation can happen. So "letting go" of some economic school of thought isn't the way, one should look at what the different schools all say together.

It’s not without some truth, but I don’t see how one can look at war and COVID and conclude that the main driver is monetary policy — Xtrix

The main driver is the response to COVID, which 2020-2021 prevented the "man-made" recession when people were forced to stay home.

The issue basically is when monetary policy is used to as fiscal policy, be it in Argentina, Belarus or Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation happens when people lose trust in their currency (and their government and central bank). That isn't happening in the US. Yet the dramatic response to COVID had huge undeniable effects: the persistently loose monetary policies with excessively stimulative fiscal policies and a rapid accumulation of household savings during the pandemic led to pent-up demand once economies reopened.

We have to remember that giving such if small sounding amount to people (By Trump administration) had huge effects, because many Americans live hand to mouth.

On the one hand, COVID-19 stimulus undoubtedly helped Americans in some very big, tangible ways. Namely, it reduced poverty — beyond merely keeping people afloat during the early days of the pandemic.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure, the stimulus payments moved 11.7 million people out of poverty in 2020 — a drop in the poverty rate from 11.8 to 9.1 percent. And the 2021 poverty rate was estimated to fall even further to 7.7 percent, per a July 2021 report from the Urban Institute.

But there were the consequences for this:

However, there is also evidence that the stimulus, especially the last round, likely stoked higher and higher prices for the very people it was intended to help. Though global supply chain issues (and, more recently, the war in Ukraine) have been significant drivers of inflation, the divergence between U.S. and European inflation suggests there’s more to it than that. In fact, a recent analysis from researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that the stimulus may have raised U.S. inflation by about 3 percentage points by the end of 2021.

Americans are struggling financially as a result — particularly low-income people who don’t have a cushion to absorb higher prices. Moreover, inflation is outpacing wage growth. Despite a 5.6 percent jump in wages year-over-year, 8.5 percent inflation in March 2022 meant that Americans saw a nearly 3 percent decrease in inflation-adjusted wages.

This wasn’t a completely unforeseen problem, either. Back in early 2021, some economists raised the alarm about the size of the final round of stimulus — the American Rescue Plan, which was headlined by $1,400 direct payments to individual Americans — for its potential to overheat the economy and create an inflationary environment.

I guess your argument is that this won't matter, that it was an one time thing. Perhaps we don't see COVID lockdowns, but do notice that basically every third dollar the Government spent last year. That's a huge gap. Think that they can tighten it now?

You can have wealth distribution and transfer payments from the rich to the poor, when that is done by tax revenue. But when basically all expenditure is done in such large way by new debt, it will have consequences.

In my view they will continue on the famous lines of Dick Cheney that "Deficits don't matter" until the system brakes. Because a crisis is the only case when something is done. Something on the lines of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Of course, this is likely a thing that will take years.

Lots of people and institutions buy the debt, in fact. Banks buy trillions in bonds. — Xtrix

Not in the quantity now they would have had to. The simple fact is that the Federal Reserve was the largest buyer of this huge increase in debt until the start of this year. You simply cannot deny that.



But of course, the largest buyer just buys SOME of the debt as there indeed are others buying the debt too. :smirk:

Social security. By a great deal, I believe. — Xtrix

Wrong. Please know the reality.

Social Security Trust Fund currently holds about $2.9 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. (See Congressional Research Service report June 2022)

And the future of this isn't so rosy.

No, it isn’t. — Xtrix

Really? Tell me just what single owner is bigger?

You seem to think the Fed prints money and that’s what the Congress uses to send checks. — Xtrix

Actually, yes. Technicalities aside (actual paper money wasn't printed).

Last year (2021) the US federal government collected $4.05 trillion in revenue. It spent $6.82 trillion. Hence the federal government spent $2.77 trillion more than it collected, resulting in a deficit and new debt.

Who do you think bought that new debt? Who suddenly had a lot more US treasury securities? Think.

But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.

It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance. — schopenhauer1

OK, now I understand better your point.

On the other hand, optimism, remembering those joy and happy moments might be good in countering OVERemphasizing pain and hardships of life. Which we can often do when we are unhappy about something.

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.

President Biden on Tuesday signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, an ambitious measure that aims to tamp down on inflation, lower prescription drug prices, tackle climate change, reduce the deficit and impose a minimum tax on profits of the largest corporations.

Reconciliation Bill would have been a better name, but if Americans worry about inflation, the name has to be Inflation Reduction Act.

The Fed owns a fraction of that debt — a fraction. — Xtrix

Fraction means also a bit, little. Yes, there are others holding the debt.

However:

The Federal Reserve is the largest single owner of US treasuries. Japan owns "just" 1,2 trillion $ of US treasuries and China has smaller holdings of the debt. And notice what has happened:

Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic began, the U.S. Federal Reserve has significantly ramped up its holdings of Treasury securities as part of a broader effort to counteract the economic impact of the public health emergency. Currently, the Federal Reserve holds more Treasury notes and bonds than ever before.

As of June 8, 2022, the Federal Reserve has a portfolio totaling $8.97 trillion in assets, an increase of $4.25 trillion since March 18, 2020 (around the time that many businesses shut down). Longer-term Treasury notes and bonds (excluding inflation-indexed securities) comprise two-thirds of that expansion, with holdings of those two types of securities more than doubling from $2.15 trillion on March 18, 2020 to $4.97 trillion on June 8, 2022.

So there’s a thin connection between the central bank and congress— but that’s it. — Xtrix

A "thin connection" counted in trillions. :snicker:

The Fed handles MONETARY POLICY, which is entirely different from FISCAL POLICY. Being clear on this is helpful. — Xtrix

And what is so hard for you in understanding a sentence like above: " the U.S. Federal Reserve has significantly ramped up its holdings of Treasury securities as part of a broader effort to counteract the economic impact of the public health emergency."

Sorry, but in this case, monetary policy and fiscal policy have gone hand in hand, even if you don't believe it.

Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!

The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. — baker

My point is that you cannot have just positive feelings (love, joy, happiness etc.) You will sure feel sadness and anger too. That simply is part of life, which you cannot disregard or hide away. Empathy is also very important.

But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book. — schopenhauer1

Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there?

Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do.

You want to emphasize it over the others — and that’s nutty, in my view. — Xtrix

If you want to minimize the role of the central banks, be my guest. But that's nutty in this World, in my view.

Besides, you seem to be talking more about fiscal policy, which is different. — Xtrix

You should understand the link that monetary and fiscal policy have, which is simple and obvious.

If the government cannot cover it's expenses by tax revenues, it can turn to the central bank, which either buys government bonds to finance this or simply prints more money to cover the expenses. And no government usually admits doing this.

Hopefully you understand this link between monetary and fiscal policy.

It is us who lost the existential race with our consciousness..feeling things. — schopenhauer1

Have we?

It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X. — schopenhauer1

How much is enough depends on us ourselves. Some can be bitter if they feel they haven't gotten something, where others would be totally content what they have gotten.

And yet your political position on how great it is to need X becomes someone else’s problem. — schopenhauer1

My political position?

Not following your line of thought here.

The irony. — NOS4A2

If Trump would have used his passports to go to another country would have been ironic. (Russia, UAE or Morocco among others don't have an extradition treaty with the US.)

That's a pretty low threshold. — schopenhauer1

One has to notice that the simple things in life are what actually life so wonderful. Especially if your other option is not to live, to be dead.

Since the housing bubble and QE, there has been extremely low rates and no inflation. — Xtrix

Since the money went to create asset inflation. (And with this we seem to agree on)

But raising rates will do next to nothing except lower what they are able to raise: stocks, bonds, housing. — Xtrix

Ok, think about this for a moment. Why do you forget that this has also an effect on the consumer? If his/her interest on the mortrage or on other loans go up, it will have an effect on his/her other spending.

They can do nothing about Ukraine or supply chain shocks or COVID lockdowns or China's Zero Covid policies. If we're waiting around for the Fed to cause a recession to lower inflation, we just aren't paying attention to reality. — Xtrix

But the Fed can cause a recession, if it would raise interest rates to be higher than the current inflation, right?

It's tempting to want to attribute everything to a single cause — Xtrix

I'm not doing that. Actually you are... with saying things like:

The reason you see inflation everywhere is due to factors that have nothing — zero — to do with monetary policy. — Xtrix

Which is really bizarre. If you'd follow what Roubini or CNBC documentary or me actually say, it's about both monetary policy and events like Russo-Ukrainian war. And monetary policy here is actually linked to the COVID response.

Without even reading further — Xtrix

Then I'll stop. Hope you have the time to clarify the above.

No, it isn’t. Monetary policy of the US does not lead to inflation in all the countries mentioned. They’ve had low rates for years — no inflation. The reason for global inflation has many factors— but the biggest is COVID and the war, and their impacts on supply/demand and especially energy. — Xtrix

If you argue that inflation doesn't export itself in a globalized world, you are simply going against the facts. The global economy has had low inflation and low interest rates for many years. Before the financial sector and the central banks caused asset inflation. The COVID response was different: the money went actually to the real economy.

The Fed’s policies move asset prices. That’s it. Fiscal policy— the government giving it checks, etc. — has some effect, sure. But it does not account for the higher prices of oil and gas. — Xtrix

Umm, I think you have not studied economics.

I guess it would be far better to talk with you about the labour movement or climate change. I do like to debate issues with you and don't want to be irritating or condescending. So I'll give you an example of just why monetary policy and fiscal handouts do effect things like price of oil.

So imagine a President decides to give every American (that's 330 million of them) a million bucks. To go spend and get the economy moving. 330 million times a million is 330,000,000,000,000, which is simply 330 trillion. As the monetary base has been grown by trillions, so it's totally possible to increase some hundreds of times.

First question: Do you think that some Americans would go and buy something with this 1 million they just got? Or would they all put it into a bank account or store it somewhere for a rainy day and go on just as they had before?

Second question: If we agree that at least some would spend a lot more than before, do you think that their increased spending would create "supply chain issues" or not?

Third question: As the million dollars is given to all Americans, I would assume there are some reckless 18-year old American males that would want to buy a Ferrari with their money. Ferrari makes about 8 400 cars annually and now an "ordinary" new Ferrari costs from 250 000 to 600 000 dollars (some have an even bigger price tag). Now, do you think that the price of new Ferrari's would stay at a quarter of a million? Or would the dealerships increase their prices due to the demand and the fact they cannot increase their production?

If you agree that actually Ferrari prices would be higher than what they are now (because every American got a million bucks), then the fourth question:

Why wouldn't this show also in fuel prices? Is oil price somehow immune here?

To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life — javi2541997

Your life is the real life, respect it.

And if you are 25, don't think you've seen it all. I had fears about my life when I was your age: I didn't have a girlfriend, I wasn't in the in-crowd, I was shy, I feared I would be all alone without having anything meaningful in my life later when I would be 30, 40 or 50. I couldn't image to be a father or having a family. I thought it was not for me. It was the life for other people.

Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. You have emotions, which is good in life. If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain.

Everything has it good sides and it's downsides. Marriage, which ends in a nasty divorce/breakup, can be traumatic and make you extremely unhappy and bitter. But so can be loneliness.

One has to appreciate the positive sides what your life has.

But, he switched sides in the middle of the case, quitting the US Attorney's office and going on to defend several of Epstein's employees. — Business Insider, 11August2022

Wow. That ought to be unusual.

We wouldn't be alive without the greenhouse effect. We just don't want to screw it up. — Tate

Ah, of course. Well, there's a lot to do if we want to make the place like the surface of Venus. :wink:

And this accounts for inflation in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, and India? — Xtrix

Partly yes, because the dollar is used globally. Inflation is exported to other countries:

1. The US Federal Reserve lowers interest rates or creates dollars through quantitative easing – both of which are aimed at increasing the total supply of dollars in the world.

2. The Fed’s actions allow cheaper dollar credit to be accessed by the US Federal Government, US companies, and those with connections to American banks. When this credit is used by taking out loans, new dollars are created.

3. Those who receive new dollars spend them – often on imports to the US – and the extra dollars end up circulating in foreign countries.

4. Now, foreign countries are flooded with new dollars and their governments face a choice:
Let their own currency appreciate in value against the dollar, which would reduce the country’s competitiveness in the world market and decrease their exports. Or then...

5. Create more of their own currency to stabilize its value against the dollar and retain competitiveness on the world market. However, this causes price inflation for their citizens and makes imports more expensive.

Many developing countries are dependent on cheap exports in order to keep their economy growing, so they cannot let their own currency appreciate. However, if they create too much of their own currency they risk setting off rampant inflation and increased import prices. Individuals choosing to hold US dollars instead of local currency in times of crisis also push down the value of the local currency, causing price inflation.

See How does the United States export inflation?

Naturally other governments have their own monetary and fiscal policies too. Hence they are totally capable of messing their economy all by themselves too. But it's a global economy, still.

No. The reason you see inflation everywhere is due to factors that have nothing — zero — to do with monetary policy. — Xtrix

This is simply wrong.

Please just watch the following, just to give one example. It describes clearly what I'm trying to say and just what happened, what were the consequences of both monetary and fiscal policy. And yes, there have been other reasons for supply shocks too. And it's not from Fox News, it's from CNBC.

We know why energy prices are up— around the world. It’s not because of the central banks, nor fiscal policy — and certainly not of the Fed or Congress. — Xtrix

What then do you think the reason is? Partly it is that we haven't invested in the industry as we have anticipated we would be using alternative energy resources. Yet oil prices started to climb from 2020, far earlier than February 24th this year.

Let's just remember what the definition for inflation is: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.

What we are going to see (and are seeing) is stagflation.

But by all means keep emphasizing US fiscal policy. This way we can punish the true culprits: working people. — Xtrix

Those will already be punished by stagflation. It's the workers arguing for higher salaries (because of higher expenses) that are the last in the line, yet that is political rhetoric to make them the culprits for inflation.

You see, if that assistance given to people would come from taxes, that wouldn't be so inflationary. What makes it truly inflationary is when that assistance is paid off by de facto money printing.

I wonder why the term "greenhouse effect" isn't used today. Or global warming.

I don't look at it as a moral challenge. It's about the fate of a species I've come to love. — Tate

Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose.

Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break. — Tate

The future for the next 10,000 years isn't our problem. Or to put it correctly, doesn't happen because of just our generations.

How exactly do you think the problem of climate change came about? — Isaac

We understand that our actions do have an effect on the World, @Isaac. How many other living creatures/species have understood that?

To understand that is really important.

With Ukraine, Russia is a genuine Great Power.

Without Ukraine, Russia isn't a Great Power, but just a regional power.

What else can it be? — NOS4A2

I hear you.

But do you understand that this is the way the two parties want you to polarize? The best way for the duopoly to continue is to have the voters be against each other.... and not to look at something else.

This is the same FBI that deceived the country and foreigners like ssu with Russiagate. — NOS4A2

Ummm...hold on, @NOS4A2

Why do you forget that the FBI gave the "October Surprise" that was detrimental to Hillary Clinton and continued it's investigations on Clinton, which in my view had far more effect on the election than Russian interference did? We are in a Philosophy forum. It isn't logical that the department that was so influential in making Clinton lose would then be against Trump, if it didn't try to be neutral / apolitical. Besides, Trump forced them to make the inquiries.

It's all now obvious... Yes, the Russian rooted for Trump, yet that wasn't the reason why Trump was elected in 2016. Simply put it, Hillary was a lousy candidate. So what on Earth is your problem?

Inflation is global, and we know why. It’s not because the US gave people more money. Nor the ECB. But if that’s the story you want to latch onto, that’s your choice. Again, having people believe this is wonderful for the ruling class. What a shame you perpetuate it. — Xtrix

Really?

You really think that the ECB multiplying the monetary base many times over won't in the end create inflation?

(Euro area (changing composition), Eurosystem reporting sector - Base money)

(see ECB stats)

Or you genuinely think that enlarging the monetary base by the Federal Reserve and giving those trillions to people who did spend the money wouldn't also matter?



Especially when this was started by the Trump administration, you think it's just a right-wing talking point? (Yeah, it might be, because just as the right-wing talking point is that Biden lost Afghanistan (which totally disregards the surrender that Trump made), I guess they can talk that this inflation was just caused by the Biden administration. (Which it obviously wasn't)

Sorry, but nobody is talking about the Modern Monetary Theory now in economic circles. For obvious reasons.