QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaI think I agree with gardener3 on this:QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskIMO, it is only one-sided to discuss tax as one of the inputs into a wealth pool and not the output (IMO, it is much more lamentable that the output is so poor and the operating system is so fat - and agreed the input system is way to complicated).Is the input structure fair? (can this be analyzed without analysis of the output structure?)Simplifying (again): Is it a fair objective to create an economy that does not produce bubbles and crisis?Although this objective seems laudable, it's probably a bad idea on two levels. First, it presumes that all examples of exuberant investment are bubbles and that decision makers are always right in their assessments of over-investment. The entire nature of innovation, especially ground-breaking and disruptive innovation is that no one knows the ultimate value of the investment. Second, it assumes that bubbles and crises don't serve a broader purpose. The over-investment phase of the bubble drives widespread adoption of a new technology, spurs the development of new applications of that technology, and creates a lot of surplus assets that can be used in new, unforeseen ways. Even the crisis is "good" because it forces reform in over-weight private and public organizations.Overall, I agree with NNT that achieving antifragility implies permitting and even encouraging some exposure to negative events.QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskIf yes, do we have a common sense about money as a means by which members of a society can settle their debts to one another? Money is a convenient standard for a store of value and a medium of exchange. Debts -- exchanges displaced in time -- are but a subset of money's role. The danger of debt is the same as the danger of all future promises (including insurance, pensions, warrantees, etc.) in being a claim too easily offered that is then redeemable in a future which may be more uncertain than people realize.QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskCan we agree that "housing" market mechanics (speculative economy) tend more to bubble/crisis than "factory" market mechanics (real economy (products and services))?The factory economy is an anachronism from a more glacial time of the world economy. Today's innovation-driven economy requires a speculative mindset. Creativity is intrinsically speculative. But maybe we can agree that creativity tends more to bubble/crisis! QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskIf yes, .. with behavioral simplification ... potatoes for consumption, a green house for real market investment, a house for speculative ...(take a month),Those who have 1000 net income must buy potatoes for 1000Those who have 10.000 may buy potatoes for 5000, invest in a green house for 2500 and in a house for 2500Those who have a million may buy potatoes for 100.000, invest in a green house for 200.000 and in a house for 700.000.....Isn't this what happens in all current market economies? The rich do pay more for potatoes by buying the luxury counterparts of those goods (e.g., the heirloom potato puree with truffles at a 3 star restaurant vs. fries at a fast food outlet). And the rich do invest more in productive assets.People decry the fact that the top 1% "own" 40% of the assets but fail to understand that the rich version of ownership is so vastly different from the poor version of ownership. When a poor person owns something, it's it almost always for their personal and exclusive use. But when the rich own something, it is usually owned* as a productive asset creating valuable goods and services that are used by all. In fact, it is by the careful and innovative management of productive assets* that the rich become richer. That is, ownership by the poor is consumptive and ownership by the rich is productive*. (* yes, I know there are exceptions with rich people owning some lavish and strictly personal assets like luxury cars, mansions, yachts, and private jets but I'm sure the data would show that these personal assets constitute a very small percentage of the assets of the rich.)QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskSo, IMO, beside many other selfish reasons, governments become strong if they enable a minimum status of the poor and repair the failures of the richSo, tax is (also) an anti-stupidity measure - consequently it is fair when progressive, IMO I would have said that the rich must be strong to repair the failures of government and that government repairs the failures of the poor more so than the failures of the rich. In the long-term, bail-outs for the poor (social spending) would seem to exceed bailouts for the rich (although bailouts for the rich are especially galling and could be reduced with better risk segmentation regulations).I am afraid, we will not find a referee who will be able to verify what fair is? I may have taken an extreme counterposition in my conclusions - but there are some macro economic principles that are before ideology? We are in agreement about the solid store-for-value and the liquid transaction function of money - but money creation is debt based?!And I also thought that it is obvious that the housing market mechanics induces needless buble/crisis behaviour?Yes, impartial referees are not easy to find. Moreover, my position on this issue may be confounded by an insistence for tax effectiveness (not just fairness) in a long-term macro-economic context. That is, I also consider the extent that the allocation of a society's resources should be in the hands of a centralized state vs. heterogenous, distributed agents (who have shown some evidence of providing a return on investment). Personally, I think decentralized, independent allocation is superior and should be encouraged, not penalized by taxes on returns. I'd be fine with high taxes on luxury consumption if they replaced taxes on productive gains. We should use tax policy to encourage greedy bastards to generate higher returns for society!Yes, we do agree about the store-for-value and the liquid transaction functions of money. But the "creation" of money through debt is a more subtle issue. It's not just debt that creates money, but any transfer of money at time_now that has an explicit or implicit expectation of a return of that money in the future. If I buy $1000 in shares in a company during their IPO, I've created money -- I still "have" my $1000 on my balance sheet but now the company has $1000, too. And if the company takes "my" $1000 and buys a machine tool, then the company still has $1000 (in capital equipment) but the tool maker has $1000 also. The economy now has $3000 and no banks or debts were involved. As you note, double-entry bookkeeping is the mechanism for creating created money. It's the discrepancy between the expectation of return (on debt, equity, and any other capital purchase) and the actual return on that transaction that generates the bubble and the crisis. A crisis can happen whether money creation was done with debt or with equity.Finally, I'll agree that the housing market mechanics can induce bubble/crisis behaviour, but disagree about the needless part. IMO, the sensible levels of housing price variations are not obvious because the changing nature of housing over time. The "true" value of housing can change substantially under the influence of demographic, technological, sociological, and macro-economic changes. Moreover, today's housing market mechanics enable speculation which is usually a socially beneficial process in reifying future returns under uncertainty and encouraging investment to forestall future shortages. As such, there's no a priori rate of asset price increase that is "wrong" even if it might be extremely obvious post hoc.Just about the money creation - you perfectly describe the in-the-flow situation (I have and spend intelligently and the next spends intelligently ... this perfect intelligence would not need a progressive taxation). But what I mean with debt-based is the possibility to create something from nothing. Interestingly enough this possibility is rejected by not so few economists (the balance mechanics).With this in the bag, I come back to my original provocation: to not destroy the great, programmable money system, intelligence and responsibility is required. IMO, we have this tax system, mostly because of stupidity - deep freeze capital is needless, if not available to transform ideas into margins?(You know) I agree with you about the need for more decentralization (even, or especially, the money creation ...) .. for a better wealth pool balance.My rationale: I am a null in macro. It is just a try to put things together in a systems view.Edit: after sleeping ... the understanding of the money system as debt-based and the debt transfer mechanism is essential. I do not "rent" money, I own it and its circulation is an exchange of ownership. If I get 1000 from wherever it is on the passive side (a debt), if I buy sw for 1000 I transfer the debt to the passive side of the sw vendor (1000 on my active side) and so on. If I resell sw for 1200 I can redeem my 1000 ...And this is great. But the name "debt money" scares ... and more and more (cowards) want "Monetative" (in German), a centralization of money creation and even economic transactions ... system programming only.To defend the great debt-based system (against the monetativists), we need to understand that the money (debt) has different "use flags". It matters what it is used for. Tax is one control possibility? One with a second effect: money for hard and soft infrastructure projects, ....

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskEdit: after sleeping ... the understanding of the money system as debt-based and the debt transfer mechanism is essential. I do not "rent" money, I own it and its circulation is an exchange of ownership. If I get 1000 from wherever it is on the passive side (a debt), if I buy sw for 1000 I transfer the debt to the passive side of the sw vendor (1000 on my active side) and so on. If I resell sw for 1200 I can redeem my 1000 ...And this is great. But the name "debt money" scares ... and more and more (cowards) want "Monetative" (in German), a centralization of money creation and even economic transactions ... system programming only.To defend the great debt-based system (against the monetativists), we need to understand that the money (debt) has different "use flags". It matters what it is used for. Tax is one control possibility? One with a second effect: money for hard and soft infrastructure projects, ....I agree that one does not rent money. In fact it is the opposite! Money is an asset not unlike a debt asset that one owns with the expectation of a better future payoff. The paper that encodes the money, like the paper that encodes a mortgage debt, is worthless except if it fulfills that expectation of a future gain. With money, my expectation of a future gain is that I will take that 1000 in paper and exchange it for 1050 worth of something else (the 50 being my consumer surplus, my yield for having this debt asset called money).But here is the big difference between owning money assets and owning other kinds of loan assets. With a loan, the counterparty is fixed (the borrower) and the return is generally predefined (the interest rate). With money, the counterparty is boundless and only limited by my imagination and preference function. I can choose who I exchange my 1000 with and what I receive in future. If I am clever and live in an open market, I might readily find something that is worth 2000 to me, but only costs 1000. That's a 100% rate of return! The point is that money has optionality, especially money in a popular currency. Thus money creation is option creation. So the regulation of money creation is the regulation of option creation.Hmmmm.... Now I need to sleep of it! Can/should governments regulate the amount of optionality? Can anyone understand the optimal amounts of optionality?????P.S. I have more to say about taxation = f(intelligence) but this is enough for now.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskEdit: after sleeping ... the understanding of the money system as debt-based and the debt transfer mechanism is essential. I do not "rent" money, I own it and its circulation is an exchange of ownership. If I get 1000 from wherever it is on the passive side (a debt), if I buy sw for 1000 I transfer the debt to the passive side of the sw vendor (1000 on my active side) and so on. If I resell sw for 1200 I can redeem my 1000 ...And this is great. But the name "debt money" scares ... and more and more (cowards) want "Monetative" (in German), a centralization of money creation and even economic transactions ... system programming only.To defend the great debt-based system (against the monetativists), we need to understand that the money (debt) has different "use flags". It matters what it is used for. Tax is one control possibility? One with a second effect: money for hard and soft infrastructure projects, ....I agree that one does not rent money. In fact it is the opposite! Money is an asset not unlike a debt asset that one owns with the expectation of a better future payoff. The paper that encodes the money, like the paper that encodes a mortgage debt, is worthless except if it fulfills that expectation of a future gain. With money, my expectation of a future gain is that I will take that 1000 in paper and exchange it for 1050 worth of something else (the 50 being my consumer surplus, my yield for having this debt asset called money).But here is the big difference between owning money assets and owning other kinds of loan assets. With a loan, the counterparty is fixed (the borrower) and the return is generally predefined (the interest rate). With money, the counterparty is boundless and only limited by my imagination and preference function. I can choose who I exchange my 1000 with and what I receive in future. If I am clever and live in an open market, I might readily find something that is worth 2000 to me, but only costs 1000. That's a 100% rate of return! The point is that money has optionality, especially money in a popular currency. Thus money creation is option creation. So the regulation of money creation is the regulation of option creation.Hmmmm.... Now I need to sleep of it! Can/should governments regulate the amount of optionality? Can anyone understand the optimal amounts of optionality?????P.S. I have more to say about taxation = f(intelligence) but this is enough for now.Our views converge (whatever it is, it is about contracts - features, date, interest ?)IMO, we need option money. If I book a hotel room at booking.com I buy an option (the price might differ from 0 to the full hotel price, I f I do not exercise it) and I get a paper confirming the availability - with option "money" I might have a chance to exercise it more flexible - a choice of rooms, dates, ...)?

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteAbout money and housing market: you disagree with for example this ?But, does the amount of money one has made something to do with her contribution to a society? To me its like, is a great card player a better person in the context of a society? IMO, she is nit better but also not worse.They did probably not lose money themselves but caused a great downturn - it is about feed back structures ... In other word if NOT spent (because taxed) might have been much better. Co-evolution is a bit more complex than simple +/- mechanics?IMO, micro-stupidness is different from macro-stupidness, I should have explained - Sorry.Sorry I dont have the time or the desire to watch hours of youtube, perhaps you can summarize? I am also not following what you mean. Are you now saying that the rich invested too much in real estate which caused a bubble but they were able sell at the peak and therefore did not suffer any losses? Perhaps you mean something like conspicuous or status consumption by the rich, if so you are using bad examples and mixing up investment/production with consumption.Sometimes it is worth spending an hour to get a deeper insight even if the explanation is so surprisingly simple 1. it is defending the money system of creating money by debt (the great invention ... of the double accounting system )2. it claims that it is a great idea to use the debt to buy something that increases the dynamics and enables redemption plus ...3. it shows that it is not such a great idea to use it for buying "static" things to increase assets, because redemption is only possible if prices do not drop ...All together with simple examples and figures ... It is orientation not modeling. But a good one IMO.My conclusion: to consume you just need hunger - to invest in multipliers you need ideas and innovation - if you have not enough hunger and ideas you invest in things that you hope move prices into the direction you want? If you became immensely rich (on whatever path ..) you usually cannot have enough ideas ... so inevitably you invest into things that most probably create bubble/crises ...?!In the money jargon (T4A is right on that) if its programming is dominated by store-values compared to being a medium-for-dynamic-economic transactions .. you just need to think of the pathologic case: we all have money but no ideas for any innovation? The asynchrony function of money evaporates if those who have ideas do not get money because those who have money do not spend it in ideas but houses, gold, or money itself.I know this is all a bit black and white, but still helps to understand our momentary situation and how to get out ... it has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism. Nothing at all - it is a little thinking in a systems view.And by all great dynamics and programmability of our money system - it IS debt based (fortunately) and not all economic transactions drive bubbles/crises (good or not), but some do.I don't think 3) is true, nothing wrong with using debt for consumption smoothing. I am also quite sure that money and debt came before the invention of double entry book-keeping. But, I still don't see the link from debt leads to mal-investment, to we must tax the rich. Are the rich making stupid borrowing choices to invest in bad assets or are they making stupid lending decisions?

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteAbout money and housing market: you disagree with for example this ?But, does the amount of money one has made something to do with her contribution to a society? To me its like, is a great card player a better person in the context of a society? IMO, she is nit better but also not worse.They did probably not lose money themselves but caused a great downturn - it is about feed back structures ... In other word if NOT spent (because taxed) might have been much better. Co-evolution is a bit more complex than simple +/- mechanics?IMO, micro-stupidness is different from macro-stupidness, I should have explained - Sorry.Sorry I dont have the time or the desire to watch hours of youtube, perhaps you can summarize? I am also not following what you mean. Are you now saying that the rich invested too much in real estate which caused a bubble but they were able sell at the peak and therefore did not suffer any losses? Perhaps you mean something like conspicuous or status consumption by the rich, if so you are using bad examples and mixing up investment/production with consumption.Sometimes it is worth spending an hour to get a deeper insight even if the explanation is so surprisingly simple 1. it is defending the money system of creating money by debt (the great invention ... of the double accounting system )2. it claims that it is a great idea to use the debt to buy something that increases the dynamics and enables redemption plus ...3. it shows that it is not such a great idea to use it for buying "static" things to increase assets, because redemption is only possible if prices do not drop ...All together with simple examples and figures ... It is orientation not modeling. But a good one IMO.My conclusion: to consume you just need hunger - to invest in multipliers you need ideas and innovation - if you have not enough hunger and ideas you invest in things that you hope move prices into the direction you want? If you became immensely rich (on whatever path ..) you usually cannot have enough ideas ... so inevitably you invest into things that most probably create bubble/crises ...?!In the money jargon (T4A is right on that) if its programming is dominated by store-values compared to being a medium-for-dynamic-economic transactions .. you just need to think of the pathologic case: we all have money but no ideas for any innovation? The asynchrony function of money evaporates if those who have ideas do not get money because those who have money do not spend it in ideas but houses, gold, or money itself.I know this is all a bit black and white, but still helps to understand our momentary situation and how to get out ... it has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism. Nothing at all - it is a little thinking in a systems view.And by all great dynamics and programmability of our money system - it IS debt based (fortunately) and not all economic transactions drive bubbles/crises (good or not), but some do.I don't think 3) is true, nothing wrong with using debt for consumption smoothing. I am also quite sure that money and debt came before the invention of double entry book-keeping. But, I still don't see the link from debt leads to mal-investment, to we must tax the rich. Are the rich making stupid borrowing choices to invest in bad assets or are they making stupid lending decisions?!. The debt property of money: Oh yes, it is very old (it took me a while to understand this). In a quick look one might think money was invented to clear the value difference between, say, a cow and a wedding concert in an (synchronous) exchange. But because most exchanges were asynchronous in ancient time already (cow and olives), it was a surrogate of a contract (a claim for a future delivery) - a debt. Double entry bookkeeping made the clearing (bank's role) easier (but even the bank idea is not new). In short: debt is good. 2. But, there is a difference in the usage of a, say, newly created debt. If it is used to create at least the same amount of income - like to build a factory creating future income to repay the debt- it will most probably help to grow the economy. So, If ALL debt was used to create at least the same amount of income it cannot be a burden? If it is used to buy, say, an existing asset it does grow wealth but no future income is created - to repay the debt you need to resell the asset (no economic growth has been created) and even a boom in asset markets may harm the economy (credits go dominantly into asset markets ..)?3. The ratio between income creating usage and wealth creating usage is a function of the "amount" (higher if lower)? Tax would be a control mechanism (provided its usage creates income). My "stupidity" argument was a provocation. It is a understandable reality (there are not enough innovative projects ...).

Euro Drops to 2010 Low

So what's your take on the outomce of tomorrow's elections in Greece? And what about your EUR trade?

Seems there's some hope that Greece and de EU will find a negotiated solution. Shiller's comment that we ought to buy Greece (and Russia) seems well timed.

For me, the Greece will exit the European Union like Portugal , Italy and maybe France : too many different corporate taxes , different industry specialization . Creditors are fed up with paying for Greece .

fingers crossed for the usd/eur parity.