If I do my math right, we are now entering the 5th year where the financial markets focus all of their attention solely on the Fed for economic salvation and a source of economic production. Of course, this is nothing more than desperation. Much like middle aged divorcee women focus their attention on "Eat Pray Love" type movies to provide them the rationale a single George Clooney with millions of dollars will choose them and their baggage over a 25 year old, childless hottie, so too do the millions of finance professionals and 401k Clergy depend on an ever increasing stock market for their livelihood. And ANY excuse, even something as pathetic as thinking the central bank is the source of economic production, will do.
Therefore, since it seems the market insists on being irrational longer than that saner heads have patience, I thought it high time to make a couple economic charts explaining this new economy.
First, GDP by sector:
If you don't believe this chart, then you obviously didn't attend an Ivy League school and are stupid. You're probably racist too.
Second, a new refined chart on the basics of government finance:
You're an idiot, or at least not a Wall Street professional or D.C. financier genius like Paul Krugman, if you don't understand this. But it's alright, not everybody can be as smart as these guys. Debt is GOOD. Don't worry that there aren't any metrics on the Y-axis, it doesn't matter. That's how awesome and smart these eocnomists are and how stupid you are. You're also a racist if you don't agree with or understand this chart.
Finally, unicorns.
The implication of this chart should be obvious even a non-Ivy League graduate should understand it. Economics+Unicorns = Awesomeness. But that's OK if you don't, because that's why we have finance professionals to explain these "complex" financial and economic issues to dumbass commoners like you. This is cutting edge stuff by the way. The introduction of the "Unicorn Complex" has pushed economics as a field into new and unchartered territory. Barack Obama came up with it himself. That's how smart he is. And if you don't know why unicorns have anything to do with economics, then you are a racist AND a sexist.
This post brought to you by Amazon. You have to buy something, might as well get it on Amazon so I get a commish and don't have to ever work a real job again.
7 comments:
It's funny how Keynesianism came back into widespread acceptance during the '08 crisis. I was taught it to be a disproven relic as an econ student in the late ninties. Though, we still "learned" macroeconomics and its ridiculous models. I guess it never went away. To useful for the so-called elites; gives them an excuse to meddle and steal.
Free banking system for the win, and yes, you can have a free market fractional reserve system too here. The next best thing would be a completely passive, computerized Federal Reserve system. See Cato Institute Senior Fellow and UGA professor George Selgin others over at the Freebanking.org website. I am of the belief that it would be possible to have a transition towards such a system and at the same time, not having some global downturn in the financial markets.
One can end the Fed, but end it logically. There are too many stupid people, politicians and bankers out there who would never want this to happen though.
Have you heard about the Minsky project over at Kickstarter?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2123355930/minsky-reforming-economics-with-visual-monetary-mo
"Even though I am a firm supporter of the Austrian view, I find this worth backing because:
* It will help kill off the neo-classical economists on their own turf of mathematical models
* Minsky could be the non-biased mathematical model which proves Austrians right
This of course only holds true if Steve Keen is true to his promise of the program not being preloaded with any Keynesian assumptions, but being open source I believe this to be true."
See the FAQ and the question "You're a Post-Keynesian economist. Is "Minsky" loaded with Keynesian assumptions?"
I'm still waiting for the dumbcrap MBA's to explain to me why we need a federal income tax or any taxes at all if the Fed can simply create money or credit in a computer and call it an asset?
Also, do I own the money in my pocket? Why the need for laws that it make illegal for me to collect nickels or mostly copper pennies and sell them for scrap?
I am not an expert on banking, but I do know that 100 years ago in Canada banks issued their own currency. I think we have to seperate money creation from government. One of the primary function of money is as a store of value. Governments with massive debts have no interest in maintaining the value of the currency.
A bank has a vested interest in maintaining the value of its currency. If they don't, no one will use it. You will have different currencies competing for customers. If you remove the money creation function from government they can only raise funds by taxing or borrowing, not printing and inflating.
How you get there from here I don't know, But I understand that is the way the world used to work before governments hijacked money creation.
Most of America`s economic growth, occurred without a central bank. Throughout most of the 19th Century, most Americans were against creating a Central bank.
When one looks at the dollar depreciation, under the Federal Reserve system. The first question that comes to mind, is how does the Federal Reserve maintain public support? Why do people enjoy having there money devalued?
The folks in the 19th Century knew enough, not to trust a government monopoly with their money. Perhaps it`s time to rediscover, this age old wisdom.
6/10 post rating. Would have been higher if not for the lack of glitter on the unicorn. Rule #1: Unicorn glitter makes the post
I think I'm going to steal your charts. I may provide some sort of attribution, but may not. It kinda depends on how harshly you would take my appropriation. That is, how selfish it turns out you are. Me? I'm not selfish. I'm willing to use your work although I didn't create it.
That's some crazy giving, there.
.
Post a Comment