Denmark's 2006 public finances has a surplus of 6% of GDP

[KrazyHorse]

No, son, it's way over your head. You made a blanket claim which stated that money supply and nominal economic activity were perfectly linked. I showed that you were wrong.

And just so that nobody forgets how stupid what you said was:

Originally posted by VetLegion

Your point is that if more money is being spent on one good, it's necessary that less is spent on another. This is not true.

I'm all ears. This could help me with personal finances, so please share

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, insults about my understanding of economics coming from somebody who doesn't understand that employment dne (100%-unemployment) don't have quite the same sting as they would coming from somebody I respect.

[VetLegion]

I blame the Canadian education system. It tought you to look stuff up on wikipedia and copy/paste random articles into internet threads. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time it didn't. No hard feelings and better luck next time

[KrazyHorse]

Given that I only referenced the Wikipedia article that you yourself linked to, I'm flabbergasted at this latest tack of yours.

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, though: are you still claiming that money velocity has never and cannot have an effect on inflation?

[LordShiva]

:Popcorn:

[BlackCat]

@ a thread about the health of danish state is ending up in a, well, not war, skirmish, between Wetty and Krazy

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by LordShiva
:Popcorn:

I live to entertain.

[VetLegion]

KrazHorse, I really hate to have to treat you like a 3 year old kid. But you leave me no other option.

Imagine a family on a budget. If the price of bread triples, what happens? The family has to divert funds from other things to buy bread. Playstations go unbought.

Now, this is where your idea of "bilateral nature of transactions" comes in, enabling families to both have the Playstation and expensive bread. You're being ridiculous in the extreme.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VetLegion
KrazHorse, I really hate to have to treat you like a 3 year old kid. But you leave me no other option.

Imagine a family on a budget. If the price of bread triples, what happens? The family has to divert funds from other things to buy bread. Playstations go unbought.

Now, this is where your idea of "bilateral nature of transactions" comes in, enabling families to both have the Playstation and expensive bread. You're being ridiculous in the extreme.

No, you're the one being ridiculous. What if the family is in the bread manufacturing business?

That's the whole ****ing point.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Imagine a family on a budget. If the price of bread triples, what happens? The family has to divert funds from other things to buy bread. Playstations go unbought.

The budget constraint is a microeconomic concept and isn't suited for macroeconomic discussions like this one. It doesn't consider the economy as a whole.

Besides, even in a microeconomic analysis, the family isn't restricted to moving along the budget constraint line; they can shift it by making other choices, such as how much of their income to save.

[VetLegion]

Do the decisions about savings or the money velocity change significantly on a year-on-year basis?

[VetLegion]

No, you're the one being ridiculous. What if the family is in the bread manufacturing business?

And what if the family is in the Playstation manufacturing business?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Do the decisions about savings or the money velocity change significantly on a year-on-year basis?

Decisions about saving definitely do. For me, it changes on a month-to-month basis, depending on what I feel like buying for myself with that month's paycheck.

[KrazyHorse]

Duh. Then they get hurt. But there's no reason to think that it's a zero-sum game.

THE VELOCITY OF MONEY CHANGES YEAR OVER YEAR