Unemployment falls below 9%

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

As I though.

"Though"?

You have no idea what Base Money and M2 money are.

Not established. Lomiller got caught inventing a term, and now he's spewing ink. Does Lomiller have any understanding what nern is? Maybe. If "nern" means "water" then Lomiller probably understands nern as well as any non-chemist.

As I said previously, without understanding this...

What is "this"? Where in Friedman's work does the term "base money" occur? I recall discussions of "currency plus demand deposits", reserves, liquidity, etc. What I want to see now is evidence that Lomiller bases his claim to superior understanding on anything more than his secret knowledge of a term he invented.

...any reading of Friedman’s work is utterly pointless because you will remain utterly clueless of what he’s saying.

You have answered multiple posts where I have pointed out that should read “creation of base money”. Yet, you continue to ignore them. Do you think the omission of the word “of” in the post somehow justifies you knowing nothing about what base money is and how it pertains to Friedman’s work?

Ignore? I answered every one. C'mon, Mr. Superior Wisdom, the term "base money" occurs in which work?
Title=___?
Edition = ___?
Page #=___?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

MK - educate yourself; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_base

That's not what we want. Where is the term "base money"? The term (words in that order), not the concept.

 

[BenBurch]

That's not what we want. Where is the term "base money"? The term (words in that order), not the concept.

In the first paragraph... You didn't bother reading it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In the first paragraph... You didn't bother reading it.

Thanks. If Lomiller had said "monetary base" we would not have endured this distraction. I don't recall Friedman using "base money".

 

[lomiller]

Thanks. If Lomiller had said "monetary base" we would not have endured this distraction.

Yeah that's why you had no clue...

 

[BenBurch]

Thanks. If Lomiller had said "monetary base" we would not have endured this distraction. I don't recall Friedman using "base money".

When I went to his lectures, he used the term.

 

[DavidJames]

I think Malcolm has demonstrated the difference between actual knowledge and Google knowledge. As in, "if you want me to debate, please user terms which can readily be Googled".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yeah that's why you had no clue...

Do you? We have been discussing words, not policy, for these lase several posts. Milton Friedman consistently advocated a non-discretionary monetary policy that the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury adopt a transparent rule that would match the growth of the money supply to the long-term rate of growth of the real economy. True or false?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

When I went to his lectures, he used the term.

Really? You a Chicago grad? He taught for a semester at the UH (Fall 1971, iirc. ). I sat in on the Intro 101 class just to say I had heard him. I was already a fan. When Paul Cohen spent a semester at UH, some friends encouraged me to enroll in his Set Theory class, since they needed four paying students to justify the class. Perhaps double that number of Math faculty sat in.

 

[lomiller]

Do you? We have been discussing words, not policy, for these lase several posts.

To be accurate you have been discussing words rather than responding to the substance of my post 133. Now that you have spent half a page figuring out what the words mean, do you have a response to that post or do you intend to keep dodging?

Friedman consistently advocated a non-discretionary monetary policy that the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury adopt a transparent rule that would match the growth of the money supply to the long-term rate of growth of the real economy. True or false?

The issue here isn’t what Friedman advocated but you’re complete misunderstanding of what he was saying. To that end a more appropriate question would be.

Fed policy has resulting in money supply growth in line with met Friedman’s recommendations. True or False?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To be accurate you have been discussing words rather than responding to the substance of my post 133. Now that you have spent half a page figuring out what the words mean, do you have a response to that post or do you intend to keep dodging?

The issue here isn’t what Friedman advocated but you’re complete misunderstanding of what he was saying. To that end a more appropriate question would be.

Fed policy has resulting in money supply growth in line with met Friedman’s recommendations. True or False?

Fed policy has resulting in money supply growth in line with met Friedman’s recommendations.

False. We will get the measure within two years, in inflation, or not. I'm betting that gold and silver prices are leading indicators.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I think Malcolm has demonstrated the difference between actual knowledge and Google knowledge. As in, "if you want me to debate, please user terms which can readily be Googled".

If so, then I'm lacking the google knowledge, right? I mean, Ben found "base money" in google.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Let's recap:...

Where? I read quite a bit of his work, and he consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy.

Either you didn't read his work or you didn't even understand the most basic elements of it. Friedman advocated using creation (of) base money to achieve a stead expansion of M2 money. AKA Quantitative Easing in the current discourse.

..."Steady" at a rate equal to the long-term growth rate of the US economy is 3% per year. Not "quantitative easing". See Anna Schwartz's Wall Street Journal opinion piece to the effect that Bernanke misunderstood Friedman/Schwartz Monetary History... In general, Friedman opposed discretionary monetary policy.

Yeah that's why you had no clue...

Do you? We have been discussing words, not policy, for these last several posts. Milton Friedman consistently advocated a non-discretionary monetary policy that the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury adopt a transparent rule that would match the growth of the money supply to the long-term rate of growth of the real economy. True or false?

...The issue here isn’t what Friedman advocated but you’re complete misunderstanding of what he was saying. To that end a more appropriate question would be.
Fed policy has resulting in money supply growth in line with met Friedman’s recommendations. True or False?

False, but we cannot ask him. If "he consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy" means the same as "Friedman advocated using creation (of) base money to achieve a stead expansion of M2 money", then either Lomiller and I are both ignorant of Friedman's theory or we are both informed. If "he consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy" means the same as "Friedman advocated using creation (of) base money to achieve a stead expansion of M2 money" do NOT mean the same, where are the implications different? Any difference must turn on a difference between the terms "money supply" and "base money", right?

 

[lomiller]

Fed policy has resulting in money supply growth in line with met Friedman’s recommendations.

False. We will get the measure within two years, in inflation, or not. I'm betting that gold and silver prices are leading indicators.

Wrong. In fact the US money supply was barely growing at all in 2009, and didn’t begin to grow at its historic pace until Nov 2010 when the Fed began its second round of quantitative easing. Over the past 2 years money supply growth is right in line with what it’s been since the mid 90’s.

What seems to be confusing you is the fact that it took large increases in the monetary base to achieve this consistent growth in money supply.

 

[BenBurch]

Wrong. In fact the US money supply was barely growing at all in 2009, and didn’t begin to grow at its historic pace until Nov 2010 when the Fed began its second round of quantitative easing. Over the past 2 years money supply growth is right in line with what it’s been since the mid 90’s.

What seems to be confusing you is the fact that it took large increases in the monetary base to achieve this consistent growth in money supply.

Exactly correct.

 

[Puppycow]

More good news:

Jobless Claims in U.S. Drop to Three-Year Low

The fewest workers in three years filed claims for U.S. jobless benefits last week, indicating the world’s largest economy is strengthening heading into 2012.

The number of applications for unemployment payments dropped by 19,000 to 366,000 in the week ended Dec. 10, less than the lowest forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and the least since May 2008, according to Labor Department figures issued today in Washington. Other reports showed manufacturing accelerated this month after pausing in November.

“The U.S. economy, unlike the rest of the world, is gathering momentum as we head toward year-end,” said Eric Green, chief market economist at TD Securities Inc. in New York. “The labor market is improving sharply,” he said, and “we look for gains in industrial production.”

 

[Francesca R]

[Friedman] consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy.

Correct, though critics argue that the ratio of expansion of those two things is neither unity nor stable (and that the residual is not straight-forward price inflation) (see chart)

Friedman advocated using creation [of] base money to achieve a stead[y] expansion of M2 money.

Fed policy has result[ed] in money supply growth in line with [ . . . ] Friedman’s recommendations. True or False?

Not quite, no, since due to the above-one-though-falling velocity, money supply (MZM rather than M2 which is not so liquid) has grown faster that the economy for years (see chart)

Wrong. In fact the US money supply was barely growing at all in 2009, and didn’t begin to grow at its historic pace until Nov 2010 when the Fed began its second round of quantitative easing. Over the past 2 years money supply growth is right in line with what it’s been since the mid 90’s.

Which is faster than nominal GDP growth

What seems to be confusing you is the fact that it took large increases in the monetary base to achieve this consistent growth in money supply.

Correct (see chart)

Data Source

 

[Juniversal]

More good news:

Jobless Claims in U.S. Drop to Three-Year Low

I've seen news like this across the board that gives me the impression the economy is indeed improving and it's not a matter of false indicators. I'm curious to see how holiday sales will compare to recent years when all is said and done.

 

[lomiller]

Not quite, no, since due to the above-one-though-falling velocity, money supply (MZM rather than M2 which is not so liquid) has grown faster that the economy for years (see chart)

Per your chart the money supply was actually shrinking after the recession ended in mid 2009.

The question at hand is what Friedman would have recommended in that economic climate with stagnant growth and a shrinking/stagnant money supply.

Would he recommend:
a) a policy not unlike the quantitative easing the Fed enacted
b) a policy of tightening base money supply like US conservatives are calling for

From his statements it seems to me highly likely he would have called for just the policy the Fed pursued, do you agree or disagree?

Correct (see chart)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/127464eeb23001af09.jpg

Data Source

Which is why Republicans are screaming about the Fed printing money and insisting that they have to stop right now despite the fact the US money supply is growing at essentially the same rate it has since the mid 90's.

 

[Travis]

Hire children for children's work, and adults for adults' work.

Yeah that school thing is overrated anyways. Better to blow them up in child sized coal mines. That way they won't have to suffer through a whole long life toiling for owners that care nothing for their lives.