Inflation and deflation at the same time

Originally posted by Infose: ↑

Dolcivita,

My apologies for having called you an apparent Austrian. Although some people who seem to share your ideas can be appropriately called that.

"But more importantly, the investor money goes out of productive and into housing speculation."

That is no doubt a distortion caused by low interest rates. But, and there is always a but about these things, that seems to be the price that one as to pay for the existence of a global savings glut. If there are no opportunities for productive investment, where is the money suppose to go? Under the mattress? Haven't you realize that even with interest rates close to zero there is still a need for fiscal policy?

You say: also an important qualification, during the Great Depression, unemployment was around 24%.
Right now, the adjusted unemployment rate is around 20%.

Bearing in mind that the apparent 20% are at a time when billions are being spent in fiscal stimulus and the interest rates are said to stay almost at zero for the foreseeable future, imagine what that figure would have been if that were not the case? We all would be eating grass by now.

Since "we're exploring possible economic dynamics", what do you think about TRPF?

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is a theory in the crisis theory of political economy, according to which the rate of profit—the ratio of the profit to the amount of invested capital—decreases over time. This hypothesis gained additional prominence from its discussion by Karl Marx in Chapter 13 of Capital, Volume III,[1] but economists as diverse as Adam Smith,[2] John Stuart Mill,[3] David Ricardo[4] and Stanley Jevons[5] referred explicitly to the TRPF as an empirical phenomenon that demanded further theoretical explanation, although they differed on the reasons why the TRPF should necessarily occur.[6]Geoffrey Hodgson stated that the theory of the TRPF "has been regarded, by most Marxists, as the backbone of revolutionary Marxism. According to this view, its refutation or removal would lead to reformism in theory and practice".[7] Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF "remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics" because it raises "the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises."[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

Expand

OK but I've specifically asked you previously to not conflate me with this label yet you continued to do it and demand responses to your set questions.

To demand that people defend a theory they don't subscribe to (just because in your mind they do) is also demonstrably seizing control of the narrative.

It's more helpful to just discuss issues.

As for theories I've got plenty of my own. Including the reality that we are going to have to accelerate into a carbon reversal world, not just carbon neutral and this will have a similar effect to the war effort in WW2.

This is regardless of ideology, as you can see by the prize Conservative chump Boris Johnson understanding Climate Change: t's forced on us all by reality.

There is no space for ideology when survival is at stake. Even Boris gets it, just as he finally got the implications of Covid19, when fighting for his life in the NHS after he'd recklessly had close contact with Covid19 patients and thrown social distancing and other precautions like wearing of masks to the wind.

It had to nearly kill him but by heck he finally got it.

Debt forgiveness and resets are necessary, just as the Marshall Plan was, and that includes the developing nations.

China has been in a technological race to use the new technologies and gain the upper hand in exporting them.

I have a lot of theories and I don't need a fusty Austrian school to hijack them in someone's mind and limit the discussion to that.

Meanwhile upheaval and possible resetting of currencies is inevitable.

Predictions of the future are nearly always wrong, usually because a key element gets overlooked.
Or the timing is out.

I have no intention of engaging in a knockout battle on academic ideology I have far more interesting things to discuss. And I've got 2 degrees one is a Master's so I'm not a stranger to the academic world either.