- Your history
-
Stories
- 7 grote schuldigen voor de financiële instabiliteit
- 5 economische boeken die in elke middelbare school zouden moeten liggen...
- 4 demographic trends for the 21st century
- 2xZinnig
- Geen urgentie voor een Economische Urgentieraad?
- De 20 beste ideeën om de klimaatcrisis te bestrijden
- Klimaatschok zal kredietschok (ooit) in de schaduw zetten
- Het Amerikaanse kapitalisme heeft nu officieel gefaald
- Financiële crisis maakt energieschok zwaarder voor de toekomst
- Financiële crisis is slecht voor het milieu
- Falende staten
- Een economisch stripverhaal
- Econoshock in Nederland
- Debat "what's next" 24 oktober
- De rol van de olieprijs in deze crisis
- China wil groeimotor op gang houden
- Bouwen een remedie tegen de economische crisis?
- 2009: het jaar van de herbalancering en van de risicoloze bubbel
- Obama-shock!
- 15 Most Heavily Taxed Countries In The World
- 10 (life) tips from Nassim Taleb
A brief proposal of Shumpeterian government policy
Economists around the world are promoting Keynes to the government. Given current circumstances, if I had to chose between Keynes or Shumpeter however, I would go for the latter. This being said, 'creative destruction' can never be achieved without government measures. These policies should not address primarily the companies in difficulties however. They should emphasize training, innovation and give incentives for change. Furthermore: the government should start and give the good example.
A recent report by Boston Consulting Group shows the ranking of different countries in terms of innovation. Now, innovation is one of the most abused terms in business. Innovation is not necessarily a narrow definition such as 'new products'. It is also new applications, new processes, a new organisational structure, services, experience, channels (new media) etc. The BCG ranking combines a wide series of data related to innovation (inventions in fiscal policy, IP, education, work force quality, R&D results, labour productivity, high-tech exports, business migration etc.)
Country ranking of innovation - BCG
The Netherlands are at rank #12, while Belgium obtains a somewhat better ranking than its soccer team with #25.
To survive the current crisis, change and change management will be very important and on a massive scale. The government often thinks it can only act in a Keynesian way. As you know, I don't think this will help for small countries such as the Netherlands or Belgium.
Our governments can also do something however in a Shumpeterian way. The BCG report very much underscores this view.
* Educate and strengthen the workforce. Retrain people from a declining sector to acquire the skills of new and growing sectors or industries.
* Invest in education more than in (useless) infrastructure
* Give the example: governments should change their operations during crises. they can become more efficient, reduce costs, invest in new technologies, innovate in services etc.
* Create a innovation-friendly climate: instead of throwing money to moribund companies, give incentives to (often smaller) and innovative companies
* Endure: governments must maintain a policy sufficiently long to get results. Innovation and R&D are LT-decisions.
If governments cannot look beyound the next elections, they will favour Keynes. If they favour the next generation, they will take Shumpeter as a guide...
26 Comments
-
Marty
On 12 Mar, 2009
Great post !
Innovation and Education that's what we need.
So Econoshock community I have a challenge for us:
From the wisdom of our crowd can we come up with some incentives to stimulate innovation in Belgium.
What kind of incentives would you need to innovate ? Do you innovate right now. And how ? Or even what is real innovation ? -
Jan Sonck
On 12 Mar, 2009
This is one of the best in its class.
Great post, I very much like the last paragraph, which could become a classic !
If governments cannot look beyound the next elections, they will favour Keynes. If they favour the next generation, they will take Shumpeter as a guide… -
Geert
On 12 Mar, 2009
A nice post indeed.
Shumpeter is an interesting economist. Although Austrian, not really someone of the Austrian school.
And a life that has been characterised by courage, risks and women... -
Louis
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Marty
Why not creating a graduate entrepreneur statute. Every young graduated person receives during three years after graduation a fix minimum salary (eg €1.500/month) from the governement to "live" during the the start up of his own business/company ("basic security during start up"). Subsequently, all profit earned in the first five years is tax exempt (de "wortel").
For more mature businesses that own and create IP in Belgium, they should be taxed at a symbolic 5% corporate tax rate. That's how China does it (cfr. Hi-TEC regime however @ 15%). IP/patents are a pretty objective criteria to distinguish innovation from other activity. All the measures we have are too complex and not transparant, certainly not for a foreign investor.
Start-up R&D companies should be able to sell (cash) their start up losses (eg with a discount ; during first 5 years) to the government instead of carrying them forward and off set them against future profit. The tax loss reflects the investments made so far.
Salary of R&D staff should be exempt from employer & employee social security. (decrease cost, become competitive with surrounding countries).
From a regulatory/administrative perspective Belgium should become a "paridise" for companies that develop and own IP/patents.
A key question is whehter the European Commission would accept such an exceptional regime. -
Hans
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Louis: you said
Why not creating a graduate entrepreneur statute. Every young graduated person receives during three years after graduation a fix minimum salary (eg €1.500/month) from the governement to “live” during the the start up of his own business/company (”basic security during start up”). Subsequently, all profit earned in the first five years is tax exempt (de “wortel”).
Looks a great and simple idea.
Did you talk about it with the government ? -
Marty
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Louis
Great ideas !
I especially like the graduate entrepreneur statute.
Maybe this could be added to the curriculum for certain studies. Like an innovation oriented branch of the existing studies. A lot of people would like to innovate and would like to be an entrepreneur but find to many obstacles on their way. But if experienced mentors would lead people through the obstacle course you probably will end up with more innovative companies at the other end.
Your last paragraph: "A key question is whether the European Commission would accept such an exceptional regime."
Does this mean that we should be doing this at a European level ? -
blue-coat
On 12 Mar, 2009
It is said that Belgium has very good education for its youngsters.
However almost nobody (even economists) have a good understanding of :
1. Fractional banking
2. Give one reason why the goverment allows Fractional banking.
3. What is Inflation
4 What is the cause of Inflation
5. Give 3 good things of inflation
6. Give 3 bad things of inflation
7. What is the optimum amount of money that in an economy should run ?
8. what is the effect of moral hazard on an economy.
In past days, I did a quick survey on 20 engineers (people that work in innovation) and here are the results of that enquete :
1. Fractional banking
only 3/20 knew what it was
2. Give one good reason why the goverment allows Fractional banking.
The 3 who knew what FB was, did not know the government allows (actually forces) banks to use it.
3. What is Inflation ?
20/20 said : money has less value
4. What is the cause of Inflation ?
some answers :
11(!) / 20 : greed of business people, and businessman that are always want higher prices for their goods.
9/20 : money has less value, meaning they dont have any idea.
None answered that inflation is caused by printing money by the government
5. Give 3 good effects of inflation
some answers :
we will earn more money
without inflation no economic growth is possible.
Then I asked them : so greed by business people is a good thing ? Then they started thinking, but did not come up with stg else.
6. Give 3 bad effects of inflation
Everything gets more expensive.
With the same amount of money u can by less.
None of them came with the idea that inflation is a very bad thing for poor people and for middle-class people.
7. What is the optimum amount of money that in an economy should run ?
20/20 had no idea. The correct answer is, it does not matter, as long as the money keeps its value.
8. what is the effect of moral hazard on an economy and how can you avoid it ?
20/20 had no idea that moral hazard is related by unlimited garantee by a goverment.
If more education means spreading more knowledge about above topics then I agree with the article.
If not, then "more education" will just create more stupid engineers. -
frederic
On 12 Mar, 2009
Dear blue coat,
The points you make abgout fractional banking, inflation, ...
in some other posts here on the forum, it sometimes looked you even don't understand them fully.
Antoher point to other persons here, giving money to someone who is just graduated to start his own buisines is a bad idea.
When someone comes from school his expierience is zero and he will in most cases fail, even with a small income from the gouvernment. Also you will get abuse, parents have a buisines, child comes from school, must start a small side busines, recieves income from gouvernment bus is actually not doing anything.
The giving money part is even more Keynes btw.
There should be for EVERY starting enterpreneur more security like pensionfunds, healthcare, insurances etc... sponsored by the gouvernment !!
Last but nog least, for every starting enterpreneur there is already a rule in Belgium to get you started, the first three years you only have some priveleges for your taxes (wich is alse the reason why many starters stop after three years and sometimes even restart) . -
blue-coat
On 12 Mar, 2009
"in some other posts here on the forum, it sometimes looked you even don’t understand them fully."
Well, my survey showed I am not the only one ! -
Geert
On 12 Mar, 2009
@blue coat & Frederic
Dear friends,
We all have to learn how the economy really works.
On this blog, nobody can claim absolute wisdom.
Speaking for myself, I can learn from every comment and post.
Let's keep that as the true spirit of the Econoshock blog -
Frank
On 12 Mar, 2009
@blue-coat
A fantastic post you did there. You asked questions to engineers in order to educate them. That is a very nobel thing. You have my respect! Making people think about money is the very purpose for which I make posts on this site. By asking these questions to the engineers you made them doubt their inprinted knowledge about money. There is so much delusion and misunderstanding about what money is, how it comes into existence. People need to be educated in oder to prepare for what is to come. Keep up the good work!
Thanks! -
Theo
On 12 Mar, 2009
This is great!
Let's roll with Schumpi's Creative -Destruction.
I wonder if Toyota's Way was not based on him... in operational terms. -
Marty
On 12 Mar, 2009
@blue-coat
What would our new innovative entrepreneurs do with all this information ?
@Frederic
Good idea make this program available to everyone. The lack of experience of young people could be counteracted by the presence of the mentors. -
frederic
On 12 Mar, 2009
My point was made a bit drastic, my excuse.
But I do want to point out that inflation, fractional reserve lending, ... it's all very easy to trow rocks at those systems but the truth is they have big advantages.
In other posts some people where describing those things as demons.
If the gouvernments or anyone else is going to point there fingers at only those things in terms of "THE causes of the crisis" we aren't going to get a solution ether. There are so many factors in combination wich have led to the situation today. We have to take it al under our microscope, bring out the best of it and eliminate the (combination)factors so we can have a healthy growth of the economy, where we can explore the full potential of the human being.
Do not forget, in the current massive bubble there has been put bilions of dollars in research wich have helpt us to solve (or at least work on ) many econoshocks (green, energy, ICT, demo) . If there wasn't inflation, if there wasn't fractional reserve lending,then there wouldn't be any money to pay all those engineers, enterpreneurs, ... to create all that innovation.
Let's take fractional reserve lending.
Without that, most of the money would stay at a small group of people. I read in this topic that we need more enterpreneurs. Well, without fractional reserve lending, many talents wouldn't even have the chance to start being an enterpreneur, even if they want it.
There has to be a system where the full potential can be explored.
A bigt part of the current technology such as the current technology in solarpower may be funded with bubble money, but the technology developed with it isn't bubble, it's here today !!
In another post, I have pointed out big advantages of inflation, but it has to be a healthy inflation, no hyperinflation.
I do agree it would be nice if people did know more about the economy and money. But this knowledge wouldn't be a tool to prevent certain bubbles, it won't be a tool which will help people in there daily tasks, ... . I don't think it's a priority to teach people the way the system works, but rather to teach them how to live with the system in a healthy way and to create rules to prevent some people to rape the system. Don't forget, the current crisis is caused by people who did understand the system very well.
Geert is refering to Shumpeter, this man had a very good point with his "creative destruction", however many of the "creative destruction" is funded with bubble money. About the man, he may be against Keynes, but to take a line out of an article.
"In Schumpeter's view, socialism will ensure that the production of goods and services is directed towards meeting the authentic needs of people and will overcome some innate tendencies of capitalism such as conjecture fluctuation, unemployment and waning acceptance of the system"
Or an even more important phrase
"Schumpeter also thought that the institution enabling the entrepreneur to purchase the resources needed to realize his or her vision was a well-developed capitalist financial system, including a whole range of institutions for granting credit. "
This means, his is actually for "easy" money , but only and ONLY for the people who deserve it, no lending or giving money to people who don't deserve it (subprime for example). There you do need fractional reserve lending, you do need central banks (and ther low rent) , you do need inflation !!!
I am only afraid, due to the current crisis, the working man, the man who does deserve the money, he will be the victim because the system was raped by giving money to those who didn't . -
Louis
On 12 Mar, 2009
@ Hans you said:
"Looks a great and simple idea.
Did you talk about it with the government ?"
No I did not raise it at political level. I think it is all about momentum and hoping that some smart politician picks up ideas out of forums like this.
@Marty
You raised the point about Mentors. I also strongly believe that the idea should be combined with experience (through mentors). I would think about a program whereby the Government eg grants every year 1.000 "graduate entrepreneur statutes" (eg 50% to Belgians and 50% to foreigners who have however to migrate to Belgium).
Elected graduates would have to create a Belgian company (eg EVBA) so that all knowledge/intangibles & future value are locked into Belgium.
@ Frederic you said:
"Antoher point to other persons here, giving money to someone who is just graduated to start his own buisines is a bad idea.
When someone comes from school his expierience is zero and he will in most cases fail, even with a small income from the gouvernment. Also you will get abuse, parents have a buisines, child comes from school, must start a small side busines, recieves income from gouvernment bus is actually not doing anything.
The giving money part is even more Keynes btw."
In any systems you have people who misuse the system but that's not a reason not to create incentivizing systems.
Re on failing: assume that out of 1.000 people every year a new Richard Branson stands up ... and 999 fail. I would still put my money on this system. -
Frank
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Frederic
Sorry but I totally disagree. The one core cause of this crisis IS and STAYS fractional reserve lending. Together with the securitisation bubble it allowed the biggest leverage boom in history of mankind which led to the biggest leverage bust in the history of mankind. And now governments and central banks want to saddle us up with ridiculous ideas as "lending and spending your way to prosperity", "something for nothing" and "credit is the oil of the economy". It will never work. It will make the inevitable problem bigger! It is ridiculous to say that "more credit", and "unlocking the creditmarkets" (read unlocking fractional reserve lending) will solve the problem. Debt (credit) is not a sign of wealth. Debt is not the oil of the economy. A sound economy relies on savings and not on debt! You work and live within your means. What is left is savings. Savings mean true capital. And true capital is what is needed for a sound sustainable economy, not some confetti money printed by central banks or the fractional banking system!
Do not forget, in the current massive bubble there has been put bilions of dollars in research wich have helpt us to solve (or at least work on ) many econoshocks (green, energy, ICT, demo) . If there wasn’t inflation, if there wasn’t fractional reserve lending,then there wouldn’t be any money to pay all those engineers, enterpreneurs, … to create all that innovation.
Ridiculous. So we have to create confetti money that has no value to pay smart engineers to create true value? If we don't have confetti money, we can't pay smart engineers? Without confetti money we don't have research an innovation? I wonder what those engineers and entrepeneurs are going to say when they find out they have been paid with "worthless" money. Engineers deliver hard honest work. They should be paid with hard honest money. Hard honest money is based on true value, on savings, on capital!
This means, his is actually for “easy” money , but only and ONLY for the people who deserve it, no lending or giving money to people who don’t deserve it (subprime for example). There you do need fractional reserve lending, you do need central banks (and ther low rent) , you do need inflation !!!
I disagree again. The only ones that deserve money are those who work for it or plan to work for it. If money comes from savings, savers are going to keep a close eye on that. If money comes from central banks and fractional reserve banking it allways blows up bubbles or feeds excesses. We need less central banking, less fractional reserve lending and start saving our way to prosperity. As soon as central banks realize that, we can start the recovery. -
blue-coat
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Frank : What is still a bit a mystery for me is whether deflation is now a good or a bad thing ? Suppose the world is freed of Central banks . Can deflation then occur or not ? In other words : What are the causes of deflation ? Could you clarify a bit in a small post ?
-
frederic
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Frank
You say "The only ones that deserve money are those who work for it or plan to work for it"
I say "give money to the people who deserve it"
it's the same.
Fact about the bubble, the money and technology, it's hard to believe but in real life it's the truth, many of the current technology is funded with bubble money or even just bubbles, there are milions of examples I could give you in every kind of market going from building houses, green energie, cars, classic energy, ICT, ... .
I do see as in many cases, you avoid some parts. When money gets a devaluative trend, investments stop because people start collecting and stop spending. Banks won't be able to lend or only lend money to the rich ones, many talents won't get a shot at there succes to be an enterpreneur, to be succesfull with fantastic new products because there isn't enough money around.
In another post, you did mention the "fiat money" system could work if everybody pays back there debts, so when I mention the problem is more that they gave money to insolvable persons you never react. It's the fault of the system. NO, it's mainly the fault of the retail (in this case in combination with a raped system). That was the leverage.
@Louis, my point against an income for school leaving enterpreneurs is not only the abuse but also the lack of expierience.
My point is you need to support ALL enterpreneurs, not in terms of some free gouvernment income, but in terms of social security.
@blue coat. DEFLATION is always a BAD thing, even for the people who are thinking "yes, I have saved money and I can do more with it" . The economy will collapse even harden then now and even the people with savings will become victims (losing there jobs, there company's will suffer, there own assets will decline, ....) .
Deflation is in simple terms caused by less money in circulation, for some only caused by central banks.
In real life, you have to see all money, also personal savings for example. By my meaning it also is highly effected by spending paterns. Oil is a nice example.
I think we are in for a short period of deflation folowed with a mid long period of high inflation.
At this point central banks are making (in the true meaning of the word ;-) ) money "en masse" and nowbody seems to want it. It's piling up. People are saving more then ever and money is piling up.
In this period there is less circulation of money, wich means there could be deflation (could be**) .
But there are two big piles of money waiting (central banks/savings) , once the economy will start to rise again, everybody wants the money from the central bank pile in combination with returned trust of the people who will start spending there savings. You suddenly get a shot of cash in circulation and an upwards spiral because things get more expensive, people need to spend more to get the same, stocks rise, payrolls rise, ... .
** could be deflation. I think even when there is contraction of money it doens't always mean you get deflation.
For example, very simple.
Worldwide there is 100$ circulating
This 100$ is representing 100 circulating products
So, in simple terms, when you make an extra 5$, and you still have 100 products, you have 5% inflation because you can spend more on those products.
But at this very moment, there are two things happening, not only is there less money circulating, let's say only 95$ , also the amount of products circulating is falling down for example 95 products. Meaning you don't have deflation.
This is happening, there is less production, people may be spending less and there is less circulation, but there are also less products, many production lines have stopped, the trade in products is stopped if this stop or downfall of productcirculation is proportional to the contraction of money in the market you don't get deflation.
Exactly the other way arount for inflation offcourse.
This simple rule is applied on many thing, from oil production to even simple tomato's or even wine.
When Spain has a to big tomato production they destroy tons of it to prevent deflation on tomato's, when France produced to much wine they make biofuel from it to prevent deflation on wine, when the OPEC sees the oilprice fall they produce less etc... . -
Frank
On 12 Mar, 2009
@blue-coat
Deflation is what is happening now. Everybody says this is very bad. It is not the deflation that is bad, it's the inflationary boom that preceded it that was bad and should never have occured. Deflation is just the market saying (recognizing) that the boom was not real. It was a bubble and the market is correcting the artificial bubble that central banks created by mismanaging intrest rates and stimulating securitisation. We are deflating an artificial bubble that was'nt there, we simply thought it was real when it was'nt. Of course this is not bad. Houses should never have gotten so expensive, there should never have been so many expensive cars in the first place, it's not possible that the west can live so rich and work so less. The market says "enough, time to pay the bill". Central banks want to reinflate the bubble, they want to get back to the old situation. It's not possible! Propping up the system will only delay the inevitable which is pay down debt, start working and saving. Savings is the only real money, real value on which a sustainable economy should be founded.
Suppose the world is freed of Central banks . Can deflation then occur or not ? In other words : What are the causes of deflation ?
We have central banks now. They are all printing like crazy. And still; they can't stop deflation. The power of the deflating bubble is way bigger than they are printing now. You see it all around you: job losses, plunge in factory orders, defaults, price declines, ... They can't stop it unless they destroy the currency (monetising debt) which may bring us to an even bigger problem. They are essentially powerless which is very obvious if you look at the content of there speeches. Without central banks and fractional banking we could never have a deflation as bad as this one because we could never have an inflationary boom preceding it like the one we had until 2007. The cause of this deflation is the market that starts recognizing that the inflationary boom fueled by fiat money based on debt can not be repaid back. When people start defaulting on their debt in a boom based on debt the boom goes bust. The name of the game now is "paying down debt" which creates an increased demand for cash and which makes the dollar and yen (the currencies in which most debt was written) rise. If our moneysystem were based on savings we could never have such a big inflationary consumption boom because savers would have demanded much higher intrest rates on their money because an investment in consumption does'nt create a adequate return which makes it a risky investment in the first place. A much higher intrest rate would have killed the inflationary boom in its most early days. A money system based on savings is much more stable. Abolish the central bank! -
Frank
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Frederic
"Fact about the bubble, the money and technology, it’s hard to believe but in real life it’s the truth, many of the current technology is funded with bubble money or even just bubbles, there are milions of examples I could give you in every kind of market going from building houses, green energie, cars, classic energy, ICT, … .
"
What you are trying to say is that we have more technology and innovation because of fractional reserve banking. You are saying that a money system based on savings would'nt have funded as much innovation as fiat money. I disagree. Savers would happily fund innovation that pays itself back (which is the only sustainable innovation). The fiat money bubble funded much innovation which does'nt pay itself back or is in itself dependant on the consumptionbubble which makes it unsustainable
"I do see as in many cases, you avoid some parts. When money gets a devaluative trend, investments stop because people start collecting and stop spending. Banks won’t be able to lend or only lend money to the rich ones, many talents won’t get a shot at there succes to be an enterpreneur, to be succesfull with fantastic new products because there isn’t enough money around.
"
Totally wrong! Money loses value in the inflationary boom, not in the bust. In the deflation, money increases in value because money is in high demand. Investments stop and banks stop lending because the capacity to pay down debt is decreasing. Many talents don't get a shot because these talents where based on the boom. A talent of creating beatifull cars has no value when nobody buys cars! There are trillions and trillions of money around! There is too much money around! The problem is that it is not real money! It is perceived money or perceived wealth. There is not a shortage of money, there is a shortage of savings. If everybody would have the necessary savings we would not have this crisis. Of course people start collecting. They should because they have a lot of catching up to do. And they will no matter what central banks do. You are sugesting that they should'nt and start spending again which of course got us to this problem in the first place. -
Marty
On 12 Mar, 2009
@Frank @Frederik @Blue Coat
Can we really not get a comment thread going without ending up in a right and wrong battle about Keynes, inflation, deflation, (central) banks etc.
Do you really think we can fix the world by controlling the money supply ?
There are six Econoshocks and only one is in the realm you guys like to duel in.
Get your massive brains and knowledge to work on the other issues at hand ;-) -
blue-coat
On 13 Mar, 2009
Marty,
The reason why a lot of threads are ending up in a right or wrong battle is that, without having a clear understanding of what is going on now ,it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to handle any of the 6 econoshocks.
Well, this is what I realize now. -
blue-coat
On 13 Mar, 2009
Frank,
You wrote that " making people think about money is the very purpose for which I make posts on this site". Well, following posts did let me think (and fully understand )
-Deflation is what is happening now.
-Central banks are all printing like crazy. And still; they can’t stop deflation
-They are essentially powerless which is very obvious if you look at the content of there speeches.
-Without central banks and fractional banking we could never have a deflation as bad as this one
-Savers would happily fund innovation that pays itself back (which is the only sustainable innovation).
-There is not a shortage of money, there is a shortage of savings.
- If everybody would have the necessary savings we would not have this crisis
I am not a politician, nor an economist, nor a union man, nor a shareholder, nor a business man. This puts me in the position I can objectively choose the side of the discussion, without being biased by my social status. And believe me, for an an unbiased person above posts are very convincing to take this conclusion :
A "controlled" economy that takes the value of people's money away is not an economy, but a controlled robbery.
to my survey I could have added following questions (but i didnt, bcs I did not know the answer) :
1. what is deflation ? (answer : decrease of the amount of unreal money that was introduced by Central Banks and Fractional banking)
2. what causes it ? (in essence : Central banks and Fractional banking)
Believe me : 0/20 would give an answer that is anyway near what is described above.
@Geert : I invite any newspaper/magazine to let its readers come to similar conclusions. Long live Web 2.0 !
@Frank : Your last posts were definetelly worth it for me. Thank you. -
frederic
On 13 Mar, 2009
@Frank
Your version is a black and white version, you don't even try to understand some principles around the whole system, it's all BAD.
I stick to my points where fractional reserve lending is the key to feed inovation/technology , where printing money (what's the diffrence between printing money and digging up gold anyway) isn't always bad, au contraire, it has to happen (fior many reasons).
@blue coat
About deflation, contraction of money isn't the only cause, see my previous post, it would be wrong to believe it's the only cause.
@Marty, I have posted a lot in other topics about the other econoshocks also, I do believe in the whole story of Geert, this is why I participate on this Blog. For some econoshock however we have to look over the border of money to solve them.
@Everyone, Geert started this topic about Shumpeter vs Keynes, I have the (bad) habit to look something up before writing about it. Shumpeter is someone who isn't against fractional reserve lending, when reading about the man he is actually saying what I say. Make easy money for those who deserve it, who want to work for it. Monay has to be available for the "creative destruction" . -
Frank
On 13 Mar, 2009
@ blue-coat
You're welcome. One last remark: deflation is a contraction of money and/or credit. What we have now is a contraction of credit bigger than the expansion of money which give us a net deflation scenario. If central banks want to, they can always impose inflation on us bigger than the deflation of credit. The problem is however that they allways destroy the currency in doing so. (Monetising debt) We have a big, big problem and I'm wondering which country is going to destroy it's currency first. I'm betting on the UK, but then again deflations have the tendency to suprise investors (mostly in a negative way).
