« "It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...." | Main | Field Guide to Birds »

December 22, 2014

When the velocity of money is zero

I am barraged daily with references to Helicopter Ben running the Treasury printing presses day and night, and thereby causing inflation.

It's an insane idea. When the velocity of money sniffs zero, there is no inflation. The Fed makes money and gives it to the government, who lends it to itself, and none of it ever makes it into the wild where a car mechanic and his downstream brethren might get ahold of it. For productive people in today's American economy, the money might as well not exist. The bill for it will exist plenty in the future, of course. But when the velocity of money is zero, the future must be entirely discounted. It's a meaningless concept, like watching an unplugged clock.
Sippican Cottage: Damocles Had Nothing To Do With It. It Was Cassandra All The Way For Sippican

Posted by gerardvanderleun at December 22, 2014 8:38 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

So... his argument is that this money never goes into the economy at any level? That its never used to purchase anything or pay anyone?

What, exactly is this money being used for then?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2014 12:07 PM

Insulation in the US Treasury walls, it keeps out the cold.

Posted by: Vermont Woodchuck [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2014 12:36 PM

Money has a low velocity when people who receive money sit on it for a while before spending it, and has a high velocity when they get it and spend it immediately.

I expect Sipp's money velocity is very high, with what comes in going out real fast. He may even have a transfinite money velocity with his spending occurring before he receives his income.

Posted by: Fred Z [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2014 5:13 PM

My money talks. It says "good bye".
I asked my uncle Letsgo Lozko who made his fortune raising bantam chickens why he didn't use the barter system. He replied "you effer try, carry ten, twelve chickens around to buy beer and beans? And dumb clerks can not make change, heh heh."

Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2014 4:21 AM

I wouldn't presume to comment on Sipp's financial situation. I respect him too much.

Definition: The rate at which money circulates, changes hands, or turns over in an economy in a given period.
Higher velocity means the same quantity of money is used for a greater number of transactions and is related to the demand for money.
It is measured as the ratio of GNP to the given stock of money. Also called velocity of circulation.

"Politicians will sacrifice the country’s long term economic interests for their short term political welfare.

President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley anti-trade tariff bill against the advice of a thousand economists. Many economists believe that was the key to a collapse of world trade, which turned what might have been a severe recession into the great depression. But, contrary to the myth that he did nothing, Hoover was under great pressure to do something, even if wrong, and he did what was politically popular, not what made economic sense. When it didn’t work, he was defeated anyway.

Once Republicans got control of Congress in the 1990s, they started spending money in the kind of amounts they had criticized Democrats for, because spending gets you votes. Politicians using their own money to buy votes is illegal, but using our grandchildren’s money to buy votes, by passing earmarks, pork barrel spending and entitlement programs, is not only legal, but practiced by both parties. Someone pockets every one of those dollars, and is thus inclined kindly toward the politician who provided it. The party out of power always criticizes this, as Obama did the Bush deficits (ignoring that they were approved in 07 and 08 by Democrat-controlled Congresses). But once in office, Obama’s first-year deficit was greater than all eight years of the Bush deficits combined, as hungry supportive constituencies had to be rewarded in the name of economic stimulus, to keep them voting Democrat in the future."
From an essay by A Marine Vietnam Veteran; Robert A. Hall holds a BS in Government from the University of Massachusetts and an MEd in history from Fitchburg State College. After graduating from college, he served five terms in the Massachusetts Senate. He is not an economist. For a better understanding of economics than he can possibly give, he recommends Basic Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies, both by Thomas Sowell, PhD.

Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2014 7:42 AM

(My observations in my very brief sojourns out into the "Realspace" of the 'thriving' economy Minneapolis USA:

I do not see much activity at local Hardware Store where there ought to be alot of activity (reflected in their prices being slightly higher than other of the same named Hardware Stores nearby).

Less variety and quality of food at the Local Grocery Store I use.

Wider aisles and less variety at the Local Department Store that I frequent.


From my high perch in Cyberspace (and all the years I've been graced to read...), I say we are going to be skrewelled by the Hammer of Reality sometime in the near future and that I suggest starting the preparation of a subsistence lifestyle.

Yes it can be done. Most of what I eat now can be grown locally (coffee and grapefruit are the last - other than the 'entertainment foods).

Posted by: cond0011 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2014 12:32 PM

When the Republicans took congress in 1994, they didn't start out by spending huge sums of money. They cut and trimmed and slowed spending so much they balanced the budget for the first time in ages, perhaps ever. But they soon fell prey to the same disease they all do in office, eventually - particularly after they caved in the government shutdown.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2014 6:57 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)