Haven't they seen Back to the Future, ffs?

I never did quite grasp the QTM. And I wondered, when massive increases in money didn't result in massive inflation, whether asset transactions contribute to money velocity -- because there was certainly "inflation" in asset prices, notably the stock market.

Interesting. I wonder if there isn't some selection bias here, though? Lottery players not representative of the "typical consumer"?

www.businessinsider.com/lottery-winn...

To settle these arguments, perhaps it would be helpful to cite supporting papers rather than simply make assertions?

You want empirical analysis but you won't accept statistical correlation as evidence. Economics is notoriously envious of physics, but alas the economy, an enormously complex and varying system, is just not as susceptible to controlled experimental analysis as the physical sciences.

My memory isn't detailed enough to refute you there, but my recollection is of a regression between money supply and inflation over a decent period of time which seemed to show a good empirical correlation. Obviously, all correlations are per se circumstantial, but...

No doubt he threatened a tariff on Britbox.

This is just from memory, but didn't he present a pretty good empirical case that inflation was primarily determined by money supply? That may eventually have been disproved, of course, but I seem to remember correlations with pretty decent confidence intervals (ca. 1980)

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "those are two very different things"?

Alas, my knowledge doesn't extend that far. Here's my hypothesis, though: you will not be able to find an instance when any of his theories were immediately falsified, or name an economist who persuaded the world such was the case.

For many years, at least, other economists of "more than moderate intellect" failed to "immediately falsify" his theories. Or that's my recollection. It's always easy to debate the dead.

I always liked his characterisation of the trickle-down economic theory: "the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows".

Almost everything you read in the Eye is depressing, because they mostly report on shenanigans and corruption. That is the world we live in, alas.

I suspect it is Dixon of Dock Green and his fellow plods. Evenin' All, time to watch the news on BBC1.

And on a sort of related matter: the problem seems most acute at year end when banks clean up their balance sheets to clear regulatory hurdles. Wouldn't it make sense to eliminate this seasonal crunch by using quarterly-average numbers for regulatory purposes? The year-end crunch is so artificial.

When you refer to "mass death/deleveraging" I don't really understand where the "leverage" component comes in. Surely a repo isn't inherently leverage? It's what the hedge funds do with the proceeds that counts, isn't it? eg (in my very vague understanding), the basis trade. 1/2

If so, is there anywhere to run to?

I remember telling my kids: Don't worry. This is the US. The Supreme Court isn't going to tell Americans their votes will not be counted.