I will only say this one last time. The advantage is not a wealth creating or quality of life creating advantage. It is a relative one, against other countries. In short America will be less affected in a negative way than its competitors. Read the post again and you will see my point. There is a post above this that gives quoted example.
This is an ad hominem attack. You cannot argue the points I have made in previous posts so you are attacking me on a personal level. I do many other things. If you read the previous post I have written a prototype taxation computer programme for a country among other things. You have never seen any of the work I have produced. You are not answering the arguments I have given. You have just criticised me on a personal level. This makes it look like you do not have the ability to argue you case and hold a personal grudge against me. I take it from your previous post you are phd in economics. If that is the case you should be able to come up with other arguments other than the ones you have and definitely better than the childish attack of my position here.
It's just not productive to debate with you. We've done so in the past. You don't have a the prerequisites to have a technical discussion and are too willfully (and unproductively) stubborn to have a layman's discussion. You are solely concerned with "inventing" your new macro economics without having first understood what it is that people have done. That's why I hold you in disdain: you are a charlatan. I was actually having a rather good and productive conversation with locutus on monetary policies before you came back.
You still haven't answered any of my arguments. You have resorted to personal attacks again. Incidentally one of my specialist areas is monetary policy. In fact I was recently asked to write a paper for the government in my country on the limitations of the current system and some alternatives that could work. Believe me your discussion with locustus was far from productive. Also all of the understanding of monetary policy is incorrect look at the situation it has created with excess private debt. Credit in my opinion should not be used in relation to aggregate demand control. In fact I would say that credit is entirety defunct. The banking system I am writing uses another method of return. You still haven't answered my arguments. And you won't because you can not. You could prove me wrong, so why don't you?
I am indeed attacking you as a person - I've done so since the very first post I made on this thread, so you can stop pointing it out; I've pointed out to you that it has not been productive to discuss your ideas; So I refuse to do so. I have no interest in addressing your fringe (and incoherent) ideas much like an astrophysicist might not find the idea of arguing with an astrologist on his theories (not that I'm comparing myself to astrophysicists. They are far smarter than I). Now you say you've been asked to write a paper for your government. Excellent. Why don't you post the said paper (which surely you'd be very proud of) here (or link to whatever journal it's published in) and I'll be happy to try again and to have a discussion with you within the context of that paper. At least the conversation can be better framed than your usual scatterness (yes, that's another personal attack).
Have you ever lived in hyperinflation environment where currency depreciates at least 10-20% a month? I have. A lot of transactions were still in local currency but velocity was enormous, after transaction money where changed back into hard currency instantly The same will happen with the dollar, despite oil is transacted in dollars - market participants will abandon dollar - dollar will lose reserve status and even if oil prices increase ten fold it will not increase demand for dollars - it will increase velocity of dollars and that will increase inflation dramatically
There is an argument here that you and other people have made. I have given arguments back and you and no one else has retaliated. The criticism here on this topic has not been discussed so why would we jump to another topic already. Read the arguments I have made then counter them. You cannot tell me the fundamental concepts of economics work effectively with the current economic environment. Also that discussion you had with locutus is seriously misguided. What is your position. Who are you. I have allowed you to know who I am. Tell me who you are if you are a phd were do work. Put up one of your papers. Let me see what you understand. Further to this. Although it may be your will to personally attack me you have still not answered my arguments. You could do both the lack of the latter indicates inability.
Yet again you have missed my point. The US may well have a negative response to the oil rise but it will be less negative than other countries. This is point the blog post makes.
No. I have nothing to prove. This board is an entertaining diversion. As I have said in other threads over the years, I trade liquid rates institutionally. I was trained in economics. Beyond that, I have nothing more I want to share. You saw you are writing a paper on behalf of your government - you should be happy to share that since you want to be viewed as a macro economics (whereas I'm just a here for entertainment). And I'll keep on saying every time you ask - I won't argue with you on thoughts on merits because it has never been productive to have technical conversations with you; You think I'm misguided; and I think you are misguided. There's no point to it.
I was asked but I declined to write the said paper. I have been developing one for the EU instead. I will not show it because it has commercial value. You say that you follow other economists work. But surely you understand that the current economic, banking and financial system is in a terrible state. Believe me my surname indicates I have genes that give me a serious advantage over you. Have you ever considered that just possibly you might be wrong and that someone else might be right. Rather than laying in with a personal attack that has no relevance to the argument. I will say it once more you have not seen my work. You have not met me. You have no right to make personal attacks about me. It is quite simply very rude.