Got a New Idea for Monetary Policy?

John Taylor has this very interesting post – Got a New Idea for Monetary Policy?

Do you have a new proposal for monetary policy? Perhaps a new policy rule? If so, it would be good to try out your idea first on a model of the economy. See how it works. Better yet, since economic models are different and economists frequently disagree, try it out in several models to be sure your rule is robust. But what models and how ?

Volker Wieland and his colleagues at Goethe University of Frankfurt are performing a valuable public service that makes it much easier to try out new policy ideas than it used to be when work on policy rules was first starting. They are creating an on-line model database containing monetary models used at the Fed, the ECB, and other central banks, including the Swedish Riksbank and the Central Bank of Chile, as well as the IMF and academia.

The models range in size from over 100 equation models to small three equation models (a policy rule equation for the interest rate, a staggered price setting equation for inflation, and an equation relating output to the interest rate). They all have inflexibilities, forward-looking expectations, and a policy analysis based on policy rules. So far there are 35 models in the database. Here is a list. For more information log into Volker Wieland’s model database and have some fun.

Models in the Database

1. Small Calibrated Models
1.1 Rotemberg, Woodford (1997)
1.2 Levin, Wieland, Williams (2003)
1.3 Clarida, Gali, Gertler (1999)
1.4 Clarida, Gali, Gertler 2-Country (2002)
1.5 McCallum, Nelson (1999)
1.6 Ireland (2004)
1.7 Bernanke, Gertler, Gilchrist (1999)
1.8 Gali, Monacelli (2005)
2. Estimated US Models
2.1 Fuhrer, Moore (1995)
2.2 Orphanides, Wieland (1998)
2.3 FRB-US model linearized as in Levin, Wieland, Williams (2003)
2.4 FRB-US model 08 linearized by Brayton and Laubach (2008)
2.5 FRB-US model 08 mixed expectations, linearized by Laubach (2008)
2.6 Smets, Wouters (2007)
2.7 CEE/ACEL Altig, Christiano, Eichenbaum, Linde (2004)
2.8 New Fed US Model by Edge, Kiley, Laforte (2007)
2.9 Rudebusch, Svensson (1999)
2.10 Orphanides (2003b)
2.11 IMF projection model by Carabenciov et al. (2008)
2.12 De Graeve (2008)
2.13 Christensen, Dib (2008)
2.14 Iacoviello (2005)
3. Estimated Euro Area Models
3.1 Coenen, Wieland (2005) (ta: Taylor-staggered contracts)
3.2 Coenen, Wieland (2005) (fm: Fuhrer-Moore staggered contracts)
3.3 ECB Area Wide model linearized as in Dieppe et al. (2005)
3.4 Smets, Wouters (2003)
3.5. Euro Area Model of Sveriges Riksbank (Adolfson et al. 2007)
3.6. Euro Area Model of the DG-ECFIN EU (Ratto et al. 2009)
3.7. ECB New-Area Wide Model of Coenen, McAdam, Straub (2008)
4. Estimated Small Open-Economy Models (other countries)
4.1. RAMSES Model of Sveriges Riskbank, Adolfson et al.(2008b)
4.2 Model of the Chilean economy by Medina, Soto (2007)
5. Estimated/Calibrated Multi-Country Models
5.1 Taylor (1993a) model of G7 economies
5.2 Coenen,Wieland (2002, 2003) G3 economies
5.3 IMF model of euro area & CZrep by Laxton, Pesenti (2003)
5.4 FRB-SIGMA model by Erceg, Gust, Guerrieri (2008)

Looks like an exciting stuff for modellers and econometricians.  I don’t fit into any of these two categories. So, let me know your findings in case you run these models..


3 Responses to “Got a New Idea for Monetary Policy?”

  1. Got a New Idea for Monetary Policy? « Mostly Economics graduate university Says:

    […] the rest here:  Got a New Idea for Monetary Policy? « Mostly Economics By admin | category: Goethe University FRANKFURT | tags: are-performing, […]

  2. Akshat Says:

    Thanks. This is pretty cool stuff.

  3. Satish Chandra Says:

    A monetary solution to not just India’s but the world’s economic problems is in the last two thirds of the following. I am India’s expert in strategic defence and the father of India’s strategic program, including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. In my blog titled ‘Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.’, which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title and contains my article “How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More”, I have shown how Indians doing outsourced work for American companies are working for India’s number one enemy and doing immense damage to India economically, militarily and in every other way. I have shown that that all terrorism and insurgencies in the Indian subcontinent and in much of the rest of the world is sponsored by the C.I.A. Both Pakistan’s ISI and India’s RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) function as branches of the C.I.A. and participate in terrorism and insurgencies throughout the Subcontinent, under direction of the C.I.A. Yes, the ISI secretly supports the Taliban but it does so under direction from the C.I.A. whose modus operandi is support for ALL sides of a conflict to control the course of the conflict in service of its own goals. The goal of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and partial occupation of Pakistan is eventual occupation and overt colonial rule over the Subcontinent as a whole. This will not be permitted and all those participating in this enterprise, including the U.K., will be duly punished; see my blog. The document leak currently in the news has been made in preparation for abandonment of this goal and withdrawal from Afghanistan because of steps I have already taken for the nuclear destruction of New Delhi and then the coast-to-coast destruction of the United States by India with 5,000 thermonuclear warheads and extermination of its population; see my blog. It also shows how India has been kept economically and technologically down by military means and how exterminating the United States’ population will solve that problem. Indians need to realize the determining role of force even in economic relations. When insects such as Pranab Mukherjee talk of closer economic relations between India and the United States, they mean making Indians into slave labor for the American consumer as the Chinese have become so that the Americans no longer produce things, the Chinese toil to produce things for them to consume and all the Americans have to do is keep the whip over the Chinese and get the cooperation of China’s ruling class by giving employment to their family members in the United States as they do to Indians. This master-slave relationship can be reversed or ended by bringing superior force to bear against the United States. Only I can provide such superior force to India and make India master, rather than slave, of the United States, exercising the power of life and death over the Americans and exterminate them to put an end to this scourge. See my article ‘How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More’ in my blog. India must get rid of 90% of its conventional forces and replace them with nuclear forces. Conventional forces are worthless for destroying the United States. Taking care of the enemy United States will take care of all other enemies. It is not just the production of consumer goods that the United States has transferred to slaves abroad. It is doing so for its fighting and invading as it has transferred its fighting and invading to Pakistan and is on the way to doing so with India. It is not just that all insurgencies and terrorism in India is C.I.A.-sponsored; so is the sea piracy around Somalia etc. which has been used to draw the Indian Navy into serving under the United States and these buggers are only too happy to resume the role they used to play for the British in Mesopotamia and elsewhere in World War I and II, etc.
    In my blog I have described how the United States is turning the populations of India (and China) into their slave workers who suck up the output of ten times as many other Indians while contributing nothing to India’s economy, so that in addition to the millions of direct slave labourers, ten times as many other Indians are the indirect slave labourers of the Americans and all India gets in return is dollars which can only ultimately be used to buy American goods and services which, through the multiplier effect I have described in my article “How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More” in my blog, helps the U. S. economy not India’s, or to buy worthless American paper (most of India’s foreign exchange reserves of hundreds of billions of dollars are in U. S. government paper) which is ultimately only as good as India’s ability to militarily enforce the obligations it represents which India has no way of doing and, even if enforced, will help the U. S., not India’s economy and which, in multifarious ways, increases the United States’ power over India. In the above article, I have shown the fallacy because of which exports and earning a lot of foreign exchange are considered a good thing.
    In my blog I have written: “Slavery in nuclear matters also makes possible slavery in economic matters. In Special Economic Zones (SEZs), American companies use Indians as slave laborers– paying them a fraction of what even the lowest paid American workers are paid– to produce goods and services for the American consumer. In no way can the output of Special Economic Zones be considered a part of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), nor should the output of software export and call center, etc. (B.P.O.) operations–which meet the needs of American companies and American consumers– be considered a part of India’s GDP and most of the rise in GDP growth rate, being trumpeted by traitors, is from the SEZs and IT and B.P.O. operations. If a foreign enemy comes and commandeers millions of Indians to work as slave labor to meet the needs of its own people– having them work within India rather than shipping them to America as slaves used to be shipped through native middlemen to pick cotton– it is still slavery. I have written about the fallacy because of which exports and earning a lot of foreign exchange are considered a good thing and said ‘A crore of goods and services sold domestically is worth several crores of goods and services sold abroad so far as the effect on India’s prosperity is concerned’. The foreign exchange (such as dollars) you get by selling goods and services abroad can only ultimately be used to buy goods and services abroad which starts chains of economic activity in the foreign country (the United States) rather than in your own country and, through the ‘multiplier effect’ I have described, increases the GDP of the foreign country by several times the amount of the foreign exchange you obtained, not your own country’s. A report on a mega refinery complex being set up in an SEZ on India’s west coast by Reliance refers to the several thousand luxurious villas that will be built for foreign workers while Indian slave laborers will live in slave housing; the output of the refinery –gasoline– will be used almost exclusively by American consumers but the environmental harm caused by the refinery will occur in India; by using Indian companies as a front– in this case Reliance into which Americans will be putting their money– American capital will be producing gasoline for American consumers using Indians as slave labor and transferring the pollution caused by the refineries to India. In no way can this SEZ be called a part of India’s economy. Even in the IT sector, the largest Indian company– Infosys– is more than half owned by foreigners; hundreds of thousands of engineering graduates per year are being produced by Indian engineering colleges — RAW, which runs the Indian government, acts as a branch of the C.I.A. against India and has engineered this use of Indian engineering graduates– to work as software coolies for American companies (you do not need engineering graduates to provide payroll processing which is what Indian software coolies have mostly been doing) while many others work night shifts in the B.P.O. industry, in call centers, doing what does not require even a high school education to do in the United States. SEZs were set up in China by bribing people in the Chinese government to let American companies use Chinese people as slave labor for American consumers and all the Chinese in government now wear Western suits and send as many Chinese for higher studies and to settle in the U.S. as do Indians. To camouflage the true nature of this arrangement, the United States government regularly ‘complains’ to the Chinese government about the U.S. “trade deficit” with China, but in no way can American companies producing in China, using Chinese as slave laborers, for the American consumer and then shipping the products to the United States be considered ‘trade’; it is slave trade but instead of the slaves’ bodies, their products are being shipped to the United States. Because of Indians knowing English, Americans first used Indians for IT and B.P.O. but are now switching to manufacture as well, the basic paradigm being the use of the populations of China and India as slave labor for the American consumer by bribing people in the governments of these countries. In the case of Russia, the paradigm is to loot Russia’s natural resources for the American consumer by bribing people in the Russian government. Because of the exchange rate, the slave laborers in the B.P.O., doing health-destroying work at night at a fraction of the wage rates of the lowest paid American workers, are paid large amounts in rupees (the foreign exchange goes to the government and can only be used ultimately to buy foreign goods and services and increase the foreign country’s GDP, not India’s, as I have said) which enables them to buy the output of ten times as many Indians while producing nothing for the Indian economy– the goods and services they produce meet the needs of American consumers and companies, not Indian consumers and companies. One million B.P.O. workers suck up the output of, say, ten million Indians; ten million B.P.O. workers will suck up the output of a hundred million Indians, while producing nothing for the Indian economy. Thus, American companies, while using ten million Indians as direct slave laborers, will be using a hundred million Indians as indirect slave laborers because a hundred million Indians will be supporting the ten million Indians working for American companies as slave laborers. And, since these ten million Indians will be producing nothing for the Indian economy (no goods or services for the Indian consumer) and will be sucking up the output of another one hundred million Indians– thus, they will be greatly REDUCING India’s GDP available to the rest of the population, not adding to it– the rupee salaries paid to these ten million Indians will be highly inflationary as well, further damaging the Indian economy. This applies to operations such as call centers (B.P.O.), software export and SEZs for export.

    Haryana’s chief minister asked how else to provide employment to the state’s population. By implementing my proposal about money [see below], India can have true and extremely rapid prosperity and full employment.”
    How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More:-

    Suppose a government wishes to increase the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by twenty, thirty or forty percent in a given year over and above, say, a seven percent increase that is expected. All it has to do is print and spend an additional amount, equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP, in that year on productive purposes. By definition, the GDP would have increased by an additional twenty, thirty or forty percent that year (not counting the multiplier effect, referred to in my letters to the press, which will depend on how the money is spent). Printing the money takes no creativity, thinking up productive purposes to spend it on does not take much either. The money can be spent directly by the government, through private parties or both ways though, of course, by spending the money directly, the government does not have to wait for private parties to come up with proposals. The important thing is that how much the GDP grows next year– seven percent or twenty seven percent or more– is strictly in the government’s own hands.
    Terms such as “deficits” (there are no deficits when all the money a government spends is printed by it; if the government does take in money as taxes or charges, the effects of deficits on interest rates occur only if the government borrows the additional money, not if it prints it) and “overheating” of the economy are worthless concepts which only serve to maintain the status quo in which various people have a vested interest. As I wrote some years ago, “people get pleasure from the pain and deprivation of others and [reference to a head of government], who is no exception, will not want [a change]”.
    Note that the recommendation above is to print and spend an amount equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP IN ADDITION TO whatever the government was otherwise going to do by way of taxing (unnecessary as it is) and spending, etc. Since the production of goods and services, including consumer as well as capital goods, will rise right along with the additional spending, any effects of the additional spending will be benign. Even if some adverse effects are postulated, in no way can they overcome the huge advantage from a GDP growth of twenty seven percent or more over seven percent in a year.
    During war, government spending on equipment and supplies (guns and bullets, etc.) can suddenly increase ten, twenty or fifty times. During World War II, the United States government put in place price controls (under J. K. Galbraith) to curb the inflationary effect of such spending (since production capacity was diverted to war equipment and supplies from consumer items). (It was the enormous increase in U. S. government spending during World War II that gave rise to its ‘National Debt’). A similarly sudden and large increase in government spending in peace time on the production of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc., for the citizenry will not result in the kind of price rise the United States expected in World War II, because the production of consumer goods and services will increase along with the money supply– even if a lot of the additional spending is directed to military purposes. In any case, price controls can be used in peace time, if necessary, as in war time.
    The United States, sitting on top of the world economically and militarily, may not feel any need to increase its GDP by twenty seven percent or more in a year. For governments of countries such as India, not to do that is treasonous as well as stupid.
    With a growth rate of twenty seven percent per year, a country’s GDP will double every three years. India’s per capita income will equal that of the United States in fifteen years (the development and implementation of environment-protection technologies will be a part of the expenditure program) and Russia’s in six years. And this will not depend on the vagaries of markets (in no way can markets bring this about) but, as pointed out above, will be strictly in a government’s own hands. ‘Oligarchs’ (there are a lot of oligarchs in India but the masses remain impoverished) can never equal a government’s ability to print money and, in any case, a government has to be a dispenser of justice as well as money (often justice equals money). All the advantages of motivation, etc., ascribed to ‘free enterprise’ are also available to a government, as I have pointed out. Apart from standards of living, there are military and geo-strategic consequences and the ever-increasing despotism of the United States means that this has to be done on a war footing. India’s government does not do it because several of India’s prime ministers (Indira, Rajiv and Vajpayee) have been on the payroll of the C.I.A. and its real ‘government’, the Research and Analysis Wing, functions as a branch of the C.I.A. (see my article ‘India’s Technological and Economic Emancipation’). But what about a country such as Russia? Here another factor needs to be considered.
    American press reports 3-4 years ago referred to satellite-based technology the United States has had in place to monitor “the conversations of foreign leaders” (not just conversations over the telephone or other electrical/electronic media though it includes ability to monitor electrical/electronic communications of all kinds also). Since at least 1977, the United States has been able to keep individuals under 24-hour video and audio surveillance by satellite. Psychologist B. F. Skinner of Harvard made no secret of “my spies” keeping me under such surveillance, one use of which is a C.I.A. program started by Skinner to “control” a targeted individual’s behavior by various verbal (including the use of conditioned stimuli, ratio schedules, etc.) and other means. I was targeted primarily due to Skinner’s personal motivation flowing from the fact that I had exposed his plagiarism and destroyed his school of psychology (see my article ‘A Harvard Sophomore’s Plagiarism and B. F. Skinner’s’) but also because I have been the only threat to the United States’ ability to keep India economically, technologically and militarily weak and under its boots (in part through my ‘influence’ on Prime Minister Indira Gandhi –about which Skinner asked “How about your political contacts on either side– Mrs. Gandhi?” though I had not breathed a word about any such ‘contacts’ — and former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi– both of whom were assassinated for this reason by India’s Research and Analysis Wing on the C.I.A.’s orders). But it would have been surprising if the United States had not used such surveillance and control over other foreign leaders.
    An article in a Russian newspaper by an American capitalist consultant on Russia a couple of months ago referred to “the mysteriously self-destructive behavior” of Russia’s leaders, referring to the dismantling of the benefits system (the same system of benefits can be administered by private contractors, if desired, who will be paid by the government and those who got free transportation before can still get free transportation), but such behavior started in the mid-eighties, with Mikhail Gorbachev. It is more than likely that similar surveillance and control has been used against Soviet/Russian leaders.
    It is noteworthy that both the United States government and the Indian government had proceeded to implement my proposal about money, as I have described in published letters dated August 1, 2001, September 6, 2001 and April 13, 2001 to the U.S. press (also published letters to the U.S. pressabout stock market manipulation by the U.S. Treasury Department by pumping money into the stock market; Bush made a trip through an underground tunnel from the White House to the Treasury Department to see the set up created for such manipulation) . The Vajpayee government set up a separate Cabinet Committee on Economic Strategy for the purpose of stealing my proposal about money. When I pointed out that they were trying to STEAL my proposal about money, they stopped implementing it.

    I have said (see my blog titled ‘Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.’ ) in letters to the press in 1998 and subsequently that the firangis gave the Nobel prize in Economics to the mediocre Indian named Amartya Sen as a substitute for the Nobel prize for me since they would not let their crimes against me, committed in collaboration with India’s RAW and India’s prime ministers, be exposed. When Clinton, as president, held a White House conference on the “New Economy”, the “New Economy” was the economy that my proposal about money leads to; of all the dozens of Nobel prize winners in Economics, he invited Amartya Sen to the conference — though Sen had absolutely nothing to do with the “New Economy” — because he is their mediocre Indian substitute for the greatest Indian of all time they have been committing crimes against. When Amartya Sen was given the Nobel prize, Vajpayee left New Delhi for several days to avoid meeting him, because he knew Sen was the firangis’ dummy substitute to cover their crimes against me, but RAW kept Sen waiting in New Delhi several days till Vajpayee yielded and gave him all the honours CIA-RAW wanted him to receive as a substitute for me.

    Further elaborations on the above article are in the following article titled ‘A Magical Solution to India’s and the World’s Economic Problems’ (I have dealt with many other ancillary issues related to my proposal about money in letters and articles to the press over the past dozen years ):-

    A Magical Solution To India’s & the World’s Economic Problems:
    At the time of the ‘supercyclone’ that hit India in Orissa about nine years ago, I pointed out that the more money the Indian government prints and spends on relief, the more the Indian economy will benefit ( see my proposal about money in my article ‘How India‘s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More‘ on, because the amount so spent will increase the Gross Domestic Product by several times that amount. So long as the money so spent is used for productive purposes– on both goods and services– and is not taken from money earmarked for other purposes but is additional money printed by the government, the more money the government prints and spends, the better for India. Instead of a thousand crores, the government should spend a hundred thousand crores and even more, on short term as well as long term measures. I said the same at the time of the tsunami disaster in 2004. I said India lacks neither money nor manpower– civil or military– to deal with this or any other problem and should reject the military “coalition” which the United States had seized the opportunity to draw India into.
    The death and destruction the United States has inflicted on Iraq is greater than any country has suffered from the tsunami. All countries should refuse any assistance from the United States or cooperation with it in tsunami relief or any other enterprise.
    In a letter to the Indian press several years ago, I pointed out that Indian Railways need not collect any fares from passengers (or freight charges) at all since the government can print all the money it needs to pay for the service, at a negligible cost (the cost of printing the money) and, in the process, greatly benefit the economy. In fact, as I have said (letter published in three parts in The Observer of Business and Politics, New Delhi, on March 11, 12 & 13, 1997), the government need not take in any money at all– in the form of taxes, charges or borrowings– when it can print all the money it wants. The more money the government prints and spends for goods and services, the more the economy will benefit (printing paper currency can be replaced with, say, electronic insertion of funds into accounts for certain purposes). This applies to all goods and services and all governments. On the issue of the monetization of government benefits in Russia in 2004, I said that providing benefits in kind has the advantage of ensuring that the money is used for productive purposes.
    After I wrote the above, an editor in Hong Kong asked “Ever heard of inflation?”
    I replied that I have dealt with the issue of inflation, both in the 1997 letter cited above and elsewhere. When I said that providing benefits in kind will ensure that the funds are used for productive purposes, it also meant that it will ensure there is a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services. Inflation occurs when the production of goods and services does not keep pace with the money supply. In the 1997 letter I refer to controlling prices, if necessary.
    Going beyond the demand-supply mechanism involved in inflation, I have pointed to the role of “inflationary expectations” in generating inflation and what the government can do to avoid generating “inflationary expectations”. For example, I have pointed to the feasibility and desirability of not raising railway fares even if fuel prices go up and not raising fuel prices even if the price of imported crude oil goes up– to avoid generating “inflationary expectations”. I said that India pays for imported crude oil in dollars and so its ability to import oil depends on the size of its dollar holdings. The consumers in India pay for oil products in rupees. The government need not raise the prices of oil products; it could even provide oil products — or anything else, such as food, housing, transportation, etc., — to the people free of charge because it can print all the money it wants and can reimburse the producers of such goods and services simply by printing the money. In the case of disaster relief, I said that the government could simply invite any and all individuals and organisations to “find a need and fill it and be reimbursed at double your cost”. I said that in normal times, a 50% profit may be incentive enough. The Indian Finance Minister now regularly uses this term “inflationary expectations” and my argument has had the effect of the government often not raising prices of oil products, railway fares, etc., when it otherwise would have. But it is far from applying the consequences of my argument consistently.
    After I pointed out a “multiplier effect” because of which each rupee printed and spent by the government increases the Gross Domestic Product by several rupees, the United States Department of Labor estimated that each dollar the U.S. government provides to unemployed people as unemployment compensation increases the Gross Domestic Product by more than two dollars. The multiplier effect occurs because, suppose you are building a new railway line; the suppliers of the goods and services that the government buys to build the railway line use that money to buy further goods and services (which may be inputs into the goods and services they are selling to the government such as steel, vehicles and wages to their employees who will use the money to buy other goods and services such as clothing and food or TV sets); the suppliers (of steel, vehicles, etc.) to the government‘s suppliers will use the money to buy still further goods and services, and so on; the money the government spends on building the new railway line starts off chains of economic activity that has the effect of increasing the Gross Domestic Product by several times the amount of money the government spent on building the new railway line. The same applies to money spent on disaster relief, or anything else.

    Relevant to what is said above are some comments I made a couple of years ago in response to comments by others; note that the Indian government’s brave stance some time ago in WTO negotiations was prompted by what I said about exports and imports in one of my comments reproduced below; CIA-RAW continue to steal my work while committing the most heinous crimes against me:-
    My first comment:
    A fragment from my blog (since the ignoramus — though, in fairness, he may be no more ignorant than economists in general — below referred to ‘devaluing the currency’ ) : “When an American psychologist was given the Nobel Prize in Economics a couple of years ago, I pointed out that his work had not the millionth part of the significance my work has for Economics. … “Balance between exchange rates and inflation”? Exchange rates are irrelevant for an economy which grows on money printed and invested by the government and inflation is not a problem when the production of goods and services keeps pace with the money supply. “Rational tax system”? Taxes are not needed and are an irrational holdover from the past when a government can print all the money it wants. All the so-called ‘macroeconomic issues’ are simply swept away and become irrelevant when you implement my proposal about money. ” I have also shown that a crore of goods and services sold domestically is worth several crores of goods and services sold abroad, so far as the effect on India’s prosperity is concerned. An economy the size of India has no need to either export or import for prosperity, though it may still do so for various reasons, including using exports and imports as a geopolitical tool. The best use for the brainless and impertinent person who posted below that I can think of is grinding him up — along with other economists, if he is one — for use as fertiliser, to grow onions, stinking onions. Or he can be made into canned dogfood and exported to earn foreign exchange; as I said in a column which appeared in Indian Express more than a decade ago, that is about all the foreign exchange India really needs.
    My second comment:
    Continuing with what I said below: The author is the world’s greatest behavior scientist — acknowledged in those terms — and a science of behavior is the foundation science all social sciences, including Economics. As he has shown elsewhere, economists are absolutely the most clueless people he has even encountered — who rely on ad hoc, half baked theories of behavior — and a basic science of behavior provides much more powerful tools. But beyond the inadequacies of their theories of behavior, I have shown how they are unable to reason in any kind of a productive way.
    My third comment:
    The poster below is brainless and knows nothing of Economics. The money printed under my proposal about money will be used as investment so that the production of goods and services increases right along with the money supply. Foreign investment is neither needed nor desirable when you have an unlimited amount of investment capital available by simply printing the money. All the issues — inflation, etc. — have been dealt with in my blog ( which can be found by doing a Google search with the words: India nuclear supremacy Satish )and elsewhere and can only be touched upon in a short article like this. This poster should read, study and absorb what is said here and in the blog before he comments on my proposal about money, though being a functional illiterate may make that impossible for him. My proposal about money is the greatest development in social science — greater than Marx or Freud — and, arguably, the greatest development in human history. Its author is India’s greatest scientist — look up his bio in Marquis’ Who’s Who In America 2010 and earlier editions) and Marquis’ Who’s Who In the World (2010 and earlier editions) — and as far above the poster below as the poster below may be above a cockroach. As even this article notes, both the United States government and the Indian government had proceeded to implement my proposal about money by stealth.
    My fourth comment:
    As I have said in my blog, ignorant and enslaved ‘inferior Indian n i g g e r s’ like the one commenting below are the rule rather than the exception in India but India can surpass the United States both militarily and in economic strength despite such people.
    My fifth comment:
    As I pointed out in a published letter dated September 6, 2001 to the U.S. press, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Strategy that was formed by the Vajpayee government to steal my proposal about money was separate from the already existing Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs.
    I have said on my web page that my “theory of money is in the process of revolutionizing Economics and public finance. It was responsible for the Council of Economic Advisers being thrown out of the White House and for Bush’s statement in early 2003 that “Both parties in both houses of Congress” now understand that cutting taxes creates jobs (so long as the government does not make a corresponding reduction in the money it spends).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: