Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: New question for "JK and the Choir"...

Ok, to JK and the "Choir" who prefer written over audio/video: Please indicate which of the following statements most closely reflects your views:

A) Podcast transcripts are great! They allow me to process the material in writing, the way I prefer, and I appreciate the chance to participate in "listening" to an interview I would not have enjoyed in pure audio.
B) Podcast transcripts are a futile effort to turn an ill-conceived interaction format into something useful. I prefer thoughtful ARTICLES that were WRITTEN carefully by people who had A POINT TO MAKE, and don't care to spend my time reading transcripts of audio interviews unless there's just no other way to get the perspective of an interesting person.

I'm just trying to figure out whether "adding transcripts for all interviews" would appeal to this audience, or if the very premise of an audio podcast is so far at odds with your desires that it's not worth trying. Candid feedback welcome.

Thanks,
xPat

I vote A.
Interviews in general are great, and yours was an especially good one, thank you for doing it and thank you for making it available.

Personally, I can read through the transcript of a 45 minute interview in about 5 minutes.

[jk]

Re: New question for "JK and the Choir"...

I prefer the articles, but transcripts are fine. I can still skim quickly to see what, if anything, I want to concentrate on. Thanks for all you are doing.

+1, very much including the thanks.

[c1ue]

Re: New question for "JK and the Choir"...

Podcasts have their place, but I think iTulip tends to an older audience which does not, in general, cleave to the audio/video paradigm of the kids.

From my view, in the interests of accessibility, I think transcripts are fine. As your show is presumably intended to popularize alternative viewpoints as opposed to what is seen in MSM, to a real extent it is necessary to take on at least some of the trappings.

If, on the other hand, your intended audience is more like iTulip: older, self selected, etc etc - well, you know...

[DSpencer]

Re: Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

The issue is that presently neither side really offers an acceptable outcome, as each represents only an extreme.

I find it interesting that many people (myself included) think that a big problem with our two parties is that they are really not that different and don't offer a real choice. While other people believe the problem is that they are polar opposites and that we need a middle ground.

NB: I am not counting the issues that I consider distractions such as gay marriage.

[DSpencer]

Re: New question for "JK and the Choir"...

Ok, to JK and the "Choir" who prefer written over audio/video: Please indicate which of the following statements most closely reflects your views:

A) Podcast transcripts are great! They allow me to process the material in writing, the way I prefer, and I appreciate the chance to participate in "listening" to an interview I would not have enjoyed in pure audio.
B) Podcast transcripts are a futile effort to turn an ill-conceived interaction format into something useful. I prefer thoughtful ARTICLES that were WRITTEN carefully by people who had A POINT TO MAKE, and don't care to spend my time reading transcripts of audio interviews unless there's just no other way to get the perspective of an interesting person.

I'm just trying to figure out whether "adding transcripts for all interviews" would appeal to this audience, or if the very premise of an audio podcast is so far at odds with your desires that it's not worth trying. Candid feedback welcome.

Thanks,
xPat

"A"

Both podcasts and articles have their place. But transcripts are a great addition to podcasts for those without the time or attention needed to listen to the whole thing.

[astonas]

Re: Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

I find it interesting that many people (myself included) think that a big problem with our two parties is that they are really not that different and don't offer a real choice. While other people believe the problem is that they are polar opposites and that we need a middle ground.

NB: I am not counting the issues that I consider distractions such as gay marriage.

Ah, I should clarify that those issues on which they do differ, they do so to an extreme, and those where they agree, they do so because they are to a large extent corrupted. I was focusing more on the fact that neither outcome was acceptable, and became loose with my language.

I do not consider social issues to entirely be distractions, as many lives are affected by them, though I agree that these are perhaps not the most critical issues of the day. Thus to me, the more fundamental problem is not whether the left and right are highly differentiated, but the fact that both are for sale. The degree of differentiation along a given axis is, I believe, a consequence of this deeper problem.

[Polish_Silver]

repocrats: same or different--not in Poland!

Ah, I should clarify that those issues on which they do differ, they do so to an extreme, and those where they agree, they do so because they are to a large extent corrupted. I was focusing more on the fact that neither outcome was acceptable, and became loose with my language.

I do not consider social issues to entirely be distractions, as many lives are affected by them, though I agree that these are perhaps not the most critical issues of the day. Thus to me, the more fundamental problem is not whether the left and right are highly differentiated, but the fact that both are for sale. The degree of differentiation along a given axis is, I believe, a consequence of this deeper problem.

The two US parties differ on abortion, but not on aiding Israel, etc

If you look at countries which use "Proportional Representation", like Poland, the parties are very different from each other. They are not all rational, and some certainly serve particular interests, but there is real choice at the ballot. For example in recent years, you could choose between a "Farmers party", "new communist" , "beer drinkers" , "Civic platform" (progressive), and " law and justice".

The farmers party was big on agricultural subsidies, and I think wanted them for the coal and steel industries too. (The latter two are hopelessly antiquated in Poland. The country has some good coal reserves, but the extraction and transportation are so inefficient that mines cannot be profitably operated.)

"Civic Platform" was popular with young people and emphasized building roads (desperately needed).

"Law and justice" wanted more retribution against communist era parasites, and a lot of people my wife's age were very sympathetic to this objective. Communist era bureaucrats have cushy jobs and pensions that carried over to the present day: "still at the trough".

The parties also differed on whether or not to join the EU. (Thankfully, Poland was not "privileged" to join the Euro.)

[c1ue]

Re: repocrats: same or different--not in Poland!

If you look at countries which use "Proportional Representation", like Poland, the parties are very different from each other. They are not all rational, and some certainly serve particular interests, but there is real choice at the ballot. For example in recent years, you could choose between a "Farmers party", "new communist" , "beer drinkers" , "Civic platform" (progressive), and " law and justice".

Yes, but for every Poland, there are Ireland, Germany, Greece, and numerous other EU nations where the differences between the top 3, 4, or 5 parties is pretty much indistinguishable.

Poland also happens to be one of the youngest political systems in Europe. Coincidence?

[astonas]

Re: repocrats: same or different--not in Poland!

Yes, but for every Poland, there are Ireland, Germany, Greece, and numerous other EU nations where the differences between the top 3, 4, or 5 parties is pretty much indistinguishable.

Poland also happens to be one of the youngest political systems in Europe. Coincidence?

Perhaps this is so, but proportional representation also allows minor parties to be heard, without necessarily upsetting the whole apple cart. Witness the difference between the influx of the "Pirates" party in Germany, and the Tea Party in the U.S.

I do think, however, that this is probably too big a change to be accepted into the system.

[c1ue]

Re: repocrats: same or different--not in Poland!

Perhaps this is so, but proportional representation also allows minor parties to be heard, without necessarily upsetting the whole apple cart. Witness the difference between the influx of the "Pirates" party in Germany, and the Tea Party in the U.S.

Interesting example given that in many respects, the Tea Party has had far more impact on actual legislation in the US than the Pirate Party in Germany and other nations.

What was your point again?

[raja]

Re: Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

But those aren't the real world options. In the real world it goes like this:

1. The Fed stops reflating and allows deflation to run its course
2. Defaults spike, credit markets sieze up, thousands of perfectly viable businesses fail along with the unviable
3. The output gap opens to 25% of GDP; unemployment reaches 30% and stays that way for more than three years
5. A socialist administration is elected in year four that redistributes remaining wealth and raises taxes on the top income brackets to 90%

Compared to that, the slow torture method doesn't look so bad.

I guess which scenario you like depends on whether you're in the 1% or the 99%.
Of course, anyone who is unemployed "for more than three years" won't be happy, but work will return, so a few years of suffering is better than a life of Debt Slavery.

No solution is good, and for a variety of reasons (peak oil, global market competition, etc.) the "good ole days" will never return. Everybody's going to get poorer, but I prefer a solution that spreads the pain more fairly.

Wealth inequality is one of the major structural defects of our current system, and "redistributing the remaining wealth and raising taxes on the top income brackets to 90%" sounds like a fine choice to me, as long as it stays within reason (no communism, please). Michael Hudson is saying the same thing. Of course, no wealthy people like this choice because it means they get less of the pie than they would with the slow torture method.

Ironically, semi-wealthy people who are retired are going to take a huge hit, regardless of which scenario takes places. If you think gold is going to save you, it's actually a loser, too, when you consider the taxes and inflation. However, it is one of the lesser evils for those trying preserve their wealth, and I'm not suggesting don't have some stashed away. (Speaking of all-in with gold, whatever happened to Jtabeb?) IIRC, c1ue said several years ago that having a business or businesses that will weather the storm is a good strategy, and I agree with that. If you choose the right business, over the long haul income will be somewhat balanced with the current value of things, i.e., prices generally go up, so it's inflation protected.

[rogermexico]

Re: Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

Just listened to this interview. Great questions from XPAT and great explanations from EJ. Would love to hear more like this...

[metalman]

Re: Eric Janszen on Hyperinflation vs. High Inflation

Just listened to this interview. Great questions from XPAT and great explanations from EJ. Would love to hear more like this...

why don't you or jk interview ej? or you have?

ci = rogermexico... or... ci = xpat or... ???

ci ≠ mega