Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what a printing press is right? Well, they put paper in the printing press and it prints sheets of paper money that is then cut in the shape of the dollars etc. that you have in you wallet.
You know what a printing press is right? Well, they put paper in the printing press and it prints sheets of paper money that is then cut in the shape of the dollars etc. that you have in you wallet.
I am not sure if I have any paper money in my wallet. Certainly it is rare that I buy anything with paper money or a check. I use plastic.
The big problem with inflation and deflation is that they happen in response to past events. Years of increasing the money supply can suddenly catch up and cause very high inflation. Then attempts to reduce that inflation can be unsuccessful because it depends on past events more than current events. So the attempts to reduce it get more extreme. And years later, when those attempts catch up, we suddenly have a depression, and can't control it. And to make it even more complicated, we're likely to end up with years of stagflation, and no way to control it.
The advantage of a gold standard is that the ups and downs happen naturally with no attempts to control them. It would sometimes be a nightmare, but that nightmare would not be made worse by people trying to control it who don't really know what they're doing. There would be a lot of deflation, but people would get used to it. It would be more predictable than what we have now, and people could plan for the future better, if they could rely on not having the money supply controlled by people.
But the real reason why a gold standard doesn't work is that the next election could bring someone who doesn't like it and wants to change it. Therefore, a gold standard is not really all that reliable. It would be blamed for a lot of problems of the economy, till the general public would no longer want it. But what we have now is even less reliable.
They don't understand the printing of money and when times allow money to be printed and not printed. For the economy to remain strong the printing of money has coincide with the output of manufacturing and agriculture output. It is fined to print money when the manufacturing and agriculture output goes up but when they go down then the money supply that is printed has to go down also. Otherwise if they keep the printing presses of money going when the manufacturing and ag down there is going to be inflation with the result that prices of goods are going to go up. So what are we doing here in the U.S. Sending our manufacturing over seas and printing money like its going out of style. No wonder there is economic trouble here and going to get worst.,
Except that the American economy is doing very well.
The govt always seems to print too much money. It's been doing that for many years.
They don't understand the printing of money and when times allow money to be printed and not printed. For the economy to remain strong the printing of money has coincide with the output of manufacturing and agriculture output. It is fined to print money when the manufacturing and agriculture output goes up but when they go down then the money supply that is printed has to go down also. Otherwise if they keep the printing presses of money going when the manufacturing and ag down there is going to be inflation with the result that prices of goods are going to go up. So what are we doing here in the U.S. Sending our manufacturing over seas and printing money like its going out of style. No wonder there is economic trouble here and going to get worst.,
Funny how someone who claims to know more than all the economists and politicians doesn't seem to know the term "money supply."
They don't understand the printing of money and when times allow money to be printed and not printed. For the economy to remain strong the printing of money has coincide with the output of manufacturing and agriculture output. It is fined to print money when the manufacturing and agriculture output goes up but when they go down then the money supply that is printed has to go down also. Otherwise if they keep the printing presses of money going when the manufacturing and ag down there is going to be inflation with the result that prices of goods are going to go up. So what are we doing here in the U.S. Sending our manufacturing over seas and printing money like its going out of style. No wonder there is economic trouble here and going to get worst.,
I'm afraid you have it backwards. When the economy weakens and there's no inflation problem, the money supply should probably be increased because tightening the money supply will more likely make any economic downturn worse.
The US problem is deficit spending, not the gold standard. It's never going to be fixed as long as 50% of the voting age population essentially pays zero Federal income taxes and the top-0.1% co-opt the other political party to ensure that their tax rate doesn't go up. If we had a broad-based tax hike where everyone has a stake in the system, you'd see the middle class insist on fiscal conservatives in Congress since it's their money that is being spent. It's easy to pull the Bernie "Free Stuff" lever when someone else is paying for it.
The gold standard isn't the problem because we don't use it and should not use it. Deficits have been the problem, but only because they were too small during the first few years of the recovery from the Great Recession and prevented a much faster recovery.
It's ridiculous to say half the American adults pay zero income tax because they pay Social Security/Medicare tax, which is essentially the same thing and has the same economic effects.
The problem with self-identified fiscal conservatives is their fiscal irresponsibility and radicalism. No Republican president has balanced the budget since Eisenhower, our most liberal postwar Republican, while two Democrats have -- Bill Clinton, who was fiscally like Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson, our most liberal postwar president (introduced Medicare, Medicaid, new welfare programs). Coincidentally, we had the fastest real economic growth during the Johnson administration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
