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.
An alternative place to look is what we did during the civil war. We printed money without runaway inflation.
ah, but we did have inflation.
War affects a country's economy. Government spending for weapons and supplies causes a rise in demand for other goods. Workers who leave jobs and go off to war cause a decrease in supply. As a result, prices rise quickly. This is called inflation. In the Civil War, economic inflation was a problem in the North. But it was even worse in the South.
2 The Southern states owned about one-third of the wealth in the United States. Most of the money in the South was tied up in land and slaves. Southerners had very little cash or gold available to buy things they needed. This was true of the Southern government as well. The South tried to finance the war through bonds and treasury notes-paper without any gold or money to support it. In May 1861, one dollar's worth of gold cost $1.10 in Richmond, Virginia. By January 1864, one dollar's worth of gold cost $20.
3 As the war carried on without end, the Southern government printed more money. Too much money in circulation caused prices to rise. Shortages of food and supplies forced the rate of inflation higher. A Richmond newspaper estimated that it cost $6.55 in 1860 to feed a small family. In 1863, it was estimated to cost $68.25 to feed the same family.
too much money always causes devaluation of the money and inflation every time, including zimbabwe.
Anybody notice the jobs reports since the Repubs took over the House? Hmmm ........
Well how can they do anything when the Senate shoots it down? Thought Obama was the one strong enough to actually make some good happen. Guess not. Loving how those bipartisian debt talks are going.
An alternative place to look is what we did during the civil war. We printed money without runaway inflation.
Well look what Germany did after World War 1 in regards to this:
After World War I, Germany was forced to pay war reparations of about $33 billion. It was virtually impossibly for the nation to produce that much actual output, so the government's only choice was to print more and more money, none of which was backed by gold. This resulted in some of the worst inflation ever recorded. By late 1923, it took 42 billion German marks to buy one U.S. cent! It took 726 billion marks to buy something that had cost just one mark in 1919. HowStuffWorks "How Currency Works"
What liberals don't want to realize, is that if government spending equates success, then Zimbabwe's the most successful country on Earth.
An alternative place to look is what we did during the civil war. We printed money without runaway inflation.
ah, but we did have inflation.
inflation yes but runaway inflation no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
War affects a country's economy. Government spending for weapons and supplies causes a rise in demand for other goods. Workers who leave jobs and go off to war cause a decrease in supply. As a result, prices rise quickly. This is called inflation. In the Civil War, economic inflation was a problem in the North. But it was even worse in the South.
2 The Southern states owned about one-third of the wealth in the United States. Most of the money in the South was tied up in land and slaves. Southerners had very little cash or gold available to buy things they needed. This was true of the Southern government as well. The South tried to finance the war through bonds and treasury notes-paper without any gold or money to support it. In May 1861, one dollar's worth of gold cost $1.10 in Richmond, Virginia. By January 1864, one dollar's worth of gold cost $20.
Over printing and foreign banks only accepting gold will do that. What gold that there was, was probably used to buy foreign goods with and so it became far scarcer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
3 As the war carried on without end, the Southern government printed more money. Too much money in circulation caused prices to rise. Shortages of food and supplies forced the rate of inflation higher. A Richmond newspaper estimated that it cost $6.55 in 1860 to feed a small family. In 1863, it was estimated to cost $68.25 to feed the same family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
too much money always causes devaluation of the money and inflation every time, including zimbabwe.
Yes but the place I cited didn’t print too much money and there wasn’t runaway inflation. With some inflation (true inflation not stagflation) comes a devaluation of our debts and full employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
there are no magic beans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
Well look what Germany did after World War 1 in regards to this:
After World War I, Germany was forced to pay war reparations of about $33 billion. It was virtually impossibly for the nation to produce that much actual output, so the government's only choice was to print more and more money, none of which was backed by gold. This resulted in some of the worst inflation ever recorded. By late 1923, it took 42 billion German marks to buy one U.S. cent! It took 726 billion marks to buy something that had cost just one mark in 1919. HowStuffWorks "How Currency Works"
Here is one to think about. If the post WWI German government had printed less money but given it out as startup capital for businesses and to people to stimulate the economy to grow the economy so that they could’ve paid the war reparations out of a sustainable tax base then there wouldn’t have been runaway inflation.
OVER PRINTING OF MONEY CASES HYPER INFLATION, THE RESPONCIBLE PRINTING OF MONEY DOESN’T.
The fed is trying as hard as it can to get inflation and with it full employment. They are failing because of the structural problems with the economy.
inflation yes but runaway inflation no. Over printing and foreign banks only accepting gold will do that. What gold that there was, was probably used to buy foreign goods with and so it became far scarcer. Yes but the place I cited didn’t print too much money and there wasn’t runaway inflation. With some inflation (true inflation not stagflation) comes a devaluation of our debts and full employment.
Here is one to think about. If the post WWI German government had printed less money but given it out as startup capital for businesses and to people to stimulate the economy to grow the economy so that they could’ve paid the war reparations out of a sustainable tax base then there wouldn’t have been runaway inflation.
OVER PRINTING OF MONEY CASES HYPER INFLATION, THE RESPONCIBLE PRINTING OF MONEY DOESN’T.
The fed is trying as hard as it can to get inflation and with it full employment. They are failing because of the structural problems with the economy.
so you admit that the federal reserve actions have failed?
there is no such thing as responsible printing of currency.
it devalues your money intentionally, and it disrespects your currency. we have a fiat currency, based on TRUST.
all the countries that have tried it have declined. look at japan for another example.
Who is on the hook to pay back that "big government spending" ?
Corporate America owes nothing to American citizens.
A job with corporate America is not a right.
The jobs are going offshore like it or not and it's due to lower labor costs and lower costs of operating a business in another country that won't regulate you to bankruptcy.
Your life is what YOU make it, not what you think someone OWES you.
If big corporations have tossed American workers on the side in favor of low cost offshore labor then Americans need to adjust.
Screw those multi-nationals and go local, go small business, go where they still value Americans.
And I mean that for both labor and buying their goods.
People whine and cry about the offshoring and flock to the stores and still buy the foreign made "stuff".
A bit two faced don't you think ? Talk with your wallet.
The jobs numbers really concern me. Consider this: We need 150k jobs/month just to keep unemployment even. Since at least 2008, we would have needed to create nearly 6M jobs just to keep even. However, we lost at least 8M jobs since 2008 (possibly more). We aren't short 8M.. we are about 14M short.
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.
