U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2011, 07:56 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 36,007,194 times
Reputation: 12726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
What most of you don't seem to understand is :

* The monetary base, the money supply takes the form of US bonds. When you pay that down, it means that monetary "velocity" must go up. Monetary "velocity" is like handing out keys to a locker of the monetary base. What this means is that the only way new money can be created is with more bank loans.

* Banks do not invest directly in capital creation. That is what VC funding and angel investors do. Banks will only make large loans for assets.

* We are at asset saturation, thus there is not enough asset equity to creat new loans.

* If we had enough asset equity, no one wants to invest in capital which are tools, factories and inventions made by humans.

* That means all new money will be "invested" in what classical economists called economic rents. This is land, minerals and monopoly. Since these cannot expand to the incoming money supply, its only drives up the cost of doing business and shrinking the economy further.

VC capital = investing in hot dog making machine = more hot dogs


Bank loans for buying land underneath hot dog stand = higher interest and higher prices for hot dogs which will slide the amount of hotdogs down the quantity demanded curve....or extreme austerity and down the spirals of subsistence we go.



Why did you think they created economic theory in the first place in France? Its because the landed gentry controlled all the wealth and with mortgage equities at their lowest since WWII, its the same thing.

Bye bye America....
This really needs to be a new thread. However, I disagree with what you are proposing about the only way new money is created. I think this is one of the reasons we are starting wars and then "nation building". That, along with foreign aid, spreads dollars around the globe and make it more likely for those dollars to become more commonly used as a "reserve currency", even in third world nations.

Fiat money systems are destined to fail and all but the British Sterling have fallen much faster than our current US dollar. A return to a sound monetary system with sound money would go a very long way to fixing our current system, as it would in Europe, if that were really the goal. But, it is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2011, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,094 posts, read 99,210,314 times
Reputation: 31569
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
What is food stamps...80 billion a year or so? LOL....yea, that'll work.
The farmers will never go for it, and they vote Republican.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
  • For thousands of years, charities, churches and families helped the less fortunate.
Yes, and it didn't work too well. The problem with private charity, which I contribute to myself, is that there is no steady stream of income. Now, when the need is the greatest, contributions are down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 07:40 AM
 
4,414 posts, read 3,239,674 times
Reputation: 2319
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Why did they decline Obamas $4T cut in favor of the REpug $2T cut? seems actions are far more valuable than the rhetoric
Because the Obama cuts also included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Only a blind partisan can't see from this that that our "representatives" are not actually concerned about the debt. It's a red herring of giant proportions. They simply want keep the wealth moving upwards and remove what's left of a safety net for the middle and poor.

Last edited by Mr. Mon; 11-18-2011 at 08:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,237 posts, read 13,403,999 times
Reputation: 5915
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Yes, the Tea Party has a plan of its own to cut $9 Trillion from the federal budget. Rep. King explains the extensive list :

What's In Tea Party's Spending Plan? - Fox News Video - Fox News

Exclusive: Tea Party Would Cut $9 Trillion - US News and World Report

36 page report here:

http://blogs.freedomworks.org/files/TeaPartyBudget.pdf
Now I see why the Dems are against it, I would be also. Tea Party there is no such thing, they are the GOP, plain and simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 08:10 AM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,192,366 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Golly, I didn't know that the National Endowment to approve attacks on Christ got that much money per year. In fact the $9 trillion is for 10 years which makes it about $900 billion per year. I believe that the NEA cut seems more logical when you look at from the proper angle. You are one of those who thinks that money for showing Christ or his cross in human urine is giving it to an artist, aren't you?
From that perspective, cutting $900 billion per year gets us back to the level of spending of the last Bush budget. That doesn't sound so radical to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 08:13 AM
 
Location: NC
6,034 posts, read 7,226,952 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
From that perspective, cutting $900 billion per year gets us back to the level of spending of the last Bush budget. That doesn't sound so radical to me.
The cut doesn't work like that.... They are just playing with numbers. The cuts are loaded to the back end and much of it is based on money they would like to spend, but won't.

All this is a moot point, by 2018 or so we will be running 4-5trillion deficits and the interest will cause a reset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 08:15 AM
 
35 posts, read 13,445 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Now I see why the Dems are against it, I would be also. Tea Party there is no such thing, they are the GOP, plain and simple.


Unless they cut the military budget in half by closing all of our bases on foreign lands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,552,890 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Assuming that was all spent on the things we do now, and our economy is the size it is now?

No, we couldn't. We'd devalue the currency at $10 trillion / year.

I'm not arguing that the dollar has an infinite capacity to absorb public debt. I'm arguing that by focusing only on public debt and ignoring private debt, you're ignoring the bulk of the problem. You're not really solving anything unless you address banks, and the volume of debt that they are creating, too, and the methods by which they create it.

This is why it is so maddeningly frustrating to watch the Tea Party get upset over debt, but then completely ignore any problem policy that has been causing excessive private debt.
No i see the problem as the public debt. when we spend 1.6 trillion dollars a year more than we take in it will affect private debt .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,552,890 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Now I see why the Dems are against it, I would be also. Tea Party there is no such thing, they are the GOP, plain and simple.
The Dems are agianst it because it cuts 9 trillion without rasing taxes. It snoiw a pissing contest the Dems say you have to raise taxes the republicans say you do not
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,237 posts, read 13,403,999 times
Reputation: 5915
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
The Dems are agianst it because it cuts 9 trillion without rasing taxes. It snoiw a pissing contest the Dems say you have to raise taxes the republicans say you do not
I was saying would have to raise taxes when Bush was in office, we need to remove ALL the tax cuts or even better go to a Flat or Consumption Tax, then the money needed would be there. Cuts do need to be made but not until after we remove the waste and fraud first. The funny thing is how Partisan the GOP cuts always are and they are always the same things, those THEY adtheir OWNERS do not want, you know pesky things like the EPA. Unil the GOP and Dems learn to Both compromise nothing will get done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top