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.
No it isn't. You cannot talk about debt unless you can qualify the debt. National debt as a concept confounds several types of debt. Its even worse when its compared to Greece which is more like a foreign debt denominated in a foreign currency.
We've come full circle. Greece has more payables than receivables. More than they could possibly balance, and started paying their debt with future receivables + interest, rendering them bankrupt. They somehow believed they could sustain such a debt load endlessly. How'd that work out for them?
If someone owed you $10 .... if you had a choice, which would you choose ... ten silver dollars, or ten federal reserve paper notes" ?
I'll take the one with more buying power. You, like most Austrian style economists, confuse savings(actual goods) with the power to issue credit(the lead backed currency pointing at my head).
Do not start an argument about which I would prefer. I am simply describing the bitter reality I tend to hate.
I would also like to point out that the original money ponzi scheme was invented by gold smiths.
I'm tired of hearing about absurd progressionomics with the "hook line and sinker" cast out for anyone gullible enough to take a bite.
Never knew that Milton Friedman, much less Ben Benarke were progressives.
Quantitative easing is in effect a monetarist policy (remember Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of free market economists) that increases the supply of money.
We've come full circle. Greece has more payables than receivables. More than they could possibly balance, and started paying their debt with future receivables + interest, rendering them bankrupt. They somehow believed they could sustain such a debt load endlessly. How'd that work out for them?
Its the nature of the debt, not the amount of debt. A grand child that owes grandma a million vs $10 to Vinny, the loan shark differs wouldn't you say? Also wouldn't a debt from Vinny, the loan shark who could break your legs be worth more than that grand child's gandma? People might even start trading with it. That is when debt become fungible and used as money.
I'd love to create a system where all money is not created as debt. Can't do that when people have no idea that's how it works.
Are we talking about a budget deficit or the national debt? The topic suggests one, but the course the thread has taken suggests the other.
Having NO national debt would require calling in all US Savings Bonds. I don't know if we really want to do that.
That being said, I don't think we'd hurt ourselves pulling it down a little, say $15 trillion or so.
They could pay off the national debt tomorrow by issuing coins from the treasury. People would then pour money into every store of value they could find. Then, if da guberment decided to do so, could raise taxes significantly and inflation would disappear. Chaotic indeed, but that could all be done.
Huh? You mean da guberment cannot make 10 IOUS and two people cannot use it as money where they both make profits?
You can use a bar napkin as an IOU .... and those are not "money".
A verbal promise can be an IOU, and talking isn't money.
A prostitute can exchange a %^% for gram of coke, but %^^% isn't money.
So no ... IOUs are not money ... they are promises to pay money.
The US Paper Dollar in 1960 was a promise to pay the bearer 1 silver dollar, and you could go to ANY bank and exchange that piece of paper for a hard Silver Dollar. Now, wouldn't it be nice if you could go to the bank this afternoon and exchange your $1 federal reserve note for a Silver Dollar? Go ask them to, and watch their faces make strange faces.
But, but, but, but ..... there are no buts .... just dumb arses.
I'll take the one with more buying power. You, like most Austrian style economists, confuse savings(actual goods) with the power to issue credit(the lead backed currency pointing at my head).
Do not start an argument about which I would prefer. I am simply describing the bitter reality I tend to hate.
I would also like to point out that the original money ponzi scheme was invented by gold smiths.
The gold smiths had something of value, and currency was just a representation of that something. Paper and coin were far easier to carry than gold and silver. It can be metal, products, services...etc It becomes a ponzi scheme when you remove the "something of value" from the mix. The world bankers are printing a representation of a "pseudo-something" rather than having an actual "something" represented. This is WHEN IT BECOMES A PONZI SCHEME.
Money in itself is not a ponzi scheme. You hold 1 ounce of gold, you give it to the bank and they give you paper that represents your 1 ounce of gold. You buy products with your paper, and in theory the person you paid should be able to go to your bank and withdraw an amount of gold equal to the paper (the gold standard.) Our current system was based on the gold standard, except now we don't have any gold to back it. Ponzi
This doesn't mean that we can't spend our paper in a balanced way. It's only because of the lack of "something" backing it that value has become arbitrary, almost meaningless.
You can use a bar napkin as an IOU .... and those are not "money".
A verbal promise can be an IOU, and talking isn't money.
A prostitute can exchange a %^% for gram of coke, but %^^% isn't money.
So no ... IOUs are not money ... they are promises to pay money.
The US Paper Dollar in 1960 was a promise to pay the bearer 1 silver dollar, and you could go to ANY bank and exchange that piece of paper for a hard Silver Dollar. Now, wouldn't it be nice if you could go to the bank this afternoon and exchange your $1 federal reserve note for a Silver Dollar? Go ask them to, and watch their faces make strange faces.
But, but, but, but ..... there are no buts .... just dumb arses.
We went over this. You believe precious metal backed currencies matter most. I believe lead(and depleted uranium) backed currencies matter most whether I like it or not. It was the latter that broke Bretton Woods. Now since US hegemony is in question, we are looking at precious metals again. We should never have broken Bretton Woods. That alone would have helped box in the FED.
However gold would still be valued as money beyond its commodity value. If a lead backed currency returns, gold would lose value. Gold is still a function of debt. The internationals all had the gold but were screwed.
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.
