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.
Did you read the part about government debt being the new specie of the money supply?
I never said that I wanted to pay off the whole federal debt. I never said that I want to do away with the federal deficits.
But debt does not matter?
Oh.. this whole Europe thing is a scam. Iceland, Spain, Greece. It has nothing to do with debt. They should be spending more and increasing their debt load.
Wrong because we cant spend without taking money out of the economy first..
We know; you don't like the theory, but finer people than you like MiltonFreedman already covered it. You are just making the water more cloudy with fish stink.
Do I need to remind you, again, that the whole promise is the rejection of Say's law which you express in dog bark language.
I believe that economics everywhere up to recent times has been dominated, much more than has
been understood, by the doctrines associated with the name of J.-B. Say. It is true that his 'law of
markets' has been long abandoned by most economists; but they have not extricated themselves
from his basic assumptions and particularly from his fallacy that demand is created by supply. Say
was implicitly assuming that the economic system was always operating up to its full capacity, so
that a new activity was always in substitution for, and never in addition to, some other activity.
Nearly all subsequent economic theory has depended on, in the sense that it has required, this same
assumption. Yet a theory so based is clearly incompetent to tackle the problems of unemployment
and of the trade cycle. Perhaps I can best express to French readers what I claim for this book by
saying that in the theory of production it is a final break-away from the doctrines of J.-B. Say and
that in the theory of interest it is a return to the doctrines of Montesquieu.
J. M.
From his book.....that you didn't read.....
Obviously adding credit to a system not at full capacity would not apply now would it
Quote:
Well dont say something so stupid if you dont want people to find logical problems with your position
Not at all.
Logic is a science that is irrefutable. It does not apply to disputed theories. Look it up in a book called a dictionary.
All the money the US Govt owes is in $US, which the government controls. This is known as debt in sovereign currency.
Weimer Germany owed massive reparations to France and Britain which had to be paid in Francs and Pounds. When they couldn't pay those debts in foreign currencies, those countries stepped in and seized a certain area of land rich in natural resources. The subsequent lack of resources, less than economic demand, resulted in massive inflation of the local currency.
Zimbabwe had a similar experience. They owed some debt in foreign currencies. In their case, Zimbabwe took over privately owned farm land but weren't able to operate it efficiently to produce enough food for the populace. This lead to importing foreign food which they had to pay for with more, mostly borrowed, foreign currency. Again, a mismatch between domestically produced resources and demand drove massive inflation.
This will never happen in the USA in my, or your, lifetime.
American debt is a shelter for the rest of the world. Our credit got downgraded and our rates STILL went down. People actually buy US treasuries at 0% yield.
Some day, it will have to be paid off. Some day, the heat death of the universe will also happen. But these are problems that are a ways off, and balancing the budget is not even top of the list of things that need to be done.
Currently it is the best time for the US to borrow money there ever has been. If the government can borrow at 0% and create >0% in economic growth, it's a no-brainer.
Speaking of no-brainers...
Now that the other nations are no longer "buying" our debt, our own Fed is doing it--in effect, paying the minimum interest on old credit cards by taking out NEW ones. To do this, interest must be kept near zero--making it impossible for future generations to accumulate enough to retire on. The other main effect is that by simply printing fiat currency, all that happens is that the dollar (wages, investments, assets) is worth LESS in buying power, while the government gains wealth.
The only reason the house of cards has lasted this long is because all the other idiot large Socialist nations did the same thing: tried to create wealth out of nothing (printing worthless paper). Since they are doing it even faster, the U.S. is consider "safer" since Europe will fall first. Hardly a good system to build a world economy on; in fact, doomed to catastrophic failure.
The total lack of education in economics continues to amaze me, as do the endless comments from those who know nothing of how the system works. Try reading some Thomas Sowell and George Will, instead of listening to our Pravda media. There's plenty of information out there, for those who know economies have crashed constantly throughout history as a result of the idiotic policies of our self-serving "leaders" today.
We know; you don't like the theory, but finer people than you like MiltonFreedman already covered it.
You dont seem to know anything because I'm actually quite fond of the idea. But the USA will NEVER uphold the theories because they SPEND their surpluses, so stop lying about my position just so you can argue against your imaginy beliefs
I never said that I wanted to pay off the whole federal debt. I never said that I want to do away with the federal deficits.
But debt does not matter?
Oh.. this whole Europe thing is a scam. Iceland, Spain, Greece. It has nothing to do with debt. They should be spending more and increasing their debt load.
Who owns the debt? We have a foreign debt problem, not a national debt problem. Contrast this debt.
All it means is Japanese are savers and have little personal debt..That's why the ratio is so huge. Its little bank credit and lots of government credit. Oh, and its free.
But we can hardly help it with the reserve currency which constantly sucks money out of the country.
Other nations that desire our currency don't send it back which causes a bias for deficits. Its used as money and its a debt.
But what can ya do? Its a paradox beyond most people's ability to understand as they sweep underneath the couch for nickels in their knowledge of finance.
You dont seem to know anything because I'm actually quite fond of the idea. But the USA will NEVER uphold the theories because they SPEND their surpluses, so stop lying about my position just so you can argue against your imaginy beliefs
According to the theory, da guberment is supposed to spend the idle surplus capacity. What you tried to say is that the US does not run surpluses in tax receipts during full economic capacity. You know who did that? That would be under Bush who ran deficits in boom time who should be at the bottom of a river for his crimes. That's really saying something from someone who thinks democrats should be shipped to Saint Helena. But then I hate heretics more than pagans for pagan, gimmie dat liberals, know not anything.
Well toss that, Ruben and Clinton need to be stuffed into an ocean vent.
And I know of your love of broken window economics already.
With all the screaming about dollar devaluations the question I have asked, probably around a 100 times this year, is if this is so important why zero interest rate policy? Does anyone here think that deficts are weaking the currency more than dollar carry trade an zero interest rates?
You seem to be under the same false impression as most, that the controllers of the currency give a crap about a strong dollar, which is a very naive assumption. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't .. it depends on their short term positions, which is decided based on their intentions. Of course, since they control the currency, they control those factors that effect currency value and can reap a killing either way. There is no Good-Bad insofar as currency value is concerned at those levels ... currency value is only important to the consumer/earner, not the investor, who can make just as much profit off a weak dollar as they do a strong one.
But interest rates have very little to do with currency trade and currency valuation directly. The effects are very much indirect, in terms of overall economic activity. This can be proven by the fact that a currency can be devalued arbitrarily, without the need for a manipulation of the interest rates. Interest rates just encourage or discourage investment. The Libor deal, if one carefully analyzes it proved that the controllers of our currency (FED) are just part of a greater cabal that sets interest rates across the board, and that their misconduct and collusion has affected every person alive on earth.
It's still a supply and demand issue, and when supply of Dollars outpaces production, you have inflation .. it's as simple as that. But money creation doesn't really have a tremendous inflationary impact until that money is released into the general economy ... which explains why we don't have out-of-control inflation right now. Much of this tripling of the money supply over the past few years has not found it's way into the general economy, but directed into private holdings.
Instead of having those dollars reinvested into the general economy, most of that money has been held, or used to consolidate valued assets, while those same folks were selling phony assets to everyone else. These gangsters love free money (low or zero interest rates), which is why we have them, because they get first crack at all that new free money and are able to extract maximum value out of each dollar before this money inflates.
Or, I could have just said it's a giant Ponzi Scheme ... and all of the intellectual blathering regarding economic theory goes straight out the window when the fix is in. And the hard cold truth is, the fix has been in all along ... it's just recently become a wholesale orgy of corruption, and unbridled raping and pillaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I also continue to point out that the 27 trillion bubble baked da guberment debt into the cake. It cannot be avoided with assets in negative equity and wage stagnation. How do you have balanced budgets, mortgage, deleveraging and no depression? How? Someone tell me.
You seem to be under the same false impression as most, that the controllers of the currency give a crap about a strong dollar, which is a very naive assumption.
That is your assumption. I am just telling people how we have could have a strong currency. We are now in a currency war, so I quite clearly know powers that be don't want this. That is why Brazil still has capital controls of hot money.
Quote:
Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't .. it depends on their short term positions, which is decided based on their intentions. Of course, since they control the currency, they control those factors that effect currency value and can reap a killing either way. There is no Good-Bad insofar as currency value is concerned at those levels ... currency value is only important to the consumer/earner, not the investor, who can make just as much profit off a weak dollar as they do a strong one.
It also depends on debtor vs creditor among other conditions.
Quote:
But interest rates have very little to do with currency trade and currency valuation directly. The effects are very much indirect, in terms of overall economic activity. This can be proven by the fact that a currency can be devalued arbitrarily, without the need for a manipulation of the interest rates. Interest rates just encourage or discourage investment. The Libor deal, if one carefully analyzes it proved that the controllers of our currency (FED) are just part of a greater cabal that sets interest rates across the board, and that their misconduct and collusion has affected every person alive on earth.
Agreed. Inflation is a function of short term pressures. Cash in a mattress or coming out of the mattress might be the same in number but one chases the goods and services and the other makes a lumpy bed.
Quote:
It's still a supply and demand issue, and when supply of Dollars outpaces production, you have inflation .. it's as simple as that. But money creation doesn't really have a tremendous inflationary impact until that money is released into the general economy ... which explains why we don't have out-of-control inflation right now. Much of this tripling of the money supply over the past few years has not found it's way into the general economy, but directed into private holdings.
Again, they can run a surplus or raise rates. The biggest reason we don't have inflation is the large about of equity saturation. Banks secure loans with assets.
Quote:
Instead of having those dollars reinvested into the general economy, most of that money has been held, or used to consolidate valued assets, while those same folks were selling phony assets to everyone else. These gangsters love free money (low or zero interest rates), which is why we have them, because they get first crack at all that new free money and are able to extract maximum value out of each dollar before this money inflates.
Or, I could have just said it's a giant Ponzi Scheme ... and all of the intellectual blathering regarding economic theory goes straight out the window when the fix is in. And the hard cold truth is, the fix has been in all along ... it's just recently become a wholesale orgy of corruption, and unbridled raping and pillaging.
See last paragraph above.
Oh they love dollar carry trade. They can borrow the reserve currency for nothing. Keep the US economy in the tank and go shopping around the world . Like I said, its a currency war.
According to the theory, da guberment is supposed to spend the idle surplus capacity.
Actually according to the theory, the government is supposed to pay down debt during their surplus capacities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
What you tried to say is that the US does not run surpluses in tax receipts during full economic capacity. You know who did that? That would be under Bush who ran deficits in boom time who should be at the bottom of a river for his crimes.
I never supported Bush increases in spending, but there was no surpluses, not even during the Clinton years, despite left wing kooks claims that there were. But if you think Bush should be at the bottom of the river, then where the hell do you think Obama should be, who's running deficits 500% higher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
That's really saying something from someone who thinks democrats should be shipped to Saint Helena. But then I hate heretics more than pagans for pagan, gimmie dat liberals, know not anything.
Well toss that, Ruben and Clinton need to be stuffed into an ocean vent.
And I know of your love of broken window economics already.
I have no idea what the hell you're babbling about here..
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.
