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 people just don't get it. Public Debt =/= Private Debt. It isn't something that is "paid off."
Public Debt is an accounting notation for currency creation.
Correct! The government has to spend in deficit to grow the economy.
World Wide Demand is considered, but has nothing to do with the ability of the Fed to make interest rates higher or lower.
False. Intragovernmental asset swaps are just accounting notations for an exchange of funds. It's all meaningless to you and I. It doesn't come out of your paycheck.
Unlike your parents, the Federal government does have unlimited money. It has its own money tree.
There is a significant, crucial difference between public debt and private debt.
Insults again? Running out of credible arguments...
Yes there was... where did that $200 come from?!?!
The government issued it as a debt sometime in the last 200+ years.
More insults?
Quote:
You people just don't get it. Public Debt =/= Private Debt. It isn't something that is "paid off."
Public Debt is an accounting notation for currency creation.
You didn't answer anything with your response. You're basically saying that debt is irrelevant. You clearly have a remedial undertanding of what you're trying to discuss...not only of economics but also history in general. Tons of other countries are autonomous currency producers and guess what...they have massive inflation when they suggest what you're saying. Have you every heard of Weimar Germany? Maybe they could've just printed more money to pay for their social programs.
Further...if you follow your logic, taxation is worthless because we can just print money to pay for anything we want. Isn't that right? Why not lower the tax rate to 1%? The federal receipts are irrelevant based on what you've said above and throughout this hopelessly ignorant diatribe.
You people just don't get it. Public Debt =/= Private Debt. It isn't something that is "paid off."
That isnt your argument at all, you're argument is that without increasing debt, you cant have growth, which of course is ridiculous.
If I pay you $100 to cut my grass, this doesnt take federal debt to facilitate the transaction.
No more than if you buy a $100 off of me, does it take now $200 in debt. it takes currency in circulation but increasing debt, does not create an incentive for me to suddenly pay you to cut my grass..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Public Debt is an accounting notation for currency creation.
no its not.. its an accounting notation to devalue currency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
[b][i][u]Correct! The government has to spend in deficit to grow the economy.
The federal government controls a very small % of the nations GDP.. to pretend that it takes federal spending to stimulate, while ignoring the other % of the economy, is complete ignorance and arrogance..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
World Wide Demand is considered, but has nothing to do with the ability of the Fed to make interest rates higher or lower.
World wide demand dictates the demand to pay more, otherwise investors wouldnt buy our debt, they'd go elsewhere.
You seem to at one point, argue that taxes are immaterial, and then in the next, claim that selling debt, isnt a supply/demand issue, but both cant be true. You are just rambling nonsense..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
False. Intragovernmental asset swaps are just accounting notations for an exchange of funds. It's all meaningless to you and I. It doesn't come out of your paycheck.
Actually it does. They are unfunded liabilities that at some point, people expect to be paid back. Its money that comes out of the federal budgets, by way of repaying the previously purchased debt, and this money then gets paid for by taxes.
Again, you constantly prove you dont know what you are talking about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Unlike your parents, the Federal government does have unlimited money. It has its own money tree.
no it doesnt. Its limited by the ability to sell debt. lots of countries believed your theories were true..
Zimbabwe for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
There is a significant, crucial difference between public debt and private debt.
That would be false, because public debt interest rates dictate private debt interest rates, and the ability, incentive to take risks. Its this risk, and return for rewards which grows economies, not taking from the middle class to give to the underclass to give them an incentive to not produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Insults again? Running out of credible arguments...
Or just tired of replying to 5 year old responses of ignorance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Yes there was... where did that $200 come from?!?!
Ones pocket created by production. If I go to work and earn $100, this doesnt require the government to create $100 in debt so I can get paid. You claiming otherwise, is asinine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
The government issued it as a debt sometime in the last 200+ years.
There is a difference between money in circulation and debt...
Currency in circulation is issued by the Federal Reserve, not the Government
Why dont you educate yourself rather than embarrassing yourself..
You didn't answer anything with your response. You're basically saying that debt is irrelevant. You clearly have a remedial undertanding of what you're trying to discuss...not only of economics but also history in general. Tons of other countries are autonomous currency producers and guess what...they have massive inflation when they suggest what you're saying. Have you every heard of Weimar Germany? Maybe they could've just printed more money to pay for their social programs.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Federal debt = U.S. dollar creation. How many times do I have to repeat it?
No, tons of other countries had massive inflation because of political instability or owing foreign-denominated debt. It had nothing to do with "money printing." Printing money is not the core cause of inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICITIESTITAN
Further...if you follow your logic, taxation is worthless because we can just print money to pay for anything we want. Isn't that right? Why not lower the tax rate to 1%? The federal receipts are irrelevant based on what you've said above and throughout this hopelessly ignorant diatribe.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying.
Taxation is not required to "fund" the government. Taxation is required to preserve the currency by deflating it. We tax to deflate and redistribute. We could abolish taxes but that would need steep interest rate hikes to increase the demand for money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Sounds like a quote right out of "Economics for dummies who will believe anything".
Federal debt = U.S. dollar creation. How many times do I have to repeat it?
You can repeat it as many times as dollars in federal debt which exists, but that doesnt make it true.
As of July 2013, there was only $1.2 Trillion in circulation,
As of Jan 2015, there was $1.29 trillion in circulation, so an increase of only 90 Billion, while we've increased federal debt by 1 trillion dollars.
If your "theory" was true, we'd have $18 trillion in circulation. One has NOTHING to do with the other.
That isnt your argument at all, you're argument is that without increasing debt, you cant have growth, which of course is ridiculous.
Correct. There is no economic growth without money creation. Let's recap:
GDP = Federal Spending + Private Sector Consumption and Investment + Net Exports
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If I pay you $100 to cut my grass, this doesnt take federal debt to facilitate the transaction.
No more than if you buy a $100 off of me, does it take now $200 in debt. it takes currency in circulation but increasing debt, does not create an incentive for me to suddenly pay you to cut my grass..
Correct. Now we are getting somewhere.
Where did that $200 come from? It was created as a debt sometime in the last 200+ years. The Federal government issued trillions of orders to the banks to increase the value in the checking accounts they hold. It created more money (spending) than it destroyed (taxes). About $18 trillion worth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
no its not.. its an accounting notation to devalue currency
That doesn't even make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The federal government controls a very small % of the nations GDP.. to pretend that it takes federal spending to stimulate, while ignoring the other % of the economy, is complete ignorance and arrogance..
Other sectors of the economy have no money if it was never created...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
World wide demand dictates the demand to pay more, otherwise investors wouldnt buy our debt, they'd go elsewhere.
That has to do with "full faith and credit" of the currency issued. That is a function of political stability, not currency "value." Ask Japan about their bond ratings with yens in the quadrillions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You seem to at one point, argue that taxes are immaterial, and then in the next, claim that selling debt, isnt a supply/demand issue, but both cant be true. You are just rambling nonsense..
Taxes are not immaterial. They just aren't used to "fund" the government. Taxes are not the point of origin for U.S. dollars, nor does the U.S. need any taxes to pay bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Actually it does. They are unfunded liabilities that at some point, people expect to be paid back. Its money that comes out of the federal budgets, by way of repaying the previously purchased debt, and this money then gets paid for by taxes.
No, people invest in Federal debt on the full faith and credit that their bank accounts will be credited with a stable currency. Poof! Poof! Poof!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Again, you constantly prove you dont know what you are talking about
No, I'm quite thorough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
no it doesnt. Its limited by the ability to sell debt. lots of countries believed your theories were true..
The United States is not limited by its ability to sell debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Zimbabwe for example.
Zimbabwe is not as politically stable as the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
That would be false, because public debt interest rates dictate private debt interest rates, and the ability, incentive to take risks. Its this risk, and return for rewards which grows economies, not taking from the middle class to give to the underclass to give them an incentive to not produce.
...getting off topic here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Or just tired of replying to 5 year old responses of ignorance
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ones pocket created by production. If I go to work and earn $100, this doesnt require the government to create $100 in debt so I can get paid. You claiming otherwise, is asinine
There is a difference between money in circulation and debt...
No, there is not.
Public Debt = Private Sector Wealth + Foreign Sector Holdings of U.S. Debt
Add up the amount of U.S. dollar denominated assets held worldwide, and it will total the Public Debt. (You might want to research "sectoral balances")
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Currency in circulation is issued by the Federal Reserve, not the Government
Why dont you educate yourself rather than embarrassing yourself..
The Federal Reserve is the Central Bank of the United States. It is an independent entity within the government. The Federal Reserve, like the United States, cannot go bankrupt.
No, tons of other countries had massive inflation because of political instability or owing foreign-denominated debt. It had nothing to do with "money printing." Printing money is not the core cause of inflation.
Correct. There is no economic growth without money creation. Let's recap:
Wong.. There is no economic growth without money being circulated..
If I have $100 in my pocket and cut my own grass, this creates $0 increase in the GDP, but if I decide to spend it and pay you to do it, it increases the GDP by $100.
It didnt need the creation of new money to cause economic activity..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Where did that $200 come from? It was created as a debt sometime in the last 200+ years. The Federal government issued trillions of orders to the banks to increase the value in the checking accounts they hold. It created more money (spending) than it destroyed (taxes). About $18 trillion worth...
WRONG, there is only $1.29 trillion in circulation.
ooh I'm done with you.. You just make things up as you go along and its all WRONG...
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.
