President Biden's Inflationary Budget Deficits skyrocket 77% with 459 billion printed into the deficit in just 4 months

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by andywire

The USA is one of the few countries that would survive just fine if the global economy were to collapse. The USA produces plenty of food. The USA has ample reserves of vital commodities, particularly oil, natural gas, coal, lumber, etc. Fat, warm (cool in the summer) and happy. The rest of the world, not so much.

And most do NOT know that we are the No.2 manufacturing country in the WORLD!

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKrX0nOXESQ

Next time at least TRY to find a more unbiased source!

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by lovecrowds

They have raised interest rates, but what good does that do to contain inflation when Biden's government had 459 billion dollar deficits in just 4 months up 77% from last year.

No wonder the inflation is surging out of control, they printed 459 billion dollars out of thin-air in the last 4 months.

Um, budget deficits do not cause Monetary Inflation and they certainly do not cause the Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation you are experiencing now.

Hint: The US is not Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or the Wiemar Republic.

Who on this forum would like to know why?

The US is an Open System. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic are/were Closed Systems.

Q: Were the currencies of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic international currencies of trade?
A: Hell no.

Q: Were the currencies of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic international reserve currencies?
A: Hell no.

Q: Did Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic monetize their debt and sell it as marketable securities?
A: Hell no.

Figure it out yet?

It's not quantum physics.

Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic could not spend more money than they collect in revenues unless:

1) they borrowed the money from domestic banks, international banks or the IMF; and/or
2) they physically printed more currency.

The US can spend more money than it collects in revenues because:

1) the US doesn't borrow from domestic or international banks or the IMF; and
2) the US packages its excess spending -- a "deficit" for that month/quarter -- as marketable securities which it sells domestically and internationally.

Marketable securities are not cash.

Marketable securities are an asset like stocks, bonds, a 14th Century Ming Dynasty vase, a Van Gogh painting, or a 1938 Bugatti Type 57C (worth about $750,000).

When you go through McDonald's drive-thru, how do you pay?

Do you pull out your Exacto-knife and cut a little tiny square piece off from your 1,000-Share Microsux stock certificate to pay? Okay, I get that Liberals believe that, but that's not reality.

No. Get it? Cash is an asset but not all assets are cash, ie physical hard currency.

And, that is why it does not cause Monetary Inflation.

Monetary Inflation occurs when the total hard cash in circulation exceeds GDP in a closed system.

You have an open system so you're looking at domestic GDP plus international GDP which is the all global transactions that take place using US Dollars.

When you are capable of understanding that, then you will understand this:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do...gy-Summary.pdf


That's why you're constantly at war and will be for the rest of your natural life --and beyond-- until you get put in your place.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Um, budget deficits do not cause Monetary Inflation and they certainly do not cause the Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation you are experiencing now.

Hint: The US is not Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or the Wiemar Republic.

Who on this forum would like to know why?

The US is an Open System. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic are/were Closed Systems.

Q: Were the currencies of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic international currencies of trade?
A: Hell no.

Q: Were the currencies of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic international reserve currencies?
A: Hell no.

Q: Did Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic monetize their debt and sell it as marketable securities?
A: Hell no.

Figure it out yet?

It's not quantum physics.

Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar Republic could not spend more money than they collect in revenues unless:

1) they borrowed the money from domestic banks, international banks or the IMF; and/or
2) they physically printed more currency.

The US can spend more money than it collects in revenues because:

1) the US doesn't borrow from domestic or international banks or the IMF; and
2) the US packages its excess spending -- a "deficit" for that month/quarter -- as marketable securities which it sells domestically and internationally.

Marketable securities are not cash.

Marketable securities are an asset like stocks, bonds, a 14th Century Ming Dynasty vase, a Van Gogh painting, or a 1938 Bugatti Type 57C (worth about $750,000).

When you go through McDonald's drive-thru, how do you pay?

Do you pull out your Exacto-knife and cut a little tiny square piece off from your 1,000-Share Microsux stock certificate to pay? Okay, I get that Liberals believe that, but that's not reality.

No. Get it? Cash is an asset but not all assets are cash, ie physical hard currency.

And, that is why it does not cause Monetary Inflation.

Monetary Inflation occurs when the total hard cash in circulation exceeds GDP in a closed system.

You have an open system so you're looking at domestic GDP plus international GDP which is the all global transactions that take place using US Dollars.

When you are capable of understanding that, then you will understand this:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do...gy-Summary.pdf


That's why you're constantly at war and will be for the rest of your natural life --and beyond-- until you get put in your place.

Regarding the premise... the US packages its excess spending -- a "deficit" for that month/quarter -- as marketable securities which it sells domestically and internationally

Not always. If that were so, there would be no change on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1.

But we know for a fact that the H.4.1 went from about $1 trillion to $8.48 trillion in just 15 years (since 2008). How does the Federal Reserve pay for pumping that additional money into the economy? They don't. It's just digitally created new money. All it takes is a few key strokes. No one buys any issued debt for the corresponding amount. It was never actually sold. No one paid for it. It was just added to the H.4.1 (assuming they're keeping accurate and legitimate records of all the new money they've created).

The Federal Reserve was supposed to pull a substantial portion of that newly printed money back out of the economy because too much money chasing the same or too few goods, etc. = inflation, which is what we currently have.

Has there been any substantial QT (quantitative tightening), as promised? Not really. Since the supposed QT began mid-year 2022, the Federal Reserve has only shed $500 billion off the H.4.1. Instead, the Federal Reserve has been trying to stop/slow non-government spending by increasing interest rates -- which isn't working all that well, either, and putting a world of hurt on the increasing number of households that have increasingly had to turn to and max out their credit cards to pay for just the basics like food, utilities, rent, etc.

https://www.economist.com/finance-an...25trn-question

[johnsonkk]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Regarding the premise... the US packages its excess spending -- a "deficit" for that month/quarter -- as marketable securities which it sells domestically and internationally

Not always. If that were so, there would be no change on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1.

But we know for a fact that the H.4.1 went from about $1 trillion to $8.48 trillion in just 15 years (since 2008). How does the Federal Reserve pay for pumping that additional money into the economy? They don't. It's just digitally created new money. All it takes is a few key strokes. No one buys any issued debt for the corresponding amount. It was never actually sold. No one paid for it. It was just added to the H.4.1 (assuming they're keeping accurate and legitimate records of all the new money they've created).

The Federal Reserve was supposed to pull a substantial portion of that newly printed money back out of the economy because too much money chasing the same or too few goods, etc. = inflation, which is what we currently have.

Has there been any substantial QT (quantitative tightening), as promised? Not really. Since the supposed QT began mid-year 2022, the Federal Reserve has only shed $500 billion off the H.4.1. Instead, the Federal Reserve has been trying to stop/slow non-government spending by increasing interest rates -- which isn't working all that well, either, and putting a world of hurt on the increasing number of households that have increasingly had to turn to and max out their credit cards to pay for just the basics like food, utilities, rent, etc.

https://www.economist.com/finance-an...25trn-question

And this takes time trying to slow spending. If spending was limitless and debt was “good”, American would be at negative 250% like Iceland was before the economy collapsed..