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.
What are you talking about? If I have a farm on 100 acres that used to produce 1,000 bushels of corn per year, but with new technology can now produce 2,000 bushels of corn per year, I am not depleting the resources available.
The global economy is not zero sum. I'm sorry that you believe that to be true, but from an economics perspective it's just simply not the case and is a fallacy peddled by socialists and other charlatans.
Are you going to give those 2K bushels away for free? Or will you produce 2K bushels just to sell cheaper stealing away someone else's market share and putting them out of business?
If you going to sell those 2K bushels at stable price, then there needs to be more demand. There needs to be more people to buy. More people equals more over population.
Are you going to give those 2K bushels away for free? Or will you produce 2K bushels just to sell cheaper stealing away someone else's market share and putting them out of business?
If you going to sell those 2K bushels at stable price, then there needs to be more demand. There needs to be more people to buy. More people equals more over population.
? There is more population. What reality are you living in?
I have to push back on this. As a whole, boomers aren't wealthy. In fact, their children are probably multiple times more wealthy on a given day.
Plus, money alone does not define wealth. There are other factors like life experience. For example, someone, near the end of their life, who has $1 mil but had to save every penny and couldn't travel around the world is not as wealthy as someone with less money, but is worldly.
Here's the counterpoint.
" Age 55+ is the wealthiest age cohort - EVER"
Their children will be wealthy when they inherit, but right now, the over-55 group has the money.
? There is more population. What reality are you living in?
Stop trying to sound tough on the internet. There isnt that much more population growth that we need to double our corn production. Most of the food we grow gets wasted anyways. Unless you plan on being paid to feed all those illegal immigrants Pres. Bidenflation is housing. You do write like someone who supports those policy. Try reading what I write in its entirety and not just picking a single phrase you think gives you an attack angle.
LOL at you passively calling me a socialist. You want the planet to handle our population being doubled or more just so you can meet forecasted corn sales. You think you can increase yields without sacrificing something else for it. Move to California or anywhere in the desert southwest and start farming. They will love you.
So um... how many of anti-Federal Reserve people actually have extensive experience and thorough knowledge of how the banking industry works (apart from just reading propaganda from pundits)?
No, you don't know the industry works. You just know what you know from carefully curated political articles.
So um... how many of anti-Federal Reserve people actually have extensive experience and thorough knowledge of how the banking industry works (apart from just reading propaganda from pundits)?
No, you don't know the industry works. You just know what you know from carefully curated political articles.
Because its an unnecessarily convoluted and unnecessary scheme of shifting accountability, purpose, and participation so no one can pin purview on any one person or group.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild is famously quoted for saying:
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Its a zero sum game, unless you playing a board game. We live on a finite planet with finite resources/assets.
Wealth creation by the govt can only be for benefitting society as a whole, and not propping up private individual's failed speculations. Govt/taxpayers should control money supply. Bankers do not need to be the middle man who decides who gets what and then charge everyone. You can just literally give it out like stimulus. The populace will spend it, save it, speculate where they want it.
Expansion of the economy? Expansion by just increasing the price of the same thing over and over again is just increasing the nominal denomination of the total currency floating around out there. There is no value/utility in it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad debt
This is why you will never be wealthy. Just because the physical resources are finite, doesn't mean the output is finite. If I find a way to use the same resources that you have, but can do 2x the work output per hour, I have increased the overall productivity in the system. It is NOT a zero sum game.
Are you two talking about the same thing? Are you talking about the actual currency dollars being zero sum or are you talking about expansion of GDP/wealth?
Actual currency IS finite. Much like any accounting ledger, there only exists so many dollars in the world unless the fed "prints" more which they are constantly doing. To counteract the printing all the fed has to do is mark a negative on their ledger (federal deficit).
Now if you're talking about wealth creation and expansion of GDP then that is independent of actual currency creation. You don't need to print more currency to expand GDP or create wealth. If someone buys a robot to automate their bread baking process, the robot in theory should return a greater value to the owner in terms of more dollars than they initially used to build the robot. In this case, the bread should be cheaper to produce and could sell for less than handmade bread from the local baker. This provides value to the buyer who now has more capital to spend elsewhere.
A perfect example is computers and the internet. We saw a hugeeee internet bubble because ALL industries benefitted from the invention of the internet. It changed everything from communication to supply chains to market reach. It allowed so many companies to unlock more sales and made business operations far cheaper.
In essence, labor and market efficiencies can unlock additional wealth and expand GDP without the need for more dollars.
So um... how many of anti-Federal Reserve people actually have extensive experience and thorough knowledge of how the banking industry works (apart from just reading propaganda from pundits)?
No, you don't know the industry works. You just know what you know from carefully curated political articles.
You mean a financial system that's unnecessarily highly complicated and convoluted? Especially for a currency that is almost completely generated out of thin air without any physical commodity backing it?
You mean a financial system that's unnecessarily highly complicated and convoluted? Especially for a currency that is almost completely generated out of thin air without any physical commodity backing it?
Why would a commodity backed currency be better? It doesn't solve the liquidity issues that caused the Depression, and, in fact, makes them worse. At current gold prices, US gold reserves are worth somewhere around $450 billion. That's nowhere near enough to fully back currency in circulation, let alone the number of dollars in bank accounts.
Without the Federal Reserve, banks could not lend as much as they do now, since cash reserves would have to be higher to cover potential cash withdrawals. The Fed is providing the lubrication that makes our economy possible, while helping to reduce the swings that caused the booms and panics common in the 1800's.
Why would a commodity backed currency be better? It doesn't solve the liquidity issues that caused the Depression, and, in fact, makes them worse. At current gold prices, US gold reserves are worth somewhere around $450 billion. That's nowhere near enough to fully back currency in circulation, let alone the number of dollars in bank accounts.
Without the Federal Reserve, banks could not lend as much as they do now, since cash reserves would have to be higher to cover potential cash withdrawals. The Fed is providing the lubrication that makes our economy possible, while helping to reduce the swings that caused the booms and panics common in the 1800's.
Because a PHYSICAL-based monetary system (similar to bartering) is just seems more honest than the fiat currency we currently that only exists as 1s and 0s that the Fed and other Central Banks can print and manipulate on a whim.
The amount of currency in circulation and in bank accounts should not really have existed in the first place since it is not really "real"...
Maybe the banks (via fractional reserve banking) should not have been allowed to lend as much as they currently do.
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.
