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 may operate over my head with your debt theory, but at the end of the day, as long as politicians vote to increase taxes and take more of my money from me to pay the debt, the interest on the debt, or to simply spend more, then I will always consider the national debt a problem for me and my pocketbook.
These Far Off In Left Field™ theories about how debt is not debt is just pure looney talk, as if the threat of global collapse due to out of control debt is non-existent.
These aren't leftist theories, they are apolitical modern money descriptions. In fact how leftist is it to recommend reductions or eliminating taxes? Modern money properly understood can thusly help push the leftist agenda of spend, and at the same time of the Right on taxes. And that's key!
If you're trying to claim that paying it off is irrelevant since I just "pay it to myself", you are flat wrong.
When a chunk of my tax money, earned by me with own labor, goes to pay interest on the National Debt (as it does every year), I do not see another dime of it again, ever. Well, maybe a dime, but that's it. Small parts of it go to pay the guy next door, or the 401k of the guy in another town earning interest, or a bank in another state that bought T-bills. Basically I owe it to everyone BUT me.
I do NOT "pay it to myself". When you try to think of people as a collective group that "pay to themselves", you are almost always wrong.
If what you said was valid, we could simply say, "Well, we just owe the National Debt to ourselves, so we can simply repudiate it, announce it has vanished, and no one will be any worse off".
WRONG.
The 401k you have been counting on for your retirement, just went poof. Ditto for the Social Securty payments you were also counting on to help - kiss them good-bye. In fact, next time you stick your bank debit card in the ATM for some cash to fill up your car, you'll see nothing but zeros in the display. That's all gone too... because the government borrowed it all, in racking up its National Debt.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I do NOT owe my part of the National Debt to myself.
Please, please stop listening to the collective-pushers. They are as wrong as the socialists (in fact the two groups are one and the same).
None of this irrelevant. And we need to repudiate nothing.
I listen to no collective voice. As most people have been obviously doing for the last 42 years. (1971)
You are simply not up to date on debt/money when it concerns a post gold std, freely floating exchange rate and monetarily sovereign Gov't. None of what I say relates to debt held by me or you, or businesses or states. Because none of these other entities create the money. We are all currency users, a vastly different situation than for creators. Most people still think conventionally (pre gold std) when it comes to our National Debt, and that's today's tragedy.
None of this irrelevant. And we need to repudiate nothing.
I listen to no collective voice. As most people have been obviously doing for the last 42 years. (1971)
You are simply not up to date on debt/money when it concerns a post gold std, freely floating exchange rate and monetarily sovereign Gov't. None of what I say relates to debt held by me or you, or businesses or states. Because none of these other entities create the money. We are all currency users, a vastly different situation than for creators. Most people still think conventionally (pre gold std) when it comes to our National Debt, and that's today's tragedy.
Isn't that just amazing? We went from the Brettonwood, fixed exchange , gold based international monetary system to a floating free exchange rate and none of their financial economic theory changes? Reminds me of the painful stupidity of when someone informed me that the Fed controls short rates(rip up the text books before 2008 too cause QE means the Fed sets the long rates. The physics changes after drinking fizzy lifting drinks ). It blows my mind. Why not stuff the gas tank full of oats and say "giddy up"? Had Spain actually found El Dorado or if the new Fed chair was Midas would that change the fiscal constraints? Of course you wouldn't want anybody to know the alchemist formula for gold now would you?
Back to out miserable lives in the private debt problem of the goods and services economy and the oligarchs who own it. The last thing y'all need to worry about is if Midas can foot the bill. You ought to worry more that he can and that the banksers keep telling him to pay for their spending sprees and hookers.
Isn't that just amazing? We went from the Brettonwood, fixed exchange , gold based international monetary system to a floating free exchange rate and none of their financial economic theory changes? Reminds me of the painful stupidity of when someone informed me that the Fed controls short rates(rip up the text books before 2008 too cause QE means the Fed sets the long rates. The physics changes after drinking fizzy lifting drinks ). It blows my mind. Why not stuff the gas tank full of oats and say "giddy up"? Had Spain actually found El Dorado or if the new Fed chair was Midas would that change the fiscal constraints? Of course you wouldn't want anybody to know the alchemist formula for gold now would you?
Back to out miserable lives in the private debt problem of the goods and services economy and the oligarchs who own it. The last thing y'all need to worry about is if Midas can foot the bill. You ought to worry more that he can and that the banksers keep telling him to pay for their spending sprees and hookers.
You are an amazing writer! Do I have to pay a copyright fee if I quote you?
You are an amazing writer! Do I have to pay a copyright fee if I quote you?
While some of her points may hold some value, she's a Far Out In Left Field™ follower of unconventional monetary debt theory that literally no one on this planet with any amount of official fiscal responsibility adheres to. Whether they should or not, who knows.
You may operate over my head with your debt theory, but at the end of the day, as long as politicians vote to increase taxes and take more of my money from me to pay the debt, the interest on the debt, or to simply spend more, then I will always consider the national debt a problem for me and my pocketbook.
These Far Off In Left Field™ theories about how debt is not debt is just pure looney talk, as if the threat of global collapse due to out of control debt is non-existent.
At the end of the day, for the last 20 year, I have read economists and economic history particularly before the 20th century. The final key to it was Ecclesiastes where I knew everything under the sun was already done. It makes it easy to control for BS, and look empirically that the US has carried debt since Jackson and yet nearly 200 years later you see an imminent danger because of finances. Its ignorance, including your "leftist" rubber stamps, that is the danger.
Debt is not just debt.
Debt to self( see Fed and agency of da guberment)
Debt to relatives
Debt to strangers
Debt to foreigners
Debt in commodities you own( covered call anyone? Cyprus owes in copper? The governor of Amphipolis owes in gold? Mind if I owe you in silver as the owner of the Huaran mine?)
Debt it commodities they own( and can monopolize. I suggest Chevrolet doesn't owe you a ride in a Ford )
Debt in commodities a 3rd party owns.
(think a debt in salted ocean fish in the Dakotas is the same in Iceland do ya ?)
Debt in money you print
Debt in money they print.
Debt in money someone else prints.
Debt in plays I write( The debt of Cervantes to his creditors)
Debt in plays you write( I'll never be able to pay)
Debt in plays a third party writes( Does he like my cooking? Does he like my dancing? If not or if so is it an easier debt to pay)
Debt in this , debt in that and to whom? Debt nets to zero.
What if every person held 1 trillion in US Treasuries?
Why that would be a 300+ trillion dollar national debt oh my...
netting to zero...
I plan on spending the rest of my life laughing at people who talk about Japans debt to GDP ratio.The biggest cause is they don't go into personal debt....oh my.
It's returning, but very slowly. This is because the private sector refuses to do significant hiring -- they don't see a benefit in doing so.
Why don't you hire people? Put another mortgage on your home and pay people to run in circles in your backyard. Essentially, that's what you want businesses to do.
No, she's a Far Out In Left Field™ follower of unconventional monetary debt theory that literally no one on this planet with any amount of official fiscal responsibility adheres to.
THE third scheme of robbery was that of contracting the currency by destroying the greenbacks. In pursuance of this plan the act of April 12, 1866, was passed whereby it was provided that a regular and systematic cremation of greenbacks should take place.
Let it be remembered that upon this government money the greenback, the people did not pay interest. It was backed by the government, which made it safe and reliable, and issued in sums convenient for small as well as large business transactions. The money monger, with $1,000 in greenbacks, had found it necessary to employ that money in order to derive any profit from it. This added to his care, which apparently was the very thing he sought to avoid ; investments in commerce and manufacturing required his personal supervision ; investments in houses and land incurred taxation, risks, and often loss ; but investment in bonds seemed quite suited to his esthetical tastes, for they returned a rich golden harvest, without any of the annoyances of taxation, insurance or even the care of looking after his investments.
Is it any wonder he hailed with joy the contraction policy, and gladly gave his $1,000 in greenbacks (to be consigned to the furnace), in exchange for a $1,000 untaxed, interest-bearing bond ? But what of labor seeking employment ? Shylock has invested his property in bonds, he has no need of labor ; true, labor must pay the interest on his bonds, but he has no employment for it. While this $1,000 was in government money it could have given two men employment in some profitable business ; but with his money invested in bonds, he kicks labor into the street and growls about the inefficiency of the tramp law. He does nothing whatever to advance the interests of labor, but drains its life-blood in payment of his everlasting interest. By investing the $1,000 in bonds it is taken from circulation. There is $1,000 less for the people to do business with, and $1,000 more for them to pay interest upon.
But is its all just common sense why did we bail out the banks so that they could start lending? Why did we give them money to lend to us? Should I give you money to lend back to me? But its all just like a household huh? Common sense cutting it for ya? Don't think so...
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.
