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.
This is like claiming you arent insolvent, because the homeless guy down the street owes you $1 billion dollars...
Don't buy into that pgh. The federal government is a CORPORATION as are at least another 185,000 government operations in our country. They are stealing and hiding our money and just telling us they are broke. Again they've been LYING to us. Corporation Nation 01 of 20 - YouTube
So the way to get the debt down is to get the deficit down first. You cannot pay back debt without enough revenue to cover the total expenses. Each time a Govt (State or Federal) says that oh that shortfall is being covered by reserves or is being covered by bonds, creates new debt.
The terms being used in this thread are starting to go off the deep end with end of worlders showing up to convince themselves they are right to be living in their basements.
The debt can be brought down. It takes an excess of revenue to be able to repay. No politician will say that as the top 1% do not want to pay back the money they have made since the 2008-2009 depression.
Taxes need to rise for the upper brackets, new brackets need to be created, as high as 10 billion $. The average earnings have only gone up in certain areas of the economy, those which have benifited the most should be paying more in taxes. They could go as high as 75% for a decade on the top brackets
This gets my vote for both Most Misleading Thread and Most Misguided Thread.
You're one of the 99%, and you're part of the problem spreading propaganda and disinformation.
Nope, this is factual information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's nothing more than a highfalutin phrase that is misunderstood. In plain English, every State on Earth is has the right to issue its own currency.
So right away you admit monetary sovereignty...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
So what?
Every State on Earth has the choice of rejecting monetary sovereignty and not issuing its own currency.
Let's look at the two best known examples:
1] The United States: All 50 States and Commonwealths within this federal republic have agreed to surrender monetary sovereignty, allowing only the federal government power to issue currency.
2] The European Union: Some members of the European Union have voluntarily agreed to surrender monetary sovereignty and use a unified currency, namely the Euro. Germany, Spain, France and Greece are among those who have. The United Kingdom and Norway are two States that have not agreed.
Clearly, the OP is preying on the ignorance of others, trying to make monetary sovereignty appear to be something special or unique, when in fact, it is quite boring.
Each State has its own constitution and government and military etc etc etc .....what a shocker. That every State would also have it's own currency is totally astounding to the point of being unbelievable, right?
So, is monetary sovereignty even relevant to the discussion?
No, and that is a fallacy:
Selective Attention Improperly focusing attention on certain things and ignoring others.
Actually it is relevant to the discussion. Monetary sovereignty is the foundation of modern economics. Monetary sovereign nations do not follow the same economic conventions as households, yet the comparison is constantly made. That is the point of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That would all be very fascinating, if it was even remotely relevant.
Yes, we covered that useless point already.
No, it is not useless. That is the basis for the whole discussion. A government is not analogous to a business or household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
All 50 States and Commonwealths have voluntarily agreed to surrender monetary sovereignty as a member of this federal republic in accordance with the US Constitution.
...and?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It does not include all EU member-States.
Because the European Union is organized as a confederation, instead of a federation, States retain the right to join with the European Union while continuing to enjoy the power of issuing their own currency.
Greece can quit the Euro and being issuing Drachmas again if wants.
The only that would happen is that Greece would become insolvent and default.
Actually no. The problem with Greece was ceding its most powerful asset, it's monetary sovereignty. Greece's insolvency is a result of adopting the Euro, a currency which it cannot create at will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is factually incorrect.
Technically, it was December 31, 1973. Legally, it was September 30, 1973 and officially March 31, 1973.
The Fallacy Fallcy presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
The date of Nixon's announcment of the end of Bretton-Woods vs. the Legal Date is of no consequence to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How can the US devalue the US Dollar to $42/ounce in February 1973 if the US is still not on the Gold Standard?
.....because the Gold Standard suggests our economy is based on a fixed quantity of gold, which it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Ooops....
And, really, "...full faith and credit..." is nothing more than words on a piece of paper carrying the same weight as "...till death do us part..."
Also, your grotesque misrepresentation of the "Full Faith & Credit" Clause is intolerable.
We established this already in the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
For those who want the Truth, see Article IV Section I of the US Constitution...
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
As everyone now can plainly see, the Full Faith & Credit Clause applies only to actions between and amongst US States, and not foreign States.
That's nice, but the "full faith and credit" presented in the OP reflects the debt definition, which simply means the U.S. will agree to legally service (i.e. issue currency to pay) its debt obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No, that's not true at all.
The US government can continue to spend up to the point where 1 Euro = $32,000 (and beyond in theory).
So....if a barrel of oil costs 100 Euros, then one barrel costs Americans $3.2 Million.
I used to sit on the beach at Lloret de Mar in Spain sucking down double Bloody Marys at 5 Pesetas each.
Ohhh.....gosh....with an exchange rate of $1 = 32 Pesetas it almost broke me to pay $0.15 for a double-shot drink.
That's an example of Monetary Inflation.
Yes, which is not a constraint to the ability of the United States government to issue more currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You just refuted your own point and your entire thread.
A decline in energy prices increases Monetary Inflation, since the US Dollar is backed by the total goods and services produced by the US, plus all US Dollar-denominated commodities traded globally.
No, a decline in energy prices decreases the cost of producing goods. This can happen independent of monetary inflation. The Fed regulates monetary inflation in response to real inflation, not the other way around. Hence, it may raise interest rates to stave of inflationary pressure due to oil spikes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is factually incorrect, not to mention legally wrong under International Law.
It is the creditors who define "default"; not you; and not the US government.
The creditors do not have any control over the U.S.'s ability to issue currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Everyone one of your points has been refuted...
Mircea
No, they have not. You're picking piecemeal semantic arguments while acknowledging that monetary sovereignty is the basis for modern economics.
Social security can in fact be insolvent as I recall, their money is held separately. However insolvent does NOT mean "unable to pay out anything", it would mean a reduction in payouts until the government resolved the issue by for example, removing the cap on income that is paid into the program. We could do that a decade from now and still be fine.
The debt is important because the interest paid on it is not money being used most efficiently. As such reducing the debt as a % of the GDP is in fact important for the future. We can do this by getting our deficit down to say...500 billion or so (oh look thats about what it is), but I'd prefer 200 billion or so. Yes I know the debt would still be growing, but as a % of our GP it would be going down. This is important as large %'s of debt vs GDP have a small drag on the growth rate of GDP.
So I disagree with you a little, I do think these things are worth paying attention to....just nothing to panic or truly worry about.
All monies issued by the federal government come from a general fund. SS has been raided several times in the past with intentions to pay it back but it has yet to be. ACA has taken from Medicare, itself part of the general fund. The federal government operates as if it had inherited a limitless trust fund for years and will never look back.
The US Dollar is backed by the total value of goods and services produced in the US, plus all US Dollar-denominated commodity transactions on the World Market.
Yes, they are all backed by the goods and services produced in their respective States, plus any currency-denominated commodities transactions on the World Market.
We get into another fallacy's fallacy, where "backed" should really be "pegged." By that, I mean there is no fixed value in our economy. That is a clear distinction from gold standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Quite wrong again.
It is debt. Securities are uncollateralized debt. Belgium has given the US $359 Billion in cash, and the US has promised to give back to Belgium the $359 Billion plus accrued interest.
No doubt you do not understand the meaning of "Series E Savings Bonds."
Well of course, but the U.S. isn't "borrowing" from Belgium. It made a promise to Beligum that it will issue $359 billion in U.S. cash + interest. It can and will issue $359 Billion + interest. The key point is the difference between borrowing and issuing. Belgium cannot hold the United States hostage on its debt. Belgium can't hold a gun to the U.S. treasury and say pay up in X currency. The U.S. is sovereign with sole control over its currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's just mumbo-jumbo, probably from some idiotic website that you don't even have the courtesy of crediting.
The debt can be paid back.
No, the Public debt cannot be paid back. That would require destroying the $17 trillion through taxation. Pressing delete over $17 trillion times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Um, monetarily sovereign Romania paid off its debt to the US.
Who on this forum would like to know how?
Romania exported everything.
Well, that ain't nuthin'....the US can export stuff.
Really?
You're going to keep a small quantity of coal only for industrial use so you can go to work and the rest of the coal is sold on the World Market to pay off the debt?
If you lived in Bucharesti --the capital -- you got electricity 12-14 hours each day. Out in the counties, they got electricity maybe up to 6 hours each day. For example, if you lived in Arad which is the capital of Judetul Arad, you got electric maybe 2 hours in the morning and then 4 hours in the evening. But if you lived in another town like Ghiroc, you got electric power 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening.
Think you could live like that?
You're going to keep only enough oil to refine into diesel for the military and your truck/rail transportation, and then kerosene for military and civilian aviation, while exporting the rest?
Gasoline was rationed. Members of the Romanian Communist Party were driving around, but not anyone else.
Willing to give up your car and ride public transportation to pay off your debt?
And Romanians starved.
All of the food was exported to pay off the debts.
Romanians started stealing/hijacking food trucks. The food was put in nondescript unmarked trucks. Romanians stole/hijacked those. The food was put in army trucks. Romanians stole/hijacked those. The army started escorting the food in the army trucks. Romanians still stole/hijacked those.
Then the Securitate (secret police) started escorting the army trucks, and that reduced theft/hijacking.
That's why Romanians have so much respect for their Army. Romanian soldiers will not fire on Romanians, even if the Romanian is actually an ethnic Serb, Ruthenian, Slovak, German, Russian or Magyar. Romanian soldiers would turn their backs while Romanians ransacked the food trucks.
But, the Securitate?
They're like Obamabots.....
When I was at US Embassy Mission Bucharest, the food riots were getting worse. Ceausescu was rushing food from city-to-city to avoid a revolution.
But they got their debt paid off.
Is that what you want to do?
You clearly aren't understanding, so we will use the U.S. and China as an example.
The U.S. owes China X dollars, because it made a promise that it would pay Chinese investors X in USD. Chinese investors save in U.S. dollars, by purchasing U.S. debt. China can't hold a gun to the U.S. and make the U.S. pay that debt in another currency (unless it invaded the U.S., thus relieving its sovereignty). As long as the U.S. is sovereign over its currency, it will simply issue the currency it owes to those investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes, it does.
As more debt is created, Monetary Inflation will cause the World to flee the US Dollar, driving Monetary Inflation that much higher. It will be destructive to your economy.
Well sure, but that wasn't the argument.
The argument was that the U.S. can be insolvent, which is not possible. The World fleeing the U.S. dollar has no effect on its ability to issue U.S. dollars or force all of its domestic entities to accept and trade in U.S. dollars.
Japan has a debt / GDP over 250%, and has over 10 quadrillion Yen in Public Debt. Why isn't it insolvent yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
From the goods and services you produce.
Nope. If I go produce 3 partridges and a pear tree, I produced 3 partridges and a pear tree. That has nothing to do with the U.S.'s ability to issue new money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's wrong.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with anything here.
....um, it's the whole point of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The US Dollar -- like all currencies -- has an intrinsic value, based on the value of the goods and services produced.
That applies to every closed system, but not to the US Dollar or the Euro and a few others.
Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?
Two reasons:
1] control of Iraq has always been part of US Geo-Strategy....which is to ensure the continued existed of the Petro-Dollar and primacy of the US Dollar
2] Iraq began selling oil and natural gas in Euros.
Let's assume that 60%...~50 Million barrels per day are sold on the World Market in US Dollars.
For simple math, let's assume the average daily price over a year is $100/barrel.
$100 * 50 Million * 365 = $1.8 TRILLION
The US is claiming that $1.8 TRILLION is part of its GDP, even though the oil was produced outside of the US and perhaps even by non-US oil companies.
See how that works?
That's why I said the US can pump about $9 TRILLION to $13 TRILLION surplus US Dollars.
You said....
The geopolitics is true, but goods and services aren't the process by which money is created. You're thinking a little too hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I can know. I explained that.
It's not just oil.....it's every cubic liter of natural gas, every ton of gold and other precious metals sold, every ton of industrial ores or non-metallic minerals, every ton of food and non-crops sold, including cotton, flaxen and wool, and so on.
That's why Bush illegally invaded Iraq, and Clinton illegally castrated Yugoslavia, and illegally had his secret wars in Central Asia, and why the other Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and why Obama illegally overthrew the Honduran government and bombed Libya and all the others.
That is the more beneficial option to preserve our way of life, yes. You'll get no disagreement to me as to the nature behind our geopolitics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes, it is. If the rest of the World decreases its use of US Dollars, you are hopelessly utterly screwed.
No, you're utterly screwed if you want to live like Kings amongst the rest of the world. The world decreasing use of US Dollars has nothing to do with the U.S.'s ability to issue more of it, or its ability to mandate its use domestically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The Laws of Economics.
All currency has an intrinsic value as determined by the Laws of Economics via the relationship to goods and services produced, and the quantity of currency in circulation.
The extrinsic value of all currency is as determined by the Laws of Economics via Supply & Demand, which is the value relative to other currencies.
Nope. It has value because it is designated legal tender in the United States. The Laws of Economics determine its value relative among other things. We can give every person in America $5 trillion, and it would not affect our ability to have a domestic economy. The issue would be when one leaves the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It is not correct, and it is a misrepresentation.
You haven't been able to prove otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
When China and Japan introduce a unified currency; when other foreign States stop using or reduce their consumption of US Dollars; when domestic and foreign entities cease purchasing US treasury securities; several possibilities really.
None of that will have any effect on the ability of the U.S. government to purchase its own treasury securities, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And that fact is completely irrelevant to what you are claiming.
No, it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes, you have.
Last week, you were singing this tune...
After reality trashed your theories, you're now singing a different tune...
That's completely consistent with everything I've said in this thread.
Taxation is currency destruction. Interest rates alter the demand for money. Both are anti-inflation tools.
The government can deposit $380 Billion into your account and then you can pay $156 Billion for your rent that month, and then pay $75 Billion for groceries, then stop by Starsux and treat yourself to a latte for only $313 Million.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No, you're the one lying or ignorant. No doubt you were cruising some website and came across the term
"monetary sovereignty" and even though you have no idea what it means and don't understand it's of no relevance, you are enamored by it.
It isn't a difficult concept to understand. You accept it, yet you're trying to prove otherwise.. (despite admitting on your first post).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is irrelevant.
Nope, it is the point of the whole thread. Social Security is not insolvent. It can't be insolvent. The U.S. government can and does issue an order to the bank to credit the account in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You're right.......they don't bounce.......but that's only because you've purchased a wheel-barrow to carry your cash around.
Wheel-barrow is irrelevant. We have computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It's an indication of your ability to pay your debt obligations.
Icing the cake...
Mircea
No, it has nothing to do with the ability to pay debt obligations.
All monies issued by the federal government come from a general fund. SS has been raided several times in the past with intentions to pay it back but it has yet to be. ACA has taken from Medicare, itself part of the general fund. The federal government operates as if it had inherited a limitless trust fund for years and will never look back.
It's a runaway train.
It has a limitless trust fund. It issues currency at will.
The illusion of household finances is to keep you ignorant so that you will continue working and accept the bread crumbs you slave over.
All monies issued by the federal government come from a general fund. SS has been raided several times in the past with intentions to pay it back but it has yet to be. ACA has taken from Medicare, itself part of the general fund. The federal government operates as if it had inherited a limitless trust fund for years and will never look back.
It's a runaway train.
Not all monies. Most moneys. There are some sequestered programs/funds. Like the highway fund. But even that has been raided by the general fund.
Your entire reason for starting this thread was to "prove" that our debt was not an issue. That it was a boogey man started by the GOP to discredit your boy obama. I proved otherwise.
Nice backtrack.
No, this has nothing to do with Obama.
I already iterated that the bi-partisan miseducation of debt comes down to motive.
Democrats want to increase the debt to expand the government to social programs and things they like.
Republicans want to increase the debt to expand the military and things they like.
Both know that government spending grows the economy. The only difference is what that spending is used for. Miseducation of debt is a deliberate pipe dream sold to the masses to cut funding to social programs. The rich bribe politicians in both parties to promote debt miseducation.
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.
