Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?Except it isn't. The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.
The dollar has stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite significant increases to the national debt and the number of dollars on the market.
How do you explain the historic inconsistency between your assumptions....and reality?
I'm committed to the evidence. And it doesn't match your claims. Explain the inconsistencies. With evidence, please.
Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.
And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes
I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.
And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.
Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.
Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?
Democratic party leaders are on video tape fool telling the country the economy is horrible, its dire, 5% unemployment is the end times, for the last 3 years of Bush 2nd term intentionally trying to tank the economy. This propaganda war was so bad that 2 months after Obama took office in 2009 Bill Clinton had to to tell the imbecile "hey dummy you won, enough with the doom and gloom talk". Suck on the truth.
Then by your own logic.......Bush caused the recession in 2001. As he said the economy was weak preceding the election.
So....the Republicans wanted a recession and are vile filth?
Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
How did they effect that?
You are an imbecile.
Anyone telling you that the economy was heading for a world of hurt in 2006 wasDemocrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.
Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.
Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?
Democratic party leaders are on video tape fool telling the country the economy is horrible, its dire, 5% unemployment is the end times, for the last 3 years of Bush 2nd term intentionally trying to tank the economy. This propaganda war was so bad that 2 months after Obama took office in 2009 Bill Clinton had to to tell the imbecile "hey dummy you won, enough with the doom and gloom talk". Suck on the truth.
a) prescient
b) correct
c) 2 years behind Iceberg....
Do some reading in economics and tell me why they are wrong and how you know that. I am not explaining the field of economics to you.
So Appeal to Authority now? You can't explain why the increase in US dollars and US debt were followed by an INCREASE in US dollar value.
If the increase in debt results in a decrease in dollar value....then why is the dollar stronger now than it was 10 years ago, despite a significant increase in US debt.
Explain it to us. All you're doing is repeating your assertions. You still can't make them work when applied to actual currency valuation.
You're committing the single cause fallacy.
Which fallacy of logic, specifically? You've done Ad Hominen, followed by an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Where your theory must be right because a doctor says it is.
Yet when we apply your theory to ACTUAL currency valuation, it doesn't work. The dollar is stronger now than it was 10 years ago. Its stronger now than it was 20 years ago. This despite significant increases in the US debt.
You're proposed theory predicts the exact opposite. Explain the inconsistencies.
You can't. You're done.
Isn't it early to be dropping acid?
Isn't it a little early for an Ad Hominem sandwich? Is there anything to you but fallacies of logic?
The dollar is stronger now than it was 10 years ago. Its stronger now than it was 20 years ago. This despite significant increases in the US debt.
Explain the inconsistencies between your theory and reality.
Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video
There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.
Please, it was both parties. W's spending orgy was out of control. It wasn't just the Democrats
WHAT SPENDING ORGY?????
You idiots talk about GWB spending where are your facts?
In the meantime tell me these events didn't occur. And if they didn't occur, what was the money spent by GWB for?
A) First let's talk about "spending"...
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
But TARP has been paid back so much it made a profit!
View attachment 83885
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20
I'm not sure how analyzing deficits contradicts he was engaged in a spending orgy, but OK, just a few:
1) Continuing Slick's sub prime program where government loaned printed money to people who weren't going to repay the loans if the economy went bad
YES GWB didn't pay any attention to sub prime... I guess primarily because THESE EVENTS HAPPENED which YOU didn't even mention!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses? Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue. PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..
especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures
that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’
that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground
2) Created the TSA
GEEZ I wonder WHY TSA was created ?? You guys are just f...king DUMB!!!
3) Created a massive new prescription drug welfare program for Medicare
YUP... AND GUESS WHAT you dummy??
Cost LESS then projected costs!
View attachment 83898
Refuting, Once Again, the Medicare Part D Myth | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
But because I am a Medicare expert (6,000 times a day health care providers ask my company for help) you are so dumb about Medicare in that
Before GWB 2003 Medicare Modernization Act... there were over 400 distinct companies paying medicare bills. This was a gigantic waste.
Today there are 8 for profit companies that manage and pay over $800 billion in Medicare claims processing over 4 billion EDI transactions!
Also the 3rd part of the act was formation of Medicare Advantage plans again which idiots like you have no idea the cost savings this has meant to
Medicare! As a result Medicare administrative costs have constantly declined.
But of course dummies like you have NO idea what I've just described!
4) Created the no child gets ahead program
You are right though about No Child Left Behind. Very bad idea that the Federal government should do what your local school board should be doing!
5) The 250 billion so called transportation bill which was just a special interest christmas tree
Actually it was part of the rebuilding necessary after 9/11 and the worst hurricane seasons in history... but of course you totally ignore those events!
6) Tarp I
7) Tarp II
AND TARP has PAID back plus a $68 Billion Profit you dummy!
Oh and by the way, the solution i.e. TARP? Which idiots like you and Obama criticized YET OBAMA has benefited from in this fashion.
If it weren't for TARP's payback of $688.9 billion on the $620.3 Billion outflow Obama's deficit would be even worse!
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
View attachment 83900
8) Created budgets that grew government in every real measure (inflation, GDP, ...) BEFORE starting to negotiate with Democrats
9) Never vetoed a spending bill in his Presidency
THAT IS A F...king LIE:
FACTS you idiot! From this web page: Bills George W. Bush vetoed
Oct. 3, 2007 State Children's Health Insurance Program ("Schip") Reauthorization Act
Opposes expansion of public healthcare.
"It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three persons that would subscribe to the new expanded Schip would leave private insurance . . . the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage. And that’s where the philosophical divide comes in." — Read full presidential statement
Nov. 2, 2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Claimed bill was fiscally irresponsible.
"This bill lacks fiscal discipline . . . American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of [new federal spending] and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought." — Read full presidential statement
Veto overridden by congress.
6 Nov. 13, 2007 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Claimed bill was fiscally irresponsible.
"This bill spends too much. It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012." — Read full presidential statement
7 Dec. 12, 2007 State Children's Health Insurance Program ("Schip") Reauthorization Act (2nd time) See above — Read full presidential statement
8 Dec. 28, 2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Part of this bill allowed the Iraqi government's financial assets currently stored in US banks to be frozen, in order to allow the money to be used towards settling liability lawsuits with victims of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqi government opposed this, so Bush vetoed the bill lest it weaken Iraq-US relations.
"Exposing Iraq to such significant financial burdens would weaken the close partnership between the United States and Iraq during this critical period in Iraq's history." — Read full presidential statement
9 Mar. 8, 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Bill would have banned "waterboarding" style interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, something Bush supports.
"We need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists . . . This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." — Read full presidential statement
10 & 11 May 21, June 18 2008 2007 U.S. Farm Bill
Claimed bill did not significantly scale back existing farm subsidy regime, which he feels is overly generous, while also unduly increased federal spending.
"This bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase." — Read full presidential statement, second statement 2
This bill weirdly had to be passed twice (and was thus vetoed twice) because a clerical error saw some key words accidently deleted from the first approved version.
July 15, 2008 Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.
Somewhat complex. Bush favors more expansion of private healthcare options for the elderly, as opposed to this bill which expands the publicly-funded Medicare program. In practice, however, the veto was more about conflicting budgetary priorities between the White House and the Congress.
"I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong." — Read full presidential statement
10) Got us involved in endless military quagmires in the middle east that were not for defense and have cost us trillions. Sure, attacking the Taliban/Al Qaeda was justified for 9/11. But nation building in Afghanistan and invading Iraq were just folly, not our job to eat the cost to protect the world
And I'm sure you like these idiots supported the terrorists and encouraged them to kill our troops!
Then what about these "free publicity" statements made to encourage as the below Harvard study proved the terrorists?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
By the way, maybe Obama's encouraging of the terrorists by bashing our military is a major reason for this poll:
Trump committed national security breach!!!
Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
How did they effect that?
You are an imbecile.
When Bush attempted several times to get control of Fannie and Freddie to stave off this nightmare it was Democrats in Congress who blocked him, FACT. Its on video. Suck on it.
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.
And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes
I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.
And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.
Anyone telling you that the economy was heading for a world of hurt in 2006 wasDemocrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
Who says that democrats wanted a recession? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that they 'fanned the flames every chance they got'? You do, citing yourself.
Its you citing yourself in their motivations, you citing yourself on their goals, you citing yourself on their preferred outcomes.
Um......do you have any argument that doesn't begin and end inside your own head?
Democratic party leaders are on video tape fool telling the country the economy is horrible, its dire, 5% unemployment is the end times, for the last 3 years of Bush 2nd term intentionally trying to tank the economy. This propaganda war was so bad that 2 months after Obama took office in 2009 Bill Clinton had to to tell the imbecile "hey dummy you won, enough with the doom and gloom talk". Suck on the truth.
a) prescient
b) correct
c) 2 years behind Iceberg....
Stick your head in the sand and remain an ignorant liberal drone it makes no difference to me.
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?Printing money doesn't devalue currency, got it. You're a tool, man.
And your first part is exactly what I said in my second quote, you're assuming currency valuation is a single cause, it's not, Holmes
I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.
And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
Try to focus......the assertion under review is yours claiming that post Great Recession monetary and fiscal policy has "devalued" the dollar....
If you are prepared to concede that no evidence supports you, I would be pleased to explain to you where your model has gone wrong...
Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
How did they effect that?
You are an imbecile.
When Bush attempted several times to get control of Fannie and Freddie to stave off this nightmare it was Democrats in Congress who blocked him, FACT. Its on video. Suck on it.
You're an idiot......the GSEs were not major contributors to the Financial Crisis..... And Scrub killed a bipartisan reform bill in 2005....Scrub wanted to privatize Fannie&Freddie......ironic, given that the role of private issuers and securitizers in the mortgage blowup was central.
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....Can you provide a measure by which currency has been "devalued" in recent years?
I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.
And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.
When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....I'm not proving the field of economics to you. If you google the subject, you'll get a plethora of sources.
And this is an answer to your question in the last post. One source you are ignoring? The field of economics
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.
When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."
Laughing.....no, what YOU are talking about is a single variable, insisting that if we increase our debt supply, we devalue our currency.
I'm talking about the actual currency valuations and the actual forces that drive currency value. Which is far more complex than your cartoon simple assumptions.......which the actual history of currency valuation contradicts.
Which is why when we apply your theory to the real world.......your theory doesn't work. Our debt increases significantly....while the value of the dollar increases. Exactly opposite of what you insist 'should' happen.
Allow me to be blunt for a moment....
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.
When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."
Laughing.....no, what YOU are talking about is a single variable, insisting that if we increase our debt supply, we devalue our currency.
I'm talking about the actual currency valuations and the actual forces that drive currency value. Which is far more complex than your cartoon simple assumptions.......which the actual history of currency valuation contradicts.
Which is why when we apply your theory to the real world.......your theory doesn't work. Our debt increases significantly....while the value of the dollar increases. Exactly opposite of what you insist 'should' happen.
You don't know how to have a logical discussion.
Saying "all else held equal" does not mean that's the only variable, it means that's the effect that one variable has on the equation.
Skylar said:The value of the dollar didn't go down in proportion to new dollars entering the market. No currency does. As the value of currency is based on multiple factors, the quantity of them only being one.
I didn't say it did, I said it contributed to the 2007 collapse, I didn't say it caused real estate to collapse.
To whom do Fannie&Freddie lend money?Democrats WANTED the recession, Democrats were desperate for the recession and fanned the flames every chance they got. Why? So they could retake congress and the White House. Untold millions thrown under the bus so a handful of Democrats to win an election. They are vile filth.
How did they effect that?
You are an imbecile.
When Bush attempted several times to get control of Fannie and Freddie to stave off this nightmare it was Democrats in Congress who blocked him, FACT. Its on video. Suck on it.
You're an idiot......the GSEs were not major contributors to the Financial Crisis..... And Scrub killed a bipartisan reform bill in 2005....Scrub wanted to privatize Fannie&Freddie......ironic, given that the role of private issuers and securitizers in the mortgage blowup was central.
You are dumb as a brick, lending standards lowered to nothing fueled the entire recession. Just go troll someone else your IQ is too low for me to bother with.
I'm not sure how analyzing deficits contradicts he was engaged in a spending orgy, but OK, just a few:
1) Continuing Slick's sub prime program where government loaned printed money to people who weren't going to repay the loans if the economy went bad
WTF?Allow me to be blunt for a moment....
You are bluffing......you have no idea what you are yammering about....
You can measure the value of the dollar against other currencies, financial or real assets....
In none of those categories can you find evidence of the "devaluation" of the dollar over the past 7 years.
So it actually makes sense to you that printing money creates economic value? You sit there and say yeah, of course it does?
Explain in the context of the field of economics how you know the field of economics is wrong
It makes sense that currency valuation is based on many, many factors. Not simply the quantity of currency. Which is why your explanation doesn't work to explain actual currency valuations. As the reality of currency valuations is far more complex than your cartoon simple understanding of it.
When you are talking about a single variable, you analyze it according to the principle "all else held equal."
Laughing.....no, what YOU are talking about is a single variable, insisting that if we increase our debt supply, we devalue our currency.
I'm talking about the actual currency valuations and the actual forces that drive currency value. Which is far more complex than your cartoon simple assumptions.......which the actual history of currency valuation contradicts.
Which is why when we apply your theory to the real world.......your theory doesn't work. Our debt increases significantly....while the value of the dollar increases. Exactly opposite of what you insist 'should' happen.
You don't know how to have a logical discussion. Saying "all else held equal" does not mean that's the only variable, it means that's the effect that one variable has on the equation. I'll give you one more chance to have an actual discussion, then I'm going to just to back and mock you for not having ever taken an academic class. Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.
Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%
Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%
Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%
Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point
You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.
Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.
All else held equal means we only focus on the printing money part of that equation, it doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist. But the fact remains, had we not printed money in this example, the value of a dollar would have grown by 8%, not 2%.
Do you understand?
