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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Because they tend to outnumber the haves when the economy is slanted against them, and they get very violent when they realize that they have been lied to for a long time.And why do the have nots have any influence over those who have?
-Geaux
Ah, thanks for that. It is a bad idea to simply add dollars to the economy, but when we're not at maximum output? I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.The old Israeli Shekel seems to be among others like the Argentina.The analogy is a failure. Ever since the 70's, we've had a free floating currency, we're a fiat regime. The analogy made sense when we were on the "gold standard' but not anymore. Not very similar at all, refer to my post about china to get an example. If other nations stop buying public debt, there is an entity that will buy it...The US budget deficit being compared to a family and its use of a credit card is only an analogy. And no analogy about two different things is exactly the same. The US seems to have a certain amount of confidence in the US dollar that can be strained if we engage in excessive 'creation' of US dollars.BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.
The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.
When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most widespread lies that dominates the discussion. It's false.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt
Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.
The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.
When the economy is in a prolonged slump, however, there are literally trillions of dollars’ worth of idle people, factories, buildings and purveyors of services.
The worst slumps typically occur after a financial collapse – true for both 1929 and 2008 – because so much asset value is wiped out. The whole economy goes into a self-reinforcing tailspin.
Employers are then too risk-averse to hire enough workers, consumers are too traumatized to buy everything the economy is capable of producing, banks are awash in money but won’t lend to any but the most blue-chip borrowers. The whole economy remains stuck in second gear.
That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.
Let me find a post I made in regards to china, it will help clear some things up about that as well.
Here it is:
Let's take china, for example.
China does not issue US dollars.
China must find a way to earn our dollars if it wishes to net save in our dollars.
How does it do this? Go to walmart and see for yourself.
Same thing with Japan.
China sells stuff to us in exchange for US dollars.
I really hope you aren't one of those people who think china is "loaning" us anything. Oh god..
The next step in all of this is china putting money in a bank account at the reserve. This account doesn't pay interest. So, china decides: "Hey, I should get some treasury bonds and earn some interest on my HARD EARNED UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
We accommodate them and other countries for one obvious reason, and you should be able to figure it out.
(Oh, we can never default on the debt by the way, it's impossible for a nation that can create dollars from thin air)
So here's the reality: For all of the benefits we get from china/japan/etc, they get a PAPER BANK STATEMENT. Yes, my friend, this is what the politicians are claiming is going to kill us all. IT'S NOT EVEN DENOMINATED IN A CURRENCY that most of these nations can even spend in their own country. They have to either spend the dollars here in the US, which helps us out, or where someone will accept our dollars. They can leave them in savings, or they can convert at their own expense. You bring up a valid point: "How the hell do we pay the interest? Our kids are going to die!"
When the dreaded doomsday scenario finally happens, the federal reserve will move china's hard earned dollars from their "savings" account back to their "checking account." It will go into the "checking account" with the number raised a bit. Boom, we're done. Problem solved. The federal reserve types a number and it's done. It's an accounting record. That's all the national debt is.
Everyone outside of economists knows that the credit worthiness of a family with big debts and the credit worthiness of nations with huge debt are similar. For the family, they can borrow and borrow to pay for bills untill the banks wont loan them any more money. The same goes for nations that run up big debts. If they push it too far, and the global economic ministries lose faith and confidence in that nations currency, then other will gradually stop buying that public debt. If the nation in question abandons any pretext of financing their public debt with bonds and bills then they will see demand for their currency drop as has happened repeatedly in history from the French monarchy prior to the French Revolution to Weimar Germany to 1980's Israel to 2000's Argentina and Zimbabwe.
The examples you give did not have/do not have fiat money. Zimbabwe had a recession because they completely destroyed agriculture and never even attempted to increase productivity. Please correct me if any of the countries you've listed have control of the currency without it being tied to something like gold. (When the particular instances you bring up happened.)
Old Israeli shekel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argentina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And a great many people think that they are completely self serving in these evaluations that reflect what they can do more than what is hypothetically possible.Even if we take out all of the guest workers, the government is still running with the belief that unemployment can't drop below a certain amount.On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?
Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?
I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.
Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?
When job growth since 2000 matches the influx of guest workers and black market laborers, then yes, there are not enough jobs for all the new Americans entering the work force.
...until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
I believe the USD will be strong and stable, he'll, it'll be even stronger if we increase our output and our GDP booms.When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
We are moving into unchartered territory on this kind of thing, and this unnerves those who buy and hold on to our currency.
If they lose confidence in the USD, they could start dumping it enmasse. That will cause macro level inflation.
We also need to revive the consumer markets by getting Americans back to working and get rid of black market labor and those abusing our guest worker programs.I believe the USD will be strong and stable, he'll, it'll be even stronger if we increase our output and our GDP booms.When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
We are moving into unchartered territory on this kind of thing, and this unnerves those who buy and hold on to our currency.
If they lose confidence in the USD, they could start dumping it enmasse. That will cause macro level inflation.
No, we don't. Do you know how many people apply for each job opening?On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?
Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?
I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.
Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?
I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.
Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.
It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says
When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
Notice how you fail to show the fault in what I've said.When we recognize that we're no longer on the gold standard and that we don't have to tax to spend... Hell, MMT advocates want us to deficit spend until we reach the highest output viewed as possible, and if inflation ever becomes a danger, that's where taxes come in. Taxes are used right now to create a demand for the dollar, lower aggregate demand when needed, control inflation if the problem ever escalates, etc.....until we're not.I don't think Israel ever tried to reach maximum output at that time, let alone Argentina. We're a completely different animal.
Jeez, where did you learn that idiocy? That's seriously some of the dumbest stuff it's ever been my misfortune to read.
The u3 is. I prefer to count the unemployed who have given up, those working part time who want a full time job, etc.. I used to go with the u3, but I can't in good conscious.No, we don't. Do you know how many people apply for each job opening?On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.
Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?
I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.
Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?
I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.
Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.
It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says
And yet you morons think we have a 4.9 Unemployment rate.
It amazes me how ideologues on the left and the right just invent the 'real truth' of well known historical events like it was just so much fluff.FDR only prolonged the depression. Ever notice how Truman and Eisenhower didn't try it and we saw nearly unmatched economic prosperity?
Here is a table that plainly shows the inflation adjusted GDP of the US from 1929.
US Real GDP by Year
By 1936 the US had returned to the 1929 GDP and never fell below it again.
So much for your claim that FDR lengthened the Great Depression, in fact that Depression was created by loose credit and a string of bubbles prior to it that destabilized the markets. After FDR and his allies passed reforms like Glass-Steagal we didnt have a major market crash until 2008, about a decade after repealing Glass-Steagal.
Sorry Wild Bill, but your facts dont match up to reality.
FDR was elected in 1932 and had the nation back above the pre-crash GDP in less than 4 years.The depression wouldn't have lasted as l9my as it did, had it not been for FDR's communists programs.
Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.
d if so, who are these people?
Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.The US dollar has value because the us govt taxes to "collect" the dollar. This creates demand for the us dollar over other currencies.
Never
People cut back and buy less food, this cuts down on food purchases. This is basic stuff.
Unemployment is horrible for the economy, it's worse then inflation, which is why I advocate for a job guarantee and suspending payroll taxes to guarantee a job to anybody willing to work. a 25.00 minimum wage is unrealistic, don't go for the extreme.
People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.
But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.
Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?
Read what FDR said:
The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”
Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!
And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.
The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.
No it's not like any other debt because national gov.controls the money supply it can't go bust until you understand that you don't understand our economic system.
That is because inflation is hidden using various accounting tricks, like not calculating in fuel and food costs and 'balancing' price increase by increase in quality, like computers being able to do more calculations.No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.
So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?
The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.
You're on the losing side of the equation.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."
You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.
It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.
It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.
No one is saying there isn't any inflation for anything. But what inflation are you seeing at the gas pump? What inflation are you seeing at the electronics store? If you could buy the exact same television you bought 5 years ago today, would it cost the same, or more, or less? You know it would cost less.Anyone that has to put food on the table knows that we are seeing inflation.
Why not? what are you trying to measure, exactly?The u3 is. I prefer to count the unemployed who have given up, those working part time who want a full time job, etc.. I used to go with the u3, but I can't in good conscious.No, we don't. Do you know how many people apply for each job opening?On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?
I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.
Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?
I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.
Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.
It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says
And yet you morons think we have a 4.9 Unemployment rate.
Sure people hate the wealthy. Many on the left do. It's why they are attacked with such vitriol here and other places.
4d if so, who are these people?
Maybe you could name some names of those people on here who have expressed their hatred of rich people.
With examples of their hate filled rants about rich people.
Can you do that? Or you spouting some more of your make you feel good bullshit?
That is because inflation is hidden using various accounting tricks, like not calculating in fuel and food costs and 'balancing' price increase by increase in quality, like computers being able to do more calculations.No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?
The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.
You're on the losing side of the equation.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."
You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.
It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.
It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.
Fuel and food are included in the inflation calculations, and you have to adjust for quality or you're not measuring the same thing. If a can of tuna is 5 oz and costs $1 and then the next month the can is only 4.5 oz but it still costs a dollar, do you really want to say there's been no price change? It went from 20 cents/ounce to 22 cents/ounce. that's a price increase.
Same thing the other way...if a $20,000 car has an optional V-6 engine for an extra $1,2000 and the next year the V-6 is standard but the price of the car is now $22,000, some of that price change is not because of inflation, but because the car has a better and more expensive engine. So we have to separate that out.
No one is saying there isn't any inflation for anything. But what inflation are you seeing at the gas pump? What inflation are you seeing at the electronics store? If you could buy the exact same television you bought 5 years ago today, would it cost the same, or more, or less? You know it would cost less.Anyone that has to put food on the table knows that we are seeing inflation.
So on AVERAGE, prices haven't been going up very much....total of 21.4% from the 2005 average to the 2015 average.
