Isn’t it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”?

[Andylusion]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Uhhhh.... how do you think they got dollars in the first place? The government isn't "stealing" anything. It's destroying what it created.

No. False. A dollar is given for value created. The wealthy created something of value, and earned what they have.

A dollar is only a representation of value. The value of the physical paper and ink, is very little. It's the value of what was produced, that gives the dollar any meaning.

So government did not create the value, that those dollars represents.

When it confiscates a dollar, from a person who earned it, it is stealing the effort and value of their work. Not taking back what it created. It didn't create diddly jack.

 

[BluesLegend]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

If it wasn't for the top 25% the other 75% would be fighting in the streets over food scraps.

 

[Andylusion]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

What you are saying, and I'm saying, don't seem contradictory.

So either you lost me, or I lost you, either way... I don't get it.

The only thing I'd dispute with, is this idea that international bankers own Washington.

Everyone says that over and over and over. Then I look at the facts.... and I don't see it.

All the international bankers wanted Lehman Brothers bailed out. They were not.
All the international bankers were against the CARD Act. It got passed.
All the international bankers were against the Frank Dodd Bill. It was passed.
And those are just recent bills

I and think of at least a dozen examples off the top of my head, where the banks were denied what they wanted.

Now sometimes they get what they want... sure. But EVERYONE does. Everyone gets what they want sometimes.

If the international banks owned the US government, why was Citigroup, and Chase, and HSBC and so many others hit with hefty fines? $204 billion dollars in fines have been paid to the US government since the start of the crisis in 2007. But I thought they owned the US government? So the banks penalized themselves?

Or is that claim they own the government, BS?

 

[Andylusion]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

If it wasn't for the top 25% the other 75% would be fighting in the streets over food scraps.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. It's amazing to me how counter intuitive the left-wing is. Everything we have.... literally everything.... is due almost exclusively to the top 20% of the country.

Even services the government provides, only exist because of a rich guy somewhere. Some top 1%er made the concrete, the road paving equipment... everything.

Without them... there would be... nothing. Dirt paths. You certainly wouldn't need more than that, because there would be no cars are gas. We'd all be getting up before dawn, working 14 hours shifts on farms 6 days a week or more, living poor, and going to bed long after the sun went down exhausted.

That's what life was like without the evil rich. There was no 'sick days'. No 'vacation time'. No 'holiday pay'. No 'time and a half'.

The left-wingers are all complete and total idiots. They have no idea how good they have it.... all due to the rich.

 

[BluesLegend]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

If it wasn't for the top 25% the other 75% would be fighting in the streets over food scraps.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. It's amazing to me how counter intuitive the left-wing is. Everything we have.... literally everything.... is due almost exclusively to the top 20% of the country.

Even services the government provides, only exist because of a rich guy somewhere. Some top 1%er made the concrete, the road paving equipment... everything.

Without them... there would be... nothing. Dirt paths. You certainly wouldn't need more than that, because there would be no cars are gas. We'd all be getting up before dawn, working 14 hours shifts on farms 6 days a week or more, living poor, and going to bed long after the sun went down exhausted.

That's what life was like without the evil rich. There was no 'sick days'. No 'vacation time'. No 'holiday pay'. No 'time and a half'.

The left-wingers are all complete and total idiots. They have no idea how good they have it.... all due to the rich.

If you want to understand the left you only need look at the damage they have done, Michigan, New York, Illinois, California. They vampire fang businesses and people dry with taxes, regulations, and corruption leaving a smoldering pile of rubble in their wake.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A thought provoking read.
Isn't it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - Evonomics

What those scare-mongers don’t tell you, and generally don’t even understand: it actually makes almost no sense to call that figure “the national debt.” And no, you’re not on the hook to pay it back.

Imagine this: you’re the queen or king of a sovereign country. You decide to mint and issue a bunch of tin coins that your people will find useful. You use those coins to buy stuff from people in the private sector, and pay them to do work. Voilà, the people have money.
Is your government now in “debt” as a result of that “deficit spending”? Does it have to “pay” something to somebody at some point in the future? Do you have to redeem those coins for wheat or pigs or anything else? Obviously not. There’s just a bunch of money out there that people can use. You’ve made no promise that your treasury will ever redeem those coins for anything. They just circulate.

Those government-issued assets, held by the private sector, are only “liabilities” to the government in the most pettifogging accounting sense. If you “owed” some money that you would never, ever have to pay, would you put that on your balance sheet as a liability? Would it be anything beyond a pro formaentry designed to satisfy some obsessive impulse for accounting closure? A debt that will never be paid off is a very questionable “liability.”

That’s essentially the situation with the U.S. national “debt.” The U.S. issues money by deficit spending. It puts more money into private accounts than it takes out via taxes. The private sector has more balance-sheet assets (but no more liabilities, so it has more “net worth,” the balancing item on the righthand side of its balance sheet). The treasury has made no promises to redeem that new money for…anything (except maybe…different government-issued assets). It’s just out there.

Now it’s true that the U.S. et al operate under an arguably archaic and purely self-imposed rule: their treasuries are required to issue bonds equal to that deficit spending. This is a straightforward asset swap: the private sector gives checking-account deposits (back) to the government, and the government gives bonds in return. Private sector assets and net worth are unaffected by that accounting swap; it just changes the private-sector portfolio mix — more bonds, less “cash.” (Treasury “forces” the private sector to make that collective portfolio-adjusting swap through the simple expedient of selling bonds at an attractive price — a point or two below similar deals in the private sector.)

The same kind of asset swap happens when the Fed “prints money” for quantitative easing. The private sector gives bonds (back) to the government, and the Fed gives “reserves” in return — deposits in banks’ Fed accounts. Sure, the Fed creates those reserves ab nihilo, but they’re not a money injection into the private sector, like deficit spending. They’re just swapped for bonds. That accounting event doesn’t increase private-sector assets or net worth. It just changes the private-sector portfolio mix (more reserves, less bonds).

In any case, the private sector is holding government-issued assets. Whether they consist of bonds, “cash,” or reserves, is it realistic to call that money originally spent into private accounts a “debt” for the government? Is it in any real sense a government “liability” if it will never be redeemed for anything? Would a better term be “government-issued assets,” or similar?

Look at the U.S. and the U.K. as examples. The stock of government-issued assets from those sovereigns has been steadily (though fitfully) increasing for more than two centuries and three centuries, respectively. (And in the handful of cases where the stock was reduced significantly, the result was major economic depressions.) That centuries-long growth pattern could conceivably change at some point, but…why would governments stop issuing financial instruments all of a sudden — exchangeable instruments that their economies need to operate fluidly, and grow — while their economies continue to expand?

The government has committed itself to issuing bonds for archaic reasons, so it needs to roll over its “debt.” Old bonds mature, the government pays them off and issues new ones to replace them. Unendingly, for decades and centuries. But the stock of government-issued assets just keeps growing — as it should and must in a growing economy.

Those government-issued assets are a necessary lubricant for the operation of the private-sector economy. As the economy gets bigger, more of those assets are needed, as a kind of giant “pool” or buffer stock to avoid transactional lockups. (See: Paul Krugman’s babysitting co-op.) Realistically: will government stop issuing that necessary lubricant, or withdraw what it’s already issued, when the economic consequences of doing so are so dire?

It’s common parlance to say that the private sector is “holding government debt.” That’s understandable, since the private sector is holding bonds. But it’s a misnomer, and a pernicious, confusing one. The private sector is (obviously) holding assets on its balance sheet. The “debt,” such as it is, only exists as an offsetting accounting liability on the righthand side of the government balance sheet. (While “holding debt” is a handy verbal shorthand, if you think about it for a moment the usage makes no sense at all. How can you own something you owe? Debt can’t be an asset that you “hold.” It’s a liability.)

The private sector holds (owns) government-issued assets, not liabilities. And even the offsetting liabilities themselves are rather dodgy and iffy accounting entries. The government issues those assets as a public good. In the big picture over decades and centuries, that’s the end of it.

Another key understanding: Those different types of government-issued assets (bonds, “cash,” reserves, etc.) are straightforwardly fungible in the private market — at least at the margin, where it counts. The private sector couldn’t swap all its government bonds for currency or checking deposits at once (nor, realistically, would it). But if an individual bondholder needs cash for real-goods transactions or whatever else, the necessary asset-swap transaction happens with a mouse click. Likewise holders of checking-account deposits: if they want physical currency, their bank stands ready to make the swap; it’s called “withdrawing cash.” If the bank runs short on physical currency, the Federal Reserve provides it on demand in exchange for the bank’s reserves, its account deposits at the Fed. (With the Bureau of Engraving and Printing standing behind the Fed, presses ready to roll as the transactional economy expands.)

Now the private sector’s portfolio mix certainly has economic import (and even more so, changes in that portfolio mix). But that mix is secondary and subsequent to the total stock of various government-issued assets in play — be they bonds, checking deposits, whatever. Without a sufficient pool of those lubricatory assets, the financial economy binds up and freezes.

Which is why you, as queen or king, issued those tin coins in the first place. The economy needs them to operate smoothly. Sure, you got some one-time free labor out of the deal — “seignorage” and all that. But did you benefit? Maybe you used the labor to build roads. Both the roads and the coins are public goods. You just end up, still, as queen or king — of a more prosperous country. That one-time transaction happens — you issue coins and pay people to build roads or whatever (you “deficit spend”). But those coins (or bonds, or whatever) remain out there forever, for generations, doing the good work that needs doing in the economy. Money makes the world go round.

There’s really no reason to call those coins, or any other financial instrument the queen or king chooses to manufacture out of thin air and swap for those coins, “national debt.” Let’s switch to a term that actually describes the things that we ultimately tally up on the lefthand side of our private-sector balance sheets — something like “government-issued assets.”

There are deep political and economic implications to this kind of rethinking and renaming, but I’ll leave those implications to the ruminations of my gentle readers.

Different words to make the same idiotic claims...That government is the distributor of all wealth.
Government creates nothing. Government consumes. Government consumes less than it expends, making government a parasite.
Here's a lesson in supply and demand. Under which, all commodities including currency are subject to market forces.
When the federal reserve has top print more currency to pay for deficit spending, that simply increases the amount of dollars in circulation. This causes the supply to increase while doing the opposite to demand. Thus, the value of the USD falls. as currency traders sell USD in favor of stronger currencies. Business increases prices to make up for the loss in currency value.
The more the federal government has to borrow to cover for deficit spending, the lower the value of the US Dollar.
Ya got that?

The value of the US dollar is lower compared to what, assets, or other currencies? Since the BOJ and Europe are pursuing the same monetary expansion policies, and the dollar is the reserve currency, shouldn't we eventually get inflation?

Money expansion policies? Please explain.
Look at an inflation calculator. Inflation is inevitable.
As the cost of labor, goods, services, technology, etc increases, the requisite price for each and every, increases.
What difference does it make? None at all.
BTW, the above passage is just one anti capitalist person's opinion. Done

 

[thereisnospoon]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

 

[Dale Smith]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

 

[thereisnospoon]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

 

[Andylusion]

The debt is owed by USA.INC and it's subsidiaries. USA.INC was taken into recievership by the IMF in 1950 to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and it is a for profit venture....unfortunately, they hide the profits and give us the bill on the corporate credit card to us to pay off.....great business model when you have a country full of dullards.

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have a mint gold coin down stairs on my show case. My grand mother bought it for me.

 

[Dale Smith]

Yes, the 1% know how to siphon the Treasury and leave us with the debt. Ask Dick Cheney about that. And BTW, where's all the gold that used to be in Fort Knox? Maybe we should ask Cheney about that too...? Why are Congressional committees who ask for access to audit Fort Knox being denied access by ??? persons...?

That was OUR gold and OUR representatives must be allowed access to audit it.

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

 

[Andylusion]

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

I don't think that it matters. I really don't.

Why there isn't an audit, is obvious. We wouldn't really want the rest of the world to know how much assets the US government has. I wouldn't.

 

[Dale Smith]

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

I don't think that it matters. I really don't.

Why there isn't an audit, is obvious. We wouldn't really want the rest of the world to know how much assets the US government has. I wouldn't.

If it's not there (which I suspect is the case) I would think that you would want to know and furthermore, you would want to know where it went....no?

 

[Andylusion]

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

I don't think that it matters. I really don't.

Why there isn't an audit, is obvious. We wouldn't really want the rest of the world to know how much assets the US government has. I wouldn't.

If it's not there (which I suspect is the case) I would think that you would want to know and furthermore, you would want to know where it went....no?

Why? If I knew all the gold was still there.... I can't name one thing in my life that would be better, or worse.

If I knew the gold was all gone... I can't name one thing in my life that would be better, or worse.

So what difference does it make?

 

[SAYIT]

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

I don't think that it matters. I really don't.

Why there isn't an audit, is obvious. We wouldn't really want the rest of the world to know how much assets the US government has. I wouldn't.

If it's not there (which I suspect is the case) I would think that you would want to know and furthermore, you would want to know where it went....no?

Why? If I knew all the gold was still there.... I can't name one thing in my life that would be better, or worse.

If I knew the gold was all gone... I can't name one thing in my life that would be better, or worse.

So what difference does it make?

From what I've seen of Dale Smith, everything is a conspiracy intended to rob him of his rightful legacy as King of the World.
Despite his claims of genius, he may be the single dimmest poster I have ever encountered.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

A thought provoking read.
Isn't it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - Evonomics

What those scare-mongers don’t tell you, and generally don’t even understand: it actually makes almost no sense to call that figure “the national debt.” And no, you’re not on the hook to pay it back.

Imagine this: you’re the queen or king of a sovereign country. You decide to mint and issue a bunch of tin coins that your people will find useful. You use those coins to buy stuff from people in the private sector, and pay them to do work. Voilà, the people have money.
Is your government now in “debt” as a result of that “deficit spending”? Does it have to “pay” something to somebody at some point in the future? Do you have to redeem those coins for wheat or pigs or anything else? Obviously not. There’s just a bunch of money out there that people can use. You’ve made no promise that your treasury will ever redeem those coins for anything. They just circulate.

Those government-issued assets, held by the private sector, are only “liabilities” to the government in the most pettifogging accounting sense. If you “owed” some money that you would never, ever have to pay, would you put that on your balance sheet as a liability? Would it be anything beyond a pro formaentry designed to satisfy some obsessive impulse for accounting closure? A debt that will never be paid off is a very questionable “liability.”

That’s essentially the situation with the U.S. national “debt.” The U.S. issues money by deficit spending. It puts more money into private accounts than it takes out via taxes. The private sector has more balance-sheet assets (but no more liabilities, so it has more “net worth,” the balancing item on the righthand side of its balance sheet). The treasury has made no promises to redeem that new money for…anything (except maybe…different government-issued assets). It’s just out there.

Now it’s true that the U.S. et al operate under an arguably archaic and purely self-imposed rule: their treasuries are required to issue bonds equal to that deficit spending. This is a straightforward asset swap: the private sector gives checking-account deposits (back) to the government, and the government gives bonds in return. Private sector assets and net worth are unaffected by that accounting swap; it just changes the private-sector portfolio mix — more bonds, less “cash.” (Treasury “forces” the private sector to make that collective portfolio-adjusting swap through the simple expedient of selling bonds at an attractive price — a point or two below similar deals in the private sector.)

The same kind of asset swap happens when the Fed “prints money” for quantitative easing. The private sector gives bonds (back) to the government, and the Fed gives “reserves” in return — deposits in banks’ Fed accounts. Sure, the Fed creates those reserves ab nihilo, but they’re not a money injection into the private sector, like deficit spending. They’re just swapped for bonds. That accounting event doesn’t increase private-sector assets or net worth. It just changes the private-sector portfolio mix (more reserves, less bonds).

In any case, the private sector is holding government-issued assets. Whether they consist of bonds, “cash,” or reserves, is it realistic to call that money originally spent into private accounts a “debt” for the government? Is it in any real sense a government “liability” if it will never be redeemed for anything? Would a better term be “government-issued assets,” or similar?

Look at the U.S. and the U.K. as examples. The stock of government-issued assets from those sovereigns has been steadily (though fitfully) increasing for more than two centuries and three centuries, respectively. (And in the handful of cases where the stock was reduced significantly, the result was major economic depressions.) That centuries-long growth pattern could conceivably change at some point, but…why would governments stop issuing financial instruments all of a sudden — exchangeable instruments that their economies need to operate fluidly, and grow — while their economies continue to expand?

The government has committed itself to issuing bonds for archaic reasons, so it needs to roll over its “debt.” Old bonds mature, the government pays them off and issues new ones to replace them. Unendingly, for decades and centuries. But the stock of government-issued assets just keeps growing — as it should and must in a growing economy.

Those government-issued assets are a necessary lubricant for the operation of the private-sector economy. As the economy gets bigger, more of those assets are needed, as a kind of giant “pool” or buffer stock to avoid transactional lockups. (See: Paul Krugman’s babysitting co-op.) Realistically: will government stop issuing that necessary lubricant, or withdraw what it’s already issued, when the economic consequences of doing so are so dire?

It’s common parlance to say that the private sector is “holding government debt.” That’s understandable, since the private sector is holding bonds. But it’s a misnomer, and a pernicious, confusing one. The private sector is (obviously) holding assets on its balance sheet. The “debt,” such as it is, only exists as an offsetting accounting liability on the righthand side of the government balance sheet. (While “holding debt” is a handy verbal shorthand, if you think about it for a moment the usage makes no sense at all. How can you own something you owe? Debt can’t be an asset that you “hold.” It’s a liability.)

The private sector holds (owns) government-issued assets, not liabilities. And even the offsetting liabilities themselves are rather dodgy and iffy accounting entries. The government issues those assets as a public good. In the big picture over decades and centuries, that’s the end of it.

Another key understanding: Those different types of government-issued assets (bonds, “cash,” reserves, etc.) are straightforwardly fungible in the private market — at least at the margin, where it counts. The private sector couldn’t swap all its government bonds for currency or checking deposits at once (nor, realistically, would it). But if an individual bondholder needs cash for real-goods transactions or whatever else, the necessary asset-swap transaction happens with a mouse click. Likewise holders of checking-account deposits: if they want physical currency, their bank stands ready to make the swap; it’s called “withdrawing cash.” If the bank runs short on physical currency, the Federal Reserve provides it on demand in exchange for the bank’s reserves, its account deposits at the Fed. (With the Bureau of Engraving and Printing standing behind the Fed, presses ready to roll as the transactional economy expands.)

Now the private sector’s portfolio mix certainly has economic import (and even more so, changes in that portfolio mix). But that mix is secondary and subsequent to the total stock of various government-issued assets in play — be they bonds, checking deposits, whatever. Without a sufficient pool of those lubricatory assets, the financial economy binds up and freezes.

Which is why you, as queen or king, issued those tin coins in the first place. The economy needs them to operate smoothly. Sure, you got some one-time free labor out of the deal — “seignorage” and all that. But did you benefit? Maybe you used the labor to build roads. Both the roads and the coins are public goods. You just end up, still, as queen or king — of a more prosperous country. That one-time transaction happens — you issue coins and pay people to build roads or whatever (you “deficit spend”). But those coins (or bonds, or whatever) remain out there forever, for generations, doing the good work that needs doing in the economy. Money makes the world go round.

There’s really no reason to call those coins, or any other financial instrument the queen or king chooses to manufacture out of thin air and swap for those coins, “national debt.” Let’s switch to a term that actually describes the things that we ultimately tally up on the lefthand side of our private-sector balance sheets — something like “government-issued assets.”

There are deep political and economic implications to this kind of rethinking and renaming, but I’ll leave those implications to the ruminations of my gentle readers.

Different words to make the same idiotic claims...That government is the distributor of all wealth.
Government creates nothing. Government consumes. Government consumes less than it expends, making government a parasite.
Here's a lesson in supply and demand. Under which, all commodities including currency are subject to market forces.
When the federal reserve has top print more currency to pay for deficit spending, that simply increases the amount of dollars in circulation. This causes the supply to increase while doing the opposite to demand. Thus, the value of the USD falls. as currency traders sell USD in favor of stronger currencies. Business increases prices to make up for the loss in currency value.
The more the federal government has to borrow to cover for deficit spending, the lower the value of the US Dollar.
Ya got that?

The value of the US dollar is lower compared to what, assets, or other currencies? Since the BOJ and Europe are pursuing the same monetary expansion policies, and the dollar is the reserve currency, shouldn't we eventually get inflation?

Money expansion policies? Please explain.
Look at an inflation calculator. Inflation is inevitable.
As the cost of labor, goods, services, technology, etc increases, the requisite price for each and every, increases.
What difference does it make? None at all.
BTW, the above passage is just one anti capitalist person's opinion. Done

Many economist/investors use the term "money expansion policy" to describe events like quantitative easing or other similar stimulus which occurs when central banks increase money supply to stimulate growth. Yes, it is inflationary, but it is intended to create growth, not in response to growth.

 

[Andylusion]

A thought provoking read.
Isn't it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - Evonomics

What those scare-mongers don’t tell you, and generally don’t even understand: it actually makes almost no sense to call that figure “the national debt.” And no, you’re not on the hook to pay it back.

Imagine this: you’re the queen or king of a sovereign country. You decide to mint and issue a bunch of tin coins that your people will find useful. You use those coins to buy stuff from people in the private sector, and pay them to do work. Voilà, the people have money.
Is your government now in “debt” as a result of that “deficit spending”? Does it have to “pay” something to somebody at some point in the future? Do you have to redeem those coins for wheat or pigs or anything else? Obviously not. There’s just a bunch of money out there that people can use. You’ve made no promise that your treasury will ever redeem those coins for anything. They just circulate.

Those government-issued assets, held by the private sector, are only “liabilities” to the government in the most pettifogging accounting sense. If you “owed” some money that you would never, ever have to pay, would you put that on your balance sheet as a liability? Would it be anything beyond a pro formaentry designed to satisfy some obsessive impulse for accounting closure? A debt that will never be paid off is a very questionable “liability.”

That’s essentially the situation with the U.S. national “debt.” The U.S. issues money by deficit spending. It puts more money into private accounts than it takes out via taxes. The private sector has more balance-sheet assets (but no more liabilities, so it has more “net worth,” the balancing item on the righthand side of its balance sheet). The treasury has made no promises to redeem that new money for…anything (except maybe…different government-issued assets). It’s just out there.

Now it’s true that the U.S. et al operate under an arguably archaic and purely self-imposed rule: their treasuries are required to issue bonds equal to that deficit spending. This is a straightforward asset swap: the private sector gives checking-account deposits (back) to the government, and the government gives bonds in return. Private sector assets and net worth are unaffected by that accounting swap; it just changes the private-sector portfolio mix — more bonds, less “cash.” (Treasury “forces” the private sector to make that collective portfolio-adjusting swap through the simple expedient of selling bonds at an attractive price — a point or two below similar deals in the private sector.)

The same kind of asset swap happens when the Fed “prints money” for quantitative easing. The private sector gives bonds (back) to the government, and the Fed gives “reserves” in return — deposits in banks’ Fed accounts. Sure, the Fed creates those reserves ab nihilo, but they’re not a money injection into the private sector, like deficit spending. They’re just swapped for bonds. That accounting event doesn’t increase private-sector assets or net worth. It just changes the private-sector portfolio mix (more reserves, less bonds).

In any case, the private sector is holding government-issued assets. Whether they consist of bonds, “cash,” or reserves, is it realistic to call that money originally spent into private accounts a “debt” for the government? Is it in any real sense a government “liability” if it will never be redeemed for anything? Would a better term be “government-issued assets,” or similar?

Look at the U.S. and the U.K. as examples. The stock of government-issued assets from those sovereigns has been steadily (though fitfully) increasing for more than two centuries and three centuries, respectively. (And in the handful of cases where the stock was reduced significantly, the result was major economic depressions.) That centuries-long growth pattern could conceivably change at some point, but…why would governments stop issuing financial instruments all of a sudden — exchangeable instruments that their economies need to operate fluidly, and grow — while their economies continue to expand?

The government has committed itself to issuing bonds for archaic reasons, so it needs to roll over its “debt.” Old bonds mature, the government pays them off and issues new ones to replace them. Unendingly, for decades and centuries. But the stock of government-issued assets just keeps growing — as it should and must in a growing economy.

Those government-issued assets are a necessary lubricant for the operation of the private-sector economy. As the economy gets bigger, more of those assets are needed, as a kind of giant “pool” or buffer stock to avoid transactional lockups. (See: Paul Krugman’s babysitting co-op.) Realistically: will government stop issuing that necessary lubricant, or withdraw what it’s already issued, when the economic consequences of doing so are so dire?

It’s common parlance to say that the private sector is “holding government debt.” That’s understandable, since the private sector is holding bonds. But it’s a misnomer, and a pernicious, confusing one. The private sector is (obviously) holding assets on its balance sheet. The “debt,” such as it is, only exists as an offsetting accounting liability on the righthand side of the government balance sheet. (While “holding debt” is a handy verbal shorthand, if you think about it for a moment the usage makes no sense at all. How can you own something you owe? Debt can’t be an asset that you “hold.” It’s a liability.)

The private sector holds (owns) government-issued assets, not liabilities. And even the offsetting liabilities themselves are rather dodgy and iffy accounting entries. The government issues those assets as a public good. In the big picture over decades and centuries, that’s the end of it.

Another key understanding: Those different types of government-issued assets (bonds, “cash,” reserves, etc.) are straightforwardly fungible in the private market — at least at the margin, where it counts. The private sector couldn’t swap all its government bonds for currency or checking deposits at once (nor, realistically, would it). But if an individual bondholder needs cash for real-goods transactions or whatever else, the necessary asset-swap transaction happens with a mouse click. Likewise holders of checking-account deposits: if they want physical currency, their bank stands ready to make the swap; it’s called “withdrawing cash.” If the bank runs short on physical currency, the Federal Reserve provides it on demand in exchange for the bank’s reserves, its account deposits at the Fed. (With the Bureau of Engraving and Printing standing behind the Fed, presses ready to roll as the transactional economy expands.)

Now the private sector’s portfolio mix certainly has economic import (and even more so, changes in that portfolio mix). But that mix is secondary and subsequent to the total stock of various government-issued assets in play — be they bonds, checking deposits, whatever. Without a sufficient pool of those lubricatory assets, the financial economy binds up and freezes.

Which is why you, as queen or king, issued those tin coins in the first place. The economy needs them to operate smoothly. Sure, you got some one-time free labor out of the deal — “seignorage” and all that. But did you benefit? Maybe you used the labor to build roads. Both the roads and the coins are public goods. You just end up, still, as queen or king — of a more prosperous country. That one-time transaction happens — you issue coins and pay people to build roads or whatever (you “deficit spend”). But those coins (or bonds, or whatever) remain out there forever, for generations, doing the good work that needs doing in the economy. Money makes the world go round.

There’s really no reason to call those coins, or any other financial instrument the queen or king chooses to manufacture out of thin air and swap for those coins, “national debt.” Let’s switch to a term that actually describes the things that we ultimately tally up on the lefthand side of our private-sector balance sheets — something like “government-issued assets.”

There are deep political and economic implications to this kind of rethinking and renaming, but I’ll leave those implications to the ruminations of my gentle readers.

Different words to make the same idiotic claims...That government is the distributor of all wealth.
Government creates nothing. Government consumes. Government consumes less than it expends, making government a parasite.
Here's a lesson in supply and demand. Under which, all commodities including currency are subject to market forces.
When the federal reserve has top print more currency to pay for deficit spending, that simply increases the amount of dollars in circulation. This causes the supply to increase while doing the opposite to demand. Thus, the value of the USD falls. as currency traders sell USD in favor of stronger currencies. Business increases prices to make up for the loss in currency value.
The more the federal government has to borrow to cover for deficit spending, the lower the value of the US Dollar.
Ya got that?

The value of the US dollar is lower compared to what, assets, or other currencies? Since the BOJ and Europe are pursuing the same monetary expansion policies, and the dollar is the reserve currency, shouldn't we eventually get inflation?

Money expansion policies? Please explain.
Look at an inflation calculator. Inflation is inevitable.
As the cost of labor, goods, services, technology, etc increases, the requisite price for each and every, increases.
What difference does it make? None at all.
BTW, the above passage is just one anti capitalist person's opinion. Done

Many economist/investors use the term "money expansion policy" to describe events like quantitative easing or other similar stimulus which occurs when central banks increase money supply to stimulate growth. Yes, it is inflationary, but it is intended to create growth, not in response to growth.

Yeah, I know why they claim to do it. I don't see that it ever works. Japan tried this for a decade, and it didn't do jack.

The Keynesian call it a Liquidity Trap. But I call it bad economics. The problem is, injecting money into the banking system, doesn't magically make investors willing to invest, or borrowers worthy of borrowing.

If the economy sucks, and there are no investors willing to invest in your economy, it doesn't matter how much money the banks have laying around to invest with. If the economy sucks, and borrowers are too risky to lend money to, it doesn't matter how much money you have to lend with.

This idea that we should be printing off cash, and expanding the money supply, when there is nothing for people to buy, sell, build, or produce..... is stupid.

Change the taxes, and the regulation, so that people can engage in capitalism, and the free market, and then the economy will take off. Ironically if the economy takes off, you don't need Quantitative easing anymore.

So I can't think of a single situation where QE is of any value.... other than to devalue the money, so government can borrow more money.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

A thought provoking read.
Isn't it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - Evonomics

Different words to make the same idiotic claims...That government is the distributor of all wealth.
Government creates nothing. Government consumes. Government consumes less than it expends, making government a parasite.
Here's a lesson in supply and demand. Under which, all commodities including currency are subject to market forces.
When the federal reserve has top print more currency to pay for deficit spending, that simply increases the amount of dollars in circulation. This causes the supply to increase while doing the opposite to demand. Thus, the value of the USD falls. as currency traders sell USD in favor of stronger currencies. Business increases prices to make up for the loss in currency value.
The more the federal government has to borrow to cover for deficit spending, the lower the value of the US Dollar.
Ya got that?

The value of the US dollar is lower compared to what, assets, or other currencies? Since the BOJ and Europe are pursuing the same monetary expansion policies, and the dollar is the reserve currency, shouldn't we eventually get inflation?

Money expansion policies? Please explain.
Look at an inflation calculator. Inflation is inevitable.
As the cost of labor, goods, services, technology, etc increases, the requisite price for each and every, increases.
What difference does it make? None at all.
BTW, the above passage is just one anti capitalist person's opinion. Done

Many economist/investors use the term "money expansion policy" to describe events like quantitative easing or other similar stimulus which occurs when central banks increase money supply to stimulate growth. Yes, it is inflationary, but it is intended to create growth, not in response to growth.

Yeah, I know why they claim to do it. I don't see that it ever works. Japan tried this for a decade, and it didn't do jack.

The Keynesian call it a Liquidity Trap. But I call it bad economics. The problem is, injecting money into the banking system, doesn't magically make investors willing to invest, or borrowers worthy of borrowing.

If the economy sucks, and there are no investors willing to invest in your economy, it doesn't matter how much money the banks have laying around to invest with. If the economy sucks, and borrowers are too risky to lend money to, it doesn't matter how much money you have to lend with.

This idea that we should be printing off cash, and expanding the money supply, when there is nothing for people to buy, sell, build, or produce..... is stupid.

Change the taxes, and the regulation, so that people can engage in capitalism, and the free market, and then the economy will take off. Ironically if the economy takes off, you don't need Quantitative easing anymore.

So I can't think of a single situation where QE is of any value.... other than to devalue the money, so government can borrow more money.

I agree with you for the most part. I believe the issue is the unwillingness of politicians to accept that there will be periods of recession or even depression in any economy. People generally vote their pocket book, so if things are going well, politicians get re-elected. The Federal Government is complicit with the Federal Reserve in the money printing scheme. It is an incestuous relationship. The Federal reserve holds government debt which allows the government to rack up huge debt without consequence, for which the Federal government allows the Federal Reserve to control the banking system unchecked, all they have to do is control inflation and unemployment. And I concur, it is folly that will ultimately fail, and on the way to failure it breeds malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, etc.

 

[Dovahkiin]

A thought provoking read.
Isn't it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - Evonomics

Different words to make the same idiotic claims...That government is the distributor of all wealth.
Government creates nothing. Government consumes. Government consumes less than it expends, making government a parasite.
Here's a lesson in supply and demand. Under which, all commodities including currency are subject to market forces.
When the federal reserve has top print more currency to pay for deficit spending, that simply increases the amount of dollars in circulation. This causes the supply to increase while doing the opposite to demand. Thus, the value of the USD falls. as currency traders sell USD in favor of stronger currencies. Business increases prices to make up for the loss in currency value.
The more the federal government has to borrow to cover for deficit spending, the lower the value of the US Dollar.
Ya got that?

The value of the US dollar is lower compared to what, assets, or other currencies? Since the BOJ and Europe are pursuing the same monetary expansion policies, and the dollar is the reserve currency, shouldn't we eventually get inflation?

Money expansion policies? Please explain.
Look at an inflation calculator. Inflation is inevitable.
As the cost of labor, goods, services, technology, etc increases, the requisite price for each and every, increases.
What difference does it make? None at all.
BTW, the above passage is just one anti capitalist person's opinion. Done

Many economist/investors use the term "money expansion policy" to describe events like quantitative easing or other similar stimulus which occurs when central banks increase money supply to stimulate growth. Yes, it is inflationary, but it is intended to create growth, not in response to growth.

Yeah, I know why they claim to do it. I don't see that it ever works. Japan tried this for a decade, and it didn't do jack.

The Keynesian call it a Liquidity Trap. But I call it bad economics. The problem is, injecting money into the banking system, doesn't magically make investors willing to invest, or borrowers worthy of borrowing.

If the economy sucks, and there are no investors willing to invest in your economy, it doesn't matter how much money the banks have laying around to invest with. If the economy sucks, and borrowers are too risky to lend money to, it doesn't matter how much money you have to lend with.

This idea that we should be printing off cash, and expanding the money supply, when there is nothing for people to buy, sell, build, or produce..... is stupid.

Change the taxes, and the regulation, so that people can engage in capitalism, and the free market, and then the economy will take off. Ironically if the economy takes off, you don't need Quantitative easing anymore.

So I can't think of a single situation where QE is of any value.... other than to devalue the money, so government can borrow more money.

Japan tried this for a decade, and it didn't do jack.

Which is why they need to lower taxes and focus on boosting aggregate demand for the people who don't save as much.

The Keynesian call it a Liquidity Trap.

That's what it is.

The problem is, injecting money into the banking system, doesn't magically make investors willing to invest, or borrowers worthy of borrowing.

I agree, since banks loan when people are worthy and demand credit, they don't loan out deposits.

If the economy sucks, and there are no investors willing to invest in your economy, it doesn't matter how much money the banks have laying around to invest with.

Banks don't even need money laying around, only to meet requirements set by the government. Bank loans create money.

This idea that we should be printing off cash, and expanding the money supply, when there is nothing for people to buy, sell, build, or produce..... is stupid.

It's a great idea, if it's aimed at putting dollars directly into the poor/middle classes hands with jobs/assistance programs.

Change the taxes, and the regulation, so that people can engage in capitalism, and the free market, and then the economy will take off.

Yeah, that has never happened. Not without a massive build up in private sector debt.

So I can't think of a single situation where QE is of any value.... other than to devalue the money, so government can borrow more money.

QE makes sure banks have excess reserves and helps control the rates when banks lend reserves to each other overnight. It's useful, and QE money doesn't get into our hands anyways. The government doesn't really "borrow" since it has to spend the dollars before it can convert them to bonds.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What are you smoking? 37% of taxes are paid by the top 1%. The top 25% pay 85% of all taxes. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a government at all.

It's not OUR gold, it's their gold you stole from them. Our representatives are doing exactly what we tell them to.

Sadly, what you think you know about how this corporate "gubermint" works (which is owned by international bankers which is a fucking fact) and what the reality is are two very different things and so far detatched from reality that if you could comprehend it? You would want to lead a charge of people armed with pitchforks and torches on D.C....it's just that fucking bad. We have been raped, pillaged and plundered. You say that the gold in Ft Knox was not the country's treasure? Look up the gold confiscation that took place in 1933....knowledge is power. Look up some of my old posts. I have spent 12 to 14 hours a day every day for the last 4 years trying to figure out how things got so fucked up and I have a pretty good grasp on it....kudos to those that went before me that did the heavy lifting.

The gold confiscation is null and void. Old hat. Next.

Really? So where is the gold???????

I have some..And no, you cannot see it.
Why are you so hung up on this stupid shit?
Why don't you just go buy some for yourself?
Or would you rather just have something to bitch about?
What's next? A conspiracy thread about earthquakes?
The funniest part of your everything is a conspiracy obsession is that you think you have a pretty good grasp on "it"....That's funny.
The best thing I can say about you conspiracy wackos is that it's free entertainment

The gold in Ft Knox........where is it and why has there never been a full audit of it? Things that make you go "hmmmmmm?:"

Genius.....There is roughly 177 million ounces of gold bullion in the Kentucky facility.
Or do you have a reading comprehension problem?