Modern Monetary Theory (MMT): How Fiat Money Works

[bripat9643]

Interesting read... I am curious though, I hear plenty fear mongering by the conservatives about the debt cliff and other arguments that are so lopsided that it is hard to take seriously. I'd like to hear from somebody from the other side who see's the benefits of economic stimulus and deficit spending... What are the cautions and possible negative effects that can happen from having an extremely large debt? Is there a breaking point and how is it measured? and what is a healthy goal for spending and debt levels to have a sustainable and flourishing economy?

The debt cliff fear mongering is done by both sides. It's absolute nonsense and a political game. People have claimed that treasury securities are going to collapse the nation for decades and that we'll have to "pay for it" and all of this other nonsense. It's all politics. The "national debt" simply accounts for treasury securities, but in reality, all forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government, reserves/notes/coins.. Those aren't included in the national debt fear mongering though. Bonds are, quite literally, an interest earning term savings account. Economic stimulus is a wonderful thing, fiscal policy works much better then monetary policy. The new deal, reagan's deficit spending, the recent stimulus.. Deficit spending is a necessity, there's a reason we run a net deficit.
Read this:

Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital.


This fallacy seems to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals. Current reality is almost the exact opposite. Deficits add to the net disposable income of individuals, to the extent that government disbursements that constitute income to recipients exceed that abstracted from disposable income in taxes, fees, and other charges. This added purchasing power, when spent, provides markets for private production, inducing producers to invest in additional plant capacity, which will form part of the real heritage left to the future. This is in addition to whatever public investment takes place in infrastructure, education, research, and the like. Larger deficits, sufficient to recycle savings out of a growing gross domestic product (GDP) in excess of what can be recycled by profit-seeking private investment, are not an economic sin but an economic necessity. Deficits in excess of a gap growing as a result of the maximum feasible growth in real output might indeed cause problems, but we are nowhere near that level.

Even the analogy itself is faulty. If General Motors, AT&T, and individual households had been required to balance their budgets in the manner being applied to the Federal government, there would be no corporate bonds, no mortgages, no bank loans, and many fewer automobiles, telephones, and houses.

I tend to laugh out loud at the ignorant fools who want to balance the budget for eternity. These people are truly idiots.
I also laugh at people who believe countercylical fiscal policy is a failure. You can't ignore hard data. It's common for people to do this though.
Well, now that we've acknowledged the "national debt" simply represents bonds that are used as a place to save government issued dollars, and if you want to get wonky, bonds are also used to help the central bank manage interest rates. Anyways, nothing can stop us from crediting accounts of the entities that hold bonds when the time comes to "pay the interest." The only reason we're in a situation where people believe that taxes are needed to fund anything is ignorance. Greenspan, Bernanke, others know what is really going on. The average american doesn't care, or believes the government is a household, which is absolute nonsense. Now, "debt" is a problem for governments that do one of these things:
1.) Use a foreign currency, without the ability to create it when needed, having to rely on a foreign entity. (Greece)
2.) A country that pegs their currency.
Now, Japan's debt to GDP is simply massive, and are they collapsing? Absolutely not, because they don't fit any of the above conditions. Now, should we let debt to gdp get as high as Japan? That's up to the reader to decide, but right now, debt to GDP is absolutely fine.
A healthy goal for spending is to get to full employment, which I and others define as:
"Less then 2 percent unemployment, close to zero underemployment, and close to zero hidden unemployment."
Now, that seems like a pipedream, but the best way to aim spending towards full employment is to aim towards a pipe dream. Unfortunately, we have people who believe getting UE below 4.5% (Number is around there) will cause crippling inflation. That number used to be higher, until the 90's where they kept lowering it..
I'd like to borrow this quote, and it really demonstrates the importance of the government running a net deficit:

The private sector cannot survive in negative territory. It cannot go on, year after year, spending more than its income. It is not like the US government. It cannot support rising indebtedness in perpetuity. It is not a currency issuer. Eventually, something will give. And when it does, the private sector will retrench, the economy will contract, and the government's budget will move back into deficit."

Unfortunately, no one cares about private sector debt. It's what we need to be worrying about, not the treasury securities of a currency issuer that doesn't peg, have any foreign debt, and doesn't use a foreign currency. The national debt is absolutely necessary, it simply represents money the government has given the domestic private sector/foreign sector. It's earned money saved in the safest vehicle there is, bonds. Nothing to worry about. And I suppose I should ask, are we paying for the world war 2 "debt?" Are we throwing real resources into a time portal? We're idiots! We're worrying about something that benefits the private sector and the world, while we have real issues. Unemployment, education, the military..

I appreciate the response and details you went into. The economics is fascinating. To dig a little deeper, when does inflation become a problem and what are the most contributing factors?

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

 

[Slade3200]

The debt cliff fear mongering is done by both sides. It's absolute nonsense and a political game. People have claimed that treasury securities are going to collapse the nation for decades and that we'll have to "pay for it" and all of this other nonsense. It's all politics. The "national debt" simply accounts for treasury securities, but in reality, all forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government, reserves/notes/coins.. Those aren't included in the national debt fear mongering though. Bonds are, quite literally, an interest earning term savings account. Economic stimulus is a wonderful thing, fiscal policy works much better then monetary policy. The new deal, reagan's deficit spending, the recent stimulus.. Deficit spending is a necessity, there's a reason we run a net deficit.
Read this:
I tend to laugh out loud at the ignorant fools who want to balance the budget for eternity. These people are truly idiots.
I also laugh at people who believe countercylical fiscal policy is a failure. You can't ignore hard data. It's common for people to do this though.
Well, now that we've acknowledged the "national debt" simply represents bonds that are used as a place to save government issued dollars, and if you want to get wonky, bonds are also used to help the central bank manage interest rates. Anyways, nothing can stop us from crediting accounts of the entities that hold bonds when the time comes to "pay the interest." The only reason we're in a situation where people believe that taxes are needed to fund anything is ignorance. Greenspan, Bernanke, others know what is really going on. The average american doesn't care, or believes the government is a household, which is absolute nonsense. Now, "debt" is a problem for governments that do one of these things:
1.) Use a foreign currency, without the ability to create it when needed, having to rely on a foreign entity. (Greece)
2.) A country that pegs their currency.
Now, Japan's debt to GDP is simply massive, and are they collapsing? Absolutely not, because they don't fit any of the above conditions. Now, should we let debt to gdp get as high as Japan? That's up to the reader to decide, but right now, debt to GDP is absolutely fine.
A healthy goal for spending is to get to full employment, which I and others define as:
"Less then 2 percent unemployment, close to zero underemployment, and close to zero hidden unemployment."
Now, that seems like a pipedream, but the best way to aim spending towards full employment is to aim towards a pipe dream. Unfortunately, we have people who believe getting UE below 4.5% (Number is around there) will cause crippling inflation. That number used to be higher, until the 90's where they kept lowering it..
I'd like to borrow this quote, and it really demonstrates the importance of the government running a net deficit:
Unfortunately, no one cares about private sector debt. It's what we need to be worrying about, not the treasury securities of a currency issuer that doesn't peg, have any foreign debt, and doesn't use a foreign currency. The national debt is absolutely necessary, it simply represents money the government has given the domestic private sector/foreign sector. It's earned money saved in the safest vehicle there is, bonds. Nothing to worry about. And I suppose I should ask, are we paying for the world war 2 "debt?" Are we throwing real resources into a time portal? We're idiots! We're worrying about something that benefits the private sector and the world, while we have real issues. Unemployment, education, the military..

I appreciate the response and details you went into. The economics is fascinating. To dig a little deeper, when does inflation become a problem and what are the most contributing factors?

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

I agree with Dovahkiin on this one... Our economy thrives on the transfer of funds from one hand to another. If people stopped borrowing and spending and simply saved then our GDP would tank and our economy would slow and the debt would increase. Think about it, the "debt" that conservatives are so worried about is mostly comprised of domestic investment in treasury bonds. If the people tighten up and save more than spend then they keep their money in savings and investment accounts adding to the debt and decreasing GDP.

bripat9643, that noodle behind your eyes seems to be firing alright but you seem to jump to an opposition reaction to everything. Even when you agree you are doing so in an oppositional way. Most of us welcome a healthy debate but it is also OK to agree and consider alternative ideas... its how we grow.

Back to the topic... I think we can agree that the country thrives when money changes hands. Unfortunately a very large percentage of that money flows to the top, so what is the best approach to even the scales? Higher taxes for the rich or Lower taxes via tax incentives to stimulate spending?

 

[Norman]

I appreciate the response and details you went into. The economics is fascinating. To dig a little deeper, when does inflation become a problem and what are the most contributing factors?

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

I agree with Dovahkiin on this one... Our economy thrives on the transfer of funds from one hand to another. If people stopped borrowing and spending and simply saved then our GDP would tank and our economy would slow and the debt would increase. Think about it, the "debt" that conservatives are so worried about is mostly comprised of domestic investment in treasury bonds. If the people tighten up and save more than spend then they keep their money in savings and investment accounts adding to the debt and decreasing GDP.

bripat9643, that noodle behind your eyes seems to be firing alright but you seem to jump to an opposition reaction to everything. Even when you agree you are doing so in an oppositional way. Most of us welcome a healthy debate but it is also OK to agree and consider alternative ideas... its how we grow.

Back to the topic... I think we can agree that the country thrives when money changes hands. Unfortunately a very large percentage of that money flows to the top, so what is the best approach to even the scales? Higher taxes for the rich or Lower taxes via tax incentives to stimulate spending?

Economies don't thrive on theft, but production. Just to be clear here, you are talking about theft when you say "money changing hands". Now, economics tank every time there are major changes, hardly a good argument.

If you bothered doing any research, you would fine countries with more considerable savings rates do just fine - and generally speaking better. Who knew that if future consumption is preferred over current consumption (saving), the future is going to be prosperous? Wow... what a leap of logic. Economies don't grow on spending but saving. Spending is nice for short run aid at best, to bolster failed businesses.

Doubtful that paying more taxes incentivizes anyone to work. Penalize something and you get less of it. This applies to success.

Garbage ideas can be of course considered and then thrown to the garbage can where they belong. So far you were not even successful at formulating a proper argument. To be frank your argument sounded more than anything like "I like spending" "Therefore it's great! And rich better pay for it, cause I hate actually producing anything!".

 

[Slade3200]

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

I agree with Dovahkiin on this one... Our economy thrives on the transfer of funds from one hand to another. If people stopped borrowing and spending and simply saved then our GDP would tank and our economy would slow and the debt would increase. Think about it, the "debt" that conservatives are so worried about is mostly comprised of domestic investment in treasury bonds. If the people tighten up and save more than spend then they keep their money in savings and investment accounts adding to the debt and decreasing GDP.

bripat9643, that noodle behind your eyes seems to be firing alright but you seem to jump to an opposition reaction to everything. Even when you agree you are doing so in an oppositional way. Most of us welcome a healthy debate but it is also OK to agree and consider alternative ideas... its how we grow.

Back to the topic... I think we can agree that the country thrives when money changes hands. Unfortunately a very large percentage of that money flows to the top, so what is the best approach to even the scales? Higher taxes for the rich or Lower taxes via tax incentives to stimulate spending?

Economies don't thrive on theft, but production. Just to be clear here, you are talking about theft when you say "money changing hands". Now, economics tank every time there are major changes, hardly a good argument.

If you bothered doing any research, you would fine countries with more considerable savings rates do just fine - and generally speaking better. Who knew that if future consumption is preferred over current consumption (saving), the future is going to be prosperous? Wow... what a leap of logic. Economies don't grow on spending but saving. Spending is nice for short run aid at best, to bolster failed businesses.

Doubtful that paying more taxes incentivizes anyone to work. Penalize something and you get less of it. This applies to success.

Garbage ideas can be of course considered and then thrown to the garbage can where they belong. So far you were not even successful at formulating a proper argument. To be frank your argument sounded more than anything like "I like spending" "Therefore it's great! And rich better pay for it, cause I hate actually producing anything!".

Do you just assume everybody you talk to is an uniformed idiot? What's wrong with you? Money changing hands is not theft it is the act of commerce, it is what makes up our GDP. Slow done and try comprehending before you respond to things

 

[Slade3200]

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

I agree with Dovahkiin on this one... Our economy thrives on the transfer of funds from one hand to another. If people stopped borrowing and spending and simply saved then our GDP would tank and our economy would slow and the debt would increase. Think about it, the "debt" that conservatives are so worried about is mostly comprised of domestic investment in treasury bonds. If the people tighten up and save more than spend then they keep their money in savings and investment accounts adding to the debt and decreasing GDP.

bripat9643, that noodle behind your eyes seems to be firing alright but you seem to jump to an opposition reaction to everything. Even when you agree you are doing so in an oppositional way. Most of us welcome a healthy debate but it is also OK to agree and consider alternative ideas... its how we grow.

Back to the topic... I think we can agree that the country thrives when money changes hands. Unfortunately a very large percentage of that money flows to the top, so what is the best approach to even the scales? Higher taxes for the rich or Lower taxes via tax incentives to stimulate spending?

Economies don't thrive on theft, but production. Just to be clear here, you are talking about theft when you say "money changing hands". Now, economics tank every time there are major changes, hardly a good argument.

If you bothered doing any research, you would fine countries with more considerable savings rates do just fine - and generally speaking better. Who knew that if future consumption is preferred over current consumption (saving), the future is going to be prosperous? Wow... what a leap of logic. Economies don't grow on spending but saving. Spending is nice for short run aid at best, to bolster failed businesses.

Doubtful that paying more taxes incentivizes anyone to work. Penalize something and you get less of it. This applies to success.

Garbage ideas can be of course considered and then thrown to the garbage can where they belong. So far you were not even successful at formulating a proper argument. To be frank your argument sounded more than anything like "I like spending" "Therefore it's great! And rich better pay for it, cause I hate actually producing anything!".

I wasn't presenting an argument I was stimulating a discussion. One I hope condescending lpricks like you will not take part of

 

[Dovahkiin]

The debt cliff fear mongering is done by both sides. It's absolute nonsense and a political game. People have claimed that treasury securities are going to collapse the nation for decades and that we'll have to "pay for it" and all of this other nonsense. It's all politics. The "national debt" simply accounts for treasury securities, but in reality, all forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government, reserves/notes/coins.. Those aren't included in the national debt fear mongering though. Bonds are, quite literally, an interest earning term savings account. Economic stimulus is a wonderful thing, fiscal policy works much better then monetary policy. The new deal, reagan's deficit spending, the recent stimulus.. Deficit spending is a necessity, there's a reason we run a net deficit.
Read this:
I tend to laugh out loud at the ignorant fools who want to balance the budget for eternity. These people are truly idiots.
I also laugh at people who believe countercylical fiscal policy is a failure. You can't ignore hard data. It's common for people to do this though.
Well, now that we've acknowledged the "national debt" simply represents bonds that are used as a place to save government issued dollars, and if you want to get wonky, bonds are also used to help the central bank manage interest rates. Anyways, nothing can stop us from crediting accounts of the entities that hold bonds when the time comes to "pay the interest." The only reason we're in a situation where people believe that taxes are needed to fund anything is ignorance. Greenspan, Bernanke, others know what is really going on. The average american doesn't care, or believes the government is a household, which is absolute nonsense. Now, "debt" is a problem for governments that do one of these things:
1.) Use a foreign currency, without the ability to create it when needed, having to rely on a foreign entity. (Greece)
2.) A country that pegs their currency.
Now, Japan's debt to GDP is simply massive, and are they collapsing? Absolutely not, because they don't fit any of the above conditions. Now, should we let debt to gdp get as high as Japan? That's up to the reader to decide, but right now, debt to GDP is absolutely fine.
A healthy goal for spending is to get to full employment, which I and others define as:
"Less then 2 percent unemployment, close to zero underemployment, and close to zero hidden unemployment."
Now, that seems like a pipedream, but the best way to aim spending towards full employment is to aim towards a pipe dream. Unfortunately, we have people who believe getting UE below 4.5% (Number is around there) will cause crippling inflation. That number used to be higher, until the 90's where they kept lowering it..
I'd like to borrow this quote, and it really demonstrates the importance of the government running a net deficit:
Unfortunately, no one cares about private sector debt. It's what we need to be worrying about, not the treasury securities of a currency issuer that doesn't peg, have any foreign debt, and doesn't use a foreign currency. The national debt is absolutely necessary, it simply represents money the government has given the domestic private sector/foreign sector. It's earned money saved in the safest vehicle there is, bonds. Nothing to worry about. And I suppose I should ask, are we paying for the world war 2 "debt?" Are we throwing real resources into a time portal? We're idiots! We're worrying about something that benefits the private sector and the world, while we have real issues. Unemployment, education, the military..

I appreciate the response and details you went into. The economics is fascinating. To dig a little deeper, when does inflation become a problem and what are the most contributing factors?

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

Saving is a leakage, a drag on consumption. Growth is caused by investment, usually in regards to loans. Lmao ,the private sector can only save thanks to a government deficit.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Well, inflation has never been an issue apart from the 70's which was an example of cost push inflation. (Inflation due to energy prices.)
Inflation becomes an issue when demand exceeds supply, which is the only real inflation risk. It's easy to avoid this though, using taxes to drain dollars, reducing spending, etc..

How about the fact that a majority of our wealth has flowed to the infamous 1%... Should the government be motivated to stimulate the private sector and top earners to spend more, saving less and putting more money into circulation or do you see it as a simple matter of government deficit spending?

It's a huge problem. Spending drives the economy, and saving is a drag on consumption, harming the economy. The government should do its best to get dollars into the hands of the poor and middle class, and do all it can to encourage spending.

Savings harms the economy? All growth is the result of savings. Only someone trying to justify a huge wasteful rapacious government would claim savings is harmful.

I agree with Dovahkiin on this one... Our economy thrives on the transfer of funds from one hand to another. If people stopped borrowing and spending and simply saved then our GDP would tank and our economy would slow and the debt would increase. Think about it, the "debt" that conservatives are so worried about is mostly comprised of domestic investment in treasury bonds. If the people tighten up and save more than spend then they keep their money in savings and investment accounts adding to the debt and decreasing GDP.

bripat9643, that noodle behind your eyes seems to be firing alright but you seem to jump to an opposition reaction to everything. Even when you agree you are doing so in an oppositional way. Most of us welcome a healthy debate but it is also OK to agree and consider alternative ideas... its how we grow.

Back to the topic... I think we can agree that the country thrives when money changes hands. Unfortunately a very large percentage of that money flows to the top, so what is the best approach to even the scales? Higher taxes for the rich or Lower taxes via tax incentives to stimulate spending?

Economies don't thrive on theft, but production. Just to be clear here, you are talking about theft when you say "money changing hands". Now, economics tank every time there are major changes, hardly a good argument.

If you bothered doing any research, you would fine countries with more considerable savings rates do just fine - and generally speaking better. Who knew that if future consumption is preferred over current consumption (saving), the future is going to be prosperous? Wow... what a leap of logic. Economies don't grow on spending but saving. Spending is nice for short run aid at best, to bolster failed businesses.

Doubtful that paying more taxes incentivizes anyone to work. Penalize something and you get less of it. This applies to success.

Garbage ideas can be of course considered and then thrown to the garbage can where they belong. So far you were not even successful at formulating a proper argument. To be frank your argument sounded more than anything like "I like spending" "Therefore it's great! And rich better pay for it, cause I hate actually producing anything!".

Name the countries you're talking about, and keep in mind that when one sector saves, another has to be in deficit. This is true anywhere you look.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I actually think we should each have our own right to print money that way we don't have to work anymore. It will be wonderful.

 

[Slade3200]

I actually think we should each have our own right to print money that way we don't have to work anymore. It will be wonderful.

If you did create your own currency you would be able to make as much as you want... It will be up to you to spend and tax in a way that fosters a value for that currency. These strategies are what we are trying to discuss

 

[Centinel]

Gold is real money, and notes that can be exchanged for gold are real money. Everything else is worthless trash.

Gold is real money? I don't see people using gold to pay their mortgages or buy cars.
You can't exchange dollars for gold, not anymore, and the gold standard was a disaster.

That's because it's illegal to use gold as currency. People have tried it, and they are in federal prison now.

The gold standard was anything but a disaster. In 1913 before the Federal Reserve was created the gold backed dollar was worth more than it was worth in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.

Good. The government has to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand so they can spend for the public good.
Dude, that sounds like austrian shit. The money supply has to increase, get over it. I work less and earn more in relation to someone in the 1820's.

When the several sovereign states came together and established their union, they gave it a very small, specific set of powers. Can you show me in the constition the power to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand? I'd like to see the language you quote.

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

 

[Slade3200]

Gold is real money? I don't see people using gold to pay their mortgages or buy cars.
You can't exchange dollars for gold, not anymore, and the gold standard was a disaster.

That's because it's illegal to use gold as currency. People have tried it, and they are in federal prison now.

The gold standard was anything but a disaster. In 1913 before the Federal Reserve was created the gold backed dollar was worth more than it was worth in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.

Good. The government has to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand so they can spend for the public good.
Dude, that sounds like austrian shit. The money supply has to increase, get over it. I work less and earn more in relation to someone in the 1820's.

When the several sovereign states came together and established their union, they gave it a very small, specific set of powers. Can you show me in the constition the power to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand? I'd like to see the language you quote.

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

 

[Centinel]

That's because it's illegal to use gold as currency. People have tried it, and they are in federal prison now.

The gold standard was anything but a disaster. In 1913 before the Federal Reserve was created the gold backed dollar was worth more than it was worth in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.

Good. The government has to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand so they can spend for the public good.
Dude, that sounds like austrian shit. The money supply has to increase, get over it. I work less and earn more in relation to someone in the 1820's.

When the several sovereign states came together and established their union, they gave it a very small, specific set of powers. Can you show me in the constition the power to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand? I'd like to see the language you quote.

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

 

[Slade3200]

Good. The government has to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand so they can spend for the public good.
Dude, that sounds like austrian shit. The money supply has to increase, get over it. I work less and earn more in relation to someone in the 1820's.

When the several sovereign states came together and established their union, they gave it a very small, specific set of powers. Can you show me in the constition the power to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand? I'd like to see the language you quote.

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

 

[Centinel]

When the several sovereign states came together and established their union, they gave it a very small, specific set of powers. Can you show me in the constition the power to make sure the currency it issues is always in demand? I'd like to see the language you quote.

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

 

[Slade3200]

Look, I don't care about the constitution in this discussion, I'm laying out how fiat money works. You can disagree with how reality is right now, and that's fine, it's good to express your opinion. But, we both know I'm correct.

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

 

[bripat9643]

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

Getting rid of fiat money is one of the main things we need to do to "progress" our economy.

 

[Dovahkiin]

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

Getting rid of fiat money is one of the main things we need to do to "progress" our economy.

Good luck with that.

 

[Centinel]

I know how fiat money works. First the government forces us to use it. Then, when it wishes, it produces more of it for itself. That way, it never runs out of the ability to buy things. Meanwhile, those holding money see their purchasing power stolen from them.

That's why those who established the united states withheld from it the power to institute fiat money. They knew how bad it sucked.

You can live In the past or live in the now

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

I understand it. I just think it's a scam. If it weren't a scam, it wouldn't have had to be forced upon us. It would have arisen on the market. The fact that it required government force to institute is clear evidence that it's less desireable than the alternatives.

 

[Centinel]

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

Getting rid of fiat money is one of the main things we need to do to "progress" our economy.

Good luck with that.

No luck required. All fiat monies eventually fail.

Have you ever heard the term "Not worth a continental"?

 

[bripat9643]

You actually can't live in the past. You can only live in the now.

Do I really need to explain the expression to you? Try a little harder to keep up please

I addressed your statement that one can't live in the past. Was that intended to make some larger point?

Yes, it means you can dwell on the fact the you don't like the fiat money (living in the past) or you can try to understand it and discuss the best ways to progress our economy (living in the present) I can't believe that I had to explain that

Getting rid of fiat money is one of the main things we need to do to "progress" our economy.

Good luck with that.

In due time.