Social Security Discussion

[Foxfyre]

Capitalism is pretty simple in concept actually.

From InvestorWords:

CAPITALISM: Economic system characterized by the following:
private property ownership exists;
individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain;
and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.

Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
Read more: What is Capitalism? definition and meaning

The government sidetracks the system when it presumes to spend our money for us rather than allow us to spend it as we choose; when it presumes to encourage or discourage different kinds of enterprise via subsidy and/or excess taxation; and when it presumes to redistribute income and takes resources from one group in order to benefit another.

Social Security of course was well intended, but it is not capitalism. And for all the good it does, it has major negatives that reasonable people will acknowledge and the statists/leftists/political class will not.

 

[RKMBrown]

People come at all these marco issues thinking logically, based on what they know about how money and debt work in THEIR LIVES

And that is why they get confused... the collective FANTASY that it takes to make a FIAT currency driven economy is simply so counterintuitive, and so completely UNLIKE the way the work of economic works for US and our families, that people cannot understand how it can possibly work.

You can really tell when people are confused if they tell you that the GOLD STANDARD would force governments to work within a budget. (why do they think that? Because they know nothing of economic history, that's why)

NOTHING can prevent our government or any other government from spending FAIT specie.

Not anymore, kiddies.

CAPITALISM as most of you think it is supposed to work is BROKEN,

It's been broken since before many of you were even born.

While I'm sure there are some people who don't understand our monetary system, you two are not talking to one of those people.

Capitalism isn't broken, our system of socialism and the pissing of the profits of capitalism away is what is broken.

Expansion of credit sucks, but then so do all of the other monetary systems. For at the heart of all monetary systems is management by greedy fallible humans...

Yup. No question. It is indeed ed. Pretending he knows what capitalism is, but with no clue. Just like ed.
Or maybe RKM is just channeling ed.

I'm sure that it is possible for two people of opposite political views to see the same policies and facts from two different perspectives. My politics are for liberty and limited style of government, yours presumably for authority and marxist style of government.

While I'm sure you and your ilk will use very different terms to describe the same thing, I assure you that I have no clue who this ed guy is nor do I know how to channel him. Perhaps you could give us all a sequence of steps we can used to channel this guy.

 

[Trajan]

I beg to differ.

I started my career as a stockbroker, and I was shocked at how little people of means saved. These weren't dumb people, either. They were usually educated people who made good income and lived in nice houses. (Poor people don't talk to stockbrokers.)

Even today, despite SS, people generally don't save enough based on their expected level of future income. If people truly had the will to save, they would live in smaller houses, drive older cars, and spend less generally. And the incremental amounts aren't much. Even saving an additional 2-3% each paycheck can make a world of difference. But they don't because they aspire to a standard of living today. Most can't conceptualize 20-30 years from now. If people have a hard time saving an incremental 3% under today's scheme, they sure as heck aren't going to save their 6% in FICA taxes plus the necessary incremental 3% on top of that. Instead, they'll save a part of the 6% and spend part, driving themselves further in the hole.

But you are looking at it through the prism of the entitlement generation. The generation that has been conditioned and trained, by its own government, to NOT look to themselves for their own security. I am looking at it through the eyes of those as they were before the entitlement motif was thrust upon us.

Prior to the "Entitlement Generation," people still didn't save enough. That's why SS was created in the first place. People often worked until they died.

The logic that people would save enough for retirement without SS is flawed. Even with SS, people still don't save enough. If SS provides 60% of what people need, and people need X to live on retirement, people would know that they have to save 0.4X to retire under SS. Why would anyone believe that people would save 1.0X if people can't save 0.4X? 0.4X is easier to save than 1.0X. In fact, people would most likely save less than 0.6X that they receive from SS.

right, because SS is a SUPPLEMENT to retirement not intended AS ones retirement. A point that I think gets lost....along wiht entry level jobs not paying above minimum wage

theres a sect of folks out there that need to remember that.....if a couple worked higher end jobs BUT didn't save , except perhaps having their house paid off, and get the 45K, even then they won't be taking Alaskan cruises and jetting off to Hawaii every year...


yet I think that that particular sect of folks think that of they can't, somehow the country has failed them...or the rich 'took' it or kept them from making enough etc etc etc ....

 

[Trajan]

But you are looking at it through the prism of the entitlement generation. The generation that has been conditioned and trained, by its own government, to NOT look to themselves for their own security. I am looking at it through the eyes of those as they were before the entitlement motif was thrust upon us.

Sure you are. At when hundreds of thousands were on the street. When millions lived in poverty after their working days. But then, you only look at the good in the fact that the relatively wealthy did great. Got it. And you do not believe a non investment plan, essentially a public insurance program, is a rational solution. Got it.

Now, since the great majority think ss is a good thing, what you think really does not matter. You are, as they say, immaterial. Your beliefs really make no difference. You will not see ss privatized, and you will not see it go away. You will see it adjusted, to pay as it does today.

Because we vote, and you lost, as you will again if you are behind privatizing ss.

what a bunch of crap....

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure you are. At when hundreds of thousands were on the street. When millions lived in poverty after their working days. But then, you only look at the good in the fact that the relatively wealthy did great. Got it. And you do not believe a non investment plan, essentially a public insurance program, is a rational solution. Got it.

Now, since the great majority think ss is a good thing, what you think really does not matter. You are, as they say, immaterial. Your beliefs really make no difference. You will not see ss privatized, and you will not see it go away. You will see it adjusted, to pay as it does today.

Because we vote, and you lost, as you will again if you are behind privatizing ss.

what a bunch of crap....

Is that where Obama's brother lives?

 

[Trajan]

I lost a chunk of my retirement investment with the Bush crash. If SS were invested on Wall St, I would have lost all or part of that as well.

Thanks to Obama, I've regained what I lost but even so, I'll never get back what was lost.

SS is untouchable and it should stay that way. Think about it. If Rs get the power to do so, we will lost every penny that is rightfully ours.

the governments been using $85Bn a month to get you back to what you had imbecile....Jesus Christ...

 

[Kimura]

Who said the fed operates like a household? Are you hearing voices? Yes they do use checks. Are you to stupid to realize even government agencies have to pay bills out of accounts?

You do...constantly. Your idiotic talk about federal taxes funding expenditures, the economic enslavement of children because of deficits, how they won't be able to produce and consume real goods and services because of deficits. It's crazy talk with zero basis in reality.

Just because you may have some inkling of knowledge about the "possible" actions congress could take, does not mean you have even a remote smidgen of knowledge about how our system currently works. The fed is a completely independent organization. They merely report to congress through the Treasury. Our Treasury gets it's money by borrowing and taxing, not by commanding the fed to bail them out with a blank check backed by empty promises. The fed operations are independent of our national debt.

The FED is part of the government, the Board of Governors are appointed, are they not? The FED is the monetary agent of Congress and the central bank. There's no reason to differentiate between the Treasury and FED when it comes to monetary operations.

From whom does the US government borrow? Santa Claus? As the currency issuer, it doesn’t borrow its own fiat. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments are done with dollars which are already spent. If this wasn’t the operational reality, we wouldn’t have any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

Get this through your thick skull: we’re no longer on a convertible currency, nor is there a fixed pool of savings in the economy.

I’ll use your erroneous belief about federal taxes as an example. In reality, spending precedes any borrowing or tax payments. If we include loans from the Federal Reserve, I’m 100% correct and you’re wrong as usual. The settlement process of bond auctions and tax settlements/payments to the Treasury is only possible through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The primary source of these balances in reserve accounts stem from previous government DEFICITS, which are either loans from the FED or credits to reserve accounts. The Federal Reserve makes these loans through various ways: repos, loans, the purchase or private securities, and even overdrafts. In order for any bond to sales to be ultimately settled or taxes to be completely extinguished, previous government DEFICITS must have occurred at some point.

 

[oldfart]

If I borrow money for my house or to start a business that's one thing. What govco is doing is completely different. Financing wars we don't need, financing handouts we should not be doing, donating money around the globe, spending money to rape our environment to grow corn for fuel, ... hundreds of duplicate government programs. Hell we learn today that we are paying the DNC to sign people up for subsidies for Obama Care. Teaching people how to cheat the American Taxpayer. Arming our DHS to kill Americans. Throwing lavish conferences on the taxpayer's dime....

And while SS sucks it's not nearly as bad as our discretionary spending.

I've been waiting for a while to find a post of yours to agree with. We might come up with different lists of "wasteful" spending, but there is a lot of overlap in practice and your position that social insurance is better spent than a lot of discretionary spending is spot on.

Congratulations, we agree!

 

[Kimura]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Was there a point there?

Yeah, your inability to understand basic double-entry bookkeeping.

 

[Kimura]

what a bunch of crap....

Is that where Obama's brother lives?

Those are your grandchildren. They're unable to work and consume any real goods and services due to previous government deficits.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said the fed operates like a household? Are you hearing voices? Yes they do use checks. Are you to stupid to realize even government agencies have to pay bills out of accounts?

You do...constantly. Your idiotic talk about federal taxes funding expenditures, the economic enslavement of children because of deficits, how they won't be able to produce and consume real goods and services because of deficits. It's crazy talk with zero basis in reality.

Just because you may have some inkling of knowledge about the "possible" actions congress could take, does not mean you have even a remote smidgen of knowledge about how our system currently works. The fed is a completely independent organization. They merely report to congress through the Treasury. Our Treasury gets it's money by borrowing and taxing, not by commanding the fed to bail them out with a blank check backed by empty promises. The fed operations are independent of our national debt.

The FED is part of the government, the Board of Governors are appointed, are they not? The FED is the monetary agent of Congress and the central bank. There's no reason to differentiate between the Treasury and FED when it comes to monetary operations.

From whom does the US government borrow? Santa Claus? As the currency issuer, it doesn’t borrow its own fiat. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments are done with dollars which are already spent. If this wasn’t the operational reality, we wouldn’t have any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

Get this through your thick skull: we’re no longer on a convertible currency, nor is there a fixed pool of savings in the economy.

I’ll use your erroneous belief about federal taxes as an example. In reality, spending precedes any borrowing or tax payments. If we include loans from the Federal Reserve, I’m 100% correct and you’re wrong as usual. The settlement process of bond auctions and tax settlements/payments to the Treasury is only possible through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The primary source of these balances in reserve accounts stem from previous government DEFICITS, which are either loans from the FED or credits to reserve accounts. The Federal Reserve makes these loans through various ways: repos, loans, the purchase or private securities, and even overdrafts. In order for any bond to sales to be ultimately settled or taxes to be completely extinguished, previous government DEFICITS must have occurred at some point.

You are all over the map, and still completely clueless.

The interest paid to the fed by the cartel is a small amount of revenue. Yes those "profits" are then paid to the Treasury by the fed. However, the interest earned by the cartel is not, unless those banks have a profit. But that's just tax revenue like anything else. The fed operations are independent of the Treasury. So what if the board is appointed? It's operations are still independent. The unlimited expansion of credit is to ensure there's enough money available for loans to the cartel, so that the cartel can in turn provide loans to the public. You act like the cartel is buying our federal debt (federal securities) with the fed loans, is that true? I heard they did it once or twice, but I thought this is not a general practice.

On your accusation that the primary source of our federal debt is our federal borrowing, well duh.

 

[oldfart]

Capitalism is pretty simple in concept actually.

From InvestorWords:

CAPITALISM: Economic system characterized by the following:
private property ownership exists;
individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain;
and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.

Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
Read more: What is Capitalism? definition and meaning

The government sidetracks the system when it presumes to spend our money for us rather than allow us to spend it as we choose; when it presumes to encourage or discourage different kinds of enterprise via subsidy and/or excess taxation; and when it presumes to redistribute income and takes resources from one group in order to benefit another.

Social Security of course was well intended, but it is not capitalism. And for all the good it does, it has major negatives that reasonable people will acknowledge and the statists/leftists/political class will not.

This definition suffers from the twin faults of defining capitalism out of existence in a modern economy and portraying capitalism as something that should not exist at all. Congratulations, "Investorwords" is unveiled as a Marxist!

So Social Security is not capitalism. Then I presume industry-specific tax credits, agricultural price supports, crop insurance, flood insurance, and financial industry regulation are not capitalism either. Of course if capitalism is defined as no government interference in a market, capitalism has been defined out of existence. Even Milton Friedman avoided this trap.

But I understand that Investorwords has no problem with government action which redistributes income upward, of favors their particular industries or classes. Government intervention is always necessary when it benefits the interests of "conservative" entities, it is only objectionable when when it regulates or restrains them, or is for the benefit of society as a whole.

So here's a little reality check. Which of the following do you agree with?

1. A capitalist should opposed all government research, especially basic research.
2. A capitalist should oppose all government regulations, repealing laws concerning weights and measures, product labeling, advertising claims, and judgments as to safety and efficacy.
3. A capitalist should oppose all labor legislation, except right to work laws.
4. A capitalist should oppose laws protecting property rights when they infringe on the rights of business.
5. A capitalist should oppose all public education, all public works including water, sewer, airport, bridge, and highway projects, all public health measures, the gathering of demographic and economic statistics, and support privatization of prisons, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
6. A capitalist should support all efforts to remove prohibitions on monopoly power and collusion among business interests.

Is this the type of "capitalist" system anyone in America wants to live in?

 

[RKMBrown]

If I borrow money for my house or to start a business that's one thing. What govco is doing is completely different. Financing wars we don't need, financing handouts we should not be doing, donating money around the globe, spending money to rape our environment to grow corn for fuel, ... hundreds of duplicate government programs. Hell we learn today that we are paying the DNC to sign people up for subsidies for Obama Care. Teaching people how to cheat the American Taxpayer. Arming our DHS to kill Americans. Throwing lavish conferences on the taxpayer's dime....

And while SS sucks it's not nearly as bad as our discretionary spending.

I've been waiting for a while to find a post of yours to agree with. We might come up with different lists of "wasteful" spending, but there is a lot of overlap in practice and your position that social insurance is better spent than a lot of discretionary spending is spot on.

Congratulations, we agree!

I don't hate SS. I just think we could do better and I think it should be voluntary. I hate forcing people to do things with their finances, supposedly for their own benefit, and I hate that our government has spent the money from SS/medicare on "other" things. And mostly I hate that each successive generation has been forced to pay double what the previous generation had to pay for SS because of the government theft to fund discretionary spending.

When I rail about government spending though, it's not the SS/Medicare spending I'm railing about. Two separate issues. I see SS/Medicare as forced retirement insurance. As such they should be treated as a separate issue from the discretionary budget. Same for federal / military pensions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Capitalism is pretty simple in concept actually.

From InvestorWords:

CAPITALISM: Economic system characterized by the following:
private property ownership exists;
individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain;
and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.

Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
Read more: What is Capitalism? definition and meaning

The government sidetracks the system when it presumes to spend our money for us rather than allow us to spend it as we choose; when it presumes to encourage or discourage different kinds of enterprise via subsidy and/or excess taxation; and when it presumes to redistribute income and takes resources from one group in order to benefit another.

Social Security of course was well intended, but it is not capitalism. And for all the good it does, it has major negatives that reasonable people will acknowledge and the statists/leftists/political class will not.

This definition suffers from the twin faults of defining capitalism out of existence in a modern economy and portraying capitalism as something that should not exist at all. Congratulations, "Investorwords" is unveiled as a Marxist!

So Social Security is not capitalism. Then I presume industry-specific tax credits, agricultural price supports, crop insurance, flood insurance, and financial industry regulation are not capitalism either. Of course if capitalism is defined as no government interference in a market, capitalism has been defined out of existence. Even Milton Friedman avoided this trap.

But I understand that Investorwords has no problem with government action which redistributes income upward, of favors their particular industries or classes. Government intervention is always necessary when it benefits the interests of "conservative" entities, it is only objectionable when when it regulates or restrains them, or is for the benefit of society as a whole.

So here's a little reality check. Which of the following do you agree with?

1. A capitalist should opposed all government research, especially basic research.
2. A capitalist should oppose all government regulations, repealing laws concerning weights and measures, product labeling, advertising claims, and judgments as to safety and efficacy.
3. A capitalist should oppose all labor legislation, except right to work laws.
4. A capitalist should oppose laws protecting property rights when they infringe on the rights of business.
5. A capitalist should oppose all public education, all public works including water, sewer, airport, bridge, and highway projects, all public health measures, the gathering of demographic and economic statistics, and support privatization of prisons, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
6. A capitalist should support all efforts to remove prohibitions on monopoly power and collusion among business interests.

Is this the type of "capitalist" system anyone in America wants to live in?

There are two types of conservatives (ok I'm generalizing but go with it . Those who believe in liberty and those who believe in using government authority to fleece Americans. Please don't conflate the two. Please don't even try to make the argument that the opposite of authoritarian socialist control of our finances is anarchy and crony capitalism. We can have liberty and free markets under the rule of law. We can break up monopolies & oligopolies that take advantage of liberty to eliminate free markets. This is not rocket science.

 

[Kimura]

Who said the fed operates like a household? Are you hearing voices? Yes they do use checks. Are you to stupid to realize even government agencies have to pay bills out of accounts?

You do...constantly. Your idiotic talk about federal taxes funding expenditures, the economic enslavement of children because of deficits, how they won't be able to produce and consume real goods and services because of deficits. It's crazy talk with zero basis in reality.

Just because you may have some inkling of knowledge about the "possible" actions congress could take, does not mean you have even a remote smidgen of knowledge about how our system currently works. The fed is a completely independent organization. They merely report to congress through the Treasury. Our Treasury gets it's money by borrowing and taxing, not by commanding the fed to bail them out with a blank check backed by empty promises. The fed operations are independent of our national debt.

The FED is part of the government, the Board of Governors are appointed, are they not? The FED is the monetary agent of Congress and the central bank. There's no reason to differentiate between the Treasury and FED when it comes to monetary operations.

From whom does the US government borrow? Santa Claus? As the currency issuer, it doesn’t borrow its own fiat. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments are done with dollars which are already spent. If this wasn’t the operational reality, we wouldn’t have any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

Get this through your thick skull: we’re no longer on a convertible currency, nor is there a fixed pool of savings in the economy.

I’ll use your erroneous belief about federal taxes as an example. In reality, spending precedes any borrowing or tax payments. If we include loans from the Federal Reserve, I’m 100% correct and you’re wrong as usual. The settlement process of bond auctions and tax settlements/payments to the Treasury is only possible through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The primary source of these balances in reserve accounts stem from previous government DEFICITS, which are either loans from the FED or credits to reserve accounts. The Federal Reserve makes these loans through various ways: repos, loans, the purchase or private securities, and even overdrafts. In order for any bond to sales to be ultimately settled or taxes to be completely extinguished, previous government DEFICITS must have occurred at some point.

You are all over the map, and still completely clueless.

The interest paid to the fed by the cartel is a small amount of revenue. Yes those "profits" are then paid to the Treasury by the fed. However, the interest earned by the cartel is not, unless those banks have a profit. But that's just tax revenue like anything else. The fed operations are independent of the Treasury. So what if the board is appointed? It's operations are still independent. The unlimited expansion of credit is to ensure there's enough money available for loans to the cartel, so that the cartel can in turn provide loans to the public. You act like the cartel is buying our federal debt (federal securities) with the fed loans, is that true? I heard they did it once or twice, but I thought this is not a general practice.

On your accusation that the primary source of our federal debt is our federal borrowing, well duh.

First of all, the FED isn’t a cartel, nor is it run for profit. They’re audited and subject to oversight by Congress. It’s an independent entity within the federal government and is part of what we call the consolidated government sector.

Banks which own reserve bank stock, for example, aren't the same as you or I owning stock stock in Apple or Google. The reserve banks aren’t run for profit and the stock ownership is a requirement by law. They can’t sell them or use them as collateral for loans. Their dividends are six percent annually if I’m not mistaken.

Lastly, to clear up your confusion about terms like ‘borrowing’, the Treasury doesn't borrow from the FED in any meaningful capacity. This would imply that the FED possesses funds which aren't available to the Treasury (US government), and that the FED ‘loans’ money to the Treasury at some nebulous market price. This simply isn’t based in reality at all. The Federal Reserve provides the monetary basis for the Treasury’s fiscal policy.

 

[Foxfyre]

You do...constantly. Your idiotic talk about federal taxes funding expenditures, the economic enslavement of children because of deficits, how they won't be able to produce and consume real goods and services because of deficits. It's crazy talk with zero basis in reality.



The FED is part of the government, the Board of Governors are appointed, are they not? The FED is the monetary agent of Congress and the central bank. There's no reason to differentiate between the Treasury and FED when it comes to monetary operations.

From whom does the US government borrow? Santa Claus? As the currency issuer, it doesn’t borrow its own fiat. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments are done with dollars which are already spent. If this wasn’t the operational reality, we wouldn’t have any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

Get this through your thick skull: we’re no longer on a convertible currency, nor is there a fixed pool of savings in the economy.

I’ll use your erroneous belief about federal taxes as an example. In reality, spending precedes any borrowing or tax payments. If we include loans from the Federal Reserve, I’m 100% correct and you’re wrong as usual. The settlement process of bond auctions and tax settlements/payments to the Treasury is only possible through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The primary source of these balances in reserve accounts stem from previous government DEFICITS, which are either loans from the FED or credits to reserve accounts. The Federal Reserve makes these loans through various ways: repos, loans, the purchase or private securities, and even overdrafts. In order for any bond to sales to be ultimately settled or taxes to be completely extinguished, previous government DEFICITS must have occurred at some point.

You are all over the map, and still completely clueless.

The interest paid to the fed by the cartel is a small amount of revenue. Yes those "profits" are then paid to the Treasury by the fed. However, the interest earned by the cartel is not, unless those banks have a profit. But that's just tax revenue like anything else. The fed operations are independent of the Treasury. So what if the board is appointed? It's operations are still independent. The unlimited expansion of credit is to ensure there's enough money available for loans to the cartel, so that the cartel can in turn provide loans to the public. You act like the cartel is buying our federal debt (federal securities) with the fed loans, is that true? I heard they did it once or twice, but I thought this is not a general practice.

On your accusation that the primary source of our federal debt is our federal borrowing, well duh.

First of all, the FED isn’t a cartel, nor is it run for profit. They’re audited and subject to oversight by Congress. It’s an independent entity within the federal government and is part of what we call the consolidated government sector.

Banks which own reserve bank stock, for example, aren't the same as you or I owning stock stock in Apple or Google. The reserve banks aren’t run for profit and the stock ownership is a requirement by law. They can’t sell them or use them as collateral for loans. Their dividends are six percent annually if I’m not mistaken.

Lastly, to clear up your confusion about terms like ‘borrowing’, the Treasury doesn't borrow from the FED in any meaningful capacity. This would imply that the FED possesses funds which aren't available to the Treasury (US government), and that the FED ‘loans’ money to the Treasury at some nebulous market price. This simply isn’t based in reality at all. The Federal Reserve provides the monetary basis for the Treasury’s fiscal policy.

Really? Please point to the last Congressional audit of the Fed. We'll wait patiently as it is going to take you quite a bit of time to find that event.

 

[RKMBrown]

You do...constantly. Your idiotic talk about federal taxes funding expenditures, the economic enslavement of children because of deficits, how they won't be able to produce and consume real goods and services because of deficits. It's crazy talk with zero basis in reality.



The FED is part of the government, the Board of Governors are appointed, are they not? The FED is the monetary agent of Congress and the central bank. There's no reason to differentiate between the Treasury and FED when it comes to monetary operations.

From whom does the US government borrow? Santa Claus? As the currency issuer, it doesn’t borrow its own fiat. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments are done with dollars which are already spent. If this wasn’t the operational reality, we wouldn’t have any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

Get this through your thick skull: we’re no longer on a convertible currency, nor is there a fixed pool of savings in the economy.

I’ll use your erroneous belief about federal taxes as an example. In reality, spending precedes any borrowing or tax payments. If we include loans from the Federal Reserve, I’m 100% correct and you’re wrong as usual. The settlement process of bond auctions and tax settlements/payments to the Treasury is only possible through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The primary source of these balances in reserve accounts stem from previous government DEFICITS, which are either loans from the FED or credits to reserve accounts. The Federal Reserve makes these loans through various ways: repos, loans, the purchase or private securities, and even overdrafts. In order for any bond to sales to be ultimately settled or taxes to be completely extinguished, previous government DEFICITS must have occurred at some point.

You are all over the map, and still completely clueless.

The interest paid to the fed by the cartel is a small amount of revenue. Yes those "profits" are then paid to the Treasury by the fed. However, the interest earned by the cartel is not, unless those banks have a profit. But that's just tax revenue like anything else. The fed operations are independent of the Treasury. So what if the board is appointed? It's operations are still independent. The unlimited expansion of credit is to ensure there's enough money available for loans to the cartel, so that the cartel can in turn provide loans to the public. You act like the cartel is buying our federal debt (federal securities) with the fed loans, is that true? I heard they did it once or twice, but I thought this is not a general practice.

On your accusation that the primary source of our federal debt is our federal borrowing, well duh.

First of all, the FED isn’t a cartel, nor is it run for profit. They’re audited and subject to oversight by Congress. It’s an independent entity within the federal government and is part of what we call the consolidated government sector.

Banks which own reserve bank stock, for example, aren't the same as you or I owning stock stock in Apple or Google. The reserve banks aren’t run for profit and the stock ownership is a requirement by law. They can’t sell them or use them as collateral for loans. Their dividends are six percent annually if I’m not mistaken.

Lastly, to clear up your confusion about terms like ‘borrowing’, the Treasury doesn't borrow from the FED in any meaningful capacity. This would imply that the FED possesses funds which aren't available to the Treasury (US government), and that the FED ‘loans’ money to the Treasury at some nebulous market price. This simply isn’t based in reality at all. The Federal Reserve provides the monetary basis for the Treasury’s fiscal policy.

Who said the FED is a cartel? Who said the FED is run for profit? Did you not take your meds? You keep hearing voices like this we're gonna need to send an ambulance. You appear to be having an episode.

But I do like how I said they are independent and then you retort with no they are "independent." ROFL

>>> The reserve banks aren’t run for profit and the stock ownership is a requirement by law. They can’t sell them or use them as collateral for loans. Their dividends are six percent annually if I’m not mistaken.

ROFL it's not stock, but they receive "dividends." You are hilarious.

Consolidated government sector, you mean like energy, transportation, insurance, unions, community organizers, the DNC, and auto makers? ROFL

>>> Lastly, to clear up your confusion about terms like ‘borrowing’, the Treasury doesn't borrow from the FED in any meaningful capacity. This would imply that the FED possesses funds which aren't available to the Treasury (US government), and that the FED ‘loans’ money to the Treasury at some nebulous market price. This simply isn’t based in reality at all. The Federal Reserve provides the monetary basis for the Treasury’s fiscal policy.

Let me get this straight, to clear up my supposed confusion you back track 180 degrees from your earlier posts and finally agree with everything I said. ROFL Dude you could be a news caster on the comedy channel. Your dancing is just hilarious.

 

[expat_panama]

...Median household net worth: $68,828...

--and the median age is 34. The median saves enough, the average is very well off, and this is why the only way the loopylefites can "sell" SS is by force.

 

[flacaltenn]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Well THERE'S something to be proud of... OOOOPS --- just checked a minute ago --- you're now wrong..

 

[expat_panama]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Private net worth is 74,820.94 Billions of Dollars, and total public debt is 16,738,319 Millions of Dollars.