Teabaggees

evince said:
not one fact produced there by you damo
Click to expand...

See? As I said. Ignoring history and facts. It's a standard of the left. It will work "this time"... You bring up historical facts and they say some nonsense like this. Because deliberate ignorance is what it takes to continue to believe that it will work "this time".
 
evince said:
you can dickweed


go right ahead



you just cant force people to place the same value in it that you do.


in other words your "money" is monopoly money in value
Click to expand...

Actually it is illegal. Why is it illegal. Why is value attached to paper currency do you know. Does Wikipedia tell you?
 
Damocles said:
The left believes that "government money" doesn't come from the private economy, therefore it is a magical debt that never needs to be repaid because it doesn't matter...

It ignores historical facts like the Weimar Republic, and makes them feel good to consistently pretend that everything is okay as the government creates a debt bubble that will lay waste to the value of the dollar.

But hey, the left never lets facts get in the way of their belief system. No matter how often you can show the historical failure of their policies in practice they continue to just say that they'll work "this time" because the "right people are in charge"...
Click to expand...

It is simply an objective fact that money "comes from" the government. All dollars ultimately come from the federal government. This becomes clear when you actually take a detailed look at the accounting for the whole economy. You can look up the literature on the hierarchy of money and on reserve accounting at the central bank yourself, much of it is freely available on the internet.

There is nothing magical about it at all, it is very basic macro accounting. The government's debt equals the net assets of the private sector (again leaving the foreign sector out for simplicity).

Go on, click on the links I provided. You will see that the three sectors' finances are in fact a mirror image.

Now, as to the Weimar Republic, I fail to see how this is a "historical fact" that I ignore. The Weimar hyperinflationary situation was caused by two basic factors: 1, that the First World War and the German revolution had devastated the German economy and had seriously compromised the government's ability to do things essential to maintenance of the macroeconomy like collect taxes. So you have a horrendous supply crisis.

Then added to this you have the burden imposed by the Versailles Treaty, which imposed large debts on Germany that were denominated in gold and other raw materials.
Under these circumstances how could hyperinflation fail to result? The idea that the circumstances of Weimar Germany in the early '20s are somehow applicable to the United States (or the Western world more generally) in 2015 is ludicrous beyond words, and in fact betrays fundamental ignorance of the very history you invoke.

To be clear, the United States faces no massive foreign obligations denominated in gold, raw materials, or even a currency it doesn't print (its debts are denominated in dollars which means they are serviced and paid off via keystroke). The United States is facing a crisis of depressed demand (or oversupply) rather than being wracked by shortages resulting from devoting much of the country's industrial output (to say nothing of how many millions of young men) to a total war. The US has not recently had a revolution and civil war complete with anarchy and gunfighting in the streets between right-wing militias and Communists.

Fiat money and growth driven by government deficit spending has a long track record of working, while austerity has never worked.
 
Asoka said:
No, quite wrong. Let's make this very simple and imagine an economy with only two people. In such an economy, a debt of one person must be an asset of the other person.

So it is with the private and public sectors in the real-life economy. The public sector's net debt must equal the net assets of the private sector. Very simple double-entry bookkeeping stuff dictates this. It is not difficult to understand or to confirm empirically with a Google search. There is a reason that the balances of the three sectors--government, private, and foreign--have finances that look like a mirror image on a graph.
Click to expand...

But it's not an economy of just two people, so your analogy failed from the get go.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But it's not an economy of just two people, so your analogy failed from the get go.
Click to expand...

The analogy was only to illustrate the principle that any debt must create an asset of equal size. That's the case whether the economy consists of two people or three hundred million. The net debt of the government creates net assets of equal size for the non-government sector. 1=1.
 
Asoka said:
The analogy was only to illustrate the principle that any debt must create an asset of equal size. That's the case whether the economy consists of two people or three hundred million. The net debt of the government creates net assets of equal size for the non-government sector. 1=1.
Click to expand...

OK, let's use your example.

Person 1 agrees to share crop land belonging to Person 2.
Person 2 will provide the seed and equipment and will share in 1/2 of the profits, after expenses.

A drought happens and Person 1's crop fails.
What asset has Person 2 gained?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
A drought happens and Person 1's crop fails.

What asset has Person 2 gained?
Click to expand...

The same assets that were and are lost when debt collapses in real life. Wherever there is debt, there is credit. Of course, in ancient times frequently these events would result in person 1's family members being sold into slavery to pay the debt off. So, in some cases person 2 would get a slave as an "asset." Or, if the sharecropper is more prosperous person 2 might expect to receive something else down the line when times are a little better for everyone.

At any rate what you've described is often a characteristic of pre-monetary economic relations. It is of only dubious utility in describing modern systems of finance and banking in which debts are denominated with a single mathematical system and credit is controlled by a centralized government.
 
Asoka said:
The same assets that were and are lost when debt collapses in real life. Wherever there is debt, there is credit. Of course, in ancient times frequently these events would result in person 1's family members being sold into slavery to pay the debt off. So, in some cases person 2 would get a slave as an "asset." Or, if the sharecropper is more prosperous person 2 might expect to receive something else down the line when times are a little better for everyone.

At any rate what you've described is often a characteristic of pre-monetary economic relations. It is of only dubious utility in describing modern systems of finance and banking in which debts are denominated with a single mathematical system and credit is controlled by a centralized government.
Click to expand...

Thanks for agreeing that if Person 1 fails, then Person 2 receives no assets. :good4u:

Please try to use all the quote; because otherwise it might look like you are scared of the part you excluded.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, that is NOT what the public record shows.....the public record shows over 50% of our national debt accrued in the last seven years........everyone knows who's party the president of the last seven years came from.......
Click to expand...

Under which administrations were these scheduled spendings approved? Our current president can not "unsign" spending bills already passed and signed by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. now can he. President Obama has drastically reduced the annual discretionary spending deficit that increased every year of Bush's administration. But you know that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Obama's.......starting with the so called stimulus package which stimulated nothing......
Click to expand...

The Stimulus package was signed into law by Bush well before he left office.
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110–185, 122 Stat. 613, enacted February 13, 2008) was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day.[1] It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
Click to expand...

President Obama wasn't sworn in until Jan 20, 2009, 11 months later.
Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, the bank bailout bill two weeks before Obama took office —
Want to try again?
 
Leonthecat said:
The Stimulus package was signed into law by Bush well before he left office.


President Obama wasn't sworn in until Jan 20, 2009, 11 months later.
Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, the bank bailout bill two weeks before Obama took office —
Want to try again?
Click to expand...

ROFL........you have got to be one of the dumbest liberals to post here......especially since Buckie left......

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5), commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, was a stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Thanks for agreeing that if Person 1 fails, then Person 2 receives no assets.

Please try to use all the quote; because otherwise it might look like you are scared of the part you excluded.
Click to expand...

I addressed your whole post whether it was included in the quote or not.

I admitted no such thing; what I said was that if person 1 defaults on their debt person 2's asset becomes worthless, not that they have no asset. That debt creates an equal amount of credit is simply accounting logic. So for example when you leased your car, you signed out a debt of $40,000 (we'll just use this number as an example), while the bank recorded an asset of $40,000. Home mortgage, same thing, you get a debt of $500,000 and the bank gets an asset of $500,000.

Now obviously, the bank can end up in the shit if you prove unable to repay your loans, which is why creditors typically secure collateral and have insurance and stuff (in the old days failure to pay your debt would probably have resulted in your family members being carried off and enslaved).

Leonthecat: I would strongly suggest that instead of playing the blame game between Bush and Obama and claiming proudly that Obama has reduced the deficit, you learn some macro. Obama's economic policies have been terrible, not quite as bad as if we had a Republican in the White House, but still very bad. Deficit reduction when the economy is verging on deflation and demand is so depressed is foolish policy. Obama's spending cuts are nothing to be proud of, at best they represent Obama's hand being forced by the fiscal terrorists in the Republican House, at worst they represent Obama succumbing to the control of Wall St. and to economic ideologies that should have been discarded for good in the 1940s.
 
If Obama knew frim the very beginning that the right would be as evil an destructive to this country I think he would have done some things differently.



He mistakenly thought that they would not fight all infrastructure investment.


logically you would think reps would be for some in their AREA.


these republican traitors to this nation hate this nation


they want it dead.


many dems are now realizing the evil we face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top