On printing up new currency.....

On printing up new currency..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> On printing up new currency..... (9/11/2015 8:09:13 PM)
Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. In a recent OP, I described my disbelief in the world and others suddenly losing confidence in the US dollar. The Fed/Treas. had not been actually adding significantly more currency into circulation. I had to logically conclude, there being no definitive proclamation to be found stating clearly that the US Treas. (Fed) had and how much 'new' currency so added...that still, because we have a much larger economy, there simply had to more money in circulation. I had to ask myself, how much and how do I find out ? My only solution was to look up M1. M1 is defined as 'Currency held by the non-bank public' OR as simply 'Currency in circulation.' I found two links. Seems they don'y quite agree but the difference is truly insignificant. Starting with 1979-80 and about the time Reagan took office, $117 billion. By 2002 $627 billion HERE By 2010 $915 billion HERE So either Bernanke had been printing up new money despite the fact that under direct questioning in congress that he wasn't or as of 2014 when Yellen took over, she has. So you see, without actual new currency and a whole lot more since 2008, there is no reason for anyone to suddenly lose confidence in the dollar.

MercTech -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/11/2015 8:35:21 PM)
Lose confidence in a currency that is inflated annually for 40 years... naa, that would never happen.

Musicmystery -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/11/2015 9:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. I had to ask myself, how much and how do I find out ? My only solution was to look up M1. M1 is defined as 'Currency held by the non-bank public' OR as simply 'Currency in circulation.' Well your first problem is that you have an incorrect definition of M1, which is: Measure of the U.S. money stock that consists of currency held by the public, travelers checks, demand deposits and other checkable deposits including NOW (negotiable order of withdrawal) and ATS (automatic transfer service) account balances and share draft account balances at credit unions. And that contributes to your second problem, which is not understanding the difference between currency and money well. Most of the money in that definition isn't currency. Your third problem is citing data out of context. In 2002, GDP was $10.48 trillion, while in in 2010, it was $16.77 trillion, an increase of 60%, while your figures increase only 45.9% -- not exactly a runaway printing press there. If anything, it shows people use currency far less today than they used to for transactions, preferring electronic transfers. What is making investors anxious about the dollar isn't monetary policy--it's fiscal policy. Congress keeps borrowing money instead of balancing the budget, and while that's doable for a while in a $17.4 trillion dollar economy that's 23% of the world's economy even though we're 5% of global population, it's not a good long term strategy, and Congress doesn't seem to be doing anything about it or planning to do anything. Add that to the willingness (at least in rhetoric) of some politicians to default, and our credit (and hence ability to borrow at low interest) risks dropping, hurting the dollar. Printing money isn't the problem. Reckless and relentless borrowing is.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 12:28:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Lose confidence in a currency that is inflated annually for 40 years... naa, that would never happen. Well our treasuries sell out very fast and still at historically low interest rates so no, the world has not lost any confidence in the US dollar. Could it happen ? Yes, I guess it could but as I have also pointed out, approx. 80% of the world still holds US dollars as their reserve currency and there is an overriding confidence in the American labor force...i.e., economy. You see the trouble with the idea that the world will abandon the dollar is always...where do you go instead ?

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 12:40:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. I had to ask myself, how much and how do I find out ? My only solution was to look up M1. M1 is defined as 'Currency held by the non-bank public' OR as simply 'Currency in circulation.' Well your first problem is that you have an incorrect definition of M1, which is: Measure of the U.S. money stock that consists of currency held by the public, travelers checks, demand deposits and other checkable deposits including NOW (negotiable order of withdrawal) and ATS (automatic transfer service) account balances and share draft account balances at credit unions. And that contributes to your second problem, which is not understanding the difference between currency and money well. Most of the money in that definition isn't currency. Your third problem is citing data out of context. In 2002, GDP was $10.48 trillion, while in in 2010, it was $16.77 trillion, an increase of 60%, while your figures increase only 45.9% -- not exactly a runaway printing press there. If anything, it shows people use currency far less today than they used to for transactions, preferring electronic transfers. What is making investors anxious about the dollar isn't monetary policy--it's fiscal policy. Congress keeps borrowing money instead of balancing the budget, and while that's doable for a while in a $17.4 trillion dollar economy that's 23% of the world's economy even though we're 5% of global population, it's not a good long term strategy, and Congress doesn't seem to be doing anything about it or planning to do anything. Add that to the willingness (at least in rhetoric) of some politicians to default, and our credit (and hence ability to borrow at low interest) risks dropping, hurting the dollar. Printing money isn't the problem. Reckless and relentless borrowing is. Well look music, I know you want to find something and I guess anything upon which to pounce but M1 is defined by most links as all of those things but as reflected in my links, for policy issues such as travelers checks, NOW Money market money and the rest, aren't even used. The category I reference is cash on hand and checking accounts...only. Plus as is too often with your critiques, you are off subject. My search was for additional currency in circulation...only. Furthermore, that search is the entire context of my OP and I even mentioned that logic had inspired my curiosity by what is obviously a larger economy. Also, again you do what joether does, tell me about the lack of the so-called printing press when that was exactly my point. So despite our fiscal issues, our deficit exploded by doing what, $16 trillion (total) in world-wide bailouts which represented a 2 year debt increase in borrowing of only a few trillion and since being cut to less than 1/2 what it was. Plus, debt to GDP is now coming down to or near historical averages of the last 70-80 years. That's a very large reason I believe that treasuries still sell so well and cheaply, the foundation of which is the superior assessment of the American labor force.

Musicmystery -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 4:44:16 AM)
Well, if your search is for currency only, then you're wrong to use M1. M1 is all money readily spendable this moment. Currency is a small part of it. And I'm sorry you feel persecuted, as if people as "waiting to pounce." It's a simple error correction. You indicated you were looking for truth. Well...are you? And you are still conflating fiscal and monetary policy. Your last paragraph is the only one that makes sense. So what IS your point here?

joether -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 5:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. In a recent OP, I described my disbelief in the world and others suddenly losing confidence in the US dollar. The Fed/Treas. had not been actually adding significantly more currency into circulation. I had to logically conclude, there being no definitive proclamation to be found stating clearly that the US Treas. (Fed) had and how much 'new' currency so added...that still, because we have a much larger economy, there simply had to more money in circulation. I had to ask myself, how much and how do I find out ? My only solution was to look up M1. M1 is defined as 'Currency held by the non-bank public' OR as simply 'Currency in circulation.' I found two links. Seems they don'y quite agree but the difference is truly insignificant. Starting with 1979-80 and about the time Reagan took office, $117 billion. By 2002 $627 billion HERE By 2010 $915 billion HERE So either Bernanke had been printing up new money despite the fact that under direct questioning in congress that he wasn't or as of 2014 when Yellen took over, she has. So you see, without actual new currency and a whole lot more since 2008, there is no reason for anyone to suddenly lose confidence in the dollar. Does the number of actual printed/coined currency matter to the marketplace? Your trying to say 'yes' but without any supporting information. The amount of printed currency in circulation, and the marketplace itself are two totally different concepts. While the marketplace does have some control, its level of control is neither organization or dictated. Likewise the number of units of currency in the marketplace has no direct connection these days to the dollar's stability. For simpletons, they would equate that more printed currency would create more inflation. If that was true, that inflation would need to be rising at twice if not triple the current rate. That is not happening. Understand that printed currency, does not mean "All the dollars are within the United States'. You'll find dollars in other nations as easily as they are found in our nations. The nation enjoys much in the way of foreign visitors each year. Each country has a number of printed/coined currency from each nation. Many banks typically have currency from moderate and major sized nations. While new money was printed, it was in exchanged for bills that had worn out and being replaced. Understanding when new money is printed beyond that point, is the subject of intensive discussions between mathematics. Back during Greenspan's time, the formulas used to determine these basic questions were extremely taxing for humans to figure out. Try to imagine how complex the equations are now, given all the events, technology, and people to which those dollars may come in contact. Again, I think your trying to link two concepts that have very little to any direct connection to the other. The dollar is stable and for the foreseeable future. It is one of the strongest and stable types of economic value mankind has ever known!

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 10:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, if your search is for currency only, then you're wrong to use M1. M1 is all money readily spendable this moment. Currency is a small part of it. And I'm sorry you feel persecuted, as if people as "waiting to pounce." It's a simple error correction. You indicated you were looking for truth. Well...are you? And you are still conflating fiscal and monetary policy. Your last paragraph is the only one that makes sense. So what IS your point here? Well again you are splitting hairs. M1 contains cash in pockets and checking accounts as the links pint out currency is a large part of it and the single largest indicator of whether or not the fed is actually 'printing' up and adding new currency into circulation. Cash and checking accounts is not a separate category. You brought up fiscal policy and is a non-factor in determining the answer to my question.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/12/2015 10:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. In a recent OP, I described my disbelief in the world and others suddenly losing confidence in the US dollar. The Fed/Treas. had not been actually adding significantly more currency into circulation. I had to logically conclude, there being no definitive proclamation to be found stating clearly that the US Treas. (Fed) had and how much 'new' currency so added...that still, because we have a much larger economy, there simply had to more money in circulation. I had to ask myself, how much and how do I find out ? My only solution was to look up M1. M1 is defined as 'Currency held by the non-bank public' OR as simply 'Currency in circulation.' I found two links. Seems they don'y quite agree but the difference is truly insignificant. Starting with 1979-80 and about the time Reagan took office, $117 billion. By 2002 $627 billion HERE By 2010 $915 billion HERE So either Bernanke had been printing up new money despite the fact that under direct questioning in congress that he wasn't or as of 2014 when Yellen took over, she has. So you see, without actual new currency and a whole lot more since 2008, there is no reason for anyone to suddenly lose confidence in the dollar. Does the number of actual printed/coined currency matter to the marketplace? Your trying to say 'yes' but without any supporting information. The amount of printed currency in circulation, and the marketplace itself are two totally different concepts. While the marketplace does have some control, its level of control is neither organization or dictated. Likewise the number of units of currency in the marketplace has no direct connection these days to the dollar's stability. For simpletons, they would equate that more printed currency would create more inflation. If that was true, that inflation would need to be rising at twice if not triple the current rate. That is not happening. Understand that printed currency, does not mean "All the dollars are within the United States'. You'll find dollars in other nations as easily as they are found in our nations. The nation enjoys much in the way of foreign visitors each year. Each country has a number of printed/coined currency from each nation. Many banks typically have currency from moderate and major sized nations. While new money was printed, it was in exchanged for bills that had worn out and being replaced. Understanding when new money is printed beyond that point, is the subject of intensive discussions between mathematics. Back during Greenspan's time, the formulas used to determine these basic questions were extremely taxing for humans to figure out. Try to imagine how complex the equations are now, given all the events, technology, and people to which those dollars may come in contact. Again, I think your trying to link two concepts that have very little to any direct connection to the other. The dollar is stable and for the foreseeable future. It is one of the strongest and stable types of economic value mankind has ever known! Almost a complete non-sequitor. The added cash into circulation can only arrive by printing more hence the research into that part of M1 and which concerns only the US dollar. All of the Italian lira the world doesn't in anyway effect the US cash in circulation. The rest is irrelevant.

Musicmystery -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/13/2015 4:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, if your search is for currency only, then you're wrong to use M1. M1 is all money readily spendable this moment. Currency is a small part of it. And I'm sorry you feel persecuted, as if people as "waiting to pounce." It's a simple error correction. You indicated you were looking for truth. Well...are you? And you are still conflating fiscal and monetary policy. Your last paragraph is the only one that makes sense. So what IS your point here? Well again you are splitting hairs. M1 contains cash in pockets and checking accounts as the links pint out currency is a large part of it and the single largest indicator of whether or not the fed is actually 'printing' up and adding new currency into circulation. Cash and checking accounts is not a separate category. Nope. Currency in circulation is $1.38 trillion; M1 is over $3 trillion. quote: You brought up fiscal policy and is a non-factor in determining the answer to my question. That's because the problem you're addressing isn't monetary--it's fiscal. The problem is nervousness over debt. Monetary policy has actually delayed the current consequences, since when Congress didn't act during the downturns during the Bush administration, the Fed lowered interest rates to ease money flow, and when interest rates hit lows because Congress still didn't act and a full on Recession hit, turned to increasing supply in response to the fiscal crisis. Whether that was worth the cost is really the monetary debate. But the problem you're complaining about is entirely fiscal. We could reverse monetary policy, and it would simply highlight the problem, not fix it. Congress is hoping economic growth will fix this for them. But policies that prompt inequality, creating a two-tiered economic system, has a top level humming along over a second stagnant economy. It's not sustainable long term, but side issues like this one, far from "splitting hairs," prevents examination and solution of the real problem(s) (the second one being banks and large business holding on to cash in an uncertain climate instead of investing in growth). M1 isn't really the point anyway--that's just to make sure we have enough ready money to run day to day transactions. M2, over $11 trillion, is a more salient figure. And the Fed manages it by buying and selling treasuries (printing currency is mainly to replace the old currency they destroy) -- treasuries issued by the Treasury Department to borrow the money Congress authorized. Again, it's that debt that's weighing on the dollar. But rather than go in circles -- tell you what. Walk me through it. The Fed stops printing money today--never again. Step by step, how do you see this playing out, and how do you imagine it will support the dollar?

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/13/2015 10:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, if your search is for currency only, then you're wrong to use M1. M1 is all money readily spendable this moment. Currency is a small part of it. And I'm sorry you feel persecuted, as if people as "waiting to pounce." It's a simple error correction. You indicated you were looking for truth. Well...are you? And you are still conflating fiscal and monetary policy. Your last paragraph is the only one that makes sense. So what IS your point here? Well again you are splitting hairs. M1 contains cash in pockets and checking accounts as the links pint out currency is a large part of it and the single largest indicator of whether or not the fed is actually 'printing' up and adding new currency into circulation. Cash and checking accounts is not a separate category. Nope. Currency in circulation is $1.38 trillion; M1 is over $3 trillion. quote: You brought up fiscal policy and is a non-factor in determining the answer to my question. That's because the problem you're addressing isn't monetary--it's fiscal. The problem is nervousness over debt. Monetary policy has actually delayed the current consequences, since when Congress didn't act during the downturns during the Bush administration, the Fed lowered interest rates to ease money flow, and when interest rates hit lows because Congress still didn't act and a full on Recession hit, turned to increasing supply in response to the fiscal crisis. Whether that was worth the cost is really the monetary debate. But the problem you're complaining about is entirely fiscal. We could reverse monetary policy, and it would simply highlight the problem, not fix it. Congress is hoping economic growth will fix this for them. But policies that prompt inequality, creating a two-tiered economic system, has a top level humming along over a second stagnant economy. It's not sustainable long term, but side issues like this one, far from "splitting hairs," prevents examination and solution of the real problem(s) (the second one being banks and large business holding on to cash in an uncertain climate instead of investing in growth). M1 isn't really the point anyway--that's just to make sure we have enough ready money to run day to day transactions. M2, over $11 trillion, is a more salient figure. And the Fed manages it by buying and selling treasuries (printing currency is mainly to replace the old currency they destroy) -- treasuries issued by the Treasury Department to borrow the money Congress authorized. Again, it's that debt that's weighing on the dollar. But rather than go in circles -- tell you what. Walk me through it. The Fed stops printing money today--never again. Step by step, how do you see this playing out, and how do you imagine it will support the dollar? Reads as if you are saying that both RonPaulmessageXX.com, the other sellers of various protections against doom and me...are all wrong ? You may be right but the extent to which these people and the fear-mongers extrapolate that because the (FED) is 'printing' up money and those are their words, whether to cover bailouts, defense spending and relatively and historically small Keynesian stimulative spending, that will cause the world to lose confidence and enough to sell dollars. It may be possible that what you suggest is behind it all, I could agree but my point is that because the FED is not actually adding new currency into circulation and that's why we haven't seen the inflation, it is for that reason it and of itself, there is no impending doom for the dollar by that fact alone. As to your last point. I will agree that what we all see fiscally must come down but to the extent that, that is gradually happening and because as most objective intellectuals know, that being, labor is the true wealth and because there still is a strong confidence in the US labor force, therefore hyperinflation is not coming, the dollar will remain strong for some time to come. Here's why. The Fed by not having actually printed trillion$ in new money and adding it to circulation but using QE(s) which is I know, merely a bookkeeping mechanism to improve and if it can, balance bank ledgers, and instead is using that mechanism to 'buy' up bad debt, that the extent to which that does not improve the economy enough to reduce borrowing further, we will likely see a TARP II. If within a few more years a TARP II doesn't work, then...we may be in deep shit. And even that may occur only in that if TARP II would not bail out any foreign holders of dollars as a reserve currency. But that still raises the question...where do they go ? It is as if the US economy and its labor force, is the big tit that the world economy needs to suck on and that tit...is full of dollars. Yes, that means it is almost as if but not entirely so but the US dollar is already and has been...a world currency.

Musicmystery -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/14/2015 5:55:58 AM)
Where did you get the idea Ron Paul is an unassailable authority? Not only do a whole lot of people think he's wrong--only a minority follow his take. I asked you to walk me through the logic chain. You've offered a list of opinions and speculations. That should suggest something to you. That's my point.

MercTech -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/14/2015 2:49:17 PM)
Actual currency... just a small percentage. The rest is fairy money that the fed fairies wave a wand to create and store in magic boxes called computers.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/14/2015 3:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Where did you get the idea Ron Paul is an unassailable authority? Not only do a whole lot of people think he's wrong--only a minority follow his take. I asked you to walk me through the logic chain. You've offered a list of opinions and speculations. That should suggest something to you. That's my point. You can't resist can you. I never said Paul and the rest were any kind of authority and in fact...said they were all wrong and didn't think I needed to add that but apparently, I was wrong not to. How's this ? If I need to write more, then I really do need to take you by the hand...and 'walk you through it' and still, you'd find some abstruse bullshit to disagree. Furthermore, in so far as to today's modern capitalism, all it really is as exemplified by all the bullshit we see on the net and the corrupted, cowardice of the main stream media not to mention public testimony by the so-called experts...its all 'opinions and speculation.' That doesn't even include its absolute anti-democratic, corruption, creation of a wholly immoral tax code and the outlandish royalty-like compensations to the very few. And.....ever since [it] became a cultural holy grail, to turn paper into money.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/14/2015 3:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Actual currency... just a small percentage. The rest is fairy money that the fed fairies wave a wand to create and store in magic boxes called computers. .....and they call Soc. sec. something that's paid for upfront...a Ponzi scheme.

mnottertail -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/15/2015 9:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Actual currency... just a small percentage. The rest is fairy money that the fed fairies wave a wand to create and store in magic boxes called computers. .....and they call Soc. sec. something that's paid for upfront...a Ponzi scheme. Well, right now the Government of the United States of America owes social security trust funds over 2.7 Trillion dollars. It has been paid up front, but used for things that do not bring in an ROI, wars, tax cuts, corporate welfare, bloated defense spending, and other imperialistic measures.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/15/2015 2:45:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Actual currency... just a small percentage. The rest is fairy money that the fed fairies wave a wand to create and store in magic boxes called computers. .....and they call Soc. sec. something that's paid for upfront...a Ponzi scheme. Well, right now the Government of the United States of America owes social security trust funds over 2.7 Trillion dollars. It has been paid up front, but used for things that do not bring in an ROI, wars, tax cuts, corporate welfare, bloated defense spending, and other imperialistic measures. Yes, I know, very similar. The difference being only that the US govt. will need to tax further to make-up for the shortfall whereas the Ponzi schemer eventually has nowhere else to go. However, if everybody wanted all of their money i.e., to cash out from the great capitalist system...it too, isn't there.

Musicmystery -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/16/2015 5:58:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You can't resist can you. How's this ? If I need to write more, then I really do need to take you by the hand...and 'walk you through it' and still, you'd find some abstruse bullshit to disagree. Dude. If you'd like to have an economic discussion, awesome. If you want to have a spitting match, you'll have to spit on yourself--I'm not interested. I asked you for logic and reason--your OP claims that was your goal. You responded with this crap. I gave you the reasons for the "abstruse bullshit," reasons you didn't bother to refute with anything objective. So apparently that part is as far as it's going to go. In the logic world, when you don't have a counter-argument, but insist your claim is true, there's a word for that. Seriously--don't you think it's time to consider things a bit more deeply? You have a lot of attitudes about economics, but little substance, and a lot of misunderstanding. Take your Ponzi scheme crack, for example. Workers put money in, it's invested in treasuries, retired workers draw money out. If that's a Ponzi scheme, then so is an IRA or a 401K or any mutual fund--hell, even a savings account. And for more and more workers retiring, even more workers pay in--because those retired workers had children and grand-children. Even if the numbers don't "work out," then it's a matter of adjusting the formula. Can't people just invest their own money? We tried that, and had wide-spread poverty among the elderly. Now we don't. The average 50 year old in the US has less than $50,000 saved. The US actually has a negative savings rate. Social Security addresses these issues at an at least basic level. Over your lifetime, plus interest, you've paid for your retirement benefits. There's nothing Ponzi about it. If you'd like to raise FICA taxes, or adjust the retirement age back, fine--that's a reasonable discussion to have. But the comparison to a Ponzi scheme is silly and grossly inaccurate. Then there's your obsession with the money supply. Sure, the bulk of US wealth is not in money -- total assets top $188 trillion, while currency is around $1.4 trillion, and M2 is just over $12 trillion. So what? Money is a means of exchange and a storable account of value -- it's a tool, a relationship, not a thing. The actual assets it quantifies are the wealth, the value, the real economics. Why would we want to pull all that monetary value out? Real things are going to be there; monetary valuation in a pure currency form is subject to market fluctuation, a risk. Why would we want total liquid ability but no things to exchange? And even if people did demand all that value in cash, it would drive the value of the dollar way up, unless the Fed bought up Treasuries to increase the money supply to balance that demand. Because that's what the Fed does--balance that relationship relative to economic circumstances. Drop the persecution bullshit. I have no interest in picking on you--you aren't that important. It's a discussion board. If you raise topics, someone's likely to discuss them. If you don't want that, start a blog and be sure to turn off the comments option. If you believe you're beyond error, then the world is going to pick on you a lot, as if it "just can't resist" spewing that "abstruse bullshit." But maybe you should listen to the world, consider the arguments, and if you see a different understanding, walk people through your logic and reasoning. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. You might also strive for clarity in posts. When you're posting a lot of attacks and sarcasm, you can't be surprised when people take as sarcasm statements you actually meant affirmatively.

MrRodgers -> RE: On printing up new currency..... (9/16/2015 10:07:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You can't resist can you. How's this ? If I need to write more, then I really do need to take you by the hand...and 'walk you through it' and still, you'd find some abstruse bullshit to disagree. Dude. If you'd like to have an economic discussion, awesome. If you want to have a spitting match, you'll have to spit on yourself--I'm not interested. I asked you for logic and reason--your OP claims that was your goal. You responded with this crap. I gave you the reasons for the "abstruse bullshit," reasons you didn't bother to refute with anything objective. So apparently that part is as far as it's going to go. In the logic world, when you don't have a counter-argument, but insist your claim is true, there's a word for that. Seriously--don't you think it's time to consider things a bit more deeply? You have a lot of attitudes about economics, but little substance, and a lot of misunderstanding. Take your Ponzi scheme crack, for example. Workers put money in, it's invested in treasuries, retired workers draw money out. If that's a Ponzi scheme, then so is an IRA or a 401K or any mutual fund--hell, even a savings account. And for more and more workers retiring, even more workers pay in--because those retired workers had children and grand-children. Even if the numbers don't "work out," then it's a matter of adjusting the formula. Can't people just invest their own money? We tried that, and had wide-spread poverty among the elderly. Now we don't. The average 50 year old in the US has less than $50,000 saved. The US actually has a negative savings rate. Social Security addresses these issues at an at least basic level. Over your lifetime, plus interest, you've paid for your retirement benefits. There's nothing Ponzi about it. If you'd like to raise FICA taxes, or adjust the retirement age back, fine--that's a reasonable discussion to have. But the comparison to a Ponzi scheme is silly and grossly inaccurate. Then there's your obsession with the money supply. Sure, the bulk of US wealth is not in money -- total assets top $188 trillion, while currency is around $1.4 trillion, and M2 is just over $12 trillion. So what? Money is a means of exchange and a storable account of value -- it's a tool, a relationship, not a thing. The actual assets it quantifies are the wealth, the value, the real economics. Why would we want to pull all that monetary value out? Real things are going to be there; monetary valuation in a pure currency form is subject to market fluctuation, a risk. Why would we want total liquid ability but no things to exchange? And even if people did demand all that value in cash, it would drive the value of the dollar way up, unless the Fed bought up Treasuries to increase the money supply to balance that demand. Because that's what the Fed does--balance that relationship relative to economic circumstances. Drop the persecution bullshit. I have no interest in picking on you--you aren't that important. It's a discussion board. If you raise topics, someone's likely to discuss them. If you don't want that, start a blog and be sure to turn off the comments option. If you believe you're beyond error, then the world is going to pick on you a lot, as if it "just can't resist" spewing that "abstruse bullshit." But maybe you should listen to the world, consider the arguments, and if you see a different understanding, walk people through your logic and reasoning. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Wanting to be right and logic entering the question. I had to find out. You might also strive for clarity in posts. When you're posting a lot of attacks and sarcasm, you can't be surprised when people take as sarcasm statements you actually meant affirmatively. You know what ? I would prefer to have a discussion about economics in general sometime but the OP was about such naysayers as Dr. Paul and is coterie as well as financial television actually using the words...'printing up money.' It's if we are to accept that as gospel and buy their advice for protection while the fed has not been...printing up new money. First thing you suggest is that I think these lay people are right and I clearly say they are not.I stick to the premise that the fed is not printing up money. I, referring to only the part of M1 that would tell us, I use two links that show there is little new currency when compared the increase in GDP and you bring up M2 which for such policy issues and...this OP is a non-factor. Then you bring up the function of money which is obvious even to the lay person while I stick to the 'opinion and speculation' of dollar holders and their confidence regardless, that the dollar remains a store of wealth which is in fact held in the perspective that the US labor force will still give them good value in return and particularly as [it] relates to 'storing' any alternative currency. There is no alternative with the only possible exception being the Swiss franc and even that has come down from its recent post WWII highs. Furthermore I brought up Soc, sec as a so-called Ponzi scheme as that expression too, is widely held among the public they being swayed by the so-called experts, only to refute that as compared to real ponzi...it is not. My logic is this...the fed has not been printing up new currency and therefore there is no reason to expect doom or hyperinflation. Then you introduce our fiscal situation and the 'reasons' behind its recent increase are well known to investors, and their 'opinions and speculation' still holds solid concerning the dollar as reflected by billion$ every month selling out very quickly at extremely low rates. Therefore fiscal policy, M2, working population, retirement issues, savings rates are all non-issues and thus rendered irrelevant to the issue of 'On printing up currency.' So now my logic and my reasons should be perfectly clear. As I've written and am backed up by more than one professor of economics, all of the issues concerning the long term success of our rapacious monetary system creates whole courses of study and admonitions based on theory the monetarists create themselves and to the advantage of those in control and realizing great wealth from it. Some go so far as to suggest that M2, 3, 4, and 5 were thesis-based bullshit and should have no effect on public policy issues and are even used to obscure issues that may be problematic and as a deliberate distraction from the effects of policy and the public concerning M1.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625