fixing

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > fixing > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

28-01-2021 14:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself. What i said about printing money was that if you use that printed money to pay off treasury bonds you don't increase the number of dollars (if you count treasury bonds as stored money (which i define as money). Bonds are not money. They are loans. Governments that issue bonds are going into debt. Example: You borrow from a bank $200 at 10% interest, due in one year. At the term of the debt, you decide to pay the bank back the $220 in Monopoly money. How do you think the bank will feel about that? When the Fed just prints money to pay off a debt, it's the same thing. It is printing money without a corresponding creation of wealth. That's inflation, dude. It's also ripping off the guy that made the loan to you. You keep forgetting what happened to Weimar Germany, when it couldn't pay off it's war debt. The OWDC is broke. It can't tax that much money. There are not enough people to pay such a tax. Taxing too much leads to revolts, quite possibly violent. A tax crash. It can't borrow more money to pay back the current loans. They have to pay the interest too. Borrowing too much creates a debt crash. People won't loan money to them anymore. Such a government is effectively bankrupt. It can't print it's way out of it's problems. Printing too much causes inflation, possibly hyperinflation. A cash crash. What happened in Weimar Germany can happen here. What happened to the peso in Mexico can happen here. What happened to the real in Brazil can happen here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-01-2021 14:52
28-01-2021 16:44
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: You had to work pretty hard to misunderstand that thoroughly. No, IBD understood you perfectly and corrected your errors. However, instead of learning from his corrections of your errors, you choose to continue parroting those same errors. You continue to perform the same keepit sequence of: [1] keepit says something stupid. [2] Someone else points out and corrects keepit's stupidity. [3] keepit makes a whiny retort, remaining in denial about his stupidity.
28-01-2021 16:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: You're confused IBD. Step 3 of the keepit sequence.
28-01-2021 16:59
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	keepit wrote: You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much. You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending. That would shrink the economy too much. Pickle, you say. LOL in 4 years 100,000,000 unemployed Americans will be voting for Trump
28-01-2021 17:18
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself. No, you're just not understanding basic economics and basic mathematics. keepit wrote: What i said about printing money was that if you use that printed money to pay off treasury bonds you don't increase the number of dollars (if you count treasury bonds as stored money (which i define as money). Does the red text even matter?? If one prints more money right now, then there is more money now than there was before. 500+500=1000 ... it does not equal 500. Treasury bonds are not money. They are loans (a form of debt) for the government. Edited on 28-01-2021 17:25

28-01-2021 17:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself. Oh yes, I totally see that. Your confusion on your part is my confusion on my part. I think that point goes without saying. . Yup. The typical projection tactics from types like him. He is in denial about his stupidity and illiteracy.
28-01-2021 17:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Swan wrote: keepit wrote: You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much. You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending. That would shrink the economy too much. Pickle, you say. LOL in 4 years 100,000,000 unemployed Americans will be voting for Trump ... and "110,000,000" "Americans" will be "voting" "for" the oligarchy... All potentially true joking aside, I'm not going to speculate about an "election" four years into the future. I'm going to live in the here and now.
28-01-2021 17:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I define them as stored money.
28-01-2021 17:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: I define them as stored money. ... because you suck at accounting. Let's be honest, you suck at accounting and that drives you to say stupid things. Despite gfm7175 clarifying for you that bonds are loans, i.e. liabilities, you nonetheless delusionally twist your understanding to one of bonds being money-batteries, i.e. assets, that somehow go around cancelling the printed money used to repay them. This is where you are forced to acknowledge the complete absurdness of your mischaracterization and have no choice but to tersely retort that I am the one who is confused. keepit, the floor is yours... . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2021 18:20
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	This how it is - a person has some money, he loans it out and gets a bond. The money he had is stored in the bond. He can take it out or cash it in. The money is in storage as if he had stored it in his refrigerator. But is has the potential to allow the person to buy things whenever the person cashes it in or sells it. The money in storage will eventually get spent. Looking at a big block of time it is spendable money which will be spent. If the govt "prints" some money to buy that bond the bond is extinguished by the govt. This results in the money in storage disappearing and the money that was printed appearing. No net gain or loss. The printed money can be used to purchase another bond if the owner so wishes. But the interest on the original bond ceases to accrue.
28-01-2021 18:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: This how it is Not likely, given your batting average. keepit wrote:- a person has some money, he loans it out and gets a bond. I understand how that works. It's the next part where you claim that there is "stored money" in the bond. Let's jump to that ... keepit wrote: The money he had is stored in the bond. No. The money he had is now in the hands of the borrower. You are trying to create money out of nothing, i.e. you are violating the 1st law of econodynamics. You want to have money both in the hands of the borrower AND stored in a bond at the same time, i.e. double the amount in question of dollars in existence. ... but here's where you get really funky. Instead of adding those new dollars that you created out of nothing to the grand total, you claim that those new dollars somehow cancel the other dollars, like dollars and anti-dollars colliding. Wow! Amazing. You suck at accounting. Ask me how I know. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2021 18:41
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I'm talking about govt bonds here. This means the govt has possession of the money. True, they already spent that money but i'm talking about a solution that stop the accrual of interest. They can print new money and pay off the bond. That results in no increase in money for THAT transaction. Edited on 28-01-2021 18:55
28-01-2021 19:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: I'm talking about govt bonds here. I wrapped it all up for you over the entire class of bonds, of which government bonds are members. "government bonds" is a proper subset of "all bonds." keepit wrote: This means the govt has possession of the money. AND the lender has possession of the bond. Although the lender is without the money (which is now in the hands of the government), you are claiming that the lender still has the money, stored in the bond. You are claiming the money is in two places at the same time, i.e. in the hands of the government (the borrower) and simultaneously stored in the bond in the hands of the lender. Let me know when it finally sinks in how you are screwing this up. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2021 19:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	The govt has already spent the money by the time my proposed transaction takes place. My solution was presented as a solution at a point in time (now) which is at a certain point in time (after the original money has been spent by the govt.).
28-01-2021 19:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: The govt has already spent the money by the time my proposed transaction takes place. Irrelevant. Stay focused on the topic, i.e. the existence of the dollars and your creation of dollars out of nothing, dollars that somehow become anti-dollars. There is always some velocity of money so the dollars that were borrowed by the government will naturally pass to someone else, and then to someone else, and then to someone else, ad infinitum. Those dollars still exist. Spending dollars does not make them vanish and does not cancel them ... it makes them change hands. So back up and stay on topic. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

28-01-2021 19:23
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	It's my topic IBD. Don't delude yourself. You're the one that can't focus on the point i'm making. Edited on 28-01-2021 19:26
28-01-2021 19:50
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: I define them as stored money. Step 3 of the keepit sequence... you choose to parrot your incorrect BS rather than learn from people who know more than you about these subjects... As IBD just got done saying, and as I will reiterate (since I do accounting work for a living and now have about eight and a half years of real world experience doing so, although I work for a company that owns and rents apartments, commercial space, and storage space rather than working for the government), you sure suck at accounting. Liabilities are not assets, and printing money to pay off a debt just ****s over the creditor.
28-01-2021 19:56
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	So where's the inflation you are so afraid of? If it was here i might listen to you. The situation may be something that was doomed from the beginning though. It's been a very good run however.. Still, the inflation isn't here, thanks to automation although i think the Amish may have it right.
28-01-2021 21:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: It's my topic IBD. It's your argument, and it's invalid, i.e. summarily dismissed. You also don't seem to catch on very quickly that your repeated attempts to blame me for the stupidity of your argument do not somehow render your argument valid, nor do they cause you to somehow make more sense. keepit wrote: You're the one that can't focus on the point i'm making. That's all I have been doing. What do you think the mockery is all about? It is certainly not about ridiculing some other argument. So get back to the topic and stay focused. Say it with me: "Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent." Now write it out twenty times: Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. Every dollar that is printed increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how that dollar is subsequently spent. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2021 21:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: This how it is - a person has some money, Okay. Let's say that Jim Bob has $500. keepit wrote: he loans it out and gets a bond. Okay. Jim Bob now has $0 and an IOU of $500+interest from the government. Let's say that Jim Bob will receive interest payments periodically (let's say twice a year) for a set number of years (let's say thirty years), and at the end of the set number of years, he will receive back his principal $500 (in addition to the interest payments that he received over that time period). keepit wrote: The money he had is stored in the bond. No, Jim Bob loaned his $500 to the government. Jim Bob no longer has it. The government has it now. keepit wrote: He can take it out or cash it in. I'm unfamiliar with the rules of bonds, but I've done CDs before and I would assume that, similar to a CD, you cannot cash a bond in until the maturity date (or you could cash it in earlier but be penalized for it). keepit wrote: The money is in storage as if he had stored it in his refrigerator. No, the money is not "in storage". The money is in the government's possession. Jim Bob NO LONGER HAS THE $500... keepit wrote: But is has the potential to allow the person to buy things whenever the person cashes it in or sells it. In theory, after the thirty year time period, Jim Bob will have received his $500 back from the government, plus interest. keepit wrote: The money in storage will eventually get spent. There is no money "in storage". Jim Bob gave his $500 to the government. The government has it now. keepit wrote: Looking at a big block of time it is spendable money which will be spent. After thirty years, Jim Bob, in theory, will have received his $500 back, plus interest. keepit wrote: If the govt "prints" some money to buy that bond the bond is extinguished by the govt. If the government prints money to "pay back" the bond, the government has essentially paid Jim Bob back with $500+interest of monopoly money. Jim Bob just got bent over... royally... keepit wrote: This results in the money in storage disappearing and the money that was printed appearing. No net gain or loss. No. There was never any money "in storage". $500 was transferred from Jim Bob to the government, and the government just printed more money (without a corresponding increase in wealth) in order to "pay back" that money (which is essentially monopoly money) to Jim Bob at the end of the thirty year bond term. Jim Bob got **ed over. keepit wrote:** The printed money can be used to purchase another bond if the owner so wishes. But the interest on the original bond ceases to accrue. Do you not see how the OWDC money's "worth" is becoming less and less and less over time under such a scenario? That's a rhetorical question btw... Edited on 28-01-2021 21:36
28-01-2021 21:49
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: I'm talking about govt bonds here. So am I. keepit wrote: This means the govt has possession of the money. Yes, so the creditor NO LONGER HAS THE MONEY... The creditor simply has a bond now. A bond is not money. keepit wrote: True, they already spent that money What the government has subsequently done with the loaned money is irrelevant to what you are continuously screwing up in your thought process regarding "stored money". IBD said it well when he said that you are violating the 1st law of econodynamics. keepit wrote: but i'm talking about a solution that stop the accrual of interest. What are you even talking about? Interest is accruing on that bond and the government owes the accrued interest to the creditor. keepit wrote: They can print new money and pay off the bond. How would you feel if you gave someone a $500 loan and they paid you back $500 plus interest in monopoly money? keepit wrote: That results in no increase in money for THAT transaction. Then what do you call the money that was printed in order to pay back the bond? I would call that an increase in money.
28-01-2021 21:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: The govt has already spent the money by the time my proposed transaction takes place. My solution was presented as a solution at a point in time (now) which is at a certain point in time (after the original money has been spent by the govt.). Irrelevant, and a diversion from your point about "stored money". Just admit that you were wrong.
28-01-2021 21:52
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: It's my topic IBD. Don't delude yourself. You're the one that can't focus on the point i'm making. Inversion Fallacy. This is YOUR issue... YOU are the one who is deluded and is now diverting from your own topic...
28-01-2021 21:55
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: So where's the inflation you are so afraid of? It is here, as has been already explained to you. keepit wrote: If it was here i might listen to you. No, you wouldn't (and currently aren't). keepit wrote: The situation may be something that was doomed from the beginning though. It's been a very good run however.. Still, the inflation isn't here, thanks to automation although i think the Amish may have it right. Have you learned James babble?
28-01-2021 22:17
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	gfm7175 wrote: Swan wrote: keepit wrote: You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much. You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending. That would shrink the economy too much. Pickle, you say. LOL in 4 years 100,000,000 unemployed Americans will be voting for Trump ... and "110,000,000" "Americans" will be "voting" "for" the oligarchy... All potentially true joking aside, I'm not going to speculate about an "election" four years into the future. I'm going to live in the here and now. LOL the here and now encompasses millions of unemployed energy workers. They are already focusing on 4 years from now
28-01-2021 22:22
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I hope you realize that your whole argument is a semantic argument and i'm not interested.
28-01-2021 22:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote: I hope you realize that your whole argument is a semantic argument and i'm not interested. I don't think anyone is operating under the misconception that you somehow care about semantics. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2021 23:29
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Many countries other than the us have manipulated the trade surplus/trade deficit situation through currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and tariffs, etc. Should those countries receive money for the american govt bonds that they hold?
28-01-2021 23:37
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself. What i said about printing money was that if you use that printed money to pay off treasury bonds you don't increase the number of dollars (if you count treasury bonds as stored money (which i define as money). Bonds are not money. They are loans. Governments that issue bonds are going into debt. Example: You borrow from a bank $200 at 10% interest, due in one year. At the term of the debt, you decide to pay the bank back the $220 in Monopoly money. How do you think the bank will feel about that? When the Fed just prints money to pay off a debt, it's the same thing. It is printing money without a corresponding creation of wealth. That's inflation, dude. It's also ripping off the guy that made the loan to you. You keep forgetting what happened to Weimar Germany, when it couldn't pay off it's war debt. The OWDC is broke. It can't tax that much money. There are not enough people to pay such a tax. Taxing too much leads to revolts, quite possibly violent. A tax crash. It can't borrow more money to pay back the current loans. They have to pay the interest too. Borrowing too much creates a debt crash. People won't loan money to them anymore. Such a government is effectively bankrupt. It can't print it's way out of it's problems. Printing too much causes inflation, possibly hyperinflation. A cash crash. What happened in Weimar Germany can happen here. What happened to the peso in Mexico can happen here. What happened to the real in Brazil can happen here. LOL if I invest in bond funds I can withdraw or move the money at any time. Who buys actual bonds anymore anyway
28-01-2021 23:42
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Swan, Do you want a list of names of those who continue to buy bonds? I think those hyperinflation countries had currencies that were in no way as strong as king dollar. King dollar will remain king until further notice. Don't fight the fed! i think that those hypperinflation countries had currency that was no way as strong as king dollar. King dollar will remain king until further notice.

28-01-2021 23:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: Many countries other than the us have manipulated the trade surplus/trade deficit situation through currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and tariffs, etc. Should those countries receive money for the american govt bonds that they hold? Let's get back to the "stored money" discussion and how you are completely and utterly dead wrong about it...
29-01-2021 05:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: I define them as stored money. Bonds are not stored money. They are debts. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: This how it is - a person has some money, he loans it out and gets a bond. The money he had is stored in the bond. He can take it out or cash it in. Money is not wealth. Neither is a bond. If one wants to take a portion of his wealth and buy a bond with it, then he is expecting to make a profit for the risk he is taking. keepit wrote: The money is in storage as if he had stored it in his refrigerator. No. The money now belongs to the government, which will promptly spend it on projects like Senator Boondoggles Monument to Government Waste and Stupidity. keepit wrote: But is has the potential to allow the person to buy things whenever the person cashes it in or sells it. If someone can find someone else to buy the bond, he can get his money back. keepit wrote: The money in storage will eventually get spent. Buying a bond is spending money. keepit wrote: Looking at a big block of time it is spendable money which will be spent. Buying a bond is spending money. keepit wrote: If the govt "prints" some money to buy that bond the bond is extinguished by the govt. But the money the government paid the bondholder with doesn't correspond with any increase in wealth. The loan has effectively defaulted. The poor sap has been paid in funky money. keepit wrote: This results in the money in storage disappearing and the money that was printed appearing. A bond isn't storage of money. It's a loan. The money has been spent to buy the bond. The situation is now that there is more money than before. The money the government took from the note and spent, and the money the government printed. With no corresponding increase in wealth, there is inflation. keepit wrote: No net gain or loss. Loss. The poor sap holding the bond was paid in funky money. The money he loaned to the government is gone. keepit wrote: The printed money can be used to purchase another bond if the owner so wishes. Why the hell would he? The government has already shown it can't handle money. keepit wrote: But the interest on the original bond ceases to accrue. ...and the amount of money discussed here has doubled, but the wealth has not. The money is now worth half it's value as before. Now do you want to try another pivot fallacy? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: I'm talking about govt bonds here. You are talking about government bonds and the printing of money. Let's not try to pivot around. keepit wrote: This means the govt has possession of the money. No. They spent it. keepit wrote: True, they already spent that money They don't have possession of that money. It's gone. It's out in society. keepit wrote: but i'm talking about a solution that stop the accrual of interest. Not a solution. Theft is never a solution. keepit wrote: They can print new money and pay off the bond. That results in no increase in money for THAT transaction. Pivot fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: It's my topic IBD. Don't delude yourself. You're the one that can't focus on the point i'm making. You are not making any point except to demonstrate that you keep pivoting around and making a fallacy of it. You first define a use of transferring wealth through money by buying a bond, which the government spends. Then you describe the money used to buy the bond is somehow 'stored'. (pivot fallacy) You describe paying off the bond by printing MORE money, leaving the bondholder paid with funky money. Then you describe the money that the government spent is somehow erased and doesn't exist anymore. (pivot fallacy) You then conclude that no money was created. (pivot fallacy, attempted conclusion by false comparison) You really have no clue about accounting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: So where's the inflation you are so afraid of? All around you. keepit wrote: If it was here i might listen to you. It is here. You are not listening to anyone. keepit wrote: The situation may be something that was doomed from the beginning though. It's been a very good run however.. Still, the inflation isn't here, The inflation is here. keepit wrote: thanks to automation Automation of what? Automation by itself does not cause inflation or deflation. keepit wrote: although i think the Amish may have it right. Think so? Go join them. They really are a nice bunch of people. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: I hope you realize that your whole argument is a semantic argument and i'm not interested. Fallacy fallacy. No semantic fallacy occurred. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: Many countries other than the us have manipulated the trade surplus/trade deficit situation through currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and tariffs, etc. Should those countries receive money for the american govt bonds that they hold? So you want the government to default on its debts? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-01-2021 05:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself. What i said about printing money was that if you use that printed money to pay off treasury bonds you don't increase the number of dollars (if you count treasury bonds as stored money (which i define as money). Bonds are not money. They are loans. Governments that issue bonds are going into debt. Example: You borrow from a bank $200 at 10% interest, due in one year. At the term of the debt, you decide to pay the bank back the $220 in Monopoly money. How do you think the bank will feel about that? When the Fed just prints money to pay off a debt, it's the same thing. It is printing money without a corresponding creation of wealth. That's inflation, dude. It's also ripping off the guy that made the loan to you. You keep forgetting what happened to Weimar Germany, when it couldn't pay off it's war debt. The OWDC is broke. It can't tax that much money. There are not enough people to pay such a tax. Taxing too much leads to revolts, quite possibly violent. A tax crash. It can't borrow more money to pay back the current loans. They have to pay the interest too. Borrowing too much creates a debt crash. People won't loan money to them anymore. Such a government is effectively bankrupt. It can't print it's way out of it's problems. Printing too much causes inflation, possibly hyperinflation. A cash crash. What happened in Weimar Germany can happen here. What happened to the peso in Mexico can happen here. What happened to the real in Brazil can happen here. LOL if I invest in bond funds I can withdraw or move the money at any time. Who buys actual bonds anymore anyway The folks that formed the bond fund. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 29-01-2021 05:53
29-01-2021 05:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: Swan, Do you want a list of names of those who continue to buy bonds? He probably wouldn't except it. keepit wrote: I think those hyperinflation countries had currencies that were in no way as strong as king dollar. King dollar will remain king until further notice. Don't fight the fed! The dollar is not king. Neither is it royalty. Investing in and holding dollars means you are losing wealth to inflation. keepit wrote: i think that those hypperinflation countries had currency that was no way as strong as king dollar. King dollar will remain king until further notice. The dollar is not king. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate fixing:

Threads	Replies	Last post
chemtrails or fixing the sky with flawed technologies	2	16-02-2011 09:36