Remember me
▼ Content

Simplified Economics



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Simplified Economics21-11-2020 15:39
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
This is a basic explanation that explains how an economy either expands or contracts.
An economy grows because businesses and people borrow money. And for an economy to grow, the amount of debt carried needs to increase every year. Next is a list that the debt carried needs to account for.
Money saved because it's taken out of circulation
A trade deficit because that money is exported
Inflation because it devalues the currency

With deficit spending, it can cause currency to become devalued if other countries sell of the currency they are holding. When other countries by a country's currency, they increase it's value when exchanged internationally.

This brings us to taxes. Governments should not be considered because governments spend the tax revenue they collect. This brings us to population growth. This requires expanding/improving infrastructure. A government could give itself a tax free loan. This investment in public works projects would help the economy to grow until the government repays the loan. There would be no net gain as a result?
And with an economy, the more people who are capable of working that are employed increase the GDP of that economy.
Illegal drugs imported from other countries would be considered as a negative balance when considering trade.
And with deficit spending, I am not going to have an opinion on it. It is possible that it might be necessary on a limited basis. This is because savings by a business or a person can offset loss of income at a later date.
This post is essentially facts with no personal opinion.
Edited on 21-11-2020 15:46
21-11-2020 18:36
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2753)
It's even simpler. The economy, is simply the movement of money/wealth. The more people involved, the stronger the economy.

The stimulus packages, the government hands out, is intended to put enough money in peoples hands, that they buy stuff, rather than just pay debt. Business are given stimulus, so they will hire more people. Most of the stimulus money, doesn't get used as intended. That's the main hold up on the second round of emergency relief. Republicans just want to focus on the emergency needs of the people, since stimulus, would mostly just go into a few people's pocket, and sit, not circulate. The democrats would mostly benefit, specifically the blue states, that are near bankruptcy, do to their frivolous spending. A huge stimulus package, like the House is pushing, will do nothing, for most people and businesses, specially when a lot of them are likely to get shut down again, do to the pandemic. Most of that money will go straight to creditors, and banks (owned by democrats).
21-11-2020 21:27
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
James___ wrote:
This is a basic explanation that explains how an economy either expands or contracts.
An economy grows because businesses and people borrow money. And for an economy to grow, the amount of debt carried needs to increase every year. Next is a list that the debt carried needs to account for.
Money saved because it's taken out of circulation
A trade deficit because that money is exported
Inflation because it devalues the currency

With deficit spending, it can cause currency to become devalued if other countries sell of the currency they are holding. When other countries by a country's currency, they increase it's value when exchanged internationally.

This brings us to taxes. Governments should not be considered because governments spend the tax revenue they collect. This brings us to population growth. This requires expanding/improving infrastructure. A government could give itself a tax free loan. This investment in public works projects would help the economy to grow until the government repays the loan. There would be no net gain as a result?
And with an economy, the more people who are capable of working that are employed increase the GDP of that economy.
Illegal drugs imported from other countries would be considered as a negative balance when considering trade.
And with deficit spending, I am not going to have an opinion on it. It is possible that it might be necessary on a limited basis. This is because savings by a business or a person can offset loss of income at a later date.
This post is essentially facts with no personal opinion.


What's up James!

The part of your post that interests me most is the relationship between savings, deficit spending, and inflation.

The way I'm considering it...

Whatever the savings is for an economy, that will be the amount of deficit spending that is needed.

And with inflation...

If people spend their savings before their loss of income, this causes inflation.

Quite often people spend their savings on speculation in the stock market. I suppose this is why the stock market usually inflates in price more than commodities like pork bellies, and why things like the 401K were invented.

You could probably stop inflation without deficit spending, which is what many financial conservatives of the Dave Ramsey variety might preach.

But if you did that, then too many people would be strapped for cash, and this could risk quickly causing social upheaval.
22-11-2020 01:44
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is a basic explanation that explains how an economy either expands or contracts.
An economy grows because businesses and people borrow money. And for an economy to grow, the amount of debt carried needs to increase every year. Next is a list that the debt carried needs to account for.
Money saved because it's taken out of circulation
A trade deficit because that money is exported
Inflation because it devalues the currency

With deficit spending, it can cause currency to become devalued if other countries sell of the currency they are holding. When other countries by a country's currency, they increase it's value when exchanged internationally.

This brings us to taxes. Governments should not be considered because governments spend the tax revenue they collect. This brings us to population growth. This requires expanding/improving infrastructure. A government could give itself a tax free loan. This investment in public works projects would help the economy to grow until the government repays the loan. There would be no net gain as a result?
And with an economy, the more people who are capable of working that are employed increase the GDP of that economy.
Illegal drugs imported from other countries would be considered as a negative balance when considering trade.
And with deficit spending, I am not going to have an opinion on it. It is possible that it might be necessary on a limited basis. This is because savings by a business or a person can offset loss of income at a later date.
This post is essentially facts with no personal opinion.


What's up James!

The part of your post that interests me most is the relationship between savings, deficit spending, and inflation.

The way I'm considering it...

Whatever the savings is for an economy, that will be the amount of deficit spending that is needed.

And with inflation...

If people spend their savings before their loss of income, this causes inflation.

Quite often people spend their savings on speculation in the stock market. I suppose this is why the stock market usually inflates in price more than commodities like pork bellies, and why things like the 401K were invented.

You could probably stop inflation without deficit spending, which is what many financial conservatives of the Dave Ramsey variety might preach.

But if you did that, then too many people would be strapped for cash, and this could risk quickly causing social upheaval.



Your last 2 sentences, a few other countries in the Group of 8 (not sure about the G-20) before the pandemic had similar debt to GDP ratios. It's possible that governments want to "fuel" technological progress. That is one thing that deficit spending allows for.
22-11-2020 04:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
This is a basic explanation that explains how an economy either expands or contracts.
An economy grows because businesses and people borrow money. And for an economy to grow, the amount of debt carried needs to increase every year. Next is a list that the debt carried needs to account for.
Money saved because it's taken out of circulation
A trade deficit because that money is exported
Inflation because it devalues the currency

With deficit spending, it can cause currency to become devalued if other countries sell of the currency they are holding. When other countries by a country's currency, they increase it's value when exchanged internationally.

This brings us to taxes. Governments should not be considered because governments spend the tax revenue they collect. This brings us to population growth. This requires expanding/improving infrastructure. A government could give itself a tax free loan. This investment in public works projects would help the economy to grow until the government repays the loan. There would be no net gain as a result?
And with an economy, the more people who are capable of working that are employed increase the GDP of that economy.
Illegal drugs imported from other countries would be considered as a negative balance when considering trade.
And with deficit spending, I am not going to have an opinion on it. It is possible that it might be necessary on a limited basis. This is because savings by a business or a person can offset loss of income at a later date.
This post is essentially facts with no personal opinion.


You really should learn economics at least to some degree.

Money is not wealth. Capital and services is wealth. Money is only a medium of exchange. it, in and of itself, is not wealth.

A government does not create wealth. It must steal wealth to function. It provides nothing that people can't do for themselves.

Welfare? Private charities do a much more efficient job.
Defense? People have the right to defend themselves already.
Standards? Private standards in common use far outnumber government standards.
Roads? I am building a road right now. Private individuals and companies can easily build roads.
USPS? Private delivery services have done quite well competing against government subsidized delivery service.

Only capitalism can create wealth. Only people producing goods and services that other people want and are willing to pay for is creation of wealth.

Forcing people to buy something is socialism.
Forcing people to work for the government is socialism.
Forcing price controls is socialism.
Forcing people to 'charity' is socialism, and theft, not charity.

I have no respect for people that just sit around and whine and won't work, even if they're handicapped.


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
22-11-2020 05:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's even simpler. The economy, is simply the movement of money/wealth. The more people involved, the stronger the economy.

The stimulus packages, the government hands out, is intended to put enough money in peoples hands, that they buy stuff, rather than just pay debt. Business are given stimulus, so they will hire more people. Most of the stimulus money, doesn't get used as intended. That's the main hold up on the second round of emergency relief. Republicans just want to focus on the emergency needs of the people, since stimulus, would mostly just go into a few people's pocket, and sit, not circulate. The democrats would mostly benefit, specifically the blue states, that are near bankruptcy, do to their frivolous spending. A huge stimulus package, like the House is pushing, will do nothing, for most people and businesses, specially when a lot of them are likely to get shut down again, do to the pandemic. Most of that money will go straight to creditors, and banks (owned by democrats).


It's even simpler. the economy is the production of wealth. Money is not wealth.


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
22-11-2020 05:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is a basic explanation that explains how an economy either expands or contracts.
An economy grows because businesses and people borrow money. And for an economy to grow, the amount of debt carried needs to increase every year. Next is a list that the debt carried needs to account for.
Money saved because it's taken out of circulation
A trade deficit because that money is exported
Inflation because it devalues the currency

With deficit spending, it can cause currency to become devalued if other countries sell of the currency they are holding. When other countries by a country's currency, they increase it's value when exchanged internationally.

This brings us to taxes. Governments should not be considered because governments spend the tax revenue they collect. This brings us to population growth. This requires expanding/improving infrastructure. A government could give itself a tax free loan. This investment in public works projects would help the economy to grow until the government repays the loan. There would be no net gain as a result?
And with an economy, the more people who are capable of working that are employed increase the GDP of that economy.
Illegal drugs imported from other countries would be considered as a negative balance when considering trade.
And with deficit spending, I am not going to have an opinion on it. It is possible that it might be necessary on a limited basis. This is because savings by a business or a person can offset loss of income at a later date.
This post is essentially facts with no personal opinion.


What's up James!

The part of your post that interests me most is the relationship between savings, deficit spending, and inflation.

The way I'm considering it...

Whatever the savings is for an economy, that will be the amount of deficit spending that is needed.

And with inflation...

If people spend their savings before their loss of income, this causes inflation.

Quite often people spend their savings on speculation in the stock market. I suppose this is why the stock market usually inflates in price more than commodities like pork bellies, and why things like the 401K were invented.

You could probably stop inflation without deficit spending, which is what many financial conservatives of the Dave Ramsey variety might preach.

But if you did that, then too many people would be strapped for cash, and this could risk quickly causing social upheaval.

Deficit spending is a government spending more money than it is bringing in. It is nothing more than that.

It is government going into more debt.

There are three ways for a national government (such as the federal government) to raise money for its operations:
It can tax for it, it can borrow it, or it can print it.

Money isn't wealth. Goods and services that people voluntarily want to pay for are wealth.

If a government taxes too much, you get a tax revolt (possibly a violent one). This is also known as a tax crash.

If a government borrows too much, you get to a point where you have to borrow to pay back the loans you borrowed before. Anyone that has gotten too deep in their heads with their credit cards knows this story, and how it eventually must end...bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the people that loaned you the money won't get their money back. It's gone. There is nothing special about a government getting in trouble in the same way. This is called a debt crash.

If a government prints too much money (printing faster than the wealth that is being created in a society), you get inflation. You have the more money chasing after the same wealth as before, even if that wealth is still managing to increase due to capitalism. The result is inflation. If inflation goes far enough, the money is no longer worth using, and faith in that money fails. People will simply shift to a different thing as money. No government can stop this. When a government currency becomes worthless, that is called a cash crash.

Right now, every nation on Earth is using fiat money with a single exception (Iran, which is based on gold).

The temptation is great for governments to print their way out of their difficulties. This is currently what EVERY NATION ON EARTH (other than Iran) is trying to do. We've never been here before in the history of the world.

In Japan it's so bad they have to pay people to take their money (negative interest rates). They are not alone.

We are closer to a worldwide cash crash than ever before. Faith in many world currencies is waning, and fast. People are already looking for a substitute. Bitcoin? Gold and silver? SDRs (a world currency)? Oil? Something completely new?

If people shift on what they use for money, it will happen almost overnight. No government can stop this. Such a shift may cause or may be the result of wars. Governments fall because of mishandling their funds.


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
22-11-2020 06:29
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:

Deficit spending is a government spending more money than it is bringing in. It is nothing more than that.

It is government going into more debt.

If a government taxes too much, you get a tax revolt (possibly a violent one). This is also known as a tax crash.

If a government borrows too much, you get to a point where you have to borrow to pay back the loans you borrowed before. Anyone that has gotten too deep in their heads with their credit cards knows this story, and how it eventually must end...bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the people that loaned you the money won't get their money back. It's gone. There is nothing special about a government getting in trouble in the same way. This is called a debt crash.

If a government prints too much money (printing faster than the wealth that is being created in a society), you get inflation. You have the more money chasing after the same wealth as before, even if that wealth is still managing to increase due to capitalism. The result is inflation. If inflation goes far enough, the money is no longer worth using, and faith in that money fails. People will simply shift to a different thing as money. No government can stop this. When a government currency becomes worthless, that is called a cash crash.

We are closer to a worldwide cash crash than ever before. Faith in many world currencies is waning, and fast. People are already looking for a substitute. Bitcoin? Gold and silver? SDRs (a world currency)? Oil? Something completely new?

If people shift on what they use for money, it will happen almost overnight. No government can stop this. Such a shift may cause or may be the result of wars. Governments fall because of mishandling their funds.


Sigh...

It is not only the government who deficit spends. Many private individuals must deficit spend too, by going into debt.

The USA government tends to only tax rich people. Poor people don't pay taxes. You're unlikely to get a revolt from rich people. They don't have much to personally complain about and there aren't that many of them.

Scratch your tax crash.

Bankruptcy only happens when you have credit limits (and there is continual deficit spending). What credit limits are there for Uncle Sam? There is no limit to how high the USA Gov debt ceiling can go is there?

I suppose you think that rules out your debt crash and leaves you with your cash crash hypothesis. Inflation into oblivion one might call it.

What is to stop inflation from continuing perpetually? Why would continual inflation alter faith in existing currencies?

What is the point of switching to a new currency? What difference does it make?
Edited on 22-11-2020 06:33
22-11-2020 08:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:

Deficit spending is a government spending more money than it is bringing in. It is nothing more than that.

It is government going into more debt.

If a government taxes too much, you get a tax revolt (possibly a violent one). This is also known as a tax crash.

If a government borrows too much, you get to a point where you have to borrow to pay back the loans you borrowed before. Anyone that has gotten too deep in their heads with their credit cards knows this story, and how it eventually must end...bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the people that loaned you the money won't get their money back. It's gone. There is nothing special about a government getting in trouble in the same way. This is called a debt crash.

If a government prints too much money (printing faster than the wealth that is being created in a society), you get inflation. You have the more money chasing after the same wealth as before, even if that wealth is still managing to increase due to capitalism. The result is inflation. If inflation goes far enough, the money is no longer worth using, and faith in that money fails. People will simply shift to a different thing as money. No government can stop this. When a government currency becomes worthless, that is called a cash crash.

We are closer to a worldwide cash crash than ever before. Faith in many world currencies is waning, and fast. People are already looking for a substitute. Bitcoin? Gold and silver? SDRs (a world currency)? Oil? Something completely new?

If people shift on what they use for money, it will happen almost overnight. No government can stop this. Such a shift may cause or may be the result of wars. Governments fall because of mishandling their funds.


Sigh...

It is not only the government who deficit spends. Many private individuals must deficit spend too, by going into debt.

And the same thing happens.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The USA government tends to only tax rich people. Poor people don't pay taxes.

Actually, they do.
They pay taxes through their rent payment. They pay taxes for Medicare and Social Security, regardless of the size of their paycheck. They pay taxes for most things they buy. They pay taxes for the use of their phone. Yes...they pay taxes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You're unlikely to get a revolt from rich people.

They are the most dangerous to get a revolt from. They can afford to hire a good many soldiers, propagandists, and can influence a lot of people.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't have much to personally complain about and there aren't that many of them.

There are a hell of a lot more than you think. We're not talking about the 1% here. False dichotomy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Scratch your tax crash.

No. You can't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bankruptcy only happens when you have credit limits (and there is continual deficit spending). What credit limits are there for Uncle Sam? There is no limit to how high the USA Gov debt ceiling can go is there?

Yes. When people will no longer loan money to them, because they fear they won't get it back.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I suppose you think that rules out your debt crash and leaves you with your cash crash hypothesis.

Nope. Both are quite possible.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation into oblivion one might call it.

One way to put it!

Spongy Iris wrote:
What is to stop inflation from continuing perpetually?

Stop printing money so fast. It's really very simple. Print no more money than wealth being created by society. If you print less, you have deflation (not necessarily a bad thing). If you are exactly at the same pace, you have neither inflation nor deflation.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Why would continual inflation alter faith in existing currencies?

Simple. Money becomes more and more worthless. It's no fun spending 10,000 units to buy a potato. It's no fun if you have to spend 20,000 units to buy the same potato just 15 minutes later.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What is the point of switching to a new currency? What difference does it make?

Sanity. Stability.


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
Edited on 22-11-2020 08:06
22-11-2020 21:38
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:

Deficit spending is a government spending more money than it is bringing in. It is nothing more than that.

It is government going into more debt.

If a government taxes too much, you get a tax revolt (possibly a violent one). This is also known as a tax crash.

If a government borrows too much, you get to a point where you have to borrow to pay back the loans you borrowed before. Anyone that has gotten too deep in their heads with their credit cards knows this story, and how it eventually must end...bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the people that loaned you the money won't get their money back. It's gone. There is nothing special about a government getting in trouble in the same way. This is called a debt crash.

If a government prints too much money (printing faster than the wealth that is being created in a society), you get inflation. You have the more money chasing after the same wealth as before, even if that wealth is still managing to increase due to capitalism. The result is inflation. If inflation goes far enough, the money is no longer worth using, and faith in that money fails. People will simply shift to a different thing as money. No government can stop this. When a government currency becomes worthless, that is called a cash crash.

We are closer to a worldwide cash crash than ever before. Faith in many world currencies is waning, and fast. People are already looking for a substitute. Bitcoin? Gold and silver? SDRs (a world currency)? Oil? Something completely new?

If people shift on what they use for money, it will happen almost overnight. No government can stop this. Such a shift may cause or may be the result of wars. Governments fall because of mishandling their funds.


Sigh...

It is not only the government who deficit spends. Many private individuals must deficit spend too, by going into debt.

And the same thing happens.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The USA government tends to only tax rich people. Poor people don't pay taxes.

Actually, they do.
They pay taxes through their rent payment. They pay taxes for Medicare and Social Security, regardless of the size of their paycheck. They pay taxes for most things they buy. They pay taxes for the use of their phone. Yes...they pay taxes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You're unlikely to get a revolt from rich people.

They are the most dangerous to get a revolt from. They can afford to hire a good many soldiers, propagandists, and can influence a lot of people.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't have much to personally complain about and there aren't that many of them.

There are a hell of a lot more than you think. We're not talking about the 1% here. False dichotomy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Scratch your tax crash.

No. You can't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bankruptcy only happens when you have credit limits (and there is continual deficit spending). What credit limits are there for Uncle Sam? There is no limit to how high the USA Gov debt ceiling can go is there?

Yes. When people will no longer loan money to them, because they fear they won't get it back.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I suppose you think that rules out your debt crash and leaves you with your cash crash hypothesis.

Nope. Both are quite possible.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation into oblivion one might call it.

One way to put it!

Spongy Iris wrote:
What is to stop inflation from continuing perpetually?

Stop printing money so fast. It's really very simple. Print no more money than wealth being created by society. If you print less, you have deflation (not necessarily a bad thing). If you are exactly at the same pace, you have neither inflation nor deflation.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Why would continual inflation alter faith in existing currencies?

Simple. Money becomes more and more worthless. It's no fun spending 10,000 units to buy a potato. It's no fun if you have to spend 20,000 units to buy the same potato just 15 minutes later.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What is the point of switching to a new currency? What difference does it make?

Sanity. Stability.

quote]Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:

Deficit spending is a government spending more money than it is bringing in. It is nothing more than that.

It is government going into more debt.

If a government taxes too much, you get a tax revolt (possibly a violent one). This is also known as a tax crash.

If a government borrows too much, you get to a point where you have to borrow to pay back the loans you borrowed before. Anyone that has gotten too deep in their heads with their credit cards knows this story, and how it eventually must end...bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the people that loaned you the money won't get their money back. It's gone. There is nothing special about a government getting in trouble in the same way. This is called a debt crash.

If a government prints too much money (printing faster than the wealth that is being created in a society), you get inflation. You have the more money chasing after the same wealth as before, even if that wealth is still managing to increase due to capitalism. The result is inflation. If inflation goes far enough, the money is no longer worth using, and faith in that money fails. People will simply shift to a different thing as money. No government can stop this. When a government currency becomes worthless, that is called a cash crash.

We are closer to a worldwide cash crash than ever before. Faith in many world currencies is waning, and fast. People are already looking for a substitute. Bitcoin? Gold and silver? SDRs (a world currency)? Oil? Something completely new?

If people shift on what they use for money, it will happen almost overnight. No government can stop this. Such a shift may cause or may be the result of wars. Governments fall because of mishandling their funds.


Sigh...

It is not only the government who deficit spends. Many private individuals must deficit spend too, by going into debt.

And the same thing happens.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The USA government tends to only tax rich people. Poor people don't pay taxes.

Actually, they do.
They pay taxes through their rent payment. They pay taxes for Medicare and Social Security, regardless of the size of their paycheck. They pay taxes for most things they buy. They pay taxes for the use of their phone. Yes...they pay taxes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You're unlikely to get a revolt from rich people.

They are the most dangerous to get a revolt from. They can afford to hire a good many soldiers, propagandists, and can influence a lot of people.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't have much to personally complain about and there aren't that many of them.

There are a hell of a lot more than you think. We're not talking about the 1% here. False dichotomy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Scratch your tax crash.

No. You can't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bankruptcy only happens when you have credit limits (and there is continual deficit spending). What credit limits are there for Uncle Sam? There is no limit to how high the USA Gov debt ceiling can go is there?

Yes. When people will no longer loan money to them, because they fear they won't get it back.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I suppose you think that rules out your debt crash and leaves you with your cash crash hypothesis.

Nope. Both are quite possible.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation into oblivion one might call it.

One way to put it!

Spongy Iris wrote:
What is to stop inflation from continuing perpetually?

Stop printing money so fast. It's really very simple. Print no more money than wealth being created by society. If you print less, you have deflation (not necessarily a bad thing). If you are exactly at the same pace, you have neither inflation nor deflation.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Why would continual inflation alter faith in existing currencies?

Simple. Money becomes more and more worthless. It's no fun spending 10,000 units to buy a potato. It's no fun if you have to spend 20,000 units to buy the same potato just 15 minutes later.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What is the point of switching to a new currency? What difference does it make?

Sanity. Stability.


I wouldn't say Uncle Sam taxes poor people to the point they revolt, but yes they pay social security taxes if they work, and sales taxes when they buy just about anything other than food.

What good examples can you cite of rich people wanting to revolt due to over taxation, that are current and/or timely?

The Federal Reserve holds ~ $4.5 trillion of Uncle Sam's ~ $27 trillion of debt, currently. The Federal Reserve doesn't need that money anytime soon does it? Their annual salaries are barely over $1 billion.

USA's debt markets are open daily and people are buying treasury bonds in heavy volume. Lending continues, and might continue in the future at negative interest rates too, as it has in Europe. Let's see...

If some people stop buying treasury bonds, why can't the Federal Reserve just buy more to make up for that loss?

As far as I can tell, money is only printed when someone gets debt. Of course money gets exchanged when you work and buy things. But that money was already printed.

Inflation is only a problem if the things you buy inflate more than the things you sell.

If you own a lot of things, and you can sell them fast, you probably like inflation. If you're rent is going up faster than your wages, inflation is more likely to cause you to revolt. You might consider inflation is essentially the reason for the phrase, The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

It makes no difference what instrument you use for your currency. The number 56 is the same whether you write it on gold or paper. Sanity and stability are not correlated to what kind of pen you write with. Although an insane person might believe there is such a correlation.

None of your forecasted scenarios seem likely.

Will Uncle Sam default on the debt? The Federal Reserve can bail them out.

Will inflation cause loss of faith in the almighty dollar? Inflation causes tension between rich and poor people and both rich and poor people worship the almighty dollar like total zealots. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.
23-11-2020 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
I wouldn't say Uncle Sam taxes poor people to the point they revolt, but yes they pay social security taxes if they work, and sales taxes when they buy just about anything other than food.

No revolts at this time, no. Not in the U.S. But tax revolts do happen.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What good examples can you cite of rich people wanting to revolt due to over taxation, that are current and/or timely?

Pakistan had a bunch of merchants strike because of high taxes placed on them. Kenya had a trucker's strike because of high taxes placed on what they were trucking (oil products), resulting a general fuel shortage across Kenya. The U.S. went through a similar shortage when Carter imposed price controls on gasoline. The stations and truckers revolted, resulting in long gas lines. Generally, if a Congress imposes high income taxes, they get voted out of office. That's a revolt.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve holds ~ $4.5 trillion of Uncle Sam's ~ $27 trillion of debt, currently. The Federal Reserve doesn't need that money anytime soon does it? Their annual salaries are barely over $1 billion.

They need it to pay their debt and stay solvent.
Spongy Iris wrote:
USA's debt markets are open daily and people are buying treasury bonds in heavy volume.

Actually, bond prices fluctuate. You have to entice people to buy bonds by paying them interest for the money. People are also selling bonds in heavy volume. That interest payment must also be paid for. If you have to borrow to pay the previous bonds, you have a debt crash. There is insufficient money to run the government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Lending continues, and might continue in the future at negative interest rates too, as it has in Europe. Let's see...

The interest rate here is on the money, not on the bonds. This is money the banks and other large lenders use to borrow money from the United States. Also the prime interest rate. Banks have debts too, like many businesses. They can destroy themselves financially by overburdening themselves with debt like anyone else. That actually happened to a local bank here in Washington, now gone.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If some people stop buying treasury bonds, why can't the Federal Reserve just buy more to make up for that loss?

No. You can't borrow from yourself.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As far as I can tell, money is only printed when someone gets debt.

Nope. It's printed all the time.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course money gets exchanged when you work and buy things. But that money was already printed.

Money is not wealth. You still don't get that. It is only a medium of exchange.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation is only a problem if the things you buy inflate more than the things you sell.

No. It affects both buying and selling. Things cost more, so you have to increase your prices to cover for your increased costs.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you own a lot of things, and you can sell them fast, you probably like inflation.

Liquidating is not an option. A business needs it's equipment and buildings and people to stay in business.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you're rent is going up faster than your wages, inflation is more likely to cause you to revolt.

True.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You might consider inflation is essentially the reason for the phrase, The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

It is a factor.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It makes no difference what instrument you use for your currency.

Yes it does.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The number 56 is the same whether you write it on gold or paper.

Money is not a number. It is a medium of exchange. You used to be able to buy a candy bar for $0.10, now it's easily $1.00 for that same candy bar. Gasoline used to be $0.15/gallon. Now, it's $4.35 in some cities. In 1900, you could buy an ounce of gold for $20. Today, it's $1900 to buy that same ounce.

Right now, people are beginning to trust gold more than federal dollars.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Sanity and stability are not correlated to what kind of pen you write with.

Money is not a pen.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Although an insane person might believe there is such a correlation.

You are trying to redefine money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
None of your forecasted scenarios seem likely.

No? People are already looking around for an alternative to federal reserve notes. If enough people settle on something, faith in the federal reserve note will fall rapidly, almost overnight. There is nothing the federal government can do to stop it. Government has been generally growing larger and larger too. All those bureaucrats have to be paid for. The federal government is being forced into huge prints of money (in the trillions) just to stay afloat. They are ignoring the problem.

The federal government is broke.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Will Uncle Sam default on the debt?

Quite possibly. So far, they've been able to fool enough people to buy bonds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve can bail them out.

No, it can't. Paying people with worthless dollars won't cut it. That only causes inflation, perhaps risking hyperinflation. See what happened to Mexico, Germany, Greece, etc. under similar circumstances.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will inflation cause loss of faith in the almighty dollar?

Inflation IS loss of faith in the almighty dollar.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation causes tension between rich and poor people and both rich and poor people worship the almighty dollar like total zealots. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Nope. That's just the usual jealousy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.

RQAA.


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
23-11-2020 01:27
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1896)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...
23-11-2020 03:09
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.
Edited on 23-11-2020 03:23
23-11-2020 03:33
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
I wouldn't say Uncle Sam taxes poor people to the point they revolt, but yes they pay social security taxes if they work, and sales taxes when they buy just about anything other than food.

No revolts at this time, no. Not in the U.S. But tax revolts do happen.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What good examples can you cite of rich people wanting to revolt due to over taxation, that are current and/or timely?

Pakistan had a bunch of merchants strike because of high taxes placed on them. Kenya had a trucker's strike because of high taxes placed on what they were trucking (oil products), resulting a general fuel shortage across Kenya. The U.S. went through a similar shortage when Carter imposed price controls on gasoline. The stations and truckers revolted, resulting in long gas lines. Generally, if a Congress imposes high income taxes, they get voted out of office. That's a revolt.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve holds ~ $4.5 trillion of Uncle Sam's ~ $27 trillion of debt, currently. The Federal Reserve doesn't need that money anytime soon does it? Their annual salaries are barely over $1 billion.

They need it to pay their debt and stay solvent.
Spongy Iris wrote:
USA's debt markets are open daily and people are buying treasury bonds in heavy volume.

Actually, bond prices fluctuate. You have to entice people to buy bonds by paying them interest for the money. People are also selling bonds in heavy volume. That interest payment must also be paid for. If you have to borrow to pay the previous bonds, you have a debt crash. There is insufficient money to run the government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Lending continues, and might continue in the future at negative interest rates too, as it has in Europe. Let's see...

The interest rate here is on the money, not on the bonds. This is money the banks and other large lenders use to borrow money from the United States. Also the prime interest rate. Banks have debts too, like many businesses. They can destroy themselves financially by overburdening themselves with debt like anyone else. That actually happened to a local bank here in Washington, now gone.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If some people stop buying treasury bonds, why can't the Federal Reserve just buy more to make up for that loss?

No. You can't borrow from yourself.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As far as I can tell, money is only printed when someone gets debt.

Nope. It's printed all the time.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course money gets exchanged when you work and buy things. But that money was already printed.

Money is not wealth. You still don't get that. It is only a medium of exchange.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation is only a problem if the things you buy inflate more than the things you sell.

No. It affects both buying and selling. Things cost more, so you have to increase your prices to cover for your increased costs.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you own a lot of things, and you can sell them fast, you probably like inflation.

Liquidating is not an option. A business needs it's equipment and buildings and people to stay in business.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you're rent is going up faster than your wages, inflation is more likely to cause you to revolt.

True.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You might consider inflation is essentially the reason for the phrase, The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

It is a factor.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It makes no difference what instrument you use for your currency.

Yes it does.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The number 56 is the same whether you write it on gold or paper.

Money is not a number. It is a medium of exchange. You used to be able to buy a candy bar for $0.10, now it's easily $1.00 for that same candy bar. Gasoline used to be $0.15/gallon. Now, it's $4.35 in some cities. In 1900, you could buy an ounce of gold for $20. Today, it's $1900 to buy that same ounce.

Right now, people are beginning to trust gold more than federal dollars.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Sanity and stability are not correlated to what kind of pen you write with.

Money is not a pen.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Although an insane person might believe there is such a correlation.

You are trying to redefine money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
None of your forecasted scenarios seem likely.

No? People are already looking around for an alternative to federal reserve notes. If enough people settle on something, faith in the federal reserve note will fall rapidly, almost overnight. There is nothing the federal government can do to stop it. Government has been generally growing larger and larger too. All those bureaucrats have to be paid for. The federal government is being forced into huge prints of money (in the trillions) just to stay afloat. They are ignoring the problem.

The federal government is broke.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Will Uncle Sam default on the debt?

Quite possibly. So far, they've been able to fool enough people to buy bonds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve can bail them out.

No, it can't. Paying people with worthless dollars won't cut it. That only causes inflation, perhaps risking hyperinflation. See what happened to Mexico, Germany, Greece, etc. under similar circumstances.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will inflation cause loss of faith in the almighty dollar?

Inflation IS loss of faith in the almighty dollar.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation causes tension between rich and poor people and both rich and poor people worship the almighty dollar like total zealots. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Nope. That's just the usual jealousy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.

RQAA.


Also, forgot to mention earlier, one does expect to get their social security taxes paid returned to them when they qualify in older age...

Do you mean the USA Treasury must pay their debt to the Federal Reserve to stay solvent? Or the Federal Reserve must pay their debt to remain solvent?

If you mean the Federal Reserve must pay its debt to remain solvent, the biggest liabilities with the Federal Reserve are deposits. If the Federal Reserve needs to pay out more at once in deposits than it can access at once, that's called a cash crunch.

A cash crunch is deflationary, not inflationary.

The Federal Reserve is not the US Treasury. The Federal Reserve is a bank. If the Federal Reserve approves a loan to the US Treasury that doesn't mean the US Treasury is lending themself money.

The Federal Reserve can create (print) money by making a loan by its fiat (authority). That is what I mean when I say money only gets printed (created) when somebody goes into debt. They don't just print money, hand it out, and yell Hail Mary!

Nobody can make anything good on their own (create wealth). There is a give and take between many people. That's what money is for. The give and take. You don't really expect us humans to be able to manage all this give and take without a medium of exchange do you?

Gold is not money Dumbo. Gold is wealth, not money. I thought you understood the difference between wealth and money...

Your comprehension of inflation is incomplete. You are mistaking correlation for causation!

Mounting debt is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is the cause of mounting debt.
23-11-2020 03:36
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.
23-11-2020 04:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1896)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


Never said it was all about taxes. It was one of many issues with King George III. However, the tax issue was a HUGE one. Colonies were not represented in parliament so they felt it was taxation without representation.

Today, taxes is just one of many issues of the over bloated government. 95% of the federal gov budget is spent on shit it was never intended to be involved in.

I hope there is a revolt. This system needs a major reset.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 23-11-2020 05:16
23-11-2020 04:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1896)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


People who don't understand our history should not be offering input about our future.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 23-11-2020 05:17
23-11-2020 05:40
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


People who don't understand our history should not be offering input about our future.


The Stamp Act was repealed. The 2 main issues were a British standing army and no representation in Parliament. As British subjects, they believed that they should have representation in parliment like any other British subjects.
Aldo the New York assembly was disbanded by Britain. Other colonies felt threatened by this action.
To simplify things for you, the standing army was to enforce British rule without being represented in parliment. That was the main issue. Without representation in parliment then they did not see themselves as British subjects.
Are you sure your an American gasguzzler? Your awareness of American history is rather poor.

https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/american-revolution-1763-1783/british-reforms-1767-1772/

p.s., tobacco for snuff was the colonies #1 export. Without representation, did they get a fair price? This would apply to any trade between England and the colonies.
Edited on 23-11-2020 05:47
23-11-2020 05:40
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.



Your welcome.
23-11-2020 06:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes.

It was about taxes.
James___ wrote:
It was about not liking England's policies.

Which was high taxes.
James___ wrote:
How many people left England to get away from the Crown?

Unknown.
James___ wrote:
If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.

Nope. There are actually quite a few religions in England. The Church of England (which still exists) is a Christian denomination sanctioned by the government.
James___ wrote:
It's policies like that that led to revolution.

Nope. It was high taxes. The people the revolted against England weren't in England at the time.


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
23-11-2020 06:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Also, forgot to mention earlier, one does expect to get their social security taxes paid returned to them when they qualify in older age...

Nope. Not the way Social Security works. There is no 'lockbox'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you mean the USA Treasury must pay their debt to the Federal Reserve to stay solvent? Or the Federal Reserve must pay their debt to remain solvent?

Both.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you mean the Federal Reserve must pay its debt to remain solvent, the biggest liabilities with the Federal Reserve are deposits.

It has no deposits.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If the Federal Reserve needs to pay out more at once in deposits than it can access at once, that's called a cash crunch.

The Federal Reserve has no deposits. A cash crash comes about when the Federal Reserve prints money faster than the wealth being created by society. That money is printed to fund the Federal government. It's like a rubber check that's always good.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A cash crunch is deflationary, not inflationary.

The actual cash crash is caused by inflation.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is not the US Treasury.

Never said it was.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is a bank.

No. It is a government organization. It acts like a bank, but it is not bank. It has no depositors, only withdrawals.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If the Federal Reserve approves a loan to the US Treasury that doesn't mean the US Treasury is lending themself money.

The Federal Reserve doesn't approve a loan by the Federal government. Congress does that. See the Constitution of the United States Article 1.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve can create (print) money by making a loan by its fiat (authority). That is what I mean when I say money only gets printed (created) when somebody goes into debt.

Nope. The money the Federal Reserve prints is not a loan. It's a grant. It is not paid back.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't just print money, hand it out, and yell Hail Mary!

That is exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Nobody can make anything good on their own (create wealth).

Yes they can. Wealth can be created without any government of any kind. Example: people crossing the plains into the wilderness where there is no government and building their own cities and towns. Government came later.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is a give and take between many people.

So? Doesn't need government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
That's what money is for. The give and take.

That's what I already said. Glad you agree.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You don't really expect us humans to be able to manage all this give and take without a medium of exchange do you?

It's happened before. Barter is still used today for some transactions.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is not money Dumbo.

Yes it is. It is also a metal. It is also an element.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is wealth, not money.

Gold is both. It is wealth because it is a useful metal. It is money because it has been and continues to be used as money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I thought you understood the difference between wealth and money...

I do. You don't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Your comprehension of inflation is incomplete. You are mistaking correlation for causation!

Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Mounting debt is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is the cause of mounting debt.

It is neither. Inflation is unrelated to debt.


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
23-11-2020 06:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.

It was about taxes.


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
23-11-2020 07:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


Never said it was all about taxes. It was one of many issues with King George III. However, the tax issue was a HUGE one. Colonies were not represented in parliament so they felt it was taxation without representation.

Today, taxes is just one of many issues of the over bloated government. 95% of the federal gov budget is spent on shit it was never intended to be involved in.

I hope there is a revolt. This system needs a major reset.


It was about taxes. Ole' king George was trying to pay for the cost of the 30 years war. He saw the colonists as an easy target, since they had no representation.


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
23-11-2020 07:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


People who don't understand our history should not be offering input about our future.

Guess he never heard of the Boston Tea Party and why it happened. He never heard of the pitch and tar revolts, or the cotton plantation revolts, or the glassmaker's revolts, or any the other taxes the Brits stuck on people. It got so bad the Brits would just come into your house and take your stuff, or seize your ship and take your stuff.

Much of it to try to pay for the 30 years war.


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
23-11-2020 07:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Will rich people revolt against high taxes? Again seems doubtful. Please cite examples if you can.


In 1775 it also seemed quite doubtful that 13 colonies would revolt against the king's taxes and go on to defeat the most powerful military in the world. Just sayin...



It wasn't about taxes. It was about not liking England's policies. How many people left England to get away from the Crown? If memory serves me right, in England, there was one church, the Church of England.
It's policies like that that led to revolution.


I'm glad you said that cuz I was feeling like it was B.S. to say it was all about taxes.


People who don't understand our history should not be offering input about our future.


The Stamp Act was repealed. The 2 main issues were a British standing army and no representation in Parliament. As British subjects, they believed that they should have representation in parliment like any other British subjects.
Aldo the New York assembly was disbanded by Britain. Other colonies felt threatened by this action.
To simplify things for you, the standing army was to enforce British rule without being represented in parliment. That was the main issue. Without representation in parliment then they did not see themselves as British subjects.
Are you sure your an American gasguzzler? Your awareness of American history is rather poor.

https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/american-revolution-1763-1783/british-reforms-1767-1772/

p.s., tobacco for snuff was the colonies #1 export. Without representation, did they get a fair price? This would apply to any trade between England and the colonies.

Nope. It was about taxes. All the things you mentioned came about because trying to collect taxes.


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
23-11-2020 14:04
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
There is one irony about the colonists demanding representation. Today, party line legislation or the lack there of basically shows that only one party's representatives matter.
And when Senate Majority Leader Mcconnell states that he will determine by himself what legislation is heard and passed, from the perspective of the colonists he has appointed himself King.
This is where it's possible that the senate passed rules to give one person more authority than the president. An example is if President Trump wanted certain legislation to be pursued, Senator Mcconnell could say "I won't allow it". And as for the other 50 Republican senators? They'd have no say in supporting their president.
23-11-2020 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
There is one irony about the colonists demanding representation. Today, party line legislation or the lack there of basically shows that only one party's representatives matter.
And when Senate Majority Leader Mcconnell states that he will determine by himself what legislation is heard and passed, from the perspective of the colonists he has appointed himself King.

No. He is Senate majority leader. He has that authority. See the Constitution.
James___ wrote:
This is where it's possible that the senate passed rules to give one person more authority than the president.

It is not more authority than the President. It is authority as leader of the Senate.
James___ wrote:
An example is if President Trump wanted certain legislation to be pursued, Senator Mcconnell could say "I won't allow it". And as for the other 50 Republican senators? They'd have no say in supporting their president.

So what? This authority IS given to the Senate, the House, and the President.


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
24-11-2020 04:47
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you mean the USA Treasury must pay their debt to the Federal Reserve to stay solvent? Or the Federal Reserve must pay their debt to remain solvent?

Both.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you mean the Federal Reserve must pay its debt to remain solvent, the biggest liabilities with the Federal Reserve are deposits.

It has no deposits.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If the Federal Reserve needs to pay out more at once in deposits than it can access at once, that's called a cash crunch.

The Federal Reserve has no deposits. A cash crash comes about when the Federal Reserve prints money faster than the wealth being created by society. That money is printed to fund the Federal government. It's like a rubber check that's always good.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The actual cash crash is caused by inflation.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is not the US Treasury.

Never said it was.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is a bank.

No. It is a government organization. It acts like a bank, but it is not bank. It has no depositors, only withdrawals.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The money the Federal Reserve prints is not a loan. It's a grant. It is not paid back.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't just print money, hand it out, and yell Hail Mary!

That is exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is not money Dumbo.

Yes it is. It is also a metal. It is also an element.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is wealth, not money.

Gold is both. It is wealth because it is a useful metal. It is money because it has been and continues to be used as money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I thought you understood the difference between wealth and money...

I do. You don't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Your comprehension of inflation is incomplete. You are mistaking correlation for causation!

Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Mounting debt is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is the cause of mounting debt.

It is neither. Inflation is unrelated to debt.


Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet. For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

Anything can be used for money. It is the accounting that is what's important. Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger. Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

You apparently still don't understand inflation. Here I will explain it to you... again.

Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics
24-11-2020 06:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you mean the USA Treasury must pay their debt to the Federal Reserve to stay solvent? Or the Federal Reserve must pay their debt to remain solvent?

Both.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you mean the Federal Reserve must pay its debt to remain solvent, the biggest liabilities with the Federal Reserve are deposits.

It has no deposits.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If the Federal Reserve needs to pay out more at once in deposits than it can access at once, that's called a cash crunch.

The Federal Reserve has no deposits. A cash crash comes about when the Federal Reserve prints money faster than the wealth being created by society. That money is printed to fund the Federal government. It's like a rubber check that's always good.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The actual cash crash is caused by inflation.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is not the US Treasury.

Never said it was.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve is a bank.

No. It is a government organization. It acts like a bank, but it is not bank. It has no depositors, only withdrawals.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The money the Federal Reserve prints is not a loan. It's a grant. It is not paid back.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't just print money, hand it out, and yell Hail Mary!

That is exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is not money Dumbo.

Yes it is. It is also a metal. It is also an element.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is wealth, not money.

Gold is both. It is wealth because it is a useful metal. It is money because it has been and continues to be used as money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I thought you understood the difference between wealth and money...

I do. You don't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Your comprehension of inflation is incomplete. You are mistaking correlation for causation!

Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Mounting debt is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is the cause of mounting debt.

It is neither. Inflation is unrelated to debt.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


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
24-11-2020 07:19
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???
24-11-2020 13:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Irrelevant. You are no longer talking about the Federal Reserve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???

Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

No argument presented. Trolling.


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
24-11-2020 17:34
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Irrelevant. You are no longer talking about the Federal Reserve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???

Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

No argument presented. Trolling.


You apparently don't know anything about the Federal Reserve. The largest holders of Federal Reserve Deposits are foreign governments, the Treasury, and mostly private banks in the US.

And apparently you don't know what a balance sheet is either, and what qualifies as an asset and a liability.

It you don't want to understand inflation, you shouldn't make comments about inflation like you know it all, when you are obviously mistaking correlation for cause.

I'm trying to help you understand, but you keep trolling me in response, or changing the subject, or trailing off on irrelevant tangents. What are you smoking dude???
24-11-2020 18:11
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:

Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???




It's possible that money came about to make bartering for goods and services easier. An example is if you had something to barter and couldn't bargain for what you wanted. Money would allow you to "sell" your goods or services. Then if in another nearby city you found a good that you wanted, you wouldn't have to carry goods to barter that might be of no value to the individual that you would want to barter with.
As for inflation, new loans by businesses or individuals is meant to account for it. If not, then the economy will contract. This is because goods and services will cost more yet there would be no new money in circulation.
Basically speaking, consumer and business debt is what has traditionally grown an economy.

Private Debt;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

GDP
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Makes me wonder if the national debt is because of the US trade deficit. Couldn't find any information on savings which would be both consumer ($1.3 Trillion) and businesses. If that's say, $8 Trillion, then maybe everyone gets the idea.
24-11-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Irrelevant. You are no longer talking about the Federal Reserve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???

Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

No argument presented. Trolling.


You apparently don't know anything about the Federal Reserve. The largest holders of Federal Reserve Deposits are foreign governments, the Treasury, and mostly private banks in the US.
Nope. No bank or foreign government has deposits at the Federal Reserve. Neither does the Treasury.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And apparently you don't know what a balance sheet is either, and what qualifies as an asset and a liability.
I do know what a balance sheet is. I use them all the time. I run a business.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It you don't want to understand inflation, you shouldn't make comments about inflation like you know it all, when you are obviously mistaking correlation for cause.
Reversal fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm trying to help you understand, but you keep trolling me in response,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or changing the subject,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or trailing off on irrelevant tangents.
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What are you smoking dude???

That would probably be you. I don't smoke or drink.


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
24-11-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:

Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???




It's possible that money came about to make bartering for goods and services easier. An example is if you had something to barter and couldn't bargain for what you wanted. Money would allow you to "sell" your goods or services. Then if in another nearby city you found a good that you wanted, you wouldn't have to carry goods to barter that might be of no value to the individual that you would want to barter with.
As for inflation, new loans by businesses or individuals is meant to account for it. If not, then the economy will contract. This is because goods and services will cost more yet there would be no new money in circulation.
Basically speaking, consumer and business debt is what has traditionally grown an economy.

Private Debt;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

GDP
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Makes me wonder if the national debt is because of the US trade deficit. Couldn't find any information on savings which would be both consumer ($1.3 Trillion) and businesses. If that's say, $8 Trillion, then maybe everyone gets the idea.


The debt is because the government is borrowing money by issuing bonds to function.


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
Edited on 24-11-2020 21:29
25-11-2020 16:35
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Irrelevant. You are no longer talking about the Federal Reserve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???

Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

No argument presented. Trolling.


You apparently don't know anything about the Federal Reserve. The largest holders of Federal Reserve Deposits are foreign governments, the Treasury, and mostly private banks in the US.
Nope. No bank or foreign government has deposits at the Federal Reserve. Neither does the Treasury.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And apparently you don't know what a balance sheet is either, and what qualifies as an asset and a liability.
I do know what a balance sheet is. I use them all the time. I run a business.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It you don't want to understand inflation, you shouldn't make comments about inflation like you know it all, when you are obviously mistaking correlation for cause.
Reversal fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm trying to help you understand, but you keep trolling me in response,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or changing the subject,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or trailing off on irrelevant tangents.
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What are you smoking dude???

That would probably be you. I don't smoke or drink.


The Federal Reserve says banks and governments have deposits with them. You say the Federal Reserve has no deposits.

Please explain your contradiction.
25-11-2020 17:12
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
What are you smoking dude???

That would probably be you. I don't smoke or drink.



So you're saying it's the "incense that smokes and you just inhale?
25-11-2020 17:37
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:

Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???




It's possible that money came about to make bartering for goods and services easier. An example is if you had something to barter and couldn't bargain for what you wanted. Money would allow you to "sell" your goods or services. Then if in another nearby city you found a good that you wanted, you wouldn't have to carry goods to barter that might be of no value to the individual that you would want to barter with.
As for inflation, new loans by businesses or individuals is meant to account for it. If not, then the economy will contract. This is because goods and services will cost more yet there would be no new money in circulation.
Basically speaking, consumer and business debt is what has traditionally grown an economy.

Private Debt;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

GDP
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Makes me wonder if the national debt is because of the US trade deficit. Couldn't find any information on savings which would be both consumer ($1.3 Trillion) and businesses. If that's say, $8 Trillion, then maybe everyone gets the idea.


I can't say I'm surprised you honed in you on that specific sentence of mine
...

If you add up the trade deficit between US and other countries, for last 50 years, it doesn't account for national debt. It's maybe just between 5 to 10% of national debt. But there does appear to be a strong correlation between when the trade deficit took off like a rocket, on the charts, and when the national debt did so too, which was around 50 years ago.

The US budget deficit for the last 50 years appears to account for the national debt. Adding those numbers up is more than half of the national debt. I guess the rest is accumulated interest charges.

Hey come to think of it, shouldn't there be a debt jubilee coming up?


If you consider my "contrivance" the US appears to be the biggest organization which deficit spends, to make up for savings, which is money taken out of circulation. In that sense, it looks like Uncle Sam's debt has very much been carrying the world the past 50 years.
25-11-2020 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
Are you saying the US Treasury does not have to pay back the Federal Reserve for the $4.5 trillion of Treasuries which the Federal Reserve has stated to be an asset?

It is not an asset.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, claiming something to be an asset which is not actually an asset is considered fraud.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of fiat currency.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The biggest liabilities listed for the Federal Reserve are reserve balances with Federal Reserve banks, currency in circulation, deposits with Federal Reserve banks. Are these not considered deposits?

No. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, these are loans.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The Federal Reserve doesn't list any debt on the liability side of their balance sheet.

Currency in circulation is a debt. The Federal Reserve IS Federal Reserve 'banks'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For them, debt, such as US Treasuries is an asset, and deposits are liabilities.

They have no assets. They are government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anything can be used for money.

True. I already said this.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the accounting that is what's important.

Money is two things: A representation of value (you can buy things with it), and a unit of account (you can set a price. That's the accounting part).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Gold is rather expensive to use as your ledger.

Not at all. It is simply another form of money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Paper, or computers, seem a bit more practical

There is nothing about gold that is incompatible with modern accounting systems and computers.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Golden money reminds me of a golden toilet.

That would be one hell of an expensive toilet!
Spongy Iris wrote:
You apparently still don't understand inflation.

Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here I will explain it to you... again.

Riiight.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Say there are 1,000 people in a workforce.

$300 is the price for each person to buy what they need in 1 year.

By year end, $300,000 is spent and $300,000 is earned.

But the management class takes the lion's share of the available earnings

100 people get paid $450 per year.

900 people get paid $283.33 per year.

900 people need an extra $16.67 by year end.

100 people have an extra $150 by year end.

At the end of the year there is savings of $15,000 and a deficit of $15,000.

The 900 people will need to get credit cards, mortgages, or other loans to cover their expenses of $300.

If the 100 people spend all their $450 in the course of the year, and all else is constant, there is $315,000 spent, and it will then take $315 for everybody to buy what they need.

The net prices of everything people need will have risen 5% in the course of the year.

That's what you call simplified economics


No, that's what I call an attempted proof by contrivance. Invalid.


Your deposits in the bank are financially considered assets of yours and it is a loan (liability) to banks.

Bank loans to people are financially considered assets to banks, and liabilities to people.

Irrelevant. You are no longer talking about the Federal Reserve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is a contrivance! What better to explain inflation than this contrivance to simplify that contrivance???

Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

No argument presented. Trolling.


You apparently don't know anything about the Federal Reserve. The largest holders of Federal Reserve Deposits are foreign governments, the Treasury, and mostly private banks in the US.
Nope. No bank or foreign government has deposits at the Federal Reserve. Neither does the Treasury.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And apparently you don't know what a balance sheet is either, and what qualifies as an asset and a liability.
I do know what a balance sheet is. I use them all the time. I run a business.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It you don't want to understand inflation, you shouldn't make comments about inflation like you know it all, when you are obviously mistaking correlation for cause.
Reversal fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm trying to help you understand, but you keep trolling me in response,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or changing the subject,
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
or trailing off on irrelevant tangents.
Inversion fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What are you smoking dude???

That would probably be you. I don't smoke or drink.


The Federal Reserve says banks and governments have deposits with them. You say the Federal Reserve has no deposits.

Please explain your contradiction.

Already did. RQAA.


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
25-11-2020 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
What are you smoking dude???

That would probably be you. I don't smoke or drink.



So you're saying it's the "incense that smokes and you just inhale?

Don't use incense either, dude.


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
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Simplified Economics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Economics 1011524-04-2020 05:24
Plants, CO2, World Economics/Politics027-08-2019 04:28
economics and climate change3722-08-2019 17:41
CAGW and economics of greed.014-03-2019 22:06
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact