 |
| |
|
|
Antrine
|
|
quote:
by Unscratched Foot... Basically the national bank owns the government thanks to the debt and lack of an honest monetary system in which the government itself prints money such as like Lincoln had going during the civil war to pay soldier's salaries or like Caesar imposed to make Rome so extravagantly wealthy. |
Yep, and as your examples indicate, IF your Army is biggest, badest and has the last word, then wha la, presto you could impose 'clams' on the rest of us and they would fly.  However, I am not advocating we switch to 'clams' any time soon! 
Also note, China is buying up our debt by large container ships full, so as to keep investments flowing their way, and our 'buying power intact'. Just like Japan did during the Vietnam Era. Also note, thanks to Nixon and OPEC treaty, all OPEC oil is traded with American dollars or else we hit them with our military. And gee, Iraq former leader did do just that, he broke said treaty and traded oil for 'any other' currency. Now he is by-by. Military, Oil and China are now backing our Debt Money.
Nice huh, feel secure? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
Your argument whole arugment fall down on US debt going up X amount must depreciate the value of the dollar.
You have to have something to compare the dollar with for depreccation and apprectaion to make sense. Foreign currenices are too illiquid for this purpose.
Oh and I'd guess the total amount on US citizen credit cards may be more.
$1.69 Billion a day and 7 trillion total debt is meaningless in isolation. For that matter, about 2 trillion is owed to itself, so only 5 trillion has affect on the economy. What matters is how does the publicly held debt compare with the total size of the economy and also what percent is the deficit (offically released is the public one) to the total size of the economy. The deficit seems to work out to roughly 3%, several industrialized countries have higher deficits.
We're seeing the usual here:
Houses appreciate in value over time, but there are roughly 80% home owners here, so it's much more a plus than a minus. Stock Market boomed, crashed, rebounded to about 2/3rds up and then is very stable on a monthly basis. (Not a daily one.) Gas prices are highly erratic over the short run, but on a year to year basis are realrively stable. Electronics constantly come down over time, education & health costs soar over time. Food prices are extremely stable for months at a time (ignoring which brand is on sale which week.) Balances out to the 2 to 4% rate each year. (Higher than savings accounts but lower than longer term CDs.)
quote:
Originally posted by unscratchedfoot
joncrumb, you need to learn more about debt-based currency which is not directly related to assets and income but rather the size of the national debt is what controls the money supply, and if you look at that, the US money supply is expanding at a terrific rate thanks to the US debt going up by $1.69 billion per day and is over 7 trillion currently which must inevitably depreciate the value of your dollar which means your wages are losing value and then inflation goes up, then interest rates go up, then the money supply is contracted, then recessions occur.... just the timing of economic cycles like bull markets and recessions are impossible to predict by anyone except by the private bankers running the nation reserve and printing the money which the government needs to keep borrowing to pump up the bloated budget outlays with. Basically the national bank owns the government thanks to the debt and lack of an honest monetary system in which the government itself prints money such as like Lincoln had going during the civil war to pay soldier's salaries or like Caesar imposed to make Rome so extravagantly wealthy. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Paddy the Scot
|
 |
Hordeland
Mar 2001
time: 14:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
Your argument whole arugment fall down on US debt going up X amount must depreciate the value of the dollar.
You have to have something to compare the dollar with for depreccation and apprectaion to make sense. Foreign currenices are too illiquid for this purpose.
Oh and I'd guess the total amount on US citizen credit cards may be more.
$1.69 Billion a day and 7 trillion total debt is meaningless in isolation. For that matter, about 2 trillion is owed to itself, so only 5 trillion has affect on the economy. What matters is how does the publicly held debt compare with the total size of the economy and also what percent is the deficit (offically released is the public one) to the total size of the economy. The deficit seems to work out to roughly 3%, several industrialized countries have higher deficits.
We're seeing the usual here:
Houses appreciate in value over time, but there are roughly 80% home owners here, so it's much more a plus than a minus. Stock Market boomed, crashed, rebounded to about 2/3rds up and then is very stable on a monthly basis. (Not a daily one.) Gas prices are highly erratic over the short run, but on a year to year basis are realrively stable. Electronics constantly come down over time, education & health costs soar over time. Food prices are extremely stable for months at a time (ignoring which brand is on sale which week.) Balances out to the 2 to 4% rate each year. (Higher than savings accounts but lower than longer term CDs.)
|
goodness lad, that is quite a statement 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
|
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
There are several US Trust funds by the US Govt with balances well above current expendatures. (In order the big three are, Social Security, Medicare [Part A], Roads Trust Fund, but there are hundreds more.) By US law, any surplus must be invested in US Treasury Bonds. [Of these three, Social Security continues to build a surplus due to it's pay-as-you-go funding, an accounting pratice that would line private bussines executives in the US in jail if used for pension accounts, Medicare [Part A] is about even [more likely to have a small deficit than small surplus], Roads is about even but more likely to have a small surplus than small deficit due to disagreement on how much of this fund should be spent down over the next few years.
The main plus of this arrangment is that it's the safest way to keep these assests [large quanties of cash being too easy to be stolen by employees], additionaly are that if too much money were invested in the corporate market (stocks and bonds) it would distort those markets.
The money supply theory is highly controversial among economists, the competing theory is that all increasing and decreasing the money supply does over the long run is change the veolocity of money which wipes out the intended affect. Each group cities numerous examples and counter examples.
As to would it be a good idea for the money supply to stay constant over time? Perhaps in those countries anticpating ZPG (or less), but a growing population (like the US) combined with a stagnant money supply is a recipie for extended deflation, and that can be worse, there is a price floor of 0% for savings and if savings become so desirable due to money antipicpated to be worth more in the future than today and conversely loans become that unpopular (who would want to have to pay back loans in more expensive dollars?) that market clearing price becomes negative, there is a severe problem. (That in fact did happen during the Great Depression.)
quote:
Originally posted by unscratchedfoot
joncrumb, what is this 2 trillion of debt that you say is owed to itself?
We're talking about 2 different things. The GNP, which is what I think you are referring to, is not an issue when talking about the expansion of the money supply due to government borrowing. No matter how big the GNP is, if the Fed wants to start a recession or send the economy on another glorious bull market then it can do it whenever it wants by adjusting the expanding and contracting the money supply. My point was that the government is a slave financially to the Fed thanks to the 7 trillion dollar debt and that's not gonna get any better with it going up by upwards of 2 billion a day and the money supply expanding geometrically. Someday, sometime, this system is gonna collapse bigstyle. |
Last edited by joncnunn on 17-09-2004 at 20:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
unscratchedfoot
|
 |
Love me tender. Love me sweet.
May 2002
time: 14:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
As to would it be a good idea for the money supply to stay constant over time? Perhaps in those countries anticpating ZPG (or less), but a growing population (like the US) combined with a stagnant money supply is a recipie for extended deflation, and that can be worse, there is a price floor of 0% for savings and if savings become so desirable due to money antipicpated to be worth more in the future than today and conversely loans become that unpopular (who would want to have to pay back loans in more expensive dollars?) that market clearing price becomes negative, there is a severe problem. (That in fact did happen during the Great Depression.)
|
I only have a couple minutes of time so this'll be brief for now...
The Depression & The Money Supply
The roaring 20's under Harding and Coolidge was fueled by fantastic amounts of loans being issued with only minimal capital requirements as collateral which in turn expanded the money supply grotesquely. The international bankers wanted to increase their power and saw this highly levered situation as a grand opportunity to contract the money supply and set off a domino effect of disasters. Starting with call money 24 hour loans being called in on October 19th, stocks were sold to cover loans leading to plunging prices, then loans of all sorts were called, more stock mayhem and businesses going bankrupt for having no capital to sell to pay off loans, and then the depression from 1929 to 1933 during which the Federal Reserve Board continued to tighten the money supply by a total of 33%.
here is Milton Friedman's excellent analysis of the depression
Japan's Burst Bubble, The Mexican Fiasco, and of course, The Money Supply
For a more modern demonstration of the international bankers (BIS, IMF etc making up the so-called World Central Bank), lets look at Japan in I believe the year was 1990 when Japan's economic boom turned into a long lasting recession. Japan's industry was rolling along in leaps and bounds overtop of the Americans with the help of loans being issued wholescale backed by very little in collateral.
So what caused the burst? Was it just due course for an overheated stock market or was it something else as well? A lot of factors went into the equation but it mostly came down to Japanese businesses' way of borrowing money to do everything and the money supply factor.
The BIS decided it wanted to contract the international money supply by calling in loans and the easiest way to do that is by raising the capital requirements on loans which they did to 8%. Debtors worldwide then had to come up with adequate capital to insure their loans and those that couldn't due to careless lending practices, had to go belly up or cry out for subsidies. Countries which were the most overleveraged were the inevitable victims of this action and that's why Japan and Mexico both experienced severe economic failures.
This is a lesson for us in what the future could bring on a larger scale should the all powerful international bankers decide to send economies into a spiral for their own gain. After all, in any depression, wealth is only redistributed, not lost.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2004 05:34
regardless what others said.
|
|