 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 10-13-2012, 01:24 PM | #1 |
| Why don’t you want prosperity?  Quote: The “Nine Steps” all are based on one simple truth. Our federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign (since August 15, 1971), and having the unlimited ability to create dollars, neither needs nor uses tax dollars. Federal deficit spending is the ultimate free lunch, limited only by inflation (which the Fed controls by increasing the demand for dollars). That being the case, federal deficit spending costs you nothing, but it benefits you greatly, because it stimulates the economy. Yet, our politicians and media fight tooth and nail to prevent American prosperity. They repeatedly propose plans to cut federal spending on products and services that benefit you. My belief is they do this intentionally, to widen the gap between the upper 1% income groups and you. I understand the motive of the 1%, by why do you, as a member of the 99%, agree with them? Here are the “Nine Steps,” with a bit more explanation. Quote: All of the above is based on one simple fact: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay any bill of any size, and does not rely on taxes or on borrowing. Federal deficits are not a burden on the government or on taxpayers. Federal spending is not “unsustainable.” The federal government is not “spending money we don’t have.” And the federal government cannot “go broke.” By limiting federal deficit spending, we force our government to fight the war against want and need, with one hand tied behind its back. | |
| 10-14-2012, 02:47 AM | #2 |
| when the *^&%# hits the fan | |
| 10-14-2012, 06:19 AM | #3 |
Originally posted by fisheye freak  . At some stage, the US will either have to default By creating a "debt ceiling" we can VOLUNTARILY make our money worthless.. but it is a VOLUNTEER act..NOT a reality.. Originally posted by fisheye freak , create hyperinflation Quote: since 1913 when the Fed was founded inflation in the USA has consistently risen at 3.5% per year on average. One might assume that this means the country has experienced some great injustice, but the truth is that the 1900′s were characterized by the greatest economic expansion and wealth creation the world has ever seen. Despite the common citation that “the $USD has lost 90% of its value” Americans experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity during this inflation. In fact, the prosperity became so gross in the 1990′s that Americans felt entitled to second homes, second cars, and just about every other luxury good known to man. What has not occurred is hyperinflation, which is a very different animal than inflation. Hyperinflation is a disorderly economic progression that leads to complete psychological rejection of the sovereign currency. HYPERINFLATION IN THE USA? | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM chances of hyperinflation in the US are low.. assuming we still WANT to make money.. Quote: These hyperinflations were not merely monetary events. It was not just “high inflation” or excessive government spending. It was a full blown rejection of the sovereign currency. This is a dramatically different set of circumstances than a gradual increase in inflation or a consistent inflation. The citizens rejected the currency due to these exogenous events. But why does the hyperinflation occur? As I mentioned above it generally occurs due to extreme exogenous events. Hyperinflations have generally occurred in nations with rampant corruption, war, productive collapse, or other extreme exogenous factors. The “money printing” that generally results is not actually the cause of the hyperinflation. It is merely the result of this exogenous event. Originally posted by fisheye freak sell off sovereign assets(sell land overseas-nothing left-you will be foreigners in your own land) or surrender sovereignty to the UN.  The irksome thing is that both sides of politics have been aiming at the goal of destroying the economy for decades. WHEN the ^**% hits the fan, it will not be pretty. How "robust" is our economy compared to theres? you have nothing to fear but fear itself.. if you realize we can buy our way out of this.......... Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-14-2012 at 06:27 AM. | |
| 10-14-2012, 09:25 PM | #5 |
| Originally posted by Verglace Governments cant just print out money just like that, there are side effects such as hyperinflation. I suggest you read up on it. . Originally posted by Verglace The basic gist is that printing more money lowers the value of the money, so the value of $1 becomes less the more currency is floating around. It can get to a point where the value printed on the bill is less than what the paper it is printed on, there have been a number of governments that tried this approach in the past and they all ended up bad. Read HR 2990...for what money is and what it can do....... http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2990ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2990ih.pdf and take your time w/ this..It is not how much you spend but what you spend it on BTW..."We" have tried 'voodoo economics" numerous times (it JUST refuses to die) and it always "turns out bad" as well The answers are here Monetary policy will not save the day | Bill Mitchell – billy blog and here: http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf and here: Why You Won't Find Hyperinflation In Democracies - Seeking Alpha Quote: All of which is to say that hyperinflation, in and of itself, really isn't anything to worry about. It's pretty much impossible to predict - and if your country has hyperinflation, it almost certainly has even bigger other problems. In fact, I'd hesitate to categorize hyperinflation as a narrowly economic phenomenon at all, as opposed to simply being a symptom of much bigger failures at the geopolitical level. Those failures are exacerbated by hyperinflation, of course: there's very much a vicious cycle in these episodes. But you only ever find hyperinflation under extreme conditions, and, with a single exception (Peru), I'm not even sure I can find any genuine democracies on this list. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/austerity-spain-greece-eu...cument&src=rss Take your time............  Quote: If economic policy were driven by results rather than ideology, this should have been enough to end the austerity drives and lead to the reverse policy: increase the government deficit since this might result in a larger rise in GDP. Instead, both political inertia and the unwillingness of neoclassical economists to admit they were wrong has made this a race to the bottom: since each round of austerity fails to reach its targeted reduction in the government deficit to GDP ratio, another round of austerity is ordered – and so on till infinitum. Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-14-2012 at 09:33 PM. | |
| 10-15-2012, 05:33 PM | #6 |
| Originally posted by jeffkrol I did, a lot.. and your understanding is completely wrong... Most democracies don't undergo hyperinflation because the government is held accountable by the people for their actions. It is reckless printing by authoritarian governments that can lead to hyperinflation. However, that is not to say that hyperinflation CANT happen in the USA. Remember how 99% of people were saying housing prices can't drop? Look where that led us 5 years ago. The idea that things "can't" happen is a dangerous thought. Also, the first link you posted is ridiculous. To think that the government can do everything for free is absurd. "Free nursing for everyone." So who's going to pay the nurses? Printed money, which affects the money in everyone's pocket due to inflation. | |
| 10-15-2012, 07:57 PM | #7 |
| Originally posted by ironlionzion Nah, his understanding is completely right. Most democracies don't undergo hyperinflation because the government is held accountable by the people for their actions. It is reckless printing by authoritarian governments that can lead to hyperinflation. However, that is not to say that hyperinflation CANT happen in the USA. Remember how 99% of people were saying housing prices can't drop? Look where that led us 5 years ago. The idea that things "can't" happen is a dangerous thought. Also, the first link you posted is ridiculous. To think that the government can do everything for free is absurd. "Free nursing for everyone." So who's going to pay the nurses? Printed money, which affects the money in everyone's pocket due to inflation. Yes, inflation can be a problem.. but not hyperinflation.. Controlling inflation is a component of the tax and spending balance (in part).. That something can be done does not always translate into what should be done.. As I (and many others as well) stated it is what you spend it on.. Consider the "nurses wages" what do they do with them?? Spend it into the economy, creating jobs and productivity.. It IS that simple.. Obviously you need to control the monetary expansion w/ something like "taxation" which will REMOVE money from the economy.. Thus balancing the equation.. Obviously it is a bit more complicated.. but not much.. Is Japan a terrible society to live in?? and their "deficit" is twice what we have now... Look at reality.. As some like to pick on Argentina.. another look.. YOUR policies: Quote: Argentina had been the poster child for Neoliberal policies all through the 1990s—they adopted virtually the whole Neolib agenda lock-stock-and-barrel. They even adopted a currency board. And unlike Euroland (which also adopted something like a currency board as each member adopted a foreign currency—the euro), Argentina would have consistently met the tight Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debts over that period. The main purpose of the austere budgets and currency board constraints was to kill high inflation. It worked. But, over that period unemployment grew and GDP growth was moderate. I won’t go further into the problems encountered at the turn of the new decade but the whole thing collapsed into a severe economic, financial, and political crisis. Quote: Some of the policies of privatization have been reversed; unemployment and poverty were reduced; the trend toward rising inequality was reversed; government ran budget surpluses and the economy ran current account surpluses; investment grew at a fair clip; and so on. I’m not going to burden you with lots of data but here are a few snippets. Caveat: I realize it does depend on the starting point. If you begin at the bottom of a trough then by definition the data are going to look mighty good climbing toward a peak. But my point is that if we begin with the implementation of the policy of the Kirchners (the husband and wife tag team model to which the Clintons might have aspired) and run it to the present we get an admittedly superficial measure of success of their policy. We will turn in a minute to the argument of the critics—which is by no means a small fringe. Quote: Here’s the preview: no matter what the level of inflation in Argentina (10% or 25%), the central bank is not a significant contributor. Indeed, the types of policies proposed by its Governor are consistent with the restructuring that will help to reduce inflation pressures over the long run. Further, what most critics look to—the size of the central bank’s balance sheet, for example—has nothing to do with the inflation pressures. Central banks don’t do helicopter drops of money. Whenever I go outside, I look up to see if Uncle Ben Bernanke is piloting a helicopter in my neighborhood, as I really would like to get my hands on one of those infamous bags of dollars he supposedly injects into the economy. Unfortunately, I never see him. Mercedes Marco del Pont doesn’t have a helicopter, either. I looked. You’ve got to look elsewhere for the pesos—they are not falling from the sky. | |
| 10-15-2012, 08:12 PM | #8 |
| Originally posted by ironlionzion . The idea that things "can't" happen is a dangerous thought. Originally posted by ironlionzion Also, the first link you posted is ridiculous. To think that the government can do everything for free is absurd. "Free nursing for everyone." So who's going to pay the nurses? Printed money, which affects the money in everyone's pocket due to inflation. going to the "moon" was once considered ridiculous as well (as was almost ANY major leap in thinking) Steve Keen seems to agree w/ Kuchinic in understanding it is banks not the Fed that controls the money.. Something HR2990 would change .. (I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime BTW) Quote: According to Keen, Minsky thought that irrational market actors can exacerbate disequilibrium's when they perceive future stability in the markets. For example, banks in the early 2000s continued extending loans to home-buyers with poor credit because they did not foresee (or did not want to accept) that home prices could not continue rising. Even the initially conservative activity of extending loans to creditworthy homebuyers soon became speculative, as home prices skyrocketed out of control because of unsustainable demand in the market. While it is quite conceivable that bank behavior did indeed exacerbate the housing bubble in this manner, Keen argues that this behavior demonstrates a deeper ideology: Fiscal and central bank policy have far less power in controlling credit conditions than we would like to believe. He writes: We cannot rely upon laws or regulators to permanently prevent the follies of finance. After every great economic crisis come great new institutions like the Federal Reserve, and new regulations like those embodied in the Glass-Steagall Act. Then there comes great stability, due largely to the decline in debt, but also due to these new institutions and regulations; and from that stability arises a new hubris that “this time is different”—as the debt that causes crises rises once more. Regulatory institutions become captured by the financial system they are supposed to regulate, while laws are abolished because they are seen to represent a bygone age. Then a new crisis erupts, and the process repeats. Minsky’s aphorism that “stability is destabilizing” applies not just to corporate behaviour, but to legislators and regulators as well. Banks, Keen insisted, form the crux of the problem since they are in control of the monetary base. Banks' assessments of the risks and rewards to lending grows virtually without reference to the deposits they receive, so banks—and not the government—ultimately determine credit standards. | |
| 10-15-2012, 08:57 PM | #9 |
|
You realize the links you are posting have nothing to do with your original statements? You post a lot of information - are you even sure you understand it? The last post with Krugman is focused on how to best get our economy out of the gutter....not on hyperinflation and the like. You realize the Fed controls the "easy money" to the banks via the federal funds rate, which they then loan out? To say that the Fed has no control over the money is like saying parents have no control over how much money their children spend. Well, the children make the decision to spend, but they have to get the money from somewhere. Essentially, banks borrow at the federal funds rate to sell loans to the consumer at higher interest rates. Originally posted by jeffkrol Believe what you want.. I know you are wrong on a fiscal level. | |
| 10-16-2012, 06:11 AM | #10 |
| Originally posted by ironlionzion You realize the links you are posting have nothing to do with your original statements? You post a lot of information - are you even sure you understand it? The last post with Krugman is focused on how to best get our economy out of the gutter....not on hyperinflation and the like. You realize the Fed controls the "easy money" to the banks via the federal funds rate, which they then loan out? To say that the Fed has no control over the money is like saying parents have no control over how much money their children spend. Well, the children make the decision to spend, but they have to get the money from somewhere. Essentially, banks borrow at the federal funds rate to sell loans to the consumer at higher interest rates. Care to share your "credentials?" I'm going to trust the list of nobel prize winning economists on this one. Hyperinflation (the bogey man) is very much a part in the propaganda war against any "sound economic policy".. so they are closely related.. Many realize hyperinflation is a rare event brought on by certain exogenous events and attitudes.. not money printing.. You seem to believe the exact opposite.. Best you study it better.. See my advantage was years ago I was an "open slate" w/ only basic "college level" economic training. I examined the plans from mises on, examined the arguments, examined the facts and came to "my hypothesis" that we, as a collective are DEAD wrong on how to use fiat money.. and am sick and tired of people selling "trickle down" snake oil...... the fact that a collective society can be wrong and detrimental to its own health is a historical fact.. and is the more likely approach than any other..stuff happens.. Krugman is a "nobel prize" winner and would disagree w/ a lot of what you think.. Never trust "high priests" when it becomes obvious that is is in opposition to currently known facts.. Quote: In Deficits saved the world you read that a Nobel Prize winner not previously associated with modern monetary theory is starting to come round. The article by Paul Krugman highlights some of the basic elements of the sort of macroeconomics that I have been writing about for years and which forms the basis of this blog. It shows definitively the point I make about the macro balances – that a government surplus will squeeze the non-government sector into deficit and vice versa. It also addresses the current policy debate which is getting swamped a bit by idiots who are saying that fiscal policy is not working and should be constrained to get the government budget back into surplus. Paul Krugman’s work in international trade which won him the Nobel Prize is thoroughly orthodox (neo-classical). His work in economic geography hardly could be described as progressive. He was part of the Reagan Adminstration and also a consultant to Enron before they crashed in a ponzi heap. He has also written articles that advocated wholesale deregulation of the labour market (for example). I also noted in my blog recently – Balance sheet recessions and democracy – that Krugman has not always been a fiscal policy sort of a guy. During the Japanese “lost decade”, he dramatically failed to understand the nature of their problem and recommended a reliance on monetary policy. His prior writings do no suggest that he really understands how a modern monetary economy actually functions although it is true that in recent months he has advocated increasing use of fiscal policy. I place him in the deficit-dove camp, which means he doesn’t eschew the use of deficits but still operates largely in a gold standard (convertible currency-fixed exchange rate) mentality. So his latest Op Ed in the New York Times (July 15, 2009) entitled Deficits saved the world is a welcome change. Perhaps things are percolating out there in ideas land as the modern monetary theorists (though small in number) keep hammering out the message. It is clear that we are gaining more circulation via the blogosphere and other network modes that have dramatically increased the capacity of academics to communicate with the world outside our ivory towers. More people read this blog each day than read my academic papers and books that is for sure. As a (relevant) interlude, I was a keynote speaker at a financial markets workshop in St Croix (US Virgin Islands) last year. The event is a bi-annual affair and brings the major investment bank economists (mostly US-based) and related bond traders etc together. It is the second time I have been invited and it gives me a chance to talk at length to (and with) the characters that are moving the billions around – “the wealth shufflers” (as I call them). The organiser, who is a big player in the bond markets but also a strong advocate of modern monetary theory uses the meeting to spread the word to the rest of his profession. It is a good strategy. Forget the academic economists who largely refuse to engage and, instead, get the ideas directly into the financial market traders, managers and analysts. At the last meeting in January 2008, the Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius was one of the attendees. What his reactions (in terms of theory) were to ideas presented during the two days of workshops is unknown to me. I got the impression from the workshop that he was not antagonistic and clearly he was smart enough to get the major points being made each day about how a fiat monetary system operates and the implications of that for fiscal policy managing the economy when private sector agents do not want to spend all their income. Anyway, back to Krugman. He starts off with this: Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs has a new note … responding to claims that government support for the economy is postponing the necessary adjustment. He doesn’t think much of that argument; neither do I. But one passage in particular caught my eye: The private sector financial balance – defined as the difference between private saving and private investment, or equivalently between private income and private spending – has risen from -3.6% of GDP in the 2006Q3 to +5.6% in 2009Q1. This 8.2% of GDP adjustment is already by far the biggest in postwar history and is in fact bigger than the increase seen in the early 1930s. That’s an interesting way to think about what has happened – and it also suggests a startling conclusion: namely, government deficits, mainly the result of automatic stabilizers rather than discretionary policy, are the only thing that has saved us from a second Great Depression. I do refuse to become rigid in my thinking..thus a bit of "confusion" is presented.. but the groundwork is the same... I'm right in supporting the minority... the majority (and Nobel winners) are wrong. This has happened before and is nothing new.......... I'm pretty certain you read maybe 1/100th of the stuff I posted.. and never w/ an open mind, assuming you already knew the answer.. ONE thing I learned in both college and Life.. never assume authorities are correct at face value.. nor believe a credential makes something a fact. BTW: Can you explain to me how and where "neoclassical" economic theory worked in a long run to the betterment of all 9or most) of society??? As to the validity of "Nobels".. Quote: When I first heard the news that the EU had one the 2012 Peace Prize, I wondered whether the tropical heat of my new location (Darwin) was getting to me already after just a week of being here. The weather is pretty torrid here for a “southerner”, a sort of affectionate (but, ultimately barbed) term that the locals use for blow-ins such as me from the South-Eastern states. So it is possible I was having a spasm or something when I read the news. But it was confirmed to be my a spate of E-mails from disbelievers everywhere – most of whom live in more temperate climates and probably were not using any mind-altering substances, at least at the time they sent the E-mails. Quote: Fiscal discipline is ensuring there is enough aggregate demand, distributed across the federal space, that is consistent with full employment. Nothing more and nothing less. If the budget deficit that is required to satisfy this requirement is 10 per cent of GDP or 1 per cent then so be it. It might be that a budget surplus is required. Then so be it. The actual budget outcome should never be the objective. The budget is a vehicle to a greater economic goal not an end in itself. Once we get lost in rules that the currency-issuing entity can not really meet with any surety, much less whether these rules are relevant to the current situation that the policy makers confront, then fiscal responsibility is being abandoned in favour of a blind ideology. That is where the European leadership is at present. Lost in its blind acceptance of an ideology that has already delivered manifest failure and can never be the basis of a policy-making framework that delivers sustained prosperity to its citizens. Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-16-2012 at 07:05 AM. | |
| 10-16-2012, 06:33 AM | #11 |
|
A bit more on this: Conclusion Quote: I have run out of time tonight. I will have more to say about these issues in coming blogs. For now, consider that the US economy is in a parlous state even though it is maintaining growth on the back of existing fiscal deficits. There is an urgent need to push growth faster and in an employment rich direction. Any thoughts of following the European or UK austerity route should be expunged from the public debate immediately. The opposite is the need. The problem is that the two major parties, from what I have been seeing in the current election campaign do not understand these issues. And then there is Jack Welch! So here I sit.. looking at "wrong" (current pres and ESPECIALLY the real power Congress) or REALLY, REALLY wrong Romney/Ryan/Rand.........."sigh"......... Maybe it is time to listen to other than Nobel winners............. This explains the closeness of the race (in part) BTW... | |
| 10-16-2012, 06:44 AM | #12 |
| 10-16-2012, 07:05 AM | #13 |
| Originally posted by normhead Those that control and finance the Republican party want the government taking less from the people so they can increase how much they take. Jeff, you realize that I agree with Kruger on many of his points? I think you are misunderstanding many of the links you are posting. Originally posted by jeffkrol Krugman is a "nobel prize" winner and would disagree w/ a lot of what you think.. Originally posted by jeffkrol hyperinflation is a rare event brought on by certain exogenous events and attitudes.. not money printing.. You seem to believe the exact opposite.. Best you study it better.. Imagine a society where everyone has a few dollars in their pocket. Suddenly, someone realizes they can just print off as much money as they want. This DESTROYS wealth for everyone else. The government, via the federal reserve, prints money which essentially causes inflation. This inflation is a TAX on everyone who uses cash. It's a small tax, and I don't personally think it's a big deal, but it is a tax. One questionable concept is that it affects those who can not invest disproportionately. Stocks are cushioned against inflation, so basically the wealthy who can invest can hedge themselves easily against inflation while also making a real return, while the middle and lower class are the ones more vulnerable to inflation. I guess my degree in economics from a top university, summa cum laude, omicron delta epsilon, was a phony degree? Originally posted by jeffkrol "trickle down" In fact, I don't believe ANY economist has all the answers to the economy. But a lot of them have very bright ideas on directions we should take. And to disown the nobel laureates in economics based on the shady peace prize is malarkey. Why don't we disown the nobel prize winners in stem cell research, physics, etc etc etc. The fact that the nobel prize sometimes is given questionably "ie Arafat, EU, etc" does not devalue the lifelong work and discoveries of all the other prize winners. Originally posted by jeffkrol I do refuse to become rigid in my thinking..thus a bit of "confusion" is presented.. but the groundwork is the same... I'm right in supporting the minority... the majority (and Nobel winners) are wrong. This has happened before and is nothing new.......... | |
| 10-16-2012, 07:20 AM | #14 |
| Originally posted by ironlionzion truth. first time I agree with you Norm! Jeff, you realize that I agree with Kruger on many of his points? I think you are misunderstanding many of the links you are posting. It is the product of endogenous events (corrupt government). You realize fiat money is money with no tangible backing in gold, etc. Basically, we take our currency on faith that other people will accept it for goods and services. It works brilliantly as long as everyone accepts it and as long as the government does not dilute it via printing. Imagine a society where everyone has a few dollars in their pocket. Suddenly, someone realizes they can just print off as much money as they want. This DESTROYS wealth for everyone else. The government, via the federal reserve, prints money which essentially causes inflation. This inflation is a TAX on everyone who uses cash. It's a small tax, and I don't personally think it's a big deal, but it is a tax. One questionable concept is that it affects those who can not invest disproportionately. Stocks are cushioned against inflation, so basically the wealthy who can invest can hedge themselves easily against inflation while also making a real return, while the middle and lower class are the ones more vulnerable to inflation. I guess my degree in economics from a top university, summa cum laude, omicron delta epsilon, was a phony degree? I don't believe in trickle down economics, never said I did. In fact, I don't believe ANY economist has all the answers to the economy. But a lot of them have very bright ideas on directions we should take. And to disown the nobel laureates in economics based on the shady peace prize is malarkey. Why don't we disown the nobel prize winners in stem cell research, physics, etc etc etc. The fact that the nobel prize sometimes is given questionably "ie Arafat, EU, etc" does not devalue the lifelong work and discoveries of all the other prize winners. You are rigid in your thinking. The fact that you think hyperinflation is some scare tactic conspiracy says it all. The US, however, is not facing hyperinflation or even severe inflation any time soon. The interest rates that the government borrows at is evidence of that. The debt problem has to be solved eventually. The one fundamental lesson from economics that you fail to understand is that there is NO FREE LUNCH. The government is no exception. (Well perhaps they can get the free lunch, but it is the taxpayer and bondholder who will pay for it). A Nobel is not a be all end all and is like anything man made.. subject to error..IF the Nobel existed in the "dark ages" ther would be a host of winners we would currently laugh loudly at. As to rigid.. from a tax and spend liberal to a no tax and spend "hybrid" you call that rigid??? Like you though, I stand behind my beliefs, yet do not lock them in stone.. Went from a MMT believer to an MMR belier based on reality.. Yet HR2990 is a "millennial change" wrapped in both MMT and MMR I do firmly reject Mises, and lasse fair capitalism based on either morality or the morality of the "market" which by it's very definition DOES NOT exist........ Yes the "debt problem" eventually must be solved.. How much is solved and when is the trillion dollar question NOW is not the time to solve it.. nor stop it either.........."balanced fed budgets (when you print money) is insanity... No free lunch really?? What do you call money printing?? It is free and wise use of it can stimulate economic activity. That is a FACT.......... simple question "why sell bonds" when you can print money??? Bonds are corporate (and investor) welfare.. there is no need for bonding since 1972.........well certainly not in the HR2990 bill which returns us to the constitutional mandate of the US gov. being the sole creator of currency.. Just think about it a bit........... | |
| 10-16-2012, 07:44 AM | #15 |
| Originally posted by jeffkrol No free lunch really?? What do you call money printing?? It is free and wise use of it can stimulate economic activity. That is a FACT.......... 1) The government has the ability and right to create fiat money 2) This ability grants the government unlimited spending power 3) Therefore the government should print unlimited money to create prosperity and wealth for everyone. If I was religious I'd be praying to god hoping you're in no position of power to create such policies. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| dollars, fight, government, prosperity |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Palin: Our Country’s Prosperity May Depend On Smearing Obama With Rev. Wright | jogiba | General Talk | 5 | 05-23-2012 05:27 AM |
| People Don !! | Abhir | Post Your Photos! | 3 | 12-26-2011 05:27 AM |
| I don't get it | jeffkrol | General Talk | 18 | 05-24-2011 07:10 PM |
| There's so much I don't know!! | LIGirl | Welcomes and Introductions | 5 | 12-29-2010 09:53 AM |
| Money I don't have on things I don't need | daacon | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 5 | 12-13-2007 10:04 PM |
