Jump to content

The Inconvenient Debt


Thunderbroom

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • CMS Author

 

Is it not a simple assumption, in scenario 1, that any program designed to exchange dollars for extra dollars does nothing to boost, and everything to deflate, the value of those dollars?


 

 

As wades_key's definition shows, it's not as simple as you might be implying...are you referring to price or monetary inflation, or both? I wasn't seeking an argument but rather what your line of thinking is on this and why.

 

In our present economy, "free money" could crash the economy utterly when one considers that we buy most of our goods overseas. THAT would directly decrease the value of the dollar, and quickly. If the money were used to pay debt, that action would reduce interest income for financial centers, and then it's a question of whether that debt is owned in the US or overseas. Giving cash it to one or a select few corporations is IMO the most dangerous use of "free money". I haven't seen GM or Chrysler rescind their layoff plans...so what's the good of them having cash and people still losing jobs? The "there are plenty of jobs, JUST (lol) retrain for something else" excuse is finally being seen for the lie that it is.

 

IMO this rush to bailout is total folly and will screw us thoroughly and quickly, and for years to come. Hell, we're still paying the price of FDR's federal programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As wades_key's definition shows, it's not as simple as you might be implying...are you referring to price or monetary inflation, or both? I wasn't seeking an argument but rather what your line of thinking is on this and why.


In our present economy, "free money" could crash the economy utterly when one considers that we buy most of our goods overseas. THAT would directly decrease the value of the dollar, and quickly. If the money were used to pay debt, that action would reduce interest income for financial centers, and then it's a question of whether that debt is owned in the US or overseas. Giving cash it to one or a select few corporations is IMO the most dangerous use of "free money". I haven't seen GM or Chrysler rescind their layoff plans...so what's the good of them having cash and people still losing jobs? The "there are plenty of jobs, JUST (lol) retrain for something else" excuse is finally being seen for the lie that it is.


IMO this rush to bailout is total folly and will screw us thoroughly and quickly, and for years to come. Hell, we're still paying the price of FDR's federal programs.

 

 

 

I think we are in general agreement. To illustrate my thought process on inflation, let me put it simply; the value of dollar-in-pocket would instantly decrease if millions had thousands in-pocket overnight.

 

And my final point was that I do not see, except for a stretched timeline with a much more violent retraction, the difference in passing out bills to financiers vs borrowers. After all, if the financiers can't "sell" those dollars, what are they worth?

 

Capital is not a finite resource. Nor is it a panacea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You'll also notice that in most of these shots, he has at least one hand extended, as if he's parting the Red Sea.

 

Or telling someone to stop. :)

 

They all have captions where he's tell the viewer to stop something and the sign for "stop" is putting your hand up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where is the luv? Surely some goofy alfred-e-neumann countenance will by its own momentum carry SNL out of the abyss.

 

Or at least what I saw last time I looked. Jeeez. It wasn't that the fish-o-matic was B-movie grade humor, but that 1978 was looking for the shamwow man 30 years early.

 

Last week, meh, the whataburger commercial inspired me enough to skip the rest of it in favor of a shake and a double meat, double bacon, jalapeno with grilled onion, gut bomb.

 

With rings of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgestrings

Agreed 100% - furthermore, for the most part US history contradicts the following:

 

 

"To a greater extent than any other situation I can think of, foreign wars deplete the treasury and the nation's wealth directly."

 

 

- georgestrings

 

 

 

 

So what you're saying is, the solution to our present, and any other economic maladies the US may experience, is to rob and plunder any/all other nations of the world? Hmm, interesting.

 

 

 

I didn't say that at all - perhaps some remedial reading comprehension courses would be in order for you...

 

 

 

- georgestrings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't agree. Wars are not good for the economy. The reason many Americans think they are is because we did so well following WWI and WWII. The reason we did so well, though, was because the wars destroyed the industrial base of Europe, our main competitor in world commerce, not because of war itself. Neither war did Europe any good, for instance.

 

 

 

Now you're trying to justify why your statement was incorrect during the 2 largest wars the US has ever participated in - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think our treasury got "depleted" during Korea or Vietnam, either...

 

 

"foreign wars deplete the treasury and the nation's wealth directly."

 

 

As I said - historically, the above is incorrect in regards to the USA...

 

 

 

- georgestrings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The question didn't specify. It merely asked if printing money were good. I responded that it is necessary. If the question is whether or not printing more money than is needed is a good thing, I'd agree that it is not, but these are separate issues. The Fed determines the money supply, but the mint prints the money. They are separate entities.

 

 

 

There was no context. That's part of the problem with the video in the OP. Printing money is neither good nor bad.

 

Why would money be printed?

How effective will printing money be?

And, compared to what alternatives (including the alternative of doing nothing)?

 

Would it be "bad" to cut off my own foot? The first question you'd probably ask is "why did you cut off your own foot." The range of posssible replies would include silly, tragic, and necessary.

 

Similarly, I'd like to ask that man in the video, "why are you all worked up about your red line?" There's no conversation to be had until we know what the topic is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Printing money as a "good" or "bad" practice would affect currently printed money. Be it "Good" or "Bad" in the schem of things.

 

And the idea that it grows on trees is soooo last millineum - it is a matter of bits and bytes now :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There was no context. That's part of the problem with the video in the OP. Printing money is neither good nor bad.

 

I finally watched the video. :confused: + :facepalm: + :bor: + :blah:

 

That was a disgrace. I figured you and Isaac were overstating the lack of context. You weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...