Jegsimmons said:
i think they said something that even if they taxed the rich as hard as possible while keeping them in the rich category, it would take something like 20-40 years to get rid of the debt because the nation takes in like 1-2 trillion a year and we have to keep ourselves running. I THINK im not sure about that at all.
which tells me, we spend too much damn money on government programs that dont create jobs. Because the government has a problem figuring out the difference between putting money in the economy and circulating money through the economy.
and that producing money is making the debt worse because half the value of money is it's rarity. after all, if only 10 thousand dollars existed in the US, that could buy half the nation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about before the space, buutt...
After the space. That government programme thing is wrong. Government programmes are famously good at making jobs, too many is the most common criticism. You're also not taking into account the positive externalities. If you still think you're right, I'd like you to identify some government programmes that are just so efficient they're not making enough jobs.
As for putting money in/circulating money through: when you run a deficit, you are putting money in. When you run a perfect balance, you are circulating. When you run a surplus, you are hoarding money. You do not want to hoard in a recession. That would make it worse. I'm still not really sure what your argument is, though.
As for the third thing: pinting money makes debt
better because it causes inflation which reduces the interest payments by lowering the effective interest rate. Remember, effective interest rate is Interest rate-Inflation. That's how you can have negative interest rates. You know how inflation reduces the value of your savings? It's the same principal. When you put money in a bank you are lending it to them (that's why they pay you interest). That money in your account is money the bank
promises to pay the bearer on demand- that stuff is on the bank notes for a reason. It's a debt they owe you. Inflation reduces the size of the national debt just as it reduces the size of that bank's debt to you.
And let me tell you, the worst possible thing you could possibly suffer is
deflation. You
do not want that. Better to deal with a little inflation than any deflation.
To be honest, saying that printing money doesn't reduce deficits highlights a pretty huge gap in your knowledge of economics. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Aglynugga said:
Hey...wait. Isn't closing your bank account legal? I mean, aren't you allowed to withdraw money or close your account at your discretion? Well, ok, as long as the bank is open? It doesn't really matter how many people decided to withdraw money, it's their legal right to do so. It's, you know, the American Way.
And why should banks get away with not having a large enough physical stock of money to handle mass withdrawls? I mean, no matter what amazing work of financial fiction is occuring, isn't every electronic dollar in someone's account supposed to be physically represented by an actual dollar as well? I mean, I'm not an economist, but isn't that how it works? You can't just make up electronic cash, can you?
Yup.
It's called
Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks are only obliged to keep something like 8% worth of their total cash in the form of actual notes they can give you. Naturally, they keep the fraction as low as they can because that fraction is money they can't lend or spend; it has to be kept on hand in case you ask for it. Simple as that.
The vast majority of the money in the world does not exist. It's just promises of future money. That's what people are hinting at when they say 'False Economy' or 'False Wealth'. When bankers are making imaginary money via the movement of other bundles of imaginary money, are they actually making anything? In many people's minds, no. For them it's just greed, but the problem is that although those bankers make millions off this imaginary money, they do not suffer any kind of loss or real risk if they fail. Even when they wreck societies in the process.
I mean, when you're being paid over $1,000,000 a year, you just need to play it safe for a few years, then fuck everyone else, fuck your reputation, fuck your country, fuck your shareholders, and fuck your company, because you have enough money saved up to live a long life of luxury regardless of how the world turns around you. You can take ridiculous risks that can destroy your career or your country's economy because you depend on neither anymore because you're
just that rich.
And the worst part is that, because they now no longer depend on other people, they feel no debt to the society which facilitated and facilitates their wealth.
gummibear76 said:
Danny Ocean said:
'The curse of knowledge is eternal exasperation.'
That line just made my day.
Thank you! I made it myself.