Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
2
....but no, the have to make their entire political platform about SOCIAL ISSUE's, rather SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
Very easy to explain their preoccupation with social engineering. The desired goal of the ruling elite is more power. More power is derived through bigger, more intrusive government. Their working excuse for the expansion of government is instability in society - instability which is brought about through the promotion of social ideals which are inherently unstable. The traditional family - from basic through extended - is the most stable social unit available to the human species. Other forms have worked, but only in small, compact, homogeneous societies. For large and complex societies, the traditional family unit is essential to overall stability. (You can't build a stable wall using bricks made of jello!) The act of destabilizing the family unit, ("no fault" divorce, welfare to promote single parent families, drug war, gay marriage, etc. etc. etc. - all attacks on the basic family unit) destabilizes society, which in turn is used as their excuse to grow government authority.
3
What money is, is a concept created to REPRESENT value. The value is NOT in the money itself, but in what the money can be traded for. Hence, when economic growth occurs, it comes from people who are putting in efforts and skills to increase the value of the things they have access to. A fish in the lake is not much economic value to anyone. (sorry, tree huggers, but truth is truth.) A fish, once caught, has value both to the person who caught the fish (they can eat it themselves), AND to any other person wishing to eat fish for dinner. The act of catching the fish adds value to the total economy. The act of digging up minerals from the ground also adds value to the economy. Growing wheat, raising cattle, cutting trees for paper and lumber all adds value to the economy of the society in which those activities take place. And that is just one small area wherein value is added to the economy of a society. Modifying raw materials into finished goods also adds value to the economy. A few oak boards have a certain intrinsic value themselves.  But when a master wood worker takes those boards and crafts them into a china hutch or a roll-top desk, the value of those boards is increased significantly, sometimes by an order of magnitude or more.  A cup of flour, a pair pf apples, a little lard, sugar, and spices, all individually have intrinsic value. A baker takes those ingredients and creates an apple tart, the total value of the tart is significantly more than the value of the unimproved ingredients. Value is again added to the economy of the society by creating a new product using other products as raw materials. The value is added via effort and skill on the part of the person creating the product. Thus, skill and labor themselves become marketable commodities in a complex economy.

The SOLE purpose of money is to make trade easier. How many tarts are worth a 6 lb. salmon? Those kinds of deals are fine in a very small society, or in trade situations where traders deal with each other 3 or 4 times a year at best. But in any type of modern economy, barter simply is way too complex and indeterminate to work efficiently enough on a wide scale. So we created money as a go-between. So the maker of tarts sets his creations for X number of monetary units. The fisher set the price of 6lb salmon at Y monetary units. Does this mean tarts are worth Y/X salmon?  Not in the slightest, for price and value are different things. If the price is higher than a consumer values an item, they will not buy it. If the price is lower than the consumer values the item, they will buy it. Price is basically an informed guess (sometimes SWAG - in a brand new market) about the number of consumers who will value the item more than the price, and therefore buy it to maximize profits. (ie: will I make more TOTAL money selling at $2@, or $3@? $2 means more sales, $3 means more profit per sale.) But the bottom line is money is nothing more than a symbol of value.

Since money is a symbol of real wealth (ie: hard goods - STUFF.), a stable economy will be one in which the amount of currency in circulation (including investments) will be in balance with the amount of real wealth the currency is representing. If there is not enough currency, people run out of the symbols with which they purchase goods, those goods sit on the shelves, and the economy stagnates. Too much currency in circulation, and supplies of real goods run out regardless of any ability to increase production. Of course, there is an automatic reaction to the situation of too much currency: it's called inflation. The buying power of each monetary unit is decreased to the point that a new balance between currency and real goods is achieved.

The job of government with regards to currency is to keep the currency supply in balance with any increases in economic value of the society due to the various economic activities taking place. When the value of real goods in the society increases, so should the money supply which represent that value.  In a precious metals backed monetary system, there is little to no problem with keeping monetary supply balanced with real economic goods. The reason for the (relative) simplicity is the coinage, even paper money, not only represents a certain amount of buying power withing the general economy, but ALSO represents a specified amount of precious metals, which themselves have intrinsic value in addition to the set value of buying power as currency. So if a government prints a whole bunch of "extra" $100 bills, as long as the government has the precious metals those bills represent, the economy remains stable. BUT when the government starts coining currency which EXCEEDS the backing commodity, an imbalance is created between the amount of currency in circulation, and the real wealth that money represents, and inflation occurs to re-establish a balance.

With fiat currency maintaining a balance between currency and real goods is MUCH more difficult. The basic approach is for the government to analyze various economic markers and use them to estimate the increased value of the total economy due to various economic activities. Once a reasonable estimate of increased economic value is arrived at, the government releases an equivalent amount of currency to represent the increased value of the total economy. But, unlike a PM backed currency, if the government issues too much new currency, the resulting imbalance will trigger inflation.

Then we get to Keynesian (debt based) economy. The idea is to increase economic activity through direct government interdiction. The government spends a bunch of borrowed money in carefully selected economic sectors, which in turn provides an increased market for laborers to sell their abilities and efforts (ie: jobs), which those laborers then spend in other economic sectors, increasing demand, which is (theoretically) met by increased production, which provides a wider market for labor (more jobs) providing more demand, etc. etc. etc. The government is then supposed to be able to pay back the money it borrowed through taxation on the increased economic activity.  Nice theory - or for a more accurate description, wild assed dream.

When the government directly intercedes with the economy in order to "give it a boost" the government is spending money it does not have. How does it do that?  It issues more currency (in our case, through the federal reserve), which is distributed to banks, and then borrowed from those banks in order to be spent. So, when push comes to shove, not only is the government spending money the government does not have, it is spending money the ECONOMY does not have. Two problems with this. First, by issuing debt-based currency, the currency immediately ends up in excess of the real economy, and inflation rears its ugly head, hurting everyone, but most of all the poor. In rough figures, the government borrows a hundred billion dollars, but only receives 90 billion in added buying power. Tack on interest on the loans, and We the People have lost any potential benefit right out of the gate. We have to increase economic output by 10-12% JUST TO BREAK EVEN! Second: by using direct intervention the government is creating a false economy: one based entirely on deficit spending. As soon as that deficit spending goes away, the economy shrinks to fit, jobs disappear, and we're worse off than before, because not only are we once again in a stagnant economy, but we have a big assed debt waiting to be paid back. Similarly, any tax policies written to take advantage of the artificially stimulated economy will both decrease any beneficial economic activity that results from the spending, AND have a profound dampening effect on the real economy once the "stimulus" is spent and government activity goes back to normal. Again, we're worse off at the end because the economy is back to flat, with debt on top of it all.
4
You'd have to be in your 80's unless you and your children were naughty teenagers  :glare:

Not sure what you mean by "owns all the money".  The government issues all of the currency, but they don't own it per-se.

Just try and get your 401K when you retire with out the government ok. 

Just remember not everyone deals in currency.  :lol:  I remember back in 1948 living in Montana, a good bottle of whiskey or a hot lunch or two, would get your driveway plow for a week. 
5
Holy shit!!  I have grandkids older then you.   :lol:

The government thinks they own all the money.  But they don't know where all the money is.   :biggrin:
 

You'd have to be in your 80's unless you and your children were naughty teenagers  :glare:

Not sure what you mean by "owns all the money".  The government issues all of the currency, but they don't own it per-se.
6
Quote
1. I didn't say I wouldn't tell you, I just said I don't know what my age has to do with it.  My father served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam...  That should help.

Holy shit!!  I have grandkids older then you.   :lol:

The government thinks they own all the money.  But they don't know where all the money is.   :biggrin:
 
7
1. I did not think you would tell us.   :lol:  I am not PC.  2.I use the money that I worked my ass for over 65+ years and invested it.  3. I also paid cash for every thing but a house, that the government did not finance.
Yes and I paid state tax and the government stole money from me for the Highways.

4. Fiat currency is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity.  It's like all the IOU's in the locked SS box.  It's not worth the paper it printed on, it's like fool's gold.  The government keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul and Paul is getting pissed.  As the government does not have the money to pay Paul back, with out robbing more taxpayers and businesses.


1. I didn't say I wouldn't tell you, I just said I don't know what my age has to do with it.  My father served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam...  That should help.

2. News flash, that is the US dollar and that is government money.  Which is not to insinuate that you didn't earn it through your own hard work, just that the money in your pocket exists because the government or a bank that is part of the Federal Reserve System created it.

3. Paying cash is great, good for you!

4. Again, No one will tell me the process by which new dollars come into the economy so I can't address this statement as it will make little sense if you don't understand money creation....

8
The Dem party has become the party of screaming kooks....that's all they got, scream about something and if they lose the arguement (or the election) scream louder.  The counter culture has taken over, they are no longer "liberal", they are screaming full blown Marxist, the buzzword there is "progressive". If the Dem party returned to what it once was...the party of the working man, the party of the middle class they would win every election....but no, the have to make their entire political platform about SOCIAL ISSUE's, rather SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
9
Deepest apologies....I'm trying to keep up.  There are 3-4 of you and only 1 me  :cool:

1. Not sure what my age has to do with anything.

2. Sure

3. Yes

4. Yes, all of the above.

5. For some, not all.

6. What money do you use?

7. Did you go to public school?  Do you drive on the Highway?

8. I'll just say that taxes are definitely too high, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse.

Now I've answered all of your questions.

Can you explain how fiat currency enters the economy given the "new government" scenario I described several posts ago?



Quote
1. Not sure what my age has to do with anything.
I did not think you would tell us.   :lol: 
Quote

6. What money do you use?
I am not PC.  I use the money that I worked my ass for over 65+ years and invested it.  I also paid cash for every thing but a house, that the government did not finance.

Quote
7. Did you go to public school?  Do you drive on the Highway?
Yes and I paid state tax and the government stole money from me for the Highways.

Fiat currency is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity.  It's like all the IOU's in the locked SS box.  It's not worth the paper it printed on, it's like fool's gold.  The government keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul and Paul is getting pissed.  As the government does not have the money to pay Paul back, with out robbing more taxpayers and businesses.
10
Then why not explain your question better. I gave you a solid answer, it just didn't fit your agenda, or you'd have made your point in your reply.
1. Are you trying to tell me the Fed doesn't print Fiat currency?

2. That's not inflation, that's appreciation.  3. A better example of inflation would be what Carter did to the oil industry in the early 70s, resulting in inflation and killing our economy.
4. No, when you have unemployment exceeding demand, the market does not hire them because they're cheap. What you have is the beginning of a downturn in the economy, a natural cycle.
I'm going to guess you aren't American, right?

1. Yes, the Fed prints currency, but the Fed doesn't just print currency and deposit in the Treasuries account.  What happens before that?

2. No, here is where we agree to disagree as you tell me inflation is always a monetary phenomenon.  Then I tell you it's possible to have inflation without any money creation at all.  If let's say the Spanish Flu wiped out 1/2 of the population the value of money would decline as the output of the nation would fall. 

Holders of dollars would demand more than the economy could supply.  Money in circulation and productivity are two sides of the same coin.

3. Yes, there are different kinds of inflation, cost-push and demand-pull.  Ultimately both are supply disruptions.  One starts because people have more money to spend relative to the productivity that can be bought (need more supply) and the other is caused when a necessary good or service experience a supply disruption causing the price to increase and ultimately causing higher prices across the economy.  Again, more supply would solve the problem.

4. So during the holiday season, the perennial increase in employment is just my imagination?

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
Powered by EzPortal