Interesting answer, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
It was a question...
And now you ask me the same question that you were asked not so long ago (in other words indeed)?
Topic: Bitcoin is a Bug Fix to the Fiat System (Read 3430 times)
It was a question...
And now you ask me the same question that you were asked not so long ago (in other words indeed)?
What do you think 85 billion a month handed out for bonds and commercial housing market debt is for, charity? In any other language its called a land grab.
Are you kidding? The state (in fact any state for that matter by definition) already has all the land which is comprised within its borders
There's no contradiction, monetised debt is an asset on the banks books just like a second mortgage.
Sure. You say there's nothing to pay off the debt with, and the guy below you sez the FED "would just issue them more debt and list their debt as an "asset."" Not enough monyz to pay the interest? We'll add extra naughts to the plates & print moar!
See how well things work out?
Protip: Stop watching "Money as Debt" vids & read an economy textbook (make sure it was printed in the last 80 years -- some new shit happened)
I have no idea what you're on about.
The US Government needs money in the system, so it goes to the Fed, borrows money, then spends it by giving it to workers who work. Now it needs to pay back that money plus interest. So it taxes back some of that money (either in the form of inflation or actual tax) to pay it back. If it pays back money in the form of tax, then the bankers obviously get the "free money" in the form of interest, which they then use to buy up REAL RESOURCES. Or, they don't tax the people, and are forced to borrow more from the Federal Reserve, in which case the Federal Reserve will get much of the newly borrowed money back immediately in the form of interest on the old debt, which they get "right of first spend", dodging the inflation they themselves are causing and once again buying up REAL RESOURCES. Or, people default, as the state effectively shifts the burden of debt from the state to specific individuals, and the banks get REAL RESOURCES as their collateral.
In either case, the people who actually work are paid with inflationary, taxable, paper money, while the bankers get real resources, either obtained through "right of first spend", or through the obtaining of resources used as collateral, which can actually result in tax benefits.
I have suggested reading an economics textbook because you do not understand what the Federal Reserve is, or what it does. It is not a private institution you think it to be, and "the government" doesn't "go to it to borrow money." That's just stale, nonsensical pablum YouTube vids have fed you. It's embarrassingly stupid. Spit it out right nao or no desert 4 U!
Taxes are not spent on making "the bankers" rich. Taxes are needed to build and maintain the infrastructure -- roads so you can get from point A to point B, Cops so that the lazy poor don't pwn your ass, armies so that my statist buddies, the *other* nations, don't waltz over and put a "For Sale" sign on your lawn & tell you to GTFO nao! All of this stuff costs money, and your taxes pay for it.
And yes, "the bankers" get some too -- contrary to popular belief, The Invisible Hand doesn't work for free. See New PseudoLiber Paradise -- Somalia.
On a happier note, these "bankers" charge U much less than 90% of bitcoin securities, which turn out to be either gross incompetence or outright scams.
The people who work do better in an inflationary economy -- they have no money to hoard, and their pay goes up with inflation.
That's why we haven't all starved to death after 1913.
The idle rich, who have money to stuff in the mattress, don't fare as well, but i'm not particularly worried about them.
The enterprising rich, OTOH, who put their money to work, fare well under any economy -- that's how they got rich in the first place.
Then, of course, there are the idle rich wannabees, who complain about economic injustice while hoping to become the new moneyed elite.
In either case, the people who actually work are paid with inflationary, taxable, paper money, while the bankers get real resources, either obtained through "right of first spend", or through the obtaining of resources used as collateral, which can actually result in tax benefits.
I wonder if there's anyone out there who could at last plug this fountain of garbage?
Some say this has already happened, the expenditure has exceeded the income and its QE all the way to hyperinflation just to stay ahead of exchange rates.
Beggars in NYC have begun dying from starvation?! Did I miss some breaking news???
There's no contradiction, monetised debt is an asset on the banks books just like a second mortgage.
Sure. You say there's nothing to pay off the debt with, and the guy below you sez the FED "would just issue them more debt and list their debt as an "asset."" Not enough monyz to pay the interest? We'll add extra naughts to the plates & print moar!
See how well things work out?
Protip: Stop watching "Money as Debt" vids & read an economy textbook (make sure it was printed in the last 80 years -- some new shit happened)
I have no idea what you're on about.
The US Government needs money in the system, so it goes to the Fed, borrows money, then spends it by giving it to workers who work. Now it needs to pay back that money plus interest. So it taxes back some of that money (either in the form of inflation or actual tax) to pay it back. If it pays back money in the form of tax, then the bankers obviously get the "free money" in the form of interest, which they then use to buy up REAL RESOURCES. Or, they don't tax the people, and are forced to borrow more from the Federal Reserve, in which case the Federal Reserve will get much of the newly borrowed money back immediately in the form of interest on the old debt, which they get "right of first spend", dodging the inflation they themselves are causing and once again buying up REAL RESOURCES. Or, people default, as the state effectively shifts the burden of debt from the state to specific individuals, and the banks get REAL RESOURCES as their collateral.
In either case, the people who actually work are paid with inflationary, taxable, paper money, while the bankers get real resources, either obtained through "right of first spend", or through the obtaining of resources used as collateral, which can actually result in tax benefits.
No wonder you're on ignore, if you're going to troll at least be good at it.
I try to keep things sporting, even -- who knows? -- let you think that your obsolete Scrooge economics have a chance
There's no contradiction, monetised debt is an asset on the banks books just like a second mortgage.
Sure. You say there's nothing to pay off the debt with, and the guy below you sez the FED "would just issue them more debt and list their debt as an "asset."" Not enough monyz to pay the interest? We'll add extra naughts to the plates & print moar!
See how well things work out?
Protip: Stop watching "Money as Debt" vids & read an economy textbook (make sure it was printed in the last 80 years -- some new shit happened)
I said that inflation is BAD for the economy, because it forces over-consumption. And since you call everthing that isn't inflation, deflation (somehow), then sure, its good.
So, as I get it, you can't really substantiate your position, ok. Add to this that you attribute to your opponent what was not said by him (and I didn't say a word about inflation, lol)... Well done, what else can I say?
Wrong, the Federal Reserve would just issue them more debt and list their debt as an "asset."
Hey, I'm still waiting for your "obvious reasons" why deflation is good for the economy
I said that inflation is BAD for the economy, because it forces over-consumption. And since you call everthing that isn't inflation, deflation (somehow), then sure, its good.
Wrong, the Federal Reserve would just issue them more debt and list their debt as an "asset."
Hey, I'm still waiting for your "obvious reasons" why deflation is good for the economy
Lol, two mutually contradictory posts ^^ above ^^
Let'em fight!
As an adult, i feel somehow responsible...
Lol, two mutually contradictory posts ^^ above ^^
Let'em fight!
Lol, two mutually contradictory posts ^^ above ^^
False. The Central Banks set interest rates, because with infinite money you can screw over the free money. And sure you can take 5% if the economy can only give 4%: You take not just from the growth of the economy, but from whats already there.
If it were so, it wouldn't take long for the economy to go into the ground. Central banks set interest rates but they don't do it without reason. Production lives on credit, if they can't pay the debt (read get more income that interest rate) the economy would collapse
Yes they can and it benefits them to do so, the debt can never be repaid because the funds to do it simply don't exist and so the bank can never be removed without a country defaulting. The interest merely strengthens and weakens the currency issuers position, high interest increases a currencies strength by increasing the banks wealth.
What debt are you talking about?
So economies have to grow to match the interest rates of central banks just to maintain their value, if they can grow faster they can increase in value but growth isn't unlimited, it diminishes due to the laws of supply and demand.
You are confusing cause and effect. Interest rates reflect growth rate, not the other way round. Otherwise they make no sense, you can't take 5% if economy can only give 4%. Yes, central banks can use them to regulate the economy but this doesn't change the whole thing
Yes they can and it benefits them to do so, the debt can never be repaid because the funds to do it simply don't exist and so the bank can never be removed without a country defaulting. The interest merely strengthens and weakens the currency issuers position, high interest increases a currencies strength by increasing the banks wealth.
The bankers never want to kill their milking cows if they could milk them. The happier & healthier these milkers, the more & better the milk. Symbiosis.
Without healthy cattle, the bankers would surely starve or start milking each other, which is ... eww. False. The Central Banks set interest rates, because with infinite money you can screw over the free money. And sure you can take 5% if the economy can only give 4%: You take not just from the growth of the economy, but from whats already there.
If it were so, it wouldn't take long for the economy to go into the ground. Central banks set interest rates but they don't do it without reason. Production lives on credit, if they can't pay the debt (read get more income that interest rate) the economy would collapse
And so what? They are leeches. They suck up the lifeblood of the economy (real, resources) by printing money in return for public debt, in return for just getting the right to use currency. Then, they take that interest (or the collateral they get in case of a default) and use it to take our real resources, not printed resources, away from real people, and place them into the hands of the elite.
It's a partnership between bank and state, just as corrupt as the partnership between church and state used to be. The state gets to steal the wealth of the people in the form of inflation, while the banks get to steal the wealth of the people in the form of eternal interest.
It's a partnership between bank and state, just as corrupt as the partnership between church and state used to be. The state gets to steal the wealth of the people in the form of inflation, while the banks get to steal the wealth of the people in the form of eternal interest.
You seem to be missing the whole thing. It is in the best state and bank interests that people would get richer, so they get their share of wealth. If your words were true, economies would have long collapsed. I don't say that this system is perfect but you can't deny that it works
...
Omg, you're objectively trolling.
IOUs are meant to represent the worth of someone's credit. The point of currency is to represent value. Value is real resources. Thus, currency is meant to represent a share of real resources. I don't even know what your're on about. Seriously, I don't even know what you're talking about any more. If you can't agree that money is supposed to represent value I don't even see the point of posting here.
Omg, you're objectively trolling.
IOUs are meant to represent the worth of someone's credit. The point of currency is to represent value. Value is real resources. Thus, currency is meant to represent a share of real resources. I don't even know what your're on about. Seriously, I don't even know what you're talking about any more. If you can't agree that money is supposed to represent value I don't even see the point of posting here.
Money is supposed to represent value. This value does not have to remain constant over time.
Bitcoin's worth has more than doubled over the past month. It represents *more than twice the value* it represented a month ago.
By your logic, bitcoin isn't money.
Nice going
Jump to: