Printable View
[QUOTE=Sirioja;2942564]Trump is crazy and dangerous for our world and for women with neurons. Only Netanyahou need him, when world just need peace.[/QUOTE]Harris seemed better than Trump yesterday. Maybe he will lead again to destroy capitol, when he really must be prosecuted for January 2021, when Harris would be better for our 7 billions people world. Wish for her success, for our world and for women rights, when Trump is dangerous and bullshit too much since too long time.
Prior to Biden V Trump debate, I stated that I thought Biden was able to debate Trump. I was wrong, and said that immediately after the debate, I thought Biden looked waayyyyy too old.
The debate last night was not even closed. Harris looked commanding and delivered a beat down that no one up until to this debate has done and put Trump in the proper perspective, unserious.
It only took 9 years to have "concepts of a plan". Great, will have it resolved in 2099.
He threw January 6 ers under the bus, backed it up, and then rolled forward. It wasn't me, "I just gave a speech". What a freakin coward. All who followed him always ended up on the underside of the bus.
Cats / Dogs. WTF.
DJT stock is down 12+%, yeah, he didn't win the debate last night.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2943934]By all means, thanks Joe, you taught American students that they do not have to pay their debts, that Red Lobster screwing their creditors is smart, and we do not have to issue any debt now, we can just print money. I agree that Republicans cannot compete with economic policies like those popularity wise in elections.
Seeing as how bankruptcy and not paying back debts is good now, are you Dems going to apologize to Trump for putting some of his business in foreclosure? Or is this just more of whatever Dems do is good and Republicans do is bad, even if it is the same thing?
I could actually make the case that voting for Kamala is better for me personally as her fucking up the economy and my betting against it is as close to a sure thing as there is. I am not sure Trump will be able to fix things either but at least there is a fighting chance.[/QUOTE]No, bankruptcy is not a good thing for me. But it was good for keeping con man Trump in the game and for people who don't mind over-paying for crap surf and turf.
If you have been betting on the USA Economy tanking you must have made a killing by the end of Trump's presidency. Congratulations. Then I hope you banked all the gains you made betting against America under Trump. Otherwise, if you "let it ride" in that same direction, you lost your ass under Biden-Harris.
[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2944161]Prior to Biden V Trump debate, I stated that I thought Biden was able to debate Trump. I was wrong, and said that immediately after the debate, I thought Biden looked waayyyyy too old.
The debate last night was not even closed. Harris looked commanding and delivered a beat down that no one up until to this debate has done and put Trump in the proper perspective, unserious.
It only took 9 years to have "concepts of a plan". Great, will have it resolved in 2099.
He threw January 6 ers under the bus, backed it up, and then rolled forward. It wasn't me, "I just gave a speech". What a freakin coward. All who followed him always ended up on the underside of the bus.
Cats / Dogs. WTF.
DJT stock is down 12+%, yeah, he didn't win the debate last night.[/QUOTE]LOL. Did you notice he cried, "Nobody mentions I said "peacefully and patriotically" at that Insurrection"!
He knows he never said anything like "Go March and protest peacefully and patriotically" to that bloodthirsty MAGA mob. But he did say the word "peacefully. " It's just that he did not tell anyone to DO anything "peacefully" that day. He is lucky he didn't get factchecked on the spot for that blatantly obvious whopper too.
I thought Harris was good, not great, in her responses. But she was masterful in letting "Trump be Trump" and blather as much idiocy as he could fit into 90 minutes.
So much for that "closed mic" idea. They opened the mic for Trump any time he wanted to say something stupid even when it wasn't his turn.
They let Trump respond more times than Harris and allowed him to speak longer than Harris.
Naturally, that means big fat snowflake crybaby perpetual poor victim Trump is now crying the debate was rigged! Lololol.
[B]Trump says Harris debate was rigged, ABC should lose license, but 'we did great'.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/11/trump-harris-debate-rigged-abc-should-lose-license.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]
[QUOTE]Donald Trump blasted ABC News moderators for hosting what he called a rigged debate against Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.
The former president and Republican nominee said government regulators ought to take away the terrible networks license for the way they did that, but claimed we did great.
Trump also brushed off the endorsement by Taylor Swift during his interview on Fox News.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943947]I can't in my own mind kill the idea with 100% certainty though, because Japan has gotten away with something like this, and I don't know why they've gotten off with just a stagnant economy instead of an economic disaster. And I haven't read much of what the MMT proponents wrote, mostly just the critiques and analysis. The criticism comes from some very smart economists, including Paul Krugman who's a progressive.[/QUOTE]Tiny, this is really complicated and it is hard to get into a short paragraph. It is well known if you increased money supply you cause inflation. What is not as well known, and the guys trying to hawk gold do not tell you, is the other side of the coin is consumer demand which is more important. People do not get that this causes inflation but on the demand side things are predictable based on the age of your population. In fact, you can plot inflation using the ages 18 and 65 since that is the date most enter the work place and when people retire. Typically, peak demand with age is 47 and then demand for goods and services goes down year after year (except for health costs).
Thing is that money is not really created by government. It is created by creditors. If you extend a loan to anyone, you are increasing money supply. The Federal Reserve's job is to print enough money to reflect that growth in the increase in credit. If the Fed does not print up enough money, you run into deflation and prices go down. The people who have the money, the famed "fucking bond dealers" as Bill Clinton said, have little incentive to lend. Their money gets more value just sitting there as with deflation prices are coming down. That is what the issue was when we relied on gold and silver and could not increase the money supply, and you were better off just holding your gold and silver than lending money. It caused economic growth to collapse as no money was available.
So in Japan, what did you have? A massive aging of the population leading to deflation. So Japan had to combat this massive decrease in demand by printing up money like never before. That and only that reason is they got away with it, but they sacrificed something. When you print up that much money and go into debt, you are constraining growth right? Growth causes inflation and with higher interest rates comes certain default. And that is the issue with Japan. They are not growing anywhere near like they were before. They also had strict immigration policies such that their population has been declining.
The reason MMT came into fashion is there was all this government debt being issued and inflation was not happening, but the academics who came up with the theory did not get why. First, you had the baby boomers getting older and demand going down. The second part was wage deflation as the massive Chinese workforce entered the world stage. Well, the second of those effects is gone now. The idiotic concept that Biden was pushing, a massive increase in spending at the federal level, does not cause inflation has been shown to be incorrect. Duh!
Increasing the money supply does not in and of itself do anything. If you print money and bury it in the ground, you do not cause inflation. The Fed prints the money, hands it to banks, and the banks lend it. That is what increases the money supply. Among the things that banks buy is government bonds. The banks or fucking bond dealers are going to put their money where it is treated best.
Thing is when you use the Federal Reserve to cheat and buy bonds. This is the equivalent of using a credit card to pay on your debt. It is not just banks that buy USA government bonds. It is individuals and foreign countries ETC. Whenever you lend money, you are looking at the ability of whomever is borrowing the money to repay. Putting debt on the federal reserve balance sheet is cheating in the sense that the USA government is trying to say that debt is not ours when it is.
Economic growth leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates, so that is the issue with this massive amounts of government debt. YOU CANNOT GROW! With the debt issued at these interest rate levels, the Federal reserve has to bring down interest rates eventually, or the USA will default. So how do they do that? Raise interest rates temporarily to decrease growth and then lower them once the growth / inflation cools off. That is what they are doing now.
The problem is we are not Japan. Japan did not have the huge surge of millennials and it did not have the huge amounts of immigrants. You can look at that and the housing market right now. There is not enough growth in the housing market for millennial or immigrants.
So that is why the USA is different. I am not sure which poison is going to be swallowed: decreased growth or default. But one of them is inevitable.
A lack of growth shows itself in many ways but one is the stock market. The Nikkei peaked in 1989. It may be higher now than then but for the most part, you either lost money or got no growth for 35 years if you bought Japan in 1989. So the days of high flying market gains are done if you have no growth. That is how Japan "got away with it".
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2944172]LOL. Did you notice he cried, "Nobody mentions I said "peacefully and patriotically" at that Insurrection"!
He knows he never said anything like "Go March and protest peacefully and patriotically" to that bloodthirsty MAGA mob. But he did say the word "peacefully. " It's just that he did not tell anyone to DO anything "peacefully" that day. He is lucky he didn't get factchecked on the spot for that blatantly obvious whopper too.
I thought Harris was good, not great, in her responses. But she was masterful in letting "Trump be Trump" and blather as much idiocy as he could fit into 90 minutes.
So much for that "closed mic" idea. They opened the mic for Trump any time he wanted to say something stupid even when it wasn't his turn.
They let Trump respond more times than Harris and allowed him to speak longer than Harris.
Naturally, that means big fat snowflake crybaby perpetual poor victim Trump is now crying the debate was rigged! Lololol.
[B]Trump says Harris debate was rigged, ABC should lose license, but 'we did great'.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/11/trump-harris-debate-rigged-abc-should-lose-license.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL][/QUOTE]I felt the exact same way about Harris. Good, but not great. In case Harris wins, it was nice to see she can hold her ground when she has too.
As I have been saying, I am rooting for Republicans, but my god why can't Trump just shut the fuck up sometimes? Especially on race. It's like he wants to lose all minority votes.
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943917]If USA eliminates the electoral college and switches to a popular vote, the only areas politicians would campaign in would be large urban cities. That's how they would garner the most support and votes. What incentive would a politician have to travel to a small rural town on the campaign trail to get a very small amount of votes? Basically anyone living outside of a large metropolitan area would be insignificant in terms of winning the presidential election. Those small town populations are still extremely important. They best understand the issues affecting their community. [/QUOTE]
Your generic use of the word [b]"politicians"[/b] in relation to the EC, instead of [b]"presidential candidate",[/b] threw me for a loop. I guess technically in my mind, when referring to the EC, I tend to think that "politician", best describes a "presidential candidate". Yes, I know "potato, potatoe", but the difference should be communicated, as the EC only relates to how a "presidential politician" is elected. With the EC vs a direct national election for President (or popular vote), I don't believe the campaigning would be any less different than it is today, for the rural vs urban areas. In fact I think the EC, is a disservice both rural and urban voters, because it only focuses the bulk of the today's campaigning in key battleground states and forgets the rest of the country. So how's that fair?
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943917]An example of that is the Southern New Jersey coast right now. They are trying to build wind farms all along the coast which most residents hate and don't want it to happen for several reasons. It will effect the boating and fishing industries as well as have an environmental impact. Politicians at the national level and more urban Northern NJ are pushing it through anyway. It will most likely also lower property values all along the coast. New Jersey for the most part is very urban, but Southern NJ is actually more rural and suburban. The urban population is using their superior voting power to push an agenda which will enrich them through these wind farm contracts, and it is coming at the expense of rural community voters who don't want wind farms all over their coasts.
This is just a state issue too. If you eliminate the electoral college, urban cities will have the voting power to get whatever they want and it will come at the expense of rural communities and the vast natural resources that support those industries. Agriculture, mining, timber, fresh water, fishing, and many other industries those local people work in will have their profits start to be siphoned off as they lose voting power. That is just the nature of the beast / large Corporations. The people who spent their lives living around their natural resources usually have the best understanding of how they should be utilized without damaging their environment and communities. They should have the most say in what is happening to their environment. Not some big city 1000 miles away across the country.
That is why the electoral college is so important. It protects the voting power of people and resources outside the large urban cities. Think of the things San Francisco advocates for and think of things a small town in Texas advocates for. It is totally different. Small rural populations need to have a voice too.[/QUOTE]
Your examples, I think, again goes to the use of "politician" vs. "presidential candidate". Meaning your examples may not all be nationwide issues (and top of mind, in the way you've proposed them) that affects most Americans and one that a "presidential candidate" would run on. However, perhaps more suited to garner the attention and [b]campaigning efforts of your down-ballot[/b] Senate, House, Gubernatorial or Mayoral representatives and "politicians"? And if they're not campaigning in the rural areas, on these local issues, then vote for someone else who is.
Where politicians go to campaign, is all strategically calculated by historical and contemporary trends. With a popular vote, I think it would force our politicians, to legitimately campaign in a boarder number of states (both rural and urban areas), to be better communicators on national, state & county issues and somewhat negate the propensity for candidates and their campaigns to focus, invite or entertain the wedge, culture-war, fringe or cult-like issues/voters.
In short, a direct national election (or popular vote), would make better politicians out of our politicians. It would compel them, to campaign more center left and right of issues that the majority of Americans want. Thereby not allowing, [i]"the tail that wags the dog", [b]fringy divisive groups that currently thrive and are propped up by the current "insidious crutch", that is the EC.[/b][/i]
Fist in the air, in the land of hypocrisy.
Well look at this, rubbing elbows with all of the important people up in here. [B]LOL![/B].
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2942824]You are in some of your points. The United States government does not need to tax for what it spends. Is the sole source of currency and the only thing that limits the amount of currency that can be placed into the system is productive capacity, ie. Natural resources and labor. [/QUOTE]Seem to me that the USGOV can issue a infinite amount of currency at their choice.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2942824] [b]The deficit myth by Dr Stephanie Kelton is an excellent read[/b], as is anything by Dr Randall Wray.[/QUOTE]I will check out your book recommendation. ]If the deficit is a myth then why to the politicians themselves make such a big deal out of it?
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2942824] The federal government is a currency issuer not a currency user. When Congress passes a bill the money is appropriated and then it goes on the balance sheets. When it is taxed back it comes off the balance sheets. Simple as that. Fiat currency is nothing but a system of debits and credits, which is a wonderful thing. The problem is what Congress appropriates money for.[/QUOTE]Fiat Currency is the biggest modern day ponzi scheme that exists. There is no limit on the amount of currency that can be placed in the system. At least that is the way it appears to me.
Leave me with a few questions, why have the people who own real assets do much better than people who hold currency? Why after example after example of governments creating hyperinflation of their fiat currency is debt considered a myth?
Now, I understand that debt is actually what creates money and wealth. But I learned this very late in life. But that system can only happen because of the fiat money ponzi scheme system where fractional reserve banking is allowed and inflation is explained in such a way to make people not really underwent what it is.
So, I really have only been able to take advantage on it on the margin. My wealth has been generated through the purchasing of assets that have dramatically increased in value. Not debt. But people have made vast fortunes by borrowing using the assets a collateral and becoming rent seekers. I am using debt to spend the value of those assets now.
[B]I suppose if you have enough guns, when those whom you owe the debt to come to collect you just shoot them and write the debt off. LOL[/B]
[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943960] I would like to see it easier to vote though. Just make it online, all you need is social security number, turn your camera on your lap top and have your I. The. Scanned and vote from home. I think there is some corruption on both sides in regard to mail in ballots and disqualifying people's votes because they didn't fill out a form right. But maybe I am underestimating cyber criminals. I am just saying voting is a pain in the ass and should be easier this day and age. I hate standing in line LOL. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2944156]My suggestion would be automatically register every citizen based on natural records, such as high school records, driver's licence, etc. , so that you don't have to spend millions trying to convince people to register. So long as you can test out the online system, safe guard records and hack proof it, I would agree with it. Unfortunately, you have 10's of millions of people (older americans) who are not tech savvy, and that's where the current state of technology would not be possible. Easy way to ledger votes is using the cryptocurrency technology to track every vote. But again, this is future (at least 15 years away) elections.[/QUOTE]
All good suggestions, and I can only hope someday soon!
[b]But what makes you think that one party in particular (the Repubs), would want you to vote,[/b] let alone make it easier for you to vote, with things like automatic registration, upon turning voting age, like most other G7 first world industrialized, democratic nations, when they don't need the popular vote to win?
Why on earth, would a party that has won 2x in the last 25 years, without wining the popular vote [i](and BTW a feat not seen since, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, also a Repub),[/i] would ever lead you to believe, that they want most Americans exercising their right to vote (easily and seamlessly), in a voting system (the EC) that props up, caters to and can win, with minority, culture-war and fringe issues, that the majority of Americans are antithetical towards?
[QUOTE=Spidy;2944218]Your generic use of the word [b]"politicians"[/b] in relation to the EC, instead of [b]"presidential candidate",[/b] threw me for a loop. I guess technically in my mind, when referring to the EC, I tend to think that "politician", best describes a "presidential candidate". Yes, I know "potato, potatoe", but the difference should be communicated, as the EC only relates to how a "presidential politician" is elected. With the EC vs a direct national election for President (or popular vote), I don't believe the campaigning would be any less different than it is today, for the rural vs urban areas. In fact I think the EC, is a disservice both rural and urban voters, because it only focuses the bulk of the today's campaigning in key battleground states and forgets the rest of the country. So how's that fair?
Your examples, I think, again goes to the use of "politician" vs. "presidential candidate". Meaning your examples may not all be nationwide issues (and top of mind, in the way you've proposed them) that affects most Americans and one that a "presidential candidate" would run on. However, perhaps more suited to garner the attention and [b]campaigning efforts of your down-ballot[/b] Senate, House, Gubernatorial or Mayoral representatives and "politicians"? And if they're not campaigning in the rural areas, on these local issues, then vote for someone else who is.
Where politicians go to campaign, is all strategically calculated by historical and contemporary trends. With a popular vote, I think it would force our politicians, to legitimately campaign in a boarder number of states (both rural and urban areas), to be better communicators on national, state & county issues and somewhat negate the propensity for candidates and their campaigns to focus, invite or entertain the wedge, culture-war, fringe or cult-like issues/voters.
In short, a direct national election (or popular vote), would make better politicians out of our politicians. It would compel them, to campaign more center left and right of issues that the majority of Americans want. Thereby not allowing, [i]"the tail that wags the dog", [b]fringy divisive groups that currently thrive and are propped up by the current "insidious crutch", that is the EC.[/b][/i][/QUOTE]I will use the term Presidential Candidate just for you spidy, even though its a pain the ass to type two words instead of one LOL. Presidential Candidates run on policy issues. National policy issues to be exact. If you change to popular vote, as I have been saying, the national policy issues will have to cater to the big urban masses. That will be the only way to win an election. The policy urban masses want are vastly different from the ones that suburban and rural voters want.
Suburban and Rural Voters / Republicans:
Border security.
Stop fentanyl at all costs.
Stop funding foreign wars.
Gender issues out of school sports / no trans men / women competing against women.
Fight inflation and government spending.
Strengthen economy.
Support Law enforcement and tough on criminals to increase saftey.
Personal gun ownership.
Protect domestic jobs.
Keep Healthcare private.
Urban Voters / Democrats:
Trans rights.
Limit gun ownership.
Increase government spending at cost of inflation.
Tax on Corporate America even if it drives jobs and American companies overseas.
Universal Healthcare.
Tax on Corporate.
Take away guns.
Eliminate racism at all costs.
Less rights for police even if citizens are less safe.
Lenient punishment for criminals.
More spending on social services.
Fund Nato and Foreign Wars.
These issues have nothing to do with the swing states. These are national issues. Switch to a popular vote and Presidential Candidates will be forced to appeal to urban masses which strongly favor the Democratic Party. As I have said, it will take away the voice and voting power from urban and suburban communities. This is exactly why in our constitution the founding fathers created the electoral college. They knew even back then that the values and policies of urban populations are vastly different from those of urban communities. They knew that a nation is more than its people and the land and resources of a nation must be protected and taken account for in an election. Ok I am beating a dead horse. I have said my peace on the electoral college LOL.
You gave me a book suggestion. I will give you one: [I]The BITCOIN standard[/I], by Saifedean Ammous also [I]The Fiat Standard[/I] by the same author.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944092]Fiat currency is fantastic as it gives governments the flexibility to start programs like universal health care, pensions, etc. [/QUOTE]Fiat currency is money with several imperfections.
It allows the government who issues it to engage in counterfeiting and theft. If you are a rent seeker or owner of a bank then I understand why you have such a high opinion of the fiat currency system. If you are an emancipated wage slave like me who just got lucky and finally figured out what the system was doing to me, then your opinion might be different.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944092]Fiat currencies are here to stay.[/QUOTE]No doubt. Government has the power to incarcerate and declare what is or is not legal tender. Does not mean I have to live under a fiat standard.
[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2944092]I don't know about you but I've done well in the era of fiat currencies.[/QUOTE]I will bet you a worthless 100 USD Federal Reserve Note that you did not achieve your financial success by holding onto fiat. You got rid of it as fast as you could and you bought real assets that increased in valued or played the legalized casino known as the stock market.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2944184]So that is why the USA is different. I am not sure which poison is going to be swallowed: decreased growth or default. But one of them is inevitable.[/QUOTE]You left one option out: To inflate away the debt. [B]Inflation is legalized theft. Counterfeiting is criminal inflation[/B].
[QUOTE=Sirioja;2944159]Harris seemed better than Trump yesterday. Maybe he will lead again to destroy capitol, when he really must be prosecuted for January 2021, when Harris would be better for our 7 billions people world. Wish for her success, for our world and for women rights, when Trump is dangerous and bullshit too much since too long time.[/QUOTE]
Veep Harris, thoroughly crushed Trump, in last night's presidential debate!
She annihilated, destroyed and pummeled him into [i][b] "a shade of orange",[/b][/i] I haven't seen him wear, in some time (...kkkk!)
From the start, Trump was running away, at the initial opening handshake, to her powerful, strong, and clear arguments on abortion, immigration and the war on Ukraine, she had Trump on the ropes, from the "get go".
Veep Harris, had Trump so [i][b]discombobulated[/b][/i], his orange face was continually crunched up, his body hunched over and he appeared [i][b]punch drunk[/b][/i], for all the blows, Harris was delivering.
When he wasn't shouting incoherently, he sit in a silent fit of angry rage, stewing at the fact yet "another woman", was talking him to the cleaners.
IMHO, Veep Harris literally, gave Trump a thrashing! Bravo Harris!
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2944172]LOL. Did you notice he cried, "Nobody mentions I said "peacefully and patriotically" at that Insurrection"!
He knows he never said anything like "Go March and protest peacefully and patriotically" to that bloodthirsty MAGA mob. But he did say the word "peacefully. " It's just that he did not tell anyone to DO anything "peacefully" that day. He is lucky he didn't get factchecked on the spot for that blatantly obvious whopper too.[/QUOTE]
What didn't Trump cry about? (...kkkk!)
In addition to the your aforementioned "crybaby" blathering rant, I enjoyed the no sympathy [b]"crybaby"[/b] rant about getting shot at. Couldn't help, but think, that from the moderators, to Veep Harris, to the American people watching at home, we all were simultaneously thinking, perhaps he should take his own advice (that he and Vance gave to the Georgia shooting victim families) and realize [i]"shootings are a fact of life...GET OVER IT!"[/i]
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2944172]I thought Harris was good, not great, in her responses. But she was masterful in letting "Trump be Trump" and blather as much idiocy as he could fit into 90 minutes.
So much for that "closed mic" idea. They opened the mic for Trump any time he wanted to say something stupid even when it wasn't his turn.
They let Trump respond more times than Harris and allowed him to speak longer than Harris.[/QUOTE] I thought, Harris was great and mastered Trump, like she would any other perp, convict or felon. From the start and Trump's unwanted handshake and her introduction of herself as, [b]"I am Kamala Harris"[/b], she was running circles around the "pussy grabber".
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2944172]Naturally, that means big fat snowflake crybaby perpetual poor victim Trump is now crying the debate was rigged! Lololol.
[B]Trump says Harris debate was rigged, ABC should lose license, but 'we did great'.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/11/trump-harris-debate-rigged-abc-should-lose-license.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL][/QUOTE]
Masterful performance by Harris -Trump had to run to the "press spin room" for consolement from his sycophant "mini-me" minions...kkkk!
And the Taylor Swift, endorsement and message to vote to her "Swifties", has gotta...STING!
[b]PS:[/b] You knew, [b]Trump took a beatdown,[/b] because none of the "usual suspects" and "crybabies", have crawled out from under their rocks, to prattle on about their "know nothing, do nothing" would be savior, like when he supposedly "won" the debate against Biden.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2944184]Tiny, this is really complicated and it is hard to get into a short paragraph. It is well known if you increased money supply you cause inflation. What is not as well known, and the guys trying to hawk gold do not tell you, is the other side of the coin is consumer demand which is more important. People do not get that this causes inflation but on the demand side things are predictable based on the age of your population. In fact, you can plot inflation using the ages 18 and 65 since that is the date most enter the work place and when people retire. Typically, peak demand with age is 47 and then demand for goods and services goes down year after year (except for health costs).
Thing is that money is not really created by government. It is created by creditors. If you extend a loan to anyone, you are increasing money supply. The Federal Reserve's job is to print enough money to reflect that growth in the increase in credit. If the Fed does not print up enough money, you run into deflation and prices go down. The people who have the money, the famed "fucking bond dealers" as Bill Clinton said, have little incentive to lend. Their money gets more value just sitting there as with deflation prices are coming down. That is what the issue was when we relied on gold and silver and could not increase the money supply, and you were better off just holding your gold and silver than lending money. It caused economic growth to collapse as no money was available.
So in Japan, what did you have? A massive aging of the population leading to deflation. So Japan had to combat this massive decrease in demand by printing up money like never before. That and only that reason is they got away with it, but they sacrificed something. When you print up that much money and go into debt, you are constraining growth right? Growth causes inflation and with higher interest rates comes certain default. And that is the issue with Japan. They are not growing anywhere near like they were before. They also had strict immigration policies such that their population has been declining.
The reason MMT came into fashion is there was all this government debt being issued and inflation was not happening, but the academics who came up with the theory did not get why. First, you had the baby boomers getting older and demand going down. The second part was wage deflation as the massive Chinese workforce entered the world stage. Well, the second of those effects is gone now. The idiotic concept that Biden was pushing, a massive increase in spending at the federal level, does not cause inflation has been shown to be incorrect. Duh!
Increasing the money supply does not in and of itself do anything. If you print money and bury it in the ground, you do not cause inflation. The Fed prints the money, hands it to banks, and the banks lend it. That is what increases the money supply. Among the things that banks buy is government bonds. The banks or fucking bond dealers are going to put their money where it is treated best.
Thing is when you use the Federal Reserve to cheat and buy bonds. This is the equivalent of using a credit card to pay on your debt. It is not just banks that buy USA government bonds. It is individuals and foreign countries ETC. Whenever you lend money, you are looking at the ability of whomever is borrowing the money to repay. Putting debt on the federal reserve balance sheet is cheating in the sense that the USA government is trying to say that debt is not ours when it is.
Economic growth leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates, so that is the issue with this massive amounts of government debt. YOU CANNOT GROW! With the debt issued at these interest rate levels, the Federal reserve has to bring down interest rates eventually, or the USA will default. So how do they do that? Raise interest rates temporarily to decrease growth and then lower them once the growth / inflation cools off. That is what they are doing now.
The problem is we are not Japan. Japan did not have the huge surge of millennials and it did not have the huge amounts of immigrants. You can look at that and the housing market right now. There is not enough growth in the housing market for millennial or immigrants.
So that is why the USA is different. I am not sure which poison is going to be swallowed: decreased growth or default. But one of them is inevitable.
A lack of growth shows itself in many ways but one is the stock market. The Nikkei peaked in 1989. It may be higher now than then but for the most part, you either lost money or got no growth for 35 years if you bought Japan in 1989. So the days of high flying market gains are done if you have no growth. That is how Japan "got away with it".[/QUOTE]Money is not created by creditors, the sole source of currency is the United States government. The United States government has no debt. The so-called debt can be erased with the stroke of a pen.
You are correct, Japan has an aging demographic which is the root of its problem. The United States does not have an aging demographic at the moment due to immigration.
And let's be honest, nothing in nature even markets can grow continually. The problem with capitalism is it requires constant growth and is not focused on sustainability.
If we do not start looking at developing a new economic system we will have significant problems not the least of which is trying to sustain a maximum population of 11 billion on the planet. But of course mention that we have bread ourselves into trouble and you'll anger both the left and the right.
And yes banks are part of the problem. The FED should keep the interest rate at it's natural position zero.
I'm sorry but the old neoclassical economic nonsense never worked.
We can blame so much of our current problems on that turd Milton Friedman who was worshiped like some sort of deity back in the seventies and '80s when I was in school. We now of course know that supply side and nonsense is absurd and austerity does nothing but punish the poor in middle class just like higher interest rates.
[QUOTE=Spidy;2944218]Your generic use of the word [b]"politicians"[/b] in relation to the EC, instead of [b]"presidential candidate",[/b] threw me for a loop. I guess technically in my mind, when referring to the EC, I tend to think that "politician", best describes a "presidential candidate". Yes, I know "potato, potatoe", but the difference should be communicated, as the EC only relates to how a "presidential politician" is elected. With the EC vs a direct national election for President (or popular vote), I don't believe the campaigning would be any less different than it is today, for the rural vs urban areas. In fact I think the EC, is a disservice both rural and urban voters, because it only focuses the bulk of the today's campaigning in key battleground states and forgets the rest of the country. So how's that fair?
Your examples, I think, again goes to the use of "politician" vs. "presidential candidate". Meaning your examples may not all be nationwide issues (and top of mind, in the way you've proposed them) that affects most Americans and one that a "presidential candidate" would run on. However, perhaps more suited to garner the attention and [b]campaigning efforts of your down-ballot[/b] Senate, House, Gubernatorial or Mayoral representatives and "politicians"? And if they're not campaigning in the rural areas, on these local issues, then vote for someone else who is.
Where politicians go to campaign, is all strategically calculated by historical and contemporary trends. With a popular vote, I think it would force our politicians, to legitimately campaign in a boarder number of states (both rural and urban areas), to be better communicators on national, state & county issues and somewhat negate the propensity for candidates and their campaigns to focus, invite or entertain the wedge, culture-war, fringe or cult-like issues/voters.
In short, a direct national election (or popular vote), would make better politicians out of our politicians. It would compel them, to campaign more center left and right of issues that the majority of Americans want. Thereby not allowing, [i]"the tail that wags the dog", [b]fringy divisive groups that currently thrive and are propped up by the current "insidious crutch", that is the EC.[/b][/i][/QUOTE]The United States would absolutely have better political parties under a system that does away with the electoral college. Why? Because it would force both parties to campaign to the entire country not focus just on swing states. I think we would definitely see the Republican party come down it's christo fascist nonsense and the Democrats move away from some of the more ridiculous woke aspects of the platform.
And along with ranked choice voting might other political parties stand a chance.