The Shuffle

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: The Shuffle

Carleas wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Are you even familiar with the subject of American financial debt?

By all means, familiarize me. But given that you think that defaulting on US sovereign debt is anything like a good long term policy move, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:now do I see the initial problem stated by
Carleas as young people unable to move as often as their parents or grandparents
being a problem, no, but within that lies other problems as stated,
the young don't have the resources to move out and other similar
problems..... but I think this tied into a bigger problem as most problems
do tie into larger problems..... we have yet to face the question of
the value of a human being

I basically agree with you here, Peter. While I personally value travel, I think as a society we should value it for the other things it ties into, including the willingness to move in response to changes in opportunity and need.

My policy thinking recently has been focused on small changes that are likely to have slow-building fundamental effects. Creating a generation of Americans who have seen significant parts of the country, who have lived and worked with people from different backgrounds and have learned that they can get by outside their comfort zone -- increasing the resiliency and openness and risk-taking of a generation will have many small positive changes that together should significantly improve things.

One of my other motivations for this proposal was the increasing polarization of the country. My thinking was that having people go elsewhere, and having people form elsewhere come to them, will help everyone be more understanding. The progression of this conversation makes me think that an inter-generational exchange program will also be necessary

Aminius, if I borrow $100, and give you both the debt and the$100 in stock, I have not made you worse off. Do you agree?

Chakra Superstar wrote:[government debt] is often bad as the government usually needs money just to keep things afloat rather than to invest.

Sure, but government debt is also often good. The easiest case is if it were to go to a sovereign wealth fund, but it's also true if it goes to infrastructure that benefits the local economy, or to education spending that makes society more productive, or even to military spending if it makes it cheaper and easier to export goods to and from the US. Even "just [] keep[ing] things afloat" can be a good investment, if that means keeping society functioning in a way that produces more tax dividends than the government puts in.

We can argue about what produces returns, but it's ultimately an empirical question not governed by politics or even morality. My point is only that the claim that national debt is prima facie evidence of government of wrongdoing and generational injustice is clearly incorrect, and many ways of borrowing and investing are the best way to provide a functioning society for future generations.

Chakra Superstar wrote:People like you, Carleas, speak about the economy as though everyone's playing the game according to rules.

I certainly don't mean to. I just think that, even if true, most of what you say about US "petrodollars" is irrelevant and at odds with the complaints voiced on behalf of millennials in this thread.

And I think that there is a strong economics-based argument that policies like the ones you describe are bad for everyone in the long run, even for the US beneficiaries.

Void, I'm not defending the current situation in the US, I'm defending the use of national debt to invest in a society and produce a net positive sum.

But in response to the claims you present, I think they undervalue liquidity in an economic system. I'm sure you're aware of the parable of the $100 bill that: A stranger comes to a small town one day and stops in at the hotel. He asks if he can see a room before he commits to staying there. The hotel manager says that he needs to put down a$100 deposit. The stranger does, and the manager hands him a key. Once the stranger is upstairs, the manager rushes out to the catering company, and pays them the $100 bill to pay off the hotel's debts for the catering service. The owner of the catering company then goes to the farmer, and pays her$100 to pay of the catering company's debts for the farmer's produce. The farmer then goes to the mechanic, and pays off the farmer's $100 debt for the mechanic's services. The mechanic goes to the prostitute, to pay off his debt for her services. And the prostitute goes to the hotel, and pays off her debt for the use of the hotel's rooms. The hotel now has the same$100 bill it started with, and the stranger comes back down from the room, says it's not to his liking, takes his $100, and leaves. The point of this story is to show that everyone has been made better off, each person has paid of his or her debts, and yet no new money entered the town's economy. But the stranger's money still introduced liquidity, which allowed the townspeople to take the debt off their books. In a similar way, governments lending to each other, and banks being more able to lend to individuals, add liquidity in the market, which produces value. Liquidity tends to lower prices, benefiting consumers. And my understanding of what the Fed is doing isn't trying to put money into peoples hands, but to introduce liquidity into the system. The banks provide a service of distributing the liquidity down through their branches to individuals and businesses that use the credit infusion to become more productive. That seems like a good investment. The other thing I'll say is that, assuming you're right that there's$300,000 of government debt per person (this article puts it around half that, but maybe they're under-counting or it's really changed that much in 2 years), that is a bargain relative to the value of being born an American. Being an American gives near frictionless access to the strongest economy in the world, free public education, incredible cultural capital, amazing infrastructure and legal systems (by global standards). The return on that access is huge, and a lot of it has been purchased by taking on debt. I would argue that the ROI is significantly positive.

fuse wrote:Apart from funding, I can't really see a downside to a similar domestic program for young people.

Even though your post is largely positive, after the discussion of debt I can't help but reading that "apart from funding" as a pretty serious indictment!

What alternatives are there other than defaulting on sovereign debt at this point? Please indulge us with your ideas.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

What is the value of a $50,000 car....when it can't drive, when it's broken? It's$0

Values are relative to function and utility. There are so many false values floating around society now, that people believe the u.s. national debt is backed by wealth? What wealth? Child sex slaves? No....

The u.s. debt is: $20,000,000,000,000.00. Let me get my calculator... The united states is worth 1,540 aircraft carriers. We only have 19. (And most of those cost less than 13 billion) Urwrongx1000 Thinker Posts: 534 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm Re: The Shuffle How much is a nuclear missile pointed at you and everybody you love, worth? I wonder? Urwrongx1000 Thinker Posts: 534 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm Re: The Shuffle Carleas wrote: Otto_West wrote:Are you even familiar with the subject of American financial debt? By all means, familiarize me. But given that you think that defaulting on US sovereign debt is anything like a good long term policy move, I'm not going to hold my breath. Peter Kropotkin wrote:now do I see the initial problem stated by Carleas as young people unable to move as often as their parents or grandparents being a problem, no, but within that lies other problems as stated, the young don't have the resources to move out and other similar problems..... but I think this tied into a bigger problem as most problems do tie into larger problems..... we have yet to face the question of the value of a human being I basically agree with you here, Peter. While I personally value travel, I think as a society we should value it for the other things it ties into, including the willingness to move in response to changes in opportunity and need. My policy thinking recently has been focused on small changes that are likely to have slow-building fundamental effects. Creating a generation of Americans who have seen significant parts of the country, who have lived and worked with people from different backgrounds and have learned that they can get by outside their comfort zone -- increasing the resiliency and openness and risk-taking of a generation will have many small positive changes that together should significantly improve things. One of my other motivations for this proposal was the increasing polarization of the country. My thinking was that having people go elsewhere, and having people form elsewhere come to them, will help everyone be more understanding. The progression of this conversation makes me think that an inter-generational exchange program will also be necessary Aminius, if I borrow$100, and give you both the debt and the $100 in stock, I have not made you worse off. Do you agree? Carleas. The debt problem we are talking about is 73 years old, if the basis is the 1944 starting system of Bretton Woods, or 46 years old, if the basis is the 1971 starting system of the bastard economy, of the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar, of the dictatorship of the inflationism, of the exponentially increasing debts. Keynes said in the 1930s that the government should contract debts in order to kick-start, to stimulate economy. When somebody critizised that this would lead to increasing debts and asked Keynes what should be done in the long run, Keynes answered cynically: "In the long run we are all dead“. With that cynical statement he admitted to know the evil consequences of his theory. By the way: Keynes had no children. Now, 73 years after 1944 (see above) and 46 years after 1971 (see above) there are generations who had already huge debts when they were born, not to mention the generations of the future who will be born with even huger debts. We all know that if debts will not be paid back by money, they will be paid back by blood, by death. Certain generations will have to pay back the debts in the uncertain future (whenever that will be - perhaps tomorrow). Do you have children? Arminius ILP Legend Posts: 5697 Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis Re: The Shuffle How much do you guys think we could sell New York City for? We could probably get$1 at least, right?
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Shuffle

Urwrongx1000 wrote:An aircraft carrier costs: $13,000,000,000.00. The u.s. debt is:$20,000,000,000,000.00.

Let me get my calculator...

The united states is worth 1,540 aircraft carriers.

We only have 19.

(And most of those cost less than 13 billion)

It doesn't help when the United States spends more money on its military than it does on its own infrastructure or public services by that of 3-1.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

A lot of major US land and landmarks, including real estate, have already been sold to foreigners as a means of paying down debts. Look it up sometime, which major US landmarks and pieces of land and real estate aren't owned by Americans.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang

UrGod
Philosopher

Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: The Shuffle

Void_X_Zero wrote:A lot of major US land and landmarks, including real estate, have already been sold to foreigners as a means of paying down debts. Look it up sometime, which major US landmarks and pieces of land and real estate aren't owned by Americans.

Just wait until martial law is declared where the real financial consolidation begins.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

Void_X_Zero wrote:As the article I posted mentions, the new made up money isn't going into the American economy, people aren't getting it to pay off their debts; rather it is going to purchase more debt, as the invented money is used to buy government treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities.

I think I disagree, although we might just be talking past each other. I'm mostly talking about national debt here, i.e. money owed by the federal government in the form of payouts on treasury securities. Such debt is paid down on an ongoing basis, even as new debt is created as we continue to sell treasury securities. As I understand it, there's a little less than $20 trillion in this kind of national debt, roughly 105% of GDP. That doesn't include personal debt, i.e. debt held by individuals. Personal debt may increase as a result of QE, but not directly: it increases because lower interest rates encourage more borrowing. QE as I understand it is mostly about injecting credit into the market, which lowers interest rates and allows people to borrow. QE functions like the stranger in the parable, injecting 'made up' money that keeps the economy moving and thus boosts production. It is my understanding that QE is considered successful, but that may just be looking at the wrong time horizon. But in the near term it benefits people by lowering interest on their mortgages, making it easier to start a business, decreasing the cost of goods and services, etc. The aren't getting cash, but they are getting value. Void_X_Zero wrote:your parable is stupid because if it didn't magically make the$100 come back to the hotel owner in the end, then it wouldn't have worked

That the parable depends on the $100 coming back to the hotel is part of its utility. As you point out, if any link in the chain broke, the stranger would be out$100. Therefore, the stranger took on risk -- the liquidity he injected was not free. This again shows that liquidity has value, because there is a price associated with it (here, in the form of risk).

Void_X_Zero wrote:If you make money without having also made value, then that is irrational.

There's a bit of ambiguity on the words "make money" here, so I will address both meanings, and you can ignore or address either response as you choose.

If it is "make money" meaning "to earn or be paid", I read you to be talking about bankers who are getting paid without producing anything of value. In that case, I would argue they are producing value: they are producing financial instruments that distribute liquidity provide to them by the Fed down to individuals, businesses, and investors. Since access to liquidity is valuable, and the Fed can't just hand out digital money to flesh-and-blood individuals, the banks provide the valuable service of distributing that liquidity, and in exchange they get a cut.

If it is "make money" meaning "to print (or create digitally), i.e. to expand the money supply", then I would say that it is not irrational to create new money without creating new value. It is a form of tax, which decreases the value of all the existing money, and puts it in the hands of whoever is making the money.

Void_X_Zero wrote:You didn't address my comments about the federal reserve. And our comments about how it is literally impossible to pay back $20 trillion of debt, or about how the US is propping up the global economy by being the consumer of last resort which requires an influx of a billion dollars a day into the US from outside (annual trade deficit). These are real problems. They require to be really addressed, beyond quaint parables that obviously aren't how things work in reality. Those are a tangent to a tangent, since this thread is about a school exchange program, but I'm doing my best to address the truck-load of related (and, don't get me wrong, quite good) comments. I've addressed some of the Fed points above, if there are additional points on that topic that undermine what I've been saying that I've missed, can you point them out? To the impossibility of paying back our debts, I don't see where this comes from. Our interest on government debt is about 1%, and our tax receipts are about 15% of GDP. We are making ongoing payment on the debt. We could raise taxes or decrease spending if we don't want to keep borrowing, but if we think we'll continue producing more value per dollar than our creditors are demanding in interest, we don't have to do that. Our trade deficit similarly is not a major problem. We've had it for decades, many of those decades extremely prosperous for the US. There's some talk of a bubble in the price of the dollar, but that seems speculative, and if you want to fix the trade deficit a dollar crash would be a good thing. Urwrongx1000 wrote:A couple take out a$600,000 loan on a house. They were duped. The house is actually worth $300,000. I object to the use of the word "actually" here. A house is "actually" worth whatever someone will pay for it (assuming they are reasonably well informed and rational and etc. etc. -- suffice it to say that "willing to pay" is a bit loaded). You make a similar point when you say that "value is a function of utility": value is what something is worth to someone, so the real price is what someone's willing to pay. So you have a couple that paid what they thought a house is worth, and no one agrees with them. They've invested their money poorly. What's the issue this scenario is meant to address? Otto_West wrote:What alternatives are there other than defaulting on sovereign debt at this point? Please indulge us with your ideas. Keep paying our debts? Hell, keep borrowing while the money's cheap. As I said, we could probably create a sizable sovereign wealth fund and pay down our existing debt with the returns. What's the rush to default? That would be disasterous, we'd piss off everyone, wreck the value of our money and property and companies, lose all liquidity. And gain nothing. Arminius, the gold standard is a nonsensical policy. Gold has no more intrinsic value than a dollar bill. User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No. Carleas Magister Ludi Posts: 5444 Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm Location: Washington DC, USA Re: The Shuffle Carleas: QE was successful? Well, depends on who you ask. If you're a bank or large corporation that enriched themselves through the program, yes it was very quite successful. For the rest of the impoverished main street working classes or people not so much. Borrow money? Yeah, this has been done the last 75 years. Basically the debt owed now there is no way to pay back or off in the next three hundred years into the future. That's how much money is owed at this point. (Financial debt constantly added daily.) Researchers have done public articles on this for many years now. So basically any lender of money at this point to the United States knows that the money will never be paid back. They would practically be giving the money away for free. This is your solution, really?! You're right, it would be disastrous to go through a sovereign national default but simply there is no way around it as it is unavoidable and inevitable. The debt party is over and will come to a quick end soon enough. Last edited by Otto_West on Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total. Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day. Otto_West Doom Pornographer Posts: 898 Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels. Re: The Shuffle The real problem is that we are not actually paying off our debts as much as we are undermining our own country by let's say, making trade agreements where we promise to buy all of China's crap products rather than supporting our own products and shipping them out in fair trade deals in exchange for more time to pay back our loans, but we have no real way to pay that all back. WW3 is the only way to wipe all the slates clean unless all the countries simultaneously forgive all owed debts to one another. I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 6330 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades Re: The Shuffle WendyDarling wrote:The real problem is that we are not actually paying off our debts as much as we are undermining our own country by let's say, making trade agreements where we promise to buy all of China's crap products rather than supporting our own products and shipping them out in fair trade deals in exchange for more time to pay back our loans, but we have no real way to pay that all back. WW3 is the only way to wipe all the slates clean unless all the countries simultaneously forgive all owed debts to one another. World war is more likely than a global financial debt jubilee. Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day. Otto_West Doom Pornographer Posts: 898 Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels. Re: The Shuffle Carleas wrote:Arminius, the gold standard is a nonsensical policy. Gold has no more intrinsic value than a dollar bill. Why are you so slightly off-topic? You shirk my arguments. I was not talking about the positive or negative aspects of the gold standard here. I was talking about debts, and debts are bad, evil, especially in the long run. So debts are the nonsensical policy, regardless whether the gold standard is a nonsensical policy too or not. Here are my posts of this thread again, so that you can read them (again): Arminius wrote: Carleas wrote:However, contrary to Void (and I think Otto, though I'm not sure if "bankrupt[ing] the [W]est" includes national debt), I don't think the national debt is a bad thing. The US is still credit-worthy, we could borrow significantly more than we already have. That suggests that whatever we've borrowed, our returns are positive, and borrowing to invest in society was a good investment. Our current President's campaign statements aside, we are not likely to default on our debts (or rather, we don't need to, but who knows what we'll actually do). Carleas. Are you really serious or just cynical when you state that you "don't think the national debt is a bad thing"? Debt is a bad thing. Of course. It is bad, wrongful, unfair, unjust, especially when it comes to the following generations. If you want to have a sustainable development (which also means a development of fairness, justice, goodness, rightness!), then debt must be a taboo. Arminius wrote: Carleas wrote: Arminius wrote:Are you really serious or just cynical when you state that you "don't think the national debt is a bad thing"? I am serious. Look, currently, the US can borrow money for 30 years at an effective interest rate of 1%. That is ludicrously cheap relative to expected market returns between 4% and 8%. If the government borrowed a bunch of money and invested that money in a sovereign wealth fund, odds are that we would be better off. Let me put that another way, because I've been accused of advocating gambling for similar statements in the past: given what we know about the cost of borrowing money, and the likely return on investments, the most reasonable prediction is that we will be better off in the case where we borrow and invest than in the case where we don't borrow and don't invest. Debt is bad when you have nothing to show for it. It seems like we have a lot to show for the debt we've taken on as a country. And so long as we borrow for a good investment, the debt isn't bad. Sorry, but what you are saying here has (almost) nothing to do with fairness, goodness, rightness, justice, especially generational justice. Arminius wrote:Every nation or common must guarantee a sustainable development (the German word "Nachhaltigkeit" should better be used here), which includes just fairness, goodness, rightness, justice, especially generational justice; otherwise it will experience the "tragedy of the commons". Arminius wrote: Carleas wrote:I thought we were talking about debt. Let me rephrase it in your words, if that will help: "If you want to have [] sustainable development," borrowing at 1% and investing at 4% is "fair[], good[], right[], just[], and especially generational[ly] just[]." Debt is just the opposite of generational justice (a.k.a.: intergenerational justice). We should also have in the case of money what we should have in the case of all products and goods coming from nature: Nachhaltigkeit ("sustainable development"). Debt has definetely to do with the future. Nobody can deny that. So if you burden the generations of the future with debts and/or a dirty natural (and probably also social) environment, then you are not fair, not just, not good, not right. Arminius wrote: Otto_West wrote:The only way for the United States to restructure its debt nationally is through bankruptcy, of course this would cause the collapse of the American government and economy however there is no other recourse as all of that is inevitable. Yes. Historically said: it would have been quite alright, if they had stopped their debt policy in the 1960s (and not later!); but what they did was just the opposite and more, which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy. Arminius wrote: Moreno wrote: planet broken beyond repair... stable financial system?? If you ask me, then I answer you that the said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [ ], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at$ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.

Note: The 15th of August is also a Christian holiday, a Christian holy day: Assumption of Mary.

Richard Nixon in 1971 (!):
Arminius wrote:An example: In the 1950’s and largely also in the 1960’s there was full employment in Europe as well as in the US and in Canada. Then many errors occurred, for example: (1.) the exponentially increasing debts; (2.) the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 (which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy); (3.) the increasing number of unemployed native men, especially the first unemployment of young men (the first youth unemployment started) because of the increasing number of immigrants and female wageworkers. I am not judging here, I am only talking about facts. And if it is right what politicians always and mantra-like claim, namely that full employment, thus the prevention of unemployment, is the main goal, then these said decisions and actions (see: 1., 2., 3.) are very extreme errors.

Arminius wrote:Debts over and over again - that is the real meaning of Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism, of inflationism. It is not possible to solve all problems by creating money out of the blue, because it is not possible to create something out of nothing. "Von nichts kommt nichts“ is a German saying. You can't make something out of nothing. Thus: You can't make money out of nothing. And if you try it, you will only get: DEBTS.

Arminius wrote:
Otto_West wrote:
Arminius wrote:Every nation or common must guarantee a sustainable development (the German word "Nachhaltigkeit" should better be used here), which includes just fairness, goodness, rightness, justice, especially generational justice; otherwise it will experience the "tragedy of the commons".

That would only work if we had governments revolving around sustainable development of all kinds instead we have governments owned by banks and corporations. Until that changes nothing will and probably won't until what has become of our unsustainable societies fully collapse internally.

Yes, or they start or let others start a war, so that they can say after that war: "we need to start with a new economy, a new currency, a new law of this and of that" and so on (blablabla - always the same).

Arminius wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Oh there are plenty of "solutions" to the problems dominating u.s. and other western countries.

Main problem is, most people, and the baby-boomers too, will not like those solutions, at all.

I'm with Arminius. The national debt needs to be confronted squarely before anything else can be done.

And in spite of the fact that the debt proponents do not like it.

This subject is just too important.

Arminius wrote:
Carleas wrote:Aminius, if I borrow $100, and give you both the debt and the$100 in stock, I have not made you worse off. Do you agree?

Carleas.

The debt problem we are talking about is 73 years old, if the basis is the 1944 starting system of Bretton Woods, or 46 years old, if the basis is the 1971 starting system of the bastard economy, of the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar, of the dictatorship of the inflationism, of the exponentially increasing debts.

Keynes said in the 1930s that the government should contract debts in order to kick-start, to stimulate economy. When somebody critizised that this would lead to increasing debts and asked Keynes what should be done in the long run, Keynes answered cynically: "In the long run we are all dead“. With that cynical statement he admitted to know the evil consequences of his theory.

By the way: Keynes had no children.

Now, 73 years after 1944 (see above) and 46 years after 1971 (see above) there are generations who had already huge debts when they were born, not to mention the generations of the future who will be born with even huger debts. We all know that if debts will not be paid back by money, they will be paid back by blood, by death. Certain generations will have to pay back the debts in the uncertain future (whenever that will be - perhaps tomorrow).

Do you have children?

Nothing can be found there about positive or negative aspects of the gold standard. I did not say anything about it.

So you are slightly off-topic. You shirk my arguments.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Shuffle

Your debt jubilee is not what I am referring to when I say all international countries erase their ledgers that hold other countries in debt. As to how to best stimulate economies, I have no ideas until some major government reforms/laws occur.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6330
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

Re: The Shuffle

There really is no way to go back on the gold standard because of all the financial debt accumulated. All the gold in the world can't pay it off. Gold is merely a hedge against an oncoming global economic disastrous calamity. That's about it. There will not be any functional gold standard in our lifetime. You either own precious metals as a hedge or you own none.

And even those that have precious metals there is still no guarantee of financial security for various reasons.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

WendyDarling wrote:Your debt jubilee is not what I am referring to when I say all international countries erase their ledgers that hold other countries in debt. As to how to best stimulate economies, I have no ideas until some major government reforms/laws occur.

Those ledgers would only be erased through warfare. Exploitation, it's what humans are good at all over the world.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

If rumors are true that the US has over 100 trillion dollars worth of gold, then we could easily pay off the debt. But flooding trillions of dollars of gold into the world economy would also depress the price of gold, so it would have to be done in stages.

And someone took all that gold Gaddafi had accumulated for his pan-African gold dinar, either France or the US probably. There is plenty of gold in existence to pay off the debt, but that was never the intention anyway. The debt is supposed to drown the west, those who know about the gold and could actually sell some of it have no interest in ever paying off the debt.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang

UrGod
Philosopher

Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: The Shuffle

Void_X_Zero wrote:If rumors are true that the US has over 100 trillion dollars worth of gold, then we could easily pay off the debt. But flooding trillions of dollars of gold into the world economy would also depress the price of gold, so it would have to be done in stages.

And someone took all that gold Gaddafi had accumulated for his pan-African gold dinar, either France or the US probably. There is plenty of gold in existence to pay off the debt, but that was never the intention anyway. The debt is supposed to drown the west, those who know about the gold and could actually sell some of it have no interest in ever paying off the debt.

You think there is gold in Fort Knox still? There are rumors that the United States might of sold it all a long time ago.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

Carleas wrote:
fuse wrote:Apart from funding, I can't really see a downside to a similar domestic program for young people.

Even though your post is largely positive, after the discussion of debt I can't help but reading that "apart from funding" as a pretty serious indictment!

No indictment here, just a consideration of costs/logistics. To me the most salient point about the proposal is its potential for a healthier, more robust society.

Isn't it only more likely that a stable and healthy economy follows from there?

Alain de Botton wrote:Such energy poured into technical fixes: speed, connectivity etc. So little into social fixes: purpose, community, kindness...

We should avoid debt. But there is also a great deal of human wealth we should take care not to squander.

fuse
Philosopher

Posts: 4515
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: The Shuffle

Nooo we must have more big government spending and debt! What would the Obozos and Clontins of the world do without it? Maybe get real jobs?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang

UrGod
Philosopher

Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: The Shuffle

Obviously government spending = good and debt is never a problem, not one bit. We can have infinite debt just keep the big gubment welfare checks running! Keep printing the economy into prosperity! How dare you suggest we might even question gubment spending being perfect and sacrosanct??

Liberal leftism 101.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang

UrGod
Philosopher

Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: The Shuffle

Keynesian economics, it takes more debt to eventually get out of debt. 2+2=3
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West
Doom Pornographer

Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: The Shuffle

Otto_West wrote:Keynesian economics, it takes more debt to eventually get out of debt. 2+2=3

Haha. More like 1-1=2

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang

UrGod
Philosopher

Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: The Shuffle

Void_X_Zero wrote:If rumors are true that the US has over 100 trillion dollars worth of gold, then we could easily pay off the debt. But flooding trillions of dollars of gold into the world economy would also depress the price of gold, so it would have to be done in stages.

And someone took all that gold Gaddafi had accumulated for his pan-African gold dinar, either France or the US probably. There is plenty of gold in existence to pay off the debt, but that was never the intention anyway. The debt is supposed to drown the west, those who know about the gold and could actually sell some of it have no interest in ever paying off the debt.

Other rumors go that since 1989 China has been accumulating all the gold. Perhaps the 'grand theft state' concerning Lybia was a way to compensate that. But these are rumors that are frustratingly unverifiable.

Cryptocurrencies came onto the market at the same time wthat these China gold rumors were at their peak.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Thunderbolt steers all things.

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

PreviousNext