Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11272761 -

It's Monetarism and the Quantity Theory of Money that I was trying to refute. This controversy is a repeat of what happened to the UK Pound Sterling decades ago.

Heres part one of an old documentary about it:



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: ArmFromTheAbyss]
    #11273232 -

Gotcha.  I believe you are saying the link between money supply and inflation is not as precise as Austrian economists like to think, right?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: ArmFromTheAbyss]
    #11275048 -

Government is not God.  It is disturbing how much faith some folk have in government.  The economy is a system.  It is not so much that it needs to "know" that the money supply is being increased.  If you think in terms of systems you begin to comprehend that increasing the money supply will only create more systemic malinvestment that will decrease economic efficiency throughout the system.

Can either of you give me real reasons as to why it is intelligent to increase the money supply?


Artificially low interest rates encourage debt and discourage savings.  It should be obvious to you that if people can take out loans with well below market interest rates there will be the beginning of a false prosperity generated by easy money.



What you aren't looking at is that the U.S. has been exporting debt for decades.  This is is the form of debt instruments like T-bills that China is holding, sure.  We also export debt through all the dollars circulating abroad.  What I mean is that because the dollar has been the world reserve fiat, we have been mortgaging the future through money creation.  Major players like Russia, China, and Brazil are moving away from the dollar.  It doesn't help that we have started putting tariffs on Chinese goods. They weren't happy when the "federal" reserve bought T-bills and monetized some U.S. debt (thus devaluing the debt instruments the Chinese hold, making them nervous about the dollar's stability.)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/china-has-already-walked-away-from.html


What do you suppose will happen when the dollar is not the world reserve fiat???

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

I am sure that would cause a tidal wave of dollars to wash upon the American economy, much like after that insipid tool Nixon severed ties to gold entirely, but on a larger scale.







Again, your problem is that you do not look at economics as a system.  There are long term consequences to money creation.  There is no free lunch.  Increasing the money supply is no substitute for real economic growth that is based on increased production.


Stubborn = Project much?  The entire world is nervous about the dollar's declining value because the world reserve fiat is tied to the other currencies.  When you think about it, other countries have been propping up the dollar because they know that a plummeting dollar would hurt them too.  That is why they are trying to economically extricate themselves from the dollar....




What I find truly bizarre is how you do not trust the system itself that creates efficiency, higher technology, and increased standard of living.

You trust the central economic planners like Ben Bernanke who have such little comprehension of economic reality that they are almost always wrong.

How is that not utterly insane "thinking"?


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11275203 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Gotcha.  I believe you are saying the link between money supply and inflation is not as precise as Austrian economists like to think, right?




:lol:


So, is the solution to our economic woes just money creation?

Perhaps the government should buy every American a printing press.

Right......


I know, I know...

Your answer is usually something like, "just increase the money supply a little whenever there is an economic downturn".


But dude, it was the previous money creation that led to the bust that we are in now....


Money is just the medium of exchange.  It creates efficiency and therefore growth if you don't fuck with it. 

Adding new money especially to failing businesses and unproductive individuals, which is what government does rewards failure and artificially makes the entire economy less efficient. 


Then "mainstream" (read: government cheerleaders) economists say that "the market is to blame"!  O.M.F.G. we need to add more money, more government spending, it doesn't matter what they spend it on (Holy shit, I recall Keynes actually saying something to that effect :rofl2:.)



http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html

October 7, 2001 . Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. - Paul Krugman.


http://www.pkarchive.org/column/122801.html

Dec 28, 2001 "The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn't fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed's dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged." - Paul Krugman



Keynesians trade real long term economic growth for illusory false prosperity.


http://mises.org/story/3539

http://mises.org/story/3530

Krugman Quotes prior to the housing bubble and his hilarious back peddling following the bust:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010153.asp







How do any of you think central economic planning and central banks are a good thing when the tool-bags that are involved in it are all raving lunatics?  They have been proven wrong constantly. 



I have asked this before, but it needs to be asked again:

What is your definition of insanity?!?

Perhaps a crazy person doesn't know that they are crazy?:crazy2:


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11275867 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Gotcha.  I believe you are saying the link between money supply and inflation is not as precise as Austrian economists like to think, right?


Exactly. There are so many factors involved, some of it is about human psychology.




Let me clear something up Mr. Al, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I agree with how the Government or the Fed have handled this situation. Deflation is inevitable. The bad debt has to be forced out into the open and written down. This would wipe out all of the big banks and lower the price of EVERYTHING. If you want them to do nothing thats exactly what would happen.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: ArmFromTheAbyss]
    #11276235 -

It is the existence of the central bank that allows problems in the fractional reserve banking system to get out of control.


If there was no central bank then the fractional reserve banks would need to exercise restraint in their lending in order to survive.

Again, it makes no sense to be critical of bailouts and yet continue to support the central bank/central economic planners that create problems like the housing market boom/bust and the bailouts that followed it.

If you support the rascals why complain about what they do???:crazy2:

People like Bernanke don't know what they are doing.  It makes no sense for you to support their continued monopoly of the money supply if you acknowledge that they are fuck-ups. 

I try to see your point of view.  I really do. 


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/19/09 09:44 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11276583 -

Mr.Al said:
It is the existence of the central bank that allows problems in the fractional reserve banking system to get out of control.


Fact not in evidence
Quote:
If there was no central bank then the fractional reserve banks would need to exercise restraint in their lending in order to survive.


Fact not on evidence.
Quote:
Again, it makes no sense to be critical of bailouts and yet continue to support the central bank/central economic planners that create problems like the housing market boom/bust and the bailouts that followed it.


The boom bust cycle of markets is not a function of a central bank.  It is a function of markets.
Quote:
If you support the rascals why complain about what they do???:crazy2:

People like Bernanke don't know what they are doing.  It makes no sense for you to support their continued monopoly of the money supply if you acknowledge that they are fuck-ups.


There is no monopoly, the US is not the only country in the world nor is the dollar the only currency.
Quote:
 

I try to see your point of view.  I really do. 


I do not believe that.  In fact, I find you to be one of the most dogmatic posters of all time.  You flog the Mises Institute as if it were a sacred text handed down from on high.  It is not.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11277467 -

The fractional reserve banks were bailed out by the "federal reserve", zap.  Without a central bank, fractional reserve banks would become insolvent when they fail to exercise restraint.

You don't comprehend that it is the central banks that prop up the fractional reserve banks?

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00012/

"Does it have a cause, or is it, as Marx argued, an inherent feature of the market economy?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

For Marx the economy based on production of commodities to be sold in the market is intrinsically prone to crisis.

You are in the same camp as Marx with this zap.:foreheadslap:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/151450-how-the-fed-s-low-interest-rates-are-hurting-us



as the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke himself said in 2002 : "… the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press … that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."


The interest rates in a market that did not have a central bank would have been higher.  The housing bubble would not have occurred.


"Evidence that the Fed Caused the Housing Boom"

http://mises.org/story/3252

You asked for it :lol:


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/22/09 08:44 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11277616 -

I am sure that Marx also once noted that sun came up in the morning.  Pointing out that ups and downs are a feature of any homeostatic system is no stretch of genius.  Denying it is a stretch of stupidity.

You keep trumpeting about "artificially" low interest rates.  How do you determine what is real and what do you think they should be?  Are you aware that the same fed also existed in the eighties when rates were "artificially" high?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11278673 -

I have never debated anyone with such an inability to respond to other people's points.  You keep asking the same questions over and over, even though these questions have already been answered.  You also continue to make points over and over that have already been refuted again, and again.

I was actually looking forward to this debate, but if you're not even interested in even acknowleging what others have to say, its pointless.

Here is an excerpt of the discussion on this thread to show what I'm talking about.  At least Yrat had a debate with me at one point, which is more than I can say about you:

RationalEgo said:
So money just comes out of thin air? Ah, I see, the printing press, the method of robbery via devaluation and inflation.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Apparently you didn't read the article or my excerpt.  He proposes borrowing the money, not printing it.

Mr.Al said:
Your solution is to inflate the money supply???  Is that not a perfect description of attempting to remake an economic bubble???

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
NO!  Once again, the solution being proposed in this thread is to borrow money, not create it out of thin air.

Yrat said:
borrowed money IS "printed" out of thin air, don't you know what fractional reserve banking is?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
When the US sells bonds, those bonds can be purchased by the market, or by the Federal Reserve.  When they're purchased by the Federal Reserve, it's probable that they use "funny money" (money that doesn't exist) to buy them [although the Fed can always retire the money later when the Government repurchases the bonds].  However, when they're purchased by the market, it's real money.  Funny money can lead to inflation, as it increases the supply of money in the economy.  Borrowed money, on the other hand, simply moves existing money from the lender to the Government.  This money is NOT created out of thin air.

Yrat said:
the money for a loan doesn't exist until you sign on the dotted line.  up until that moment, it was not on the balance sheet.  when you sign it into existence, yes, it IS created out of thin air.  this is how a DEBT-based fractional reserve system works.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So if I buy a bond, you're saying that I'm not actually using real money, I'm signing new money into existance???  That only applies if the Fed is buying the bonds, as I already stated.

Yrat said:
are we talking bonds or loans?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
When the Government needs to borrow money it usually sells bonds.

Mr.Al said:
Credit and saved money operate differently in the market because new money did not come as a result of previous increase in economic efficiency (increase in volume and quality of production).

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
WRONG.  Credit is not "new money".  If the US borrows money from China, new money isn't created.  It comes from the existing pool.  How many times do I need to tell you that until you either refute it or accept it???

DEFICIT SPENDING DOES NOT EQUAL MONEY CREATION UNLESS THE FED PRINTS THE MONEY.  Did you read it this time now that it's in caps???  Show me I'm wrong, or shut up.  If we printed money to pay all our bills, there wouldn't be any debt, would there???

Either show me why I was wrong, or stop bringing it up.  Are you familiar with the "Argument from repetition" (argumentum ad nauseam) fallacy?

Mr.Al said:
So, is the solution to our economic woes just money creation?

Perhaps the government should buy every American a printing press.


Do you see the problem Mr.Al?  Yet again my answer is NO!  But if you didn't hear it the first seven times, I doubt you're hearing it now.

It's very clear that you're confusing deficit spending with money creation.  I'm in agreement that deficit spending stimulates the economy, at the expense of future taxes (I started this thread to debate if this was smart).  But this would be the case whether we were under the gold standard or not.  You have to repay any debts under any economic system.

Let me ask a single question to keep this discussion moving forward.  If you don't attempt to answer it I'll give up with you:

IS NEW MONEY CREATED WHEN THE GOV'T BORROWS MONEY FROM ANYONE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL RESERVE (SUCH AS CHINA)?  IF THE ANSWER IS YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE THIS NEW MONEY COMES FROM.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11282103 -

That was the result of previous credit expansion.

It is not a question of what anyone "thinks" it should be.

It is a question of whether people enamored with central economic planning, like Marx and Zap, can grasp the concept that the central economic planners create the economic distortion (artificially low interest rates, taking advantage of flawed legislation like the C.R.A., government lending schemes like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac).


Is it no wonder that proponents of central economic planning turn a blind eye to the systemic economic distortions it causes? 


Central planners make the "economy" less efficient.  They reduce overall economic productivity.



"Russian-style socialism is the most obvious and recognizable form of socialism, but social democracy is the most common and dominant form of socialism."

Reading this article it is possible to see the error that you share with Marx, Zap.

http://mises.org/story/3780



--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/20/09 03:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11282120 -

What you aren't seeing is that non-essential government spending, regardless of where the money, creates a net loss in economic productivity.

Keynesians think that increased government spending is a swell idea in an economic downturn.  They only consider  the short term illusory effects of such spending while ignoring the long term consequences.  If government spends money that is non-essential to the basic necessities of it's job description we have a net economic loss.  Again, the reason being is that government spending is less efficient than the private sector.  There is no drive for profit, nor is there threat of bankruptcy for government.   That is why there are always long term consequences to increasing the size and scope of government. 




If there weren't legal tender laws government would not be able to amass such unsustainable debt.

Why do you think that a monetary monopoly is different from other monopolies in terms of how it's existence does not benefit the populace?



Remember that dollars are abroad in large amounts because the dollar is, for the moment, the world reserve fiat currency.  We have essentially been exporting our debt.  The purchasing power of the dollar, domestically speaking, will plummet if those dollars come crashing upon our shores.

M2 has been increased by between 500 to 700 billion.  Given the nature of fractional reserve banking this will be seriously inflationary in the future.  The fractional reserve banking does, in fact, create new money.  Increasing M2 significantly is problematic, to say the least...


The "federal" reserve has recently monetized a portion of the debt.  Your reply was that "monetizing some debt" is o.k.:lol:.  China is not going to buy more of our debt instruments in the future.  The recent tariffs on Chinese goods does not help the cause to asking them to buy more debt.

Remember little Timmy's trip to China?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/01/tim-geithner-is-a-joke-in-china-too/



All of these signs point to a sharp decline of the dollar.

What do you think the "fed" would do if China started calling in U.S. debt...


What makes you think debt will not be monetized more in the future?



What I do not comprehend about you is why you think that the economic system in place is even remotely sustainable.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/20/09 03:53 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11282140 -

You are "drain-bamaged" if you don't comprehend the federal reserve notes are monopoly money. If you can not legally enforce a contract with said money it is not realistic to use it in the economy.

Legal tender laws prevent the emergence of competing mediums of exchange that would halt reckless government spending.


You cite foreign central banker funny money :lol:.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/20/09 03:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11282179 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
IS NEW MONEY CREATED WHEN THE GOV'T BORROWS MONEY FROM ANYONE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL RESERVE (SUCH AS CHINA)?  IF THE ANSWER IS YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE THIS NEW MONEY COMES FROM.

Mr.Al said:
That was the result of previous credit expansion.



Thank you.  So your answer is NO, loaning money to China does not create new money as you previously claimed.

Which means your claim that loaning money to China is the same as creating new money is false, and we can go back to the original discussion.

Should we give the economy a boost now at the expense of future taxes?  The pros are that a stronger economy would generate more revenue to help pay down the debt later.  The cons are that we would obviously increase an already massive debt, which is increasingly difficult to pay down.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11282182 -

Mr.Al said:
You are "drain-bamaged" if you don't comprehend the federal reserve notes are monopoly money. If you can not legally enforce a contract with said money it is not realistic to use it in the economy.


You are brain dead if you've ever purchased anything with a US dollar and still make this claim.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11282197 -

No, unfortunately government laws have prevented us from legally enforcing contracts with other mediums of exchange.

Once again: a problem caused by government, central bank, and central economic planners.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11282207 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
IS NEW MONEY CREATED WHEN THE GOV'T BORROWS MONEY FROM ANYONE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL RESERVE (SUCH AS CHINA)?  IF THE ANSWER IS YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE THIS NEW MONEY COMES FROM.

Mr.Al said:
That was the result of previous credit expansion.



Thank you.  So your answer is NO, loaning money to China does not create new money as you previously claimed.

Which means your claim that loaning money to China is the same as creating new money is false, and we can go back to the original discussion.

Should we give the economy a boost now at the expense of future taxes?  The pros are that a stronger economy would generate more revenue to help pay down the debt later.  The cons are that we would obviously increase an already massive debt, which is increasingly difficult to pay down.


Regarding the high interest rates, Zap and I were examining the double digit interest rates from the eighties.  I am saying that was a necessary correction for large amounts of reckless credit expansion (S&L fiasco).


The money from the debt instruments sold to China is new money to the American economy and that is what counts.


If the money is borrowed from China in the form of a debt instrument then we will perhaps see a new false prosperity.  Again, when prices adjust to the influx of new money (market correction from economic distortion) we enter another economic downturn. 

I can see no long term real economic gain from borrowing money from China in an attempt to "re-inflate the economy", "stimulate the economy" or whatever form of nonsense proponents use to describe false prosperity.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11285675 -

Mr.Al, it's apparent you don't listen to anything.  I keep seeing the same tired arguments from you over and over again, and I've addressed all of your points already at least 5 times, without any refutation or acknowledgement.  Either tell me why I'm wrong about my answers, or agree with me.  That's how debate works.  Don't just make the same old points over and over again when they've already been responded to.  The dialogue above shows an example of what I'm talking about; there are many more examples in this thread.

When I finally insisted you answer just ONE of my points, you actually agreed with me that money is NOT created out of thin air when we borrow from China (or anyone else outside the Fed for that matter), and then you came up with an alternative explanation for why you thought it was bad (because that money seems new to the American economy).  That may or may not be a valid point, but now we can finally address what's actually happening and debate it, rather than repeating the strawman arguments you keep posting from mises.  That's how debate is supposed to progress.

Here are a few points of the many points you still haven't responded to:

Why do you believe inflation has caused people to have less spending power, even though incomes have adjusted to keep up with inflation?


Why do you believe Keynesianism makes business cycles worse when you have been shown evidence otherwise?


Why do you believe the current debt is unsustainable when we've seen similar debt in WWII?
National Debt Graph


What Keynesiast says failed businesses must be bailed out?  (I've argued that was stricly a political decision)


Unfortunately, you've just gone back to making the same old points that have already been addressed.  Why should I bother answering them yet again?  This is a waste of my time, and I am not really interested in continuing.

Here is another of dozens of examples to show what I'm talking about:

Mr.Al said:
The central bank facilitates massive government spending to the point of unsustainable debt.

shadowstats.com


Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yes deficit spending has been going out of control since Reagan.  But is our debt unsustainable?  Here's a historical perspective with some good commentary in the link:

National Debt Graph

.
.
(a few days later)
.
.
Mr.Al said:
How do you suppose government will pay that debt?

Here's a graph comparing Government Debt obligation versus G.D.P.:




Should I post more examples, or are you going to attempt to answer some of the questions above?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11287119 -

Money is still "created out of thin air" through fractional reserve banking.  The M2 was increased by more than a half trillion recently, that could certainly increase M1 significantly.

Again, what you aren't seeing is that we have been exporting debt for decades.

It does not appear to be something that we can do indefinitely.

It should be obvious to you that people do not have a great deal of disposable income right now.

Why else should we be debating whether the "federal government should spend more or not?"

Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are a couple keynesians that support bailout programs.


You haven't really answered the central point that non-essential government spending decreases economic productivity.


Looking at recent world events, it appears that other nations will not continue to buy U.S. debt instruments.

That would mean that it is not possible to accumulate additional debt without serious consequences.


The recent housing boom/bust was a destructive enough example of central economic planning.


You never attempt to address monetary competition...




HOW IS AN INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING NOT AN ATTEMPT TO RE-INFLATE THE ECONOMY?


How is borrowing large sums of money abroad not an attempt to prop up our economy through inflation of the money supply.  Again, the money did come "from elsewhere" but the effect on the U.S. economy is a temporary false prosperity caused by an increase in the money supply. It is not real prosperity caused by an increase in production.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11290347 -

you keep harping on Mr. Al for things that you are doing yourself.  i've already refuted our "similar" debt situation to WWII, and yet you keep bringing it up as a seemingly valid point.


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Government
( 1 2 all )		 DailyPot 4,283 33 01/18/14 11:44 AM
by Echro
* TV Marti: shining example of government wastefullness Anonymous 361 1 06/18/03 08:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,153 22 08/26/03 08:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Do you "like" the US government?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 trendalM 3,409 63 07/22/04 06:36 PM
by Evolving
* Federal Reserve Questions... RonoS 1,717 16 09/19/02 07:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Must Read: History Of The Federal Reserve FrankieJustTrypt 2,033 17 02/15/04 06:48 AM
by Phred
* Government Hits $6.4 Trillion Debt Limit
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,776 23 02/26/03 09:22 AM
by pattern
* The Alliance and Coalition Sue Government silversoul7 704 3 02/18/04 02:31 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,916 topic views. 0 members, 23 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.