I think government should have a massive job creation forum, which would include grounding and renewal of the proven worthy employment facets. [shrug ********************
OK then, LOL aside, what's your argument? That's not an argument. If you have the data, present it. Our "modern" currency is 100 years old and I'm sorry but yes it is used for investment purposes. Perhaps you don't know enough about the subject to argue, give you haven't actually made an argument. Again, reread my argument, find the logical inconsistency and form a counter argument. Making a statement is not making an argument. There is no 'hidden' truth. Also, my argument against a labor tax was the SAME argument made by the people who founded the United States of America. It's not my argument. They understood what money was, how it differed from currency and it required an amendment to the US Constitutions to begin to tax Labor. Forcing someone to pay a tax in a currency you control and inflating that currency is theft. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a person creates a new paper currency. He asks people to use it. They don't. Now suppose he had the technological ability to murder anyone at any time if they did not account 30% of their labour in his currency - each year. He, by fiat, commanded each and every person to use this new paper currency to pay a Labor "Tax". Now, because each and every person in the world was REQUIRED to pay 30% of their years labour to this currency, this gives this currency the value of that labour. It means people will want to trade in this currency knowing it contains a third of the world's labour as capital. It also means he can at any time inflate this currency, spend those newly created currency units and effectively steal a small portion of each and every person's labour. That IS theft. There's no 'secret' in this. It was a HUMONGOUS argument between Thomas Jefferson who wanted a small central government and no Central Bank and Alexander Hamilton who wanted a Central Bank and also wanted the Senators and POTUS elected for life. To, in effect, to recreate the English Aristocracy in America. Luckily, Hamilton wasn't born in the USA and therefore was never POTUS. It took 100 years, but an amendment later and now we have a Central Bank that bails out and maintains what is for all effects and purposes, aristocracy. Hope you like Detroit.
@Economister A separate point and a question, since you're a Econ Master I'd like to hear your thoughts. 1) I want Free Banking and fair currency competition (which would of course mean ending the tax on Labor). The Government can still print USD via the Treasury, but, it would be up to the Citizen to determine whether or not they wanted to use them voluntarily to trade. But, it would be private currencies that anyone could attempt to create that would compete in the free market to facilitate trade, act as stores of capital, and etc... There'd be not TBTF Banks in such a world. Unlike the US dollar, free banking is a voluntary system. It also frees politicians from being able to buy off the electorate. Notice I said frees. I believe in such a moral system, the government will shrink to an appropriate size hiring the types of people who actually want to perform a public service. 2) If the Federal Government can create all the US Dollars that are needed to pay for public necessities like the Public schools and hospitals, the Roads, water and sewage, at the exactly same level as is done today so as to cause no more or less inflation, ONLY do so without paying any interest and without selling 30 year bonds (which, given we're a republic and those children don't get a vote, is rather perverse); why is it we don't do that instead of borrowing the money. selling Bonds to the Chinese and paying interest causing us to go deeply into debt? IOWs why not just create the needed money debt free? Notice I didn't say "I" wanted to do this, I just want your opinion.
As has been pointed out to numerous times before, banking does not cause inflation. We had periods of extraordinary and extreme inflation back in the days of unregulated banking. “Free Banking” has nothing to do with inflation. That is pretty nonsensical Michael. Almost every country in the world, certainly every industrial country, requires payment of their taxes in their national currency. That doesn’t give them an unfair advantage. Like I have told you many times before, you are free to do business in any currency you want. Your problem is in forcing others to accept the currency of your whim. Two, US government spending accounts for less than 40% of GDP, in fact US government spending as a percent of GDP is among the lowest of all industrial countries. Only, Japan, Luxemburg, Switzerland spend slightly less. Well for starters that is a very unlikely situation and there would still be $250,000 in the bank at the end of the day. It wouldn’t $50,000 less. If inflation “massive” inflation were to occur, I would be earning more interest. Interest rates would go from a small fraction of a percent to 80+ percent in line with inflation. There are basically 4 components to interest, the risk free rate, inflationary expectations, default risk and maturity risk. So your notions are at best rather myopic. One more time in case you missed it, it isn’t relevant. And you don’t get tossed in jail, raped, or threatened with guns if you don’t pay your taxes. That is just sheer partisan demagoguery. Well that is interesting, you wail about the banking crisis and too big to fail, but you are A-Okay with the unregulated banking that caused the too big to fail problem. You are a two note wonder Michael. If anything goes wrong in your life just blame the central bank or the government regardless of circumstance, evidence, fact or reason. The Koch brothers would be so very proud of you. Hogwash... Take a look at New York, San Francisco, Seattle; Detroit has nothing to do with regulation or central banks. No, it was a complete waste of time. It was a poorly written partisan paper by a couple of minor Koch sponsored academics. It was based on spurious assumptions and it failed to include the benefits of regulation. It is a very one sided partisan paper. If regulatory bodies had not stepped in during the liquidity crisis of 2008 we would even now be mired in a global economic depression. And instead of complaining about 7.6% unemployment we would be lucky to have 25% unemployment. LOL…the only goalposts moving Michael are those in your head along with all those other imaginary items like “central planning”. Repeating, yelling, “Central planning”, fascists, even a magic wand is not going to change the imaginary into reality. The rich are getting richer Michael and you are helping them. That is why they are funding your ideology (e.g. Koch brothers). How many times have you cited some Koch sponsored and funded material in this discussion? You have not been able to pull anything out of the bag that hasn’t been funded by the Koch brothers. Do you really think the Koch brothers are selling you this “secret” information out of the goodness of their hearts – that they are in this purely out of altruism? Yeah Michael, the top 1% has done very well. And you Michael have been their doing their work for them. You and those like you are the reason they have done so well over the course of the last few decades. And that is why they are heavily invested in and financing your ideological movement to the tune of several hundred million dollars every year.
This isn't an argument. Antiquated is an adjective, not an argument. Is the First amendment antiquated? Is calculus antiquated? I agree referring to the "Founding Father's" is an appeal to history and is itself not an argument. My point is this isn't "my" argument, but one that's been around for hundreds of years. Do you agree that you must pay your Labor Tax in USD? Note: I'm not referring to any tax, but Income Tax. Sloppy is, again, an adjective, not an argument. We didn't come together and form a government. We were born into a State that already had a Government. We had no say in our Citizenship. We had no say in the form of Government we were born into. We had no say in the debts earlier generations incurred. A child born today July 28, 2013 owes a lifetime share of the national debt equal to $1,532,026. A fairer system would have a gradient of different Governments whereby at adulthood you could choose a society to be a part of. That way people like Joe could move to Cuba and people like me could move to a system based on voluntarism. Are you saying 'dollars' only enter the economy when the Government spends them into existence and that there are no other means of dollars to enter the economy? Is this your argument? When you take a loan out, and repay this, does this not create dollars as the repay occurs? Also, I'm not sure of your point. Bitcoin is currently used as a currency - it has no Government spending it into existence. Money doesn't need a government to spend it into existence as money existed before Government. Free Banking So you support Government Central Planning? Also, why did you buy a PC or mobile or car? You just said deflation is bad and yet all of these things get cheaper and better year after year. Right now the Central Bank is trying to cause housing inflation again. This has the effect of forcing young people, who don't own a home, to remain at home and SAVE MORE for their home. They actually spend less. The only people who benefit are people who own homes and plan to sell and those looking to flip houses - which is how this entire mess was started. This will become apparent as this bubble pops as the last one did. No it doesn't work pretty well. Not to mention that it's immoral to sell 30 year Bonds and expect your children to pay them off when they had no vote or say in how those Bond sales were being spent. The fact that the US government sells most of these to US Citizens is besides the point. It's yet another example of the immoral nature of the current monetary system.
Could you explain to me what interest is and how it functions in a free-market economy. Also, could you explain to me what purpose profit serves in a free-market economy?
Oh, so Central Banking has nothing to do with the money supply? Is that your argument? It give that currency an advantage within the country it's being used in. If there are currencies A, B, C, D, and E. And you must pay your Income Tax in A, then this gives A an unfair advantage as everyone has to convert a portion of their earnings into A. This creates a de facto demand for Currency A and gives it an artificial value. And I said PAY Income Tax. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Irwin Allan Schiff (born February 24, 1928) is an American and prominent figure in the tax protester movement. Schiff is known for writing and promoting literature that claims the United States income tax is applied incorrectly. He has lost several civil cases against the federal government and has a record of multiple convictions for various federal tax crimes. Schiff is serving a 13-plus year sentence for tax crimes with his location listed as the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Worth, Texas. Unregulated in a FREE BANKING system. HA!!! Libertarians make up less then 1% of the voting public Joe. The VAST Majority are Progressive Democrats like O-Blah-Blah who, when they aren't using drones to murder teenager US Citizens, are happy to waste 10s of millions of dollars attacking Whistle Hero's like Snowden, even going to far as to threaten "Sanctions" if he is not returned to face "Just-Us" but couldn't be f*cked to do a damn thing about his Bundler Corzine. Oh, yeah, that's because O-Blah-Blah is bought and owned by the top 1% who paid for his relection. Lastly, its been 6 years after the so-called GFC and we STILL have TBTF Banks Joe. Tell me how we can live in a Representative Republic AND at the same time have institutions other than the Government that are too big to fail that we are forced, at the point of a gun to bail out. Banks that can literally gamble however they see fit, even going so far as laundering drug money, manipulating LIBOR, out right stealing from segregated accounts and CAN NEVER lose because they're "Too Big To Fail". What a f*cking Joke. How many more years Joe before you face up to reality - you've been had. The VERY LAST people you want 'regulating' anything is the Federal Government. We need an entirely NEW monetary system.
Yeah Joe, it's the Koch brothers who lied about WMD and invaded Iraq. It's the Koch brother's who signed off on deregulating the Fascist Banking system we're forced to use. It's the Koch brothers who are bailed out the so-called TBTF Banks with GENERATIONAL DEBT. It's the Koch brother's spying on us. It's the Koch brother's who sent a drone to kill a teenaged US Citizen. It's the Koch brothers who are the biggest polluters in human history. It's the Koch brother's who are preying on raison farmers and stealing 47% of the produce at the point of a gun. It's the Koch brother's who are spending $2 Billion to build a new computer center to store each and everyone one of our emails, posts, phone calls - all of it. Because, you know, your chances are about 1000 times greater of being hit by lightening than dying by a so-called "Terrorist"; but never mind that. Give me a f*cking break. It's clear where the real evil emanates from.
LOL, boy that was a dump of more straw man arguments and obfuscation, none of what you just posted is relevant to the discussion. If you were correct, you wouldn’t need to rely on illogical arguments and obfuscation. And yes it is clear where the evil emanates, it is with those who rely on ignorance, illogical argument, deception, fear, hate, biases, and obfuscation to evangelize their ideology.
Are you really that dense Michael? I have already explained to you the causes for inflation. It is more than just the money supply. Instead of inventing more straw man arguments, I suggest you go back and reread my previous posts or even better attempt to reexamine your believes in a more objective and informed manner rather than just dumping piles of illogical arguments and hoping to bury the truth with bull shit. And this is relevant how? A single currency does provide a trading advantage and the reasons for this has been explained to you numerous times. That is why we and other advanced economics have a single national currency. And there are no “artificial values” with respect to the US dollar; it trades every day on the foreign exchange markets around the world. It is only worth what people are willing to pay for it both inside and outside the country. And how is that relevant? A tax is a tax. And taxes are how the government funds its operations. Irwin Schiff is your champion….really? Schiff didn’t go to jail for not paying his taxes. He went to jail because he failed to file his tax returns and for tax evasion (i.e. fraud). This is also the guy who claimed he was delusional as a defense for his actions. “In June 2004, a Federal court ruled that Schiff was liable for over $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest for the years 1979 through 1985. In that case, Schiff's attorney had filed a brief claiming a diminished capacity defense, contending that Schiff had been diagnosed with a chronic, severe delusional disorder relating to his beliefs about the federal income tax system.” - Wikipedia And that makes a difference how? We had a “free banking and unregulated banking system”. It didn’t work. There were frequent bank panics and collapses. That is why the central bank, the Federal Reserve, was created. And since then, we have seen a much more stable banking system and we have not had the runs on the banking system that were so common before the creation of The Federal Reserve. Yeah ha, does the truth hurt Michael? Why do you think those billionaires, the “one percenters”, are funding and actively promoting your ideology? Are the Koch brothers who have a history of dubious business practices doing it out the kindness of their hearts? You wail about the one percenters on one hand and do their bidding the next. I guess that depends on how you define libertarians and progressive democrats. It seems to me your numbers are pretty skewed and pretty selective. Traditionally, using normal definitions, the country breaks down like this, 33% Democrat, 33% Republican/conservative, and 33% independent or moderate. And basically the Republican Party is the Libertarian. That is why Libertarians like Paul often run as Republicans. And your references to Snowden and Corzine are not relevant; the references are either more confused thinking or obfuscation. This is yet another example where you complain about abuses of the banking industry resulting from a failure to adequately regulate them. But then you are against regulation, you have made that clear numerous times. Regulation is an anathema to your Libertarian blood. And the worst part is that you are not able to see the blaring inconsistencies in your argument and in your ideology. The cause of The Great Recession was not the monetary system. On the contrary, it was the monetary system that saved our collective butts. And you don’t have to look far to see the harm and inadequate monetary system can inflict on a nation (e.g. Greece, Spain, etc.). Contrast Greece with the US, and we can thank our lucky stars we have a competent Federal Reserve. Additionally, the “Too Big to Fail” institutions have been reregulated with Dodd-Frank…much to the chagrin of people with your particular brand of ideology. So no longer are those “Too Big to Fail” institutions able to do whatever they want whenever they want and create another global economic crisis.
That didn't need to be an argument, lol. Relying on antiquity to enhance your argument is illogical, as I mentioned. Do I really need to give you an example? Alright-- if I were to say "It makes sense to use calculus as it has been around for a hundred of years" it is as illogical as your previous statement. Yeah, and that's a value judgment added by you; it does not enhance your argument in anyway; in fact it does the opposite. Yes, taxes are paid in USD. Once you hit the age of 18, you're allowed to engage in the ratification of said government by using your vote. If you actually believe in what you typed, then you're misinformed and are arriving at illogical conclusions. Additionally, individuals don't owe public debt, lol--just as businesses don't owe private debt (if you took all private debt and divided it by all businesses that is as arbitrary as a number as the one you provided). Public and private debt refer to the total amount of debt outstanding, and does not refer to how much one company, or one citizen owes. Furthermore, no individual owes any part of public debt, lol. I don't know where you came to this conclusion, but I'd be laughing if you didn't actually believe it. Who would create such fairer system? You? So you want to dictate how the rest of us should live and what choices you have by building a system that you prefer and making us all use them? Perhaps you're more likely to go to Cuba than you think. By the way, your belief system is intrinsically anti-democracy, so no wonder why you don't like the current state of affairs--but you're in the same boat as communists, fascists, theocraticists, monarchists, and supporters of other forms of government systems. Let me ask you this: who is allowed to print USD? How does that entity put the printed USD into the economy? Bitcoin is not USD. Bitcoin miners, the ledgers that manage transactions, are able to "add" new bitcoin to the market. However, bitcoin was created and established by someone. And that someone is not accountable to anyone, unlike central banks, which are accountable to their congress or parliament. Oh, that. I honestly that "free banking" was delegated to the "bad ideas" closet. No, neither do I support anarchy. That's not deflation lol. Someone give Michael an Econ 101 textbook asap. The Fed is pumping out $85b a month to cause inflation, yes--and look at how it's barely managing to hit above 2%. I would argue that QE is not that effective a tool in causing inflation--and currently the US economy needs about 2-4% inflation for another year or two. Wait, what? When have you ever paid for bonds? Ever? You've never paid for bonds. Your children will never pay for bonds. I don't know where or how you came to this fallacious conclusion, but you, nor your children, nor my children, nor anyone's children, will pay for bonds. Actually, it's a great way to keep money in circulation, lol. Interest rate is dependent upon a variety of factors, but consider it the price of the opportunity cost. In a free market economy, like the one we live in, interest rates (to consumers) rise when the demand for loans rises, and falls when the demand for loans fall. (technically, when demand shifts to the right, interest rates rise, when demand shifts to the left, interest rates fall). Profits are the financial gains an entity or individual gains between the revenue and cost of a transaction.
HA!!! Are you kidding me?! I am NOT a Republican and Libertarians make up less the 0.3% of the voting public. Yet you LOVE to blame these non-existent 'Libertarians'. If you REALLY wanted to keep rich people from screwing you over, you'd shrink the thing they're using to screw you with - the Federal Government. Why is it, do you think, all these wealthy 1% donate to the Federal Government in the first place? AND I really don't care how you attempt to 'limit' donations, you CAN NEVER limit influence. Families in the past went so far as to marry with one another. It's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent the wealthy from buying influence. Thus, the only solution is to limit the poison, the Federal Government. But, lucky for Joe, that's not going to happen, if anything the Fed Gov is going to grow even larger than it is now, until just like all cancers, it finally kills it's host. Let's hope that day come sooner rather than later.
Firstly, you're talking shit, it did work. From the end of the Civil War until the creation of the Federal Reserve was the most prosperous period in US/World/Human history. Secondly, the Federal Reserve was created by bankers FOR bankers. Thirdly, you're Cherry Picking history. Examples: You skip over the Great Depression like it was nothing. The Federal Reserve cause the worse banking crises in history. Why wasn't it ended Joe? In less than 10 years the Federal Reserve created the worse banking catastrophe in history - yet it wasn't ended. Why? And then you skip right over WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq Wars I and II; just how do you think these are funded for Joe? The Federal Reserve is the enabler. What off the lost of the purchasing power of the USD? What of the break with gold and the massive debts that require an ever increasing productivity to keep up with payment. You seem to forget that in the 1960s it took 1 man working to raise a family of 4 yet 53 years later in the year 2013 it takes both partners working and they'll be lucky to have a child, two at most. Where are our 53 years of productivity? Why aren't we working much less? Explain it to me Joe. America has never been less prosperous than now. Notice I said PROSPEROUS, not wealth, not technology - Prosperity. What of the dot.com bubble? The housing bubble? The GFC?!?! The TBTF banks. You're clearly normalized to living under a Central Bank and thus you think it's ideal. NO different than those poor North Koreans who can't imagine life without Dear Leader. Two sides of the same coin really.
Oh, good Gods.... drink some more Kool-Aid Joe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a question: Has the "Great Recession" ended yet Joe? It's been 6 years of our lovely Central Planner in Chief Ben Bernanke's pumping Quantitative Easy round after round after round. The top 1% are now completely made whole and have never been richer - so, has the "Recession" ended?
I know I missed a couple dozen posts of trash, but: Do you know what a "recession" is? If you did, you wouldn't ask that question. A recession is when the economy is shrinking. The economy stopped shrinking in 2009, so no, we're not in a recession.
Yes, I agree, and referring to something as 'antiquated' is equally illogical. Either something is true or not true. It's not that I'm asking if they are (we already know labor tax is), but to acknowledge that they must be. You agree that if you do not pay a tax on your labor, in USD, that you will be harassed, coerced and possibly even imprisoned? If you do agree, do you also agree that this then gives the USD, as a fiat-currency, an unfair advantage against all other competing free-currencies? Given USD must be used to pay tax on labor, this creates an artificial demand for the USD as a currency. I'm not suggesting people wouldn't volunteer to use it, only that people must use it to pay their labor tax and will be put in jail if they don't use it to pay their labor tax. If, starting today, everyone in the USA was forced at the point of a gun to pay for their labor tax in Icelandic Krona, do you think that this would drive up the price and value of that limited currency? And so what? Here's a thought experiment: Suppose there were an island of 9 men and 1 woman and vote took place to legalize rape. The vote was 9 in favor and 1 against. The woman, who voted against rape, is then raped. Against her protests she's told: "Hey you're allowed to engage in the ratification of said government by using your vote". Of course I'm sure they'd add "How else are we going to get the children we need?" "It's for the 'Social Good'" and all the other abstract nonsensical post-hoc justifications people use to justify their use of force against other people. Morality and legality are two different concepts. In terms of morality, voting doesn't change an immoral act into a moral act - even if it is legal. Rape will forever be immoral. Do you agree? Is Income Tax moral or immoral? I'm simply saying I find it hypocritical that differed debt can be taken on by the "Government" through 30 year Bond sales and the people who are left with the bill, had no say in the way the money was spent when the bonds were sold (given they weren't yet born). Children have no say in where or to whom they were born. They don't ask for their Citizenship - it's stamped onto them at birth. In some States (like Malaysia, they're also stamped with their religious identity - and it's pretty much the same sort of asinine reasoning, actually, it's exactly the same reasoning). So, this is yet another example of how our present 'monetary system' is immoral, regardless of it exists in a Republic or otherwise. My feeling it is hypocritical isn't illogical - it is hypocritical given the supposed "American Tradition" of "Democracy". Lastly, 30 year Bonds are repaid through taxes. Tell me, what is it, exactly, the Chinese are buying when they buy a 30 year Bond? What is it they own? You can live however you want to live - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the present system is immoral. I'm surprised someone Progressive like yourself, wouldn't find an antiquated system such as the Republic well, antiquated and therefor in need of modernization? Anyway, Democracy is the one that's actually in the boat with the communists, fascists, theocraticists, monarchists, and supporters of other forms of inherently immoral governmental systems. All of these rely on thug-like use of force. They're all a different facet of life in the Jungle. It's no coincidence we have a "Commander in Chief" and chimps have an Alpha male. Our POTUS is simply our present representation of this early primate-like social construct humans, being primates, evolved as a social mechanism to survive in the jungle. And so we recreate the jungle here as our 'modern' society. One day, like it or not, Democracies will be replaced by some newer social system. We're far from the apex of social organization - far far from it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hell, I think we've done the ole, two steps forward and one step back. You mean the actual physical representation of USD (as in what's in my wallet?). Treasury Department prints it. The Federal Reserve distributes it. However, I can create debt denominated in USD units right now. All I have to do is take on debt. Yes, that's what's so wonderful about 'modern' currencies like bitcoin over those 'antiquated' ones the State uses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! People can volunteer to use them or not use them. Of course, these are only the first round of such currencies, and I expect they'll be hammered by regulation and legislation as there's nothing ANY State hates more than Citizen expression of freedom (See: NSA). The State loves control. Or, I should say, the type of human that enters and excels at "Government" generally do so because they love control (I personally think many of these people were physically abused and/or spanked as children - and Government is their way of trying to regain a sense of control over themselves by attempting to control those around them). How do you define Anarchy? I'm serious, how do you? I use the Kantian definition. I find this absolutely insane. I know of five young couples who want to buy a house but are priced out of the market as the Federal Reserve blows up another Property bubble. So, they're spending less and saving more. The more inflation, the less they'll spend and more they'll save. Keep blowing up the bubble - and they'll keep saving and spending even less until they're only spending the bare minimum to get by. Tell me how that's good for the economy once again.... These wankers in the Central Planning committee at the Fed don't even agree with one another. Because economics is not a science... or if so it's a dismal one at best. And they're ALWAYS WRONG. If there was a prize for incompetence the Federal Reserve would win it hands down.* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think of interest as the price of money. By interfering with the market, the Central Bank distorts this price signal. Right now the price of money is near zero. It must be nice to be a saver on a pension right about now...... I think of profits as serving as a signal that there's a desire for a product by the market. In a free market people are free to gain profit by selling into the market that which is in demand and they can know there's a great demand due to the profit signal. As profits shrink, demand is less, new products are required to be developed. By distorting the free-market, the central bank distorts all of the signals needed to determine what is and is not valued. We don't NEED a Central Bank. The free-market and competing currencies (we could say a more 'modern' monetary system) is perfectly capable of serving these community purposes. Lastly, you used the word "demand". Would you agree that this is subjective and is not objective?
It's not like this is the first time Michael has asked that question or the first time I have answered it. I have answered it many times before. I don't think Michael understands what a recession is, nor do I think he wants to understand. Michael is pretty oblivious to knowledge and reason especially if it runs counter to his political ideology.
I was discarding your argument; it's not true that because the belief is old that it is superior, try something else. This is hilarious. The US gov't accepts payments on tax through the USD. Any sovereign nation, business, or individual, may choose their preferred currency of transaction. You're trying very hard to put the US Gov't as a coercive entity; but it doesn't work out so well. This is because the US Gov't is a rep' democracy, indicating a legitimacy towards its requirement of USD payments. Only within the United States--each sovereign nation that prints its own money has this so-called "home turf advantage." It would make the printing of money arbitrary of this weren't the case. This is not artificial demand. Is there artificial demand on water because our bodies require it? That's why the US Gov't expands the monetary base, otherwise the limited amounts of USD would skyrocket in value. I don't think you understand exactly what it is you're arguing for, or against, lol. It would be as bad if the woman voted to rape all the men, a tyranny of the minority. Morality is a subjective construct; what is immoral for you may not be immoral for someone else. There are a variety of competing moral theories out there, I suggest you examine them. Sure. I'm not a moralist, but you would be able to find that it is moral in a number of moral theories. Where are you getting this idea that people are left with the "bill" lol? This is a fantasy, like zombies or something. It's simply not true. Er...only a self righteous anarchist would hold this belief, so I'm not too surprised. Well, you're anti-democracy, so shouldn't you be more happy that the US isn't so perfect an example of one? Factually incorrect, lol. I can't believe people actually believe this. Any bold holder holds an IOU of par value and is paid interest on that. Bonds are not repaid through taxes. Yes, you cannot please everyone, lol. Anarchy is immoral to a plethora of moral theories as well, especially since the strain you hold is based upon egoism. I wouldn't consider myself a progressive, I'm just not stupid. I don't think anyone believes that our current system is the apex of what humans have to offer in terms of governance. But I highly doubt that what exciting and better ways we develop in the future will be more in line with your train of thought. Take accounting 101 (actually, you may have to take a more advanced one, but double entry bookkeeping is a good start). Your debt is someone elses asset. Let's make a bet. You buy bitcoin futures and I'll buy USD futures. We'll compare P'n'L's. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lol, you still don't seem to understand the role of a currency lol. Yes, self-righteous anarchists tend to blame Kant for all of their misunderstandings, despite his own (well documented, if only you actually read his works...) belief that constitutional republics offered the best form of governance. Perhaps they should buy a house more in line with their incomes, then? If they aren't spending, then the money printed will have a net negative affect on liquidity in the market--ah, so you're suggesting that we're actually in a cycle of deflation? See--this is why economists use real data and not anecdotes, lol. Facilitates the flow of capital--although I don't pretend to expect you to know what that means. You're not qualified to understand their disagreements, but in any case, what they are arguing over are minute details in regards to certain conditions. I don't expect someone who hasn't studied economics to consider it a science, but to say that it is not is just incorrect. Economists use empirical data to establish theories based upon how the allocation of scarce resources takes place. The real rate of interest is always 0 in a fiat currency. Prices are part of the market mechanism, but the Federal Reserve is not hindering that signal, lol. Nominal GDP is still below real GDP; until that changes, growth will be slow. The Fed needs to pump out more dollars in order to bridge the gap, and the US Gov't needs to spend it in order to inject it more effectively into the economy. Sure, you don't need roads and telephone wires too. However, most people in the United States prefer to keep them. When I use demand, I'm referring to an empirical construct. It is objective.
It really just depends on who's definition one uses. Examples include: Investopedia: A significant decline in activity across the economy, lasting longer than a few months. It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession. BusinessDictionary: Period of general economic decline, defined usually as a contraction in the GDP for six months (two consecutive quarters) or longer. Marked by high unemployment, stagnant wages, and fall in retail sales, a recession generally does not last longer than one year and is much milder than a depression. Although recessions are considered a normal part of a capitalist economy, there is no unanimity of economists on its causes. The Federal Reserve: The common definition of a recession, and the one most frequently cited in the media, is a period of two consecutive quarterly declines in real GDP. While historically this definition has held pretty close to true, it is more of shorthand than the precise definition. The actual definition of a recession as given by the NBER, the committee responsible for determining and dating official recessions, is “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale–retail sales.” The definition is fairly vague, which explains why many prefer the shorthand definition, but the idea is fairly simple. A recession is any period when economic activity experiences a prolonged and widespread decline. So, you tell me: did the "Great Recession" end or is this the beginning of the Mother Of All Depressions? I'm going with MOAD. When Joe states the Federal Reserve is to be revered, praised, and perhaps even worshiped for keeping us out of a 'Recession' he's implying that the economy is better for it. It should be noted, GDP/GDC can go up if there's a significant increase in the number of people going to hospital and dying of cancer. Accordingly, Joe would conclude the Economy is doing swell! ALso, GDP/GDC can go up if there's a significant increase in the amount of money being spent on War, such as to bomb and murder women and children in the middle east - again, Joe would conclude the Economy is swell! It should be mentioned that Greece had a rather healthy GDP, just a few years prior to slipping into catastrophic Depression. So did Spain. Joe's implicit use of the "Great Recession" in the past-tense (A) suggests it's over [which it's not, given the Fed is still pumping $80 Billion a month into the economy just to keep the ponzi scheme going] and (B) that this was a good thing! That bailing out the top 1% and creating a new category (semantics really is amazing like this) called TBTF (owned by the top 1%) was great for "The Economy". Sorry, but this is simply supposition. An analogy would be admission into the hospital with a life threatening medical condition and being offered the option of taking your medicine and suffering for a few weeks or months until a recovery is made or doping up on pain-killers and being sent back out the door sicker than ever, but feeling a lot better. The Dear Central Planners over at the Federal Reserve chose the later of the two options. And of course, why wound't they? They own the Hospital. They couldn't be happier the sicker the patient gets, as long as he doesn't flat out die. Their entire reason for existence, their ONLY reason for existence, is predicated on a reoccurring sickness that happens over and over and over again, thus the continued need of their 'help' and their 'medical treatment'. They're money pushers. Funny thing is, sometimes the Junkie does die. NOTE: Given >70% of the US GDP is actually consumption, I suggest we change GDP to GDC, Gross Domestic Consumption (GDC).
