[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
It seems to me, that if the Fed is privately owned and collects interest on ‘money’ printed, that it is (1) impoverishing a country, and (2) getting money for nothing that they don’t deserve, ie stealing.[/quote]
Most of that goes to the federal government.
Most as in 51%? 60%? 80%? 90%?
When you’re talking billions/trillions, those small percentages add up.
5% of a billion is 50 million, now when you’re talking hundreds of billions or trillions, it gets ridiculous.
[quote]milod wrote:
Yeah, how will the United States ever be able to retire if it doesn’t pay off its mortgage in thirty years? And what will the children inherit when it dies of old age? Maybe the USA needs to take on a part time job, or cut back on pedicures and lattes to make ends meet.
In other words, national economies are significantly different than household ones. Nation states do not have short, relatively fixed working lifespans in which to earn income before retiring to a life of leisure and eventual decline. Households cannot expand their income base through immigration. Neither do households have the option of controlling the value of the currency they use to buy and sell things and pay their debts as nation states do.
In other words, “common sense” analogies between household economies and national economies make no sense.[/quote]
Not necessarily.
Cut off credit to someone, or a country, and you see a tightening of their financial belt. Let China cut the cord from the US, and you will see a drastic change in policy here.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]milod wrote:
Yeah, how will the United States ever be able to retire if it doesn’t pay off its mortgage in thirty years? And what will the children inherit when it dies of old age? Maybe the USA needs to take on a part time job, or cut back on pedicures and lattes to make ends meet.
In other words, national economies are significantly different than household ones. Nation states do not have short, relatively fixed working lifespans in which to earn income before retiring to a life of leisure and eventual decline. Households cannot expand their income base through immigration. Neither do households have the option of controlling the value of the currency they use to buy and sell things and pay their debts as nation states do.
In other words, “common sense” analogies between household economies and national economies make no sense.[/quote]
Not necessarily.
Cut off credit to someone, or a country, and you see a tightening of their financial belt. Let China cut the cord from the US, and you will see a drastic change in policy here.[/quote]
Good point. Sort of like parents cutting off the fuck-up college student.
edit: Sort of like Cuba eh? 
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Most as in 51%? 60%? 80%? 90%?
When you’re talking billions/trillions, those small percentages add up.
5% of a billion is 50 million, now when you’re talking hundreds of billions or trillions, it gets ridiculous.[/quote]
More than 90%.
However, if I had a few billion on the side and knew what the Fed was planning in advance, the few billion they get would be pocket change in comparison to what I could make.
Is that +90% of the 14 trillion(alleged number) that makes up the national debt? or a smaller amount?
I hope you see what I’m getting at. It’s “relatively” small when you look at it from the total, but it’s also “relatively” big when you look at it from the other side.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
Tell that to Congress.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
I’ve read/heard that a gold standard would be too easily manipulated b/c it is so much rarer, and that silver would be a better option b/c it was more widespread but still a precious metal, but I believe that was stated ~1900, so I’m sure things have changed.
I’d be interested in hearing the opinion of you and others on the (ir)relevance of this.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Is that +90% of the 14 trillion(alleged number) that makes up the national debt? or a smaller amount?
I hope you see what I’m getting at. It’s “relatively” small when you look at it from the total, but it’s also “relatively” big when you look at it from the other side.[/quote]
90% of the seigniorage, the profits derived from the legal right to print money.
[quote]milod wrote:
Yeah, how will the United States ever be able to retire if it doesn’t pay off its mortgage in thirty years? And what will the children inherit when it dies of old age? Maybe the USA needs to take on a part time job, or cut back on pedicures and lattes to make ends meet.
In other words, national economies are significantly different than household ones. Nation states do not have short, relatively fixed working lifespans in which to earn income before retiring to a life of leisure and eventual decline. Households cannot expand their income base through immigration. Neither do households have the option of controlling the value of the currency they use to buy and sell things and pay their debts as nation states do.
In other words, “common sense” analogies between household economies and national economies make no sense.[/quote]
Government services will be cut to pay the debt. Countries run out of money and it is a bad thing. History is full of examples going back thousands of years.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
Gold standard doesn’t work because countries go to war. Fiat money allows massive military spending.
It really is a catch 22 situation.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
Gold standard doesn’t work because countries go to war. Fiat money allows massive military spending.
It really is a catch 22 situation.[/quote]
Countries don’t go to war. Governments do. Th difference is important to understand.
The reason why a gold or silver standard would be good would be precisely to keep governments from making war with each other – and on such a massive scale at that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
Gold standard doesn’t work because countries go to war. Fiat money allows massive military spending.
It really is a catch 22 situation.[/quote]
Countries don’t go to war. Governments do. Th difference is important to understand.
The reason why a gold or silver standard would be good would be precisely to keep governments from making war with each other – and on such a massive scale at that.[/quote]
Governments plan the war and people fight it. I understand what you are saying but it takes more than just a government to fight.
A gold standard would be a limitation on government/military power as long as all countries were on it. As soon as one country goes off the gold standard it gains a large, albeit temporary economic advantage and can purchase and produce more war materials and pay for a large army. Next step is war.
I am afraid the gold standard is resigned to the dustbin of history.
The best we can hope for is competing currencies, fiat or commodity backed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
Gold standard doesn’t work because countries go to war. Fiat money allows massive military spending.
It really is a catch 22 situation.[/quote]
Countries don’t go to war. Governments do. Th difference is important to understand.
The reason why a gold or silver standard would be good would be precisely to keep governments from making war with each other – and on such a massive scale at that.[/quote]
Agreed, I also think that the very politicians who vote to go to war should be the first on the battlefield too.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I’m getting at is, how can someone in debt lend money that they don’t have?[/quote]
Printer.[/quote]
Ok, I get that that enables them to do so, but I don’t think that makes it ok. Do you?[/quote]
No, that is why I like the gold standard.[/quote]
Gold standard doesn’t work because countries go to war. Fiat money allows massive military spending.
It really is a catch 22 situation.[/quote]
Countries don’t go to war. Governments do. Th difference is important to understand.
The reason why a gold or silver standard would be good would be precisely to keep governments from making war with each other – and on such a massive scale at that.[/quote]
Governments plan the war and people fight it. I understand what you are saying but it takes more than just a government to fight.
A gold standard would be a limitation on government/military power as long as all countries were on it. As soon as one country goes off the gold standard it gains a large, albeit temporary economic advantage and can purchase and produce more war materials and pay for a large army. Next step is war.
I am afraid the gold standard is resigned to the dustbin of history.
The best we can hope for is competing currencies, fiat or commodity backed.[/quote]
THe only thing the Gold standard would limit is the messing with other countries such as having bases over seas(because people would spend the money over there and it would not flow through the system).
The Gold standard would lead to the military costing less over time, and would limit war because the people would not want to fight and lose their wealth. The Gold standard is the only thing that is going to hold this world together.
The days of worring about if another country is going to attack us should be over, if any country attacks us and we can not beat them we will just launch our nukes. Nukes change the whole game, so a military build up now aday’s really doesn’t mean much unless it is in the tech department, and a Gold standard will keep prices very low and cause innovation to greatly increase.