Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By sculptor

Thread: Is Americas "debt" issue working as intended?

  1. #1 Is Americas "debt" issue working as intended? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    42
    Is perhaps the fact that america is in such a large debt, contributed to the fact that the world elites are definitely forcing us into a one world government?

    im sure its been proposed before but im wondering what u believe is the true reason why our political leaders let this huge huge huge debt happen without having some kind of plot behind the scenes to blind side us into submission


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    Is perhaps the fact that america is in such a large debt, contributed to the fact that the world elites are definitely forcing us into a one world government?

    im sure its been proposed before but im wondering what u believe is the true reason why our political leaders let this huge huge huge debt happen without having some kind of plot behind the scenes to blind side us into submission
    Why should they care anyway, about the debt? The plot is simply, One World Government, one massive tyranny. jocular


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Onyxxyv View Post
    im sure its been proposed before but...
    To your credit, most of the things you propose are a first for humanity.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    The debt is the result of politicians realizing that they can get the positive effects (ie. votes) from borrowing and spending now, and that someone else will have to deal with the negative results. It would be similar to the CEO of a company giving himself a $100 million bonus just before selling his company. Let the new owner handle the extra debt.
    Also, people keep letting them do it, because they have the same attitude.

    I've heard some people say that they do it to weaken the economy so it isn't so far beyond the other economies of the world, but I don't buy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    A lot of the reason right now is because T-bills can be sold at a negative real interest rate. Apparently the world economy is so bad that people are willing to earn negative interest just to have their money in a safe place.

    By "negative real interest" I mean interest that is positive, but less than the projected rate of inflation.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A lot of the reason right now is because T-bills can be sold at a negative real interest rate. Apparently the world economy is so bad that people are willing to earn negative interest just to have their money in a safe place.

    By "negative real interest" I mean interest that is positive, but less than the projected rate of inflation.
    Tbills just went up to 2.5% interest rate. What's making the rate of inflation that high or higher?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If i understand what i've read, most t bills are bought by the federal reserve
    funny money buying funny money

    Nothing about the concept bears any semblance to a "moral" economy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I might have been working from old information then. If the price of bills recently went up to 2.5% Before it had been just under inflation.

    You can see that 2% inflation is pretty normal. I'm pretty sure it's US fiscal policy to always have inflation, just not very much of it.

    Current Inflation Rates | Monthly and Yearly Chart, Graph and Table: 2003-2013 Data - US Inflation


    Calculator
    Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2013, Annual and Monthly Tables - US Inflation Calculator

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If i understand what i've read, most t bills are bought by the federal reserve
    funny money buying funny money

    Nothing about the concept bears any semblance to a "moral" economy
    It used to be that the federal reserve never bought the bills, but they did once a couple of years ago.

    The fed is allowed to conjure money from thin air. The government isn't allowed to, but the Fed can. They have total control over the currency.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Daily Treasury Long Term Rate Data
    Actually, according to this, it's above three now.

    Never understood why you would let one group decide how much money would exist. In my opinion, many of our problems would be fixed if we left fiat currency and went back to a standard (gold, silver, platinum, etc.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheUnknowable View Post
    Daily Treasury Long Term Rate Data
    Actually, according to this, it's above three now.

    Never understood why you would let one group decide how much money would exist. In my opinion, many of our problems would be fixed if we left fiat currency and went back to a standard (gold, silver, platinum, etc.)
    The end of that was when France decided to start calling the bluff and exchanging dollars for gold. Trouble with gold is gold can be hoarded. You can't print more of it, but you can buy it up and stuff it in storage, thereby diminishing the supply.

    So we're offered a choice:

    1) - Allow one institution to inflate our currency when they think it will benefit the economy.

    2) - Allow anyone rich enough to deflate our currency (by taking gold out of circulation).

    Inflation is less dangerous than deflation. So I'd vote #1.

    Also a slowly rising inflation forces wealthy people to put their money into the market somewhere. They must either invest it or lose it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If i understand what i've read, most t bills are bought by the federal reserve
    funny money buying funny money

    Nothing about the concept bears any semblance to a "moral" economy
    ''

    The "moral" word brings into play the very fact that an immoral act, committed by FDR, relieved every American of about 75% of their money. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheUnknowable View Post
    Daily Treasury Long Term Rate Data
    Actually, according to this, it's above three now.

    Never understood why you would let one group decide how much money would exist. In my opinion, many of our problems would be fixed if we left fiat currency and went back to a standard (gold, silver, platinum, etc.)
    The end of that was when France decided to start calling the bluff and exchanging dollars for gold. Trouble with gold is gold can be hoarded. You can't print more of it, but you can buy it up and stuff it in storage, thereby diminishing the supply.

    So we're offered a choice:

    1) - Allow one institution to inflate our currency when they think it will benefit the economy.

    2) - Allow anyone rich enough to deflate our currency (by taking gold out of circulation).

    Inflation is less dangerous than deflation. So I'd vote #1.

    Also a slowly rising inflation forces wealthy people to put their money into the market somewhere. They must either invest it or lose it.
    More gold can always be mined and refined when the price goes up. Besides, I'd rather have playing with currency values cost people something than allowing them to do it at-will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by TheUnknowable View Post
    The debt is the result of politicians realizing that they can get the positive effects (ie. votes) from borrowing and spending now, and that someone else will have to deal with the negative results. It would be similar to the CEO of a company giving himself a $100 million bonus just before selling his company. Let the new owner handle the extra debt.
    Also, people keep letting them do it, because they have the same attitude.

    I've heard some people say that they do it to weaken the economy so it isn't so far beyond the other economies of the world, but I don't buy it.
    misattributed to Tytler:
    A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
    The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.
    ..........
    as/re your second paragraph
    Believe it
    the more dollars the fed prints the more worthless they become
    Look at the value of the dollar under baby bush, first Saddam announced that Iraq would no longer trade oil in dollars, and the dollar slipped against the euro and most other currencies, a couple months later, Bush started the "second Iraq war" and the dollar fell sharply.
    before this started, a euro cost between 80 and 90 cents, now it's $1.20+
    this is largely why oil, gold, copper, and other commodities cost more now than in 1995.
    The more the fed prints, the more imports cost, and the easier it becomes for the USA to export it's way out of debt.
    Also, if our debt is in dollars, then we get to pay it back with cheaper money. This has happened before when we helped tank the Japanese economy.

    It now seems that China is keeping the value of the dollar high by pegging their currency to ours. If the world stops trading oil in dollars, the dollar could lose 25-50% of it's value real fast. Because, now other countries must keep us dollars on hand for their oil imports.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If i understand what i've read, most t bills are bought by the federal reserve
    funny money buying funny money

    Nothing about the concept bears any semblance to a "moral" economy
    ''

    The "moral" word brings into play the very fact that an immoral act, committed by FDR, relieved every American of about 75% of their money. jocular
    Yeah. It was something of a shakedown, and it was done for essentially the same reason as why the government keeps debt spending in the current economy. He needed the money to set up programs to alleviate the crashed economy.


    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheUnknowable View Post
    The debt is the result of politicians realizing that they can get the positive effects (ie. votes) from borrowing and spending now, and that someone else will have to deal with the negative results. It would be similar to the CEO of a company giving himself a $100 million bonus just before selling his company. Let the new owner handle the extra debt.
    Also, people keep letting them do it, because they have the same attitude.

    I've heard some people say that they do it to weaken the economy so it isn't so far beyond the other economies of the world, but I don't buy it.
    misattributed to Tytler:
    A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
    The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.
    ..........
    The model seems to work in places like (of all places.... ) Saudi Arabia, where the government's primary source of income is from ownership of natural resources, instead of income taxes.

    Of course..... that isn't a democracy.

    But my point is that if natural resources were publicly owned instead of privately owned, the government could use them as its income stream and take it's hand out of the peoples' wallets.

    as/re your second paragraph
    Believe it
    the more dollars the fed prints the more worthless they become
    Look at the value of the dollar under baby bush, first Saddam announced that Iraq would no longer trade oil in dollars, and the dollar slipped against the euro and most other currencies, a couple months later, Bush started the "second Iraq war" and the dollar fell sharply.
    before this started, a euro cost between 80 and 90 cents, now it's $1.20+
    this is largely why oil, gold, copper, and other commodities cost more now than in 1995.
    The more the fed prints, the more imports cost, and the easier it becomes for the USA to export it's way out of debt.
    Also, if our debt is in dollars, then we get to pay it back with cheaper money. This has happened before when we helped tank the Japanese economy.

    It now seems that China is keeping the value of the dollar high by pegging their currency to ours. If the world stops trading oil in dollars, the dollar could lose 25-50% of it's value real fast. Because, now other countries must keep us dollars on hand for their oil imports.
    The irony is that having a devalued currency can be beneficial. It lowers the price of your exports, making it easier to find customers abroad for your merchandise.

    It would have been better if he had not invaded Iraq. But hindsight is 20/20 I guess. Either that or he knew full well it was a bad idea, but he was in bed with the Saudis, who appear to be the only people who categorically benefited from the arrangement.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Of course..... that isn't a democracy. But which country is?

    But my point is that if natural resources were publicly owned instead of privately owned, the government could use them as its income stream and take it's hand out of the peoples' wallets.
    Pretty dubious conclusion, don't ya think? No matter how much revenue the government receives, in the long run it will never prove to be enough. They already steal a great portion of the crude oil, right out of the big tankers, (speaking of natural resource ownership), pump it back into the G. D. ground, as "strategic", and PAY for the stuff with our tax dollars. Nice.

    And you feel they should have MORE natural resources in their pockets? Tsk, tsk. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    In the USA, I think there isn't much left to own. Some natural gas and coal, I guess. However people always talk about taxing the rich. The ultra rich are the big land owners, so if the government owned the mineral rights on all that land, and got its revenue from that, it would essentially be a big tax on the rich. Instead of an income tax, it could levy a "resource extraction" tax on all of the nation's lands. A good way to encourage conservation of resources.

    Also it doesn't take a lot of skill, so even the big, inefficient, government can't really mess it up.

    The big disadvantage to removing the income tax, however, would be that it would make it too easy for criminals to launder money. The illegality of their money is one of the biggest and most effective ways of catching them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In the USA, I think there isn't much left to own. Some natural gas and coal, I guess. However people always talk about taxing the rich. The ultra rich are the big land owners, so if the government owned the mineral rights on all that land, and got its revenue from that, it would essentially be a big tax on the rich. Instead of an income tax, it could levy a "resource extraction" tax on all of the nation's lands. A good way to encourage conservation of resources.

    Also it doesn't take a lot of skill, so even the big, inefficient, government can't really mess it up.

    The big disadvantage to removing the income tax, however, would be that it would make it too easy for criminals to launder money. The illegality of their money is one of the biggest and most effective ways of catching them.
    Good points, all! I thank you! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Our government does control much of the mineral/oil rights----they lease them out
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The big disadvantage to removing the income tax, however, would be that it would make it too easy for criminals to launder money. The illegality of their money is one of the biggest and most effective ways of catching them.
    So it's better to let the government steal from its people in violation of its own constitution (that last part is a discussion for another time) so that they can catch more criminals? Why don't we just let them search homes at random? Maybe arrest people at random and interrogate them? I'm sure that would lead to more criminals being caught. We already let them run phone taps on everyone without warrants. What's a little more illegal search and seizure if it solves crimes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Our government does control much of the mineral/oil rights----they lease them out
    Unfortunately, they're slowing down on doing that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 1st, 2013, 08:16 AM
  2. Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2012, 06:43 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2011, 01:20 PM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  5. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •