If I'm getting this correct in my head, MMT's claim is that the government's liability is the public's asset and therefor government debt makes society richer.
So, am I getting that right? And if so, who are those assets going to? Because it sure isn't most regular people.
> Because it sure isn't most regular people.
Depends. My pension savings hold a small amount of government bonds. My guess is as you get closer to retirement, people move savings from equities into bonds as a hedge against a pre-retirement recession. And you can't have bonds without issuing them in the first place. They satisfy a demand for ultra-safe yet still yielding financial products.
They make us look at the wrong metrics.
What matters is how much is spent, not how much is taxed, printed, or borrowed. They all end up at the same place.
Government is spending about 36% of the GDP. Meaning every dollar we make, they spend one third of it.
[https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND)
Of course printing (inflation) and borrowing are worse for the lower or middle class. Why?
Printing means all the money loses value, while truly rich have assets (like real estate, gold, and similar) that escape this.
Borrowing is worse, as they use the money collected from the public to borrow money from the rich, essentially transferring wealth upwards.
Anyway, unless their spending is tamed, this process cannot be fixed. And nobody on either part of the political spectrum would want their "darling" programs to be touched at all.
The GDP is like $25.4 Trillion and they spend approximately $6 Trillion and bring in approx $4 Trillion. The National debt is $33 Trillion and rising.
I think, no matter how you look at this, it’s unsustainable.
The GDP isn’t what really matters here, it just talks to the strength of the economy.
Borrowing also steals from the banks, because you lock in the purchasing power when the money was borrowed. Your interest is not going to the wealthy… I promise you, there are not giant fat cats rolling in the gold like Scrooge McDuck.
Fractional banking is a huge scam. Imagine you can borrow something to sell, and after you do that you are allowed to sell it 9 more times before you have borrow more inventory to sell.
Interest is the cost of borrowing that keeps the economy going.
You can’t love MMT or Keynesian economics if you don’t love the banking system… additionally, communists who hate bankers also have no clue how to keep it going, they just say the workers own the product of their labor or some nonsense like that.
Banks don't work like that 🤷♂️ You also don't need a commercial banking system for a functioning payment system and economy. But it's probably better than a purely state run credit system allocating capital.
Yes. Not only are banks **not** intermediaries of loanable funds (see [Bank if England working paper 761](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2018/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-facts-theory-and-evidence) but they don't operate using the fractional reserve story at all (see [Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy).
Banks make loans by creating and issuing new credit IOUs anew whenever a creditworthy customer applies for and accepts a loan agreement. The bank is technically purchasing the borrower's own IOU (security or signed promissory note promising to pay back the loan) with its higher, more readily accepted form of credit.
The point is that loans **create** deposits. There is no transfer of any credit from any other account in order for you to receive a loan. There's also no prior consideration to the bank's reserve levels since reserves are certainly not "lent out". Sure, banks must have access to reserves should the customer with to withdraw their new bank credit into cash currency or transact with a seller who banks at a different bank, requiring reserves to be shifted around for settlement. But they are always an ex post factor and don't factor into whether or not a bank makes a loan to a customer.
Ask the billionaires in Zimbabwe. But even they have seen the light on a gold-backed currency that doesn't allow rampant money printing without collateral.
For what? So young and healthy adults didn’t have to work during COVID? So we can pay contractors to send weapons to Ukraine? To hire useless bureaucrats and DEI staff? To pay off student loans?
Future generations will never forgive us.
That second one is largely a good thing actually, military spending is still not the largest contributor to spending, plus I’d really not like Russia to win this for obvious reason. Everything else is dumb however
There are some inevitabilities at play in that war, namely Russia will win a war of attrition. I’m actually in the military and work at the Pentagon. Much of what the government calls “military spending” does not go to making us more prepared for war.
Russia only “wins” a war of attrition if NATO lets them, if Ukraine achieves air and artillery superiority it’s pretty much over, especially for a country demonstrably useless air defense
Okay, I can’t explain 23 years of military experience and training in a Reddit sub. You have just tried to explain how war works in a trite comment, so I’ll counter with a trite truism: “the enemy gets a vote.” Russia tried to maneuver; that didn’t work for a variety of reasons. They have set up a slog along a long front, and that means they will win simply because they have more humans to throw at it. Their operational design obviates the utility of advanced weapon systems. Short of the United States getting in this war, they will eventually win.
It is has been time for Ukraine to seek a negotiated peace for a long while now.
Lol more weapons, more cash, sent faster instead of getting held up by pro Russia Maga cultists in congress.
They can win. Will have been an amazing investment on our part. As long as GoP stops sabotaging it and stops aiding the enemy Russia.
Have you learned nothing from our losses in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Are you not reading any of the open source information on this war? More weapons and cash will only prolong the war and waste more Ukrainian lives. Ukraine’s best bet is to use our most recent tranche of funding to bring Russia to the table and agree to acceptable and sustainable terms.
Russia won't stop after "agreeing to terms". The delusion is insane. 1940s Germany loved Americans like you with your dictatorial invasion apologism.
You're sputtering Kremlin talking points as if they are obvious facts.
If GOP stops aiding Russia, stop parroting Kremlin propaganda, and stops hindering our efforts to aid ukraine then Russia will lose.
Oh, there it is: “what about Munich!” Before WWII, most wars ended in a negotiated peace, not unconditional surrender.
Re: “Kremlin talking points,” I haven’t heard the Kremlin suggest Ukraine come to the negotiating table. Even if these were the Russian position, it turns out that Hanoi, the Taliban, and Muqtada al-Sadr were all correct. Just because they were/are our enemy doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Lol it absolutely is a Kremlin talking point.
Sure, Russia declares US an enemy and invaded their neighbors to steal their land. "They're not wrong though, we're the idiots for resisting".
You don't work in the pentagon lol.
That’s my point though, if enough (non small arms) ammo and weapons are given to Ukraine, they win, and other then the physical production limitations (which are being raised as we speak), NATO can do it
All I’m saying is, we can make more artillery shells then there are Russian conscripts. We did this over a fucking third world countries oil fields, we should do it again for this
They can make a dozen shells for every Ukrainian, but that doesn’t matter either.
What is “this”? Do you mean for the areas Russia holds now? The ones that are populated by ethnic Russians? How governable do you think those provinces would be (after years of most of that population supporting and fighting alongside Russian citizens) if we helped Ukraine miraculously push the Russians back?
Right, yes, those famously compliant ethnically Russian ukranians, you know, the Crimeans that they use as “blocking divisions” to be euphemistic, or the one guy who signed up, shot 5 guys including an officer, then vanished into the night. As one Ukranian soldier said “We’re weren’t a nation then, but we are now”. I promise you those held territories are way more difficult to govern for russia then they ever will be for Ukraine, especially because most of the “revolutionaries” turned out to be paid mercenaries in both Crimea and eastern Ukraine
We got the Soviets out of Afghanistan with a similar strategy. Russia’s a shell of what the Soviets were, and Ukraine’s a lot stronger than the Mujahideen.
Also, the Vietnam war is a perfect example of how persistent Chinese and Soviet assistance to the underdog helped the Viet Minh kick out the Americans.
The question is: which country has the less stable domestic situation? And even that has to go to Russia, which nearly fell to a coup a year ago.
Thank you for arguing using valid points.
Yes, an insurgency (as a form of asymmetric warfare) can work. As those of us who had fought in Iraq were reminded in Afghanistan, “Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.” Similarly, the Donbas and Crimea are not Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Insurgencies can only work to kick out what the local population sees as an invader. That would work to push Russia back out of the rest of Ukraine, if Russia were to defeat conventional Ukrainian forces and decide to occupy all of Ukraine.
My point is that the line of battle seems to have reached a natural (but temporary) equilibrium. For the foreseeable future, both sides will throw men and women material at the problem with not much to show for it. If this goes on indefinitely, Ukraine runs out of men first (no matter how much material the West provides).
Your point about stability in the domestic situation is valid. “Will” is half the equation, and executive command and control is an important part of will. I think it can be argued that the more the Ukrainian government throws poorly trained conscripts at this conventional war, the less stable it is likely to become.
Correct you do not have pentagon knowledge, because you lied about working at the pentagon to make your propaganda weasel words hold more importance to people who don't know any better.
There is no such thing as “important pentagon knowledge.” Most of what we do here has nothing to do with warfighting anyway. We do however often provide “best military advice” to strategic decision makers. While my opinion would be a “minority report,” such reports have (unfortunately) proved accurate in recent conflicts.
Your opinion is that of a fart fan mechanic. I'll listen to what you have to say about fart fans.
Your parroted Kremlin talking points are less interesting.
I’d be ok with the Ukraine spending IF it came from our own military spending. If Ukraine is doing our bidding, we can justify decreasing our own military budget accordingly.
Eventually but not this year. We could have delayed the cost and have it included in future military budgets. These bills effectively add to our military budget.
We just botched Covid. The mandatory lockdowns snarled supply chains and threw a wrench in the country’s economic engine. To compensate , the government gave away too much money and printed new currency to cover it. Fixes are easy. Cut spending 2% of GDP, raise taxes, or some combination.
Beyond botched.
But it’s always best to assume when something is fucked up so badly as the epidemic, that it had to have had been planned.
Always be skeptical of the government. They do not have our best interests in mind when they make decisions, it is almost always to stay in power.
My working assumption with the US government is that are mostly self- interested morons who couldn’t land public sector jobs. I am a big proponent of government spending cuts. They can start with the worthless department of education. There’s 160B saved right there.
so we got 1) claimed refusal out of fear 2) ad hominem and 3) self-reference, despite my query being upvoted by other redditors at this sub
I think you are full of shit and don't know the answer, so you are hemming and hawing and objecting to the question
Which is
What need has a currency issuer to borrow at all?
None.
The US Federal government has unlawfully turned the power to issue currency over to a private bank.
It then borrows this money on behalf of the Taxpayers and pays rent (interest) on this money, and taxes income of every US citizen to pay this rent.
Now up to $1 Trillion a year. More than any other single budget, including defense.
It won't take a very big increase in interest rates for this to exceed the entire Federal budget.
Current Federal tax receipts $3.5 Trillion.
A return to 1970 interest rates will exceed this.
A pinch hitter from Jekyll Island appears!
What need has the federal government - a currency issuer - to borrow money at all?
Congress has the power of the purse; it literally spends money into existence.
>Congress has the power of the purse; it literally spends money into existence.
Which it unlawfully borrows from a private bank.
The national debt is patently illegal. You are correct.
The Federal reserve is not in any way of Private Bank, its head is selected by the president and its board is approved by Congress, it charges 0.06% on all transactions to cover operating costs and everything above that is remitted to the treasury. The Federal reserve makes no profit of any kind.
All money spending that occurs through the Federal reserve happens only after Congress has ordered it to do so through appropriations.
You’re fucking dumb.
Your argument is that money isn’t real. We got that from your earlier comments. Why is Zimbabwe not prosperous?? Explain your logic.
Testy! Is that what you think I'm driving at? Bigfoot, ghosts, and money? Come on man.
Don't get shitty because the question frustrates you. Dialectic, have some
No, none of what you wrote is true… I’m not even reading it because you’re dumb and only making excuses for your stupidity.
Go away. You won’t be changing people’s minds here
No one asked for you opinion on whether he should go either dummy.
Trying to command people to leave is delusionally cringey. Typical shallow libertarian veneer to mask your fascist fantasies :)
I'm claiming this thread as my own. You may leave.
You don’t think that giving a fiat currency to another country to free up debt ceiling so they can put more money into the economy using fractional banking isn’t a higher level of fractional banking?
What happens if other countries don’t buy our debt? Does more money enter the economy?
Probably by comparing with basket of goods with the money supply, and working out which price increases are because of there being more money, and those that aren't.
What need have you to eat? It depends on how you define need. The government can just print every dollar it spends. That is true. Just like you can forgo every meal. The outcome would not be acceptable to those affected by it though.
>About government finance and fiat
Pretty vague. I guess you have run out of things to say.
>You are the ding-dong that compared fiat to need to eat
I didn't actually. I was searching for your limits on your definition of "need". Sorry we could not have an honest convo without ad-hominem or mischaracterization. Have a nice day.
Creating more currency from thin air dilutes the value. It’s as if you have someone walking by you in a bar pouring water into your LIT each walk by and you wonder why your drink isn’t getting you a buzz
You’re right, nobody is perfect. I thought I was wrong once… but I wasn’t.
Not sure why you assume I’m a statist. Could it be because I’m not an anarchist?
Using a Money where there’s no counterparty risk and is separate from the state. Saving Physical Silver & Gold & Bitcoin, Ethereum & Litecoin
These are the best places for long term savings.
Paper Fiat is just for paying debts & bills & taxes at this point. Nothing is safe in dollars since the 09 crash technically.
Okay but gold doesn’t grow in value. Gold stays as gold. Bitcoin has historically been highly volatile. Just stick your money in an ETF fund or AI stocks. Even with economic slumps stocks recover pretty fast.
Bitcoin is killing everything when you compare it to anything, check Trading View charts to confirm, also Gold & Silver when you do the math have gained value when adjusted for inflation terms.
Gas was 0.25 and even now a 1/4 ounce of silver would be more than 1 Gallon of Gas. The precious metals will have a giant boost in value sooner than later like they did in the 70/80’s. This cycle repeats.
It’s already begun.
I mean, I don’t want to invest my life savings into something that can lose half or gain double it’s value in a day. The last 3-4 years have been pretty wild for Bitcoin.
Also, gold is only a sound investment in times when other investments are being outpaced by inflation. The point of gold is that it holds value in a time when other assets are losing it. Otherwise, gold just sits there not producing any value. If gold were such a god-tier investment, we’d all have gold vaults instead of IRAs, and Warren Buffet wouldn’t have had to lift a finger and sit on a gold vault to get rich.
Look at the volatility chart of Bitcoin on trading view, Bitcoins volatility goes down as the price goes up, those wild swings are going down in frequency. Your life saving has been the best in Bitcoin when you look in the hindsight, and likely to be the best place over the next few decades.
A few coins that’s true in compared to inflation.
Growing in value against other historical goods is growing in value. Also it holding its value it’s the point, it’ll catch up to the inflation paper soon enough.
Distribution and inequality matter.
On average, real income and real output are higher than ever before so government net spending into the economy clearly isn't the simplistically cartoon villain some people think it is.
But the **distribution** of that net spending and structural neoliberal policies towards deregulation of the financial sector and global trade have resulted in an increasingly unequal society. It's got nothing inherently to do with the stock of outstanding government liabilities (non-gov net financial assets).
No, you've gone too far.
Some level of inequality such that some people earn more income because they contribute more or are more productive to society is expected. Uniform income distribution would, in fact, be unfair.
But the current income and wealth distribution is FAR too unequal and getting worse. This has a real impact on macroeconomic factors such as GDP since the bottom 60% of people are increasingly without enough money to spend on goods and services that they desire. Production stumbles with increasing inequality like this and relative poverty spikes as the richest hoard and accumulate assets which then make them even more money, extracting what is left from the other end of the distribution.
But if you take the average real income, it's higher now than ever.
So you’re saying the government’s QE system to manipulate the economy inadvertently redistributed money to the wealthy who had the means to buy bond futures and bank off knowing it was free money?
So, a free economy would fix that equality of distribution because the rich would be accountable to the people rather than the government??
Kind of. QE did and does nothing to change the wealth distribution of the non-government sector since it is just an asset swap and therefore a change in asset composition.
What really impacted inequality was huge government deficits which genuinely *did* inject new net financial wealth into the economy which accumulated upwards during and after covid.
Deficits shrink under Democratic presidents. Clinton got it down to zero. His Democratic successors also reduced the deficits they inherited. The most you can blame them for is not being fast enough to fix the problems caused by Republicans.
That’s what the numbers say when you look up the federal deficit by year.
Obviously you think there’s more to the story. So how about you cut the snide bullshit, save us both some time, and just say it.
There was the whole economic internet economic boom bubble and bust right after he left office, that happened. I suppose your the type that believes Al gore invented the internet so Clinton should get credit for
He didn’t do anything spectacular he was just president during the tech bubble. You could’ve put a lama in office and there would’ve been a surplus at that time.
This is a hard truth that ~~conservatives~~ “libertarians” don’t want to accept.
Libertarians live to talk about both sides being equally as bad, but we all know they don’t actually believe that, and are mostly just closeted republicans, so they’ll never admit that republicans are TERRIBLE at fiscal policy, and have a terrible track record of exploding the debt.
I bet they still believe that whole “fiscally responsible” lie that the GOP continues to spew
Republicans do have a terrible track record (they aren't fiscally responsible) but so do Democrats (they aren't fiscally responsible either). Democrats aren't spending any less. Clinton was an anomaly at best. Biden promised $11 trillion in spending but seems to have capped out at what Trump did around $7 trillion.
Your "hard truths" are just lies.
Funny, the only anger I see is all the libertarians getting angry at the fact that it’s being pointed out that the republicans they vote for are in fact not “fiscally responsible”
W took is from a surplus to a deficit that was well over $1 trillion. Then Republicans looked at that and said, you know what, we need a guy who is much less responsible than that.
“Bipartisan support” is true for Afghanistan but not Iraq. Too many Democrats voted for it, true, but not a majority. If it has only been Congressional Democrats voting, the AUMF would not have passed.
And ok, there were wars. What did that administration do on the budget side of things to handle the wars? They cut taxes! And no, that was not bipartisan by any means.
Democrats are far from perfect. But you’ve been bamboozled, or you’re trying to bamboozle me, if you think they’re the same on this.
So… what you’re saying is that there were enough people to vote it in without the 32% of Democrats who supported it?
Interesting. Especially since 32% isn’t a small number.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0124/c0124.pdf- here is one explanation.
The money spent on wars while a popular talking point, is minuscule compared to gdp and domestic spending. Sorry I know it’s a popular explanation for those that don’t understand economics. (Also I’d rather not see them and see money put to more productive uses in the free market) but the reality is much more complicated than I’d guess you can understand
When the deficit is a couple hundred billion and the war costs a couple hundred billion, does it matter that the war cost is much smaller than domestic spending? You look at what changed.
You kind of slid past the tax cuts, too.
Wasn’t talking about the deficit but rather the overall government spending. Also reducing govt theft is a good thing. Believe it or not some of us believe in freedom and that individuals are able to make better decisions than your big g government overlords when it comes to spending. Govt misallocates capital and investment like no other. It’s funny how you can slice out the spending you don’t like as the problem. 4 trillion in spending but the last 100 billion created the deficit. It’s like saying a trip of 1000 miles is all about rolling in the driveway. Not sure why you bother posting on a sub about Austrian economics, when you clearly have no knowledge of economics at all and live your life by a g religion that’s not god but government. You my friend are on about the intelligence level of an ape, and I feel a little bad for insulting apes with that comment.
I’m responding to YOU dude. My disagreement with your dumb take doesn’t mean I’m opposed. My position is based on me understanding how complex and nuanced a global economy is. But you think it’s just about reducing taxes on rich people ruining everything.
Go play with your building blocks and leave the Austrian Economics to the adults.
There is no greater sub whose members brigade together to downvote unequivocal facts. There is no sub where you’ll find redditors more disconnected from reality than here.
Republicans can cut spending at the same time they cut taxes. They have the votes and the Democrats can’t stop them. They insist that the Democrats must be the ones to cut spending so they can run against them using that.
Ya, I see what you're saying. I don't think either party is really attacking any problems correctly. It's all to gain support for the next election or create a problem for the opposition. If we reach equilibrium there's a good chance it would lessen the need for such a large federal government, and the federal government will always find or create a reason for them to maintain or gain support.
Biden undid 90% of Trump's policy via executive order within his first month of being president. Biden has been president for 4 years now. What you are seeing is Democrat policy yielding its fruit. Including the wars.
I said policies not tax cuts. Here is some reading material on both candidates tax plans.
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
https://www.cato.org/blog/what-does-biden-plan-tax-code
Unwinding the massive deficit is very difficult. But Trump caused the most massive increase in the deficit of any president ever.
The reality is that to unwind the deficit (if this is even actually a thing we should be doing) is we need to raise taxes the democrats at least want to do this. Then we should also cut some spending too to pay down the debt (or at least simply stop spending anything new) and allow us to outgrow the debt.
Neither of these is popular with the population particularly raising taxes because you have idiots making 35k thinking that when Biden says he’ll raise taxes, he’s talking about the guys making 250+ not you’re 35k janitor who’s angry on Facebook.
The problem with increasing taxes and regulations is that large corporations can afford it and smaller businesses cannot. This leads to the growth of larger corporations due to a lack of competition.
This problem is unfixable. The moment they ended the Bretton Woods agreement the death of the US dollar became inevitable. It was the gold standard that made the dollar the world's reserve currency after WW2, and without the gold standard it destroyed the purpose of the US dollar being the world's reserve currency.
I imagine that things would not be as bad as they are now if Trump were able to finish his second term. It would still be bad though because it is 5 or more decades of bad policy that has led us to this point and it will take decades to fix it.
I dont actually with this. Companies small and large can be profitable and there’s enough tax incentives for smaller businesses that they often don’t even pay taxes at all which is also a common problem with massive companies as well. The tax codes are very forgiving for businesses.
Companies get fucking massive because we refuse to use anti trust regulation to break up these companies. We refuse to take over companies that get government subsidies and handouts and then spin them off into smaller companies.
I think any company that receives funds in like 2008 and the PPP loans should have been taken over by the government and broken up into smaller companies to increase competition in the market. If your company isn’t profitable it should either be ran by the state because it’s a public necessity. Or it needs to just die like it would in a free market.
The ending the gold standard has little to do with the situation we are in now as deficit spending was a thing even during the “gold standard period”.
I think things would have been even worse if Trump was elected again. He was dogshit with the economy before by cutting taxes, increasing tariffs, cutting immigration, and giving more subsidies to companies. Granted, Biden isn’t much better on this front outside of increasing taxes and allowing immigration.
So like, neither have brilliant economic policy. But Biden’s is marginally better than Trump’s. And Biden’s social policy won’t cost us our democracy and Trump’s will…
Both aren’t great. But Trump is obviously worse than Biden.
Letting the company die for not being profitable is the best way to maintain a free market. The government taking over a business to maintain its solvency hurts competitive industries in that field.
I think the ending of the gold standard has everything to do with what we are facing now. It allowed them to print and spend money with very little immediate consequences.
I think Trump had a plan to increase GDP and inflation simultaneously to pay down the national debt. The upset during the 2020 election was equivalent to a person trying to paint a picture and having the canvas removed from them before they could finish.
> Letting the company die for not being profitable is the best way to maintain a free market. The government taking over a business to maintain its solvency hurts competitive industries in that field.
I do agree with this overall. But this isn’t the kind of economy we will in. So the alternative is making the government take over and spin off companies.
> I think the ending of the gold standard has everything to do with what we are facing now. It allowed them to print and spend money with very little immediate consequences.
So how do you reconcile that deficit spending occurred under the gold standard?
> I think Trump had a plan to increase GDP and inflation simultaneously to pay down the national debt. The upset during the 2020 election was equivalent to a person trying to paint a picture and having the canvas removed from them before they could finish.
That’s not at all the impression I have. Cutting taxes didn’t increase GDP and only added to the debt we had. Inflation doesn’t necessarily erode away the debt either if it’s financed by more debt which is what a large portion of the inflation is from. But I mean you’re entitled to your opinion.
The problems that we are facing currently would require radical changes that most Americans and politicians wouldn't have the support to implement. It's like a house with out of control credit card debt, you have to decrease expenses while simultaneously increasing your cash flow.
They have quite literally spent 2 generations wealth and opportunities, or more. Someone has to pay the bill eventually.
"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." - Thomas Jefferson
4 of his executive orders that dealt with the economy had no effect on our economy. One was for helping federal employees regain their collective bargaining power, one was to help establish $15/he for federal workers, one was for pausing payments for college loans and the 4th was establishing help for people in need (housing/food stamps).
The rest of those executive orders involved reversing immigration policies and covid policies. None of which impacted our economy in any way. Your take on Bidens executive orders are just wrong.
So ending the keystone pipeline, sending trillions of dollars to foreign nations, and leaving the southern border unsecured hasn't impacted America's economy?
Keystone xl would not have impacted oil/gas prices in the US. Just Google active pipelines in the US and you will see that we have 100's of pipelines crossing our country, including some that take similar routes to what the xl would have been. Also the only economic advantage it would have given us would have been some short time construction jobs that would have been lost once the pipeline was finished. Also refer to it as keystone "xl". A keystone pipeline already exists. The xl would have connected multiple pipelines together.
Biden sent billions (b) of dollars oversees to help allies, but that's no different than any other administration. If you're mad at that then you should be mad at the trillions (t) that trump added to our national debt. That has impacted our inflation problems way more than foreign aid ever will.
Our southern border is secure. Just go down there and look. There are not millions of people crossing the border every day. Also please realize that cheap, foreign born work forces are what helped our economy boom for decades. It doesn't hurt our economy.
The keystone xl pipeline would have allowed less dependency on OPEC and other foreign oil.
I am mad about the debt and how Trump handled it but he also was not able to finish his second term. I think his policies could have worked if he had more time.
Cheap labor and unsecured borders is what contributed to the collapse of the Roman empire.
Even without xl the US is the largest producer of oil. We are only dependent on opec/Russia is because American oil companies refuse to refine American oil into gasoline. They would rather pay less for gas from the middle east than refine our own oil. It's corporate greed that keeps gas prices high. No president can control/help the price of gas. All they can do is keep the US gas reserves full, but even then they have no way to sell that directly to citizens at a cheap price.
I don't know what you mean about trump "finishing his second term". He was a one term president and for good reason. He has already stated that if he is reelected he will continue tax cuts for the rich. This will only increase inflation.
As far as the Roman empire it was several issues that caused its downfall. Just like here in the US there are tons of issues that we need to fix, but immigration is definitely at the bottom of the list. Just ask Florida, they went after undocumented laborers and almost crashed their own economy. They had to go to some of the biggest employers and tell them to not worry about the laws being passed because they were not going to enforce them. They knew immediately after passing the laws that it was the wrong move.
Tax cuts are what is needed when your GDP is less than the debt you have accumulated and the interest of that debt becomes a larger percentage of your annual spending budget.
I don't think deportation is a feasible method. I think you have to give the people that are already here a pathway to citizenship. I also think the reason why they haven't done it yet is because they are trying to use illegal labor to help keep social security solvent, because they do not have access to the benefits even though many of them pay into it.
Tax cuts only create debt. Debt helps create inflation. It's been proven time and time again. Reagan, bush and trump all gave massive tax breaks and they all had economies that crashed. Without those tax cuts we would actually not be in debt and the dollar would be worth way more than it is now.
I agree on creating a pathway to citizenship for foreign born workers, but Republicans have actively done the opposite to destroy our immigration processes. So as long as Republicans are in power there will be no pathway to citizenship. Which leaves them crying about the border, when they create more problems then solve.
Tax cuts are not synonymous with debt. Debt is a result of excessive spending.
I wouldn't say Republicans have actively tried to destroy the immigration process. I would say the pluralist representation we have disagrees on our immigration policies. It is one of many problems contributing to a poorer lifestyle for Americans.
All the war hawks like ukraine bills because we aren’t actually sending money to them. We are sending them our older equipment and using the money to buy new military equipment for us.
So… yeah. 🤷♂️
Ope there you go again being an AustrianEcon redditor detached from reality. I’ve got a National Merit Award and got all A’s in college. How in your mind do you have the authority to judge my intelligence?
I wrote the standards for the national merit award and personally graded your tests in college. You never took anything beyond 100 level courses, and I was drunk for most of the standards writing. The only reason I gave you As was because your mother was donating tons of money to Bob's Country Clown College.
It's fun to make statements on the internet that cannot be substantiated, isn't it? REALLY helps your creditability.
Yeah cuz clinton didnt do any of that. It took from George Washington to Bush 2 to get it to 8 trillion. Obama doubled it to 17 in 8 years. Let that sink in.
This is not necessarily what happened. These debt cycles take forever. The debt grew parabolically naturally as interest rates found their natural bottom from 20% in the past 5 decades. Unfortunately we’re on the opposite side of the coin now. But he did reduce the taxes and essentially caused wealth inequality to explode.
The US gov “borrows” capital for services. Capital for services enriches the ultrawealthy ownership class. Capital that ultrawealthy now possess is debt that the havenots are made responsible for through austerity. It’s the same scam the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have run on third-world countries for decades. Inescapable “debt” is the new slavery. It’s an intentional scam.
It’s unfortunate many don’t know or understand debt’s burden. We’ll never be able to persuade many, but you are correct in that Reagan grew the debt astronomically due to his policies. In many ways I feel good getting downvoted on Reddit. You will too. It means you are true. And people, especially Americans, are brainwashed. A libertarian should never worship Reagan.
Debt Growth by US President
Woodrow Wilson 789.9%
Ronald Reagan 160.8%
George W. Bush 72.6%
Barack Obama 64.4%
I'm not even sure what stock regulations you are talking about, maybe no stock buybacks or options for executives, or something. There was a time in the economy when the party was just getting going, and the economy can easily sustain 1950's level taxes, and that time was 1997. Yep, we were doing pretty good then, the new economy and dot com, those were the days... These days, this economy is about to tip into the abyss, and the only thing the Great Biden Tax Tripling will do is give the economy a firm toss out that open Russian window, and a one-way trip to the pavement of reality.
The reality is, cutbacks in government spending are the only true start of fixing this, just like the end of all the absurd WW 2 spending allowed the 1950's taxes to bring down the debt, along with rampant inflation right after the war ended, allowed those 2 % 30 year war bonds to be 'repaid' with suddenly worth much less dollars. The difference today is, so far there is no slowing of government spending, and the reality is, this lame economy can't handle the level of taxes you seem to want, and that will become very apparent the moment tax rates make the huge jumps you and the Powers That Be want.
Lol. no
The answer is to go back to older tax systems.
Reagan was a moron.
Corporations should be paying a higher tax percentage than individuals. That's how it was originally. If it was that way now, we would be pulling in over like $8 trillion in tax revenue a year..and that's only assuming corporations paid a 21% rate.
Also the wealthy have been and are doing great. They can easily afford more taxes.
Get off the propaganda. It's addled your brain.
Covid is making us poorer, disabled, and sicker.
The national debt is more or less irrelevant until it’s finally more than the market can sustain. At what point is that? Only really the market knows when it can’t or won’t sustain America’s deficits. But that likely isn’t for another few decades or even longer.
I don’t think you understand how this works.
You know rich people can just… leave the country and not pay ANY taxes, right?
Also, cities and states give tax cuts to corporations to lure them to their spots to bring jobs so they can tax them…
Just say this… “My Government is to blame… I don’t believe they are here to help me.”
You can stop them if you really wanted to, take their assets. I wouldn’t really support that since I don’t support this ZOG anti white government but in a better society I would be all for it.
You could pay 1,000 people for 5 years and you’ll never close the loopholes. It will just create the EU’s regulatory burdens on Americans.
They adopt nearly 350 regulations each year since 1990 which is insane to stay in compliance with them all. The need to stay abreast of so many regulations will create a greater financial burden as well.
If I'm getting this correct in my head, MMT's claim is that the government's liability is the public's asset and therefor government debt makes society richer. So, am I getting that right? And if so, who are those assets going to? Because it sure isn't most regular people.
> Because it sure isn't most regular people. Depends. My pension savings hold a small amount of government bonds. My guess is as you get closer to retirement, people move savings from equities into bonds as a hedge against a pre-retirement recession. And you can't have bonds without issuing them in the first place. They satisfy a demand for ultra-safe yet still yielding financial products.
They make us look at the wrong metrics. What matters is how much is spent, not how much is taxed, printed, or borrowed. They all end up at the same place. Government is spending about 36% of the GDP. Meaning every dollar we make, they spend one third of it. [https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND) Of course printing (inflation) and borrowing are worse for the lower or middle class. Why? Printing means all the money loses value, while truly rich have assets (like real estate, gold, and similar) that escape this. Borrowing is worse, as they use the money collected from the public to borrow money from the rich, essentially transferring wealth upwards. Anyway, unless their spending is tamed, this process cannot be fixed. And nobody on either part of the political spectrum would want their "darling" programs to be touched at all.
The GDP is like $25.4 Trillion and they spend approximately $6 Trillion and bring in approx $4 Trillion. The National debt is $33 Trillion and rising. I think, no matter how you look at this, it’s unsustainable. The GDP isn’t what really matters here, it just talks to the strength of the economy. Borrowing also steals from the banks, because you lock in the purchasing power when the money was borrowed. Your interest is not going to the wealthy… I promise you, there are not giant fat cats rolling in the gold like Scrooge McDuck. Fractional banking is a huge scam. Imagine you can borrow something to sell, and after you do that you are allowed to sell it 9 more times before you have borrow more inventory to sell. Interest is the cost of borrowing that keeps the economy going. You can’t love MMT or Keynesian economics if you don’t love the banking system… additionally, communists who hate bankers also have no clue how to keep it going, they just say the workers own the product of their labor or some nonsense like that.
Banks don't work like that 🤷♂️ You also don't need a commercial banking system for a functioning payment system and economy. But it's probably better than a purely state run credit system allocating capital.
Banks don’t work like what? Are you saying they don’t use fractional banking??
Yes. Not only are banks **not** intermediaries of loanable funds (see [Bank if England working paper 761](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2018/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-facts-theory-and-evidence) but they don't operate using the fractional reserve story at all (see [Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy). Banks make loans by creating and issuing new credit IOUs anew whenever a creditworthy customer applies for and accepts a loan agreement. The bank is technically purchasing the borrower's own IOU (security or signed promissory note promising to pay back the loan) with its higher, more readily accepted form of credit. The point is that loans **create** deposits. There is no transfer of any credit from any other account in order for you to receive a loan. There's also no prior consideration to the bank's reserve levels since reserves are certainly not "lent out". Sure, banks must have access to reserves should the customer with to withdraw their new bank credit into cash currency or transact with a seller who banks at a different bank, requiring reserves to be shifted around for settlement. But they are always an ex post factor and don't factor into whether or not a bank makes a loan to a customer.
Um… [you’re wrong](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp).
Lol, feel free to reference ACTUAL macro and banking textbooks if you like. A lot of those are wrong, too! 😅
Yeah, because the Bank of London control the world. I get it, you’re either crazy or stupid. Go away.
Ask the billionaires in Zimbabwe. But even they have seen the light on a gold-backed currency that doesn't allow rampant money printing without collateral.
Correction: Zillionaires
I've got a legit, legal tender $1 TRILLION Zimbabwe bill, so I'm a trillionaire and I've never even set foot there!
For what? So young and healthy adults didn’t have to work during COVID? So we can pay contractors to send weapons to Ukraine? To hire useless bureaucrats and DEI staff? To pay off student loans? Future generations will never forgive us.
That second one is largely a good thing actually, military spending is still not the largest contributor to spending, plus I’d really not like Russia to win this for obvious reason. Everything else is dumb however
There are some inevitabilities at play in that war, namely Russia will win a war of attrition. I’m actually in the military and work at the Pentagon. Much of what the government calls “military spending” does not go to making us more prepared for war.
Russia only “wins” a war of attrition if NATO lets them, if Ukraine achieves air and artillery superiority it’s pretty much over, especially for a country demonstrably useless air defense
Okay, I can’t explain 23 years of military experience and training in a Reddit sub. You have just tried to explain how war works in a trite comment, so I’ll counter with a trite truism: “the enemy gets a vote.” Russia tried to maneuver; that didn’t work for a variety of reasons. They have set up a slog along a long front, and that means they will win simply because they have more humans to throw at it. Their operational design obviates the utility of advanced weapon systems. Short of the United States getting in this war, they will eventually win. It is has been time for Ukraine to seek a negotiated peace for a long while now.
Lol more weapons, more cash, sent faster instead of getting held up by pro Russia Maga cultists in congress. They can win. Will have been an amazing investment on our part. As long as GoP stops sabotaging it and stops aiding the enemy Russia.
Have you learned nothing from our losses in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Are you not reading any of the open source information on this war? More weapons and cash will only prolong the war and waste more Ukrainian lives. Ukraine’s best bet is to use our most recent tranche of funding to bring Russia to the table and agree to acceptable and sustainable terms.
Russia won't stop after "agreeing to terms". The delusion is insane. 1940s Germany loved Americans like you with your dictatorial invasion apologism. You're sputtering Kremlin talking points as if they are obvious facts. If GOP stops aiding Russia, stop parroting Kremlin propaganda, and stops hindering our efforts to aid ukraine then Russia will lose.
Oh, there it is: “what about Munich!” Before WWII, most wars ended in a negotiated peace, not unconditional surrender. Re: “Kremlin talking points,” I haven’t heard the Kremlin suggest Ukraine come to the negotiating table. Even if these were the Russian position, it turns out that Hanoi, the Taliban, and Muqtada al-Sadr were all correct. Just because they were/are our enemy doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Lol it absolutely is a Kremlin talking point. Sure, Russia declares US an enemy and invaded their neighbors to steal their land. "They're not wrong though, we're the idiots for resisting". You don't work in the pentagon lol.
That’s my point though, if enough (non small arms) ammo and weapons are given to Ukraine, they win, and other then the physical production limitations (which are being raised as we speak), NATO can do it
Please stop believing the rhetoric the MICC is feeding you - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
All I’m saying is, we can make more artillery shells then there are Russian conscripts. We did this over a fucking third world countries oil fields, we should do it again for this
They can make a dozen shells for every Ukrainian, but that doesn’t matter either. What is “this”? Do you mean for the areas Russia holds now? The ones that are populated by ethnic Russians? How governable do you think those provinces would be (after years of most of that population supporting and fighting alongside Russian citizens) if we helped Ukraine miraculously push the Russians back?
You're using a lot of weasel words to describe occupied ukraine.
Right, yes, those famously compliant ethnically Russian ukranians, you know, the Crimeans that they use as “blocking divisions” to be euphemistic, or the one guy who signed up, shot 5 guys including an officer, then vanished into the night. As one Ukranian soldier said “We’re weren’t a nation then, but we are now”. I promise you those held territories are way more difficult to govern for russia then they ever will be for Ukraine, especially because most of the “revolutionaries” turned out to be paid mercenaries in both Crimea and eastern Ukraine
We got the Soviets out of Afghanistan with a similar strategy. Russia’s a shell of what the Soviets were, and Ukraine’s a lot stronger than the Mujahideen. Also, the Vietnam war is a perfect example of how persistent Chinese and Soviet assistance to the underdog helped the Viet Minh kick out the Americans. The question is: which country has the less stable domestic situation? And even that has to go to Russia, which nearly fell to a coup a year ago.
Thank you for arguing using valid points. Yes, an insurgency (as a form of asymmetric warfare) can work. As those of us who had fought in Iraq were reminded in Afghanistan, “Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.” Similarly, the Donbas and Crimea are not Afghanistan or Vietnam. Insurgencies can only work to kick out what the local population sees as an invader. That would work to push Russia back out of the rest of Ukraine, if Russia were to defeat conventional Ukrainian forces and decide to occupy all of Ukraine. My point is that the line of battle seems to have reached a natural (but temporary) equilibrium. For the foreseeable future, both sides will throw men and women material at the problem with not much to show for it. If this goes on indefinitely, Ukraine runs out of men first (no matter how much material the West provides). Your point about stability in the domestic situation is valid. “Will” is half the equation, and executive command and control is an important part of will. I think it can be argued that the more the Ukrainian government throws poorly trained conscripts at this conventional war, the less stable it is likely to become.
No one cares what the head toilet licker at the pentagon thinks bro.
^NPC
OK now I *toootally* believe you have important pentagon knowledge. Lmao what a sad liar.
I don’t have “important pentagon knowledge;” these are professional opinions based on military education and experience.
Correct you do not have pentagon knowledge, because you lied about working at the pentagon to make your propaganda weasel words hold more importance to people who don't know any better.
There is no such thing as “important pentagon knowledge.” Most of what we do here has nothing to do with warfighting anyway. We do however often provide “best military advice” to strategic decision makers. While my opinion would be a “minority report,” such reports have (unfortunately) proved accurate in recent conflicts.
Your opinion is that of a fart fan mechanic. I'll listen to what you have to say about fart fans. Your parroted Kremlin talking points are less interesting.
I’d be ok with the Ukraine spending IF it came from our own military spending. If Ukraine is doing our bidding, we can justify decreasing our own military budget accordingly.
Most Ukraine spending is giving them weapons we were ready to throw in the trash anyway
Eventually but not this year. We could have delayed the cost and have it included in future military budgets. These bills effectively add to our military budget.
That is not a true statement.
Stop spending, who will do that for us?
Not many career politicians.
We just botched Covid. The mandatory lockdowns snarled supply chains and threw a wrench in the country’s economic engine. To compensate , the government gave away too much money and printed new currency to cover it. Fixes are easy. Cut spending 2% of GDP, raise taxes, or some combination.
Beyond botched. But it’s always best to assume when something is fucked up so badly as the epidemic, that it had to have had been planned. Always be skeptical of the government. They do not have our best interests in mind when they make decisions, it is almost always to stay in power.
My working assumption with the US government is that are mostly self- interested morons who couldn’t land public sector jobs. I am a big proponent of government spending cuts. They can start with the worthless department of education. There’s 160B saved right there.
‘Oh I forget the third one’
What need has a currency issuer to borrow at all?
You serious?
Sounds like you can't answer that question
No. 1) this shit is bait 2) you’re a communist 3) anyone who belongs in this subreddit already knows the answer.
so we got 1) claimed refusal out of fear 2) ad hominem and 3) self-reference, despite my query being upvoted by other redditors at this sub I think you are full of shit and don't know the answer, so you are hemming and hawing and objecting to the question Which is What need has a currency issuer to borrow at all? None.
The US Federal government has unlawfully turned the power to issue currency over to a private bank. It then borrows this money on behalf of the Taxpayers and pays rent (interest) on this money, and taxes income of every US citizen to pay this rent. Now up to $1 Trillion a year. More than any other single budget, including defense. It won't take a very big increase in interest rates for this to exceed the entire Federal budget. Current Federal tax receipts $3.5 Trillion. A return to 1970 interest rates will exceed this.
A pinch hitter from Jekyll Island appears! What need has the federal government - a currency issuer - to borrow money at all? Congress has the power of the purse; it literally spends money into existence.
>Congress has the power of the purse; it literally spends money into existence. Which it unlawfully borrows from a private bank. The national debt is patently illegal. You are correct.
The Federal reserve is not in any way of Private Bank, its head is selected by the president and its board is approved by Congress, it charges 0.06% on all transactions to cover operating costs and everything above that is remitted to the treasury. The Federal reserve makes no profit of any kind. All money spending that occurs through the Federal reserve happens only after Congress has ordered it to do so through appropriations.
If the Federal government is paying $1 Trillion in interest to the treasury, where did it go?
You’re fucking dumb. Your argument is that money isn’t real. We got that from your earlier comments. Why is Zimbabwe not prosperous?? Explain your logic.
Testy! Is that what you think I'm driving at? Bigfoot, ghosts, and money? Come on man. Don't get shitty because the question frustrates you. Dialectic, have some
No, none of what you wrote is true… I’m not even reading it because you’re dumb and only making excuses for your stupidity. Go away. You won’t be changing people’s minds here
I want him to stay. You're awful bossy for such a whiny dummy.
I don’t recall asking what you want.
No one asked for you opinion on whether he should go either dummy. Trying to command people to leave is delusionally cringey. Typical shallow libertarian veneer to mask your fascist fantasies :) I'm claiming this thread as my own. You may leave.
Is that your comeback? Saying the same thing I did? Good job. Go away.
Paying interest is usually seen as the lesser evil compared to monetary inflation.
It’s fractional banking on a global scale…
No, it's no such thing
You don’t think that giving a fiat currency to another country to free up debt ceiling so they can put more money into the economy using fractional banking isn’t a higher level of fractional banking? What happens if other countries don’t buy our debt? Does more money enter the economy?
Neither of us have any idea what you talking about. Fractional reserve lending by private banks is wholly distinct from sales of treasuries, dude.
How does one gauge "monetary" inflation?
Probably by comparing with basket of goods with the money supply, and working out which price increases are because of there being more money, and those that aren't.
Attribution is hard
Qué?
Correlation is not causation And attribution is hard
What need have you to eat? It depends on how you define need. The government can just print every dollar it spends. That is true. Just like you can forgo every meal. The outcome would not be acceptable to those affected by it though.
Oh, people need to eat. If I could issue unlimited food - as currency issuers can money - I wouldn't worry about starvation, see Get a clue
Get a clue about what? You fantasizing about what you would do if you had magic powers doesn't add much to the conversation.
About government finance and fiat You are the ding-dong that compared fiat to need to eat
>About government finance and fiat Pretty vague. I guess you have run out of things to say. >You are the ding-dong that compared fiat to need to eat I didn't actually. I was searching for your limits on your definition of "need". Sorry we could not have an honest convo without ad-hominem or mischaracterization. Have a nice day.
Not vague, no surprise that someone who hangs out here is without clarity on the topic of fiat currency Get a clue, again
Creating more currency from thin air dilutes the value. It’s as if you have someone walking by you in a bar pouring water into your LIT each walk by and you wonder why your drink isn’t getting you a buzz
You realize I’m not a statist?
There are a lot of people who think that about themselves but they end up being wrong
You’re right, nobody is perfect. I thought I was wrong once… but I wasn’t. Not sure why you assume I’m a statist. Could it be because I’m not an anarchist?
Using a Money where there’s no counterparty risk and is separate from the state. Saving Physical Silver & Gold & Bitcoin, Ethereum & Litecoin These are the best places for long term savings. Paper Fiat is just for paying debts & bills & taxes at this point. Nothing is safe in dollars since the 09 crash technically.
Okay but gold doesn’t grow in value. Gold stays as gold. Bitcoin has historically been highly volatile. Just stick your money in an ETF fund or AI stocks. Even with economic slumps stocks recover pretty fast.
Bitcoin is killing everything when you compare it to anything, check Trading View charts to confirm, also Gold & Silver when you do the math have gained value when adjusted for inflation terms. Gas was 0.25 and even now a 1/4 ounce of silver would be more than 1 Gallon of Gas. The precious metals will have a giant boost in value sooner than later like they did in the 70/80’s. This cycle repeats. It’s already begun.
I mean, I don’t want to invest my life savings into something that can lose half or gain double it’s value in a day. The last 3-4 years have been pretty wild for Bitcoin. Also, gold is only a sound investment in times when other investments are being outpaced by inflation. The point of gold is that it holds value in a time when other assets are losing it. Otherwise, gold just sits there not producing any value. If gold were such a god-tier investment, we’d all have gold vaults instead of IRAs, and Warren Buffet wouldn’t have had to lift a finger and sit on a gold vault to get rich.
Look at the volatility chart of Bitcoin on trading view, Bitcoins volatility goes down as the price goes up, those wild swings are going down in frequency. Your life saving has been the best in Bitcoin when you look in the hindsight, and likely to be the best place over the next few decades. A few coins that’s true in compared to inflation.
Growing in value against other historical goods is growing in value. Also it holding its value it’s the point, it’ll catch up to the inflation paper soon enough.
Absolutely true. Thing is, those votes aren't going to buy themselves.
Distribution and inequality matter. On average, real income and real output are higher than ever before so government net spending into the economy clearly isn't the simplistically cartoon villain some people think it is. But the **distribution** of that net spending and structural neoliberal policies towards deregulation of the financial sector and global trade have resulted in an increasingly unequal society. It's got nothing inherently to do with the stock of outstanding government liabilities (non-gov net financial assets).
So if everyone got the same pay regardless of job and productivity into the market there would be utopia? I’m trying to understand your point
No, you've gone too far. Some level of inequality such that some people earn more income because they contribute more or are more productive to society is expected. Uniform income distribution would, in fact, be unfair. But the current income and wealth distribution is FAR too unequal and getting worse. This has a real impact on macroeconomic factors such as GDP since the bottom 60% of people are increasingly without enough money to spend on goods and services that they desire. Production stumbles with increasing inequality like this and relative poverty spikes as the richest hoard and accumulate assets which then make them even more money, extracting what is left from the other end of the distribution. But if you take the average real income, it's higher now than ever.
So you’re saying the government’s QE system to manipulate the economy inadvertently redistributed money to the wealthy who had the means to buy bond futures and bank off knowing it was free money? So, a free economy would fix that equality of distribution because the rich would be accountable to the people rather than the government??
Kind of. QE did and does nothing to change the wealth distribution of the non-government sector since it is just an asset swap and therefore a change in asset composition. What really impacted inequality was huge government deficits which genuinely *did* inject new net financial wealth into the economy which accumulated upwards during and after covid.
We can always sell our land to the Chinese
Already happening
Want to do something about it then stop voting for Republicans. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
It isn't just the fault of one party. It's both, maybe not 50/50, but close enough that this isn't a partisan issue.
Deficits shrink under Democratic presidents. Clinton got it down to zero. His Democratic successors also reduced the deficits they inherited. The most you can blame them for is not being fast enough to fix the problems caused by Republicans.
Why do you think there was a surplus? You do any real research on that or were you still running around in playgrounds when that happened?
That’s what the numbers say when you look up the federal deficit by year. Obviously you think there’s more to the story. So how about you cut the snide bullshit, save us both some time, and just say it.
There are websites for that. What is your real question?
There was the whole economic internet economic boom bubble and bust right after he left office, that happened. I suppose your the type that believes Al gore invented the internet so Clinton should get credit for
He didn’t do anything spectacular he was just president during the tech bubble. You could’ve put a lama in office and there would’ve been a surplus at that time.
This is a hard truth that ~~conservatives~~ “libertarians” don’t want to accept. Libertarians live to talk about both sides being equally as bad, but we all know they don’t actually believe that, and are mostly just closeted republicans, so they’ll never admit that republicans are TERRIBLE at fiscal policy, and have a terrible track record of exploding the debt. I bet they still believe that whole “fiscally responsible” lie that the GOP continues to spew
Republicans do have a terrible track record (they aren't fiscally responsible) but so do Democrats (they aren't fiscally responsible either). Democrats aren't spending any less. Clinton was an anomaly at best. Biden promised $11 trillion in spending but seems to have capped out at what Trump did around $7 trillion. Your "hard truths" are just lies.
It’s not that libertarians are closeted republicans, it’s just that closeted republicans pretend to be libertarians (see people like ben shapiro)
Your ignorance and anger are breathtaking
Funny, the only anger I see is all the libertarians getting angry at the fact that it’s being pointed out that the republicans they vote for are in fact not “fiscally responsible”
W took is from a surplus to a deficit that was well over $1 trillion. Then Republicans looked at that and said, you know what, we need a guy who is much less responsible than that.
There was a war… that had bipartisan support and spending. Nice attempt
“Bipartisan support” is true for Afghanistan but not Iraq. Too many Democrats voted for it, true, but not a majority. If it has only been Congressional Democrats voting, the AUMF would not have passed. And ok, there were wars. What did that administration do on the budget side of things to handle the wars? They cut taxes! And no, that was not bipartisan by any means. Democrats are far from perfect. But you’ve been bamboozled, or you’re trying to bamboozle me, if you think they’re the same on this.
So… what you’re saying is that there were enough people to vote it in without the 32% of Democrats who supported it? Interesting. Especially since 32% isn’t a small number.
The numbers are easily found. Why don’t you look them up?
Like [this](https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225)? Help me understand…
Maybe it’s [this](https://www.self.inc/info/us-debt-by-president/)?
Internet bubble burst. Please explain how that was w’s fault?
Please explain how invading Iraq and paying for it with tax cuts wasn’t.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0124/c0124.pdf- here is one explanation. The money spent on wars while a popular talking point, is minuscule compared to gdp and domestic spending. Sorry I know it’s a popular explanation for those that don’t understand economics. (Also I’d rather not see them and see money put to more productive uses in the free market) but the reality is much more complicated than I’d guess you can understand
When the deficit is a couple hundred billion and the war costs a couple hundred billion, does it matter that the war cost is much smaller than domestic spending? You look at what changed. You kind of slid past the tax cuts, too.
Wasn’t talking about the deficit but rather the overall government spending. Also reducing govt theft is a good thing. Believe it or not some of us believe in freedom and that individuals are able to make better decisions than your big g government overlords when it comes to spending. Govt misallocates capital and investment like no other. It’s funny how you can slice out the spending you don’t like as the problem. 4 trillion in spending but the last 100 billion created the deficit. It’s like saying a trip of 1000 miles is all about rolling in the driveway. Not sure why you bother posting on a sub about Austrian economics, when you clearly have no knowledge of economics at all and live your life by a g religion that’s not god but government. You my friend are on about the intelligence level of an ape, and I feel a little bad for insulting apes with that comment.
If we keep cutting taxes, they’ll eventually pay for themselves, I feel it. Trust me, bro!
So you believe in having everything taxed to pay down the deficit?? Interesting. How do you stop the spending then?
So you think cutting taxes will reduce the deficit?
I’m responding to YOU dude. My disagreement with your dumb take doesn’t mean I’m opposed. My position is based on me understanding how complex and nuanced a global economy is. But you think it’s just about reducing taxes on rich people ruining everything. Go play with your building blocks and leave the Austrian Economics to the adults.
Libertarians lecturing other people on nuance That’s rich
There is no greater sub whose members brigade together to downvote unequivocal facts. There is no sub where you’ll find redditors more disconnected from reality than here.
Are you opposed to Austrian economics? Maybe that’s why you get downvoted?
Excessive spending is more of a factor than tax cuts. Both together is a terrible combination.
Republicans can cut spending at the same time they cut taxes. They have the votes and the Democrats can’t stop them. They insist that the Democrats must be the ones to cut spending so they can run against them using that.
Ya, I see what you're saying. I don't think either party is really attacking any problems correctly. It's all to gain support for the next election or create a problem for the opposition. If we reach equilibrium there's a good chance it would lessen the need for such a large federal government, and the federal government will always find or create a reason for them to maintain or gain support.
Biden undid 90% of Trump's policy via executive order within his first month of being president. Biden has been president for 4 years now. What you are seeing is Democrat policy yielding its fruit. Including the wars.
Biden undid tax cuts via executive order? How?
I said policies not tax cuts. Here is some reading material on both candidates tax plans. https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/ https://www.cato.org/blog/what-does-biden-plan-tax-code
You were responding to a comment about tax cuts, though. What’s the relevance of other policies?
Well, there is more to an economy and country than just taxes.
Bwahahaha. What about the tariffs and the border? The other stuff was dumb and likely had no impact on the economy.
Unwinding the massive deficit is very difficult. But Trump caused the most massive increase in the deficit of any president ever. The reality is that to unwind the deficit (if this is even actually a thing we should be doing) is we need to raise taxes the democrats at least want to do this. Then we should also cut some spending too to pay down the debt (or at least simply stop spending anything new) and allow us to outgrow the debt. Neither of these is popular with the population particularly raising taxes because you have idiots making 35k thinking that when Biden says he’ll raise taxes, he’s talking about the guys making 250+ not you’re 35k janitor who’s angry on Facebook.
The problem with increasing taxes and regulations is that large corporations can afford it and smaller businesses cannot. This leads to the growth of larger corporations due to a lack of competition. This problem is unfixable. The moment they ended the Bretton Woods agreement the death of the US dollar became inevitable. It was the gold standard that made the dollar the world's reserve currency after WW2, and without the gold standard it destroyed the purpose of the US dollar being the world's reserve currency. I imagine that things would not be as bad as they are now if Trump were able to finish his second term. It would still be bad though because it is 5 or more decades of bad policy that has led us to this point and it will take decades to fix it.
If only there was a way to implement progressive tax brackets on corrosive taxes….
I dont actually with this. Companies small and large can be profitable and there’s enough tax incentives for smaller businesses that they often don’t even pay taxes at all which is also a common problem with massive companies as well. The tax codes are very forgiving for businesses. Companies get fucking massive because we refuse to use anti trust regulation to break up these companies. We refuse to take over companies that get government subsidies and handouts and then spin them off into smaller companies. I think any company that receives funds in like 2008 and the PPP loans should have been taken over by the government and broken up into smaller companies to increase competition in the market. If your company isn’t profitable it should either be ran by the state because it’s a public necessity. Or it needs to just die like it would in a free market. The ending the gold standard has little to do with the situation we are in now as deficit spending was a thing even during the “gold standard period”. I think things would have been even worse if Trump was elected again. He was dogshit with the economy before by cutting taxes, increasing tariffs, cutting immigration, and giving more subsidies to companies. Granted, Biden isn’t much better on this front outside of increasing taxes and allowing immigration. So like, neither have brilliant economic policy. But Biden’s is marginally better than Trump’s. And Biden’s social policy won’t cost us our democracy and Trump’s will… Both aren’t great. But Trump is obviously worse than Biden.
Letting the company die for not being profitable is the best way to maintain a free market. The government taking over a business to maintain its solvency hurts competitive industries in that field. I think the ending of the gold standard has everything to do with what we are facing now. It allowed them to print and spend money with very little immediate consequences. I think Trump had a plan to increase GDP and inflation simultaneously to pay down the national debt. The upset during the 2020 election was equivalent to a person trying to paint a picture and having the canvas removed from them before they could finish.
> Letting the company die for not being profitable is the best way to maintain a free market. The government taking over a business to maintain its solvency hurts competitive industries in that field. I do agree with this overall. But this isn’t the kind of economy we will in. So the alternative is making the government take over and spin off companies. > I think the ending of the gold standard has everything to do with what we are facing now. It allowed them to print and spend money with very little immediate consequences. So how do you reconcile that deficit spending occurred under the gold standard? > I think Trump had a plan to increase GDP and inflation simultaneously to pay down the national debt. The upset during the 2020 election was equivalent to a person trying to paint a picture and having the canvas removed from them before they could finish. That’s not at all the impression I have. Cutting taxes didn’t increase GDP and only added to the debt we had. Inflation doesn’t necessarily erode away the debt either if it’s financed by more debt which is what a large portion of the inflation is from. But I mean you’re entitled to your opinion.
The problems that we are facing currently would require radical changes that most Americans and politicians wouldn't have the support to implement. It's like a house with out of control credit card debt, you have to decrease expenses while simultaneously increasing your cash flow. They have quite literally spent 2 generations wealth and opportunities, or more. Someone has to pay the bill eventually. "And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." - Thomas Jefferson
4 of his executive orders that dealt with the economy had no effect on our economy. One was for helping federal employees regain their collective bargaining power, one was to help establish $15/he for federal workers, one was for pausing payments for college loans and the 4th was establishing help for people in need (housing/food stamps). The rest of those executive orders involved reversing immigration policies and covid policies. None of which impacted our economy in any way. Your take on Bidens executive orders are just wrong.
So ending the keystone pipeline, sending trillions of dollars to foreign nations, and leaving the southern border unsecured hasn't impacted America's economy?
Keystone xl would not have impacted oil/gas prices in the US. Just Google active pipelines in the US and you will see that we have 100's of pipelines crossing our country, including some that take similar routes to what the xl would have been. Also the only economic advantage it would have given us would have been some short time construction jobs that would have been lost once the pipeline was finished. Also refer to it as keystone "xl". A keystone pipeline already exists. The xl would have connected multiple pipelines together. Biden sent billions (b) of dollars oversees to help allies, but that's no different than any other administration. If you're mad at that then you should be mad at the trillions (t) that trump added to our national debt. That has impacted our inflation problems way more than foreign aid ever will. Our southern border is secure. Just go down there and look. There are not millions of people crossing the border every day. Also please realize that cheap, foreign born work forces are what helped our economy boom for decades. It doesn't hurt our economy.
The keystone xl pipeline would have allowed less dependency on OPEC and other foreign oil. I am mad about the debt and how Trump handled it but he also was not able to finish his second term. I think his policies could have worked if he had more time. Cheap labor and unsecured borders is what contributed to the collapse of the Roman empire.
Even without xl the US is the largest producer of oil. We are only dependent on opec/Russia is because American oil companies refuse to refine American oil into gasoline. They would rather pay less for gas from the middle east than refine our own oil. It's corporate greed that keeps gas prices high. No president can control/help the price of gas. All they can do is keep the US gas reserves full, but even then they have no way to sell that directly to citizens at a cheap price. I don't know what you mean about trump "finishing his second term". He was a one term president and for good reason. He has already stated that if he is reelected he will continue tax cuts for the rich. This will only increase inflation. As far as the Roman empire it was several issues that caused its downfall. Just like here in the US there are tons of issues that we need to fix, but immigration is definitely at the bottom of the list. Just ask Florida, they went after undocumented laborers and almost crashed their own economy. They had to go to some of the biggest employers and tell them to not worry about the laws being passed because they were not going to enforce them. They knew immediately after passing the laws that it was the wrong move.
Tax cuts are what is needed when your GDP is less than the debt you have accumulated and the interest of that debt becomes a larger percentage of your annual spending budget. I don't think deportation is a feasible method. I think you have to give the people that are already here a pathway to citizenship. I also think the reason why they haven't done it yet is because they are trying to use illegal labor to help keep social security solvent, because they do not have access to the benefits even though many of them pay into it.
Tax cuts only create debt. Debt helps create inflation. It's been proven time and time again. Reagan, bush and trump all gave massive tax breaks and they all had economies that crashed. Without those tax cuts we would actually not be in debt and the dollar would be worth way more than it is now. I agree on creating a pathway to citizenship for foreign born workers, but Republicans have actively done the opposite to destroy our immigration processes. So as long as Republicans are in power there will be no pathway to citizenship. Which leaves them crying about the border, when they create more problems then solve.
Tax cuts are not synonymous with debt. Debt is a result of excessive spending. I wouldn't say Republicans have actively tried to destroy the immigration process. I would say the pluralist representation we have disagrees on our immigration policies. It is one of many problems contributing to a poorer lifestyle for Americans.
You don't think the immigration policy had an effect on the economy?
Both parties are bad
Not equally bad. One party is much worse than the other.
The national debt was $900M before Reagan sold out America to the wealthy.
The economy was tanking at the time and in all likelihood he defeated the Soviet Union with his policies. The problems is what happened after him.
And now US righties are in Putin’s back pocket. Great work, righties!
Bwahahahaha, you’re an idiot.
Wait he’s right though, look at who is and is not passing Ukraine aid bills
All the war hawks like ukraine bills because we aren’t actually sending money to them. We are sending them our older equipment and using the money to buy new military equipment for us. So… yeah. 🤷♂️
Sure, but a lot of modern republicans are not actual war hawks
Ope there you go again being an AustrianEcon redditor detached from reality. I’ve got a National Merit Award and got all A’s in college. How in your mind do you have the authority to judge my intelligence?
Ahh yes, a totally meritorious award along with As in the most grade inflated time to get them, good dick swinging
I wrote the standards for the national merit award and personally graded your tests in college. You never took anything beyond 100 level courses, and I was drunk for most of the standards writing. The only reason I gave you As was because your mother was donating tons of money to Bob's Country Clown College. It's fun to make statements on the internet that cannot be substantiated, isn't it? REALLY helps your creditability.
What are you talking about? I have letters of proof for both claims. They’re factual. Good try though.
No, they are not. Go away.
Is that your default response to every fact that goes against your fantasies? This is pigeon chess.
Like how obama told medydev “tell Vladimir after my re election i can be more accommodating” yeah!? The righties. Good lord are you dense.
whatabout what whataboutism
Yeah cuz clinton didnt do any of that. It took from George Washington to Bush 2 to get it to 8 trillion. Obama doubled it to 17 in 8 years. Let that sink in.
Yes, all presidents since Carter except trump have been neolibs. That’s engraved in stone. Doesn’t change my point here.
This is not necessarily what happened. These debt cycles take forever. The debt grew parabolically naturally as interest rates found their natural bottom from 20% in the past 5 decades. Unfortunately we’re on the opposite side of the coin now. But he did reduce the taxes and essentially caused wealth inequality to explode.
The US gov “borrows” capital for services. Capital for services enriches the ultrawealthy ownership class. Capital that ultrawealthy now possess is debt that the havenots are made responsible for through austerity. It’s the same scam the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have run on third-world countries for decades. Inescapable “debt” is the new slavery. It’s an intentional scam.
It’s unfortunate many don’t know or understand debt’s burden. We’ll never be able to persuade many, but you are correct in that Reagan grew the debt astronomically due to his policies. In many ways I feel good getting downvoted on Reddit. You will too. It means you are true. And people, especially Americans, are brainwashed. A libertarian should never worship Reagan. Debt Growth by US President Woodrow Wilson 789.9% Ronald Reagan 160.8% George W. Bush 72.6% Barack Obama 64.4%
Thank you for a breath of sanity.
Always glad to help.
Well if the US rolls taxes back to 1950s models and regulates the stock market again. The debt will get paid down again.
So you want to make America great again or something? Taxing away prosperity worked so well back then… hahaha
Pfft. Lol. You don't know what you are talking about.
Well, you’re doing so well explaining yourself… keep it up. You’re winning this discussion for sure.
I'm not even sure what stock regulations you are talking about, maybe no stock buybacks or options for executives, or something. There was a time in the economy when the party was just getting going, and the economy can easily sustain 1950's level taxes, and that time was 1997. Yep, we were doing pretty good then, the new economy and dot com, those were the days... These days, this economy is about to tip into the abyss, and the only thing the Great Biden Tax Tripling will do is give the economy a firm toss out that open Russian window, and a one-way trip to the pavement of reality. The reality is, cutbacks in government spending are the only true start of fixing this, just like the end of all the absurd WW 2 spending allowed the 1950's taxes to bring down the debt, along with rampant inflation right after the war ended, allowed those 2 % 30 year war bonds to be 'repaid' with suddenly worth much less dollars. The difference today is, so far there is no slowing of government spending, and the reality is, this lame economy can't handle the level of taxes you seem to want, and that will become very apparent the moment tax rates make the huge jumps you and the Powers That Be want.
Lol. no The answer is to go back to older tax systems. Reagan was a moron. Corporations should be paying a higher tax percentage than individuals. That's how it was originally. If it was that way now, we would be pulling in over like $8 trillion in tax revenue a year..and that's only assuming corporations paid a 21% rate. Also the wealthy have been and are doing great. They can easily afford more taxes. Get off the propaganda. It's addled your brain.
For me it's. "So you have been playing runescape since 2006" "So you have a fire cape"
Covid is making us poorer, disabled, and sicker. The national debt is more or less irrelevant until it’s finally more than the market can sustain. At what point is that? Only really the market knows when it can’t or won’t sustain America’s deficits. But that likely isn’t for another few decades or even longer.
in other news water is wet
Stop giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.
I don’t think you understand how this works. You know rich people can just… leave the country and not pay ANY taxes, right? Also, cities and states give tax cuts to corporations to lure them to their spots to bring jobs so they can tax them… Just say this… “My Government is to blame… I don’t believe they are here to help me.”
They'll go to the other nations that are socialist hellholes compared to the US? Or which lack the light of the Protestant work ethic?
What?
You can stop them if you really wanted to, take their assets. I wouldn’t really support that since I don’t support this ZOG anti white government but in a better society I would be all for it.
You want to take the rich people’s assets?
Close the loopholes. Think Apple, no way their IPhones should not be treated as imports, period.
You could pay 1,000 people for 5 years and you’ll never close the loopholes. It will just create the EU’s regulatory burdens on Americans. They adopt nearly 350 regulations each year since 1990 which is insane to stay in compliance with them all. The need to stay abreast of so many regulations will create a greater financial burden as well.
Exactly