Support NeoGAF

[cdkee]

Wages stagnated because of the fiat money system? Where does political forces enter I to your equation?

Like Charlie said, most of what you're listing can be attributed to poor policy like trickle down economics. Poor wealth redistribution. Shit minimum wage laws etc etc.

Pretty much.

 

[kirblar]

1980 was also the start of trickle down economics and Americas new found love of sucking corporate cock.

Oh! You know what leads to income inequality but doesn't lead to growth? Tax cuts for the very well off! http://www.offthechartsblog.org/new-study-no-evidence-that-high-end-tax-cuts-help-the-economy/

 

[Dude Abides]

But what if the banking system is a closed system, Sanky?

I can't watch right now, is there anything about The Jews?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah that's my point. Humanity is incapable of being generous and selfless enough to live in such a society. Therefore a finite currency just can't work.

Oh, I see. You're saying interest doesn't work in a fixed currency society, and not in general? I completely agree then, yes, apologies. Misunderstanding on my behalf.

 

[Gotchaye]

"Rights" in this context is always hilarious to me.

The real wage growth stagnation is the result of us leaving behind an era of spectacular technological innovation and entering an era where we're starting to stagnate. The advances are large, but they're no longer occurring at near the same rate, and they're also obsoleting many low-skill labor jobs.

Productivity's still growing, though, so I don't know that there actually is overall "stagnation". What requires explanation is that productivity and median wages have decoupled (I do understand that you recognize this and that you're gesturing at a theory in your last sentence).

Some people are convinced that inflation is what accounts for this, but I have yet to see a plausible explanation of how that's working, or really any explanation that isn't obviously full of holes.

 

[marrec]

But what if the banking system is a closed system, Sanky?

I can't watch right now, is there anything about The Jews?

Lots and lots and lots of stuff about 'powerful bankers' who 'secretly run the currency system'.

What do you think?

 

[empty vessel]

The consequences of this system (in place in its current form since the 1970's) are clear:

- Record amounts of personal and government debt (with the interest payments going to the top 1%)

- Income inequality now is greater than it was during the times of slavery

- Wages are stagnant, so that we have lost purchasing power compared to pre-1980's.

- Increasing magnitude of boom and bust cycles that affect the global economy

- Record number of people relying on food stamps and disability programs (no fault of their own)

- People having to resort to more than one part-time job, or dual incomes simply to get by (unlike our grandparents)

- Higher costs of medicine, school, cars, houses, etc... all due to inflation.

The list goes on and on, and the root of the issue is our debt-based economy, and financial institutions having free reign over our money supply.

This book will do a far better job explaining all of these phenomena than a youtube video.

And this book will do a far better job explaining the monetary system we have and how it works than a youtube video.

 

[kirblar]

But what if the banking system is a closed system, Sanky?

I can't watch right now, is there anything about The Jews?

I remember when a news organization had to annotate the PM of Turkey's remarks about a "cabal of bankers" by saying "He means Jews."

 

[Sanky Panky]

"Rights" in this context is always hilarious to me.

The real wage growth stagnation is the result of us leaving behind an era of spectacular technological innovation and entering an era where we're starting to stagnate. The advances are large, but they're no longer occurring at near the same rate, and they're also obsoleting many low-skill labor jobs.

Real wage growth stagnation, by its very defition, is nominal wages not keeping up with inflation. The banks got the puppets they dreamed off with Reagan and Thatcher, and labor power was suppressed, we switched to a debt-based society, but more importantly.... 1978 was a landmark year for financial innovation, when mortgage-backed securities took a hold in our society. This created debt-based assets that the top 1% could exploit, with the benefit of the Fed and Treasury ready to bail them out when the bets turned sour. This system design is not a coincidence... it had a long history prior to the most recent bail-outs.

Because a) banks could freely print fiat money, b) the Fed incentivized borrowing via low rates after Volcker (dirty secret is that Greenspan was an advocate for the gold standard before he had to fall in line as Fed chairman), and c) government tax policy further distributed wealth to the rich, you had the perfect storm to take us to where we are today.

 

[cdkee]

If you want to address wealth inequality and debt, talk to politicians. Tell them to raise taxes on the rich who are enjoying historically low rates. Problem solved. Has nothing to do with fiat currency.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you want to address wealth inequality and debt, talk to politicians. Tell them to raise taxes on the rich who are enjoying historically low rates. Problem solved. Has nothing to do with fiat currency.

Also, design better taxes. Why do we still basic our taxation system around income and not wealth? (particularly capital wealth).

 

[Sanky Panky]

This book will do a far better job explaining all of these phenomena than a youtube video.

And this book will do a far better job explaining the monetary system we have and how it works than a youtube video.

For your first book, it will serve you better to understand the power and money that is behind politics. My point is that you have to follow the money.

And no... I've read enough about MMT to understand that it is the Harry Potter of economics. Quite popular with ultra-leftists (I'm a leftist myself), but too much fiction and wishful thinking.

 

[Jimothy]

If you want to address wealth inequality and debt, talk to politicians. Tell them to raise taxes on the rich who are enjoying historically low rates. Problem solved. Has nothing to do with fiat currency.

Social spending on poor and middle class people does a better job of reducing inequality than just taxing the rich. These policies should go in tandem like they are in Scandinavian countries.

 

[theprodigy]

For your first book, it will serve you better to understand the power and money that is behind politics. My point is that you have to follow the money.

And no... I've read enough about MMT to understand that it is the Harry Potter of economics. Quite popular with ultra-leftists (I'm a leftist myself), but too much fiction and wishful thinking.

ahaha
AHAHAHA
good one

 

[Gotchaye]

Real wage growth stagnation, by its very defition, is nominal wages not keeping up with inflation. The banks got the puppets they dreamed off with Reagan and Thatcher, and labor power was suppressed, we switched to a debt-based society, but more importantly.... 1978 was a landmark year for financial innovation, when mortgage-backed securities took a hold in our society. This created debt-based assets that the top 1% could exploit, with the benefit of the Fed and Treasury ready to bail them out when the bets turned sour. This system design is not a coincidence... it had a long history prior to the most recent bail-outs.

Because a) banks could freely print fiat money, b) the Fed incentivized borrowing via low rates after Volcker (dirty secret is that Greenspan was an advocate for the gold standard before he had to fall in line as Fed chairman), and c) government tax policy further distributed wealth to the rich, you had the perfect storm to take us to where we are today.

But there's still no mechanism here. Yes, real wage stagnation is when nominal wages don't keep up with inflation. But you need something else, like "if there had been no inflation nominal wages would still have grown by about the same amount and overall growth would have been about the same", in order to say that inflation is a cause of stagnation. How is this supposed to work? My impression of your posts has been that you decry inflation and bankers, and say "follow the money", but then never actually explain how this inflationary plan is supposed to work.

 

[Somnid]

Also, design better taxes. Why do we still basic our taxation system around income and not wealth? (particularly capital wealth).

Because income is a better indicator of where you are at now. If you had a good job and lost it then looking at wealth is bad because it may not be there for long. Certainly other things need to be factored in than just pure paychecks though.

 

[Quixzlizx]

You'd be naive to think personal anecdote means anything here. I have lots of school debt but I also make pretty decent money but that's irrelevant because tons of people aren't. The problem is debt, if you are broke but your country provides universal healthcare then money simply isn't a factor. Just because you can make that back and then some once a broken arm mends doesn't mean it's not a setback of opportunity.

And that's the "positive" of debt, extra opportunity if you are 100% absolutely sure what you are doing will pay off, which is never the case. Normally opportunity is just something you miss but you aren't punished for failure. Debt however can easily cancel it out or make things worse, it's more accurately a risk with possible reward and it's risk that people often don't have choices about. It's never a positive to carry debt, the only way you know it was good is once it's settled.

You missed the entire point of my posts, considering risk vs. reward was the entire theme of them. I'll spell it out again for you, then. Debt is a risk, but there are many things you can do to minimize the potential risk and maximize the potential reward. Many people do NOT do these things, whether due to ignorance or apathy, and they end up worse off than they could've been because of it. Nothing is a sure thing, and it is stupid to claim that the practice is flawed because it isn't. It's like saying that we shouldn't drive cars because car accidents happen. If you drive safely and defensively and wear a seat belt, the risk of something catastrophic happening is lowered. That doesn't mean that it can't happen, but you wouldn't tell me not to wear a seat belt, or not to drive at all, just because arriving at your destination safely isn't a sure thing, would you?

My personal anecdote was not meant to prove that everyone can have the same outcome that I did, but that there are definitely things that are COMPLETELY IN YOUR CONTROL to help avoid a terrible outcome. If you racked up six-figure debt to acquire a non-marketable degree, I have zero sympathy for you, since that is completely avoidable.

 

[kirblar]

ahaha
AHAHAHA
good one

I'm expecting a rant about "The Proletariat" to pop out at any moment.

 

[King Mystery]

I've got a couple of those Walking Liberty silver half-dollars. When the economy collapses, I'm gonna use them to buy my way across the Canadian border where I'll start a new life as a sheep shearer on sheep farm owned by a sheep farmer.

 

[Fenderputty]

ahaha
AHAHAHA
good one

He actually is. Just a lefty with a hate for fiat money.

 

[Coconut]

As if the gold standard isn't also easily manipulated. Let's get rid of all forms of currency.

 

[Sanky Panky]

But there's still no mechanism here. Yes, real wage stagnation is when nominal wages don't keep up with inflation. But you need something else, like "if there had been no inflation nominal wages would still have grown by about the same amount and overall growth would have been about the same", in order to say that inflation is a cause of stagnation. How is this supposed to work? My impression of your posts has been that you decry inflation and bankers, and say "follow the money", but then never actually explain how this inflationary plan is supposed to work.

Overall population growth is pretty static and relatively easy to predict, hence consumer spending (based on the money wage rate) should also be relatively stable. The instability (and inflation outpacing nominal wages) comes from money being created by banks in an environment that accomodates for this, and consumption being allocated to non-productive things (wars, gadgets, etc). Borrowing for consumption was encouraged by policy, and by the financial innovations of asset-backed securities. Both strictly benefit the banks and the 1% holders of that debt.

Borrowing for consumption is what has driven nominal GDP growth since the 1980's (not real wages), hence we had Bush with the audacity to ask us to go borrow and spend after 2001. More money borrowed in the economy on rigid salaries, prices will outpace real wage growth.

One prime example of money being printed freely, and government/monetary authorities in cahoots to make this happen is shown here.

This is not a coincidence.

Hyman Minsky's theory of financial instability is a great read on this phenomenom. It has predicted down to a the letter what is going on today. His 1970's interpretation of Keynes is actually what I subscribe to.

 

[fallagin]

Europe has effectively been on the gold standard since 2002 or so. How's that been working out for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain? And due to being currency users, their only options have been devaluations and horrendous budget cuts. So based on what gold bugs believe their economies should be booming and their citizens dancing in the streets.

Yep, if we want to be like greece then we should definitely go to a gold standard.

 

[BigDug13]

As if the gold standard isn't also easily manipulated. Let's get rid of all forms of currency.

Yep. The only takeaway from the video is educating yourself about how the currency and interest system works and how the Fed and taxation is involved. That shit is accurate.

But ignore all the "Gold Standard is the fix" Mumbo Jumbo from the video. It doesn't fix the inherent problem with systemic desire within humanity to borrow more than they have and a lender's desire to make a profit off that borrower's desire to have more than they earn.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a result of human desire and willingness to put their future into hock for gratification now.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

I gave up FIAT currency a year ago and only deal with bitcoins now. I can't buy groceries at the store, but I at least I am not a slave to the 1%

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because income is a better indicator of where you are at now. If you had a good job and lost it then looking at wealth is bad because it may not be there for long. Certainly other things need to be factored in than just pure paychecks though.

That's not relevant. Say you have high wealth. If your income is high, over time you will become more wealthy, and you will be taxed more accordingly. If your income is low or negative, over time you will become less wealthy, and you will taxed less accordingly. In contrast under the current system, if your income is high, you will be taxed more accordingly, and if your income is low or negative, you will be taxed less accordingly. In both systems, lack of income leads to lower taxation rates. Only one causes distortions in the labour market, though.

 

[Sanky Panky]

But ignore all the "Gold Standard is the fix" Mumbo Jumbo from the video. It doesn't fix the inherent problem with systemic desire for people to borrow more than they have and a lender's desire to make a profit off that borrower's desire to have more than they earn.

The beautiful thing is that an economic system self-regulates itself to the point when projections about the future no longer support more debt, the system contracts, debt deflates back to a sustainable level, thjere is price deflation that benefits the holders of actual cash (their purchasing power increases), and the cycle restarts.

The systemic problem comes the holders of power using governments to bail them out, so that their debt never deflates. Normal economic recessions are made to be the boogey man, while its true purpose is to flush out the system from those that made bad debts. The system of power as it stands, is socialism for the wealthy. They get bailed out, the debts get restructured, and each subsequent crisis gets worse and worse (which is what has been happening since the 1980's).

The desire for profits is not bad... it's the desire of a few to hold the power at the expense of others... this is what we should fight against.

 

[No Love]

Oh boy, I'm gonna need a really big toke off the bong to be able to handle this thread.

 

[empty vessel]

Money is a tool to be manipulated by society to maximize the society's well-being.

That is all.

To whatever extent money is manipulated in ways that are detrimental to society, that is a problem with the manner in which the society is organized and how (and by whom) power gets expressed in the society. It is not a problem with money. Placing artificial constraints on the use and flexibility of money that restrict its ability to be used in beneficial ways and to accomplish desired public ends (e.g., by tying it to a commodity or even requiring the government to sell debt instruments) is unhelpful. It's like modifying a hammer to make it more difficult to use or to obscure the purposes to which it can be put.

 

[kirblar]

The beautiful thing is that an economic system self-regulates itself to the point when projections about the future no longer support more debt, the system contracts, debt deflates back to a sustainable level, thjere is price deflation that benefits the holders of actual cash (their purchasing power increases), and the cycle restarts.

The systemic problem comes the holders of power using governments to bail them out, so that their debt never deflates. Normal economic recessions are made to be the boogey man, while its true purpose is to flush out the system from those that made bad debts. The system of power as it stands, is socialism for the wealthy. They get bailed out, the debts get restructured, and each subsequent crisis gets worse and worse (which is what has been happening since the 1980's).

The desire for profits is not bad... it's the desire of a few to hold the power at the expense of others... this is what we should fight against.

The problem is that you and many others are obsessed with debt. The US, for example, will never not be in debt. Money and fiscal policy are tools. If you see "debt" on the national level like you see it for a business or person, you're missing the point. The point is to get people to do stuff. And inflation does that. Why? Because inflation makes investing in "Not Money" better than investing in "Money." We don't want people investing in Money because that leads to even more hoarding than we already have.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Money is a tool to be manipulated by society to maximize the society's well-being.

That is all.

To whatever extent money is manipulated in ways that are detrimental to society, that is a problem with the manner in which the society is organized and how (and by whom) power gets expressed in the society. It is not a problem with money. Placing artificial constraints on the use and flexibility of money that restrict its ability to be used in beneficial ways and to accomplish desired public ends (e.g., by tying it to a commodity or even requiring the government to sell debt instruments) is unhelpful. It's like modifying a hammer to make it more difficult to use or to obscure the purposes to which it can be put.

Alas we fully agree. From that uinderstanding, two truths become apparent:

1) The manner through which power is manifested in our society (0.7% owning 41% of the world's assets), is by influencing governments and central banks for their benefit.

2) The way money is being used today by the holders of the power to create said fiat money IS NOT being used in beneficial ways that accomplish desired public ends.

Once we understand that, we can talk about ways of solving the issue.

 

[kirblar]

Alas we fully agree. From that uinderstanding, two truths become apparent:

1) The manner through which power is manifested in our society (0.7% owning 41% of the world's assets), is by influencing governments and central banks for their benefit.

2) The way money is being used today by the holders of the power to create said fiat money IS NOT being used in beneficial ways that accomplish desired public ends.

Once we understand that, we can talk about ways of solving the issue.

You can't "solve" this issue. People will be selfish. That is human nature.

 

[BakedSardine]

Meanwhile, almost comical:

The debt jumped $328B today

Not making a judgement on anything, but at this point our monetary system, the debt, and everything tied into it is something the average citizen should just ignore. Go about being happy slaves to the machine. Average citizens have no control and the only way to change the system is a mass uprising and Americans are too apathetic for that. Until then, back to gaming.

Yes, I recognize my hypocrisy

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Meanwhile, almost comical:

Not making a judgement on anything, but at this point our monetary system, the debt, and everything tied into it is something the average citizen should just ignore. Go about being happy slaves to the machine. Average citizens have no control and the only way to change the system is a mass uprising and Americans are too apathetic for that. Until then, back to gaming.

Yes, I recognize my hypocrisy

Why does the debt matter? The United States is sovereign currency issuer. It can pay off all its debts at any time by creating new money to pay off those debts.

 

[fallagin]

Money is a tool to be manipulated by society to maximize the society's well-being.

That is all.

To whatever extent money is manipulated in ways that are detrimental to society, that is a problem with the manner in which the society is organized and how (and by whom) power gets expressed in the society. It is not a problem with money. Placing artificial constraints on the use and flexibility of money that restrict its ability to be used in beneficial ways and to accomplish desired public ends (e.g., by tying it to a commodity or even requiring the government to sell debt instruments) is unhelpful. It's like modifying a hammer to make it more difficult to use or to obscure the purposes to which it can be put.

Yep, if you want to go to a gold standard you might as well just eliminate money all together and go back to bartering for goods and services.

 

[BakedSardine]

Why does the debt matter? The United States is sovereign currency issuer. It can pay off all its debts at any time by creating new money to pay off those debts.

100% agree - it's the charade of it all that is comical and that people waste hours and hours on it and there is hours of news on it every night that's is ridiculous. I'm not even sure the inflation would matter if we just printed $17T in money and said to our debtors "We good?"

What was the outcome in the Weimar Republic? All we see are stacks of money in black and white photos, but what was the real impact, long term (or even at the time) on every day life.

Hell, I have a One Hundred Trillian Dollar Bank of Zimbabwe note in front of me. Seems all hyperinflation would do is screw the bankers who are holding the debt, no?

Case in point - someone has a $200,000 mortgage. Hyperinflation hits that that prices skyrocket ($500 for a loaf of bread, for example), but that debt remains fixed. Doesn't hyperinflation actually HELP the middle class (without huge savings) pay off that debt? Obviously I'm not an economist.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm not even sure the inflation would matter if we just printed $17T in money and said to our debtors "We good?"

It likely wouldn't be inflationary. For one, those financial assets are already out in the wild in the form of bonds. So all that would be occurring would be an asset swap. Swapping dollars for bonds (which are just interest-bearing dollars) wouldn't change much. All of the people and entities who have purchased bonds have effectively decided that those are dollars they wish to save. If we were to convert them all into non-interest bearing dollars, those people would likely just figure out a new way to save them (that produced some interest), because that's what they have already decided they want to do. It is not at all obvious that spending in the economy (dollars chasing goods and services) would increase as a result of the swap. And if spending on goods and services does not increase, you will not get demand-pull inflation.

 

[Fantasmo]

A bunch of economists being economists in here, my head is spinning. So can you guys come to a consensus, is the video accurate?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Meanwhile, in reality land:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/the-china-debt-syndrome/



Another thing is that if China dumped US bonds, it would show that China is in trouble to be taking such a recourse, which would mine confidence in China and more than likely increase it in the US. After all, if you sell a company's stock massively out of personal interest rather than based on market-wide recognized facts, you are responding to a personal immediate need. For China to dump bonds, everyone else would have to be in a situation where they too would want to dump their bonds. So unless the US is to be hit by a meteor, the only circumstance in which China would find itself dumping US bonds is in the case of a China-specific economic deterioration, and in that case as Krugman points out, it would not hurt the US at all, the US would benefit from it.

A rapid sell off of US bonds by China would result in a spike in demand for US bonds by everyone else.

When Chinese policymakers realize their obsession with being a net exporter, rolling over debt, and earning interest on a foreign IOU is silly, then they'll go down to a more sensible amount of bonds and notes. If they didn't exchange so many IOUs for bonds and notes like a fool, then deciding hey I want to switch roles wouldn't be so painful. Eventually they'll come down 50-300 billion and stop going way overboard.

 

[marrec]

A bunch of economists being economists in here, my head is spinning. So can you guys come to a consensus, is the video accurate?

The video has some factual information salted about and uses those facts as well as carefully constructed fallacies to come to the false conclusion that fiat currency is untenable and that our current debt progress will eventually, magically, somehow, all blow up in our faces.

 

[Fenderputty]

It likely wouldn't be inflationary. For one, those financial assets are already out in the wild in the form of bonds. So all that would be occurring would be an asset swap. Swapping dollars for bonds (which are just interest-bearing dollars) wouldn't change much. All of the people and entities who have purchased bonds have effectively decided that those are dollars they wish to save. If we were to convert them all into non-interest bearing dollars, those people would likely just figure out a new way to save them (that produced some interest), because that's what they have already decided they want to do. It is not at all obvious that spending in the economy (dollars chasing goods and services) would increase as a result of the swap. And if spending on goods and services does not increase, you will not get demand-pull inflation.

So because the bond holders are likely to continue to save instead of spend, inflation would not occur.

Is there some sort of flow chart with regards to bond creation, or lack of bond creation via more direct channels and how that affects money supply?

 

[HovaHovito]

We should go to a dollar backed by fat. We can go to a bank and have fat extracted
A dollar to the ounce! America would be saved

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It likely wouldn't be inflationary. For one, those financial assets are already out in the wild in the form of bonds. So all that would be occurring would be an asset swap. Swapping dollars for bonds (which are just interest-bearing dollars) wouldn't change much. All of the people and entities who have purchased bonds have effectively decided that those are dollars they wish to save. If we were to convert them all into non-interest bearing dollars, those people would likely just figure out a new way to save them (that produced some interest), because that's what they have already decided they want to do. It is not at all obvious that spending in the economy (dollars chasing goods and services) would increase as a result of the swap. And if spending on goods and services does not increase, you will not get demand-pull inflation.

I imagine you'd get a little. While it is true that you're just swapping bonds for dollars, indicating that people you're giving dollars to weren't intending to spend anyway, presumably the reason they're using bonds rather than some other form of interest-bearing asset is because bonds presumably produce better returns than other forms of interest-bearing asset. When force to substitute for something producing less interest, the opportunity cost associated implies they'll spend a little more. It wouldn't be particularly severe, though.

 

[Christine]

Are there any good games or simulators that attempt to address monetary and fiscal policy effects on economics with a fair degree of realism? This is a serious question.

 

[TylerD]

I'm going to watch it but I literally laughed out loud at the title card.

The Biggest Scam in the History of Mankind

IN 7 EASY STEPS!

I am going to be able to make myself rich after watching this.

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

Edit: Wow, that is pretty eye opening. Unfortunately, it comes off as being rediculous a bit in the way it is presented which works to undermine his message.

 

[Perkel]

These are not a consequence of fiat system but rather a consequence of policy and financial regulations (or lack thereof).

Every country in the world uses a fiat system and not all countries suffer the same problems because they balance capitalism with socialism.

The easiest example is that personal and corporate tax rates and tax brackets are not a consequence of the fiat system. It is a consequence of policy.

Countries that have much more progressive tax structures often have much less income disparity as well. and suffer from less of those symptoms that you listed above.

I would say problems are regulations.

In proper capitalism you are trying to achieve best product at lowest price. In modern capitalism you make change in law so that there won't be any other company like you that can compete with you and you use power as monopolist to throw out competition out of business.

In without regulations world Banks were actuall you know Banks were money was actually kept. You paid small sum for your money safety and bank for this money prospered. If bank earned enough money it could lend it for they profit.

In today regulated bank world all money is virtual. You can't even start a bank service without doing checklist of things that has 0 to do with actual safekeeping money and everything to do with making your "assets" virtual so that they can play with it making additional money on your money and making gov happy by investing your money into economy.

This is why if bank fails you won't see your money like many people already noticed.

It is now actually safer to keep your money as cash in your bed more than ever.

edit:

It was painfully obvious after iceland problems. Why Iceland had to pay for foreign bank problems that worked inside their country ? Because there wasn't any money to begin with. It was all virtual money that suddenly vanished. Regulations said that nation is responsible for private banks fail and Iceland had problem.

They just shown middle finger. Because you can't pay money you didn't have in first place.

 

[Perkel]

100% agree - it's the charade of it all that is comical and that people waste hours and hours on it and there is hours of news on it every night that's is ridiculous. I'm not even sure the inflation would matter if we just printed $17T in money and said to our debtors "We good?"

What was the outcome in the Weimar Republic? All we see are stacks of money in black and white photos, but what was the real impact, long term (or even at the time) on every day life.

Hell, I have a One Hundred Trillian Dollar Bank of Zimbabwe note in front of me. Seems all hyperinflation would do is screw the bankers who are holding the debt, no?

Case in point - someone has a $200,000 mortgage. Hyperinflation hits that that prices skyrocket ($500 for a loaf of bread, for example), but that debt remains fixed. Doesn't hyperinflation actually HELP the middle class (without huge savings) pay off that debt? Obviously I'm not an economist.

Most of debt is safe. In most contract you sign inflation is taken into account and with hyperinflation your debt will also rise. Same this doesn't apply to your safe kept money or people retirement fund.

US can't just make money like you propose. They can do that only in small quantities (relatively) and this still will hit most important part of nation. People.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I imagine you'd get a little. While it is true that you're just swapping bonds for dollars, indicating that people you're giving dollars to weren't intending to spend anyway, presumably the reason they're using bonds rather than some other form of interest-bearing asset is because bonds presumably produce better returns than other forms of interest-bearing asset. When force to substitute for something producing less interest, the opportunity cost associated implies they'll spend a little more. It wouldn't be particularly severe, though.

It's risk to return rate ratio, not just return rate.

 

[Coconut]

Yep. The only takeaway from the video is educating yourself about how the currency and interest system works and how the Fed and taxation is involved. That shit is accurate.

But ignore all the "Gold Standard is the fix" Mumbo Jumbo from the video. It doesn't fix the inherent problem with systemic desire within humanity to borrow more than they have and a lender's desire to make a profit off that borrower's desire to have more than they earn.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a result of human desire and willingness to put their future into hock for gratification now.

I did find it informative on the subject of who the government borrows money from and why we need to do it. Myajor takeaway was that we should do away with currency some how.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's risk to return rate ratio, not just return rate.

Sorry, that was implicitly part of where I said "returns" - I was talking the expected return. Should have been more clear.