Socialism

[Martin Hash]

The National Debt is just a surreptitious method of printing money; in fact, all debt "prints" money. The idea that actually printing the money is somehow harmful and causes inflation stuns credulity.

[brewster]

The National Debt is just a surreptitious method of printing money; in fact, all debt "prints" money. The idea that actually printing the money is somehow harmful and causes inflation stuns credulity.

This is just another case of ideology being impervious to data. Supply Side is the same. Hasn't worked in the 40 years it's been pushed, has only created tremendous inequality, but is still gospel of the right wing.

[DBTrek]

The National Debt is just a surreptitious method of printing money; in fact, all debt "prints" money. The idea that actually printing the money is somehow harmful and causes inflation stuns credulity.

This is just another case of ideology being impervious to data. Supply Side is the same. Hasn't worked in the 40 years it's been pushed, has only created tremendous inequality, but is still gospel of the right wing.

Lots of words.
Few facts.

And the same reliable mantra that "If only we take more for others, we can pay off our debts and raise the standard of living for everyone".
It's as if Stalin never liquidated the kulaks, while quality of life in the USSR remained largely unchanged (except for the tens of millions of dead, for whom quality of life declined)

[Fife]

Printing phony money doesn't *cause* inflation; it *is* inflation.

The elite fucking around with the money supply is the oldest con in the book.

Banal, even.

[DBTrek]

"Why, we could simply print $21.6 trilion dollars an pay off our debt."

"Except the creation of $21.6 trillion new dollars would devalue each pre-existing dollar (inflation) which in turn would increase the number of total dollars needed to pay off the debt."


/shrug

Still waiting for any feasible plan for taxing a nation with $19.4 trillion GDP out of $21.6 trillion of debt.
After you consume the entire GDP in taxes, where do you get the other $1trillion+ from?

[Martin Hash]

Why would it devalue existing dollars? Money is based on NOTHING; it's imaginary.

[DBTrek]

Why would it devalue existing dollars? Money is based on NOTHING; it's imaginary.

Supply/Demand curve.

When X is the aggregate value of all dollars in existence, each dollar is valued at X/number of dollars.
When we add 21.6 trillion more dollars (vastly expanding the supply), each dollar is still valued at X/number of dollars (which is now 21.6 trillion larger).

[Martin Hash]

If there are 2 bakers baking bread and bread cost 50 cents yesterday, and there is only one customer who has a billion newly printed dollars, how much does a loaf of bread cost today?

[DBTrek]

If there are 2 bakers baking bread and bread cost 50 cents yesterday, and there is only one customer who has a billion newly printed dollars, how much does a loaf of bread cost today?

Bread costs whatever mutually agreeable amount the single buyer can get one of the two bakers to agree to sell for.

But currency isn't bread, and the world has more than two bakers and one customer, so your point may have escaped me.

[Martin Hash]

Economics is one of those boxes even skeptical people can't break out of.

Inflation only occurs when consumption > production. As long as consumption = production, and Markets have not monopolized, it doesn't make any difference how much money there is AS I ALREADY PROVED SEVERAL POSTS BACK BECAUSE DEBT IS EXACTLY LIKE PRINTING MONEY; it's just semantics.