Greenwich:
You’re talking about dollar bills as though they are something natural – they are an artificial entity.And one of the other nations the other day buying or trading OIL is no longer doing it in US dollars.PLUS, Zuckerberg is trying to create his own financial world and USHR is looking at it with great concern.
All money is an artificial entry, including people that have delusions about crypto currencies replacing the dollar, which is absurd and totally unworkable.The US government “owes” money in a currency it can create.Countries run into problems when they owe money in currencies they can create and currencies that they struggle to get access to via exports, or short term borrowing.You are moving all over the place.
I always heard libertarians talk about the total collapse of the US dollar, which is kind of silly.
The EU might not even exist in a decade, China doesn’t want to be the reserve currency and has major internal problems of its own (and will not get rid of things like capital requirements, or privatize their state owned banks), the pound and the yen have their own problems.
It makes no logical sense to think that the US would collapse.Could it go down in value relative to other currencies and be included in something like SDR bundles on the same level with other currencies? It is possible.
The British pound used to be the reserve currency, then the dollar took its place.It resulted, in part, them having to wind down their empire.Sign me up.Last time I checked though, they didn’t devolve into Bangladesh.The US government, again, “owes” a currency it can create.
So, what is the point of throwing all of this out there? Greenwich:
I would venture to say, Joan, that most people don’t think of money as it relates to them as “public debt, private debt, or surplus.
Because they are confused on these matters.But, that is in fact the reality and you could think about this reality a bit when analyzing these issues.A government debt is the flip side of the private surplus (minus the government pledging to pay other parts of the government).
Greenwich:
I’m shocked that we are of such distinctly different beliefs on the Federal Reserve – we tend to agree on so many other things.
I don’t think we disagree actually on the Fed.The Fed can be nationalized, it can be replaced by the Treasury doing some of what it does, or we can change laws where the Fed can buy bonds directly from the Treasury knowing the money will not be paid back, and get rid of private banks taking part using open market operations.
My point to you is that what is called public debt is not an actual real issue and it doesn’t require cuts to programs or any of the other fear mongering I hear out there.It is a bookkeeping entry and is not expected to be paid back.Once again though, some modest changes can be implemented where the state could pay it back.Either way, you did argue that public debt had to be paid back.
You said that all debt had to be paid back and seem to want to treat public debt as if it is similar to private debt.They are two radically different things.Private debt is a real issue, and since the double entry bookkeeping of it all, reducing private debt would harm those that own the debt, largely financial capital.That is why when a financial crisis hits, the state steps in to bail out financial capital and always leaves student loan debt, municipal debt, home mortgage debt, credit card debt, car debt, on the books.
I really am done though.
I guess we will agree to disagree.October 31, 2019, 11:36pm #81
I will tell you what a Social Democracy is: it is a political, social and economic doctrine, that supports “economic and social ideologies”, it’s promoting social justice, within a framework of a “sensible” “liberal” democratic policy, but supported by a “capitalistic economy”, and what it isn’t .
A plutocracy: A society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income , is what this country has now!! Globally, the richest 1% saw their share of wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014.If this trend continues, which it has, they will control more wealth than the other 99% combined in 2017 (which has come and past).* In 2010 the top 1% of the US population owned 42.1% of financial (non‐home) wealth; the next 4% owned 30% of financial wealth; the next 15% owned 23.5% of financial wealth (totaling 95.6% for the top 20% combined); the bottom 80% of the population owned 4.7% of financial wealth.** And these stats are over 10yrs old!! In 2016 the richest 8 people controlled more wealth than 3.6 billion people.(It was 388 people in 2010 and 80 people in 2014.) * THIS HAS GOT TO STOP That’s what it is JoanRobinson November 1, 2019, 1:33am #82
The US during the FDR administration was NOT socialist.What does it take to make you people understand the difference between socialism and a welfare state? Is it that hard to comprehend? 1 Like.