The "United States" is not a real country

if the money stalls, it becomes worthless.. something to think about, circulation is very important to the welfare of the economy

inserting money into the system via food stamps and other safety nets is good not bad for the economy...

it also cause inflation, which means that house you bought when young becomes easier to pay off with time.... so it even benefits the middle class


.

 

Yes, yes it does. There are all sorts of rent-seekers and free-loaders who leech off the federal government at the expense of hard working Americans. In fact, that's the biggest problem with the current system, the "free riders" who feast on the multi-trillion dollar slush fund in Washington DC. Funny that you would ignore a real "free-rider" problem under the present paradigm while speculating that it would it would be a problem under the alternative.

In your opinion, which is just speculative fear-mongering with no basis in logic or evidence.

 

The worth of any good or service (money included) is not a function of its circulation, but of the subjective valuations of the market. The idea that increasing the rate at which pieces of FIAT paper circulate through the economy will somehow contribute to real, sustainable economic growth is just charlatanry. Dollars are not wealth, otherwise we could just print our way to prosperity. Something to think about.

You are not "inserting" the money "into" the system, you are just redistributing it from one person to another, which is not a productive act in and of itself. And if "inserting money into the system etc." is so "good" for the "economy", then why don't you just have the federal reserve deposit a billion dollars in every American's bank account? Won't that increase circulation and help to insert money into the economy?

It also causes your income and savings to depreciate, so, on net, it's actually destroying the middle class. Inflation is probably one of the oldest and most profitable government scams in history.

 

the economy is more then just the value of money

the more it circulates the more taxes are collected on it, the more money we as a country can spend, which in turn goes back into the system and repeats itself again

and yes, if your not investing your money and just leave it in the bank, the interest will be just a little above the inflation, no risk no big gains

 

Doesn't really address any of my points or answer any of my questions.

 

The interest paid on simple savings accounts is actually below nominal inflation rates, and the reason why interest on savings is so low in the first place is because of monetary inflation. In other words, it punishes savers and creates an incentive for them to take on riskier investments. Not sure how punishing savers and increasing risk exposure is "good" for the middle class or the economy.

 

actually the low interest rates are due to the down economy, not the inflation rates, same reason you can borrow for such a low rate today

.

 

You claimed the free rider problem is caused by a central government. That is demonstrably untrue. The free rider problem can occur in any market, even one as small as a kid's lemonade stand. Free rider problems arise any time someone can use a service without having to pay for it.

You are simply too uneducated about economics to have an opinion worthy of consideration.

As for "ignoring the free rider problems in Washington", how exactly am I doing that?

 

The interest rates are low because the federal reserve is inflating the money supply. This is basic stuff.

 

I stated a fact. There are innumerable "free riders" mooching and rent-seeking off the slush fund in Washington DC, so your speculation that an already existent problem will be worsened by decentralizing power away from DC is just myopic paranoia with nothing substantive to support. As usual, you confuse your claims and assertions for rational arguments that can stand on their own feet.

Actually, that would be you...

So you agree we already have a significant free rider problem under the excessively centralized paradigm that I'm criticizing. Good.

 

In Questerr world, simply asserting that there will be a free-rider problem is sufficient to establish that there will be one. No need for any detailed explanations or descriptions of how such a problem would arise, simply claim that it will, repeat yourself ad nauseum, and you've made a valid argument.

 

As I've said, the dictionary gives us all definitions, including those based on common misunderstandings like nation=country. Words of course, have different meanings in different fields, and in relation to eachother. For most purposes nation might as well be synonymous to country, but when you walk into the general area of trying to define what country is -like you are doing in this thread- country, state and nation start to assume more precise and different definitions, in order to help us understand the concepts better. You don't seem to understand that, even though I had hoped that example of 'nation-state' would have you realise it. That words clearly shows how, when in this particular field, the words assume slightly different definitions whereas otherwise they might as well have been synonyms.

 

Considering that a strong central government was formed in large part to prevent the localized opposition of ordinary workers and rank and file soldiers to exploitation by creditors and state governments, that might not be a bad idea. I'd much prefer to see all of the American people use technology to capture our government from the wealthy and control it ourselves, however. It would make us somewhat less vulnerable to outside attack.

 

You can hardly borrow anything right now, the country is going thru what is known as a credit crunch.

 

I've always felt the original idea was that the states were independent countries giving minimal authority to a Federal gov't. Kinda makes sense but looks too much like the EU.