The government can never run out of money.

Can you change the amount you get on your paycheck without your employer changing your pay rate?

 

Still has literally nothing to do with the question I asked. The fact you still are going in this circle with the assumption that money is just magically there is hilarious. This is why libertarians/conservatives shouldn't vote.

 

2.01% a year is "FAR better" than 1.47% a year? Sounds like you're exaggerating, as usual.

Also, GDP per capita doesn't actually tell you how GDP was distributed across society.

Just look at the US economy in recent times. Most of the economic growth is going to a tiny percentage of the population. Many of them are not even Americans but foreign millionaires and billionaires.

So if you and ol' Lesh are presenting a difference in real per capita of 0.54% a year as being "FAR better" growth and development for the American economy, then I will just laugh, like I always do when I listen to MMT "theories" on economics.

And that difference in growth is just as easily explained by some form of random variation or the industrial revolution.

In either case, there is no reason at all to simply assume government FIAT money was responsible for an added 0.54% of real per capita growth or that such growth and development was "FAR better" than the period preceding it.

Unless, of course, you belong to the MMT school of thought and you believe government paper has magical economic powers. Then you will attribute all sorts of miracles to it.

 

37% increase in real GDP per capita once the Federal Reserve and intelligent economists took over for a much more complex economy. I'd say that's pretty successful. But Austrians aren't the most honest people out there. They'll make up anything to fit their little cult theories that no one in the educated world takes seriously.

 

You aren't playing with anyone except yourself and other MMT cultists.

Because nothing you're saying or implying makes any sense.

Growth and development aren't caused by little pieces of paper being emitted and distributed by the political class.

And those little pieces of paper can and do fail on a regular basis.

In other words, they "run out" of the money, exactly opposite of what the OP claimed.

And they can run out in both the abstract and tangible sense.

Because even the infrastructure the FIAT money runs on can fail.

But you act like infrascture is caused by FIAT money, instead of the other way around. If that were true, then that would mean no infrastructure could fail if it was financed by FIAT money.

MMT groupies seem to think that FIAT money has magical properties or something. There is no other way to explain their position.

 

you do know money isn't wealth it is just a representation of wealth so the more money you print with out any more wealth for it to represent cause that money to be worth less and less which is called inflation

but you knew that didn't you? at least I hope so

 

Dude...if you have 100 dollars and I have a thousand.

Tomorrow you have 200 dollars and I have 1500...you "growth percentage" is higher...but you have far less money than I do.

Are you really claiming that the US was a richer more powerful nation in the 1890s than it was in the 1960s?

Please don't embarrass yourself further.

 

I asked for credibility. It is a very easy question any American with a job could answer. You can change your W-4 withholdinds at any time by changing the number of deductions. You can have more/less tax withheld. Some people like to break even, some like a return, some claim big to net as much as possible and freak when they owe in April.
Stick to what you know.

 

And as far as "spread across society"...the wealth of the nation was far more concentrated in the years you tout than in the latter half of the 20th Century.

They didn't call it the "Gilded Age" for nothing....and the only ones who were Gilded...were the ultra rich

 

Money is most definitely wealth. The first definition of wealth you get when you look it up...

"an abundance of valuable possessions or money."

Apparently you guys make up your own definitions.

 

What you're missing is ...what is that "printed money" used for?

If it just goes into circulation it does devalue the existing money...but if it's loaned out to build industry or roads or whatever...it creates wealth.

The Weimar republic intentionally devalued their currency in order to pay exorbitant war reparations.

It didn't create anything...

 

Still has literally nothing to do with what I'm talking about, lol. This is honestly getting hilarious.

 

I know you are you responding to my posts, so you can just go ahead and quote me and stop being such a baby.

Or you can go back to pretending to ignore me.

Doesn't really matter to me.

But if you're going to respond, then at least respond to the points I made instead of just dodging them like you always do.

2.01% a year is "FAR better" than 1.47% a year? Sounds like you're exaggerating, as usual.

Also, GDP per capita doesn't actually tell you how GDP was distributed across society.

Just look at the US economy in recent times. Most of the economic growth is going to a tiny percentage of the population. Many of them are not even Americans but foreign millionaires and billionaires.

So if you and ol' Lesh are presenting a difference in real per capita of 0.54% a year as being "FAR better" growth and development for the American economy, then I will just laugh, like I always do when I listen to MMT "theories" on economics.

And that difference in growth is just as easily explained by some form of random variation or the industrial revolution.

In either case, there is no reason at all to simply assume government FIAT money was responsible for an added 0.54% of real per capita growth or that such growth and development was "FAR better" than the period preceding it.

Unless, of course, you belong to the MMT school of thought and you believe government paper has magical economic powers. Then you will attribute all sorts of miracles to it.

Let's see if you are as smart as you pretend to be. Let's see you actually address the arguments someone else makes instead of just acting cool and tossing around empty assertions and insults.

 

Hey Ether...can you read?

 

You're the one who is embarrassing yourself by conflating the absolute size of an economy with its growth rate and pretending that the larger economy we have now exists totally independent of past growth rates.

Even more embarrassing is that you thought you were making some kind of valid and incisive point with that trite observation.

In typical Keynesian fashion, you want to completely ignore the historical data and pretend like our present circumstances exist in some kind of vacuum where all the wealth we enjoy grew on a magic money tree behind the White House.

I'm sorry to inform you. But it didn't happen like that.

 

That's certainly debatable, especially since "far more" is just another vague term that you've thrown out there.

Purely for the sake of argument, I'd be willing to concede that it was higher during the "gilded age", but the "gilded ages" represent around 25% of the era in question, and they happened in the LATTER half of the era when the post-Lincoln vision of US government was firmly imprinted on the country.

So if you want to blame someone for the horrible wealth inequality that characterized the latter 1800's, then you might want to start with the big government "progressives" who took control of the US government in the 1860's.

But you will never consider the possibility that the big government policies you support somehow contribute to wealth inequality.

Because government is magical and politicians are noble angels.

They would never use their increased powers to benefit the rich and powerful.

Yet big government leftists are always harping on income inequality in the past few decades.

Does that mean you guys have been exaggerating the problem?

 

Yea, I responded to your imaginary points after I responded to other posts.

Try waiting more than eight minutes for a response next time.

 

If you would like to ask me anything I will answer if I can as honestly as I can.
I have a 15 year daughter. She is the most funny, creative, and interesting person I have ever known. When I try to share some of my life wisdom with her sometimes she takes offense and feels I am insulting her intelligence. She is such a perfectionist and she is so smart. She doesn't realize life experience and intelligence are not the same but both can teach. She teaches me as much as I teach her but fails to recognize that despite my telling her so. She is a technowhiz. My husband has a college degree, I am a straight A nursing student and my 15 year old can clean up spyware, defrag, take two broken galaxies and make one that works, she is so incredibly introspective, wise beyond her years , and.enviously artistic...She feels.insulted or belittled when I tell her you can't shift out of park without your foot on the brake. She wants to figure everything out for herself.
She fails to realize her age and experience are just as valuable as mine. That we each know things the other doesn't.

 

Akphidelt thinks he can just go around on forums acting cool and claiming to be smart and people will somehow be impressed with that.

16,000 posts on this forum alone and almost all of them have been juvenile attempts to appear cool and smart. And about 90% of those posts contain text-message lingo like "lol", which is basically his catch phrase at this point.

So lame.

 

Akph, don't you find it odd that juat about everybody in this conversation is telling you are flat wrong, and yet you are nearly the only one that keeps telling everybody else they don't know what they are talking about?

I mean, at a minimum, maybe you should evaluate what lots of people are telling you. Too stubborn?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

I've asked you it many times. Where does the private sector get the money to fund the government?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't find it odd at all. I've been on this site for 6 years and it's pretty much tons of conservatives/libertarians who talk economics and the occasional intelligent person. You guys that are telling me I'm wrong are some of the more uneducated people I've come across in my life. I do this more for entertainment than to get your guys opinions, lol.

 

From earnings.
If I go get a job at McDonald's and start working I will probably get a paycheck every two weeks...compensation for my labor. Payroll taxes are deducted from the for fed, state, ss, and Medicare. When I take my earnings and buy things I pay sales tax on each dollar I spend. I pay tag tax, property tax, a host of other with the income McDonald's paid me. Those taxes collected in different percentages from people who work, people who spend, company taxes, coorporate taxes, etc...those taxes collected fund government.
Did I answer your question?

 

No, you're still confused and talking about money that already exists. Where did that money come from?

 

The money is not the important part, it's what it can be traded for that counts. Goods, labour etc.

Private sector money comes from production or services owned by individuals or groups of individuals who do not work for the state.

Is the answer you are fishing for "money is printed in the state mint?"
So we could argue that the state produces all the money but that would be to misunderstand the importance of it as a trade medium between people. It may physically produce the notes, but the notes are only as valuable as what they can be exchanged for.

Short answer, state money comes from the private sector. The labours of the people in the country who do not work for the state.
That is the only answer that matters.
The "money" may have already existed but the goods produced or the labours endeavoured that you intend to trade that money for, did not. They are new to the equation.

Wealth is created by human endeavour and then taxed.

 

How does money come from the private sector? Can you explain to me how I can create money?