Trump's desire to reduce the deficit. Can someone explain to me how this is a good thing?

professor longhairs rum and coca cola doesn't have words. Just cool piano riffs.

 

His cover with Eaglin is very good. But this is, IMO, the best cover of Rum And Coca Cola:

 

An acceptable expense but Trump will break all records............he will find someone to blame for it, "believe me". While this amount is minuscule in comparison it still matters.

 

IF.... making the economy look more stable to the segment of the
economy who work the hardest...........
but... don't have the time to research Modern Monetary Theory because they
are so busy being productive.......
And if this group could see how they are benefiting......
perhaps through an across the board reduction in taxes because as you have previously mentioned....
(the Federal Reserve really doesn't even need to get the IRS to collect taxes at all.......
that is touch of smoke and mirrors to impress people).

.....Then.... a paradigm shift in how people think
could perhaps be set in motion that would lead us closer to
full employment which would be good for that segment of
the population who join the work force under this new set of
circumstances.

If President Trump can figure out a way to increase the spending power of his
supporters by twenty to forty percent.......
(which I believe is indeed possible).....
then his supporters will be able to set in motion a change in what is considered
valuable ART.....
that will positively alter the North American economy.


Artistic Hollywood style "Armageddon" could bring world out of recession?!

Here will be one of the positive side effects.....
land prices in Trump support areas of America will
rapidly increase in value......
much like Roller Skating rinks with strict behavior expectations prospered back in the '70's and '80's whereas the ones with lower standards..... lost their clientele.

Could a real estate boom plus better Fed policy pay off USA national debt?

 

Yes, I've seen them. They are really funny.

If you'd like to fit me into a catagory, I'd say I'm post-Keynesian, because Keynes ideas, while good for their time, occurred under a fundamentaly different kind of economy.

As far as Weimar and Zim, I'm happy to explain why what happened there was not caused by the creation of too much money.

 

Is this how Monetary Sovereignty works?

 

I was almost a Trump supporter at one time because some things he was saying seemed to indicate he understood Monetary Sovereignty, but later on I found out he didn't, most disappointing.

 

Deficit spending is government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation. Funds raised by borrowing are paid with interest. This is the reason against deficit spending -that it requires payment of interest for the borrowed amount.

The cost of financing debt is a growing concern as the government continues to borrow. The public wants government spending, but not the taxes to cover those expenditures. According to the WSJ bar graph posted above, in about 5 years the Federal budget will consist of three almost equal parts; a third will be defense spending, a third will be non-military and a third will be interest on borrowed money.

This is why I disapprove of deficit spending, it costs too much. I would prefer the public distaste for higher taxes moderate the government's promises of more spending. If each taxpayer could quantify in cash what he must pay for that new aircraft carrier or five thousand Planned Parenthood abortions, we might get better budgets.

 

Did you double count US treasuries? We're missing so much, and that's odd considering how long your post is.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/pub...oreign-exchange-reserves-and-the-u-s-economy/

 

This is the most ignorant post I have ever read. It literally makes my head hurt.

Do you seriously not know what the source of the government's money is? Taxes. If you cut the taxes, that leaves more money in the economy. Taxes take money out of the economy, and at best, return merely a portion of it back, if at all.

During the 1940's, the US economy boomed. The primary reason for that is NOT government spending, it's WHAT they spent the money on: putting most of the free world under a pile of rubble. When you are the only seller of a product, you sell quite a few of them.

You claim of being well versed in economics is a lie. You have never read even so much as a summary of how economics works, given this post.

 

Can you be more specific and cite a specific paragraph you're talking about. Not sure what you are referring too.

 

First, why all the hostility? I can point out where you are wrong, but when you come at me like that you've internalized your position, you've made it impossible it be introspective and even consider the fact that you might be wrong. Now it's just a point of pride for you.

Having said that, I'll do my best to dismantle your claims, not for you, because even if I demonstrate why you're wrong, you'll deny it anyway, but for others who might read this.

Clearly, you have no idea where money in the economy comes from. While most of the money that in circulation is created as credit in a bank, each loan is offset, to the dollar, by an asset and an equal liability, when you take these in the aggregate across a bank loan adds zero dollars to the private sector. If that sounds controversial or it confuses you, you don't understand the banking system and your reply calling me ignorant does not surprise me.

Banks create temporal credit, meaning that each payment a person makes to repay a loan decreases the money in circulation (even though the amount of money the economy is always the same).

When the government deficit spends it adds to the total amount of money in the economy.

Do you think it's possible to pay taxes in a fiat economy (like that of the US) before a government spends its money into that economy? That is, imagine you go back to day one of a fiat economy. Can the government tax US dollars from people before people have them?

No, and taxes have always only been payable in the currency of the US government.

This is what you see in your head. A circular model:


This is the reality is a linear model where spending ALWAYS comes BEFORE taxes (the numbers are just for comparison's sake):

Government debt=non-government surplus

In order to figure out the private sector surplus (relative to government spending), you have to add the foreign sector. We run a very large trade deficit, so we export our dollars and import goods and services. This decreases the amount of money circulating in the US and increases the amount of money circulating outside the US private sector.

I get it if you find this confusing, it requires that you unlearn lessons learned in the gold backed era. We don't operate the economy like that anymore but unfortunately, it's still taught that way. it's 2017 and academia is just beginning to catch up.

 

The number of monies isn't the important part of the economy. What is buy is.

Cutting the deficit does not money resources from the economy because there is no money in the economy.

The economy is making a loss. It's shrinking every year.
I can't remove something from nothing. If I have £10 in my pocket and I take out £20 I don't have -£10 in my pocket.

There is no -10 apples. When you have no apples the number of apples = 0.
0 -10 is still zero. Because you don't have 10 more apples to subtract. You have only zero.

The available pool of combined resources to work from is getting smaller every year.
And the reason for that is because we consume more than we produce.
So when the economy = a negative number. it actually only = zero.
You cannot "lose" what is not there. You have to have it first.
Austerity isn't so much losing what we already have as it is not being able to get any more.

So we still want more resources than we produce. How do we keep getting more?


So we have over consumed and used our savings. And when they ran out, we looked abroad to borrow money. To add money to the economy.
But debts must be repaid. And these debts have matured and now it is time to repay.

But we don't want to repay, we want to borrow more. Because we like deficits.


And just like a mortgage loan, the foreign banks says, I will only loan to you if you meet certain conditions.
If you look to me, like you are able and willing to repay. So you must adopt this that and the other policy. For example. You may not adopt anti-capitalist policies and still get bank loan from capitalists. That wouldn't work. They'd just lend it your rivals who were capitalists instead.

So the bank makes demands in return for the loan. Just as it would to you.
And then it puts a man in your presidents office to make sure he does as agreed and the loan is made in stages so that if he isn't doing so, it stops.

If you run a defecit you are like Greece. Goldman and Sachs Pwns your government. You are their bitches. When they say "austerity" you say "how high?"


So it's not just that debt costs you more in the long run, because interest payments, it's not just because an unsustainable system will ultimately fail if not fixed. It's not just that governments are **** at investment. It's not just that you choose self interest over the greater good.

It's that you sold your country out. For money from a bank.


And it gets worse because by operating a deficit you are not only selling your country out, but also your children and your children's children. The debt racked up now will take centuries to pay.
It's not just economically stupid not to be able to balance your books, it's not just short sighted to run up debts that you cannot repay, it's also ripping someone off.
When the Ponzi scheme ends, many will be hurt by it. cf Banking crash.
It is not just economically wrong, it is morally wrong.

And the more you do it, the more harm you are storing up for later. Our children will be paying for our healthcare in the UK. our grandchildren will be paying for our heathcare in the UK. Future generations will be poorer so that we might live longer. Their lives shorter so that our lives are longer. Unborn children enslaved to our greed.

I cannot begin to tell you how wrong this is. It must end. You will have a collapse of the Soviet Union moment if you don't fix this.
And a lot lot more jobs will be lost then. Army's will be abandoned across the globe. Become mercenaries to survive.
All states will declare independence. All sort of mad **** will ensue.

That is the path down which my country has been walking. Don't mimic us.

 

The government will never run out of the money it produces. It may, however, run out of money that anyone wants.

 

Put down the weed. Put down the Paul Krugman fantasy text. Get real.

Government spending is most certainly NOT the driver of the economy. Given the absurdity of your OP, I can't even be bothered to sort through this drivel.

 

Ad Hominem is what happens when you can't debate facts.

"When you can't attack the argument attack the person making it".

That's a weak tactic and it exposes your ignorance on the topic.

-Cheers

 

Sure, but that wasn't the point. People treat dollars as if there are something that shouldn't be wasted. It's not money that shouldn't be wasted is the real resources and things of real value that it can be used to purchase.

I'm not suggesting that we should create money infinitum, I'm saying that the decision to create money has nothing to do with the number of dollars that exist, rather the real resources and labor that exist.

You support zero inflation, which means that you support a dollar that rises in value as the population increases and the competition for existing money increases. I think there are very real and tangible issues with that idea, most of which I've enumerated in other posts.

 

Any quantity of money in society is “optimal.” Once a money is established, an increase in its supply confers no social benefit.

 

I'm not attacking anyone. It's just so bat **** crazy, it isn't worth even bothering to point it all out. You can think you are right about it all. It doesn't harm me a bit if you think I'm wrong. But, I'm not taking a trip through crazy town with you. I regret even commenting at all on this completely ridiculous "economy lesson".

 

Yes, there is a name for that too, it's called confirmation bias. Go back to reading things that confirm what you already believe.

 

Except that it meets the demands of a growing population.

 

Like, economics text books that I got pretty good grades with, you mean? Thanks I will.

 

Any quantity of money will meet the demands of a growing population. Once a money is established, an increase in its supply confers no social benefit.

 

Yeah, you said that already. The problem is it assumes that prices can easily adjust and that there isn't a cost and a phycological factor that comes into play as dollars increase in value.

On paper, it sounds like it might work, but in reality, it would be an idea that would be crushed under its own weight.

 

Put up or go away.