What is the most import aspect of money?

it is absurd to imagine one economic variable changed when many did. Do you think boom in Clinton years was caused by Newts balanced budgets or Greenspans management of monetary policy or tax increases which all agree harm an economy?

 

Newts BBA passed in House and fell one short in Senate. Sorry to rock your world. Democrats were 100% opposed and now every household in American is $153,000 in debt needlessly!!. Is America a great place now that libs have spend the extra $20 trillion? Are Americans better off having to pay off the $150K debt per household.What does that teach you?

It just like the libturds made every family in America buy another house but made them pay for it and not live in it!!

 

I'd actually argue it is "a specific unit of account" even more so than a "medium of exchange", because a lot of the money being exchanged isn't actually really in real U.S. dollars, it's through bank accounts denominated in U.S. dollars but through which no actual dollars actually take place in the particular exchange.

 

I make the distinction be Personal Debt and Overall US Debt.

I agree with you regarding the individual Personal Debt, but I am less concerned about Overall US Debt, which we keep rolling over. Why?

Because nobody is going to be knocking on the White House door with a judge's writ to confiscate the property for lack of debt-repayment.

Still, when you think of it. Were that to happen to, say, the Capitol Building (wherein reside both chambers of Congress) then maybe our "leaders" would take a different view upon matters of debt.

True enough, it has been to high long-enough and it is our tax-dollar that pays-the-man.

We want "guns-instead-of-butter"? We get the perpetually high National Debt we have. Why not try less guns and more butter, just to see what happens ... ?

 

That would be after 99 years, 100 years would result in $19.22

 

The Clinton boom years, which happened after the 1993 tax increase that conservatives wrongly claimed, like you do, would wreck the economy and destroy jobs, certainly was a positive factor. But it wasn't just the economy. The Clinton tax hike increased revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars more than would have been correlated with the economy alone. The fact that spending increases were held below GDP growth was a contributing factor as well.

Despite conservative claims that the Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs, we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Facts which you claimed were false but we can not your utter failure to disprove even one of them.

Not bad for a "libcommie." Maybe we need another one in the WH.

 

You can thank the conturds who ran up the debt for their tax cuts for the m/billionaires for most of that.

 

actually cons tried to make debt illegal with BBA and libs 100% opposed. Make sense now?

 

there were no tax cuts! top 1% pay 42% of taxes now but only 20% under Reagan. So it is poor and middle class who got tax cut.Makes sense now?

 

how can a tax increase possibly be a positive factor????? If you tax people they have less to spend invest and save. That's a way to cause a recession not stimulate an economy. Seems you got it 100% backwards. Sorry to rock your world.

 

so stealing or taxing hundreds of billions that might have been used to start businesses or buy houses etc is good for economy????

 

that of course was 100% thanks to Newt. Democrats always want to spend more. Who always wants to raise the debt ceiling and opposed BBA? Do you know why?

 

if it happened it obviously was not thanks to tax cuts which slow an economy, not boost it . do you understand?

For 5th time, in a scientific experiment you hold all variables constant except one you are testing. Clinton did not do that. He was a president not a scientist in a lab. Do you understand the concept of science now?

 

1) actually we need far more guns in form of missile defense today because we did not listen to Reagan's common sense 40 years ago

2) more butter to cripple more people is obviously not a solution to anything. We would end up like France with 10% unemployment and per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state.

 

a budget can only be wrecked if there is no BBA. Guess who opposed a BBA? Do you know why Democrats opposed a balanced budget? Ans: it might interfere with more and more welfare to cripple more and more people who would then vote Democratic to secure further welfare.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

Yeah, all great stuff. Nonetheless, Harry 'n Louise (paid for by the nation's main Insurance Company lobby) helped destroy Hillary's campaign to bring to the US National Health Care that most European countries had adopted since the end of WW2.

The consequence of which since has been this:


Is that what we want for our children in America? Four years less of lifespan than mine here in France at twice the nominal cost per capita?

Good luck with that one ... !

 

Give them credit. They try hard to be just that.

It is congenital - they misthink that the individual is supreme and the community is merely an accessory to the fact of living ...

 

Well that (in red above) is pretty damn easy. You just don't go to war, as both of the Bush presidencies did, and increase monumentally the DoD-budget. (To help boost business for all those companies that contribute to the Replicant-party.)

We've got the Spending Formula all wrong, all wrong, all wrong. Fifty-two percent of our Discretionary Spending It is going to the DoD for military usage, which is of very little real-utility to the economy in general. The military does not "make things" of any real common utility. (Except the demand for burial coffins, maybe.)

Get the money OUT OF THE DOD and put into the DOE (Department of Education), then implement Hillary's idea (borrowed from Bernie). We offer all families with a basic income less than $100K annually (that is, with a married couple earning $54K, the median income in the US) free post-secondary education for their children (vocational, 2- 1 4-year).

With that sort of program, we'd have a working class sufficiently educated that suits the needs of today's market-economy. The world is changing under our feet:
*Manufacturing (total Goods Producing) is down to 12% of total employment in the US. (See that fact substantiated here by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
*The Services Industries are producing jobs for 80% of working-America. (Same source as previous.)
*For a damn good Service-Industry job one needs better qualifications than just a driver's license ....

 

nope, don't want it at all therefore we must switch to capitalist health care and away from the socialist health care that is failing here and in France.Estimates are that Republican capitalism would reduce health care costs to 20% of what they are now.

 

An excellent idea!! Then we could let the Girl Scouts develop the anti missile systems necessary to take out North Korean nukes aimed at us!!! An excellent liberal idea!!!

 

.

actually civilization began when Christ created the individual and created individual liberty. This led to the founding of America and world peace. Before that the individual was merely a slave to the liberal community
or state . Did Hitler Stalin and Mao care about the individual or the community? What better way for Hitler Stalin and Mao to control the German community than to tell everybody the individual did not matter. On'y the German community did.

France sided with the Nazis and has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state. Without our inventions they would have 30% of our standard of living. Good rule of thumb is to look to France for opposite of right thing to do.

 

Investors come in every class in the UK. If you are employed, you have a private pension. Even poor people have savings. Have cash.
The disparity between rich and poor in my country is awesome. Basically everyone here is middle class. Importantly, everyone here can get a loan.
Can get capital. And that is the equaliser. Not everyone here is rich.

But everyone here has the chance to get rich.

Also, you have a state pension. Job or no job. Rich or poor.
The money being borrowed is being spent on you.

It is true that if "the people" invest in government, (buy government bonds) as they do in Japan, then raising interest rates returns income from government debt to those people.
The problem in the UK is, the UK govt has already taxed everything it can get from us. We don't have extra money to invest any more.
And so it has sought to borrow from others too. From other economies. From China and Saudi and from America and Singapore and so on. We trade our government debt globally.
We aren't like Japan. It's not a closed circuit.

"The people" don't own it. Taxation of "the people" however, will pay for it.

Now the real question here is this, we agree that you can borrow money to invest in economic activity that will be profitable.

"can". Problem is, my government has a bad track record.
Likes to solve it's mal investments by "taxing the rich".
I.e. taxing other people.
And I would prefer them to have less of my money rather than more.

I just think it would be more profitable to bet on the horses with it.

 

When I talk about the "investor class" I'm not talking about anyone that has savings or a few investments.

In the UK just 5 billionaire families have as much wealth as the poorest 20% and the top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 55%. So when I talk about the investor class, people with real wealth, we're usually talking about the nations wealthiest 10% who (and here I'm guessing based on figures I've seen here in the US which is similar to the UK) control 90%+ of the nation's wealth.

These people are the investor class and who I speak of when I refer to them.

 

So, the UK is less equitable than the US? In the US the division of Wealth looks like this:


The top 0.1% get only about 20% in the US! (Unfair!!!! ;^)

Moreover, I think you may have got your percentage of population wrong. The Guardian says this: Almost half of Britain's private wealth owned by top 10% of households.

 

I'm familiar with your chart. I've seen it several times and yes it's very telling. We definitly agree that income and wealth distribution is a serious problem.

As far as my quote. I was probably reading the same article you were.

However, I wasn't quoting population numbers in percent, I was quoting the percent of wealth owned by the top 10%. Though in retrospect, I should probably increase that to the top 20%.

See the distinction?

If you haven't seen it, THIS PAGE goes into the income and wealth disparity in the US.