-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good job duopoly. You finally did it to America.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
That is indeed so.
But you mentioned no one else.
Deficit spending existed before the term "trickle down economics".
I also mentioned his successors as sharing responsibility.
Including Democrats?
When Newt Gingrich ran Congress, eh.
Yes.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well we now know how all that went down in the real world.
Joe Biden, Democrats Seek $625 Billion Tax Cut for Wealthy Coastal Elites
President Joe Biden's "Build Back Better Act" gives $625 billion in tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest blue state residents.
Senate Democrats Vote (AGAIN) for Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires - NRSC
Washington, D.C. – Today, Senate Democrats voted against a commonsense amendment from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to prevent changes to the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction that would benefit the wealthy. SALT deductions offer millionaires and billionaires in high-tax blue states like...
www.nrsc.org
You should retort my post here by exclaiming, "WOW! Just like the Republicans"!!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For part of Clinton's term he had a balanced budget. That was the last we say of one.
Wait, a second. what was his party?
WOW, is Breitbart still around?Well we now know how all that went down in the real world.
Joe Biden, Democrats Seek $625 Billion Tax Cut for Wealthy Coastal Elites
President Joe Biden's "Build Back Better Act" gives $625 billion in tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest blue state residents.www.breitbart.com
Senate Democrats Vote (AGAIN) for Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires - NRSC
Washington, D.C. – Today, Senate Democrats voted against a commonsense amendment from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to prevent changes to the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction that would benefit the wealthy. SALT deductions offer millionaires and billionaires in high-tax blue states like...
You should retort my post here by exclaiming, "WOW! Just like the Republicans"!!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The World Gold Standard System Will Rise Again — But, Not Yet.
There seems to be a growing consensus among world leaders to recreate the world gold standard system ... in the future.
www.forbes.com
Anyone running for office?
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's because they weren't looking in the right places. Dogma blinded them.
Much smarter. It has been pointed out many times by many posters that there is a position in the budget that is not justified by any means but dogma and bribery which would not be touched by dems or reps.
PureX
Veteran Member
Ultimately the problem is that the money is not being spread around. The "economy" is always chasing the wealth, and ignoring those without it. The well off have more money, so the prices rise in pursuit of bigger profits, and the well off get a share in that, giving them even more money. And the prices rise to chase that profit, too ...
Half the population is just being ignored because commerce chases the wealthy. Add to that the fact that the wealthy aren't paying their share of the tax burden, leaving everyone else to cover it, and the national debt increases, infrastructure fails, and collapse is eminent. But the people that could and should stop this are the people that are causing it.
Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Basically saying the wealthy are essentially stating that they won't and will not pay for us , but we will in fact pay for them and there is nothing that can ever be done about it.
The elite classes will make sure it stays that way.
PureX
Veteran Member
They have made sure it stays that way. And sadly, we are helping them by victim blaming and by pretending that we still live in a democracy.
I remember hearing that the wealthy got richer during the pandemic, and that was because they could use their wealth to exploit the circumstances. At some point the debt issue needs to be addressed, and the middle class and poor do not have the resources to pay more tax. Who is left? The rich got massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2017, and they benefit greatly from tax law on to if that. Democrats want to repeal the tax cuts on the rich but then that opens the door to the accusation of them being "tax and spend" while republicans won't do anything except suggest cutting social security, medicaid, and other crucial safeguards for the elderly, which is a growing category.
The richest Americans became 40% richer during the pandemic
The Forbes 400 – who have each accumulated at least $2.9bn – added $4.5tn to their wealth
And MAGA voters who are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They are still lining up to donate money to the elite class leader, Trump. Such irony that they feed the elite monster and then complain the elite is a problem.
EconGuy
Active Member
It's literally not possible for the government to be unable to repay it's debt, right? Because that's the issue here, that the government won't be able to repay, right?
EconGuy
Active Member
Even a gold standard is based on debt. Not in the traditional manner of speaking, but walk though this with me.
If an economy needs more money in a gold based system it has two choices:
1: Create and export goods
2. Mine gold
Exporting sends goods out and selling those goods abroad in a gold based global money system brings gold into your economy while goods flow out. The cost of gold is real goods and services and labor (that some other nation receives the benefit of) that are purchased with time and effort.
Mining gold is what it is, there's some gold in the earth, now you need to do all the work needed to go get it. Gold is acquired though work.
In either case, work has to be done before gold can be acquired.
But what if the demand for (gold redeemable) money is very high? It makes it even harder and more expensive to acquire the capital goods, equipment and labor to do the work necessary to bring more gold into your economy. This would drive interest rates up as demand for money backed by gold would increase. This increase would result increased unemployment, homelessness and all the other things that come with a cash strapped economy. Especially if the population is increasing at the same time (too say nothing of increasing efficiency of goods reducing the number of people needed to do work).
In a fiat based economy the government creates the currency ex niello and circulates it though the economy and uses taxes and bond sales to maintain the scarcity of the nations money.
Taxes remove money and bond sales move liquid dollars into savings where those dollars aren't being used to drive demand.
In a fiat based system, you create money based on your good credit. Think about it. What is a credit card? It's a way for you to create money, out of thin air. That is, unless you think the bank that issued that cold sits on mounds of cash for every person that has a card. Yes, you create money when you spend on a credit card.
The bank sends the company you spent money on your card (assuming you have one) money it creates.
But where does the bank get the money? Like the government banks create money, out of thin air, but unlike the government, banks have to hold something of equal value in return (basically banks expand their balance sheets and create new money as credit, but they are allowed to denominate that credit in the governments money, i.e. the dollar). Basically, banks have to hold assets equal to the money they create. What asset? Usually the borrowers capacity to repay. When you sign a promissory note when taking a loan, the bank deposits that note as an asset worth its entire value (including the interest)
The amount of money a bank can create like this is limited by capital investment, but I digress.
I'm delving way to far into the weeds. The point is, in a gold based economy the work has to be done before money in an economy can expand, whereas in a fiat economy work is done after. It may sound (in my best deep voice) "more responsible" to acquire the money up front, but the problem with having the money up front is it limits your economy. Think about it. Car makers and house builders make their products because they know that there are credit worthy borrowers who will borrow money and repay it. So goods get made and inventories held because produces know the capacity to purchase their goods exists. In a gold based system, if money becomes increasingly scarce, it get's harder and more expensive to do what is needed, acquire money. It also means that output falls when money get's tight, which is why, historically nations abandon systems based on gold when disasters strike, like war. It also means that producers might limit inventories out of fear the capacity to purchase their goods doesn't exist, which creates a downward spiral (see the great depression).
Of course fiat systems are more difficult. They require strict rule of law. They also require education, that people understand the system and don't tear it down and insist on returning to an anachronistic less efficient system because the people can't understand it. It requires a government with minimal levels of corruption and competitive private industry. We can argue that these things don't exist in the quantities we'd like, and there I would agree. But the solution isn't to digress backwards into a system like gold, it's to realize that these features of our economy are the only way that the US maintains it's global position.
The bottom line is, debt, in some form always exists, the question is when you pay it. The result is, if you can pay it after rather than before if the pieces are in place, your economy can be more agile, responsive and elastic and all other things being equal, would trash any economy based in a gold based system.
That was a lot. My apologies for the diatribe. I hope some find it interesting.
Respectfully,
EG
Last edited:
EconGuy
Active Member
No but Reagan bought into Arthur Laffer's nonsense about the Laffer Curve.
The only person to successfully try Art's idea was Sam Brownback in Kansas and that didn't turn out very well. Where is old Sam today?
Failed tax-cut experiment in Kansas should guide national leaders
Kansas’s 2018 election should serve as a political lesson to our national leaders.
thehill.com
Reagan would have tried that on a national level, but he was prevented from doing so. However, his legacy is bright in the minds of fiscal conservatives who think something like this would work.