USA - The Good Samaritan

[enchanted_one1975]

If you're doing around 300,000 miles per year, I'd say $40,000 is just about your fair share. You're just paying for the cost that driving your truck creates. If you do most of your driving in the city, then at 300,000 miles per year, you'd be getting a discount.

I do about 120,000 miles per year and most is highway. The rest goes to pay for other people.

I see it as hypocritical for you to argue this, when quite a bit of military spending represents a huge optional (yes, optional) expense that you aren't willing to consider cutting, despite the fact that it contributes more to the debt that just about anything else, and despite the fact you keep going on about how you don't have the money.

The OP never mentioned military spending. It was about us sending money to a foreign country for aid when we, ourselves, are broke.

If you've got the money for the most expensive armed forces in the world, you've got the money for a bit of emergency aid.

The money is spent. I can't pull $100,000,000.00 out of my butt. Can you?

For the second time, that's not how government debt works. They don't just print more money. The government issues debt instruments like bonds, which get bought by purchasers inside and outside the US.

Can you let the Bureau of Engraving and printing know this? They don't seem to understand as well us you do. The last time our country actually tried selling bonds to pay for the printing of more money was WWII. After that they stopped trying. They may sell some bonds to make you feel nice and cozy, but they are not selling enough to cover what they are printing. And, of course, when the bonds they sell reach maturity, the buyer must be reimbursed plus interest. If the spending does not stop then the money to pay that interest just has to be printed.

 

[Gabethewiking]

The OP never mentioned military spending. It was about us sending money to a foreign country for aid when we, ourselves, are broke.

I think you missed the point enchanted.
If we spend the most amount of money in the world on armed forced and aggressive wars and you sit and complain about we giving a, compared to other nations, a pitful amount of money to Haiti, do you not think you missed what is imporant?

Is the billions we waste on our aggressive military important? Is the amount we spend on it more important then the stability and importance of education, healthcare and safety?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

enchanted, I think you do not realize why we changed from gold standard to fiat currency. Do you understand the system?

We did it so the government could pull the wool over the eyes of the dumber populous and give us devalued vouchers in place of real money. Every country that has ever gotten away from a material backing has done it for that same reason. Believe what you want. If you believe anything but the truth you are believing lies. Why do you think an ounce of gold that was less that $20.00 in 1933 is worth well over $1,000.00 today? The gold hasn't been upgraded with all kinds of fancy options and safety features. It's the same hunk of precious metal. It is the dollar that is shrinking in comparison. This is really much simpler than you are allowing it to be.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I think you missed the point enchanted.

I think you missed the point. The point is that we cannot spend what we do not have. Again, we get back to the kid in the grocery store whining that he wants a candy bar when mom is broke. It doesn't matter what mom spent her money on. She is broke. Money for candy does not exist. By printing more money to pay for Haiti's problems all you are doing is stealing the candy bar from the American people.

 

[Gabethewiking]

We did it so the government could pull the wool over the eyes of the dumber populous and give us devalued vouchers in place of real money. Every country that has ever gotten away from a material backing has done it for that same reason. Believe what you want..... Why do you think an ounce of gold that was less that $20.00 in 1933 is worth well over $1,000.00 today? The gold hasn't been upgraded with all kinds of fancy options and safety features. It's the same hunk of precious metal. It is the dollar that is shrinking in comparison. This is really much simpler than you are allowing it to be.

Of course, so you want everyone to use Gold as a backing for currency, is this correct?

If you believe anything but the truth you are believing lies.

Who define/decide this truth/lies? (IE. how do you know something is truth?)

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Of course, so you want everyone to use Gold as a backing for currency, is this correct?

It would be ideal! It would remove the differences between values of world currencies and it would make it impossible for inflation to take place.

Who define/decide this truth/lies? (IE. how do you know something is truth?)

The truth is based on fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do about 120,000 miles per year and most is highway. The rest goes to pay for other people.

So that $40,000 is for several drivers?

The OP never mentioned military spending. It was about us sending money to a foreign country for aid when we, ourselves, are broke.

You're right - the OP never mentioned military spending. The contradictory nature of your position came out later.

The money is spent. I can't pull $100,000,000.00 out of my butt. Can you?

I'm not sure, but I know it'd be much easier than pulling out a few billion dollars to pay for a war.

Can you let the Bureau of Engraving and printing know this? They don't seem to understand as well us you do. The last time our country actually tried selling bonds to pay for the printing of more money was WWII. After that they stopped trying. They may sell some bonds to make you feel nice and cozy, but they are not selling enough to cover what they are printing.

No, the United States' debt instruments really do cover all of their debt. Some are bonds, some are Treasury bills (you've heard of T-bills, haven't you?), some are other types of security.

Again: if the government were to pay its expenses by simply printing more money, then it would have no debt at all. When they say that the US government is around 10 trillion dollars in debt, this really does mean that there is around 10 trillion dollars worth of government securities out there on the market.

And, of course, when the bonds they sell reach maturity, the buyer must be reimbursed plus interest. If the spending does not stop then the money to pay that interest just has to be printed.

Yes, there is a cost associated with government issuance of debt; I'm not arguing that. However, government debt does exist. Your picture of a government that just prints more money when it runs short of cash is false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be ideal! It would remove the differences between values of world currencies and it would make it impossible for inflation to take place.

It would also make recessions worse. You might want to do some research into the gold standard's role in the Great Depression.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

So that $40,000 is for several drivers?

No that is just me. The hours of service regulations in my country are a lot more strict than they are in yours. As I said, each truck pays way more than its share in road taxes.

You're right...

I know.

I'm not sure, but I know it'd be much easier than pulling out a few billion dollars to pay for a war.

Wow that's some good reasoning. If it is impossible to do one it must be possible to do both?

No, the United States' debt instruments really do cover all of their debt. Some are bonds, some are Treasury bills (you've heard of T-bills, haven't you?), some are other types of security.

They wish everyone would believe this as you do. If you were correct we would have no inflation though. Unless you are talking about debt being covered with BS. That's about all the government has an abundance of.

Again: if the government were to pay its expenses by simply printing more money, then it would have no debt at all. When they say that the US government is around 10 trillion dollars in debt, this really does mean that there is around 10 trillion dollars worth of government securities out there on the market.

The reason we still have debt is because the "creditors" to which the US owes money will not accept the false dollar as payment. Us sending them dollars instead of gold would be like trying to pay for your own bills with pinecones instead of cash.

Yes, there is a cost associated with government issuance of debt; I'm not arguing that. However, government debt does exist. Your picture of a government that just prints more money when it runs short of cash is false.

I am sorry, but we are at a stalemate here. I know my statements to be true. I know your statements to be false. You believe the opposite. I don't know what to tell you, except that I am actually in this country living through it all. You are not.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

It would also make recessions worse. You might want to do some research into the gold standard's role in the Great Depression.

The gold standard has never been responsible for any financial problems. The government, however, put the blame on gold because it wanted to illegally seize all gold bullion that Americans had possession of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The gold standard has never been responsible for any financial problems. The government, however, put the blame on gold because it wanted to illegally seize all gold bullion that Americans had possession of.

Baloney.

Okay... riddle me this: you're in charge of an economy that runs on the gold standard. The market goes into a downturn; people get worried, pull their money out of investments and cut back on their purchases, instead deciding to save their money, hoard it, keep it under their mattresses... anything but subject it to the risk of investing it or spending it. Your economy falls into a liquidity crisis: there's just not enough money in circulation to "grease the wheels" of the economy, because everyone's pulled their cash out of the market.

Meanwhile, you are required by law to have a dollar worth of gold in your vault not just for every dollar that contributes to a productive economy, but also for every dollar that people have squirrelled away. What do you do?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Baloney.

Okay... riddle me this: you're in charge of an economy that runs on the gold standard. The market goes into a downturn; people get worried, pull their money out of investments and cut back on their purchases, instead deciding to save their money, hoard it, keep it under their mattresses... anything but subject it to the risk of investing it or spending it. Your economy falls into a liquidity crisis: there's just not enough money in circulation to "grease the wheels" of the economy, because everyone's pulled their cash out of the market.

Meanwhile, you are required by law to have a dollar worth of gold in your vault not just for every dollar that contributes to a productive economy, but also for every dollar that people have squirrelled away. What do you do?

Absolutely nothing. As long as the people have money squirreled away they will not starve. As they lose their jobs due to the weakening economy they will be forced to spend the money they have squirreled away. As they are spending the squirreled away money the economy recovers and things get back to how they were. The gold is back in circulation, lost jobs are once again found, and no government debt has incurred as a result.

If you print more money just because people have some squirreled away you are weakening what is squirreled away. Funny how it works too. People are all up in arms because when they are given a gift card the value deteriorates if they do not spend it right away. They don't realize that their dollar is doing the same thing.

 

[Gabethewiking]

It would be ideal! It would remove the differences between values of world currencies and it would make it impossible for inflation to take place.


The truth is based on fact.

So let us take your scenario, All nations on the planet would have to have Gold in X amount and people would get salaries in Gold. You agree with this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely nothing. As long as the people have money squirreled away they will not starve.

The people with money won't starve. It could be that not many of those folks would even lose their jobs. However, the people with little to no savings (which would have been considerable in the early 30s, considering the sheer scale of investment losses and bank failures from the crash) would fare significantly less well.

As they lose their jobs due to the weakening economy they will be forced to spend the money they have squirreled away. As they are spending the squirreled away money the economy recovers and things get back to how they were. The gold is back in circulation, lost jobs are once again found, and no government debt has incurred as a result.

And not too many of the country's poor would have starved in the interim. Great plan.

If you print more money just because people have some squirreled away you are weakening what is squirreled away. Funny how it works too.

Yes, and that's the point: if you have a reasonable inflation amount, then this encourages investment. People realize that it will cost them money to take their cash out of the market, so they keep it in instead.

The government regulates inflation to encourage a healthy level of growth. You can't do this on the gold standard.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

So let us take your scenario, All nations on the planet would have to have Gold in X amount and people would get salaries in Gold. You agree with this?

Yes...or a note that is actually backed by gold and can be exchanged for gold at any financial institution.

The people with money won't starve. It could be that not many of those folks would even lose their jobs. However, the people with little to no savings (which would have been considerable in the early 30s, considering the sheer scale of investment losses and bank failures from the crash) would fare significantly less well.

And how does printing money to send to Haiti keep poor people in America from starving? We had no public assistance program for food until 1939, well after the great depression had ended. How did printing fiat currency during the great depression help those that did not squirrel away money again?

And not too many of the country's poor would have starved in the interim. Great plan.

Too many of our country's poor are already starving to death even with our fiat currency. Printing money and ruining our economy as a result is not helping matters.

Yes, and that's the point: if you have a reasonable inflation amount, then this encourages investment. People realize that it will cost them money to take their cash out of the market, so they keep it in instead.

There is no reasonable inflation amount.

The government regulates inflation to encourage a healthy level of growth. You can't do this on the gold standard.

The government cannot control inflation unless you are talking about it printing more fiat currency each time it wants to make things worse on the people.

But, hey...are we going to turn this into a discussion about precious metals versus the dollar or are we going to come up with a reason why we can send $100,000,000.00 to another country when we are already bankrupt and people are starving in our own streets?

 

[Gabethewiking]

Yes...or a note that is actually backed by gold and can be exchanged for gold at any financial institution.

Yes, let us imagine a currency backed by gold, say identical to our current fiat money but with gold backing for each bill.

So now, Tell me, how would a nation without a economy (say that a foreign nation has bombed them to bits and stolen all gold that happened to exist), get an economy going/running ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And how does printing money to send to Haiti keep poor people in America from starving?

You know what? I'm done with this game. If you want to ride around on your gold standard bandwagon, you'll have to do it without me pushing.

But, hey...are we going to turn this into a discussion about precious metals versus the dollar or are we going to come up with a reason why we can send $100,000,000.00 to another country when we are already bankrupt and people are starving in our own streets?

Your country isn't bankrupt. It's certainly in the red and definitely needs to do something about its finances (starting with its predilection for getting into expensive wars, IMO), but it's not bankrupt.

I agree that your country is in dire financial straits and that a new expense would have to be very compelling before it would warrant spending money on it. Haiti is one of those compelling cases.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Yes, let us imagine a currency backed by gold, say identical to our current fiat money but with gold backing for each bill.

So now, Tell me, how would a nation without a economy (say that a foreign nation has bombed them to bits and stolen all gold that happened to exist), get an economy going/running ?

Generally when this happens it is considered conquered by the other nation. There is nothing to imagine. It has happened many times, all over the globe, for thousands of years. Printing worthless does not get an economy going. It destroys what bits may have been left.

You know what? I'm done with this game. If you want to ride around on your gold standard bandwagon, you'll have to do it without me pushing.

That's fine. I respect you for stepping down instead of turning ugly. Frubals to you.

Your country isn't bankrupt. It's certainly in the red and definitely needs to do something about its finances (starting with its predilection for getting into expensive wars, IMO), but it's not bankrupt.

Seems to me it qualifies, other than that it has not filed for bankruptcy in a world court.

I agree that your country is in dire financial straits and that a new expense would have to be very compelling before it would warrant spending money on it. Haiti is one of those compelling cases.

I do not agree with you, but apparently our dictator Barack Hussein Obama does.

 

[Gabethewiking]

You know what? I'm done with this game. If you want to ride around on your gold standard bandwagon, you'll have to do it without me pushing.


Your country isn't bankrupt. It's certainly in the red and definitely needs to do something about its finances (starting with its predilection for getting into expensive wars, IMO), but it's not bankrupt.

I agree that your country is in dire financial straits and that a new expense would have to be very compelling before it would warrant spending money on it. Haiti is one of those compelling cases.

Hail Canada and all that.

I apologize for my fellow americans weird view, he seem to blame "fiat currency" on our current economic crisis and have no understanding of our history and why we actually have poverty and problems at all. Presumably (I guess) it is a way of not taking responsibility of ones opinions and stance, say why we do not have Basic Healthcare for our Citizens or a decent Educational System for everyone (say Evolution) and so on.

I know very well what would solve our problems, We reduce militay spending and focus all our needs on our Children making sure they get a good decent Education as they get in other first world countries, with this they will start using their imagination producing technology and medical science and we will, just as other countries, have a decent functional society with very little poverty and violence.

This of course demands that you care for not only your own citizens, but other nations as we would have to cooperate to learn and evolve....

And one note more.... The most giving nations are also the ones promoting love and understanding whatever religion you may have, whatever sexual preference you may have and whatever size of nose you may have, they seem to consider others Equal... Think about it.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Generally when this happens it is considered conquered by the other nation. There is nothing to imagine. It has happened many times, all over the globe, for thousands of years. Printing worthless does not get an economy going. It destroys what bits may have been left.

You did not answer my question. Could you please supply a response related to my question?