BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Please post a list of question's I've failed to answer.

Respectfully,

E4E1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445736-BANKERS-TELL-IT-LIKE-IT-IS&p=6616942#post6616942

 

[devil21]

Ad Hominem saves the day!!!

Well, at least you don't have to debate.

Look if you can't have an adult conversation just say you aren't interested. I'll add you to my slowing growing list of people who would rather call names and leave negative rep than address the topic.

Respectfully,

E4E1

Feel free to find a forum that is more suitable to your tastes. I don't expect you'll receive a much warmer response from others, either.

If you truly think that mentioning that almost every country is controlled by a Rothschild central bank is "conspiracy theory" then you're either a shill or still much less educated than your college econ classes have led you to believe.

 

[econ4every1]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445736-BANKERS-TELL-IT-LIKE-IT-IS&p=6616942#post6616942

Frankly, my impression of you thus far has simply been a nay-sayer interested only in sewing doubt so I admit I read right past your post and intended to keep doing so in the future as I didn't see your contributions as productive. I've read your post in full and see you've made a bit of effort, so I will do the same....

Maybe you should take your own advice. My perception of you is a smug guy who busted into the forum with the intention of schooling everyone without listening.

Yes, I understand that's how I come across. I do my best to let others know I mean no disrespect, but I don't sugar coat things and if the snowflakes get all butt-hurt because they don't like what I have to say, I encourage them to leave their negative rep and get it over with so I can spend time discussing with people that are interested in two way conversation.

Okay fine; that's just the nature of forums sometimes, but I am guessing you're here for purpose, aren't you? If so, then what is the purpose? Are you running for some DNC 2020 leadership position as suggested by Dennis Tate in your video interview with Steve Grumbine? Or, are you just someone who does this as a hobby?

Oh, I thought you were talking about questions in the context of the forum we're discussing in (economics) or the topic of the thread (BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS).


You were questioning my motives (now that I've taken the time to read your posts). First, I don't hide who I am, if I wanted to do that, do you think I would be using the same reasonably unique screen name in several forums?


I don't tend to advertise who I am as I find that most people will try to size me up before they speak to me and know all the reasons why I'm wrong before they ever actually talk to me. Eventually who I am and the ideas I hold come out. Nothing to hide....


To answer your question concerning my motives. I assure you I'm just a person who's not affiliated with any organization, movement, an ideological or political group who enjoys talking about economics. Groups like this one present a different point of view then I get when I converse with people who generally share my understanding. Sometimes debates lead to questions I can't immediately answer which uncovers gaps in my knowledge and points me in a direction of study.


As far as Dennis Tate (lolz). He is a very nice guy, but (in the nicest way I can possibly say this) he is "extremely enthusiastic" and can, at times be a bit strange. While I do converse with him, I think a lot of what he says is batshit crazy and I've corrected him many times. He is definitely a fan, but I try not to encourage him. He promotes several people for office. His latest is Ophra and me in 2020. Between you and I, I really don't want another celebrity in office, well maybe George Clooney. Hahaha, just kidding, but I did like his character in the "Ides Of March".


Anyway, back to Dennis, I'm not affiliated with him nor am I running for Vice President as he promotes. I told him in several private messages if I were going to engage in politics I'd start right here in my hometown.


As far as Steve Grumbine and the interview I did on his Progressives channel. I agreed to do that interview which was fun (though I thought I was HORRIBLE), but I am critical of Steves approach and have told him that on several occasions. Progressives tend to have a tax and spend mentality (the deficit "doves"), which I see as a mistake and I was given a chance to discuss it. Maybe a conservative group will invite me on someday and I can explain why I think deficit hawks (decrease taxes and decrease spending) are just as wrong as the doves (increase taxes increase spending), well, each of them has it half right....


While Steve is reasonably informed with respect to economics, his approach is far too aggressive and will fail to reach the goals he sets for himself as a Progressive because he really isn't talking to people, rather he uses incendiary and inflammatory language to further his Progressive ideas.


I don't consider myself a Progressive but I do agree with some of the ideas they share, but in the same sense, there are Libertarian ideas I share, but in both cases, it really depends on what we're talking about.

I belong to this Facebook group - Libertarians + MMT https://www.facebook.com/groups/1884178271833892/


At the end of the day, my "agenda" is just to share what I know and subject my ideas to criticism. No shortage of either here.


See the thing is, I think that people fail to understand the truth about fiat money and as a result, they cannot critically evaluate it. People assume that my attempt to correct the record means that I support fiat. The truth is that I'm not saying that fiat is the system that we should be using, just that their criticisms about it are incorrect.


You may have seen my conversation with Zippy. While there may be things we agree on, my perception of his mistakes about banks is common. So I am engaging in conversation to see if I can correct him on how I believe the system works.

I think the questions are important because it speaks of trust. I see trust as being part of this issue. An example would be the aforementioned discussion between you and Devil21 on the difference between getting credit versus creating your own credit.


I trust what @devil21 says, although I don't always understand what he is talking about. The same with @acptulsa. That's why I think this could be a good discussion. I don't really have a problem with your posting here because it doesn't look to me (so far) like you're paid to post. Some might not care what I think because I'm just some guy on the internet; however, you might care what people think because you're, of course, trying to reach people with some kind of message.

Let's be honest, we all have a message we want to share, the real question is our motivations.


While we may violently disagree about what we believe I think that people like you are doing what they feel is best for this country (as am I). My success rate in debates with people is miserable (very few people are introspective enough to admit their wrong) I have convinced a few people directly and many people have communicated with me directly out of the public eye. It's my hope that I get others to call into question their own ideas and will seek out more information and learn on their own.


I used to be more heavily involved in debating politics, but I soon learned that anything that is worth doing takes the money and if you don't understand the system of money, you can't, in good conscience advocate for anything because someone, sooner or later will pull out the ace and ask "how are you going to pay for that?". So I set out in 2003 to learn more about the economy and how it works. I was quite taken with Bill Still for quite some time. Someone I suspect you'd agree with as he is incredibly critical of the Fed and did a documentary called "Jekyll Island: The Truth Behind the Federal Reserve"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SshQ5PmKKJs


I was quite taken by his explanations initially but never satisfied to sit in echo chambers my ideas were challenged by a chartalist. I found the chartalist view a better explanation relying less on innuendo and correlation and fear tactics and better supported by the evidence. Most of the Anti-Fed video's are ominus doom and gloom video's trying to scare the crap out of people (though in fairness all sides engage in fear tactics).


I've had private discussions with Mr. Still (which unfortunately were deleted when YouTube stopped private messaging between YT'ers) or I'd be happy to share. Suffice it to say, he didn't like my challenges to his assertions and soon became frustrated with my questions.


I also challenged Mike Maloney the creator of the "Hidden Secrets of Money" series several times in the comments of his video's, but alas he has never responded.


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mike+maloney


Mike has created a channel with top-notch production value, but the information he gives is based on an outdated understanding of money. I have had quite a few conversations in the comments sections of his vids.

I always filter what someone says through a lens of trust. ZippyJuan and TheCount are paid to post here. They converse about economics, but what they say is met with skepticism because of their motivations. There is a good reason why they are not trusted. It really doesn't matter how much they "know." In other words, it's not what they post, but why they post it. I'm not going to forever listen with bated breath to someone whose purpose is to undermine.

Shit, if I got paid to post I'd be making bank! Sign me up!


Seriously, I just what I learn and expose it to the light of the evidence I can uncover.

So, I want to know why someone speaks. Are they trying to persuade me? Are they trying to inform me? If so, then why? Maybe they just like to mix it up because it has some personal or ego appeal. That's fine.

[I'd be lying if I said it doesn't feel good to have knowledge and anyone who says that it doesn't I'd call a lier. But I earned this knowledge. Currently, there are over 400 saved links to information in my browser alone. I've read several books by authors including Walter Bagehot, Adam Smith, Hyman Minsky and Thomas Sowell just to name a few.

Applied Economics: I think it's been a decent and civil discussion so far. These discussions are good because I have to work extra hard to wrap my head around some economic concepts. I would like to hear from Devil21, ACPTulsa, or others on this issue.

I just hope they do it here in the forum, rather than spamming comments in the Rep section

 

[econ4every1]

Feel free to find a forum that is more suitable to your tastes. I don't expect you'll receive a much warmer response from others, either.

If you truly think that mentioning that almost every country is controlled by a Rothschild central bank is "conspiracy theory" then you're either a shill or still much less educated than your college econ classes have led you to believe.

Toche my friend.

 

[econ4every1]

[MENTION=27917]NorthCarolinaLiberty[/MENTION]


I can't make Devil21 debate me, but I will address his insinuation for your sake (as you said you were interested and I suspect you might want an answer to this point of debate) in the context of the conversation you started by asking me questions.


The Rothschilds may at one time had the kinds of influence on the banking system as is alleged by most Fed haters. I won't confirm or deny that as I wouldn't have claimed to have spent a lot of time trying to find evidence that confirms or disputes that claim. However, given the fact that banks did lend money to governments (unlike today) it would not surprise me to learn that at least some of what is insinuated is true.


What I do know is that the insinuation of the Rothschilds connection to the banks is that they have control over our government because they lend money to it.


This is patently false and is based on a misunderstanding of how money is created today. If you want me to explain why it will take some time, patience and an attempt at understanding. It's not "hard" to understand in the sense that there is complex math or some "secret sauce". I won't point to a situation and say, "see what other explanation is there!".

No, the hardest part of understanding banking IMO is to remember that every single point of view has an opposite. That debts are incomes, that liabilities are assets and that one entities budget deficits are other entities budget surpluses.


Nathan Rothschild is quoted as saying something like,

"He who controls the issuance of money controls the government".

I believe the true and full original quote from 1815 is:

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."


Now again, I don't dispute that was true then, I do however dispute that's how things work today. I don't have to know if it was true then (because I'm not claiming to know what happened then), all I have to know is if it's still true by understanding how the government issues money today.

But again, the explanation requires that I share ideas around exogenous and endogenous money. This requires that we discuss how banks create money, something that this group has a decent understanding of since Austrians generally have it right. They point out that money is created as credit rather than banks lending money they have. The problem is that most people who believe in the Austrian explanation don't understand the full accounting of cause and effect and it leads them to some erroneous conclusions.


Here is something you might find some interest in.


There is a debate between Warren Mosler (a supporter of MMT) and Dr. Robert Murphy a Professor of Austrian Economics that you might want to watch if you are really interested. I'd be happy to argue from the MMT point of view if you (or anyone else) have any questions after watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTLCDBONok&feature=youtu.be&t=4m38s


I should note though, the first question the moderator asks is what policies would each person support. Warren goes first and he lays out several policies he'd support based on his understanding of the economy. I wish he had pointed out that MMT as a discipline does NOT PROMOTE ANY POLICY. It's important to remember that our beliefs inform our actions. That is to say, if you believe something is true, you make decisions based on the truth of that thing. For instance, if you are told that cell phones are bad for children, the information that lends evidence to that position does not advocate what should be done about it. However, people that believe that study might. I hope that makes sense.

Unfortunately, Dr. Murphy doesn't really address a lot of What Warren Mosler says, several times he concedes Mr. Mosler's point. He simply states that even if the economy works like Mr. Mosler claims Austrians don't think it should work that way. And that's a fine argument as long as you understand how the economy works today is generally misunderstood by most amateur Austrian economists. policy prescriptions.

Unfortunately, that leads us down an entirely different rabbit hole, which I'll talk about in a follow up depending on your level of interest.

MMT as a discipline make NO prescriptive recommendations, however, people that believe it's a good ex-plenati0on for how things work generally support similar policy perscriptions.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[most of your post]

Okay, fair enough.

$#@!, if I got paid to post I'd be making bank! Sign me up!


Seriously,...

I know you're joking, but the paid trolls are exactly why so many people like you are met with skepticism. If you were paid, then you would follow the template of these dirtbags. If you want to (sort of) be entertained on a non-economics topic, then check the link in my sig line. It takes about 60 seconds to read. I could be wrong on some things, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Here is something you might find some interest in.

Thanks, but I'll pass. I'm more interested in practical application than theory. For example, there are people who'd be happy to see cash disappear in this world. That's because they can make more money with everyone using credit cards. Some of these people push to have statutes and regulations that weaken cash. An example is the SARS (suspicious activity reports) threshold getting lower. I like using cash--as much as I want. Eliminating that in favor of credit cards is done by manipulative scumbags who lobby for such things.

 

[devil21]

[MENTION=69780]econ4every1[/MENTION]

Since you claimed in a post above that banks don't lend money to governments I have one simple question to you. If you know the answer it should prove your level of actual understanding of the current debt money system and that you're not just a fresh Economics graduate from college regurgitating theory from textbooks.

Can you explain to us how federal debt like Treasury bonds are created?

 

[econ4every1]

@econ4every1

Since you claimed in a post above that banks don't lend money to governments

That is correct.

I have one simple question to you.

I cast doubt on anyone that believes that any question that surrounds Treasury operation as "simple".

If you know the answer it should prove your level of actual understanding of the current debt money system and that you're not just a fresh Economics graduate from college regurgitating theory from textbooks.

You mean, if I answer in the way you believe things work.

Can you explain to us how federal debt like Treasury bonds are created?

I don't want to deflect from the question, so I'll answer it, but I think, and I could be wrong because you didn't really elaborate enough with what I suspect is an attempt at a "gotcha" kind of question, but you didn't elaborate on why this matters.

So, since I'm going to answer your question, I'd ask that you answer the following question when you follow up. The correct answer to this question, if I understand the unspoken assertion in the question you've asked me, undermines your question.

Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?

Moving on:

You weren't very specific in what specifically you wanted. I'll start at a high level.


When the government sells bonds, private banks buy them by offering reserves they hold at the central bank. The Federal Reserve (in the US) debits the buying bank’s reserve deposits and credits the bank’s account with Treasury securities. Rather than seeing this as borrowing by the Treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits out of a checking account and into a saving account in order to earn more interest. And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed.

This affects the economy because it removes dollar reserves from private banks thereby increasing the scarcity of reserves. Since dollar reserves are required when banks make loans when Treasuries are sold the scarcity of reserves increases and this, in turn, increases the cost of borrowing.

Now if you are asking more than that, please be more specific.

 

[acptulsa]

When the government sells bonds, private banks buy them by offering reserves they hold at the central bank. The Federal Reserve (in the US) debits the buying bank’s reserve deposits and credits the bank’s account with Treasury securities. Rather than seeing this as borrowing by the Treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits out of a checking account and into a saving account in order to earn more interest. And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed.

So, you're saying the banks don't loan the government money, the government sells banks its debt.

Now, tell us how that doesn't, as a purely practical matter, amount to splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs is a wonderful thing. You aren't lying. But the casual observer can sure look at your statement, and come away believing something that isn't true. That sure is handy, isn't it?

 

[econ4every1]

So, you're saying the banks don't loan the government money, the government sells banks its debt.

Now, tell us how that doesn't, as a purely practical matter, amount to splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs is a wonderful thing. You aren't lying. But the casual observer can sure look at your statement, and come away believing something that isn't true. That sure is handy, isn't it?

Was I wrong? Please explain how.

Splitting hairs? No, I just gave an accurate explanation of how the system works.

Can you answer the question.....

"Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?"

 

[devil21]

So, you're saying the banks don't loan the government money, the government sells banks its debt.

Now, tell us how that doesn't, as a purely practical matter, amount to splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs is a wonderful thing. You aren't lying. But the casual observer can sure look at your statement, and come away believing something that isn't true. That sure is handy, isn't it?

Actually, [MENTION=69780]econ4every1[/MENTION] completely missed the point of my question and never answered it. I asked how Treasury debt is created. Not how Treasury debt finds it's way to a holder, like a bank. That part is at the very end of the process. I asked how the debt issue itself is created. IOW, how does the Treasury create a bond that it auctions off. What is that process?

 

[acptulsa]

"Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?"

Which government? De Soto Parish, Louisiana?

Of course existing FRNs can be spent.

 

[econ4every1]

Which government? De Soto Parish, Louisiana?

Of course existing FRNs can be spent.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious, the US government.

And no, I'm asking if the government can spend new money before it issues new Treasuries.

 

[econ4every1]

Actually, @econ4every1 completely missed the point of my question and never answered it. I asked how Treasury debt is created. Not how Treasury debt finds it's way to a holder, like a bank. That part is at the very end of the process. I asked how the debt issue itself is created. IOW, how does the Treasury create a bond that it auctions off. What is that process?

I didn't miss your point I simply didn't understand what you are asking. Thank you for clarifying the question.

Can't say I remembered all of this off the top of my head...So, this is what I've come up with after a little reading.

When it's anticipating a new federal bond issue, the central bank in coordination with the US Treasury first conducts an informal survey about current market conditions and the type of issue investors might prefer. These informal discussions are held with investment dealers, banks and other market participants who have experience with bond issues of the size and type being considered.

Before the details of the new bond issue are decided, several important questions have to be answered. Most importantly, the federal government must determine the precise purpose of the issue. It can be to "pay for" (offset) military spending, to refund prior securities or to sell new Treasuries at a more favorable interest rate.

There must be a legal precedent that outlines the conditions under which the bond issue can be undertaken. Such a legal precedent relates to the issue's purpose. For example, when its purpose is to fund a capital project, there must be legal precedents to determine that the issuance serves national taxpayers and the greater good of federal constituents. In the case of the refund of a prior debt issue, the question is whether or not the debt is refundable under federal tax rules.

Then the government chooses an underwriter for the debt, often it's an investment firm the government has a pre-existing relationship with which it can choose to underwrite bond issuance. If the Amount is large, the Treasury can choose more than one firm.

In the last phase, the so-called "marketing phase" the details are hammered out and official statements (disclosure docs) are prepared and reviewed where after a short period is given to potential purchasers to review.

Am I on the right track, or were you looking for something different?

 

[acptulsa]

Actually, [MENTION=69780]econ4every1[/MENTION] completely missed the point of my question and never answered it. I asked how Treasury debt is created. Not how Treasury debt finds it's way to a holder, like a bank. That part is at the very end of the process. I asked how the debt issue itself is created. IOW, how does the Treasury create a bond that it auctions off. What is that process?

I didn't miss your point I simply didn't understand what you are asking. Thank you for clarifying the question.

Can't say I remembered all of this off the top of my head...So, this is what I've come up with after a little reading.

When it's anticipating a new federal bond issue, the central bank in coordination with the US Treasury first conducts an informal survey about current market conditions and the type of issue investors might prefer. These informal discussions are held with investment dealers, banks and other market participants who have experience with bond issues of the size and type being considered.

Before the details of the new bond issue are decided, several important questions have to be answered. Most importantly, the federal government must determine the precise purpose of the issue. It can be to "pay for" (offset) military spending, to refund prior securities or to sell new Treasuries at a more favorable interest rate.

There must be a legal precedent that outlines the conditions under which the bond issue can be undertaken. Such a legal precedent relates to the issue's purpose. For example, when its purpose is to fund a capital project, there must be legal precedents to determine that the issuance serves national taxpayers and the greater good of federal constituents. In the case of the refund of a prior debt issue, the question is whether or not the debt is refundable under federal tax rules.

Then the government chooses an underwriter for the debt, often it's an investment firm the government has a pre-existing relationship with which it can choose to underwrite bond issuance. If the Amount is large, the Treasury can choose more than one firm.

In the last phase, the so-called "marketing phase" the details are hammered out and official statements (disclosure docs) are prepared and reviewed where after a short period is given to potential purchasers to review.

Am I on the right track, or were you looking for something different?

Well, first he said what happens after the bond is created, and now he has said what happens before the bond is created.

You didn't get your question answered, but you got a nice pair of bookends.

 

[econ4every1]

Well, first he said what happens after the bond is created, and now he has said what happens before the bond is created.

You didn't get your question answered, but you got a nice pair of bookends.

[MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]

Ok, you got me I'm stumped...Please enlighten me.

 

[devil21]

[MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]

Ok, you got me I'm stumped...Please enlighten me.

Spend some time learning that part, since without it, there is no Treasury bond to be issued. I'll give you a hint of where to start learning the stuff they didn't teach you in econ classes in school. It starts the moment you are born and your mother signs a piece of paper stuck in her face at her most vulnerable moment. That piece of paper turned you into a corporate slave for the rest of your life. The Treasury doesn't just create issues out of nothing. They're secured by something.

Have fun.

 

[econ4every1]

Spend some time learning that part, since without it, there is no Treasury bond to be issued. I'll give you a hint of where to start learning the stuff they didn't teach you in econ classes in school. It starts the moment you are born and your mother signs a piece of paper stuck in her face at her most vulnerable moment. That piece of paper turned you into a corporate slave for the rest of your life. The Treasury doesn't just create issues out of nothing. They're secured by something.

Have fun.

Oh, and here I thought u were being serious.

 

[acptulsa]

Oh, and here I thought u were being serious.

Now, see, there's where you and 99% of this forum differ. You think it's a lark having your grandparents spend you into insurmountable debt before you're born and leaving you to spend your life paying it back. Whereas many of us were in on that spending spree back in the day, we see what it's doing to the economy, we know there will be a day of reckoning, and even though we may not be around to see it, we actually love our children enough that we hate the fact. We opposed this lunacy back when it was actually benefitting us, and we hate it now.

You say, gee, we can keep rolling this stuff over forever and ever. But first interest accumulates, and then interest gets charged on interest, and then it mushrooms. And we don't have faith in a bunch of short-sighted politicians who can't see past their next election to manage it. You say anyone can get all the raises they need to keep up with dollar devaluation, or at least you can and you could give damn-all for anyone else. There's another place you and most of us disagree.

If you want to hang around, you're just going to have to learn to agree to disagree with the overwhelming majority of us on these things. Perhaps you heard someone say libertarians don't give a fig about their fellow man, so you thought you'd find lots of like-minded souls here. Sorry to disappoint you, but much of what we do we do because we can actually see how the poor got poorer, and we don't like it.

He's the one treating this topic as a legal and moral issue with real-world consequences for real people. You're treating it as some kind of interesting mental exercise. Tell us again who is, and who isn't, being serious.

 

[econ4every1]

Now, see, there's where you and 99% of this forum differ. You think it's a lark having your grandparents spend you into insurmountable debt before you're born and leaving you to spend your life paying it back.

You spend your life paying taxes, not repaying the entirety of debt.

Whereas many of us were in on that spending spree back in the day, we see what it's doing to the economy, we know there will be a day of reckoning and even though we may not be around to see it, we actually love our children enough that we hate the fact. We opposed this lunacy back when it was actually benefitting us, and we hate it now.

The biggest lie ever believe by the American people. The debt has to be repaid.

It's always about "the children".

You say, gee, we can keep rolling this stuff over forever and ever.

That's not the issue.

Let me ask you and [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]. I answered your question in good faith. Now you answer mine.

Let's use China as an example as it is the nation that holds the larger amount of US Treasuries (what you'd call "debt").

2 Questions

1. When China buys US Treasuries, what does it buy them with?

Tell you what, I'll give you the answer to this because it's easy....They buy Treasures with US dollars.

2. How did the Chinese government come to possess a total $3.2 trillion US dollars (About $1.1 trillion in Treasuries and $2 trillion in US dollar savings)?

The Chinese government hasn't sold $3.2 trillion dollars worth of goods to US consumers. The Chinese government doesn't tax its citizens in US dollars. So tell me, how did they come to possess so many US dollars. Please explain.

But first interest accumulates, and then interest gets charged on interest, and then it mushrooms.

Here (below) is US interest as a percentage of GDP going back to 1940....Where is the "mushroom"?

70 years of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!" "We're going to crushed under the weight of future debt, our kids will pay for it!!"

And what are the solutions I hear so often?

Cut spending on Medicaid, Social Security cut funding to schools and food for the elderly.....So basically, the solution is to make the poor, the children and the elderly pay for it now? Right?

So there it is....in 2014 we were paying the same rate as we were in 1945, 1955 and 1973. The historical range for interest paid as a percent of the economy is between 0.7%-3.2%.

The problem that you have when you look at the future debt costs is that;

1: You are measuring in absolute dollars rather than as a percentage of the size of the economy. If your salary went to $300k tomorrow, don't you think your bills might increase just a little?

2: You aren't factoring in that 1/3 of all interest payments the government pays to itself (effectively canceling out $33 out of every $100 paid in interest). Another roughly 1/3 is paid to the US private sector. As long as there are things that people need and want to purchase, those dollars won't cause rampant inflation they will add to economic growth. The last 1/3 is paid to the foreign sector who does what with it? Buys bonds?

You say anyone can get all the raises they need to keep up with dollar devaluation, or at least you can and you could give damn-all for anyone else. There's another place you and most of us disagree.

No, I never said, "anyone can get all the raises they need to keep up with dollar devaluation". I said that anyone can use discretionary money to avoid inflation. As far as salaries, I think people should be paid more, but the only way to ensure salaries go up is to ensure unemployment is low and people have the opportunity to reach their potential ensuring that markets for labor are competitively fueled by an economy driven by demand for the kinds of things that people will create.

Also, I don't appreciate you trying to paint me as someone who doesn't care, you don't know me, you don't know (or understand) my motivations, but I assure you that the policies I support help those that need it most.

Now I won't accuse you of not caring, but I will say that I believe that Austrian economics would lead to a society where the stratifications of income of poverty are even greater because you've falsely identified the currency and government as the problem and you don't understand the nature of today's "debt".

You're treating it as some kind of interesting mental exercise. Tell us again who is, and who isn't, being serious.

Anyone who claims I'm a slave because my mother signed a birth certificate isn't being serious.

Now I'd be happy to explain why anyone that beleives that is wrong, but you have to stay engaged.

Respecfully,

E4E1