Is the US national "debt" an illusion?

[Matthew Libman]

If freeing minds is your goal, may I suggest posting that on forums that aren't already full of freed minds?

You may recommend some if you know of them.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Debt in an imaginary currency? Why would I care. Stroke of a pen removes its legal tender status.

 

[devil21]

You may recommend some if you know of them.

I'm sure you can handle it. I agree with some of your op contents but I think a lot of it is poppycock too, so I won't help you spread crap about "obama's successful energy exploration" or "raising debt ceiling" (another deadline of which is coming up in a week or so, which I suspect is why you've posted this same content all over the net).

 

[Matthew Libman]

I'm sure you can handle it. I agree with some of your op contents but I think a lot of it is poppycock too, so I won't help you spread crap about "obama's successful energy exploration" or "raising debt ceiling" (another deadline of which is coming up in a week or so, which I suspect is why you've posted this same content all over the net).

I got a new haircut, and ever since I've been in the zone.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

People always cite the debt and what each person "owes". I think this is kind of lost on the public though. You have to show them the unseen. You have to show them the businesses that were lost (millions by some estimates) and the higher wages/purchasing power they'd be experiencing without the Federal Reserve perpetual debt machine.

Tie it together.

 

[DamianTV]

I got a new haircut, and ever since I've been in the zone.

So youre bald now? Cuz that is how much of a haircut youre gonna have to take. Next, theyre coming for your eyebrows and back hair.

People always cite the debt and what each person "owes". I think this is kind of lost on the public though. You have to show them the unseen. You have to show them the businesses that were lost (millions by some estimates) and the higher wages/purchasing power they'd be experienced without the Federal Reserve perpetual debt machine.

Tie it together.

Also compare the Birth / Death Rates of Businesses. Since 2008, more businesses have been dying than have been created. And it is those small businesses that are the backbone of the US economy, not the mega super ultra giganto corporations. Real Unemployment is somewhere around 35% meaning that the deaths of all these businesses is murdering the Middle Class. 95% of homes being manufactured right now are for the very rich, or the very poor, while only 5% are targetted at the non existent Middle Class. Car sales are up, but only for luxury cars. Everyone else is holding on to their cars for record lengths of time because they simply can not afford a new non luxury car on McDonalds / WalMarx wages. Income Ineqality has reached record levels, and this is our New Normal.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Real Unemployment is somewhere around 35%

Only if you include all retired people, all non-working students, and all stay at home moms and dads along with those unwilling to seek a job for whatever reason.

 

[Weston White]

Only if you include all retired people, all non-working students, and all stay at home moms and dads along with those unwilling to seek a job for whatever reason.

Like the reason being that jobs, locally, are dying? Also you need to take into account all the less-than-part-time-work that is being counted as multiple jobs, full-time work is now legally less than full-time work, all of the temporary seasonal work that gets counted as "new jobs" but are not in actuality, and the high turnover rate of low skilled employments that also gets counted as "new jobs" but are not in actuality.

 

[angelatc]

I tend to agree with many of the forward-thinking viewpoints that are shared on liberty-oriented forums.

One thing has become increasingly clear to me: the United States HAS debt, but it is really not IN debt.
.

Then by all means, tell it to the CBO, who have issued warning after warning after warning that our current spending habit and the debt that we are incurring as a result is unsustainable. The most recent prediction came out Monday:

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com.../cbo-releases-updated-budget-projections.html

 

[helmuth_hubener]

An illusion? I wish it were.

Libman, what are you even trying to say? What's your beef? What's your proposal? Nothing you have posted on this thread has made any sense whatsoever.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

But, it was impetus for Danke's post, so I forgive you.

 

[acptulsa]

An illusion? I wish it were.

Libman, what are you even trying to say? What's your beef? What's your proposal? Nothing you have posted on this thread has made any sense whatsoever.

'...on this thread...'? Why the unnecessary qualification?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

'...on this thread...'? Why the unnecessary qualification?

Ha, ha, sorry, you're right!

 

[oyarde]

I got a new haircut, and ever since I've been in the zone.

I got a haircut once in Dec. , I think , but I was never in the zone .

 

[LibForestPaul]

What is with the we and the us? I owe nothing. I entered into a voluntary contract with no-one.
I am not an American Citizen; I am a subject, owned like so many heads of cattle.
There is no I in tyranny.
I care not what happens to the United States, Federal Reserve, America, only what happens when they are no more.

 

[otherone]

I smell Lyndon Larouche.

Hey OP, you sure are playing fast and loose with the idea of "National Wealth". It seems to be your opinion that anything of value within the borders belongs to the government. The government actually shouldn't own ANY land or resources.

Me too; although there seems to be some commonalities shared by the LLM and modern democrats. The whole central planning worship combined with the conflation of the American people and the federal government as "the Nation".

"Lib"man writes:

The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to govern the people through the money supply.

The purpose of the federal reserve is to ROB the people through the money supply. Fuck Reagan; we live in a "trickle-up" economy.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

A couple points:

1) Since fiat dollars are created out of debt, if debt goes to zero, so does the "value" of the fiat dollar.

2) The debt itself is an illusion. The collateral put up against the debt ~80 years ago is not an illusion. That collateral is what you wrote about. Land, resources, etc.

3) Put 1 and 2 together to see the big picture. Debt is wiped out, collateral is seized, fiat dollar becomes worthless. Start over.

Or something like that....

Please, no, it's been said here enough times that Fed does NOT need debt to exist to create money. I know, there are a lot of videos & articles that say that (& many of whom propose alternatives like "debt-free money", which is hardly an improvement over what exists) but it's false.
As the system currently exists, whenever Fed buys something, it simply credits the price to the seller's bank account, & that's how new money is created. The thing that is bought does NOT have to be debt, it can be gold, peanuts or as has been seen, mortgage-backed securities!
No, land & resources weren't & aren't the collateral for the money created by Fed; the things on Fed's balance sheet on the Assets side, like Treasuries, gold, MBS, etc are the collateral.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

So, you're saying that the government owes the people about 76% of it?

Does that include what is owed to SSI?

And, who is paid the interest on that? (I know that interest is low, currently)

And...more importantly...can't we take out in government hide if they try to back out (renig?)?

If I'm not mistaken, Social Security has about 3 trillion or so in Treasuries, rest of the specific figures are out there on the Internet.....

Government is supposed to be paying the interest but since it is also the one in-charge of the SS accounts, it's basically the interest "saved" for the government i.e. the interest that they actually have to pay.

I would really like to see more intellectual engagement when people post things.

Just because someone has what you think is an illogical conclusion does not mean that they don't have any understanding or knowledge.

I'm not all knowing and understanding, I'm still learning. I do consider some of my beliefs to be solid based on what I can prove, and that is usually not, what I consider, positive understanding but, rather, negative understanding. As in, what is not true or what is most likely not true. And that is based on contradictory evidence, some of which is known or acknowledged.

If we are to find truth, we have to engage others in honesty. If we are to develop sound theories about life, we have to gather, and share, all of the information and considerations that our brothers and sisters have.

The liberal individuals are not the enemy, the neocon individuals are not the enemy. Falsehood and deceit are the enemy. Most of our fellow humans are as in the dark as any of us (yes, the us that means all of the people that are not gods).

While I fully agree & support with your sentiment, I think sometimes people (including myself) deem it too burdensome to discuss with people that have fundamentally different views than them. Personally, I do try (at least some of the times ) to discuss things even with liberals, neocons & whoever it is, when they seem willing to engage in a fruitful discussion but I question the fruiltfulfullness (or futility for that matter) of engaging in a discussion when for example, someone believes it's ok to steal & coerce for "common good"; I question myself whether there's any real point in talking to them. I think that's how some of the people feel when they come across posters who post a lot of things that go against a lot of things that most people here stand for, & that's when we see responses of some that stand to jeer at the poster without an effort to engage in an actual fruitful discussion. I don't always agree with such behavior but I DO undderstand, fully, why some people here do that.

 

[devil21]

Please, no, it's been said here enough times that Fed does NOT need debt to exist to create money. I know, there are a lot of videos & articles that say that (& many of whom propose alternatives like "debt-free money", which is hardly an improvement over what exists) but it's false.
As the system currently exists, whenever Fed buys something, it simply credits the price to the seller's bank account, & that's how new money is created. The thing that is bought does NOT have to be debt, it can be gold, peanuts or as has been seen, mortgage-backed securities!
No, land & resources weren't & aren't the collateral for the money created by Fed; the things on Fed's balance sheet on the Assets side, like Treasuries, gold, MBS, etc are the collateral.

Let's talk about the real world for a moment, where "full faith and credit" are just words.

Treasuries=debt instruments. MBS=debt instruments. The Fed doesn't buy gold, officially at least, or peanuts so that's irrelevant. What the Fed does buy is debt instruments. What do you suppose Treasuries are backed by? The US federal government is a corporation and therefore federal land, the resources on or under that land and the citizens (people are corporate entities under our monetary system) are assets of the corporate federal government. That is what backs the debt issued by the federal government, just like when any corporate entity loans money to another corporate entity. The assets of the borrowing entity are the collateral of the lending entity. Additionally, when a bank (all banks are Federal Reserve Banks) loans money in various forms, it creates 90% of that money out of nothing based upon the signature of the corporate borrower taking on a debt obligation. Therefore, under the current Fed system, money is debt and when there's no debt, there's no money.

eta: I said current system. The rules can be changed at any time, without notice or recourse. They always tell you this. It's just words and contemporary interpretations of those words. What is today may not be tomorrow.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The Fed doesn't buy gold, officially at least, or peanuts so that's irrelevant.

It IS relevant in understanding how Fed works, how new money is created & why your claim "if debt goes to zero, so does the "value" of the fiat dollar" isn't necessarily true. Even if the debt goes to zero, there would be gold & other assets still remaining on the Fed balance sheet & hence, that many amount of dollars could still be in existence & they could hold vastly more purchasing-power than they do right now because of reduced supply.

(all banks are Federal Reserve Banks) loans money in various forms, it creates 90% of that money out of nothing based upon the signature of the corporate borrower taking on a debt obligation.

Firstly, NO, all banks are NOT Federal Reserve Banks! Fed can create money at will, other banks can't period. The 90% thing that you're trying to describe doesn't work that way, it's merely the leveraging of the monetary base caused by re-lending of the money. As I've said, there are a lot of videos & articles out there that are misconstruing & misrepresenting facts about Fed due to lack of understanding. The best place to learn about these things would be Mises.org