Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

[G.T.]

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

We've been spending into oblivion without repercussions for a Century. I'm a bit skeptical that the Debt is not a farce.

It's giggle worthy when people mention China in their rhetoric regarding the debt, too. We've borrowed such a small % of our debt from China that it's the biggest tell when someone is talking about the debt & doesn't know what the fuck they're saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

We've been spending into oblivion without repercussions for a Century. I'm a bit skeptical that the Debt is not a farce.

It's giggle worthy when people mention China in their rhetoric regarding the debt, too. We've borrowed such a small % of our debt from China that it's the biggest tell when someone is talking about the debt & doesn't know what the fuck they're saying.

We have not been spending into oblivion. Our debt was always a manageable level of the economy, with the exception of WW2, which of course had a terminal date.
China is the largest overseas creditor, over $1.2T. That is a significant sum.

 

[G.T.]

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

We've been spending into oblivion without repercussions for a Century. I'm a bit skeptical that the Debt is not a farce.

It's giggle worthy when people mention China in their rhetoric regarding the debt, too. We've borrowed such a small % of our debt from China that it's the biggest tell when someone is talking about the debt & doesn't know what the fuck they're saying.

We have not been spending into oblivion. Our debt was always a manageable level of the economy, with the exception of WW2, which of course had a terminal date.
China is the largest overseas creditor, over $1.2T. That is a significant sum.

They are the largest overseas contribution, but not even an eye blink close to the largest - - - - yet they are the most oft. mentioned.

 

[expat_panama]

...The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits...

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

We don't want the government to make a profit.

When we want the government to render justice we don't want it to be the 'best justice money can buy', for that matter we don't even want it to be the most popular justice on the block. We want justice in accordance with written law. The law requires our government to "promote the general welfare" --not to guarantee a monthly check free and clear to that segment of the population in the labor market at the expense of the rest of us in the capital market.

 

[The Rabbi]

We've been spending into oblivion without repercussions for a Century. I'm a bit skeptical that the Debt is not a farce.

It's giggle worthy when people mention China in their rhetoric regarding the debt, too. We've borrowed such a small % of our debt from China that it's the biggest tell when someone is talking about the debt & doesn't know what the fuck they're saying.

We have not been spending into oblivion. Our debt was always a manageable level of the economy, with the exception of WW2, which of course had a terminal date.
China is the largest overseas creditor, over $1.2T. That is a significant sum.

They are the largest overseas contribution, but not even an eye blink close to the largest - - - - yet they are the most oft. mentioned.

The largest creditor is the US government itself, through it's issuance of special bonds for SS obligations.
But only an idiot would think China does not have substantial leverage by holding the equivalent of the Federal budget.

 

[G.T.]

We have not been spending into oblivion. Our debt was always a manageable level of the economy, with the exception of WW2, which of course had a terminal date.
China is the largest overseas creditor, over $1.2T. That is a significant sum.

They are the largest overseas contribution, but not even an eye blink close to the largest - - - - yet they are the most oft. mentioned.

The largest creditor is the US government itself, through it's issuance of special bonds for SS obligations.
But only an idiot would think China does not have substantial leverage by holding the equivalent of the Federal budget.

lol leverage to....what?

 

[The Rabbi]

They are the largest overseas contribution, but not even an eye blink close to the largest - - - - yet they are the most oft. mentioned.

The largest creditor is the US government itself, through it's issuance of special bonds for SS obligations.
But only an idiot would think China does not have substantial leverage by holding the equivalent of the Federal budget.

lol leverage to....what?

Rly? Srsly?

 

[G.T.]

The largest creditor is the US government itself, through it's issuance of special bonds for SS obligations.
But only an idiot would think China does not have substantial leverage by holding the equivalent of the Federal budget.

lol leverage to....what?

Rly? Srsly?

Yea, really.

They continue to have full faith and interest in lending.

How come? Are they not cognizant that they're helping build the very military superpower that would deplete them out of existence if their future plan was to ever come "break our knee caps?"

There's a part of the picture you're missing.

It's that WE hold the cards, not China.

 

[Kimura]

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

So you're saying the unemployed are voluntarily unemployed?

Again, taxation isn't theft, as the federal government doesn't need tax dollars to fund expenditures. Taxes create demand for the national unit of account and they're used to regulate aggregate demand.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits...

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

We don't want the government to make a profit.

When we want the government to render justice we don't want it to be the 'best justice money can buy', for that matter we don't even want it to be the most popular justice on the block. We want justice in accordance with written law. The law requires our government to "promote the general welfare" --not to guarantee a monthly check free and clear to that segment of the population in the labor market at the expense of the rest of us in the capital market.

No we do not want that. Moreever, I do not believe the government is even capable of it. At least not with any semblance of consistency.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

So you're saying the unemployed are voluntarily unemployed?

Again, taxation isn't theft, as the federal government doesn't need tax dollars to fund expenditures. Taxes create demand for the national unit of account and they're used to regulate aggregate demand.

What are the governments other options ofr revenue? To say that the government doesn't need taxes is simply false and has no basis in reality. Taxes are th revenue for governments to operate. Without them, they must borrow or print the money. There isn't a fourth option.

 

[Kimura]

We have not been spending into oblivion. Our debt was always a manageable level of the economy, with the exception of WW2, which of course had a terminal date.
China is the largest overseas creditor, over $1.2T. That is a significant sum.

They are the largest overseas contribution, but not even an eye blink close to the largest - - - - yet they are the most oft. mentioned.

The largest creditor is the US government itself, through it's issuance of special bonds for SS obligations.
But only an idiot would think China does not have substantial leverage by holding the equivalent of the Federal budget.

First of all, national governments rarely run down their stock of national debt. The currency issuer plays by a different set of rules than the currency user, so these inane household analogies the we hear by pundits simply have zero basis in reality.

China has ZERO leverage against the US. As a matter of fact, they are DEPENDENT on US credit creation. All the dollars they accrue are a result of selling stuff to the US.

I'm glad to you brought up SS. Paying into SS is basically the equivalent as purchasing a US government bond. Let's go over it.

Under SS, as it now operates, you give the government your $$$$ now, and it gives you back $$$$ down the road. This is identical to what occurs when you purchase a US bond (it's a savings account of sorts). You give Uncle Sam $$$$ now, and you get $$$$ back down the road plus some accrued interest.

Sure, you one might be a better investment, and earn you a higher rate of return, but they are identical.

 

[expat_panama]

...It's that WE hold the cards, not China...

--or it would be if the world was poker. It ain't, it's not even a zero-sum game. China bought trillions of U.S. debt because it was it was a good deal for them --safe solid bonds. The U.S. was happy to sell the bonds because it was a good deal for us --ready money, practically no interest.

What's not to like?

 

[G.T.]

...It's that WE hold the cards, not China...

--or it would be if the world was poker. It ain't, it's not even a zero-sum game. China bought trillions of U.S. debt because it was it was a good deal for them --safe solid bonds. The U.S. was happy to sell the bonds because it was a good deal for us --ready money, practically no interest.

What's not to like?

That was my point cheenius.

 

[Kimura]

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

So you're saying the unemployed are voluntarily unemployed?

Again, taxation isn't theft, as the federal government doesn't need tax dollars to fund expenditures. Taxes create demand for the national unit of account and they're used to regulate aggregate demand.

What are the governments other options ofr revenue? To say that the government doesn't need taxes is simply false and has no basis in reality. Taxes are th revenue for governments to operate. Without them, they must borrow or print the money. There isn't a fourth option.

Nope.

Here:

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/treasar/AR_TREASURY_1955.pdf

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/quarterly_review/1978v3/v3n2article7.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/79/10/Accounts_Oct1979.pdf


Again, for the 12,567th time, from whom does the US borrow? The US, as the monopoly issuer of dollars, doesn't borrow that which is freely issues. Any and ALL bond purchases are made with $$$$ which is ALREADY spent. Operationally, in terms of monetary operations, if this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be an dollars to pay taxes or buy US Treasuries.

We need to get down to brass tacks. We'll use my example, again, for like the fourth time, since there's only so many ways I can possibly explain this to you. I said borrowing precedes tax payments and borrowing, right? Well, in point of fact, I'm correct, especially if we include loans from the Federal Reserve. The ONLY way, operationally, to settle Treasury auctions and tax payments, would be through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The initial source of balances from bank reserves are a result of PREVIOUS deficits, which are nothing more than credits to reserve accounts or Federal Reserve loans. These Federal Reserve loans can be extended by purchasing private securities, repos, loans, and overdrafts. This is the central point: to settle bond purchases and tax payments, previous government spending is a prerequisite.

I provided you with some links, please read them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Is borrowing the fourth option after borrowing, taxing and printing?

 

[Kimura]

Is borrowing the fourth option after borrowing, taxing and printing?

I explained it to you: the government doesn't need to borrow its own fiat, nor does it require that fiat back in the form of taxes to fund itself. The term "printing money" goes back to the gold standard, it has no basis in soft currency monetary operations.

I provided you with three links to papers at the St Louis FED and New York FED. There's only so many ways I can try to help you understand monetary operations. Print them out, read them, then get back to me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The US, as the monopoly issuer of dollars, doesn't borrow that which is freely issues.

So it issues the dollar based on what? It's own demand for fiat dollars, or against the productivity in the market to incur revenues from the issuance it creates? I'd call that printing money. What then exactly, is the public and government debt? Who is responsibile for servicing that debt? Why are we paying interest on servicing said debt?

Any and ALL bond purchases are made with $$$$ which is ALREADY spent.

After it was issued, yes. Are treasury issuance the result of monetizing debt?

Operationally, in terms of monetary operations, if this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be an dollars to pay taxes or buy US Treasuries.

Off from what wealth does the government issue dollars?

We'll use my example, again, for like the fourth time, since there's only so many ways I can possibly explain this to you. I said borrowing precedes tax payments and borrowing, right? Well, in point of fact, I'm correct, especially if we include loans from the Federal Reserve. The ONLY way, operationally, to settle Treasury auctions and tax payments, would be through RESERVE ACCOUNTS. The initial source of balances from bank reserves are a result of PREVIOUS deficits, which are nothing more than credits to reserve accounts or Federal Reserve loans.

Borrowing precedes borrowing, ok. Deficits are credits, loans aren't loans when the federal reserve makes them, or bank reserves are actually reserves in the sense of acquired wealth. It's all very clever and yet requires a masters in sophistry to "understand".

These Federal Reserve loans can be extended by purchasing private securities, repos, loans, and overdrafts. This is the central point: to settle bond purchases and tax payments, previous government spending is a prerequisite.

And since loans aren't borrowing, this is the fourth way in which government can acquire revenue! Wow!

 

[Kimura]

...The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits...

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.

We don't want the government to make a profit.

When we want the government to render justice we don't want it to be the 'best justice money can buy', for that matter we don't even want it to be the most popular justice on the block. We want justice in accordance with written law. The law requires our government to "promote the general welfare" --not to guarantee a monthly check free and clear to that segment of the population in the labor market at the expense of the rest of us in the capital market.

Of course we don't want the government to be profitable. Government should serve public policy and the general welfare.

Government budgets should never be a policy target per se. The government should target tangible things, such as sustainable growth made possible through full employment.

Why do we provision government? We leverage government to improve the general welfare and do things we can’t do individually. If this is the case, it becomes obvious that public policy should be constructed to make sure we have enough jobs, that we have a first class public education system, a first class public health system, that people in poverty are able to become better off, etc. All the other OECD countries have had more success in this area, yet we're the wealthiest country in the world. Am I the only one seeing the disconnect?

In terms of a purely macroeconomic perceptive, any decisions regarding taxation and spending, should be that total spending within the US economy is good enough to produce a level of output that will employ the any and all available labor (full employment). Any budget decisions should be based around employing any and all productive capacity.

 

[expat_panama]

...It's that WE hold the cards, not China...

--or it would be if the world was poker. It ain't, it's not even a zero-sum game. China bought trillions of U.S. debt because it was it was a good deal for them --safe solid bonds. The U.S. was happy to sell the bonds because it was a good deal for us --ready money, practically no interest. What's not to like?

That was my point cheenius.

Good to know I've made myself clear and you stand corrected. Next time show up for class on time and have all your homework done.