Why the money system is flawed and why the debt cannot be paid off even if they want to?

[Red Front]

It's crucial to understand that GDP is not just a tally of transactions but a measure of economic activity within a specific period.

Excellent!
Show how the government portion of economic activity is larger than
the government portion plus the non-government portion.

In short, Todd, the challenge is not in the math

DURR

Todd, your response seems to intentionally misinterpret the fundamental principles of economics to frame a question that's inherently flawed. Let's clarify this once more, with hopes it lands more effectively this time.

Asking how "the government portion of economic activity is larger than the government portion plus the non-government portion" is a bit like asking how a piece of pie can be larger than the whole pie itself. It's a nonsensical proposition within the framework of basic arithmetic, let alone economics. The government portion (G) is a part of GDP, not separate from it. When we discuss government spending in relation to GDP, it's about the impact of G on the overall economic activity, not a bizarre arithmetic contest.

Your insistence on viewing this through a distorted lens suggests either a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to skew the discussion. For clarity:

• GDP is the total economic output, including all government and non-government activity within a certain period.
• Government spending (G) contributes to GDP, alongside consumption (C), investment (I), and net exports (X-M).

Now, to directly counter your "excellent" challenge with a dose of reality: The proposition that G alone could be larger than the collective GDP (which includes G itself) is akin to claiming part of the pie is larger than the entire pie. It's a misunderstanding of what GDP represents.

Furthermore, your sarcastic "Durr" retort to the assertion that the challenge isn't in the math but in the interpretation misses the point spectacularly. It's precisely the interpretation and understanding of economic relationships and the role of government spending within them that's at issue. Your focus on a flawed mathematical gotcha ignores the substantive discussion about how fiscal policy impacts economic outcomes.

So, Todd, to make this as clear as possible:

• No one is asserting G > GDP in the literal sense you're implying. The discussion is about the capacity for government spending to stimulate economic activity and influence the size of GDP.
• The real "math" of the situation involves understanding the multiplier effect, the role of fiscal policy in economic management, and the dynamic nature of GDP as a measure of economic activity—not a simplistic comparison of individual components as if they were isolated variables.

Your approach to this debate seems more focused on semantic games than engaging with the substantive economic principles at play. If you're genuinely interested in understanding the dynamics of government spending and GDP, I encourage you to engage with the economic theory and evidence supporting these discussions. Otherwise, it appears the only "Durr" here is your failure to grasp the basics of macroeconomic analysis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, your response seems to intentionally misinterpret the fundamental principles of economics to frame a question that's inherently flawed. Let's clarify this once more, with hopes it lands more effectively this time.

Asking how "the government portion of economic activity is larger than the government portion plus the non-government portion" is a bit like asking how a piece of pie can be larger than the whole pie itself. It's a nonsensical proposition within the framework of basic arithmetic, let alone economics. The government portion (G) is a part of GDP, not separate from it. When we discuss government spending in relation to GDP, it's about the impact of G on the overall economic activity, not a bizarre arithmetic contest.

Your insistence on viewing this through a distorted lens suggests either a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to skew the discussion. For clarity:

• GDP is the total economic output, including all government and non-government activity within a certain period.
• Government spending (G) contributes to GDP, alongside consumption (C), investment (I), and net exports (X-M).

Now, to directly counter your "excellent" challenge with a dose of reality: The proposition that G alone could be larger than the collective GDP (which includes G itself) is akin to claiming part of the pie is larger than the entire pie. It's a misunderstanding of what GDP represents.

Furthermore, your sarcastic "Durr" retort to the assertion that the challenge isn't in the math but in the interpretation misses the point spectacularly. It's precisely the interpretation and understanding of economic relationships and the role of government spending within them that's at issue. Your focus on a flawed mathematical gotcha ignores the substantive discussion about how fiscal policy impacts economic outcomes.

So, Todd, to make this as clear as possible:

• No one is asserting G > GDP in the literal sense you're implying. The discussion is about the capacity for government spending to stimulate economic activity and influence the size of GDP.
• The real "math" of the situation involves understanding the multiplier effect, the role of fiscal policy in economic management, and the dynamic nature of GDP as a measure of economic activity—not a simplistic comparison of individual components as if they were isolated variables.

Your approach to this debate seems more focused on semantic games than engaging with the substantive economic principles at play. If you're genuinely interested in understanding the dynamics of government spending and GDP, I encourage you to engage with the economic theory and evidence supporting these discussions. Otherwise, it appears the only "Durr" here is your failure to grasp the basics of macroeconomic analysis.

Asking how "the government portion of economic activity is larger than the government portion plus the non-government portion" is a bit like asking how a piece of pie can be larger than the whole pie itself.

Exactly.

It's a nonsensical proposition within the framework of basic arithmetic, let alone economics.

No kidding. That's why I was mocking you.

No one is asserting G > GDP in the literal sense you're implying.

Thanks for admitting your ridiculous error. Finally.

 

[Red Front]

Asking how "the government portion of economic activity is larger than the government portion plus the non-government portion" is a bit like asking how a piece of pie can be larger than the whole pie itself.

Exactly.

It's a nonsensical proposition within the framework of basic arithmetic, let alone economics.

No kidding. That's why I was mocking you.

No one is asserting G > GDP in the literal sense you're implying.

Thanks for admitting your ridiculous error. Finally.

Firstly, your assertion that I'm admitting to a "ridiculous error" is a masterclass in misinterpretation. Clarifying a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of one's argument is not an admission of error, it's an attempt to steer a wayward conversation back on course. The key distinction here, which you've gleefully ignored, is the context and substance of what was being discussed.

The quote you dredged up and framed as evidence was never about asserting that government spending (G) could numerically exceed the total GDP in a simplistic, arithmetic sense.

• 
  Economic Stimulus, Not Arithmetic Oversights: The assertion was about the role of government spending as a stimulus within the economic system, capable of boosting overall GDP through various mechanisms, including but not limited to direct spending, investments, and the multiplier effect on consumption and investment.
• Clarification, Not Admission: Pointing out the fallacy in your question was meant to clarify this misunderstanding, not to concede to your skewed interpretation. Your claim of "mocking" based on a straw man argument does little to advance the conversation on how fiscal policy impacts economic outcomes.
• The Real Error: The real "ridiculous error" here seems to be a persistent effort to misconstrue the discussion, turning it into a semantic quibble rather than engaging with the substantive points about fiscal policy and economic theory.

If you're ready to engage with the dynamic nature of fiscal policy and its capacity to influence economic outcomes beyond the narrow confines of your equation, I'm all ears. Until then, it seems we're just going around in circles, with your insistence on a flawed premise leading nowhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Firstly, your assertion that I'm admitting to a "ridiculous error" is a masterclass in misinterpretation. Clarifying a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of one's argument is not an admission of error, it's an attempt to steer a wayward conversation back on course. The key distinction here, which you've gleefully ignored, is the context and substance of what was being discussed.

The quote you dredged up and framed as evidence was never about asserting that government spending (G) could numerically exceed the total GDP in a simplistic, arithmetic sense.

• 
  Economic Stimulus, Not Arithmetic Oversights: The assertion was about the role of government spending as a stimulus within the economic system, capable of boosting overall GDP through various mechanisms, including but not limited to direct spending, investments, and the multiplier effect on consumption and investment.
• Clarification, Not Admission: Pointing out the fallacy in your question was meant to clarify this misunderstanding, not to concede to your skewed interpretation. Your claim of "mocking" based on a straw man argument does little to advance the conversation on how fiscal policy impacts economic outcomes.
• The Real Error: The real "ridiculous error" here seems to be a persistent effort to misconstrue the discussion, turning it into a semantic quibble rather than engaging with the substantive points about fiscal policy and economic theory.

If you're ready to engage with the dynamic nature of fiscal policy and its capacity to influence economic outcomes beyond the narrow confines of your equation, I'm all ears. Until then, it seems we're just going around in circles, with your insistence on a flawed premise leading nowhere.

Firstly, your assertion that I'm admitting to a "ridiculous error" is a masterclass in misinterpretation.

You're not admitting your ridiculous error? OK.

Clarifying a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of one's argument is not an admission of error

Your ridiculous error was due to a misunderstanding of math?

The quote you dredged up and framed as evidence was never about asserting that government spending (G) could numerically exceed the total GDP in a simplistic, arithmetic sense.

When you asserted (G) could be larger than GDP, you meant in some way
other than arithmetically?

 

[Red Front]

Firstly, your assertion that I'm admitting to a "ridiculous error" is a masterclass in misinterpretation.

You're not admitting your ridiculous error? OK.

Clarifying a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of one's argument is not an admission of error

Your ridiculous error was due to a misunderstanding of math?

The quote you dredged up and framed as evidence was never about asserting that government spending (G) could numerically exceed the total GDP in a simplistic, arithmetic sense.

When you asserted (G) could be larger than GDP, you meant in some way
other than arithmetically?

When I mentioned government spending (G) could be larger than GDP, it was never about defying basic arithmetic, as you so eagerly misinterpret. It was about the impact and role of government spending within the economic system, a concept that remains elusive to your argument, trapped as it is in a static mathematical model that fails to capture the dynamism of real-world economics (macroeconomics).

If you're so inclined to have the last word, by all means, take it. Revel in the belief that you've "won" something here. I, and others genuinely interested in understanding the complexities of economic policy beyond the confines of oversimplified equations, have better things to do than continue this endless back-and-forth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I mentioned government spending (G) could be larger than GDP, it was never about defying basic arithmetic, as you so eagerly misinterpret. It was about the impact and role of government spending within the economic system, a concept that remains elusive to your argument, trapped as it is in a static mathematical model that fails to capture the dynamism of real-world economics (macroeconomics).

If you're so inclined to have the last word, by all means, take it. Revel in the belief that you've "won" something here. I, and others genuinely interested in understanding the complexities of economic policy beyond the confines of oversimplified equations, have better things to do than continue this endless back-and-forth.

When I mentioned government spending (G) could be larger than GDP, it was never about defying basic arithmetic,

When said (G) could be bigger than GDP you actually
meant that (G) could not be bigger than GDP.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Not That Guy]

3 fucking pages. Same argument.

Red- Learn to add.

Todd is right.

And your both wrong.

 

[Red Front]

When I mentioned government spending (G) could be larger than GDP, it was never about defying basic arithmetic,

When said (G) could be bigger than GDP you actually
meant that (G) could not be bigger than GDP.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I cleared up your arbitrary definition of what it means for the government to spend and what I actually meant. Whenever the government prints money, creating USD, it's spending. It's inserting that money into the economy and it can insert as much money as it wants. So speaking in strict mathematical terms, there's nothing stopping the US Federal Government from creating a trillion, trillion dollars and depositing billions of dollars into everyone's checking account.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I cleared up your arbitrary definition of what it means for the government to spend and what I actually meant. Whenever the government prints money, creating USD, it's spending. It's inserting that money into the economy and it can insert as much money as it wants. So speaking in strict mathematical terms, there's nothing stopping the US Federal Government from creating a trillion, trillion dollars and depositing billions of dollars into everyone's checking account.

Whenever the government prints money, creating USD, it's spending.

If the Fed creates $1 billion and exchanges it for $1 billion worth of T-Bills,
how is that spending?

 

[Red Front]

Whenever the government prints money, creating USD, it's spending.

If the Fed creates $1 billion and exchanges it for $1 billion worth of T-Bills,
how is that spending?

The problem is your definition of spending. If the government creates USD ex-nihilo and inserts it into the economy, by giving the money away, depositing it into people's checking accounts as "cash assistance", a grant, or whatever, that's the government spending money. Our definitions and metrics are different, you're assuming and asserting one thing and I am saying something else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem is your definition of spending. If the government creates USD ex-nihilo and inserts it into the economy, by giving the money away, depositing it into people's checking accounts as "cash assistance", a grant, or whatever, that's the government spending money. Our definitions and metrics are different, you're assuming and asserting one thing and I am saying something else.

My definitions are fine. The Fed doesn't create money and "give it away".
If the government "spent" created money, GDP is still larger than (G).
Keep trying to defend your silly error.

 

[Red Front]

My definitions are fine. The Fed doesn't create money and "give it away".
If the government "spent" created money, GDP is still larger than (G).
Keep trying to defend your silly error.

Your arbitrary rules don't apply. The FED does create USD ex-nihilo and can deposit the money in anyone's account, and that can be any amount, including more than the amount in dollars of last year's GDP. Whether the FED should do that or not, or whether the economy would survive or not (the economy would collapse) , is besides the point (that's another debate). The US federal government can create as much USD as it wants and deposit it in any account (hence spending it), even if those amounts are above our GDP. Your objections are silly and arbitrary.

Your assertions are so silly, that I just let my AI argue with you, and while I'm here coding CNC machines, you're arguing with my AI. Sometimes I peek and see what stupidity you're saying. I just happen to look today and you're communicating with me now, directly. Your claims are like always, disingenuous and silly. Completely arbitrary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your arbitrary rules don't apply. The FED does create USD ex-nihilo and can deposit the money in anyone's account, and that can be any amount, including more than the amount in dollars of last year's GDP. Whether the FED should do that or not, or whether the economy would survive or not (the economy would collapse) , is besides the point (that's another debate). The US federal government can create as much USD as it wants and deposit it in any account (hence spending it), even if those amounts are above our GDP. Your objections are silly and arbitrary.

Your assertions are so silly, that I just let my AI argue with you, and while I'm here coding CNC machines, you're arguing with my AI. Sometimes I peek and see what stupidity you're saying. I just happen to look today and you're communicating with me now, directly. Your claims are like always, disingenuous and silly. Completely arbitrary.

The FED does create USD ex-nihilo and can deposit the money in anyone's account,

They can, but they don't.

and that can be any amount, including more than the amount in dollars of last year's GDP.

Yes. And if they did, and if that was classified as government spending, GDP would still be higher than government spending.

 

[Red Front]

The FED does create USD ex-nihilo and can deposit the money in anyone's account,

They can, but they don't.

and that can be any amount, including more than the amount in dollars of last year's GDP.

Yes. And if they did, and if that was classified as government spending, GDP would still be higher than government spending.

They can and whether they do it or not is irrelevant. I said that they can, and you objected pretending it's mathematically impossible. You're clearly wrong, thanks for admitting that they can.

If the US federal government prints three quintillion dollars and divides it into ten billion dollars for every single American citizen, instantly making everyone a multibillionaire, that would be spending more than the GDP. There's way too much money in the economy, beyond production capacity or the means to meet the new demand from all of those billionaires. In such a case, which of course is ridiculous and wouldn't happen, unless the FED goes crazy, the government would've spent more than the GDP.

The US Federal Government having a budget that spends more than the GDP, say a few trillion dollars more rather than the three quintillion mentioned above, would still be spending, giving away more money than the country can produce for in goods and services. That was my original point. Keeping the federal budget under GDP, to not have too much money in the economy, chasing after too few goods and services. You went off on an incoherent tantrum about federal spending and how it can't supposedly spend more than the nation's production capacity, which is a completely absurd claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They can and whether they do it or not is irrelevant. I said that they can, and you objected pretending it's mathematically impossible. You're clearly wrong, thanks for admitting that they can.

If the US federal government prints three quintillion dollars and divides it into ten billion dollars for every single American citizen, instantly making everyone a multibillionaire, that would be spending more than the GDP. There's way too much money in the economy, beyond production capacity or the means to meet the new demand from all of those billionaires. In such a case, which of course is ridiculous and wouldn't happen, unless the FED goes crazy, the government would've spent more than the GDP.

The US Federal Government having a budget that spends more than the GDP, say a few trillion dollars more rather than the three quintillion mentioned above, would still be spending, giving away more money than the country can produce for in goods and services. That was my original point. Keeping the federal budget under GDP, to not have too much money in the economy, chasing after too few goods and services. You went off on an incoherent tantrum about federal spending and how it can't supposedly spend more than the nation's production capacity, which is a completely absurd claim.

They can and whether they do it or not is irrelevant. I said that they can, and you objected pretending it's mathematically impossible.

I didn't say it's mathematically impossible for the Fed to print money.

If the US federal government prints three quintillion dollars and divides it into ten billion dollars for every single American citizen, instantly making everyone a multibillionaire, that would be spending more than the GDP.

Three quintillion dollars in spending results in three quintillion dollars added to GDP.
GDP is still larger than government spending.

That was my original point. Keeping the federal budget under GDP, to not have too much money in the economy, chasing after too few goods and services.

Since the budget is always under GDP, your point was stupid.

 

[Red Front]

They can and whether they do it or not is irrelevant. I said that they can, and you objected pretending it's mathematically impossible.

I didn't say it's mathematically impossible for the Fed to print money.

If the US federal government prints three quintillion dollars and divides it into ten billion dollars for every single American citizen, instantly making everyone a multibillionaire, that would be spending more than the GDP.

Three quintillion dollars in spending results in three quintillion dollars added to GDP.
GDP is still larger than government spending.

That was my original point. Keeping the federal budget under GDP, to not have too much money in the economy, chasing after too few goods and services.

Since the budget is always under GDP, your point was stupid.

If the budget is more than the GDP, and the government spends more than the nation's production capacity or ability to produce goods and services, that can and probably will increase inflation significantly and potentially could lead to the collapse of the economy. When I say, that the government can't have a budget that is more than the nation's GDP, what I am saying is that it can't spend more than what the nation can produce to meet the demand that comes with government spending, without undermining or even collapsing the economy. Government budgets must remain under the GDP. Your mathematical objections to what I just said is what's actually stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the budget is more than the GDP, and the government spends more than the nation's production capacity or ability to produce goods and services, that can and probably will increase inflation significantly and potentially could lead to the collapse of the economy. When I say, that the government can't have a budget that is more than the nation's GDP, what I am saying is that it can't spend more than what the nation can produce to meet the demand that comes with government spending, without undermining or even collapsing the economy. Government budgets must remain under the GDP. Your mathematical objections to what I just said is what's actually stupid.

If the budget is more than the GDP.....

......Then your math is wrong.

 

[Red Front]

If the budget is more than the GDP.....

......Then your math is wrong.

Yes, if the amount of money that the government inserts into the economy is more than what the economy can produce in goods and services then that will cause hyperinflation and even the collapse of the economy. If the government spends beyond the productive means of the nation, there's too much money chasing too little goods and services. That's what I'm saying, you're just stuck on silly semantics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, if the amount of money that the government inserts into the economy is more than what the economy can produce in goods and services then that will cause hyperinflation

Of course, too much government spending will inflate the price of the economy's output.
More evidence that the output, GDP, will be higher than the government spending.

 

[Red Front]

Of course, too much government spending will inflate the price of the economy's output.
More evidence that the output, GDP, will be higher than the government spending.

No, because it will collapse the economy. Prices will not just go up, but production itself can fail completely to meet the demand and the whole productive line from mine to factory, to retail, will fall apart. If too much money is inserted into the economy, namely, more than the nation's GDP/production capacity, it will destroy the economy. That's my point and you can continue with your silly semantics.