Alan Greenspan telling the truth!

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.


Also, listen to Ben:

 

[Centinel]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

 

[Centinel]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

 

[Centinel]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain. Deficit hawks have been screaming and crying for years, the burden of proof is on you. I suppose I should ask you this question, since the national debt is never going away (bonds.) How is the national debt harming anybody? It simply represents the savings of various entities in securities. And these people know it's a safe place to park dollars for a tiny bit of interest.

 

[Timmy]

U.S. has incredible earning potential . We could pay down the debt . BUT who's gonna do that ? Cut military , cut social security , cut all that cool shot we like !? Raise taxes on top!

Look at the Prez race . Not one of them has a debt lowering plan .

 

[Centinel]

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

 

[Dale Smith]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.


Also, listen to Ben:

Printing currency debases the currency already in existence and only kicks the can down the road. Only the ones at the very top benefit from a flood of money into the system. Your knowledge of this fiat currency system is scary. The Fed needs to have a top to bottom audit and then nationalized and it's ill gotten wealth taken from them and put into a trust. There needs to be a full disclosure of the CAFRs and the wealth that has been stolen needs to be revealed if we are ever going to get out of this debt slavery system.

 

[Dovahkiin]

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.
Anyways, here is some data:

(M1 includes the most liquid parts of the money supply)

And keep in mind that an overall increase in price means absolutely nothing when people are working less hours for more money and the fact that we're living better then we did 50 years ago, by all measures.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.


Also, listen to Ben:

Printing currency debases the currency already in existence and only kicks the can down the road. Only the ones at the very top benefit from a flood of money into the system. Your knowledge of this fiat currency system is scary. The Fed needs to have a top to bottom audit and then nationalized and it's ill gotten wealth taken from them and put into a trust. There needs to be a full disclosure of the CAFRs and the wealth that has been stolen needs to be revealed if we are ever going to get out of this debt slavery system.

It does? Hmmm, that explains why the USD is the worlds reserve currency and still in high demand by holders of bonds. Yeah, definitely! Maybe you should look at your views and consider that the world is a different place. Yeah, the ones at the top benefit if we don't focus on deficit spending aimed towards the poor, but all deficit spending adds new net financial assets to the domestic private sector/foreign sector. Why do you want to destroy the central bank? "Wealth taken from them." Hah, and what do you do when the economy collapses and banks fail all over the place? What happens to bond holders? Debt isn't slavery, debt is the reason I'm able to live a comfortable life. Money is all IOU'S after all.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain. Deficit hawks have been screaming and crying for years, the burden of proof is on you. I suppose I should ask you this question, since the national debt is never going away (bonds.) How is the national debt harming anybody? It simply represents the savings of various entities in securities. And these people know it's a safe place to park dollars for a tiny bit of interest.

It's supply and demand. The more dollars in the system, the less each dollar is worth.

 

[Dovahkiin]

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain. Deficit hawks have been screaming and crying for years, the burden of proof is on you. I suppose I should ask you this question, since the national debt is never going away (bonds.) How is the national debt harming anybody? It simply represents the savings of various entities in securities. And these people know it's a safe place to park dollars for a tiny bit of interest.

It's supply and demand. The more dollars in the system, the less each dollar is worth.

Repeating a claim doesn't make it true. Look at the m1:

Where is the crippling inflation?
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also:

It is important to note here that the above is not the least bit controversial. No economist disagrees with the basic equation MV=Py. The arguments arise when additional assumptions are made regarding the nature of the individual variables. For example, this is what is assumed in the “money growth==>inflation” view:

M: That which is money is easily defined and identified and only the central bank can affect it’s supply, which it can do with autonomy and precision.

V: The velocity of money is related to people’s habits and the structure of the financial system. It is, therefore, relatively constant.

P: The economy is so competitive that neither firms nor workers are free to change what they charge for their goods and services without there having been a change in the underlying forces driving supply and demand in their market.

y: The economy automatically tends towards full employment and thus y (the existing volume of goods and services) is as large as it can be at any given moment (although it grows over time).

 

[Centinel]

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.
Anyways, here is some data:

(M1 includes the most liquid parts of the money supply)

And keep in mind that an overall increase in price means absolutely nothing when people are working less hours for more money and the fact that we're living better then we did 50 years ago, by all measures.

Are you trying to claim that an increase in supply doesn't result in a decrease in price?

 

[The Rabbi]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

That's fine as long as people have confidence in the US government and in the dollar. But once they dont, watch out. And dont think it cant happen.

 

[Dale Smith]

U.S. has incredible earning potential . We could pay down the debt . BUT who's gonna do that ? Cut military , cut social security , cut all that cool shot we like !? Raise taxes on top!

Look at the Prez race . Not one of them has a debt lowering plan .

USA.INC takes in more revenue per year through their investments and other holdings than the entire GDP of the private sector.

The Peoples War - Share with One and All

 

[Dovahkiin]

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.
Anyways, here is some data:

(M1 includes the most liquid parts of the money supply)

And keep in mind that an overall increase in price means absolutely nothing when people are working less hours for more money and the fact that we're living better then we did 50 years ago, by all measures.

Are you trying to claim that an increase in supply doesn't result in a decrease in price?

"Doesn't result in a decrease in price."
Wow, what a strange view.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

That's fine as long as people have confidence in the US government and in the dollar. But once they dont, watch out. And dont think it cant happen.

Confidence isn't going away, did bond yields drop because of the debt ceiling nonsense? Are people turning over in droves to get rid of dollars?

 

[Dale Smith]

Listen to greenspan in regards to debt in our own currency.

Of course. The government could print one thousand trillion dollars and pay off all its debts and have plenty left over.

The question is who would benefit and who would be harmed.

All forms of government issued currency are liabilities of the government (fed/treasury.) The "national debt" simply looks at bonds.
Now, with that in mind, consider why americans aren't fearing for their lives over reserves/notes/coins..
Also, I don't deal with exaggerated examples. And "paying off" the debt would simply mean converting the bonds back to dollars in accounts at the fed. The governments liability doesn't change. In fact, we're doing this every day already. How? Crediting accounts. Right now, we have a demand problem, and the best way to fix that problem is getting more dollars into the hands of the poor, the engine of prosperity.

That's fine as long as people have confidence in the US government and in the dollar. But once they dont, watch out. And dont think it cant happen.

The problem is that other countries do not have confidence in this corporate entity and they are working to bypass the dollar with the BRICS alliance. 60 percent of the world's economy is trying to bypass this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value but the military might of USA.INC.