Krugman kicks von Mises acolyte while he's down

[Kimura]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about how they function, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard (going off the gold standard gave more policy space to play with). All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as an econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about these operations functions, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard. All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

Odd, you still won't say why the world went off of the Pound Sterling. Let's try Rome. How did Rome make out issuing coins that were only clad in gold. Under your insane economic theory, they could have issued wooden slugs and as long as the money we held by the Roman Central Bank, everyone wins. How'd that end for Rome?

 

[Kimura]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about these operations functions, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard. All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

Odd, you still won't say why the world went off of the Pound Sterling. Let's try Rome. How did Rome make out issuing coins that were only clad in gold. Under your insane economic theory, they could have issued wooden slugs and as long as the money we held by the Roman Central Bank, everyone wins. How'd that end for Rome?

Actually, the oldest form of $$$$ out there we know of are tally sticks.

A "money thing" is a token or record of debt.

Also, the Roman Empire collapsed for multiple reasons, not because they lessened the % of gold in their coins.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about these operations functions, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard. All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

Odd, you still won't say why the world went off of the Pound Sterling. Let's try Rome. How did Rome make out issuing coins that were only clad in gold. Under your insane economic theory, they could have issued wooden slugs and as long as the money we held by the Roman Central Bank, everyone wins. How'd that end for Rome?

Actually, the oldest form of $$$$ out there we know of are tally sticks.

A "money thing" is a token or record of debt.

Also, the Roman Empire collapsed for multiple reasons, not because they lessened the % of gold in their coins.

They were done in by government expenses and tried issuing fake gold coins to cover the difference. At the end one would do business with them, they couldn't fund their government.

Of course, we've already established that you're evil, so of course you cast attention elsewhere.

 

[Kimura]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about these operations functions, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard. All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

Odd, you still won't say why the world went off of the Pound Sterling. Let's try Rome. How did Rome make out issuing coins that were only clad in gold. Under your insane economic theory, they could have issued wooden slugs and as long as the money we held by the Roman Central Bank, everyone wins. How'd that end for Rome?

Let's start with recent history.


Why is the British Sterling no longer the world's reserve currency? What happened in the late 60's and early 70's to change the status of the Pound Sterling?

A "reserve currency" is nothing more than the preferred currency used by nation-states for the purposes if international trade. In other words, it makes things convenient. It makes things less complicated if countries use the same currency when pricing real goods and services.

If the US stops being used as the reserve currency, it would have zero affect on its ability to issue dollars. For example, Japan isn't the reserve currency and they can issue as many Yen as they need. Ditto the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

At one point the Pound WAS a reserve currenc

As to Krugman, he justified why he calls-out the libertarian economist hack/cranks:
from OP source (snip)

Now, when I say things like that, people start howling about lack of civility. But I wasn’t insulting someone for the sake of insult; if you didn’t understand the essential dishonesty of the plan, you weren’t getting the story right. Yes, I could have used diffident language — but why? Readers deserve to be told clearly what is going on.

^ the above is why he gets to @CrusaderFrank . Krugman gives the reader the unexpurgated version.

^ Paul Krugman, gifted Leftist "Economist"

The pound ceased being the reserve currency back in 1931 for multiple reasons. The main problem was a loss in the UK's ability to create the necessary liquidity to bail out a global economy on the brink. Back in 1907, for example, we had the transfer of gold from NY to London the behest of JP Morgan which stopped a panic. However, by 1929, the NYSE was too overvalued when compared to the UK's reserves for London to backstop as the lender of last resort. This made the Pound, as a reserve currency, a dicey proposition, and once the panic spread to London, that was all she wrote.

Ahhhhh...the days of the marvelous gold standard.

 

[bripat9643]

How any "thinking-person" can advocate von Mises-like theory, given what we now know, has taken the rw brown acid.

Everything you know is wrong. All thinking persons understand that Mises is right and the government interventionist magicians are nothing more than con artists.

LOL. Now I know you definitely have ZERO background in finance or economics in any capacity.

You only proved that you're a brainwashed moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The more the US borrows and spends, the richer we all get -- Progressive Economic Logic 101

There was a quote by a Union Leader (Communist) that said essentially, the more you take the bigger the pie gets.

You have to look at the Communists in order to trace the ancstory of Kimura's insane, destrutive logic

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pound's death as a reserve currency lead to the Winter of Discontent. Odd that just issuing more pound didn't lead to Kimura's Prosperity. People back then were crazy with the "Gold Standard," right?

 

[Kimura]

Kimura is just plain ******* evil. Wrong doesn't cover it, lots of people get things wrong. Kimura is absolutely lying, knows he's lying, knows full well how destructive his "ideas" are and have been throughout history, and he carries on anyway. That's evil

They're not my ideas, if you guys can't understand the basics of monetary operations, despite my multiple attempts to educate you about these operations functions, I really don't think there's anything left to say.

You've been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda, lies and distortions by the media. It's like a daily propaganda assault of insanity when it comes to economics, the national debt, entitlement programs, etc. The problem is that we haven't updated the textbooks after we went off the gold standard. All of the macro textbooks are out of date, except for some econ departments in the US and overseas. I was lucky in that I was spared the horror of attending university in the US as econ and finance major.

In ten or fifteen years, once the old guard in econ departments die and retire, you'll see things start to change. We already of very good econ programs at Bard College and UKMC, so things are changing.

Odd, you still won't say why the world went off of the Pound Sterling. Let's try Rome. How did Rome make out issuing coins that were only clad in gold. Under your insane economic theory, they could have issued wooden slugs and as long as the money we held by the Roman Central Bank, everyone wins. How'd that end for Rome?

Actually, the oldest form of $$$$ out there we know of are tally sticks.

A "money thing" is a token or record of debt.

Also, the Roman Empire collapsed for multiple reasons, not because they lessened the % of gold in their coins.

They were done in by government expenses and tried issuing fake gold coins to cover the difference. At the end one would do business with them, they couldn't fund their government.

Of course, we've already established that you're evil, so of course you cast attention elsewhere.

I just answered your question about the Pound Sterling.

Imperial decadence was one of the primary causes of the decline of Rome. Any serious historian doesn't think debasement of the currency was the primary reason Rome fell.

An empire is very expensive to run, and if the growth rate isn't greater than the rate of inflation, the rate of $$$$ creation (gold coins) will outpace resource generation, which will result in collapse when real resources can't meet demand. This was the economic reason for the decline of the Rome.

It wasn't that Rome was debasing its $$$$, it was symbolic of the underlying problems. The Roman elite were living high on the hog and not managing the empire correctly. They funded their extravagant lifestyles by levying more taxes and debasing the currency while not paying attention to external threats from abroad.

Rome collapsed because of bad management and shitty leadership. End of story.

 

[Kimura]

The Pound's death as a reserve currency lead to the Winter of Discontent. Odd that just issuing more pound didn't lead to Kimura's Prosperity. People back then were crazy with the "Gold Standard," right?

Yeah, the gold standard was total ******* disaster by any metric. The gold standard is akin to putting a bag over a runner's head when he's trying to run a marathon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Ummmm...when new US Treasuries are purchased, money flows to the US Treasury. That's why they sell Treasuries.

 

[Kimura]

The more the US borrows and spends, the richer we all get -- Progressive Economic Logic 101

There was a quote by a Union Leader (Communist) that said essentially, the more you take the bigger the pie gets.

You have to look at the Communists in order to trace the ancstory of Kimura's insane, destrutive logic

From whom does the US borrow? Is there a dollar factory somewhere you haven't told me about?

The US doesn't borrow its own fiat. It's the sole source of dollars, you can't get them anywhere else. What you refer to as borrowing is the savings desires of others to save in US government securities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're confused. If I die, my family gets to keep the Treasury. If I die, my family loses all the SS contribution I made.

That's a matter that can be corrected through legislation. My point was it's the functional equivalent of purchasing a bond. You give Uncle Same $$$$ now, Uncle Sam give you back $$$$ down the road.

Or the bond market.

The OASI and DI trust funds are invested in US Treasuries.

Yes.

I don't think you though through the implications of what I pointed out.

Stock in hand versus a politician's promise that the money will be there later.

Politicians don't need to promise $$$$ to anyone. Through legislation, just like Medicare, all we need is a funding guarantee.

Giving SS taxes to the Feds doesn't result in NEW $$$$ going into the economy.

Neither does privatizing SS, all it does it create transaction costs, and there's no new $$$$ entering the economy on a macro level/

Less dependence on government and the eventual end of the low return high unfunded liability system.
Still haven't heard a good reason to not privatize.

#1 - There's no such thing as a unfunded liability, unless you don't think we'll have the real resources for retirees down the road.

I just explained it you. All privatization will do is create transactions costs in the form of commissions and load fees.

Higher returns, no reliance on politicians and more private investment in the economy.
It's beneficial for everyone.

It's only beneficial for Wall Street

My point was it's the functional equivalent of purchasing a bond.

And I showed your point was wrong.

You give Uncle Same $$$$ now, Uncle Sam give you back $$$$ down the road.

Unless you die or a future Congress decides they don't want to give you $$$$ down the road.

The OASI and DI trust funds are invested in US Treasuries.

Durr. And privatized SS could also be invested in bonds, Treasury or otherwise.

Politicians don't need to promise $$$$ to anyone. Through legislation, just like Medicare, all we need is a funding guarantee.

A political guarantee? You're funny.

Neither does privatizing SS,

Taking $600 billion a year out of the hands of government and giving it back to the people is a huge benefit, despite your confusion.

There's no such thing as a unfunded liability

So corporations don't need to put money aside to meet future pension needs?
What about cities and states?
You should let them know that. As a consultant with that inside info, you could make big bucks!

I just explained it you. All privatization will do is create transactions costs in the form of commissions and load fees.

You left out higher returns, less dependence on government and the eventual end of the low-return, not fully funded Social Security system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat

Any entity that buys US Treasuries is lending the Treasury our own fiat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How any "thinking-person" can advocate von Mises-like theory, given what we now know, has taken the rw brown acid.

Everything you know is wrong. All thinking persons understand that Mises is right and the government interventionist magicians are nothing more than con artists.

LOL. Now I know you definitely have ZERO background in finance or economics in any capacity.

Looks like your background in finance and economics isn't helping you on this thread.

 

[Kimura]

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Ummmm...when new US Treasuries are purchased, money flows to the US Treasury. That's why they sell Treasuries.

They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.

Oh Jesus. FDR only created the SS Trust fund for political reasons. Why not just eliminate FICA and fund SS out of the general revenue?

Again, it's not these mystical and esoteric "unfunded liabilities" which are the problem. Like I said, the only problem would be the availability of real resources in the future, which will not be an issue as long as the economy grows along with the population, and we have an increase in productivity that will enable us to have fewer workers to supply increased numbers. This is basically what's happened historically, so the only problem I see is this illogical and almost religious devotion to austerity that wants to save future needs as opposed to investing. It's retarded and has zero basis in economics .

I agree, individuals should invest for their future need. They should start with the 12.4% of income currently spent on SS taxes.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to invest. We've already went over why privatization of SS is a horrible idea.

Here's the Kimura Grand Bargain for American Prosperity:

1. Suspend FICA
2. Fund SS out of the general revenue
3. Raise SS payments to to a minimum of $2,000 per month.

Problem solved, everyone can go have a beer.

You forgot one:

4. National bankruptcy.

This is the last time I'm going to say this: The US government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, cannot go bankrupt.

The Congress spends by basically telling the FED to credit a member bank account at the FED. This is entirely independent from tax revenues and/or borrowing.

What you pedantically and erroneously refer to as borrowing is simply shifting $$$$ from reserve accounts at the FED to securities accounts at the FED. When debt payments are made, in terms of operationally servicing said debt, $$$$ is shifted from securities accounts to reserve accounts over at the FED.

Oh yeah, and your tax payments are nothing more than unprinting $$$$ ( demand accounts are debited, the monetary circuit isn't a feedback loop with a fixed amount of $$$$ that is perpetually recycled).

I fuckin' don't how many ways I can spell this out for you. I can create a diagram in Photoshop or something.

You can't be serious. You're trying to tell us that when a U.S citizen or a foreign government exchanges their cash for a U.S. Treasury bond that the government hasn't borrowed money.

It takes a special kind of fool to fall for that abracadabra.

You're confused as usual. I worked for a primary dealer for five at the start of my career, so I understand the mechanics better than most.

When a foreign government or citizen exchanges $$$$ for a Treasury, $$$$ is simply debited from a reserve account and credited to a securities account (US Treasuries are nothing more than interest beating dollar deposits at the FED).

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat, nor do they have a dollar factory in Hong Kong. They obtain US $$$$ from net exports to the US which end up at the Bank of China. They then convert their US $$$$ to US Treasuries which is nothing more than a balance sheet operation, consisting of a series of debits and credits, between the Bank of China's reserve account and securities accounts at the FED.

There's no abracadabra here. Uncle Sam can NEVER run of his supply of dollars as the sovereign issuer of the currency.

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat

Any entity that buys US Treasuries is lending the Treasury our own fiat.

I'd rethink that if I were you. You're wrong. Those Treasuries are being purchased with US dollars. Those dollars, sitting in the Bank of China's reserve account, were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Try again, Sparky.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat

Any entity that buys US Treasuries is lending the Treasury our own fiat.

I'd rethink that if I were you. You're wrong. Those Treasuries are being purchased with US dollars. Those dollars, sitting in the Bank of China's reserve account, were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Try again, Sparky.

Those Treasuries are being purchased with US dollars.

Yes they were. US dollars given to the US Treasury, in exchange for a Treasury security, is how the US Treasury borrows our fiat currency, chief. I'm surprised as simple a subject as lending and borrowing confuses you so much.

 

[Kimura]

Unless you die or a future Congress decides they don't want to give you $$$$ down the road.

SS is a guarantee unless the law is changed.

Durr. And privatized SS could also be invested in bonds, Treasury or otherwise.

Most privatizations schemes push the stock market. You then said bonds, I pointed out where the trust funds stick the $$$$. Sure, one may turn out to be a superior investment, you get a higher rate of return, but they're very much the same.

Taking $600 billion a year out of the hands of government and giving it back to the people is a huge benefit, despite your confusion.

It's changing hands, from a macro standpoint, no new $$$ has entered the economy. Some stocks and bonds changed hands, and if we count SS as a bond, nothing has changed except added transaction costs.

So corporations don't need to put money aside to meet future pension needs?
What about cities and states?
You should let them know that. As a consultant with that inside info, you could make big bucks!

You can't compare firms and households to the federal government. One is a currency user, the other is a currency issuer. The truth is that anything that has to be paid for in the future is an unfunded liability.

You left out higher returns, less dependence on government and the eventual end of the low-return, not fully funded Social Security system.

SS is part of Americans economic bill of rights. This is why I said it's better to pay SS out of the general revenue and 86 the trust fund (a bookkeeping entry at the FED). The mere existence of this trust fund gives plutocrats a target, and way to obsess if said fund is in surplus or deficit. You fell for the nonsense. When a deficit is projected in the future, all of a sudden it becomes an unfunded liability. LOL.

Come to think of it, let's say ALL of our spending were obligations in the general fund, and said fund was expected to be in deficit at some point in the future, then EVERY AND ALL obligations of the government in said fiscal year would be an unfunded liability, which would include the military, infrastructure, farm subsidies, etc.

Seriously, though, it's not unfunded liabilities (Medicare, SS, education, etc) that's an issue. The only issue would be the availability of real resources in the future. As long as the population grows, and we have productivity increases, which has what occurred historically, we'll be fine. The big problem are this austerity talk and comparing the government to household meme. We shouldn't save for future needs, we should invest in them.

It's not the 'unfunded liabilities" that's the problem. The only problem is availability of real resources in the future, which won't be a problem if the economy grows with population and there are productivity increases that allow fewer workers to supply greater numbers. You know, like has happened historically. The danger is getting in the way of that through unnecessary and ill-advised austerity that seeks to save future needs rather than invest.

 

[Kimura]

Let's use China, the right wing's favorite boogeyman to prey on the ignorance of the average person. All Chinese dollars come from the US. They don't lend us our own fiat

Any entity that buys US Treasuries is lending the Treasury our own fiat.

I'd rethink that if I were you. You're wrong. Those Treasuries are being purchased with US dollars. Those dollars, sitting in the Bank of China's reserve account, were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Try again, Sparky.

Those Treasuries are being purchased with US dollars.

Yes they were. US dollars given to the US Treasury, in exchange for a Treasury security, is how the US Treasury borrows our fiat currency, chief. I'm surprised as simple a subject as lending and borrowing confuses you so much.

I'm surprised you don't get it. Where did those dollars come from? They didn't magically appear out of the ether. The federal government spent them into existence at some point and China received them from exporting goods and services. They desire to save those dollars in government securities since they pay a higher rate of return than letting those dollars sit in reserve accounts over at the FED.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unless you die or a future Congress decides they don't want to give you $$$$ down the road.

SS is a guarantee unless the law is changed.

Durr. And privatized SS could also be invested in bonds, Treasury or otherwise.

Most privatizations schemes push the stock market. You then said bonds, I pointed out where the trust funds stick the $$$$. Sure, one may turn out to be a superior investment, you get a higher rate of return, but they're very much the same.

Taking $600 billion a year out of the hands of government and giving it back to the people is a huge benefit, despite your confusion.

It's changing hands, from a macro standpoint, no new $$$ has entered the economy. Some stocks and bonds changed hands, and if we count SS as a bond, nothing has changed except added transaction costs.

So corporations don't need to put money aside to meet future pension needs?
What about cities and states?
You should let them know that. As a consultant with that inside info, you could make big bucks!

You can't compare firms and households to the federal government. One is a currency user, the other is a currency issuer. The truth is that anything that has to be for in the future is an unfunded liability.

You left out higher returns, less dependence on government and the eventual end of the low-return, not fully funded Social Security system.

SS is part of Americans economic bill of rights. This is why I said it's better to pay SS out of the general revenue and 86 the trust fund (a bookkeeping entry at the FED). The mere existence of this trust fund gives plutocrats a target, and way to obsess if said fund is in surplus or deficit. You fell for the nonsense. When a deficit is projected in the future, all of a sudden it becomes an unfunded liability. LOL.

Come to think of it, let's say ALL of our spending were obligations in the general fund, and said fund was expected to be in deficit at some point in the future, then EVERY AND ALL obligations of the government in said fiscal year would be an unfunded liability, which would include the military, infrastructure, farm subsidies, etc.

Seriously, though, it's not unfunded liabilities (Medicare, SS, education, etc) that an issue. The only issue would be the availability of real resources in the future. As long as the population grows, and we have productivity increases, which has what occurred historically, we'll be fine. The big problem are this austerity talk and comparing the government to household meme. We shouldn't save for future needs, we should invest in them.

It's not the 'unfunded liabilities" that's the problem. The only problem is availability of real resources in the future, which won't be a problem if the economy grows with population and there are productivity increases that allow fewer workers to supply greater numbers. You know, like has happened historically. The danger is getting in the way of that through unnecessary and ill-advised austerity that seeks to save future needs rather than invest.

SS is a guarantee unless the law is changed.

Exactly. I'd prefer that 12.4% of my lifetime salary is not subject to the whim of a future drooling idiot like nancy Pelosi.

Most privatizations schemes push the stock market. You then said bonds

One of the nice things about investing your own money is that you can buy both stocks and bonds.

It's changing hands, from a macro standpoint, no new $$$ has entered the economy.

All we end up with is more individual freedom, less government interference and more private money available for constructive investments.

The truth is that anything that has to be for in the future is an unfunded liability.

Corporations, cities and states can't have fully funded pensions? LOL!

SS is part of Americans economic bill of rights.

A right that can be taken away by 50% plus 1 of the House, 50% of the Senate and the President.
I'd rather invest it on my own.

The only issue would be the availability of real resources in the future.

How do we maximize real resources in the future? Hint: not by giving more and more to government.

As long as the population grows, and we have productivity increases, which has what occurred historically, we'll be fine.

Sure, no difference between $2000/month SS payments and $20000/month payments, because our population (of unskilled illegals, to a large extent) is growing and huge government never imapcts productivity in a negative way. LOL!

We shouldn't save for future needs, we should invest in them.

I agree. Take that SS money away from those stupid ***** in DC who think investing in less reliable, more expensive energy is the best use of our investement dollars and give the money back to the people who earned it to invest.