Robert Reich explains the "Free Market" in a nutshell.

[Tehon]

Yes, what effect does introducing more money into the system have on the existing money already in the system?

it inflates it. Any more silly questions???

No, just trying to wrap my head around your statement that there exists a limitless money supply.

dear, I did not say it was limitless but did imply that GDP is ten 10 more than it was 100 years ago and so the money supply is 10 times more than it was 100 years ago Thus, money grows as goods and services are invented and sold. The issue is not about dividing the money that exists but rather inventing new things so money grows for everyone not just the top or the bottom.

Do you understand?

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

 

[Sallow]

Capitalism wasn't even around before government.

A necessary component of Capitalism is the government.

That's nonsense.

The very first time some primitive caveman had an excess of something he didn't need, noticed that his neighbor had an excess of something else that that neighbor didn't need, and offered to trade one for the other, that was capitalism, in its purest form. No government was needed to take any part in that transaction.

That's not capitalism. That's barter.

 

[Sallow]

Robert Reich is a crackpot and a dwarf. He's 4' 10''

Wow, you've made some outstanding points here.

When is your next lecture on economics?

 

[Sallow]

This is a pretty concise high level talk about the "Free Market".

Milton Friedman uses a pencil to school Reich

Friedman's economic voodoo show lead to several collapses already.

Not sure why you want to trot this idiot out again.

Even in his own commentary he mentions government before bashing it.

Voodoo?

Making pencils requires voodoo economics?

Wow

Well no.

And neither does it need Milton Freedman, who's economic ruminations created acolytes like Reagan and George W. Bush, who crashed the economy multiple times. But heck, now we got billionaires!

 

[Stephanie]

here's more from the little commie jerkoff. this probably gave shallow tingles

snip;


Liberal Economist: 'Mostly White' Oakland County Deserves the Blame For Detroit's Problems
County official: 'He doesn't understand what he is talking about'


By Tom Gantert | Sept. 16, 2014 |

In a recent Detroit Free Press op-ed, University of California-Berkeley Professor Robert Reich places the blame for the city of Detroit’s bankruptcy on the “mostly white” residents of Oakland County.

“But Detroit is really a model for how wealthier and whiter Americans escape the costs of public goods they would otherwise share with poorer and darker Americans,” Reich wrote. “ … But one thing is for certain: A very large and prosperous group close by won’t sacrifice a cent — the mostly white citizens of neighboring Oakland County.”

The reaction of one Oakland County official was that Reich, a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, didn’t know much about his chosen topic.

“That piece is clearly misinformed,” said Robert Daddow, deputy Oakland County executive. “He doesn’t understand what he is talking about.”

all of it here:
Liberal Economist: 'Mostly White' Oakland County Deserves the Blame For Detroit's Problems

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it inflates it. Any more silly questions???

No, just trying to wrap my head around your statement that there exists a limitless money supply.

dear, I did not say it was limitless but did imply that GDP is ten 10 more than it was 100 years ago and so the money supply is 10 times more than it was 100 years ago Thus, money grows as goods and services are invented and sold. The issue is not about dividing the money that exists but rather inventing new things so money grows for everyone not just the top or the bottom.

Do you understand?

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

 

[Sallow]

No, just trying to wrap my head around your statement that there exists a limitless money supply.

dear, I did not say it was limitless but did imply that GDP is ten 10 more than it was 100 years ago and so the money supply is 10 times more than it was 100 years ago Thus, money grows as goods and services are invented and sold. The issue is not about dividing the money that exists but rather inventing new things so money grows for everyone not just the top or the bottom.

Do you understand?

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dear, I did not say it was limitless but did imply that GDP is ten 10 more than it was 100 years ago and so the money supply is 10 times more than it was 100 years ago Thus, money grows as goods and services are invented and sold. The issue is not about dividing the money that exists but rather inventing new things so money grows for everyone not just the top or the bottom.

Do you understand?

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

 

[danielpalos]

The little twerp confuses free market capitalism with government controlled crony capitalism. His solution...more government control.

Makes sense if you are a Marxist.

Capitalism is only useless to the right; that is why they do not recognize a duopoly of a private sector and public sector; One has social supremacy and is one supposed to have capital supremacy.

We have a Commerce Clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet another shallow and (more importantly) one-sided presentation by the reigning hardcore partisan ideologue economic theorist.

Some of his points are fine, but a shallow, one-sided presentation has zero value for those who actually want an accurate macro picture.

"Economists" are cute and nice to have around now and then, as long as they stay in their lane: Macro analysis, trend analysis, forecasting.

But when they become "pundits", oy, forget it, buh-bye.
.

what parts did you disagree with?

 

[Sallow]

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it.

That is incorrect. It is created when people borrow from banks.
It is also created when the Fed buys securities from Primary Dealers.

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

 

[danielpalos]

What "accurate" macro picture do you want?

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

At the present time, it's lopsided and we are feeling the effects.

What you fail to comprehend is government has given us the crony corrupt capitalism we have today. The little geek thinks we need more government intrusion to fix this. Do you fail to see the idiocy of his argument?

two issues;

first, you elect your representatives to government. stop electing Persons who only give you corrupt, crony capitalism.

second, it is not "more government" but "efficient" government that we should be striving for; full employment "efficiency" of Government for the People.

why not simplify government to lower our tax burden.

 

[Sallow]

I'm not sure that you have shown my statement to be incorrect. I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect. Nor does pointing out that money is also created when people borrow. Isn't fractional reserve banking dependent on reserves i.e. money that is already in the system. When government borrows it is being wholly created, it is only dependent on the governments need.

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't think that pointing out the mechanism by which government borrows money from the Fed makes it incorrect.

The government doesn't borrow from the Fed.

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

The US Treasury issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

School me. LOL!

 

[Mac1958]

Yet another shallow and (more importantly) one-sided presentation by the reigning hardcore partisan ideologue economic theorist.

Some of his points are fine, but a shallow, one-sided presentation has zero value for those who actually want an accurate macro picture.

"Economists" are cute and nice to have around now and then, as long as they stay in their lane: Macro analysis, trend analysis, forecasting.

But when they become "pundits", oy, forget it, buh-bye.
.

what parts did you disagree with?

A couple of minor things: To say that government creates markets through regulation is a stretch at best, and discussing workers's skills, college debt and homeowner debt is silly when he's also completely ignoring and avoiding the role industry plays in capitalism. Completely.

What I really disagree with is the clearly government-centric tone overall. Reich is a hardcore lefty, and that's fine, but this notion that the little video is a good macro look at capitalism is absolutely absurd.

And no - just to eliminate the dishonest straw man that has already been tried on me in this thread - I'm not saying government is evil or no government is the way to go. As I've said multiple times, capitalism is a symbiosis of government and industry, and Reich purposely ignores that fact, as he always does. Business is always The Bad Guy.
.

 

[danielpalos]

lol, the midget commie. how funny
but he's a Progressive/dem in a nutshell. you fall for their BS you are signing up for permanent slavery and that midget will be your master. you can't have "income equality" unless everyone is brought down to the same level: and that is trickle up poverty

just don't take the rest of us with you

in our Case, it is not about equality of income under our form of capitalism, but solving for simple social dilemmas such as poverty in order to promote the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

Another perfect example of my point: A government-centric view of capitalism.

There are two pieces to the puzzle: Government and industry, the implementation of capitalism, without which the system itself is absolutely irrelevant.

Both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic. You and Reich start with government, it is your intellectual foundation.

"Macro" means both sides must be fully recognized and addressed. They are not here. As usual.
.

what do you believe was not adequately addressed? maybe we can discuss them.

 

[Mac1958]

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

Another perfect example of my point: A government-centric view of capitalism.

There are two pieces to the puzzle: Government and industry, the implementation of capitalism, without which the system itself is absolutely irrelevant.

Both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic. You and Reich start with government, it is your intellectual foundation.

"Macro" means both sides must be fully recognized and addressed. They are not here. As usual.
.

what do you believe was not adequately addressed? maybe we can discuss them.

The role of business in capitalism. That's a pretty big topic.
.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a pretty concise high level talk about the "Free Market".

Milton Friedman uses a pencil to school Reich

economics can be explained with anything economic.

No one is claiming we need to get rid of Capitalism; except when something socially important to the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States is involved.

Government is what helped create the "free trade area" known as the combined markets withing the US. The same can be said of diplomatic relations with foreign States. Cuba did not enjoy that capital gain with us.