Big Gov's "A" Game

[Diogenes]

Well, we'll have more of it if the deficit keeps going down.

Just sayin'.

Can't tell the difference between the deficit and the debt, can you?

And DOWN is so... relative. But the red ink should help show the difference.

We're going to need a LOT of green to cancel it out - and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Beat me to it. I was going to post that.

[Schneibster]

Can't tell the difference between the deficit and the debt, can you?

Sure I can. Deficit = Obama. Debt = Bush. And the reason I know that?

Why, because the deficit's going down of course. Can't you count?

You know what the biggest single component is?

The Bush tax cuts.



It's the diarrhea-colored part.

Are we done here?

Well maybe just one more thing:

Know why the Iraq and Afghanistan wars aren't getting smaller? Because the Republican-Amurcn teatraitors still don't want to admit they spent nearly two trillion dollars on Iraq, for basically nothing. So they keep ignoring it, and they justify it because they're keeping the Democrats from spending money on poors and sicks.

[Schneibster]

Just so we're all clear on this: Obama's budget deficits have all been lower than Bush's highest, which was his last.

The deficit has been going down every year of Obama's presidency.

The reason the debt is going up is because of the Bush tax cuts. My source is the Washington Post, who broke Watergate.

The reason Obama has to run a deficit at all is because of the recession reducing tax revenues.

The Republicans will not vote to end the recession.

There just isn't anywhere to hide. This is sabotage, undertaken in cold blood for personal political advantage, threatening the livelihoods of tens of millions for personal profit. It's treason, is what it is, on the part of people who have violated their oaths of office and are deliberately making things worse. I speculate about their motives, which look like racism, and revenge for the US making them look foolish by electing a black man, and petty political advantage, and financial gain. And I contemplate the banality of evil.

[choff]

Hyperinflation can be controlled by raising the fractional reserve rate, currently 4% or less. Some banks are leveraged 300 plus to 1. By raising the reserve requirement you can both payoff the debt and neutralize the threat of bank runs/bail ins while using debt free money, very different from raising interest rates.

Ummm, no, actually under conditions of a stall in the velocity of money, the interest rates are already as low as they can go, and raising interest rates in a bad economy is disastrous. Like 1000% inflation disastrous.

Unless you divest the ultra rich and the banks of their unneeded and wasteful unused wealth that's just sitting there clogging things up, your choices are quantitative easing, or printing more money.

By printing more money, you dilute the holdings of the rich, which is no biggie, to them or anyone else. Unfortunately you also dilute everyone's retirement savings at the same time, not to mention cause inflation that erodes the value of their savings from the other end. So basically their life savings are worth half as much, by fiat from the government. Gee, that sure sounds like a popular move. They did that in Chile. That's what caused the 1000% inflation.

Quantitative easing helps by increasing the money supply without creating a shock. But of course, it affects the rich the most, so they hate it. Right now they're lying to get the teatraitors to stop the Fed from doing more of it. Also, it's very slow. That's why it works. You can't do it quickly. You might as well just go start printing money and figure on the 1000% inflation.

The one thing we could have done, and for that matter could still do, would be to distribute more food stamps and more financial aid to poor people and hire more teachers and cops. And another good thing to do would be make lots more financial aid available for college. This would pump up the money supply without cutting into everyone's retirement savings, but still devaluing some of the ultra rich peoples' and the banksters' money. And that of course is why they are against it. However, combined with highway and train projects, and spending on technology like batteries and big industrial scale solar power plants and cheap solar cell production, not to mention the fuel technology projects I keep talking about, and of course Polywell, and a good hard look at the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Dense Plasma Focus, and at least a quick look at the Electron Power Systems toroids, not only should we find at least one "small fusion" system that works, but we'd fix global warming and make a profit doing it. Unfortunately, the ultra rich wouldn't make a profit on it so they're against it. And that means the Republican-Amurcn teatraitors in Congress are against it.

And BTW we could do all that and the deficit would still be going down.

Just sayin'.

There's a difference between a fractional reserve rate and interest rates. The only reason we haven't had hyperinflation with QE is because the banks have kept it all($85 Billion a month in new debt money) for themselves and their cronies. If they ever decided to move it into the real economy and not blow it all on derivatives you will definitely see hyperinflation. I've seen plenty of interviews with the upper fractional 1% that say they love QE, though they admit it involves the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to them. It might be better to outlaw derivatives altogether and let the top Fed banks fail than have them take down everybody else. As stated before, with credit based money you only create a small fraction as much as debt based currency to pay for revenue shortfalls. Trying to pay the debt by borrowing more money into existence is like trying to drink yourself sober.

[Schneibster]

There's a difference between a fractional reserve rate and interest rates. The only reason we haven't had hyperinflation with QE is because the banks have kept it all($85 Billion a month in new debt money) for themselves and their cronies. If they ever decided to move it into the real economy and not blow it all on derivatives you will definitely see hyperinflation. I've seen plenty of interviews with the upper fractional 1% that say they love QE, though they admit it involves the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to them. It might be better to outlaw derivatives altogether and let the top Fed banks fail than have them take down everybody else. As stated before, with credit based money you only create a small fraction as much as debt based currency to pay for revenue shortfalls. Trying to pay the debt by borrowing more money into existence is like trying to drink yourself sober.

See, that's just not what happened after the Great Depression, and it's not how we got out of stagflation, either.

What you're claiming QE does is exactly the opposite of what it does. It has kept us out of another Great Depression.

However with the elimination of Glass-Steagall, the banks are all afraid to loan it because the ultra rich will just suck it all up and we'll be back where we started, except with broken banks.

You see, the fact you don't mention Glass-Steagall tells me you don't know what you're talking about. You're taking a bunch of gobbledygook that has nothing to do with Glass-Steagall or anything else but anecdote and lumping it together like it means something, and you don't know what the velocity of money is.

Quite frankly if you don't understand the velocity of money you're completely unfamiliar with modern economics and have a great deal of reading to do. Start in about 1929.

[choff]

Most of the banks are just fine, it's the top private central banks that are bust, they've created a bubble in derivatives ten times the size of the global economy. If they weren't so bust, you wouldn't see legislation in all the western countries for bailin's. They're the ones that had Glass Steagall scrapped. Worst, they have safe harbour status for derivative trades, that means in the next crisis the government insures the collapsing derivative market before ordinary depositors and there's nothing left for anybody else. Perversely, during the next crisis it encourages larger banks to raid smaller ones on the edge and push the collapse over the tipping point.

Do you even understand the difference between debt based currency and currency issued as credit, or the difference between fractional reserves and interest rates? Anyone with half a brain knows QE is just the latest scam for banksters to ripoff the rest of humanity.

Velocity of money is already nearing a standstill, what do you expect with it just sitting in the top banks accounts and interest rates of near zero.

[Schneibster]

Most of the banks are just fine, it's the top private central banks that are bust, they've created a bubble in derivatives ten times the size of the global economy. If they weren't so bust, you wouldn't see legislation in all the western countries for bailin's. They're the ones that had Glass Steagall scrapped. Worst, they have safe harbour status for derivative trades, that means in the next crisis the government insures the collapsing derivative market before ordinary depositors and there's nothing left for anybody else. Perversely, during the next crisis it encourages larger banks to raid smaller ones on the edge and push the collapse over the tipping point.

Do you even understand the difference between debt based currency and currency issued as credit, or the difference between fractional reserves and interest rates? Anyone with half a brain knows QE is just the latest scam for banksters to ripoff the rest of humanity.

Velocity of money is already nearing a standstill, what do you expect with it just sitting in the top banks accounts and interest rates of near zero.

So you have to get it circulating again, and not all at once or there will be triple digit inflation.

And I have a question: Who bells the cat?

[choff]

Who bell's the cat?

I presume you mean who takes charge and reforms the mess before it's too bloody late. In the case of the U.S., congress has the authority, but they're all bought and paid for by the banksters. Same thing in my country, and the bankster's will fight to the death in maintaining control of seigniorage, no matter how much their unrestrained greed causes them to take down everybody else with them.

We actually had public control of the banking system in Canada from 1938 to 1974, the gross national debt was flatlined at $100 Billion the whole time after WW2. Then we drank the Basil koolaid, switched to private borrowing to fund the debt and it swelled to $600 Billion. In total, the actual total combined shortfall in revenue, that is, the principal on that national debt from Canada's inception over 143 years in $200 Billion. We've made $2 Trillion in interest payments, still have a debt of approx. $500 Billion.

Isn't compound interest grand. Thing is, try finding out what the actual principal, that is, the actual combined total shortfall in revenue is, for the U.S., as a percentage of the national debt. They've probably buried the number so deep that down it's almost impossible to find. They never talk about it in government budget statements, they distract with talk about austerity or borrowing to stimulate growth.

Incidently, this demonstrates how much control the financial industry has over the mainstream media, the closest you will have heard to this debate was the trillion dollar coin story, alt media will cover it though.

[Schneibster]

Who bell's the cat?

I presume you mean who takes charge and reforms the mess before it's too bloody late. In the case of the U.S., congress has the authority, but they're all bought and paid for by the banksters. Same thing in my country, and the bankster's will fight to the death in maintaining control of seigniorage, no matter how much their unrestrained greed causes them to take down everybody else with them.

We actually had public control of the banking system in Canada from 1938 to 1974, the gross national debt was flatlined at $100 Billion the whole time after WW2. Then we drank the Basil koolaid, switched to private borrowing to fund the debt and it swelled to $600 Billion. In total, the actual total combined shortfall in revenue, that is, the principal on that national debt from Canada's inception over 143 years in $200 Billion. We've made $2 Trillion in interest payments, still have a debt of approx. $500 Billion.

Isn't compound interest grand. Thing is, try finding out what the actual principal, that is, the actual combined total shortfall in revenue is, for the U.S., as a percentage of the national debt. They've probably buried the number so deep that down it's almost impossible to find. They never talk about it in government budget statements, they distract with talk about austerity or borrowing to stimulate growth.

Incidently, this demonstrates how much control the financial industry has over the mainstream media, the closest you will have heard to this debate was the trillion dollar coin story, alt media will cover it though.

The number they buried is called "the debt." It's not really very buried.

Thing is the Republican-Amurcn teatraitors who currently control the House of Representatives keep trying to keep Iraq out of it so they don't have to explain how they let Bush spend two trillion dollars on piddly little Iraq.

And you didn't say what to do.

I read the Economic Times, DeLong and Krugman, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, along with Bonddad. They say what to do.

I did leave one thing out above: mortgage relief for overhanging mortgages. I think it's about time. I think we should strip their profits from the banksters (in this case not the Koch brothers, except as they're involved with the banksters which I don't think is much) and pass them out to the mortgage holders (the banksters) to pay off a very substantial portion of everyone's mortgage that is above the property value, if not all of it. Also I think a fund should be established to compensate the victims of foreclosures due to overhanging mortgages for the last six years. So the banksters lost half theirs, and the homeowners lost half theirs (property values compared to their buying price), and the overhangs go away and the banksters are more willing to lend to people without overhangs.

And see the nice thing is, this just takes some of the ill-gotten gains over here, and cancels some of the unfair debt over there with it, meanwhile providing restitution for the fraud. The public doesn't pay a nickel. The gummint doesn't pay a nickel. Even the banksters don't pay a nickel; they just admit they're never going to get paid a million bucks for a hundred thousand dollar house. They still have a hundred thousand dollar mortgage on it. That's fair. Both sides did something stupid; both sides pay; neither one pays so much it kills them.

You wanna have a revolution. Ain't gonna happen. This is the same argument they made during stagflation, which got both of us and Britain too. Keynes isn't wrong; just incomplete. If you apply the principles properly, you'll find that they still apply, and that (unlike the monetarists) neo-Keynesian economics has solutions to a zero-bounded credit crisis. Here's the paper that says so:

http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/Colla ... ivered.pdf

You can't swap out your monetary system. If you can replace it at all it's slowly.

[Schneibster]

Given what's going down and that Obama can't get more stimulus, or more banking laws, he's doing the best he can. And so far he's prevented a catastrophe with a billion people starving on the street. But to fix it we have to get the Republican-Amurcn teatraitors out of Congress. We've avoided tyranny of the majority, but unfortunately in the process we've enabled tyranny by the rich minority. We'll have to fix that. It's gonna be a hell of a fight.

Seems to me we've been fighting that fight ever since the founding of the country, but that's another discussion.

Really, governments are instituted among people to secure their savings and investments from rich greedy smartasses.

[choff]

I heard about this guy named Ron Paul in your country, I just know you love the guy, he and a few other commentators were saying that somewhere from 4 to 6 trillion of the U.S. debt is intragovernmental, that is, debt the government owes to itself, could be cancelled out, that would help.

Going back to my country, if the principal, the actual shortfall in spending over 143 years is $200 billion, the government of Canada could have just printed an average of $1.5 billion per annum. Instead, we borrow $30 billion from private banks on average per annum, they create that money out of thin air, keystroke entry. That means 20 times the money printing, 20 times the monetary inflation.

The number in question is not the debt, it's that fraction of the debt that is the principal, the actual shortfall in revenue over non interest service government spending. It probably amounts to one tenth of the debt, the rest being compound interest. Try finding that number in U.S. government information, they're too busy saying you have to either stimulate through spending or kill everybody with austerity.

The $85 Billion a month in QE is borrowed money, created out of thin air via keystroke entry, with interest payments attached. It devalues the currency and adds to the debt. It doesn't do anything for the economy, the banksters take it and rehypothecate it into a massive derivative bubble. Before you can tax it back from them that bubbles going to pop and evaporate into nothing. Even if you could tax it back before it pops, if the system doesn't get reformed it will degenerate into the same mess in no time.

You can't afford to cut spending without killing people with poverty, you can't afford more debt without choking off economic growth trying to pay the interest charges. Either way you concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. You can't fix the problem if you don't understand how it's been gamed. The system isn't complicated, it's too simple, people can't see it because of psychological conditioning.

[Schneibster]

I heard about this guy named Ron Paul in your country, I just know you love the guy, he and a few other commentators were saying that somewhere from 4 to 6 trillion of the U.S. debt is intragovernmental, that is, debt the government owes to itself, could be cancelled out, that would help.

That's everyone's retirement he wants to get his hands on.

Not mine, not if I can help it. I might get militant over that.

[Schneibster]

...a few other commentators were saying that somewhere from 4 to 6 trillion of the U.S. debt is intragovernmental, that is, debt the government owes to itself, could be cancelled out, that would help.

Not unless you have another plan to feed, house, and clothe the Baby Boom old.

Their stocks all got stolen in 2000, and their houses in 2008. They don't have a lot left. That "4 to 6 trillion" is it.

Going back to my country,

I'm already not all eager to be talking about economics with someone who doesn't know what the velocity of money is; I'm sure not gonna talk about some other country's economy. That's for y'all to work out. I know what we need to do here and I'm doing my best to get it done; and it ain't trying to institute a whole new financial system. We didn't even do that to fix the Great Depression; let's not get all ambitious and stuff.

Maybe we could try reinstating Glass-Steagall first and see how that works out for a while. Kick all the investment banksters out of commercial banking, and the insurance thieves too. Then get the insurance thieves out of healthcare. Then the insurance guys can do insurance, the investment guys can do investment banking (and keep their nasty little fingers out of the housing market and John Q. Public's wallet) and the banksters will be out of commercial banking, and won't get to play with our money any more. I might even advocate separate home loan banking, not allowed to be associated with commercial banking or any of the others. It's a mighty temptation, fourteen trillion dollars just sitting out there. Obviously; they just stole 6 or 7 trillion of it. We need to stop them or they'll just let us grow more money and then come and steal it again with another of these scams. Did I say steal? I meant harvest. Like a baby fur seal.

[MSimon]

"The Mythical Man Month" by Brooks which neither our President nor S are familiar with says that adding people to a late software project will make it later.

A cascading failure.

Now the deal is: the roll out of the ACA does not give people confidence in government solutions. So you have to give its supporters a LOT of credit for accomplishing the opposite of their intended results.

In States where medical care is not as heavily regulated as Mass. costs will be going up. For families by a small amount. For young Obama voters by quite a lot. Obama voters are getting an education in the economics of state control.

ACA insurance costs by State: http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/20/healt ... ected-to-s

And just wait until they look at the deductibles for these higher cost plans. More cost. Less cost coverage. And the worst? Costs will be going up more for men than women.

Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

Excellent.

=======

S is an anachronism. He just doesn't know it.

[Schneibster]

"The Mythical Man Month" by Brooks which neither our President nor S are familiar with says that adding people to a late software project will make it later.

A cascading failure.

Now the deal is: the roll out of the ACA does not give people confidence in government solutions. So you have to give its supporters a LOT of credit for accomplishing the opposite of their intended results.

In States where medical care is not as heavily regulated as Mass. costs will be going up. For families by a small amount. For young Obama voters by quite a lot. Obama voters are getting an education in the economics of state control.

ACA insurance costs by State: http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/20/healt ... ected-to-s

And just wait until they look at the deductibles for these higher cost plans. More cost. Less cost coverage. And the worst? Costs will be going up more for men than women.

Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

Excellent.

=======

S is an anachronism. He just doesn't know it.

Actually we already have healthcare exchanges set up and I know a lot of people who are cutting their healthcare premiums by pretty large percentages.

Of course I live in California.

Y'all must live in the South. Snicker. Bend over.