US National debt is beyond staggering

KLATTU · Mar 15, 2017

Rooco - John is one of those kookernutters who thing th ecentral planners know best who to run the economy, not the private sector.
Others have a different opinion.

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 15, 2017

Moderate Right said:
Says the guy who posts cartoons, videos, and emogees.

I start off by posting logical arguments and data. You are the one who can't comprehend anything that isn't in picture form.

Now, sharpen your crayons and write out a coherent response to my earlier arguments in economic terms, or leave this debate to the adults. You add nothing to the discussion.

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 15, 2017

KLATTU said:
Rooco - John is one of those kookernutters who thing th ecentral planners know best who to run the economy, not the private sector.
Others have a different opinion.

And klattu is one of those people who thinks they understand economics, yet are utterly unable to make a coherent argument that backs up their bald assertions.

Still waiting on your demonstration of the downside(s) of sovereign debt, btw. That was the whole point of the thread, wasn't it? Or do you just like to point out what you consider to be large numbers?

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2017

Moderate Right said:
I've never met an anecdote yet that didn't apply to a whole bunch of people.

Put down the anecdote and back away slowly ...

Next you'll tell us that stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Because the amount the government spends john is more than what is spent domestically... And we are talking about what government spends.. all of it.. which currently includes deficit spending which adds to the debt.

and John.. we know that this is not really the case:

When it suits your purpose you definitely treat all government spending as the same. When called to the carpet on it.. you then admit that its not the same

When nitpicking terms suits you, you do it. When tossing everything in the same bucket works for your argument, you do that.

Listen to me slowly.

Whatever the government spends money on domestically, it is a part of GDP. Good spending, bad spending, it doesn't matter. GDP has no feelings or moral obligations to future generations, it's just a number. And whatever the gov't spends or wastes money on becomes a part of it.

Could spending be fine-tuned so as to benefit future generations more? Of course. We could come up with all kinds of ways to be more efficient, productive and effective with our spending. But you know what? GDP doesn't give a sh!t what we spend it on, it's just a number.

Moderate Right · Mar 15, 2017

JohnfrmClevelan said:
I start off by posting logical arguments and data. You are the one who can't comprehend anything that isn't in picture form.

Now, sharpen your crayons and write out a coherent response to my earlier arguments in economic terms, or leave this debate to the adults. You add nothing to the discussion.

We've already had substantive arguments in the past and you lost. I'm not drudging the same **** up over and over again like you do. You always give up and then bring it up again some time in the future when you think might have a different audience to fool. Then you get frustrated all over again.

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2017

RoccoR said:
Without regard to the exact amount, the debt of trillions of dollars must come from someplace. It is actual money. It's not about where it went, but where did Congress get it. Congress took it from the Social Security Fund.

.... While Congress says that Social Security loaned the money to the U.S. government, in fact Congress expropriated the money and gave the Social Security Account a form of promissory notes based on treasury securities.

I'ma let you finish, but first I gotta ask ... how is this any different than everyday collection of cash for bonds from the public? You make it sound so dirty. SS has to lend out its reserves BY DESIGN. It can't hold cash. It HAS to lend out its reserves and keep securities on hand.

Ok, go on ...

The value of those bonds is now about $2.6 - to - $2.8 trillion. Currently, and for the last 7 years, the Social Security Fund has been in the RED for about $74 - $80 Billion dollars a year (negative cash flow). The value of the Treasury Security is greater than than the negative cash flow. Social Security has sufficient funds to last will in to the 2030s before the funds and securities are depleted. If the Social Security Program were to cash the Treasury Securities, the Treasury Department would not have the fund to honor the demand. Congress would have to go on the open market to borrow the money.

Uh. Or the Fed could just buy the bonds themselves. Like they can with any other deficit spending. Ever.

Now going on the open market to borrow the money is very tricky;

lol, no it isn't.

but not unusual at all. The Treasury does this all the time.

Because it's not tricky.

But the more money the treasury siphons off the market, the less cash is available for business.

Not even remotely true. Nobody is buying bonds instead of food, or toys for their kids, or a 60-inch TV for their man cave. People use money that would otherwise sit in a savings account doing nothing, to buy bonds.

This causes strange things to happen.

It really doesn't

The 2008 Bank bail-out and the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP).

What about it?

In 2008 the the cause was in the reverse. Investors made a run on the money-market accounts causing the yeild to drop to zero. And at that point, the value of a Treasury Security is in grave question.

Now, that brings us to consider the future. The US economy is a trickster. You can have low unemployment figures, 4,7% last month. In february 2010, the unemployment figure was just short of 10% and has been on the decline since. However, "underemployment is three-times as high (13.9%). "Labor that falls under the underemployment classification includes those workers who are highly skilled but working in low paying jobs, workers who are highly skilled but working in low skill jobs and part-time workers who would prefer to be full time."

That's not as tricky as you think it is. It's actually pretty easily understood.

Now what that means to me is that when I lost my job (end of Contract), I was unable to find a job commensurate with (or even close) to the income I was earning. My oldest daughter, a graduate from the premier private college in the state, and yet, works in a drug store. If you are a country of low wage service industry jobs, you nation doesn't have the revenue needed to improve the nation.

When the Federal Government runs high on the National Debt, things like College Grants and Scientific Research goes by the way side and the hamburger flipping jobs become the main stay.

Whoa, whoa, hold up ... those things have NOTHING to do with each other.

The national debt does not increase the number of fast food jobs, not does it decrease the number or amount of college grants and loans that are available.

Remember, America went from a leading country that put men on the moon, to a nation who's astronauts must hitchhike into space.

Wait, what?

And that is just a thumbnail view of just one impact by the debt.

Wait, I missed it. What was the impact? Because all you've got here is rhetoric and sound bites. There's nothing in this post that actually makes sense and fits into the real world.

calamity · Mar 15, 2017

KLATTU said:
and???

The whole point of the OP was to note the staggering amount of debts, not to to play nah nah nah nah, your party did it too.

I think I've made it clear that neither party is serious about getting spending under control.( which is the only real way to address it-raising taxes won't cut it) At least the Democrats are honest-they Democrats don't even pretend to be.

Too?

Looks to me like your party did it. The other party was buy reducing it.

upsideguy · Mar 15, 2017

Moderate Right said:
Why can't Trumpcare be tweaked? The only way you want to tweak Obamacare is to change it into a single payer system.

Well, lets start with the fact that the PPACA is the law of the land and much of the institutional infrastructure is already in place. There really isn't a compelling argument for it to be replaced except for the fact that the Republicans built their most recent political house around that notion. But it is the default.

As lack of compelling there is of an argument to repeal, there is also a lack of a compelling argument for Trumpcare. Its inherent problem is that it is its stripping all of the payfors out of the system. It is a wealth transfer from those that have little to those that have more than enough. The mandate is actually necessary to make it work.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

The problem is the existing mandate is feckless, so it isn't a mandate at all. Moreover, many of the states sabotaged the thing by not setting up exchanges and not taking the medicaid expansion. The structure of Obamacare is actually pretty good. Moreover, all the "savings" of Trump care in in passing the buck (literally) from the federal government to states, where the greatest need is in states that can least affort id. Its just flawed.

The PPACA also has some good ideas on managed care. Its design is to get people out of the healthcare system and back home. The PPACA actually awards hospitals and rehabs with good outcomes and penalizes those with bad outcomes. In the PPACA days, hospitals were incentivized to keeping patients and rewarded when they returned. The structure is actually pretty intelligent, for a flawed system that has the unnecessary middle man of health insurance companies.

That all said, a single payer system would work much better, but put all the insurance executives out of work.

Moderate Right · Mar 15, 2017

upsideguy said:
Well, lets start with the fact that the PPACA is the law of the land and much of the institutional infrastructure is already in place. There really isn't a compelling argument for it to be replaced except for the fact that the Republicans built their most recent political house around that notion. But it is the default.

As lack of compelling there is of an argument to repeal, there is also a lack of a compelling argument for Trumpcare. Its inherent problem is that it is its stripping all of the payfors out of the system. It is a wealth transfer from those that have little to those that have more than enough. The mandate is actually necessary to make it work.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

The problem is the existing mandate is feckless, so it isn't a mandate at all. Moreover, many of the states sabotaged the thing by not setting up exchanges and not taking the medicaid expansion. The structure of Obamacare is actually pretty good. Moreover, all the "savings" of Trump care in in passing the buck (literally) from the federal government to states, where the greatest need is in states that can least affort id. Its just flawed.

The PPACA also has some good ideas on managed care. Its design is to get people out of the healthcare system and back home. The PPACA actually awards hospitals and rehabs with good outcomes and penalizes those with bad outcomes. In the PPACA days, hospitals were incentivized to keeping patients and rewarded when they returned. The structure is actually pretty intelligent, for a flawed system that has the unnecessary middle man of health insurance companies.

That all said, a single payer system would work much better, but put all the insurance executives out of work.

The Medicaid expansion was passing the buck off to the states. Even for those states that accepted it, the Feds said, "We'll shower you with subsidies now for a few years to get it going but after that you're on your own". So, a few years down the road, these states would be left to fend on their own.

RoccoR · Mar 15, 2017

Re: US National debt is beyond staggering

Critter7r, et al,

First, let me say that i find you response insightful and a sound expression of an opposing view.

Yes, in every financial slight of hand, there is much more than a bit of truth here. An investment firm is often thought to work in the clients best interest as a fiduciary responsibility; but that is not true. The account manager (in private investment) owes the allegiance to the investment firm; not the client. So it is with Members of Congress and the Department of the Treasury acting as the Trust Fund Manager. Their allegiance is not to the people, but to the stakeholders that got the member elected.

Critter7r said:
I'ma let you finish, but first I gotta ask ... how is this any different than everyday collection of cash for bonds from the public? You make it sound so dirty. SS has to lend out its reserves BY DESIGN. It can't hold cash. It HAS to lend out its reserves and keep securities on hand.

(COMMENT)

I've often, quite often, heard this said. But this is (in my opinion) a political slight of hand. This is incorrect; Not by design in the 1930s. In fact, the original limitations on such matters were so protective of the taxpayers that in 1981 (with an additional amendment in 1983) new legislation had to be passed to allow for the treasury to make interfund transfers from the account under trust, to the general revenue.

SOURCE: Interfund Borrowing Under the Social Security Act * (SSA.GOV)

It is true that the first Advisory Council on Social Security in 1938, endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities; but in 1938, no one envisioned the growth of government in the last 8 decades.

The Social Security Program is a "Trust Fund" for a specific purpose. It was not ever intended to be an additional revenue stream for otherwise unfunded congressional projects.

Critter7r said:
Uh. Or the Fed could just buy the bonds themselves. Like they can with any other deficit spending. Ever.

(COMMENT)
But Federal Reserve (US Central Bank for all intent and purposes) is not part of the Executive, Judicial or Legislative Branches of government. We make a little bit of legal fiction here by calling it a quasi-Government Entity. Yet it is really independent in many respects. And it is not going to invest in Treasury Securities held by the Social Security Trust Manager [the Treasury (which forms a conflict of interest in loan approvals)]. The Federal Reserve can enact its own policies (like Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk) without Congressional or Presidential approval (although in reality there is unofficial advise and coordination effort behind the curtain). And this gives the flavor of a very independent entity.

Critter7r said:
RoccoR said:

Now going on the open market to borrow the money is very tricky;

Click to expand...

lol, no it isn't.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you caught me there. Probably a poor choice of words. I see this probably from a different perspective. If the government plans a project this year, and puts it in the budget for next year, that money is not borrowed until the commitment (promise to pay) presents itself as an obligation (demand for payment). More times then you can imagine, there are cases in which the Congressional Approval for the expenditure of the money - expires. This works for and against the Treasury. The Treasury does not want to cut the check until the last possible moment before penalties accrue. That's when the Treasury goes out to borrow that money from the market place.

Critter7r said:
Because it's not tricky.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is easy enough to do, but the market place does not have an endless source of money. And the Treasury just cannot print more money. In the picture presented to the Treasury, there are funds that are in the budget and covered by the expected revenue stream; funds for expired obligations; and funds for programmed expenses (not spot intelligence and contingency funds). When the government goes out on the market, and starts soaking the money, that leaves less for the private sector to utilize.

Most Respectfully,
R

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 15, 2017

RoccoR said:
Re: US National debt is beyond staggering

Critter7r, et al,

First, let me say that i find you response insightful and a sound expression of an opposing view.

Yes, in every financial slight of hand, there is much more than a bit of truth here. An investment firm is often thought to work in the clients best interest as a fiduciary responsibility; but that is not true. The account manager (in private investment) owes the allegiance to the investment firm; not the client. So it is with Members of Congress and the Department of the Treasury acting as the Trust Fund Manager. Their allegiance is not to the people, but to the stakeholders that got the member elected.

(COMMENT)

I've often, quite often, heard this said. But this is (in my opinion) a political slight of hand. This is incorrect; Not by design in the 1930s. In fact, the original limitations on such matters were so protective of the taxpayers that in 1981 (with an additional amendment in 1983) new legislation had to be passed to allow for the treasury to make interfund transfers from the account under trust, to the general revenue.

SOURCE: Interfund Borrowing Under the Social Security Act * (SSA.GOV)

It is true that the first Advisory Council on Social Security in 1938, endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities; but in 1938, no one envisioned the growth of government in the last 8 decades.

The Social Security Program is a "Trust Fund" for a specific purpose. It was not ever intended to be an additional revenue stream for otherwise unfunded congressional projects.

(COMMENT)
But Federal Reserve (US Central Bank for all intent and purposes) is not part of the Executive, Judicial or Legislative Branches of government. We make a little bit of legal fiction here by calling it a quasi-Government Entity. Yet it is really independent in many respects. And it is not going to invest in Treasury Securities held by the Social Security Trust Manager [the Treasury (which forms a conflict of interest in loan approvals)]. The Federal Reserve can enact its own policies (like Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk) without Congressional or Presidential approval (although in reality there is unofficial advise and coordination effort behind the curtain). And this gives the flavor of a very independent entity.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you caught me there. Probably a poor choice of words. I see this probably from a different perspective. If the government plans a project this year, and puts it in the budget for next year, that money is not borrowed until the commitment (promise to pay) presents itself as an obligation (demand for payment). More times then you can imagine, there are cases in which the Congressional Approval for the expenditure of the money - expires. This works for and against the Treasury. The Treasury does not want to cut the check until the last possible moment before penalties accrue. That's when the Treasury goes out to borrow that money from the market place.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is easy enough to do, but the market place does not have an endless source of money. And the Treasury just cannot print more money. In the picture presented to the Treasury, there are funds that are in the budget and covered by the expected revenue stream; funds for expired obligations; and funds for programmed expenses (not spot intelligence and contingency funds). When the government goes out on the market, and starts soaking the money, that leaves less for the private sector to utilize.

Most Respectfully,
R

So in short, you believe that it is possible for the government to run out of its own money. Is that correct?

RoccoR · Mar 16, 2017

JohnfrmClevelan, et al,

The government can print as much money as it has ink to print.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
So in short, you believe that it is possible for the government to run out of its own money. Is that correct?

(COMMENT)

But what happens - it creates inflation and the money becomes near worthless. This is not a theoretical, but a reality which has happened to other countries in the past.

The economies of countries are safest when it is producing tangible products that are in demand.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR · Mar 16, 2017

JohnfrmClevelan et al,

JohnfrmClevelan said:
But the government does not remove dollars from the economy, the government creates its own money. Deficit spending is a straight addition of financial assets to the private sector.

(COMMENT)

Deficit Spending is more the case that Washington obligates more funding then its various revenue stream can produce. Instead of raising taxes, government spending, funds are raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Treasury issues a bond. Somebody in the private sector that wants to buy a bond does so, putting dollars into Treasury's account at the Fed. The government spends those dollars right back into the economy. So the net effect of deficit spending is that people/banks/countries that wish to park their dollars in bonds can do so, plus people and businesses benefit from the government spending. In the extraordinary event that there are no buyers, the Fed can buy bonds on the secondary market. There is no "crowding out."

(COMMENT)

The net effect of deficit spending is increasing the debt on the taxpayers.

Government bonds issued by the US Treasury (long-term notes -- full faith and credit instruments) and Treasury Bills (short-term notes) have the lowest risk.

Imagine a scenario where transfer payments redistribute of revenue income back into the market place often through financial aid programs, social security, and government subsidies for certain businesses (firms and farms). So, if the government has to borrows from Social Security to make its commitments in Social Security Payment Benefits --- you can see the problem. That would be like my daughter using the credit on her VISA Card to make a payment on her Discover Card.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Which, to me, simplifies the question greatly. You only need weigh the obvious benefits of the deficit spending against whatever ill effects there may be to adding more bonds to the private sector. And so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that any ill effects, whether predicted or simply imagined, have come to pass.

(COMMENT)

The US is rapidly approaching a time when the interest rates on the debts began rising. That will make the interest on the national debt double a 3-to-6 year period. The Treasury must pay this interest or suffer the consequences of a debt default.

Most Respectfully,
R

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 16, 2017

RoccoR said:
JohnfrmClevelan, et al,

The government can print as much money as it has ink to print.

(COMMENT)

But what happens - it creates inflation and the money becomes near worthless. This is not a theoretical, but a reality which has happened to other countries in the past.

The economies of countries are safest when it is producing tangible products that are in demand.

It is not the case that countries simply decide to print up tons of money. Printing money is always a response to something else, especially a collapse in production. It happens in war, it happens in drought, and it happens in political upheaval.

Zimbabwe - a political decision to dismantle the big, productive farms and redistribute that land. Ag production plummeted, people went hungry, prices went up.
Weimar Germany - damaged productive capacity plus an onerous financial penalty imposed by the victors led to a conscious decision to devalue their currency.
Venezuela - economy overly dependent on oil plus plunging oil prices plus price controls meant that Venezuelan production was not enough to trade for necessary goods.

Examine any example of hyperinflation, and you will find a logical underlying reason for that hyperinflation. Printing money is a response. There is no threat of hyperinflation in the U.S. We still produce a ton, and our economy can handle even large increases in demand. Can you imagine empty shelves in this country? That's when prices go crazy - when there is nothing to eat, not when customers have a lot of money in their pockets.

This is one of my points - people complain about inflation, or the risk of inflation, due to deficit spending and/or the national debt. But we have been deficit spending for the vast majority of our existence, and the debt continues to grow - yet we have almost no inflation. In fact, the Fed would prefer that our inflation was a bit higher, but they can't even make that happen. So I reject that argument as baseless.

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 16, 2017

RoccoR said:
JohnfrmClevelan et al,

(COMMENT)

Deficit Spending is more the case that Washington obligates more funding then its various revenue stream can produce. Instead of raising taxes, government spending, funds are raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

(COMMENT)

The net effect of deficit spending is increasing the debt on the taxpayers.

Until we reach the point where interest on the debt > the federal deficit, that isn't true. The taxpayers are not paying for the debt in any way.

RoccoR said:
Government bonds issued by the US Treasury (long-term notes -- full faith and credit instruments) and Treasury Bills (short-term notes) have the lowest risk.

Imagine a scenario where transfer payments redistribute of revenue income back into the market place often through financial aid programs, social security, and government subsidies for certain businesses (firms and farms). So, if the government has to borrows from Social Security to make its commitments in Social Security Payment Benefits --- you can see the problem. That would be like my daughter using the credit on her VISA Card to make a payment on her Discover Card.

I posted earlier explaining how the government creates its own money, and is a bank unto itself. The government does not use bank-created credits to fund its operations, it uses base money that is created via the Treasury and the Fed. That is to say, when the government deficit spends, private sector liabilities do not increase. In fact, the opposite is true - private sector assets increase. The government spends, and the private sector ends up holding more bonds.

This is all possible because we have a large economy with the capacity to produce more if demand rises. So when the government increases demand by deficit spending, it doesn't take food out of anybody's mouth or pull workers off of the assembly lines to work for the government, it just increases production and puts idle resources to work. Until those real limits are reached, there is no reason to expect inflation.

RoccoR said:
(COMMENT)

The US is rapidly approaching a time when the interest rates on the debts began rising. That will make the interest on the national debt double a 3-to-6 year period. The Treasury must pay this interest or suffer the consequences of a debt default.

Surely you have noticed that the Fed announced a small increase in the interest rate this week. It's not market forces doing that - they chose to raise rates, and they chose how much to raise them - just as they have chosen to lower rates in the past. The Fed can control the interest rate paid on U.S. bonds. So this worry is unfounded. I don't know what you are basing your claims on - how can you say that we are "rapidly approaching a time" when interest rates will rise? How can you claim that rates will double in a 3-6 year period? Based on what?

RoccoR · Mar 16, 2017

Re: US National debt is beyond staggering
JohnfrmClevelan, Critter7r, et al,

I Yield to your superior position.

Your arguments present a portrait on the topic of "deficit spending" that I find more than difficult to assail. Clearly, I find that I don't quite understand the economic as well as I thought I did.

Without question, I learned something in this exchange.

Most Respectfully,
R

KLATTU · Mar 16, 2017

calamity said:
Too?

Looks to me like your party did it. The other party was buy reducing it.

{ Is there some alternate universe where Democrats are FOR reducing spending? }

LAFF a Thon.

Moderate Right · Mar 17, 2017

RoccoR said:
Re: US National debt is beyond staggering
JohnfrmClevelan, Critter7r, et al,

I Yield to your superior position.

Your arguments present a portrait on the topic of "deficit spending" that I find more than difficult to assail. Clearly, I find that I don't quite understand the economic as well as I thought I did.

Without question, I learned something in this exchange.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have been conned by slick medicine men selling you a false bill of goods. I hope they gave you a warranty because their product will soon fall apart the minute you bring it home. Don't let their fancy talk fool you.

JohnfrmClevelan · Mar 17, 2017

Moderate Right said:
You have been conned by slick medicine men selling you a false bill of goods. I hope they gave you a warranty because their product will soon fall apart the minute you bring it home. Don't let their fancy talk fool you.

He was smart enough to recognize a superior argument, and big enough to admit it. You are neither.

Moderate Right · Mar 18, 2017

JohnfrmClevelan said:
He was smart enough to recognize a superior argument, and big enough to admit it. You are neither.

He is uneducated on the subject enough that he fell for your line of crap. Congratulations. Score one conversion for your side against 10,000 who can tell a slick con man when they see one. Enjoy the one conversion while it lasts.

Stephen50right · Mar 18, 2017

President Trump is trying hard to make the necessary cuts in government. We are 20 trillion dollars in debt, the cuts must happen, whether liberals like it or not. Case closed.

sear · Apr 18, 2017

$20 $Trillion is too much.

403 Forbidden

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams

Chen · May 13, 2017

KLATTU said:
The $20 trillion debt is already twice the annual revenues collected by all the world’s governments combined.

ounting unfunded liabilities, which include promised Social Security, Medicare, and government pension payments that Washington will not have the money to pay, the federal government actually owes somewhere between $100 trillion and $200 trillion. The numbers are so ridiculously large that even the uncertainty in the figures exceeds the annual economic output of the entire planet
https://fee.org/articles/trillions-in-debt-and-were-just-scratching-the-surface/

I'm reminded of the old adage- if sometiing can't go on forever,it won't.

Export the money supply out of US will not demage the US economy in the long term.
I can explain it through 2 possibilities scenarios:
1. The US dollars remain abroad - This situation increases the inflation rate out of US.
2. The US dollars outside United States return come back - This situation leads to devaluation of US dollar and inflation in the US but this situation also lead to a stronger export industry.

MTAtech · May 13, 2017

fmw said:
The liberal economists have told the politicians what they want to hear - that debt is positive for the economy. Actually, since most of the debt is in the hands of the FED and since the FED creates the money out of thin air, it is likely that there isn't all that much debt. The people are paying for it by the loss in the value of the dollar. It is like a tax. However, a 70% cut in the cost of government would go a long way toward making it better.

Perhaps you have read that I have often said that before one makes a definitive statement about numbers, one should look at those numbers. All through the financial crisis conservatives warned that increasing the money supply would "debase" the currency, cause hyperinflation and high interest rates. Where has this debasement, hyperinflation and high interests rates been hiding after the money supply has doubled?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TWEXB

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2

US National debt is beyond staggering

KLATTU

JohnfrmClevelan

JohnfrmClevelan

Critter7r

Critter7r

Moderate Right

Critter7r

calamity

Privileged

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Moderate Right

RoccoR

JohnfrmClevelan

RoccoR

RoccoR

JohnfrmClevelan

JohnfrmClevelan

RoccoR

KLATTU

Moderate Right

JohnfrmClevelan

Moderate Right

Stephen50right

Active member

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Chen

New member

MTAtech