- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 14
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Although a government with a sovereign fiat currency like the USD, which "prints" (i.e. types the amount into a computer keyboard at the FED), can't inject as much money into the economy as it wants due to hyperinflation, it can easily have a budget that is 10%, 20%, 40% the nation's GDP (i.e. Gross Domestic Product = Nation's Production Capacity). The US federal government will never go insolvent or not have enough USD, as Senator Paul Ryan suggests here, when he is correct by Greenspan:
Ryan sounds like an ignorant dolt, suggesting that the US federal government can go insolvent (running out of money), being unable to pay for Social Security. Greenspan corrects him by reminding him that the US federal government can't run out of USD, because it creates it ex-nihilo (i.e. out of nothing). The real issue isn't whether the US federal government has enough money to pay for Social Security, but rather whether the economy is able to provide Social Security recipients with the goods and services they want to purchase. Production is the issue, not solvency. The so-called national debt, is actually just a ledger of how much money the US federal government has "spent" or "injected" into the US economy (and world economy too, since the USD is the world's reserve currency) in the last 240 years, that hasn't been returned to it in taxes (and other government fees) and has been invested in one way or the other by the public (treasury bonds, assets). If there's a so-called debt, where is the asset? Debts have an asset tied to it. One can just as well call the supposed "national debt", a "national asset", since the US federal government's "red ink" (debt), is the American people's "black ink" (assets). It's a ledger of how much money the private sector, and the American people in general (including other people around the world, who own and use USD), have in their pockets. Watch these two top economists and scholars explain all of this in detail:
Notice how the so-called "national debt" is reflected or projected as the "national asset". If the US federal government is in debt, the American people have more money to invest and save. Balance the federal government budget, and the US economy tanks within two or three years. Every time the US federal government has "balanced" its budget, the private sector suffers and we go into an economic recession. Why all of the fearmongering about the "national debt"? It's because the wealthy ruling class in this country and their cronies in government, don't want the government doing anything for the American people. The "big government" rhetoric, spewed by both Republicans and some Democrats is designed to place as many publicly owned assets and government projects in the hands of the wealthy. They demonize and denigrate the government in the eyes of the American public, portraying themselves (their privately owned companies) as the only solution to whatever problem we face. They would eliminate Social Security and Medicare if they could, privatizing EVERYTHING. Putting it ALL in the hands of a few billionaires. And of course, ironically, many American working-class people will just go along with it and even defend their masters. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, is clear as to who are the "masters"
What are the common wages of labor, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. (Book I, Chapter VIII)
www.youtube.com
Ryan sounds like an ignorant dolt, suggesting that the US federal government can go insolvent (running out of money), being unable to pay for Social Security. Greenspan corrects him by reminding him that the US federal government can't run out of USD, because it creates it ex-nihilo (i.e. out of nothing). The real issue isn't whether the US federal government has enough money to pay for Social Security, but rather whether the economy is able to provide Social Security recipients with the goods and services they want to purchase. Production is the issue, not solvency. The so-called national debt, is actually just a ledger of how much money the US federal government has "spent" or "injected" into the US economy (and world economy too, since the USD is the world's reserve currency) in the last 240 years, that hasn't been returned to it in taxes (and other government fees) and has been invested in one way or the other by the public (treasury bonds, assets). If there's a so-called debt, where is the asset? Debts have an asset tied to it. One can just as well call the supposed "national debt", a "national asset", since the US federal government's "red ink" (debt), is the American people's "black ink" (assets). It's a ledger of how much money the private sector, and the American people in general (including other people around the world, who own and use USD), have in their pockets. Watch these two top economists and scholars explain all of this in detail:
Notice how the so-called "national debt" is reflected or projected as the "national asset". If the US federal government is in debt, the American people have more money to invest and save. Balance the federal government budget, and the US economy tanks within two or three years. Every time the US federal government has "balanced" its budget, the private sector suffers and we go into an economic recession. Why all of the fearmongering about the "national debt"? It's because the wealthy ruling class in this country and their cronies in government, don't want the government doing anything for the American people. The "big government" rhetoric, spewed by both Republicans and some Democrats is designed to place as many publicly owned assets and government projects in the hands of the wealthy. They demonize and denigrate the government in the eyes of the American public, portraying themselves (their privately owned companies) as the only solution to whatever problem we face. They would eliminate Social Security and Medicare if they could, privatizing EVERYTHING. Putting it ALL in the hands of a few billionaires. And of course, ironically, many American working-class people will just go along with it and even defend their masters. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, is clear as to who are the "masters"
What are the common wages of labor, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. (Book I, Chapter VIII)
George Carlin: They own you
www.youtube.com
Last edited:
