[QatzelOk]

As the saying has it, if you owe your bank $100 thousand dollars, then you’re in trouble. But if you owe your bank $100 million dollars, then your bank is in trouble. As @late pointed out, the US government is not like a private individual.

If you owe a thousand dollars on your personal credit card, then you will have to work a bit harder.

If you owe a million dollars on your personal credit card, your family will soon be homeless.

A head-of-the-household bankruptcy is much more dire than a personal bankruptcy that only affects the person who is bankrupt.

For a better look at what happens when finance is treated like Disney World... you only have to examine the debts and lies of Argentina's past 40 years of governance.

When reading how "deficits or debts don't matter" (we think they're worth it!), remember that our media sources are contaminated by the FIRE sector. Debts don't matter to the Financial sector, because this is one of their strategies for using their money to enslave everyone.

Like I said, tax the rich and corps more.

This is like the "Two-state solution" to our upcoming national bankruptcies, isn't it. Sounds nice, but will never happen. The rich own our governments, and you are suggesting that "they tax themselves harder," rather than raiding the treasury like they always do.

[Steve_American]

If you owe a thousand dollars on your personal credit card, then you will have to work a bit harder.

If you owe a million dollars on your personal credit card, your family will soon be homeless.

A head-of-the-household bankruptcy is much more dire than a personal bankruptcy that only affects the person who is bankrupt.

For a better look at what happens when finance is treated like Disney World... you only have to examine the debts and lies of Argentina's past 40 years of governance.

When reading how "deficits or debts don't matter" (we think they're worth it!), remember that our media sources are contaminated by the FIRE sector. Debts don't matter to the Financial sector, because this is one of their strategies for using their money to enslave everyone.

Steve_American wrote:
Like I said, tax the rich and corps more.

This is like the "Two-state solution" to our upcoming national bankruptcies, isn't it. Sounds nice, but will never happen. The rich own our governments, and you are suggesting that "they tax themselves harder," rather than raiding the treasury like they always do.

Yes, I know that. So what? What is the or your alternative? Is it to cut spending on the welfare of the workers? If so, then I reject that. I'll take my chances on default instead. It is the rich who are making that a possibility. For 40years they have cut taxes on themselves, while being unable to cut spending for the rest of the American people.
. . . Also, the rich have done nothing on ACC, so now a +3 and then 5 deg. C world is rushing toward us at 0.5 deg.C per decade and accelerating. That 0.5 deg. number is a very recent estimate of the current rate of increase.

As for your other claims.

Argentina borrows in dollars, a foreign currency. It has been a problem for decades. Warren Mosler, a founding MMTer, told them what to do and they did the opposite a few years ago. I have a thread about it.

I have agreed that private debt is a problem. But, like you said, the rich are calling the shots.

[QatzelOk]

Yes, I know that. So what? What is the or your alternative? ...

The only way to get financial and physical security back from the nihilistic rich is to overthrow their fake governments.

Until then, regulatory Capture means "we" can't do anything, including "tax the rich more."

By the way, we have been slowly bankrupting ourselves for more than 50 years. That you NOW suggest "tax the rich more" means that you are saying this when it's too late to do this.

"Tax the rich more" has been thwarted by our bought-and-paid-for governments for 50 years.

So now what? Just keep saying "tax the rich" until we are starving and homeless?

[Steve_American]

The only way to get financial and physical security back from the nihilistic rich is to overthrow their fake governments.

Until then, regulatory Capture means "we" can't do anything, including "tax the rich more."

By the way, we have been slowly bankrupting ourselves for more than 50 years. That you NOW suggest "tax the rich more" means that you are saying this when it's too late to do this.

"Tax the rich more" has been thwarted by our bought-and-paid-for governments for 50 years.

So now what? Just keep saying "tax the rich" until we are starving and homeless?

I hope you all remember the many times on this site that I have put forth my plan.

My plan is for the next 2 generations to demonstrate in the street to show their "people power" to themselves and to the Dem leaders.
If 20 million on 1 day demonstrated for progressive policies on economics and climate change and for progressive candidates it ought to change the future.
So far there have been no such demonstrations, even tiny ones.
It seems they are unable to see the need or for some other reason just don't do it.

It is their lives that ACC will end young. I'm old and will die soon in any case.


BTW--- 50 years ago was 1973. I don't see that we have been bankrupting the US for that long. Why do you think that? I'd say since 1981, so for 42 years.
.

[late]

Qatz has half a world-view (weltanschuung in the original German).

He has no interest in the other half..

[Steve_American]

Amazingly, this thread has 1500 views in the last 12 hours. And IIRC, another 700 in the 12 hours before that.

I wonder how many agree that the US will default and/or go bankrupt soon, in less than 10 years.

[QatzelOk]

...50 years ago was 1973. I don't see that we have been bankrupting the US for that long. Why do you think that? I'd say since 1981, so for 42 years.
.

I was referring to Canada more than to the USA, as I know the Canadian situation in more depth.

Before 1974, Canada used to print money to pay off any government deficits. This caused inflation, so the rich of Canada made sure that our deficit was never very large.

Then, during a bunch of political crises revolving around Quebec independence (a distraction), then PM Pierre Trudeau (Justin's daddy) unilaterally switched to "borrowing money from private banks at interest" to pay back Canadian government debts.

Canada's debt started to skyrocket the very next year. Reason: The rich would now benefit from government debt in two ways:

1. By collecting interest from future debt slaves

2. By being able to buy government assets once the whole government goes bankrupt (in 5...4...3... )

In the case of the USA, a much bigger economy with a very different kind of currency (world default), the process has been slower and more tortured, starting with FDR and his "sell all your gold or we'll arrest you!"

***

If you look at the charts regarding Canada's deficits each year, you"ll notice that as of 1974 we have huge deficits every year... even when the economy is booming. (Have you ever borrowed lots of money while your savings account was full and you were making money hand-over-fist? Me either.)

Which makes no sense... unless the deficits are a long-term way of creating debt slaves and a failed country that can be bought for pennies.

***

This post has been brought to you by We think it's worth itTM

We think it's worth itTM because
when the going gets tough,
the tough have no empathy
and thus no reason to avoid collateral damage.

The Great Treason of 1974 (in French)

[Steve_American]

I was referring to Canada more than to the USA, as I know the Canadian situation in more depth.

Before 1974, Canada used to print money to pay off any government deficits. This caused inflation, so the rich of Canada made sure that our deficit was never very large.

Then, during a bunch of political crises revolving around Quebec independence (a distraction), then PM Pierre Trudeau (Justin's daddy) unilaterally switched to "borrowing money from private banks at interest" to pay back Canadian government debts.

Canada's debt started to skyrocket the very next year. Reason: The rich would now benefit from government debt in two ways:

1. By collecting interest from future debt slaves

2. By being able to buy government assets once the whole government goes bankrupt (in 5...4...3... )

In the case of the USA, a much bigger economy with a very different kind of currency (world default), the process has been slower and more tortured, starting with FDR and his "sell all your gold or we'll arrest you!"

***

If you look at the charts regarding Canada's deficits each year, you"ll notice that as of 1974 we have huge deficits every year... even when the economy is booming. (Have you ever borrowed lots of money while your savings account was full and you were making money hand-over-fist? Me either.)

Which makes no sense... unless the deficits are a long-term way of creating debt slaves and a failed country that can be bought for pennies.

***

This post has been brought to you by We think it's worth itTM

We think it's worth itTM because
when the going gets tough,
the tough have no empathy
and thus no reason to avoid collateral damage.

The Great Treason of 1974 (in French)

Well, I don't know what sources you use, but I googled "How does Canada finance its deficits?", and then "What makes up Canada's debt?" I got this =>

https://commodity.com/data/canada/debt- ... overnments.

It says 3 important things.
1] Unlike the US, Canada choose to include all the debts of its provinces.
2] It sells treasury bills, bonds and savings bonds for the retail market.
3] In 2017 its debt was still less than 90% of its GDP according to the IMF. [This may have been in the 1st result.]

Who Manages Canada’s National Debt?
The federal debt is the responsibility of the central government’s Department of Finance. This ministry issues three types of debt-raising instruments:
a] Treasury bills for short-term finance
b] Government bonds for long-term finance
c] Savings bonds for the retail market

There is NO mention of Canada borrowing from banks.

HOWEVER, I learned a few years ago that, by law, the Bank of Canada buys 20% of its bond [and maybe treasury bill] sales directly from the treasury.

So, what is your source? It seems like your source is totally wrong.

__________________________________,____________________________________

Added with an edit 50 min. later.

One more thing I need to add.

You, sir, along with all MainStream Economists do not understand how GDP works.

GDP is among other things a total of all the spending in the economy that is also the total of all incomes in the economy.

Gov. deficit spending adds to the total spending and total incomes. Credit, which can be defined as new loans in an economy, also adds to the total spending and total incomes. MS Econ. gets bank loans wrong, on purpose, because it uses the "banks loan their savers money" theory, which has been proven wrong. I think that it does this to keep the idea that Gov. deficits crowd out money for investments by sucking up a lot of the savings. But, Gov. bonds are matched by Gov. spending so they cancel out, and banks can still make loans for investments because they create dollars in concert with a borrower who will sign the lon contract.

In any case, in a boom, banks are making loans which are spent so they add to the GDP. Gov. deficits also add to the GDP, so together they make the GDP look healthier, supporting the boom. So, why do you think it is stupid for a Gov. to have large deficits in a boom. I have no doubt that the reason you think this is that MS Econ. thinks this. And, MS Econ. thought this before 1971 because the US, and so indirectly, the world was still on the gold standard. This meant that all Gov. had to protect their gold supply. They did this by keeping the total debt low but still selling bonds to make sure that the nation's currency supply was less or close to the gold supply. They didn't want a rush on their gold supply.

MS Econ. did NOT change 1 part of its theory when the gold standard ended in 1971. So, it still is the same as back then.
Also, the MS Econ. theories were created before 1913, when the Federal Res. Bank was created and it "licenses" banks to create dollars when they make loans. So, the "loanable funds" part of the theory became false in 1913, but MS Econ. still taught it, and so people believed it. It seems like you still believe it 111 years later.

.

[QatzelOk]

There is NO mention of Canada borrowing from banks.

The biggest hurdle to understanding the monetary system in Canada is that NOWHERE in Bank of Canada literature is it clearly spelled out. It gives the broad strokes, but anyone trying to dig to the heart of the accounting will be stymied at every turn.

The article than goes on to obfuscate by using unnecessary details in order to discourage the reader from further inquiry. Why would our media protect our banksters' scams? A better question would be "why is the media owned and operated by the same people as the banks?"

“In 1974, at the behest of the Bank for International Settlements, the Rothschilds, and foreign banking interests (1), without debate in Parliament Pierre Trudeau ordered the Bank of Canada (2) (in some incarnations the myth claims the BoC was sold to the former interests) to stop lending interest-free to the government for public works and to start borrowing at compound interest exclusively from private banks (3), and because of that you can clearly see our public debt skyrocket on a chart (4). This history has been covered up by the government, as they also ordered the media not to cover the Bank of Canada lawsuit by COMER. (5)”

The article calls the above "a myth" and then fails to debunk this myth in the subsequent text. Apparently, there was a debate in parliament. I'm not sure how this changes anything in the orginal "myth" that is actually "fact." Likewise, I'm not sure how many Jeffrey Epstein plane-rides were involved in Canada's "changing how it finances government debt in 1974." This information is not available.

***


I did some more research and have found that Quebecois like me... owe $50,000 in government debt (at all levels) per person. In the USA, the figure is $100,000 of debt per person, and this only covers Federal Government debt per person, not state or city debt.

If interest rates go to 5%, each American will have to pay $5,000 per person in interest per year. This amounts to $20,000 per family-of-four.... and this family will get exactly NO SERVICES for this 20 grand of interest on Fed Gov debt. It's just "a tax" that the banksters scammed by using our governments as enablers.

This is going to quickly become debt slavery. The last three generations of silly North American adults have sold their own offspring into debt slavery.

***

I can still remember adults shrugging and smiling as they acknowleged that Canada was accumulating debts every year when I was a kid.

Typical conversations went like this:

Man 1: "Trudeau's rung up another few billion in debt."

Man 2: "Yeah, our kids are going to have to work hard to pay this back."

*they both laugh*

Man 1: "Hey, did you see Happy Days last night? That Fonze sure made a fool out of Richie...."

*they both talk about television shows and their new cars for an hour*

***

...The world is buried under record debt levels and the global economy can’t function in a high interest rate environment.

Fed officials know that and it is certainly one of the reasons they don’t want to raise rates any higher and hope to bring them down as soon as possible.

...Rising interest rates drove interest payments to over 35% as a percentage of total tax receipts in fiscal 2023. In other words, the government is already paying more than a third of the taxes it collects on interest expense...

Financial analyst Jim Grant doesn’t think that will happen. He thinks we’re at the beginning of a generational bear market in bonds that will keep rates higher for the next several decades — no matter what the Federal Reserve does.

His analysis makes sense. As governments around the world struggle to finance more and more debt, the supply of government bonds in the market grows. That puts upward pressure on interest rates. Even if central banks try to push rates down, it will be a constant tug-o-war with the markets...

The "solution" to the debt problem, according to Schiff Gold, is to cut spending dramatically. In other words, the richest countries on Earth will soon see their economies die by IMF-style debts, restructuring and destruction, like so much of the Third World has.

Why do you think "you're special" in this regard?

***

Special Nation (USA) statistics:

the bottom of the economic food chain is already collapsing…

** 1 out of 5 U.S. children already do not have enough food to eat.

** U.S. food banks are dealing with unprecedented demand.

** Homelessness in the United States is growing at the fastest pace ever recorded.

[Steve_American]

The article than goes on to obfuscate by using unnecessary details in order to discourage the reader from further inquiry. Why would our media protect our banksters' scams? A better question would be "why is the media owned and operated by the same people as the banks?"



The article calls the above "a myth" and then fails to debunk this myth in the subsequent text. Apparently, there was a debate in parliament. I'm not sure how this changes anything in the orginal "myth" that is actually "fact." Likewise, I'm not sure how many Jeffrey Epstein plane-rides were involved in Canada's "changing how it finances government debt in 1974." This information is not available.

***


I did some more research and have found that Quebecois like me... owe $50,000 in government debt (at all levels) per person. In the USA, the figure is $100,000 of debt per person, and this only covers Federal Government debt per person, not state or city debt.

If interest rates go to 5%, each American will have to pay $5,000 per person in interest per year. This amounts to $20,000 per family-of-four.... and this family will get exactly NO SERVICES for this 20 grand of interest on Fed Gov debt. It's just "a tax" that the banksters scammed by using our governments as enablers.

This is going to quickly become debt slavery. The last three generations of silly North American adults have sold their own offspring into debt slavery.

***

I can still remember adults shrugging and smiling as they acknowleged that Canada was accumulating debts every year when I was a kid.

Typical conversations went like this:

Man 1: "Trudeau's rung up another few billion in debt."

Man 2: "Yeah, our kids are going to have to work hard to pay this back."

*they both laugh*

Man 1: "Hey, did you see Happy Days last night? That Fonze sure made a fool out of Richie...."

*they both talk about television shows and their new cars for an hour*

***





The "solution" to the debt problem, according to Schiff Gold, is to cut spending dramatically. In other words, the richest countries on Earth will soon see their economies die by IMF-style debts, restructuring and destruction, like so much of the Third World has.

Why do you think "you're special" in this regard?

***

Special Nation (USA) statistics:

Zero Hedge wrote:
the bottom of the economic food chain is already collapsing…

** 1 out of 5 U.S. children already do not have enough food to eat.

** U.S. food banks are dealing with unprecedented demand.

** Homelessness in the United States is growing at the fastest pace ever recorded.

OK, you deny that my source is correct. Fine, I can still reply that it doesn't matter and assume my source is wrong.

1] You put a lot of faith in the "Zero hedge" guy. Obviously, he is a MS Economist. You know I have zero regard for the opinions of MS Econ. because it ignores reality and is based on many false premises. And, one can prove anything if one is slowed to use false premises.

2] How much difference is there between a Gov. borrowing from a bank and selling bonds to finance deficit spending? Both ways the Gov. is spending dollars that were just created out of thin air. Zero Hedge may believe that banks loan out their depositor's money, but that doesn't make it true. This economic premise was proved wrong by Dr. Werner in 2014.

Link to Dr. Werner's article =>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1914001070

So, my view of these 2 cases is:
. . a] If the Gov. sells bonds, then some rich guy or some corp that is owned by many rich guys trade their cash deposited in a bank for a bond that the treasury is selling. Before this transaction, the Gov. had already (a week ago) spent the money by depositing the newly created dollars into the banking system. So, 1st the Gov. creates dollars as it puts them into some bank accounts, then 2nd a week later, the Gov. sells a bond that drains those dollars out of bank accounts in exchange for a newly printed piece of paper in the form of a bond. Rich guys or corps buy the bond because only they have the dollars to buy bonds.

. . b] If the Gov. just borrows from a bank, I'll assume that it doesn't spend 1st, but it doesn't matter at all, IMO. This bank is a corp owned by many rich guys. So, 1st the Gov. signs the loan contract. Then the bank deposits dollars that it creates out of thin air in to the Gov. account at the bank, Then the Gov. spends those dollars by crediting some bank accounts at many other banks.
. . . We don't have any info on the form of the repayment plan in the loan contract. It can be repaid each month like most loans to people, or it can be paid all at once at some later time as a ballon payment. A ballon payment is very much like a bond sale.

Conclusion, in both cases the money the Gov. spends was created out of thin air.
Please, explain to me how/why borrowing from a bank matters at all, compared to selling bonds that are often bought by banks.

_________________________________________.______________________________


And another thing, I have pointed out many times that the K, aka England, has had a national debt at the end of every year since 1694, for 329 years. It has never had to pay off that debt for 329 years. Why does any nation have to pay off its national debt?
. . . If the nation will never pay off its national debt, what is the big deal about having it and rolling it over by selling new bonds. Remember, most nations with their own currency (so not nations in the EZ, etc.) can always change the law and sell bonds to its central bank, or just create dollars, pounds or crowns, etc. to pay a bond as it comes due.

This claim made by MS Econ. that people in the future will have to pay those bonds and so will suffer, ignores the fact that we are already paying on bonds that were originally sold by Reagan in the 80s, and have been rolled over about 2 to 4 times (depending on if they were 10-year or 20-year bonds). I don't know about you, but I don't feel like I'm suffering as a result.
. . . Of course, if the US is hit by a massive nuclear attack and ceases to exist, then any bond holders who survive will not be paid when their bonds come due. That will be the least of their worries, though. And US paper dollars may also just be useful to light fires.

.

[late]

1] You put a lot of faith in the "Zero hedge" guy.

He's a complete nutter, check Wiki.

The American economy has low unemployment, low inflation and strong investment. If that's bad news, give me ten times as much..

"All of this sounds extremely familiar to anyone studying economic sentiment. In recent years, Americans have been extremely negative about the national economy but much less so about their local economies. And everything we know about what Americans are doing, as opposed to what they tell pollsters, suggests that on average they’re feeling pretty good about their own situation: Consumer spending is strong, new business formation is high, and so on.

One more item about watching what people do, not what they say: Moody’s, the rating agency, has looked at surveys of businesses, like the one conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business. As Moody’s notes, these surveys include both “hard” indicators like hiring and capital expenditure plans, and softer questions, for example what people say they think about the business outlook. Sure enough, the hard indicators — which tell us what businesses are actually doing — are consistent with a strong economy..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/opinion/retail-economy-crime.html

[QatzelOk]

The American economy has low unemployment, low inflation and strong investment. If that's bad news, give me ten times as much..

Yes, I've been told by banker friends that "debt doesn't matter."

And Americans owing $100,000 in government debt per person doesn't matter because....

This means that with rates at 5%, each American must give $5000 to the banksters.

If this doesn't matter to you, then Argentina must look like paradise. And Argentina HAS BEEN a paradise for interest-collecting banksters... That must be what Steve and Late are pining for.



Lying for banksters: a workin' gal's gotta make a living?

[late]

Yes, I've been told by banker friends that "debt doesn't matter."

That's MMT, I am not one of those guys.

It's complicated, but suffice it to say don't hold your breath...

[QatzelOk]

That's MMT, I am not one of those guys.

It's complicated, but suffice it to say don't hold your breath...

Why didn't Argentina just print more money to pay off its debts, since this seems to be what MMT suggests is possible.

How can Canada, the USA, and other heavily indebted countries avoid Argentina's fate? (which was also the Roman Empire's fate, the Greek empire's fate... etc.)

How is it possible to pay thousands of dollars in interest per year (per person) and not crash and burn eventually?

And is the ownership of our media by finance-related mafia... part of why we will go bankrupt?

Has the average Westerner been blinded by media bullshit while being robbed?


Great Depression workers line up for a hot bowl of MMT

[late]

Why didn't Argentina just print more money to pay off its debts, since this seems to be what MMT suggests is possible.

How can Canada, the USA, and other heavily indebted countries avoid Argentina's fate? (which was also the Roman Empire's fate, the Greek empire's fate... etc.)

How is it possible to pay thousands of dollars in interest per year (per person) and not crash and burn eventually?

And is the ownership of our media by finance-related mafia... part of why we will go bankrupt?

Has the average Westerner been blinded by media bullshit while being robbed?

When the number of dollars increase, but the economy doesn't, the value of the dollar decreases.

We are the Reserve Currency, that helps a lot. All empires fall, the tricky bit is figuring out when.

There is some truth in that, one of the things that helped Trump is the media owners knew Trump would give them a fat. juicy tax cut.

[Steve_American]

Steve_American replies: Yes, that is what MMT asserts, and it is true. Such nations are constrained by resources not money.

1] Why didn't Argentina just print more money to pay off its debts, since this seems to be what MMT suggests is possible.

How can Canada, the USA, and other heavily indebted countries avoid Argentina's fate? (2] which was also the Roman Empire's fate, the Greek empire's fate... etc.)

How is it possible to pay thousands of dollars in interest per year (per person) and not crash and burn eventually?

And is the ownership of our media by finance-related mafia... part of why we will go bankrupt?

Has the average Westerner been blinded by media bullshit while being robbed?


[size=95]3] Great Depression workers line up for a hot bowl of MMT[/size]

1] Please, get it through your thick skull, that Argentina owes debts denominated in dollars, and it has owed such debts for a very long time. This makes it like Weimar Germany. Germany tried to print Marks with which to buy pounds and francs. It had to do this because its debts, aka reparations, were denominated in pounds and francs. Because it had to buy them, the sellers could and did keep demanding more and more. This is very different from the US case where its debts are denominated in US$, so it doesn't need to buy dollars it can create them. Yes, it currently needs to sell bonds, but there are a lot of dollars in the economy that are looking for a safe interest-bearing place to be parked. [Depositing huge sums in banks is not safe if there is an FDIC limit, etc.]

2] Many experts blame the problems that Rome had with inflation on mixing silver with the gold in coins, which caused inflation. My MMT take on this is very different.
We now know that Rome could have issued paper money instead of debasing the coinage. The effect is the same. The money is still accepted even though paper is worthless.
OTOH, there are other things that could have been causing inflation.
a] Food inflation could have been caused by a growing population that needed more food and dropping food production caused by soil erosion and depletion of the soil for key elements.
b] Inflation in the price of metals could have been caused by the mines producing less metal over centuries because the shafts had to keep going deeper. This required more slaves to lift the waste rock and metal ore to the surface. Worse, the shafts could have gone below the water table and so kept getting slowly flooded, requiring more slaves to pump the water out. Failure to keep up would result in the shaft being flooded [say] 20 feet deep, and then it could take months to pump that 20 feet out while 4"/day is still seeping in.
So, mines were abandoned, and new mines were not found.
There is evidence for all this argument. I have seen it many years ago.
The Eastern Empire had Egypt for food and Turkey for metals, etc. When it lost Egypt to the Muslim Arabs, it was a disaster. When it lost Turkey to them, it was another disaster.

Food and metals were the 2 key inputs to the Roman economy. Today we need food, metals, and energy, so we will see (and have seen) unstoppable inflation if/when production of any of these falls short.

3] It is obvious to me that MMT worked just fine to solve the economic problem in the 30s, followed by the new problem in the 40s, aka WWII, and all this was followed by the Golden age of America in the 50s and 60s. I was born soon after WWII ended, so I lived through the Golden Age and later. I assert based on my observations that things were just fine.

Your Zero Hedge guy is an idiot. He is steeped in MainStream Econ. and so, gets everything wrong. You believe him because he says things that you want to hear. Google and YouTube show you things you want to see. You reject MMT because you believe the proofs of MS Econ., but they are based on false premises. With false premises one can prove anything.
This is why courts of law make such a big deal about "truth". I am positive that if you were ever in a court of law, you and your lawyers would be hopping mad if the judge was allowing false testimony to be introduced and stipulated as true.

So, back in 1929 [this is also true in 1940, 1980, and 1990] everyone would have been appalled to know that in 2023 the national debt would be over $33T. They would be certain that this was impossible, that a crash would have happened decades ago. Yet, here we are.
. . . Yes, MS Econ. theory blames deficit spending for the recent inflation, but there were other factors that could also be The causes. They include covid closing factories and service providers (making people spend more on building supplies and other stuff), shipping problems, OPEC cutting oil production to increase its price, war in Ukraine, etc. MMT asserts that it is shortages that cause inflation in most cases. This is because in most cases Gov. don't deficit spend too much, instead they deficit spend too little. Like I have said for decades, if spending by France and the UK as WWII began and then by the US for WWII is what really ended the Great Depression, then FDR's spending up to 1939 was not enough. So, FDR should have spent double or triple what he did spend, and that would have ended to Depression sooner.
.

[QatzelOk]

When the number of dollars increase, but the economy doesn't, the value of the dollar decreases.

We are the Reserve Currency, that helps a lot. All empires fall, the tricky bit is figuring out when.

There is some truth in that, one of the things that helped Trump is the media owners knew Trump would give them a fat. juicy tax cut.

Because it is so investment-and-return oriented, Zero Hedge is the best tour guide for describing the upcoming collapse of the USA economy (and most of the West with it) because the articles are aimed at stockbrokers and other FIRE sector parasites who need to know where the fat will be when the crash starts.

"This Is Off The Charts":
Economist Claims 2024 Will Bring 'Biggest Crash Of Our Lifetime' In US

An economist who focuses on consumer spending has issued a dire warning about the U.S. economy in the coming year.

"Since 2009, this has been 100 percent artificial, unprecedented money printing and deficits: $27 trillion over 15 years, to be exact," economist Harry Dent told Fox Business on Dec. 19. "This is off the charts, 100 percent artificial, which means we're in a dangerous state...

27 trillion dollars has been conjured out of thin air (by family banksters) in the last 15 years alone. This represents about 90% of current USA government debt. In only the last 15 years!

Has A "Silent Depression" Already Started In The United States?

...Housing, vehicles, food and just about everything else that we spend money on is far more unaffordable today than it was during the Great Depression of the 1930s...

“If you look back to the Great Depression, the house was only three times the average salary. Now, it is eight times the average salary,” Smith said. “The car was 46% of the salary, the car today is 85% of the salary. And here’s the craziest part, the rent was 16% of the average salary, it is now 42% of the average salary.”...

So even though things like housing and food are more expensive for Americans NOW than they were in the Great Depression, our media is a lot better at cheering us up and making us accept tent cities and a plunging lifespan.

Yah commercial brainwashing! (?)

***

Steve_American, your posts in this thread are incomprehensible, disorganized nonsense that no one can even respond to because there are no clear points in them other than "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

These post-salads of yours take insignificant details of past crises and suggest that we are all fine today because "Everyone is nice now." Do you really believe that central bank predation is a thing of the past, or that the USA simply cannot go bankrupt (like it has several times in its violent history)?

[late]

Zero Hedge is the best tour guide for describing the upcoming collapse of the USA economy

Thanks for the laugh.

They are incompetent..

[Steve_American]

...snip...

***

Steve_American, 1] your posts in this thread are incomprehensible, disorganized nonsensethat no one can even respond to because there are no clear points in them other than "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

These post-salads of yours take insignificant details of past crises and suggest that we are all fine today because "Everyone is nice now." Do you really believe that central bank predation is a thing of the past, or 2] that the USA simply cannot go bankrupt (like it has several times in its violent history)?

1] With all due respect, if you can't understand my posts, then it is possible that the problem isn't me, it could be your inability to understand things you don't like.

2] I looked at the linked article.

You and it's authors can't understand that the US ended gold exchanges for dollars in 1971. Whether or not it was legal or constitutional doesn't matter now 52 years later. This change is very consequential.

The US can never go bankrupt again, because it can always pay dollars to anyone it owes dollars to. Fed Chaiman Allen Greenspan testified to this effect under oath decades ago. I have linked to this video at least 2 times on this site.

The link => both are under 4 min. long

.

[QatzelOk]

Thanks for the laugh.

They are incompetent..

Zero Hedge is a meta-news site, so some of its hedge fund manager writers are accurate and insightful, and others are just trying to manipulate stock values through propaganda.

Unlike commercial media, which is 100% obfuscation and diversion away from the real control of the economy and politics by Big Money.

As I importantly mentionned earlier in this thread, the 70s and 80s were characterized by two things:

1. an ongoing scheme to bankrupt the nation via unrelenting debt accumulation, year after year...

2. a dramatic increase in mass media addictions and the resulting dumbing-down of the general public, who are no longer able to discuss serious subjects like the nation's debt crises or the dissapearance of social capital.

I want you to think long and hard about who controls media and who controls banking, and why it in the interests of banks that the general public be stupid screen-watchers with zero attention span.

***

Steve_American , the two videos you posted offer very little insight in this thread except for one thing: they underline the fact that the USA's social programs (like Social Security) are going to dissappear soon. Same for public education, road maintenance, policing, border control, etc.

Countries that go broke can't afford nice things, but I assure you that the rich who are ripping us all off... will be just fine. They know we're going broke, and they are making arrangements to steal as much infrastructure as they can before that happens.