Posts by urbanotter

Harold Martin10 said:Honestly, they don't even need to change. Not the debtors, not the banks, and not the developers. In a truly free market, citizens, banks, and builders all find ways to profit—the only ones consistently losing out are the politicians.

Keep this in mind—this whole mess would have been significantly smaller if the government hadn't used its regulatory muscle to inflate the housing bubble in the first place. If the Federal Government had reached out to the IMF back in 2008 and pushed through the necessary reforms, we’d be looking at a stable, growing economy today. Instead, we've spent five years slowly sliding toward a decline, just delaying the inevitable. Rather than fixing the foundation, the Federal Government has stuck to "socially sensitive" policies since 2008 just to win votes—even though we all know that approach isn't socially sensitive at all in the long run, considering it leads straight to debt and painful stagnation.

The state was the one with the authority to pop that real estate bubble before it got too big, yet they did the exact opposite. And aside from a few lucky outliers, it wasn't the developers, bankers, or debtors who profited in the long term—it was the politicians.

If you ask me, I’d strip the state of as much power as possible. It’s pretty clear that in the US, we lack the actual mechanisms to hold our politicians accountable. And let's face it: it's better to have no regulation at all than to have the kind of disastrous regulation we've actually dealt with.

rowdyranger44 said:urbanotter, the ones who walked away with the biggest slice of the pie are the very same people who spent years suffocating any semblance of fair market competition. They’ve been rigging the regulatory framework like they're getting a custom suit hand-tailored just for them. The Federal Government has more than proven its track\\s incompetence over the last two decades. It is high time they stepped back and actually fixed the things that would benefit everyone. Let them start by fixing the judicial system. That would do far more good than them continuing to play the big shot in our national economy.

Harold Martin10 said:My approach would be to strip them of their power, whereas you seem to want to hand them even more. The entities responsible for the crisis in the USA were

a) debtors
b) banks
c) developers
d) the Administration

Now, look—debtors, banks, and developers were just acting normally; they were seeking the best possible outcomes within market conditions.

On the other hand, the Administration—which really should be looking out for the broader public interestregulated the market in a way that allowed the real estate bubble to inflate as much as humanly possible.

Essentially, the state did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. If the Administration hadn't meddled, the crisis would have been far milder. So, are you honestly suggesting we give the Administration even more power, just so they can make even bigger messes? 🙂

Ryan Nelson5 said:🤣
The only thing those Labor Party charlatans have figured out is the old populist playbook for winning power: don't tell the people the truth, just tell them what they want to hear.
If they ever actually take office, they’ll just dodge their promises and act more "responsible." Then, the smart people will realize for the thousandth time: they're just like everyone else.

Charles Campbell7 said:It’s just the interest. The principal is essentially conjured out of thin air and enters circulation—much like freshly printed cash—whenever a loan is issued... then it seemingly evaporates when the debt is settled.

Consequently, in America, the total amount of money circulating in the economy is controlled exclusively by these private banking institutions (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). The skyrocketing cost of housing, general inflation, and even wage growth over the last decade have been driven almost entirely by these private banks "printing" money via credit. Essentially, the nation's economy isn't steered by politicians, but by the bankers at places like Chase or Citi. This is why certain idealists argue that the Federal Reserve, or rather the politicians, should take control of economic management. However, it's difficult to explain to that crowd that for twenty years now, those very same politicians have been embedding themselves within these private banks, taking out millions in loans without a single cent of actual deposits or any meaningful collateral or mortgage to back them up. It’s the same group of people. I suppose the only sensible solution would be switching to gross salary payments and halting money printing altogether—perhaps through something like a gold standard.

As long as citizens lack the freedom to truly manage their own hard-earned money, there is zero chance of this changing. Imagine if my neighbor hired a thief to snatch my TV and DVD player. Then, they split the loot. When I demand my property back, my neighbor tells me... well, it's our joint property now, because I voted in a democratic election that allowed that thief the right to steal from you. And since I need it right now, he tells me, "we'll get to it next year." 🤣.

We have reached a point where the most self-proclaimed pious moralists and the socially sensitive types are actually advocating for forced robbery as a way of life. And whenever you dare to point out that specific reality, they suddenly stop preaching about morality and goodness and start making excuses. 🤣

Harold Martin10 said:"Quote:"

I mean, I respect your faith in politicians—really, I do—but honestly? I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. 🙂

Do you really think someone like Ivo Sanders wouldn't just whip up an amendment to the law overnight? He’d probably find a way to authorize printing more money just to pump out extra social aid—you know, specifically targeting veterans or the most vulnerable citizens here in the States.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:The tourists who come down to my place for summer vacation always look at the US economy and scratch their heads: the economy is basically stuck in neutral, yet the dollar is somehow stronger than the Euro!!

And honestly, I’d just tell them: the dollar is just paper, and paper can be bent to any shape. It's completely shackled to whatever political whims decide to move it!😢😲😁

Harold Martin10 said:Well, sure, that’s true—but the whole point is this: if they were just printing dollars without any backing, those reserves would vanish in a heartbeat. You wouldn't be able to maintain currency stability, and then you'd run straight into the scenario described earlier.

Harold Martin10 said:That’s exactly why the Federal Reserve introduced those instruments—it gives them a way to mop up any excess liquidity in the system. If they were just printing another billion or two dollars every single year, the Fed would end up burning through its foreign reserves incredibly fast just trying to keep prices from spiraling out of control. Is that really a sustainable way to manage stability? Not really.

driftingjackal5 said:LOL, you seriously want to compare the world's reserve currency—the backbone of the strongest economy on the planet—to the currency of some tiny, insignificant nation? You're trying to weigh a currency that sees tens of trillions of dollars circulating constantly against a local currency where the historical peak was maybe 80 billion? Do you even grasp the scale we're talking about here? Besides, the United States doesn't just "print money"—they take on debt by issuing government bonds through the central bank. And the Federal Reserve? It’s not state-owned; it’s basically a cartel of the biggest private American banks. There is zero similarity to what's happening in a smaller economy, so how could there be? People will accept Dollars even when it becomes obvious they're worthless, but who's going to accept our local cash if we start devaluing it? Why would they? What kind of factor are we in global trade or industry that anyone would "take our word for it"? Seriously, man, stop embarrassing yourself. Which "other countries" are doing this? Germany? England? Japan? How can you even bring up those examples like they have anything to do with us? You want an example? Fine, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

Ryan Nelson5 said:And why isn't it being done now?
And why do you think they would actually do it if politicians were given the power to print money? I just can't wrap my head around that part.
...or are you just telling us what you would do if you were in power?

Ryan Nelson5 said:Don't shut down the discussion. It was actually constructive until you started throwing insults, even if it is OT. Besides, I still want an answer to that question...

The only response you provided was this...

It could be managed through legislation that would write exactly how and under what conditions newly printed money can be spent.

...that isn't an answer. You could just as easily claim that borrowed money could be regulated by laws and rules to control its spending... so why isn't that done? And why bother with printed money if we don't do that with borrowed money?...

...or are you cutting the debate short because you don't have an answer?
Do you have a real answer, or are you just going to throw another sarcastic comment and a winking emoji at me?

Ryan Nelson5 said:@urbanotter

You resorted to insults and sarcasm again... which is always how you end a debate once you run out of arguments...

First, answer my initial question from this post...

...because without that answer, everything you preach here is meaningless.

driftingjackal5 said:If I’m remembering correctly, your theory—and Jack Smith5’s too—is basically that "if the government just did everything behind closed doors, nobody would know and there wouldn't be inflation." Which is total nonsense... Inflation isn't about people noticing things getting more expensive; it's the actual act of pumping more money into circulation, whether that's organic or manufactured. Ever since we ditched anything resembling a "hard" backing to limit how much cash the government can print (like bimetallism used to do), there’s basically zero ceiling on how much artificial inflation they can cook up. The facts are pretty blunt—inflation is a hidden tax. By printing money out of thin air, the government devalues every single dollar currently in play, which means they’re effectively taxing anyone holding that cash. Obviously, those with big savings or liquid assets take the biggest hit, but really, the whole economy gets wrecked because real wealth is being siphoned off into the hands of the state... where they can redistribute it however they want (which, let's be real, definitely isn't helping the savers or the working class they literally ROBBED through this artificial inflation).

driftingjackal5 said:Some people here seriously need to pick up an intro to economics textbook before they keep making fools of themselves. Here’s a quick lesson: How is "the public" supposed to know if the government prints money to cover its debts if they do it behind closed doors and only funnel it into federal projects? I mean, who actually thinks those projects get built by bureaucrats? If the government prints cash to build a hospital, it’s contractors doing the work, not some desk jockey. And if they’re getting paid in this newly printed money, what do you think they do with it? They aren't just going to stash it under a mattress or leave it sitting in a vault forever... If that cash hits the market, the game is over. Asking how the market "knows" there's more money in circulation is like asking a glass how it knows it's got more water in it. It's common sense. God, I was actually hoping for some constructive debate here, but instead, I’m stuck explaining basic concepts to grown adults? Stop embarrassing yourselves...

splićo;43370210 said:Which law specifically? Explain yourself... I’m trying to base my perspective on the actual state of affairs... you seem to be basing yours on the fiction that people here actually understand how the economy works, that they know what their long-term interests are, and that they prioritize those over short-term gains... none of that is true, and the proof is the massive debt crisis we're currently drowning in... 🤷

I see you’ve taken a real interest in this proposal since you’re starting to dig into the specifics; at this rate, you'll soon be asking me to list the exact printing presses where the bills would be made.😍

It would be written in by a law passed by Congress, following a comprehensive development strategy that outlines the strategic interests of the United States and identifies where capital should be deployed. We’re talking about building hospitals, schools, power plants, rail infrastructure, flood protection systems, water and utility networks, and other essential public interest projects.
I don't see why the public needs to be involved in the technicalities, other than electing the best possible administration that includes such an approach in its platform and guarantees it is carried out honestly and professionally.
When it comes to the actual implementation, there’s rarely an opportunity to consult them on the fine details—which isn't really necessary if the government sticks to its program, barring certain issues where they are supposed to seek input but stubbornly avoid holding any kind of referendum or public consultation.

Another big "if"...
And what happens if more money is put into circulation than actual value is created? Given what we know about the American public, that seems a 99% certainty.
What will you say to the savers who watch their life savings evaporate?
What will you tell the debtors when their debts skyrocket because the dollar loses value?
"Dammit people... it sounded great in theory."

There is no "if," and I could just as easily have said "when," though it wouldn't change anything because you aren't grasping the core of my suggestion; you're just repeating a question I’ve already answered.😉

If inflation doesn't spike significantly, I don't see how savers would lose their value or struggle with loans, especially if this move leads to a boost in domestic manufacturing and the creation of new jobs.
The biggest problem for a debtor is losing their job, and right now, people are losing roughly $700 a day in purchasing power. Doesn't it concern you how their "debts are increasing" and how they'll manage their payments? We're seeing inflation around 4%, and you have to ask yourself how citizens saving in dollars will maintain their value, or how debtors will handle rising obligations when there's no upward movement at all—only negative trends in the economy, a 5.6% drop in industrial production, further job losses, and a shrinking GDP.

Your opinion is built on assumptions (fiction) and repeating mistakes, whereas a wise person should learn from them rather than cycle through them again.

I provided a link showing that other countries do exactly this; it's just that we are so "smart" that we refuse to act, choosing instead to blindly follow the recommendations of the very people who do this while forbidding us from doing it ourselves.

We've made good progress in our discussions, so it would be helpful if you just addressed the unclear or incorrect points instead of circling back to the same question over and over.

Ryan Nelson5 said:People will never protect someone else's property with the same fervor they use for their own—not unless corruption is completely eradicated. Unfortunately, everyone treats state assets as if they belong to no one. 🤷

Ryan Nelson5 said:I have two questions here... I already asked a few of these earlier...

1.) Why would the government be responsible for newly printed money if they aren't held accountable for borrowed money? We know that, so far, the state has passed the burden of borrowed debt onto the people for consumption... what mechanism prevents them from doing the same with printed money instead of investing it to lift the economy?

2.) Even if we assume the government acts responsibly and invests in the economy as you suggested, I have this follow-up...
...since printing money devalues savings, it essentially shifts the burden of economic financing onto those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything... basically, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... but if you blew through everything you had, you end up better off in this system... is that a fair system?

If we follow that logic, even the best initiatives will fall apart.
It’s possible to regulate this through legislation that specifies exactly how and under what specific conditions newly printed money can be spent.

Printing money isn't some taboo act that doesn't happen; many nations and central banks do it quite frequently as a way to support their own domestic economies.

MESSAGE FROM DAVOS
Central banks need to step up their game regarding money printing

http://m.nytimes.com/ArticleView....date=20130126

The Executive Director of the Bank for International Settlements has warned that one shouldn't overdo this practice, lest they negate the positive effects of such monetary policy.
Of course, monetary policy isn't some magic wand that's going to fix all our problems—including global ones—rather, it needs to be paired with the other measures we've already discussed.
It won't help us much (unlike in other countries) because we haven't even implemented it yet; instead, we're sticking strictly to injecting cash into the system via high-interest borrowing.

2.) Even if we assume the government would act responsibly and invest in the economy as you suggested, I'm curious about this...
...since printing money tends to erode the value of people's savings, doesn't that mean the whole system effectively penalizes those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything? In other words, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... whereas if you blew through everything you had, you'd end up much better off in this system... is that really a fair way to run things?

In what way does printing money decrease the value of savings if that money is used to create new economic value?🤷, personally, I don't think there would even be an increase in inflation, which is still present at 4% despite today's restrictive monetary policies.
It wouldn't impact savings either, especially since most savings are held in foreign currency (like the Euro), so savers would actually benefit because the value of that currency would rise, increasing their purchasing power for domestic goods.

There are just so many dogmas being stubbornly chanted and enforced, while other countries try to help their economies through various other means. Meanwhile, we just blindly cling to these old doctrines.

One of those dogmas is the idea that there is no corruption within the private sector, which has proven false in numerous instances; in fact, corruption is most rampant at the intersection of the public and private sectors.
But look, corruption is a reality in every nation (even in highly organized places like Finland, looking at cases like Patria), with the only difference being that in some places, it stays controlled and at an acceptable level that doesn't significantly disrupt major economic flows.

Ryan Nelson5 said:There isn't enough cash circulating because people in the US spend it all on imports (largely due to how wasteful consumer habits have become here). If you print more money, you just erode the savings of everyone who was responsible enough to set money aside, essentially handing their value over to those spending the newly printed cash. Sure, the economy might see a temporary spark from the influx, but that money will quickly leak right back out through imports, leaving us exactly where we started. Only now, we’ll have one extra problem: depleted bank reserves. Less savings in the banks means higher interest rates, and higher interest rates mean an economic downturn.

Harold Martin10 said:That’s funny.

Back in the 50s, China had nuclear energy technology that Americans had only developed about ten years prior—and by the 60s, they already had functional atomic and hydrogen bombs.

On the flip side, though, they didn't have the technology to simply feed their own people—which is a much easier feat than mastering nuclear tech, and something the entire Western world had figured out by the early 20th century.

It's a nice attempt to downplay how much "Western exploiters" actually influenced the rise in living standards, I suppose.🙂