Posts by Ryan Nelson5

urbanotter said:I have to say, this is genuinely a new perspective for me; it’s actually the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest those specific metrics as a way to judge whether a nation is socialist😍

If that's the case, then I must be completely mistaken in believing that an economic system is fundamentally defined by the ownership of the means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It seems like the people who wrote these entries on Wikipedia might be just as confused as I am.😍

You aren't wrong, it just isn't the only metric. It’s actually useful that you brought it up, because the sheer scale of government-funded money pits in our economy is another clear sign of how much socialism has taken over.

urbanotter said:What specific metrics or indicators are you looking at to claim we have that kind of ratio or that type of government?🤷

I'm curious to know where exactly you see this 2/3 socialism and 1/3 capitalism split.🤷

Personally, I find myself rooting for a fairer nation where every single person has the right to live a dignified life,

and frankly, I don't care much about the label attached to it or which specific economic theory is being applied.

Besides, I can't think of a single instance where any pure theory of either capitalism or socialism has actually worked perfectly in practice.

Based on the percentage of GDP allocated to social programs and government salaries (as I previously noted).

urbanotter said:What specific metrics or indicators are you looking at to claim we have that kind of ratio or that type of government?🤷

I'm curious to know where exactly you see this 2/3 socialism and 1/3 capitalism split.🤷

Personally, I find myself rooting for a fairer nation where every single person has the right to live a dignified life,

and frankly, I don't care much about the label attached to it or which specific economic theory is being applied.

Besides, I can't think of a single instance where any pure theory of either capitalism or socialism has actually worked perfectly in practice.

Do you honestly think I’m advocating for an unjust state where people don't deserve dignity?

urbanotter said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.

I’m genuinely surprised you have the audacity to label someone an ignoramus and resort to ad hominem attacks, chanting theories and demagoguery without providing a single shred of actual argument or economic evidence.
Spare me the lectures and try proving me wrong using hard facts and indicators instead.
It isn't just irresponsible; it is actively harmful to advocate for policies that prove themselves more damaging by the day, dragging us deeper into systemic issues that will become impossible to escape unless we wake up and face the reality of our situation.

In recent years, we have explicitly declared ourselves a nation whose social order is built upon private property and free market entrepreneurship.
That is written in black and white right there in the Constitution, so all your fantasies and opinions claiming this isn't capitalism are essentially meaningless.

You’re drifting off-topic just as much as I am, and since you haven't said anything intelligent—other than spreading demagoguery about things that simply don't exist—it would be best if you stopped commenting altogether.
The other members of this forum are noticing it too, and you're just going to end up drawing sanctions from the moderators, which, frankly, they would have plenty of reason to do.
That's just my take, because at this point, I see no hope of clearing anyone's delusions.☕
Don't get mad, but you really are clueless. 🤷 Everything he said is true. Our system is two-thirds socialism and one-third capitalism, and that socialist component is exactly what’s causing our problems. Yet you continue to advocate for even more socialism.

urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple.
They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.

It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules.
When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.

When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.

While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy.
The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.

The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.

So shouldn't the solution be cutting taxes and burdens to stay competitive, rather than stripping away the purchasing power and standard of living of our own citizens?

urbanotter said:I think you're saying that because you're in a much more privileged position than I am.
You seem to be playing the role of a prophet who can see right through everyone's character without any actual evidence, predicting exactly how things will play out—and somehow concluding that we should just vote for the same people who have already cheated us and stolen from us.

I consider myself just an average person, and I have no intention of voting for anyone who has a history of corruption or dishonesty. I prefer to live by the old adage that a wise person learns from their mistakes and doesn't repeat them, while a fool keeps making the same errors even when they know better.

I'm going to cast my vote for anyone who hasn't been part of that cycle of theft and deceit, provided there is even the slightest chance they might actually do things differently. As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no future left with the people who have held power up until now.

But you fail to see that I am the one learning from mistakes, while you are the one repeating them...

For instance, I stopped believing in easy pre-election promises and finger-pointing. I realized we need massive cuts to government spending (similar to that article on Latvia you posted a while back). This Federal Government is the closest thing we have to that model in our political landscape.

Meanwhile, you'll go right back to voting for those hollow, unrealistic stories told by politicians, only to complain after the election that you were screwed and try to shift the blame onto them for failing to meet their campaign promises. 🙂

urbanotter said:Until the majority realizes this and pushes for change, true freedom remains out of reach.

Our entire way of life and how we behave is dictated through the design and control of the financial and monetary systems.

This is achieved through manipulation and by feeding us delusions, such as the idea that we should wait for salvation from foreign capital or outside investors.

The world isn't filled with philanthropists and Good Samaritans; instead, it is dominated by greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The only way out of this mess is to rely on our own strength and protect our interests from both our own leaders and those "Samaritans" from overseas. As the old saying goes, if you help yourself, God will help you.

There are two main things causing us the most harm.
-An unprotected, open market that dictates exactly what we are supposed to consume.
-The current model of monetary and financial policy.

I believe the only thing the average person can do is vote for the party they feel is the lesser of two evils—the one actually attempting to address these two core issues.

For now, that would be the Labor Party, who, despite all their flaws as a political organization, seem to recognize exactly where the deepest problems in this society are hidden.

🤣
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. 🤣

Explain this post more clearly... who is the analogy about with the TV and the DVD?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:In America, this isn't even a conspiracy theory—it's just reality. The plain truth is that banks get richer while the average American gets squeezed harder. These institutions barely do anything to actually support the economy. They play it too safe—too risk-averse—and they don't want to do the heavy lifting required to drive growth. Nobody likes taking risks, I suppose. Besides, even the big banks are looking a bit bloated and complacent now, especially since the housing market has basically hit a wall. 😢😲😁

I am saying the pyramid scheme narrative is a lie—the idea that debt can never be repaid. That is false, whether you are in the US or anywhere else.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:In America, this isn't even a conspiracy theory—it's just reality. The plain truth is that banks get richer while the average American gets squeezed harder. These institutions barely do anything to actually support the economy. They play it too safe—too risk-averse—and they don't want to do the heavy lifting required to drive growth. Nobody likes taking risks, I suppose. Besides, even the big banks are looking a bit bloated and complacent now, especially since the housing market has basically hit a wall. 😢😲😁

That is true, but for entirely different reasons than some conspiracy against us.

The reality is that banks here financed consumer spending because government policy encouraged it through massive debt. If you constantly borrow money and hand it out to the public, they will spend it. Banks simply adapt to that system by issuing consumer loans because demand is high... they avoid the business sector because it's too risky. However, if you stop handing out money like crazy, consumption drops, demand for consumer credit falls, and banks are forced to pivot toward financing the economy.

Banks in other countries don't fund the economy out of the goodness of their hearts; they do it because policy creates those conditions.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I recall reading about a period when Winston Churchill was serving as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom, and he pushed for the pound to be pegged to gold. It nearly tanked the entire economy. The poor guy was operating under what sounds like sound logic—that money should represent real value, and gold is "real." But let's be honest, gold is only "fictional" real. In terms of actual utility, bread, meat, electricity, or olive oil are far more "real" than a hunk of metal sitting in a vault...!

Of course it isn't simple. Money printing has to be moderate—it should serve as a LOAN to those who are actually thinking ahead or INCREASING production!
It absolutely shouldn't be used, for instance, to fund something like a massive bridge project.
Because that kind of thing is an investment with a very, very, very long horizon and a painfully slow return on investment!

Example:

And here is the commentary at the bottom:


The only real argument against non-credit-based money issuance is the fear of driving up inflation. However, it's quite obvious that when you have a small government deficit (say, under 5% of the total money supply), there's no real reason to fear runaway inflation, especially since the multiplier effect has a much stronger impact on inflation rates than the mere existence of non-credit issuance. To put it plainly, it's absurd to claim that we must forbid the state from issuing money "in the name of fighting inflation." De facto, a monetary system built entirely on debt is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme, because debtors can only settle their obligations if new debtors enter the fray, creating the new deposits required to pay off the old ones. For this to work, you need an infinite credit expansion—essentially exponentially growing debt. Since we all know that "credit expansion" cannot last forever, you inevitably hit a wall where the "credit bubble" bursts, leading to mass foreclosures, bankruptcies, liquidity crises, and eventually a complete economic breakdown characterized by rising unemployment and a descent into debt slavery. It is glaringly obvious that a debt-only monetary model is unsustainable in the long run; in such a model, debt must grow exponentially just to keep the system solvent. Yet, since the money supply grows more slowly in this model (because interest rates on loans are always significantly higher than interest on deposits), such a model is doomed to a credit crisis. Unfortunately, informal power structures tied to banking cartels have managed to impose this exact model. They've insisted on a system where the state is forbidden from issuing real money to cover deficits, while banks are simultaneously allowed to issue non-existent money in the form of debt. That is the heart of the problem. Is the purpose of money strictly to create debt, or is it to facilitate the exchange of goods, drive economic growth, and maintain a sustainable monetary model? Think about how new money enters circulation—either through the issuance of real money by the state or through the credit multiplication performed by banks. I believe it makes much more sense for the state, which holds a monopoly on issuing currency, to be able to issue real money, while simultaneously curbing the credit multiplication practiced by banks. Furthermore, the way banks multiply money prevents the state from controlling the money supply and managing targeted inflation, simply because banks have the power to conjure money out of thin air. Now we reach the "core of the matter," the question of all questions. There is a practical conflict here: non-credit issuance by the state and money multiplication by banks cannot coexist peacefully. Why? Because if the budget deficit is 5% of the total money supply, theoretical inflation should also sit around 5% (if the state covers the deficit by increasing the money supply by 5%). However, if banks have the ability to multiply money, they can simulate a much larger influx of cash than what is actually happening. In our current model, they can effectively double the money supply by creating multiplied deposits and their associated credit extensions. In other words, instead of 5%, inflation hits 10%. And once inflation climbs past the 8% mark, its effect on the economy shifts from positive to destructive. Many wonder what the fundamental issue with the monetary system is, or how to find a solution. To understand why the current model is broken, one must recognize the necessity of non-credit issuance—the idea that a portion of money should not enter circulation solely as debt. Without non-credit money issuance, a credit crisis is inevitable because, in a debt-only model, debt will always outpace the growth of the money supply.

I honestly have no clue where that commenter is pulling those 5% inflation numbers from! I mean, it’s not rocket science—even ten years ago, it seemed obvious to me that the government should be printing money specifically to fund industrial production and stimulate growth. But to suggest we'd see an annual inflation rate—basically a devaluation of the Dollar—hitting that infamous 5% mark? Give me a break!

It's the same tired lie every single time...
A bank isn't some black hole where money vanishes once you repay a loan...
That capital flows right back into the economy through the spending of employees, owners, and shareholders...

urbanotter said:The reality is that the government already possesses the authority to print money if they decide that's the path they want to take.
We don't move in that direction because we are strictly following the policy guidelines and recommendations from the Federal Reserve, maintaining an overvalued dollar while funding all state investments through debt at incredibly unfavorable rates, or relying on tax revenue that—given how sluggish the economy is—isn't nearly enough to cover the basic obligations the government has imposed upon itself.

The newly appointed Governor of the Federal Reserve has already confirmed that this trajectory isn't changing, essentially just picking up exactly where his predecessor left off.

There simply isn't any stomach for the kind of radical austerity measures we saw implemented in Latvia, mainly because such moves could trigger massive civil unrest, a sharp decline in the standard of living, and ultimately cost the ruling party their grip on power.

As it stands, we are just spinning our wheels, making superficial adjustments in a desperate attempt to shift the current trend.
None of the "measures" taken so far have actually yielded results or jumpstarted the economy; instead, they've merely slowed down our inevitable slide toward the kind of economic crisis we witnessed in Greece and several other countries within the European Union.

Of course I would cast my vote for any political platform that offered a program like that, because as far as I can see, it’s the only viable solution that wouldn't cause a total collapse in living standards while simultaneously reigniting economic growth and consumer spending.

I certainly won't be the one sitting in the Oval Office, so I'm not really spending much time contemplating what my specific playbook would look like.😉

Why are you citing this article? I completely agree with what was achieved in Latvia. It’s exactly what a few of us here advocate for: state austerity and deep cuts... the complete opposite of what you support.

In this country, there aren't even leftist political factions opposing austerity like they do in other parts of the European Union, nor are there rigid labor laws protecting job security and wages. By the second half of 2010, after less than 18 months of painful austerity, the Latvian economy began growing again. Other European nations "must not overlook this fact," the Prime Minister noted, observing that "debate in Europe often goes the other way: that austerity destroys growth."

urbanotter said:I'm trying to wrap this up or at least steer us back to the main point, since we've drifted way too far off-topic.

And I feel like I already gave you a much more detailed explanation regarding what you dismissed as "not really an answer."

That would be handled by legislation passed by the US Congress, following the establishment of a development strategy that outlines the strategic interests of the United States and identifies key investment areas. We're talking about building hospitals, schools, power plants, rail infrastructure, flood defenses, water systems, and other vital public interest projects.
As far as I can see, there isn't much the general public needs to be intimately aware of, other than choosing the best possible administration during an election—one that includes such an approach in their platform and guarantees it will be executed honestly and professionally.


Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if all I get in return is a single smiley face.

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?

urbanotter said:Maybe it feels questionable to you because you aren't actually grasping the proposal, choosing instead to interpret everything as an insult or a sarcastic jab.😉

You already received your answers, and there's honestly no point in repeating them since nothing is going to change the outcome anyway.

Just a reminder that we are in an Off-Topic thread, so I'm going to step away from this unproductive back-and-forth now.

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?

@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.

urbanotter said: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.

What law? Explain yourself. I am trying to align my argument with reality. You are basing yours on the fiction that Americans understand how economics works, that they recognize their long-term interests, and that those interests take priority over short-term gains. None of that is true, and our current debt crisis proves it.🤷

urbanotter said: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.

Another massive "if."
What happens if more money enters circulation than value is created? Given this country, that is a 99% certainty.
What will you tell the savers who lose everything?
What will you tell the debtors when their debts skyrocket because the dollar crashes?
"Damn it, people... it sounded good in theory."

Harold Martin10 said:That’s exactly what Rohatinski was getting at when he talked about letting the genie out of the bottle. It wouldn't take much—just let the dollar slip a little, and most savers would panic, dump their dollars, and scramble for foreign currency, which would crash the value instantly.

But yeah—even looking at point 1), the whole argument falls apart. That is precisely why fiscal policy has to be strictly separated from monetary policy.

The real issue is that even with the best intentions (and by that, I mean assuming they maximize corruption prevention), a government simply can't be a high-quality investor the way a private investor can, especially one with a proven track record and business experience. Not to mention, that kind of corruption is basically impossible for a private investor—they're going to put their own money into whatever they truly believe will yield the best results, no matter what.

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. 🤷

urbanotter said:Yet, nobody seems to be discussing the idea of injecting money directly into consumer spending via targeted investment.

I often wonder what might happen if the government used controlled money printing to fund high-yield infrastructure projects or manufacturing facilities.

With infrastructure, the state could retain ownership, only needing to borrow or print specifically to cover the cost of imported components if domestic funds fall short.
As for manufacturing, the government could partner with private entrepreneurs who have brilliant, viable projects but lack the capital, especially when commercial bank loans are far too expensive to make the venture profitable.

This type of strategic "printing" could revitalize domestic production, create jobs, boost tax revenue, and force banks to offer more competitive, lower interest rates.
The Dollar would likely need to adjust its exchange rate, which would actually help by making our domestic goods more competitive and reducing our reliance on imports.
The resulting increase in tax revenue, combined with a restructuring of our bloated federal bureaucracy and other overhead, could allow us to scale back government size and make our local industries even more formidable on the global stage.

Everyone claims that the only way forward is to ramp up domestic production and competitiveness, yet most suggestions on how to actually achieve that remain purely theoretical.

Personally, I think this approach could be a much better alternative to our current model of relying on expensive bank loans and massive debt, both of which currently stifle our ability to compete.
I completely agree that printing money just to fuel mindless consumption is a mistake; it would likely cause a temporary spike in demand followed immediately by inflation, without providing any lasting impact on employment or industrial growth.
We have seen similar failed attempts in the past, and it feels like we are stuck in a loop. It is high time we look for different solutions instead of spinning our wheels in this endless cycle.
All we’ve seen so far is a continued decline in purchasing power, a drop in the standard of living, heavier tax burdens, mounting debt, and the increasing difficulty of servicing those loans, all while social safety nets, healthcare, and retirement systems face mounting pressure.

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?

lonetrucker4 said:You even reading your own crap? 😁 You wrote:

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad, I screwed up the first time"? 🤷 So now you're gonna claim you don't know enough about that era to even weigh in? Please.

Look, you're clearly younger than me. You’re just reciting snippets you heard from someone else, mixing up years like the timing doesn't even matter. I get it—to you, this is just "history." Most people couldn't care less if something happened in the 1000s or the 1300s. But for me? This was life. I lived it. I landed my first job in '81, then a year later, we had Margaret Thatcher stepping in with those early moderate reforms and that whole Marshall Plan setup. I wasn't just reading about it; I was right there in the thick of it, starting out as a journalist.

Back then, nobody was looking at the big picture, and there wasn't much data on how things actually worked. Digging up info from that era is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. So, basically... Don't go throwing around theories about stuff you don't even understand; especially since none of it actually matters for your "general truth" anyway.

All this talk about how we "only need to print more dollars" is pure idiocy. Just look at what happened twenty years ago if you want the truth.

I haven't really weighed in on that big-picture topic yet. Honestly? I don't know the first thing about monetary policy.

Look, I don't buy into any of those "you only need x" kind of quick fixes. Total garbage. XSo, where is it? X "Print too much cash," "go full command economy," or just "let the free market run wild." Whatever. Real life is always messier than that—and that's not even talking about economics.

Look, if I get this right, sometimes there’s just not enough cash floating around—basically, the gears stop turning because nobody's spending. In those cases, printing money actually kicks the economy back into gear. But obviously, that's not some magic wand you wave to fix everything. I call those kinds of lazy, one-size-fits-all answers... JUOSP = Simple Universal Answers to Everything. 🙂

Look, I get it—money isn't even real. It’s just a collective hallucination, but hey, it runs the show. Maybe this whole charade will eventually just implode. 😢 Then maybe by the 23rd century, we’ll actually have a moneyless economy, just like in "Star Trek".

Anyway, back to the point. Is it a core part of your "philosophy of freedom" to demand non-expansionary monetary policy? Why the hard line? Does "avoiding inflation" absolutely have to be the holy grail? Sure, hitting 50% or 500% annual inflation is a total disaster, but a little nudge, say 5-6%, isn't necessarily a death sentence. You really think that would inevitably kill our freedom?

On the flip side, wasn't the massive explosion of money supply the actual poison in the global economy ever since the US decoupled the dollar from gold back in '71? Ever since those policies let the money supply balloon through all these "monetary derivatives," making paper "wealth" look way bigger than what's actually happening in the real economy. I remember reading about this in some textbook back in the Clinton era—some guy argued this was the way to go. Then the world started shaking, like during the collapse of the "Asian Tigers" in '97, and we saw it was a huge mistake. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now—like using a Financial Transaction Tax or slowing down speculative cash flow—is actually the exact opposite of "printing money."

If we're arguing against government involvement in the economy, then why even have a national currency? Why not just let every bank print its own cash and let them compete? Kind of like how Walmart issues gift cards that you could potentially trade around?

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.

Kimberly Cox59 said:And then there was that whole period where she was actually working alongside the capitalist West. It’s kind of like how India has been collaborating with the West for the last few centuries, but now they've decided to pivot and redirect some of that revenue toward social welfare programs. I guess things just shift like that sometimes.
The Green Revolution was this massive turning point in how we handle food, and honestly, it’s pretty wild to think about. It wasn't just some small change; it was a complete overhaul of global agriculture through high-yield crops and better tech. I guess you could say it changed everything about how we feed billions of people. It really centered on things like new varieties of wheat and rice that were basically engineered to grow faster and bigger. They also leaned heavily into synthetic fertilizers and advanced irrigation systems. I mean, before this, farming was much more traditional, and suddenly, science stepped in to supercharge the whole process. There’s definitely two sides to it, though. On one hand, it prevented massive famines and boosted productivity like crazy—which is obviously a huge win. But on the other hand, maybe there are downsides we didn't see coming? Like the environmental impact or how it changed the way small farmers operate compared to big industrial operations. It's complicated, I suppose. Just a lot to wrap your head around!

I mean, things work so much better in places like Scandinavia, and honestly, they seem to be doing alright for themselves. I’m just saying, maybe a welfare state is a bit better than pure laissez-faire capitalism. Just my two cents, I guess! 🤷

I mean, look, where does actual technological progress really come from? Is it from some planned economy, or is it coming from capitalist ones? Like, what are we talking about here—Cuba? I guess you have to wonder.

There used to be the Soviet Union back in the day, too. Now, almost every single country has gone capitalist, so it feels like there isn't even an alternative left. But honestly, I guess that argument doesn't really hold much water just because of that.

I guess you could say those folks from the Kuban region have a pretty stellar pharmaceutical industry going on. It really seems like they're doing their part to push things forward.

Capitalism has undoubtedly provided more progress for the human race than socialism ever did.

Scandinavia... sure, their model is good. But that's mostly due to their access to oil, hydroelectric power, and iron ore rather than just a simple desire for such a system.

Kimberly Cox59 said:In the most absurd scenario, only the wealthy will be buying them, and honestly, that’s enough. I mean, the poor will just grab something cheaper that they actually need to survive—you know, stuff like food, housing, clothes, land, water, and all that. Capital will keep circulating, so don't sweat it. I guess it works out.

Whatever you say, man, but look—fifteen years ago, the average middle class family didn't have high-speed internet, a laptop, a smartphone, a DVD player, or hundreds of other gadgets sitting around. Nowadays, the typical American has all that stuff, and I guess it really does make life a whole lot better.

It’s wild to think that just 15 years ago, hardly anyone actually owned a personal computer, and DVDs felt like some distant future technology. I guess computers and smartphones would have become part of everyday life regardless of capitalism, much like how TVs and cars eventually did. Maybe things just move that way naturally.
I guess you could go on forever talking about how much those gadgets actually affect our quality of life... it's a huge debate, really.

The average person's material life is actually getting better. I mean, sure, there are plenty of problems—don't get me wrong—but the typical American has seen a real improvement in their living standards over the last 15 years. And honestly? It was the same story in the 15 years before that, and I guess it’ll probably stay that way for the next 15 years too.
There’s really no philosophy involved here. I mean, honestly, there isn't.

I mean, there isn't much philosophy to be found here, but I don't think capitalism is actually to blame. It’s more like technological progress itself, you know? Regardless of whatever political system we happen to be running, technology just moves on its own. Maybe it's just how things work.

So you're saying tech progress doesn't come from specific countries, but just from capitalist ones? Like from Cuba?

Jack Smith5 said:Aside from a few essentials, you don't really need much stuff in life. Honestly, you just need a house with the basics—closets, beds, tables, a bathtub, things like that—plus a car. That's pretty much it.

If you want a better quality of life, you might add a vacation spot, maybe a small plot of land, a computer, and a smartphone every few years when technology actually takes a significant leap forward, rather than every single month.

Everything else is just keeping up with the Joneses.

Capitalism provides way too many distractions that actually lower our quality of life; it makes people less satisfied with themselves and less communal, less human. Even if you can't ignore the overall rise in living standards, it’s about time we replaced capitalism with something better.

Do you know why a crisis is possible?
Because wages are low—way lower than the actual value of the labor being provided. If wages were higher, there would be more room for consumption, which stimulates production and helps avoid crises.

So, aside from other factors, crises are primarily caused by the greed of individuals and profiteers who pay the absolute minimum for others' labor while hoarding the lion's share for themselves and their shareholders. Consequently, the vast majority of people lack the funds to consume, leaving them entirely dependent on debt and the banks.
When the banks turn off the tap, that's when you get a crisis.

Everything would be fine if wages were realistic—meaning employers took a smaller cut, or at least the same amount as everyone else.

There is no need to replace it, nor has anything better been designed yet.
Regarding the issues you mentioned, what we actually need is to promote the moral values that society currently lacks.