Philosophy of Freedom

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...

If anyone actually understood the fundamentals of economics, they would realize that once that money enters circulation—whether through direct spending or when the government takes on debt, pays interest, and settles the principal (or just reshuffles it like a perpetual motion machine)—the impact is inevitable.😉

We saw $50 billion enter the system recently, money we didn't earn or create ourselves, yet it hasn't triggered massive inflation, and the people who received it didn't just bury it in their backyards or park it in savings accounts; they spent it.

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: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).

You're just spinning theories and making insinuations here; some of these methods have actually worked in certain places and helped economies perform better.

The US Dollar is one of the currencies that has seen massive amounts of money printing and has lost the most value since we abandoned the gold standard, yet the economy remains relatively stable despite the astronomical military spending that no other country matches.
I provided a link showing that other nations are following similar paths, but you don't seem interested in the arguments themselves. You're just protecting your own image and sticking to dogmas that you refuse to even question, rejecting any differing perspective without actually addressing the points made.

I never once suggested doing things in secret; my point was actually the opposite, focusing on the laws that should regulate how that money is spent.

Anyway, this discussion has veered way too far into Off-Topic territory, and it wouldn't be right to keep pushing it and testing the patience of the moderators.☕

@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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

So, how exactly would the market detect a slightly larger influx of cash—say, an extra billion or two dollars?

Here's a thought experiment.
Suppose the government hands over half a billion to a Roman citizen, half a billion to a baker, half a billion to a dockworker, and half a billion to, say, a turbine manufacturer.

They spend that money on land, permits, construction crews, heavy machinery, software, hiring new staff... the whole works.

That money ends up in the accounts of construction firms, who then pay for materials, labor, and equipment.
The money flows to foreign corporations via banks that convert it into Euros.
The money lands in citizens' checking accounts and the government's own coffers.

What happens next? Who identifies the mega-scam, and what specific steps are taken to address it?
I'm looking for precision here. Give me the details.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.😉

urbanotter said:You're just spinning theories and making insinuations here; some of these methods have actually worked in certain places and helped economies perform better.

The US Dollar is one of the currencies that has seen massive amounts of money printing and has lost the most value since we abandoned the gold standard, yet the economy remains relatively stable despite the astronomical military spending that no other country matches.
I provided a link showing that other nations are following similar paths, but you don't seem interested in the arguments themselves. You're just protecting your own image and sticking to dogmas that you refuse to even question, rejecting any differing perspective without actually addressing the points made.

I never once suggested doing things in secret; my point was actually the opposite, focusing on the laws that should regulate how that money is spent.

Anyway, this discussion has veered way too far into Off-Topic territory, and it wouldn't be right to keep pushing it and testing the patience of the moderators.☕

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

urbanotter said:If anyone actually understood the fundamentals of economics, they would realize that once that money enters circulation—whether through direct spending or when the government takes on debt, pays interest, and settles the principal (or just reshuffles it like a perpetual motion machine)—the impact is inevitable.😉

We saw $50 billion enter the system recently, money we didn't earn or create ourselves, yet it hasn't triggered massive inflation, and the people who received it didn't just bury it in their backyards or park it in savings accounts; they spent it.

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

That’s just pathetic trolling.

I wasn't making a direct comparison; I was simply providing an example that even the most prestigious global currency isn't immune to an increase in the money supply.
You seem to be confusing physical cash with the broader concept of money, which includes various aggregates like deposits, credit, electronic transfers, checks, and bonds.

If you had been paying even a little attention to the discussions at Davos, you wouldn't be so uninformed, especially since I provided a link discussing exactly this.

Japan is the most indebted nation in the world, largely through its internal market and by issuing bonds to its own central bank. Other countries follow similar patterns, much like how the US operates with the Federal Reserve.

I don't think you're going to win a Nobel Prize based on your lecture regarding the ownership structure of the Federal Reserve; that's common knowledge, and your "revelation" isn't news to anyone.😉😍

We aren't even addressing the core issue, and since you aren't actually answering the points raised, it's probably best to end this unproductive debate and move past your constant trolling.

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.

Right now, the Federal Reserve's foreign exchange reserves sit at roughly $11 to $12 billion, which serves as a cushion they can tap into whenever they need to intervene if the dollar starts getting too strong.
They also step in to buy up currency if the dollar’s value starts to drop too low.

That $47 billion debt wasn't used to build up those reserves; it was allocated toward entirely different purposes.

If we were strictly using newly printed money just to buy up foreign currencies, then sure, we'd run into issues.

But when that capital is actually deployed toward things like payroll, taxes, supplies, and the various operational costs of the specific projects that triggered the issuance in the first place, the math changes. In that scenario, you wouldn't see a surplus of cash flooding the market; instead, most of it stays right here within the domestic economy, which tends to stimulate demand and ultimately drives up production.

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:Right now, the Federal Reserve's foreign exchange reserves sit at roughly $11 to $12 billion, which serves as a cushion they can tap into whenever they need to intervene if the dollar starts getting too strong.
They also step in to buy up currency if the dollar’s value starts to drop too low.

That $47 billion debt wasn't used to build up those reserves; it was allocated toward entirely different purposes.

If we were strictly using newly printed money just to buy up foreign currencies, then sure, we'd run into issues.

But when that capital is actually deployed toward things like payroll, taxes, supplies, and the various operational costs of the specific projects that triggered the issuance in the first place, the math changes. In that scenario, you wouldn't see a surplus of cash flooding the market; instead, most of it stays right here within the domestic economy, which tends to stimulate demand and ultimately drives up production.

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.

urbanotter said:Right now, the Federal Reserve's foreign exchange reserves sit at roughly $11 to $12 billion, which serves as a cushion they can tap into whenever they need to intervene if the dollar starts getting too strong.
They also step in to buy up currency if the dollar’s value starts to drop too low.

That $47 billion debt wasn't used to build up those reserves; it was allocated toward entirely different purposes.

If we were strictly using newly printed money just to buy up foreign currencies, then sure, we'd run into issues.

But when that capital is actually deployed toward things like payroll, taxes, supplies, and the various operational costs of the specific projects that triggered the issuance in the first place, the math changes. In that scenario, you wouldn't see a surplus of cash flooding the market; instead, most of it stays right here within the domestic economy, which tends to stimulate demand and ultimately drives up production.

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.

It never even crossed my mind to suggest we just print money to cover standard government spending, like paying the salaries of teachers, police officers, or civil servants—that kind of direct state expenditure isn't what I'm talking about.

That’s precisely why I was advocating for passing legislation that clearly defines the specific purposes for which such funds could be utilized, and I offered a few examples of where that capital should actually be "spent."

The goal is to invest exclusively in creating new value; the issue is that currently, this money comes through borrowing, which puts a massive strain on a budget that simply can't collect enough tax revenue to cover everything.

While things like interstate highways are definitely long-term investments that don't offer an immediate return, it would be far less of a burden on the system if they were financed through that method rather than forcing us to "monetize" debt when the annuities just aren't there to pay it back.

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!😢😲😁

Exactly!

It really just comes down to whether political decisions are sound or flawed.

And more often than not, we seem to be making the wrong calls.😉

Pegging our currency to another one is a purely political maneuver, and honestly, there's mounting evidence that it was a mistake from the start.

I don't think you'll find many examples globally where a nation with its own monetary sovereignty would choose to tie itself so tightly to a foreign currency, going through all that effort just to maintain a fixed exchange rate.

Usually, you only see that kind of thing in some unstable banana republic or a developing nation in Africa.

urbanotter, there aren’t any easy fixes here, no magic tricks where you pull a rabbit out of a hat to solve everything. If you start cranking up the printing presses, you’re essentially murdering the savers while simultaneously handing current debtors a massive break through internal devaluation. It’s a massacre either way. Someone is bound to get slaughtered before we can establish a new equilibrium that actually aligns with how competitive the American economy is on the global stage.

Printing money would only be a justifiable move if it were funneled directly into projects with rapid returns—things that export goods and services to foreign markets. Dumping that cash into infrastructure? That’s a total catastrophe. It creates this pathetic illusion of reducing national debt, when in reality, you're just stripping away the wealth of anyone actually producing something tangible.