Wow. I find it shocking that you are advocating for theft by the authorities of your hard earned money. You literally are saying you want the government to be bigger and stronger so that they have more and total control over you. By not wanting something such as a gold standard, you are saying that you are happy they keep stealing money from you through debasement. All the growth that you have seen is based on debt that will end in a catastrophe. I don't doubt that throwing money at the world has led to the acceleration of some technologies. But the cost for this is coming due. Who will pay it? If you honestly think printing money isn't a problem, why not just print 30 trillion tomorrow and pay off the debt? What can go wrong? I know you're trying to argue in good faith, but you're completely missing the forest for the trees.
If the US has no debt, why does it have an interest rate it must repay to the Fed? Isn't that debt? The central bank is a private institution in control of the money supply. It charges the government interest to borrow money. That means debt in my vocabulary. No?
Huh? ? You must have me confused with someone else? I did comment on the gold standard. But my comment was this: "And too they should understand why we don't use a gold standard anymore and how a gold standard unnecessarily handicaps an economy." Are you responding to one of my posts or to someone else? I don't see any connection to what I posted and your post . You have made a mistake somewhere. I guess this is your opinion. you'r entitled to your opinion. If you want to respond to a post of mine please try to connect your post in a way that bears a relationship to what I actually posted. Thanks.
It doesn't matter because we are coming at this from complete opposite ends. If you believe the gold standard was bad, since you said "a gold standard unnecessarily handicaps an economy", then you must want the government to have full control over printing as much money as needed. This to me begins to get at the basis of what is wrong, mainly the ability for the government to function without restraint. But you see this as a good thing. So any discussion going forward would be a waste of time.
Well, thanks. And yes, "No", is the correct answer. At least your post bears some relationship to what I posted! Its a common misunderstanding that the Central Bank is a private institution. The 1913 legislation indeed treated the Central Bank as a private institution. That ended with the Bank laws of the 1930s and the formation of the FOMC (which see.) The status of the Central bank has even been the subject of litigation (I'm too lazy to look it up, but if I recall it's Wells Fargo v. United States. Try this, Google "Nathan Tankus" and look for a paper entitled "The Federal Government Always Money Finances Its Spending) The interest on Treasury securities isn't net paid to the Fed by the Treasury, because all net profits of the Fed, after operating expenses, flow directly back to the U.S. Treasury. A little known fact, despite this having been pointed out one-thousand times and counting in these same ET forums. Of course the Treasury pays interest to holders of Treasury securities around the World. That is is a non-discretionary Federal budget item. There are two types of fundamental sources of money in the U.S. economy. One is called "inside" or "base money" by economists, and the other is called "outside", or "credit" money. The former is determined by Congress when it decides how much to spend and how much to tax. The latter is decided by the people of the United States when they decide how much to borrow. The Central Bank has virtually zero control over the former, and only weak influence over the latter -- except at interest extremes of course. The latter is controlled by demand and that is a weak function of interest rates, which the Central bank does control. When people talk about the money supply (M1.M2,M3) they are essentially talking about credit money which is by far the biggest contributor to the "money supply". Finally, thanks so much for a reasonable post and reasonable questions, that it is possible to respond to without having to quote the Bible or P.T. Barnum.
We all have the option to function without constraint or go to jail. This applies to the government as well, because all government decisions are made by people. What you are talking about, but don't seem to realize it, is "good government" vs. "bad government" . I assume we both agree good government is better.
You're so idealistic, which I guess is awesome, but the world is much different in reality, but I guess I can say that since I'm looking through my eyes. Your entire previous post doesn't matter. Money at this stage is too corrupt. It simply doesn't matter how it all works anymore. The FED (through the government), is controlling every aspect of money, be it your inside money for the banks, or outside money. (Don't even try to tell me about the separation of the FED). The government just spends what it doesn't have, and if nobody wants to buy the bonds, then the FED will. So it simply doesn't matter about any of these nuances. The only thing that matters going forward is making sure nobody else tries to use something else because the US has control over the dollars. I don't expect crypto to be a major headache for the US in the short term, but it will be a huge factor in the future. Perhaps even bigger and more immediate is what China and Russia do with regards to trade. If they figure out a way to get off the US dollar system, then its game over.
We cant blame the king of currencies, its not their headache infact, Trade deficits and unequal BOPs is the main concern for weakening of the quoted currencies. One can stop using apple or microsoft if he/she wants to make his/her currency strong but reality is extremely opposite you cant survive without technology and for that we are somewhere filling their reserves by anyhow.