Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

IT'S THE CLOOOOOONE RUUMMBBBLLEE

I know that the Democrats are low'ring themselves to the Republican level (though that's only by a foot or two), but it was inevitable. If Democrats aren't willing to play dirty, they'll lose. Not that it's a good thing, but it's what'll happen - only the dirty-players will succeed in politics.

[Bumber]

IT'S THE CLOOOOOONE RUUMMBBBLLEE

Project Mayhem

[Sergarr]

Meahwhile, leader of the so-called California's secession movement... has links to pro-Putinist Anti-Globalist Movement of Russia. If there's a reason to not like that idea, here you have it, folks.

Ah, also, Trump will remain an executive producer of the "Apprentice" show. Show must go on!

[Max™]

That aside - should we be focusing on eliminating the deficit and paying back some of the debt? Curious to hear what folks think on that one. I have absolutely no idea myself, because sovereign debt is such a bizarro construct in the first place.

I forget exactly which economic bin this sorts me into, but: the government issues currency, it distributes it out into the economy via funding projects/spending/purchasing things, or direct payouts like refunds, and takes it back out via taxation and such.

If the government is taking out less than it is distributing it runs a deficit, but the money doesn't disappear does it? If it's not held by the government, isn't it in the pockets of the people and coffers of businesses?

Government debt, especially US debt like treasury bonds, is actually an important asset for keeping the global economy stable, since the value of US debt won't fluctuate wildly you can make use of purchasing it and such for the stability.

Government budgets are not like household budgets, but when people hear "deficit" and "debt" they know these are bad things to avoid.

Paying down the deficit means the supply of money in the economy available to private homes and businesses is reduced.

Paying down the debt means the end of... well fuck, I don't even understand denough to imagine the outcomes of the US debt going away, but just a small example: China and the US share a much more stable peaceful relationship due to the large amount of US debt held by China. Attacking the US could devalue or even destroy that debt, representing a huge loss to the holder(s) thereof, yeah?

[Shadowlord]

The dems probably saw just how severely the voters punished the GOP for shutting down the government (by turning both houses and the presidency over to them), and decided that there was really no reason not to go ahead and, in the words of one republican who shall live in infamy, "shut that whole thing down." Briefly, anyways.

[Max™]

Yup, Pax Nopeocratica forever!

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The US government can create money without issuing debt though; that's what I meant by the fractional reserve thing, though I likely mixed up the terminology. It's been a long day.

Would that not create inflation? I mean, I suppose with growing populations it's prudent to print more money than is currently in circulation, but just creating money generally leads to increased costs of living and general poverty, does it not? I'm not great with economics.

[Spehss _]

The US government can create money without issuing debt though; that's what I meant by the fractional reserve thing, though I likely mixed up the terminology. It's been a long day.

Would that not create inflation? I mean, I suppose with growing populations it's prudent to print more money than is currently in circulation, but just creating money generally leads to increased costs of living and general poverty, does it not? I'm not great with economics.

Fractional reserve system and loans cause inflation anyway.

[PanH]

Yes it would. However, moderate inflation is pretty good (at least much better than deflation).

On government debt, I'll quote some words I remember from a finance teacher : "Western countries are like junkies on debts" He's quite right in that we're addicted to debts, however, not all of it is bad. We'd be worse off with no debt than with some of it.

[Sergarr]

The US government can create money without issuing debt though; that's what I meant by the fractional reserve thing, though I likely mixed up the terminology. It's been a long day.

Would that not create inflation? I mean, I suppose with growing populations it's prudent to print more money than is currently in circulation, but just creating money generally leads to increased costs of living and general poverty, does it not? I'm not great with economics.

Inflation is a natural consequence of economy growth, and it is, in fact, necessary for its proper functioning, in corresponding amount (so about 1-3% of inflation per year).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The fiat currency system ensures the existence of the debt system. It was motivated enough when gold and silver were purely representative, and even before that you could find promissory notes. With currency existing based on authority instead of physicality, the system is wholly dismounted from real wealth. Any and all actors are able to take the easy way out, and none more so than governments. With only 200 or so actors, many consolidated or linked currency-wise, the confidence of debt is highest for states and thus the path that is taken.

It's a deal with the devil, but until we kill, dismember, and incinerate this nakedly bullshit "reduce the debt run government like a good business" notion the chances of actually doing something about it are nil. That said, if anybody can play this game and win its the United States. The whole world suffers as a consequence (including the United States), but there it is.

In truth, the debt model is more of a symptom of market worship and the growth model. Deal with that, and the debt system would unwind in the face of many sustainable actors. It might not even do so destructively.

[Sergarr]

It's hard not to worship the market growth model, when it has given us the greatest life quality increase that has been ever observed in human-kind history, while all alternative systems have failed miserably, impoverishing people stuck under them.

[Dostoevsky]

The way I usually hear the debt issue described these days is that it's ultimately a matter of ratios. If the deficit isn't too bad, debt payments are reasonable, and there is a certain amount of growth (making assumptions on that last one can be risky), then there isn't really much incentive to pay off debt instead of using that money for better things. On the other hand, if the amount of money it takes to service existing debts grows too large, then a situation can develop where either the government is choked by debt servicing or prints money out the wazoo to pay for it, devaluing the currency with the various consequences that entails.

As I understand it, the U.S. has been pretty lucky post-Recession in the Obama years in that even though our debt has spiked, due to the safe reputation of U.S. bonds and the like the cost of our debt servicing hasn't spiked nearly as badly. Of course, CBO has been predicting that interest rates and the cost of our debt servicing ought to go up any time now, so the Trump administration may get caught paying the price for the debts Obama undertook.

(I do think that Obama was right to undertake such debts in the face of the recession, and the hated 'sequester' has served a decent purpose, but neither party has been willing to take a hard look at the main deficit drivers - discretionary spending isn't really the main problem these days. EPA's budget, for example, is not even one half of one tenth of one percent of our spending.)

From what I've heard, though, Trump hopes to take control of the Fed and use monetary policy for political ends. If that ends up true things may get a bit topsy-turvy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's hard not to worship the market growth model, when it has given us the greatest life quality increase that has been ever observed in human-kind history, while all alternative systems have failed miserably, impoverishing people stuck under them.

There aren't really "alternative systems", there's only alternative method. For example, the early USSR stabilized and grew economically even immediately after a devastating civil war thanks to its disattachment from the global stock market, while the rest of the world was crushed underfoot by the Great Depression. As I've said on here a few times, the ideas of market and command economies are philosophical. Every nation practices both.

And by "market worship" I mean the tendency to say "the free market will fix it for us" which is utterly insane. It's not new either. Going back to the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover believed it would all basically blow over, which then caused it to get so, so much worse. Only with the advent of the New Deal did things begin to improve. Oh, and there was some war where tens of millions of people died or something, I heard it was big news at the time.

Anyway, in our modern context it is very clear that the debt model is unsustainable. It will only last as long as we're willing to exploit ourselves for it. The next turn of history needs to be disconnection, frugality, decentralization, and most of all sustainability. Or we could have another one of those wars, I guess.

[Sergarr]

It's hard not to worship the market growth model, when it has given us the greatest life quality increase that has been ever observed in human-kind history, while all alternative systems have failed miserably, impoverishing people stuck under them.

There aren't really "alternative systems", there's only alternative method. For example, the early USSR stabilized and grew economically even immediately after a devastating civil war thanks to its disattachment from the global stock market, while the rest of the world was crushed underfoot by the Great Depression. As I've said on here a few times, the ideas of market and command economies are philosophical. Every nation practices both.

Great Depression was in the 1930s and on, right? USSR's economy grew in that period, yes, but it was mainly due to heavy industrialization for the upcoming WW2. And raiding rurals for grain to sell on the world market, can't forget about that.

And by "market worship" I mean the tendency to say "the free market will fix it for us" which is utterly insane.

I don't think anyone except Republicans think that nowadays.

Anyway, in our modern context it is very clear that the debt model is unsustainable. It will only last as long as we're willing to exploit ourselves for it. The next turn of history needs to be disconnection, frugality, decentralization, and most of all sustainability. Or we could have another one of those wars, I guess.

Debt model is perfectly sustainable, as long as some sort of growth exists, and it will always exist, thanks to technology improving over time.

Also, I don't see how decreasing overall efficiency of labor (which is what all disconnection and decentralization measures inevitably cause) will result in sustainability. And frugality doesn't really work at all, as seen by Europe and its "austerity" roller-coaster.