[Steve_American]

Why hasn't it materialized?

You did see where he said it has materialized in the stock and real estate market bubbles.
I agree with this.
I notice that nobody can respond to my last post, the 1 on this page.
There I explained why it will not materialize. That is, investors have the dollars and they want to keep them invested. So, if they see the 2 bubbles bursting soon, they will sell their stock and real estate and park their money in US Bonds. If China is selling its Bonds then the investors can buy those Bonds. Then China has a boat load of US Dollars. They can buy other Bonds, like German Bonds; or they can buy stuff from America. This will increase exports. This will reduce the trade deficit. This will [as he says] being the dollars home, but not into the hands of the people but rather into the hands of the owners of the Corps. doing the exporting. Why would they spend them on stuff? Wouldn't they buy US Bonds or maybe invest in making more stuff to sell to China.
. . However, the increase in exports would [as he says] reduce the supply of that exact types of stuff in America. This might lead to shortages. This could lead to inflation. Under MMT the way to fight this inflation is to raise taxes on someone to suck dollars out of the economy. OTOH, as long as the inflation is around 2-3% it is in line with the target that the Fed. has set.
. . OTOH, didn't China stop buying soybeans from America. This seems like the opposite of buying more from America.

You see, it gets confusing very fast.

I have elsewhere on this forum a few times said that the US can't keep having a trade deficit forever. That we are buying real stuff with paper dollars. How can this go on forever? So far, the world loves US Bonds and dollars. This may change. Then the US will need to reinvest in making its own stuff and more stuff for export. This will create more jobs in America. This is a good thing because despite the official unemployment rate being low there are still a *lot* of people who have part time jobs or have gotten too discouraged to look for work. [I was one of them in 2012. But, I was already on early Soc. Sec. so we lived on that and the wife's wages. Then we decided the hell with this and moved to SE Asia to retire and stretch the SS dollars 3 times further. We live quite well now.]

[Rancid]

There I explained why it will not materialize.

IF it's not going to materialize, was there ever really hyperinflation or a bubble?

[Steve_American]

IF it's not going to materialize, was there ever really hyperinflation or a bubble?

IStM that there already are 2 bubbles [stocks and real estate].
There is no hyperinflation. So, no, if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen.

[Rancid]

Are you guys familiar with the bond yield curve? I'm a believer in it. It currently looks healthy.

[Steve_American]

So since money became fully fake around 1971 with the end of bretton woods the ordinary working men and women are getting cumulatively robbed by the money counterfeiters in government. This is the chiefest reason why gen x and millennials are so relatively crushed financially compared with preceding generations such as the boomers. What counter-measures and defenses can people do to protect themselves from this robbery?

Let's brainstorm this!
To start some random ideas...
1. Don't save money in the fake money format, put surplus savings in an non-perishable form: Gold, silver, bitcoin, real estate etc.
2. Wherever possible take payment for your services and goods in a non-perishable form (see above). Consider starting or participating in a LETS.
3. Support any political movements that emerge for fixing the money supply.
4... what else?
-----------



-------

From Currency Debasement To Social Collapse: 4 Case Studies

,
Like SueDeNines said, you don't get it.
The Fed. Res. targets 2% inflation [ususlly] because the people had found in the 19th Century that all those deflations that we can see in the graph you provided were much worse than inflation.
The Gov. gains nothing from constant inflation so it is not a tax.
I suppose you could call it a 'transfer payment'.

You say that the dollars is valueless because it is not backed by gold.
The euro is also not backed by gold. I suppose that the euro is also without value.
This is true of every major currency of many nations. China, Japan, Canada, Australia, NZ, Russia, etc.
Funny thing is reality seems to show that the dollar and the euro [and many others] do have value. They are used by billions of people every day. It would seem that whatever you read that caused this post was in error right off the bat.

There was no lasting inflation all through the 1800s because the amount of gold didn't increase all that much. Therefore, it was impossible for the GDP to grow except by private borrowing. In order for the GDP to grow [experience has shown] the amount of money must grow. So, the economy would boom when the banks lent dollars and then crash when the people couldn't make the payments and went bankrupt.

You and your source may think this was the ideal situation. In the early 1900s America decided that it needed a Fed. Res. Bank to put an end to this. This system markedly reduced the crashes as your graph clearly shows. Over time the Fed. got better at this, so after WWII the crashes are hard to even see. I needed to squint.

Your whole post is without value.
The only way for all the people and businesses that make up the private sector to be able to all save is for the Gov. to deficit spend. The national debt is just those accumulated savings. A lot of them are held by insurance comp. to 'fund' their liabilities. Many other are held by banks and some are held by the very rich. Others, have gone overseas. The fact that the US was deficit spending is what allowed the whole world to prosper. Gov. debt is NOT a problem and never will be. The problem is private debt, because it must be paid back [unlike Gov. debt].

The Gov. with a fiat currency is not at all like a family or a comp.
It just isn't. I can't convince you of this. You need to do a little research and see if I'm not right. But, you will not do that, because you are sure you are right.

[SolarCross]

^ genuinely retarded crap.

[Steve_American]

^ genuinely retarded crap.

So, I take it we disagree. I also take it that you didn't do any research about 'how much is the US Gov. like a corp. or a family'.

Which of us is full of crap is up to the future to decide. Your version of economics is based in a bunch of false assumptions. This does not bode well for you. Any discipline based on false assumptions is likely to result in major errors in its theories.

Some examples of false assumptions that mainstream economics is based on: every player in the market has complete knowledge about every aspect of what they are buying/selling, you can ignore the role of credit, banks, and even money in the economy, if you doubled all the prices and incomes in the economy there would be no changes at all in the economy [note they didn't also double debt], everyone is rational, sound Gov. finance requires the Gov. run a surplus to pay down the debt some (sometimes at least), the Gov. running a surplus has the effect of making it easier for the Gov. to borrow later, and others.

[Steve_American]

SolarCross wrote:
...snip... This is the chiefest reason why gen x and millennials are so relatively crushed financially compared with preceding generations such as the boomers. ...snip...

This assertion is just about the dumbest I've ever seen.

My contrary assertion of why they are hurting is ---
1] Real wages have been flat since the late 70s.
2] Wages have been flat because of the power of the rich to block minimum wage increases and to disempower unions so they can't demand more. See effect of NAFTA.
3] Reagan began the shift from states helping with state univ. tuition to making the students borrow to pay for college. He also began the trend to cut Pell Grants and scholarships which makes them have to borrow more.
4] The tax burden has been shifted from the rich and their Corps. onto the rest of the population.

Inflation has nothing to do with it.

SolarCross, you didn't live in the 1800s so you don't have any idea of the effect that all those deflationary episodes had on the people. Do you?
By my count there were 39 deflationary episodes from 1800 to 1900. This almost 2 in every 5 year period on the average. Some were over 10% dip in prices. They were called Bank Panics and everyone who had their savings in a bank risked losing it all and usually did lose it all. And their debts became harder to pay.

[Steve_American]

Oh, and another thing, SolarCross.
All of the increases of the GDP have gone to the top 10%.
In plain English, this means that the GDP shared by the bottom 90% has not increased.
But, the number of people in the bottom 90% has increased.
This means the bottom 90% has seen a drop in the per person GDP that they get.
This is another way that inflation has not been the problem, but flat real wages are THE problem.

And a 2nd thing, it is pretty doubtful that the correction for inflation has been done properly.
It for example counts improvement in the usefulness of your cell phone as offsetting its increase in price.
It doesn't keep up with healthcare costs or college costs, etc.
The real drop in living standards of the bottom 50% (young people starting out are a big part of this) really is bigger than the inflation adjusted wages would tell you.