[Steve_American]

Was Dropping The Gold Standard A Mistake? His answer, no. Gold has value because people believe it has value.

No it's not unavailable.

Copy it, remove the [==], and paste it into your browser.

https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=S-6WNmL26wE&list=TLPQMzEwNTIwMjJ-a4y8Y8b_sg&index=3

.

[ckaihatsu]

Ummmmm....

TerraUSD (UST), created by Do Kwon, was meant to maintain a 1:1 peg with the United States dollar.[9] Instead of being backed by dollars, UST was designed to keep its peg through a complex system connected with another Terra network token, Terra (LUNA).[10] In May 2022 UST broke its peg with its price plunging to 10 cents,[11] while LUNA fell to "virtually zero", down from an all-time high of $119.51.[12] The collapse wiped out almost $45 billion of market capitalization over the course of a week.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stablecoin

How about *photocopies* of great works of art -- ?


x D

[Steve_American]

Ummmmm....



---Stuff quoted snipped by the system---



How about *photocopies* of great works of art -- ?
x D

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

The dollar derives its value because =>
. . 1] You must pay your federal, state and local taxes in dollars. So you need them. As do the rich.
. . 2] Also, what the Gov. pays for what it buys. Labor and stuff.

In the end it is all relative.
When the price of gold changes, is it because the dollar changed or the gold changed?
You can assume that the gold didn't change, but can you prove that?

.

[late]

When the price of gold changes, is it because the dollar changed or the gold changed?

Gold is a commodity, and commodity prices can vary wildly.

Nixon took us off gold because the French were running off with our gold reserves. Taking us off gold was inevitable.

But Bretton Woods was designed to punish countries that were trying to game the game. IOW, the system we set up was punishing us because we had been gaming the system.

So when Nixon took us off gold, he also killed Bretton Woods, which was tragic.

It would not have been easy to save, but we should have tried. It would be just a couple presidents later that we started using our dominant economic position to dramatically increase spending. The even more amazing bit is that he also cut taxes on the rich, and made it easy for them to cheat on the their taxes.

[ckaihatsu]

How about *photocopies* of great works of art -- ?


x D

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

The dollar derives its value because =>
. . 1] You must pay your federal, state and local taxes in dollars. So you need them. As do the rich.
. . 2] Also, what the Gov. pays for what it buys. Labor and stuff.

In the end it is all relative.
When the price of gold changes, is it because the dollar changed or the gold changed?
You can assume that the gold didn't change, but can you prove that?

.

Steve, my point here is that 'value' itself depends on a widespread, large-scale *social acceptance* of this-or-that financial instrument for that chosen vehicle to have any *chance* of being 'valuable'.

While times were *good* people were getting *giddy* with invented choices for 'storing value', like cryptocurrencies, NFTs, whatever. But, like all hyped inflated fads before in history, the notional / face-values 'value' was mostly due to the Ponzi-scheme dynamic, or 'financialization', meaning that *new money* kept pouring in on top of old, keeping the hype going, until the Fed couldn't lower the interest rate any further, and here we are now, with *collapsing* valuations across the board.

Your clinging to gold shows that you're an economic nationalist, and for the sake of your chosen nation-state you need to have *some* kind of vehicle that's commonly accepted as the 'go-to' option for how-to-store-value.

*But*, social conditions are *deteriorating*, in the sense of what a 'government', or 'institution' should even *look* like, and what a society should *be* about, much less what its economic 'valuation' should be.

Please keep in mind that society doesn't *have* to be capitalist, and this new period of plunging valuations means that the capitalist economy isn't even working *for itself* -- not ignorable.

[Steve_American]

Steve, my point here is that 'value' itself depends on a widespread, large-scale *social acceptance* of this-or-that financial instrument for that chosen vehicle to have any *chance* of being 'valuable'.

While times were *good* people were getting *giddy* with invented choices for 'storing value', like cryptocurrencies, NFTs, whatever. But, like all hyped inflated fads before in history, the notional / face-values 'value' was mostly due to the Ponzi-scheme dynamic, or 'financialization', meaning that *new money* kept pouring in on top of old, keeping the hype going, until the Fed couldn't lower the interest rate any further, and here we are now, with *collapsing* valuations across the board.

Your clinging to gold shows that you're an economic nationalist, and for the sake of your chosen nation-state you need to have *some* kind of vehicle that's commonly accepted as the 'go-to' option for how-to-store-value.

*But*, social conditions are *deteriorating*, in the sense of what a 'government', or 'institution' should even *look* like, and what a society should *be* about, much less what its economic 'valuation' should be.

Please keep in mind that society doesn't *have* to be capitalist, and this new period of plunging valuations means that the capitalist economy isn't even working *for itself* -- not ignorable.

I'm an MMTer. This means I'm glad the world is off the gold standard.

Where did you get the idea that I'm clinging to gold?

In fact I'm thinking that capitalism needs to be replaced, in the current climate crisis.
That is, either we need to use non-market methods like rationing to distribute the limited resources we have until we get past the crisis. That is until we have another stable source of energy.

Or, we are all going to die soon, because the doom sayers are right that we have waited until it's too late. In this case the rich need to be pulled down because it is their fault. And, because there is no longer a "long run" to protect, we may as well distribute everything evenly as long as we can. That is create the most good for the most people until the crash comes.

I'm not sure which it is. Though I tend toward the doom case. Yet, I still have some hope, which is why I'm suggesting rationing. I'm certain that market based solutions will not work, this is because 50% of the people will game the system to subvert achieving the goal.

.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm an MMTer. This means I'm glad the world is off the gold standard.

Where did you get the idea that I'm clinging to gold?

In fact I'm thinking that capitalism needs to be replaced, in the current climate crisis.
That is, either we need to use non-market methods like rationing to distribute the limited resources we have until we get past the crisis. That is until we have another stable source of energy.

Or, we are all going to die soon, because the doom sayers are right that we have waited until it's too late. In this case the rich need to be pulled down because it is their fault. And, because there is no longer a "long run" to protect, we may as well distribute everything evenly as long as we can. That is create the most good for the most people until the crash comes.

I'm not sure which it is. Though I tend toward the doom case. Yet, I still have some hope, which is why I'm suggesting rationing. I'm certain that market based solutions will not work, this is because 50% of the people will game the system to subvert achieving the goal.

.

What about *production*, though -- ?

You seem to think that the world could just *stop* all productive / economic activity, and 'coast' on whatever's currently stockpiled, as with the Strategic Oil Reserve, but that's the stuff of *zombie* movies.

Since the sun is most likely going to rise tomorrow, how does society deal with the bankruptcy of *the markets* -- ?

Also, the counterargument to the MMT line is March 2020 -- investors were dumping U.S. Treasuries, so what does it matter if someone thinks that liquidity / money-printing can go on forever -- ?

The empire's line of credit is *tapped*, so if people don't *accept* the 'future-ness' of additional currency then it's automatically *worthless*, and no one knows what to use for the conveyance of 'value'.

Here's my own approach to the issue of *redistribution*:

-> What about the proletarian-revolutionary *redistribution* of existing 'wealth' -- sure, there'd be no more money in usage, but who gets *what* from the world's already-produced bounty as it exists today, and why?

I think this is an often-overlooked issue, especially since socialism is often touted as *being* a process of redistribution-of-wealth in the immediate stages of world revolutionary upheaval.

My model framework can be readily adapted to this task, and it confers the benefits of retaining a *fully mass-intentional* political process, instead of better-known, *non*-politically-conscious methods such as 'first-come-first-served', any other kind of time-based rationing, or a randomocracy-type lottery system. For any singular, *non*-divisible or *non*-replicatable context, like that of today's mansions, the item should be turned into a museum for full public admittance.

For finite, though *numerous* identical existing items, as for cultural collections, there may be *many* people who would like to personally possess some or all of those items from the days of capitalist commodity production -- this kind of competition, if left raw and unaddressed, would *not* be good for a post-capitalist society since there'd be no established way of deciding who-gets-what-and-why.



'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.

So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu,

You wrote: Also, the counterargument to the MMT line is March 2020 -- investors were dumping U.S. Treasuries, so what does it matter if someone thinks that liquidity / money-printing can go on forever -- ?

I'm not aware of this event or the lasting effects that it has had. Please, give me some details. Until then My response is =>
1] So, what? I have heard zero reports about this. It doesn't seem the have lasted. The dollar is strong compared to the Thai bhat, and the euro. If there was a problem with the value of the dollar it should be seen in the foreign exchange market. It seems like the event in Mar. 2020 had zero long term effects.
2] MMT doesn't assert that such things can't happen. Instead it asserts that because the US Gov/incl. the Fed issues the dollar which means the US can always sell its bonds to the Fed (like it did in WWII when it sold half the war bonds to the Fed). So, the US can always pay dollars to everyone it owes dollars to to pay interest and principal. So, such things have zero long term effect. [As long as the world's economy is functioning normally. When this ends, no currency will have value, partly because gov. worldwide will be unable to collect taxes.]

You wrote: The empire's line of credit is *tapped*, so if people don't *accept* the 'future-ness' of additional currency then it's automatically *worthless*, and no one knows what to use for the conveyance of 'value'.

After Mar. 2020, the US and international economist went on as if nothing had happened for over 2 years, now. US bonds have been sold right along. Why do you think the events of March 2020 matter at all?

It is possible you had changed the subject from Mar. 2020, to the near future (3 or 20 years away) when the SHTF as the climate crisis takes hold of events. My reply to this is =>
1] For a while the dollar and other currencies will work fine.
2] When the SHTF even gold will quickly loose its value.
3] At this point, when the SHTF, real usable things will be bartered or just stolen after the death of the owner. Things like =>
. . a] Guns and bullets.
. . b] Food.
. . c] Pots, pans, knives, sleeping bags, blankets, cloths, places to live, etc.
. . d] Stored energy and solar panels. Gas for cars or motorcycles.
4] At this point law and order will be a thing of the past (and maybe future).

.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu,


I'm not aware of this event or the lasting effects that it has had. Please, give me some details. Until then My response is =>
1] So, what? I have heard zero reports about this. It doesn't seem the have lasted. The dollar is strong compared to the Thai bhat, and the euro. If there was a problem with the value of the dollar it should be seen in the foreign exchange market. It seems like the event in Mar. 2020 had zero long term effects.
2] MMT doesn't assert that such things can't happen. Instead it asserts that because the US Gov/incl. the Fed issues the dollar which means the US can always sell its bonds to the Fed (like it did in WWII when it sold half the war bonds to the Fed). So, the US can always pay dollars to everyone it owes dollars to to pay interest and principal. So, such things have zero long term effect. [As long as the world's economy is functioning normally. When this ends, no currency will have value, partly because gov. worldwide will be unable to collect taxes.]



After Mar. 2020, the US and international economist went on as if nothing had happened for over 2 years, now. US bonds have been sold right along. Why do you think the events of March 2020 matter at all?

It is possible you had changed the subject from Mar. 2020, to the near future (3 or 20 years away) when the SHTF as the climate crisis takes hold of events. My reply to this is =>
1] For a while the dollar and other currencies will work fine.
2] When the SHTF even gold will quickly loose its value.
3] At this point, when the SHTF, real usable things will be bartered or just stolen after the death of the owner. Things like =>
. . a] Guns and bullets.
. . b] Food.
. . c] Pots, pans, knives, sleeping bags, blankets, cloths, places to live, etc.
. . d] Stored energy and solar panels. Gas for cars or motorcycles.
4] At this point law and order will be a thing of the past (and maybe future).

.

*Or*....

On 30 March, Moody's downgraded the outlook on U.S. corporate debt from stable to negative. It mentioned in particular firms in global air travel, lodging and cruise ships, automobiles, oil and gas, and the banking sector. Moody's also noted that $169 billion in corporate debt is due in 2020, and further $300 billion in 2021, which would be difficult to roll over in the strained economic climate. At the end of March, Goldman Sachs estimated that $765 billion in U.S. corporate bonds had already experienced rating downgrades. Slippage of firms from investment-grade to junk status continued to pose a stability risk.[61] Fitch forecasted a doubling of defaults on US leveraged loans from 3% in 2019 to 5-6% in 2020, with a default rate for retail and energy companies of up to 20%. Fitch further forecast defaults in these two markets of 8-9% in 2020, totaling $200 billion over two years.[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_debt_bubble

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_bank

[Steve_American]

Is it a good thing that the world is off the gold standard?

My opinion is, yes, it is a very good thing.

We have lived for 51 years now without the gold standard. During that time economies have functioned just fine. Those nations with their own currencies have done (IMHO) much better than those nations that lack their own currencies. This refers mostly to the nations that use the euro, and to some extent all the nations in the EU. I include the entire EU because it has dumb rules on gov. deficits and national debts that keep all its nations from reacting to crises without breaking the rules. They broke the rules in the GFC/2008 and now in the pandemic. Between these 2 events all the nations of the EU have struggled with poor economic growth. Most have had crippling unemployment levels, especially with young adults. MMt asserts that this is a direct result of insufficient Gov. deficit spending.
. . . The treaties that are the constitution of the EU, were written with the firm belief that Neo-liberal economic theory was the last and best economic theory and was totally true. MMTers assert that this assumption is totally false. MMTers asset that Neo-liberalism is based on assumptions that prove the truth of its conclusions, BUT some of those assumptions that prove the conclusions are obviously false and others are less obviously false. This makes all the conclusions logically invalid.
. . . This is so because, the basic logical proof takes the form of "If A & B are true, then C is true." An example might be, all whales produce milk and all animals the produce milk are mammals, therefore whales are mammals. An example of an invalid proof with a false premise is, all animals with back bones that live in the sea are fish and whales live in the sea and have backbones, therefore whales are fish. You can see why this is invalid, right?
. . . I assert that this 1st law of deductive logic (no false premises are allowed) is necessary because if false premises are allowed then by using false premises one can prove anything. Literally anything.
. . . I assert that this is what Neo-liberal economic theory has done. Its creators knew what they wanted to prove and they set out to create a set of proofs that did that while at the same time papering over to hide the false assumptions they had to use and using hand-waving to claim that the false assumptions were close enough to not matter. They then taught the theory in colleges and somehow fooled 2 generations of students into believing the theory.

So, in conclusion: IMO, it is better for nations to be able to create money in crises because history has shown that this is by far the best response to recessions and depressions, as well as pandemics and wars that require massive was production. And, the ability to do this was constrained by the gold supply in the past. Also, that 51 years of experience has proven that a gold standard is not necessary for the world's and nation's economies to work. MMT asserts that such economies can work better if you stop thinking like we did while the gold standard was still in effect.

now 227 views
.

[JohnRawls]

Obviously its good. I am not sure how can anybody argue otherwise.

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu,

You wrote:

On 30 March, Moody's downgraded the outlook on U.S. corporate debt from stable to negative. It mentioned in particular firms in global air travel, lodging and cruise ships, automobiles, oil and gas, and the banking sector. Moody's also noted that $169 billion in corporate debt is due in 2020, and further $300 billion in 2021, which would be difficult to roll over in the strained economic climate. At the end of March, Goldman Sachs estimated that $765 billion in U.S. corporate bonds had already experienced rating downgrades. Slippage of firms from investment-grade to junk status continued to pose a stability risk.[61] Fitch forecasted a doubling of defaults on US leveraged loans from 3% in 2019 to 5-6% in 2020, with a default rate for retail and energy companies of up to 20%. Fitch further forecast defaults in these two markets of 8-9% in 2020, totaling $200 billion over two years.[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_debt_bubble

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_bank

What does corp. debt have to do with the gold standard?

I can see that gold had to do with the national debt before 1971.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu,


What does corp. debt have to do with the gold standard?

I can see that gold had to do with the national debt before 1971.

Don't you think that the overhang of corporate debt might be a little more *topical* these days -- ?

I don't understand why all of the attention there is on the *money supply*. It's supposed to just be *one dial*, to tweak things a bit, and now the Fed doesn't even have *that* left.

Wanna go off-topic to address the current *economic situation*, maybe -- ?

For the record, sure, the money supply is supposed to be a good fit to the total valuation of all goods and services produced (GDP), but the over-emphasis on the money supply, for convenient, stable First World pricings, is a distraction from *other* economic factors, like GDP and the Federal Funds Rate.

[Steve_American]

Don't you think that the overhang of corporate debt might be a little more *topical* these days -- ?

I don't understand why all of the attention there is on the *money supply*. It's supposed to just be *one dial*, to tweak things a bit, and now the Fed doesn't even have *that* left.

Wanna go off-topic to address the current *economic situation*, maybe -- ?

For the record, sure, the money supply is supposed to be a good fit to the total valuation of all goods and services produced (GDP), but the over-emphasis on the money supply, for convenient, stable First World pricings, is a distraction from *other* economic factors, like GDP and the Federal Funds Rate.

Why did you start this reply with a quote of mine. IMO, an @Steve_American would have been better because it just changes the subject.

Sir, ckaihatsu, the US is now an oligarchy. The corps and their manager and owners run the US. They own both major parties.

Sure, corp debt is too high and they ought to be left swinging in the wind like the homeowners were in the GFC/2008. But, they must be saved somehow, says the oligarchs. So, it will happen.

Right now the Fed is hell bent on raising interest rates (to control inflation by causing a recession), that will mostly crush the people who become unemployed as a result. It may also bring the corp debt crisis to a head. I predict that the unemployed will not be saved, but the corps will be bailed out, no more than 3 medium size corps (and no huge ones) will go bankrupt.

Next time, maybe start a new thread on corp debt, OK?

.

[ckaihatsu]

Why did you start this reply with a quote of mine. IMO, an @Steve_American would have been better because it just changes the subject.

Sir, ckaihatsu,

Please make that 'Sir, ckaihatsu, sir'. (grin)

Okay, just noticed my tone was kinda harsh, but it's a harsh topic, too.

the US is now an oligarchy. The corps and their manager and owners run the US. They own both major parties.

Sure, corp debt is too high and they ought to be left swinging in the wind like the homeowners were in the GFC/2008.

The (mostly minority) subprime *borrowers* were the ones left holding-the-bag, as I remember. That means they had to *forfeit* their mortgage payments, correct? That's economic racism all over again, then, if that's the case, like toxic dumps near neighborhoods or everyday real estate redlining.

But, they must be saved somehow, says the oligarchs. So, it will happen.

Don't you empirically agree, though, that the empire is now tapped-out on its credit line? I know it's a line that's contrary to your MMT line, but I'm quite sure I'm correct here, and the markets wouldn't just be left to slip off a cliff (as they're doing now as we speak), if the government could economically manage it.

It may not be tarps-and-flashlights time, but I think that *economic* capital is going to have to now take a back-seat to *social* capital -- note the mass international anti-military populist-type protest movements of the past few years.

Right now the Fed is hell bent on raising interest rates (to control inflation by causing a recession), that will mostly crush the people who become unemployed as a result. It may also bring the corp debt crisis to a head. I predict that the unemployed will not be saved, but the corps will be bailed out, no more than 3 medium size corps (and no huge ones) will go bankrupt.

Next time, maybe start a new thread on corp debt, OK?

.

Um, to differentiate from all the *other* economics threads out there right now -- ? (grin) Got a plane to catch? (grin)

Yeah, you're describing the usual playbook, but isn't it now that the Fed *can't* get-away with raising interest rates because of 2020, basically? It's at 1% now, and look at the markets this year.

[ckaihatsu]

because of 2020, basically?

Also,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%8 ... th_America

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu,

AFAIK, what we need to do and what we will do are opposites.

We (the world) need to do what the US did in WWII. That is ration everything that uses stuff or much energy. Have a crash program to make the thigs we need. Things like heat pumps (air conditioners that heat the house and dump cold air outside in the winter). This is much more efficient than using electricity to heat homes, etc. Things like solar panels. Etc. Etc. Etc.
. . . You are fixated on money. You claim the US/world has maxed out the credit card. AFAIK, money is a social convention. It is created by banks and by the Gov. deficit spending. Bank loans need to be paid back. National debts never need to be paid back. There is no limit to how much money can be created, but it's much better to do it with Gov. deficit spending rather than bank loans.
. . . I just saw a video that I'll be posting here soon. In it it was claimed that 90% of the money supply is/was created by banks making loans. This fact has been ignored by Mainstream econ., because it works for the banks. And. bankers don't want the people to know this. It would eat into their profits.

.
What will we (the world) do? We will bury our heads in the sand so we can ignore the few tellers of truth until 1 day after the last and FINAL crash has started. As a good chink of the people are in denial we are doomed.
. . . You may think that the problems will grow in a linear way. They will not. They will grow exponentially. This means they will double in 1/10 the time you think it will take, and double again in 1/100 of the time you think it will take. Only melting ice caps will take a long time. Every other effect will happen in the next 5 to 15 years. AFAIK. [It is the future, so no one knows how fast it will happen, I could be wrong. I HOPE LIKE HELL THAT I AM WRONG.!.!.!

.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu,

AFAIK, what we need to do and what we will do are opposites.

We (the world) need to do what the US did in WWII. That is ration everything that uses stuff or much energy. Have a crash program to make the thigs we need. Things like heat pumps (air conditioners that heat the house and dump cold air outside in the winter). This is much more efficient than using electricity to heat homes, etc. Things like solar panels. Etc. Etc. Etc.
. . . You are fixated on money. You claim the US/world has maxed out the credit card. AFAIK, money is a social convention. It is created by banks and by the Gov. deficit spending. Bank loans need to be paid back. National debts never need to be paid back. There is no limit to how much money can be created, but it's much better to do it with Gov. deficit spending rather than bank loans.

'Fixated' on money, just because I'm *addressing* the economic / financial situation -- ?

That's unkind.

Here's the thing, though -- what good is issuing additional national debt, if there's no one to *buy* that debt? The issue here, for nation-states, is about *solvency*, since the entire economy is running on fumes -- it's not even *real economic activity*, it's whether more debt can be sustained to keep the music from stopping.

. . . I just saw a video that I'll be posting here soon. In it it was claimed that 90% of the money supply is/was created by banks making loans. This fact has been ignored by Mainstream econ., because it works for the banks. And. bankers don't want the people to know this. It would eat into their profits.

.
What will we (the world) do? We will bury our heads in the sand so we can ignore the few tellers of truth until 1 day after the last and FINAL crash has started. As a good chink of the people are in denial we are doomed.
. . . You may think that the problems will grow in a linear way. They will not. They will grow exponentially. This means they will double in 1/10 the time you think it will take, and double again in 1/100 of the time you think it will take. Only melting ice caps will take a long time. Every other effect will happen in the next 5 to 15 years. AFAIK. [It is the future, so no one knows how fast it will happen, I could be wrong. I HOPE LIKE HELL THAT I AM WRONG.!.!.!

.

[Steve_American]

'Fixated' on money, just because I'm *addressing* the economic / financial situation -- ?

That's unkind.

Here's the thing, though -- what good is issuing additional national debt, if there's no one to *buy* that debt? The issue here, for nation-states, is about *solvency*, since the entire economy is running on fumes -- it's not even *real economic activity*, it's whether more debt can be sustained to keep the music from stopping.

The US has been in that exact situation before.

On Dec. 8, 1941, the plan for war was put into effect. One of its 1st elements was the change the law to let the Fed buy war bonds directly from the Treasury Dept. This was done in secret to keep this ability from the people partly so they would buy more war bonds.

I read once many years ago that about 50% of war bonds were bought by the Fed during the war. Then, after the war they were slowly sold to the people. As I said, it was a secret. However, about 2 years ago [+/- 1 y] I posted a thread about this based on an official paper issued by the Fed.

Because I see the current crisis as being has critical as WWII, I'm willing to do what was done in WWII. This includes the Fed buying bonds directly (or indirectly has it has been doing since 2008), and also starting rationing.

.

[ckaihatsu]

The US has been in that exact situation before.

On Dec. 8, 1941, the plan for war was put into effect. One of its 1st elements was the change the law to let the Fed buy war bonds directly from the Treasury Dept. This was done in secret to keep this ability from the people partly so they would buy more war bonds.

I read once many years ago that about 50% of war bonds were bought by the Fed during the war. Then, after the war they were slowly sold to the people. As I said, it was a secret. However, about 2 years ago [+/- 1 y] I posted a thread about this based on an official paper issued by the Fed.

Because I see the current crisis as being has critical as WWII, I'm willing to do what was done in WWII. This includes the Fed buying bonds directly (or indirectly has it has been doing since 2008),

I'm not an economic nationalist, so I will leave the nationalistic financial particulars to *you*, on how to handle things, or not.

and also starting rationing.

.

This, though, has to do with the *real* economy, and I think you're *misguided*, to put it gently, if you think that the entire U.S. population, and greater, should have to *suffer*, or tighten our belts, for the sake of capitalism working-out *on paper*.