@jmski52 said: No apatite for taking on risk. Loss of innovation. No incentive. Mediocrity at best.
BS. All it means is that entrepreneurs would be required to have solid business plans that would attract investors with REAL money instead of cartel banking-created fiat. And gov.com politicians wouldn't be in the business of creating winners & losers or handing out fiat in return for votes.
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
Looks like you've taken a cruise to the Caribbean and I'm sure you haven't been to Fiji or Maldives (unless part of your Govt paid cruise while in the Navy) so I'm sure youre experience and knowledge of those countries is extensive.
When are you moving?
BTW--the USA is a comfortable place to live in.
again you are mistaken, I was never in the navy. Why move, I could care less about GDP, you're the one so concerned about how important it is. Can't say that it affects my quality of life in any way. I'm 100% financially independent.
Dude, youve mentioned "GDP" many more times than I have. I mentioned it once in response to dcarr. Why the gaslighting?
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
I would never live there. Aint no place a great as the USA. Nearly 1/3rd of the natural citizens of those countries live in poverty.
You are debating with yourself about GDP and quality of life. I was discussing the topic of the OP and stated the economy would be smaller and gold prices lower if still on the gold standard, in contrast to your opinion. You went off on big macs.
What new bonds? Unbacked money does not require issuing bonds in the first place. Excessive money printing still causes inflation in the cost of goods and services, but it does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations.
You stated earlier that "Printing money at will" did not cause our huge and uncontrollable national debt, "backing" the money with interest-bearing bonds did.
So are not some bonds created when it's time to turn on the printing press, for the sole purpose of providing the FED a source to place/back the newly created money?
>
I'm not talking about dealing with the FED at all.
>
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
@RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
>
Unbacked money is simply paper money (or its electronic equivalent) that is issued directly by a government, without a corresponding issue of bonds to a central bank to "back" this money.
US Notes were issued directly into circulation by the Treasury Department rather than by the Federal Reserve. For decades they circulated side by side with Federal Reserve Notes, and were readily spent and accepted at face value by the public. The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the “debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
@Higashiyama said: @RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
Agreed the Fed needs to be independent, and by and large i believe it is, but when the cards they are dealt are always 2s and 6s they will never win and always be the scapegoat. To let the FED win requires a party on the other side to lose, and it would most likely be the one you didn't mention---J6P. I would expect to see much more hostile rhetoric toward Powell, especially in the 6 months preceeding the end of his term in May. The populace will need a villain, and then a "hero" to to replace him.
Comments
well said
Capital investment depends on confidence. - Martin Armstrong
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
Capital investment depends on confidence. - Martin Armstrong
Dude, youve mentioned "GDP" many more times than I have. I mentioned it once in response to dcarr. Why the gaslighting?
And congrats. Way to do the American Dream!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I would never live there. Aint no place a great as the USA. Nearly 1/3rd of the natural citizens of those countries live in poverty.
You are debating with yourself about GDP and quality of life. I was discussing the topic of the OP and stated the economy would be smaller and gold prices lower if still on the gold standard, in contrast to your opinion. You went off on big macs.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
Capital investment depends on confidence. - Martin Armstrong
@RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
>
Unbacked money is simply paper money (or its electronic equivalent) that is issued directly by a government, without a corresponding issue of bonds to a central bank to "back" this money.
US Notes were issued directly into circulation by the Treasury Department rather than by the Federal Reserve. For decades they circulated side by side with Federal Reserve Notes, and were readily spent and accepted at face value by the public. The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the “debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Agreed the Fed needs to be independent, and by and large i believe it is, but when the cards they are dealt are always 2s and 6s they will never win and always be the scapegoat. To let the FED win requires a party on the other side to lose, and it would most likely be the one you didn't mention---J6P. I would expect to see much more hostile rhetoric toward Powell, especially in the 6 months preceeding the end of his term in May. The populace will need a villain, and then a "hero" to to replace him.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Audit the Fed and get a transparent look at it's books. It's a private cartel and there's no reason not to know where their money flows are going.
I knew it would happen.
What's in Ft. Knox means little unless it has all been a big lie.
Capital investment depends on confidence. - Martin Armstrong
30 Trillion U.S. dollar economy and $550 billion in gold.
A big ole nothingburger. No 'merican slag city cheeze required. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™