pull down to refresh
75 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 3 May
This guy is dumber than a doornail, and this is his specialty.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 3 May
Oh, this is a keeper. I've listened to this guy's bullshit for many years. He's usually a far better liar.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 4 May freebie
Jared is a partisan hack
Shill for Clinton Obama and Biden in that order
reply
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 3 May
OH MY GOSH.....
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 3 May
this guy doesnt run us ... he is grifting from us. he is running cover for the banks who are stealing from us. this makes me so angry.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 3 May
You know, I think the average "gold, bitcoin, anti-fed" person could actually do a better job of both explaining / defending the current system than these guys can.
-
The government is not technically "printing the money". It has outsourced currency creation to the Fed. The US gov is printing bonds, which it sells to Fed/Banks in exchange for a "US Dollar simulacrum" (ie. Fed Reserve Notes).
-
This approach of borrowing a currency you could just directly print, while byzantine in structure, was instituted with the idea that the resulting debt provides a natural counterbalance against the issuance. Therefore, it is the counterweight to prevent unbridled and endless printing, since the gov will need to pay off those loans to expire the debt.
-
Lastly, when (if) the gov pays off the bonds, it technically extinguishes that currency out of existence, thus shrinks the monetary base (ie. less dollars in existence).
Its sad when the systems harshest critics understand it better than those running it.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 4 May
I’m not sure about point 3.
When the bond matures the money supply remains constant?
Treasury pays interest and principal. The interest payments prevent shrinkage?
Regarding point 2 the counterweight is theoretical because of accounting gimmicks
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 4 May
You are correct that in any case where an outside investor held the bond, this does not cause any direct shrinkage of money supply. This is probably the "normal case".
However, in the case that it was the Fed itself holding the bond, then the payoff will cause a reduction in its balance sheet.
As an example, lets assume a scenario where there is $0 in circulation:
- US Treasury issues a bond for $100
- Fed conjures $100 in Federal Reserve Notes into existence and buys bond with that.
- US Treasury now has $100 and it spends that into economy, total money supply is $100
- At this moment, the Feds Balance Sheet is: Assets $100 US Bonds / Liabilities $100 FRN
- After some time, the US Treasury pays off bond. Now the balance sheet of the Fed is Assets $0 / Liabilities $0
- In order to issue more money into circulation, the Fed must have some Asset on its Balance Sheet to issue Federal Reserve Notes against, thus another Asset is needed, so for the time being that money is taken out of circulation.
This is all of course theoretical, since the US never pays off its debt anymore. They simply rollover existing debt with new debt. I was simply trying to make the best case for the system - pretending to be a defender of it.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 4 May
Good explanation
I like simple theoretical examples.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Hamstr 3 May
He's a lot like Biden which is why he's in office.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitByBit21 3 May
Imagine a conversation between those two senile maniacs
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Hamstr 3 May
oh god, you know they'll just agree to whatever. the skye is red and not blue scenario
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 4 May
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Bernstein
His degrees are in music and social work
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chungkingexpress 3 May
This is what we would call a numpty.
reply