I would not mind US financing Cold War, because that not only got us to the moon but perhaps also help raised standard of living with all the aerospace jobs.
However, when we start financing forever wars, if some are telling us there’s nothing wrong with that, clearly that someone would be talking out of his arse.
Plus, USSR has demonstrated that it is definitely possible for a country to end up unable to manage its debt.
It's definitely manageable. Sovereign debt should be seen as a 'rolling' debt. Money borrowed now is paid off later based on GDP and tax income, but in the intervening time more money has been borrowed and will be paid off later, and so-on. It's not as if the money borrowed by the founding fathers hasn't been paid off. And sure, having less debt is much better than having a load of debt, and accumulating more debt is worse. But think about how the economy would fare if money wasn't borrowed by governments to pay for society to function.Originally Posted by FaultyMario
Also consider where the money comes from and where it goes. Believe it or not, the US government borrows money, but it also lends it out to other countries. Repayments on that help generate extra income through charging interest. On a grander scale, borrowing money for it to then be spent in the economy is essential, because money needs to move. If money doesn't move then commerce doesn't happen and the economy shrinks. That's how you avoid recessions. There's a huge paradox where people think if the economy is shrinking you need to tighten the straps to save money, but if nobody is spending money then it's hard for others to earn money.
Hoarding all the money in one place causes the economy to shrink. Letting billionaires get rich is actually really bad for the economy, as all of their wealth gets tied up in property or in bank accounts and doesn't move through the economy any more earning tax at each transaction for the state. Before people go off about government debt or spending on services or whatever, they should think about where a large proportion of the world's GDP is actually going, while the other 99% struggles to afford food and shelter.
I’d would think billionaires do not have all that cash hoarded in their bank accounts. It’s mostly in the assets they own. They become little government of their own in a way. Both government and billionaires need to borrow/invest in order to keep the economy growing. The fact that governments spent gazillions and there are still poor citizens around in the West, how come you’re not against governments as much as you’re against billionaires?
In a way I’m more concerned with government spending because billionaires are responsible for their own wealth and future; however, politicians don’t have similar concerns. They can always just spend and kick the problems down the road and expect future taxpayers to pay it back.
What’s worse is that non-elected government agencies have even less accountability. The scariest part is the zombie agency called federal reserves. Who is controlling it and keeping it in check? Swapping out fed chairs is about it.
It’s like Boeing swapping out its CEOs. Boeing still has shareholders and FAA to answer to. Fed reserve answers to… God? That’s be the best case scenario. The bank of all bank is more likely to be Sauron!
Interesting, been seeing more videos of democratic speeches where they're referring to the "Biden Harris administration" more than the "Biden administration"....then again I DON'T know if this is a change or I just wasn't paying as much attention before. My guess is they're hedging their bets and keeping Kamala's name out there.
Kamala is even less appealing to Biden, at least to me. If Dems have to play the race gender card and pick a black woman, Michelle Obama is probably the best bet. However, I’m not sure if she wants to run.
Personally, I love reluctant leaders. If Michelle runs, I wouldn’t mind voting for her.
It's been a while since I've seen a Musk tweet. I see his radicalization is coming along nicely, now that he's calling for executing people who don't support a lawmaker's proposed bill.
After my last post and subsequent reply, I have a renewed vigour from feeling this all over again
Okay, maybe death penalty is a bit harsh, but whatever punishment, we probably should treat traitors and insurrectionists the same?It's been a while since I've seen a Musk tweet. I see his radicalization is coming along nicely, now that he's calling for executing people who don't support a lawmaker's proposed bill.
Left sees right as insurrectionists and right sees left as traitors, even without death penalties, lives will likely be lost if we get into another civil war anyway.
I wonder how far will the trend of decentralization go? Will USA eventually break up to become just a bunch of SAs?
What will be the reason for Lincoln II to try to save our union?
Actually it's very payable, any day.
Fundamental difference against many others is that it's their own currency, both directions.
How many $1T coins are needed.
UK election results goes left. France election results stays(mostly?) left. Iran goes centrist (not that it means much)...pretty good
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote