Wake up sheeple
Government debt = Private sector savings.
This is always true. High government debt is not a bad thing, it just equals the amount of savings of families and companies.
Zero government debt means no one can save and have money in the bank.
Every single printed dollar is government debt. You use government debt to pay for coffee.
Stop believing that government debt is bad please. (Google Modern Monetary Theory )
Other urls found in this thread:
data.worldbank.org
fred.stlouisfed.org
twitter.com
Please understand this, no matter what party you vote for. If they tell you they want to reduce debt they are idiots.
It just means reducing private wealth, basically taxing more so that all the money the state has printed (=debt) will be destroyed.
Politicians reducing government debt are NOT doing your best interest.
As long as there are unemployed people, increasing debt (=creating more money) is good as long as it is used to employ more people and produce more
>This is always true
Only if its used for necessary public services creating value or to drive demand and create value somewhere along the way.
If it's funding dead-end programs or useless government inefficiency shit it's just money being shifted around or taken out of yours or the private sectors wallets and burned for zero return.
well that equation is mathematically always true, it's basica accounting. Every single minus in the goverment balance corresponds to a plus in the private sector balance.
But what you are saying is somewhat true, that is, if the goverment increases debt a lot but basically wastes the money instead of using it to do productive things, then the private sector will indeed have more money, but that money will be worth less, cause there would be more inflation.
So yes, if the goverment increases debt by 1 trillion by giving it all to one random person, the private sector will be 1trillion richer, but when he spends that money dollars would lose some value due to inflation.
But if the goverment uses that money to pay for people to do productive jobs (like building infrastructure or factories and whatnot), then the real wealth of the country will be increased.
The optimal amount of government spending is such that every person who wants to work can work, so that maximizes REAL production of goods and services, and the real wealth of a nation.
Dumb wop.
Money IS debt
That's why the graph is symmetrical
Exactly. Money is debt, every single dollar around represents debt.
If debt goes to zero, money supply goes to zero, so there would be no more money in the economy and no one could save a single dollar.
So people who believe that we should reduce government debt are completely retarded and don't understand anything about money.
Reducing government debt equals reducing private savings.
People only believe in money when they don't have it
It's almost like he monetary system is flawed.
If all money is debt on which interest must be paid please tell me how this system is sustainable
what do you mean
>Rapid inflation is good
Well in that case the US economy is doing enormously well considering the debt now exceeds total GDP
Everyone knows that proceeds from borrowing are reinjected into the economy.
The problem with a too high debt to GDP ratio are:
1) It increases the marginal cost of funding (so it's a self-reinforcing cycle) as it increases the probability of default or the inflation forecast (diminishing expected return so investors require higher interest rates)
2) If floating rates, it exposes the country to interest rate risk
What this means is that the day there is a downturn, the country is more vulnerable because refinancing or paying interest on existing debt is unaffordable. The government is forced to reduce spending, or increase taxes, or print money, all of which have adverse effects on effects on the economy.
It works exactly the same as personal loans.
Yes, long term, the natural interest rate should be zero, or close to zero, otherwise we will either need to print money exponentially to pay for existing debts, or, if the money supply isn't increased at the state level, everyone would have to become slaves of banks to pay interest on their debt, that can only be canceled by direct work for the bankers, since there is not enough money in the system to pay for all interest.
Thankfully, interest rates are naturally going down, as the growth of economies in western nations is also slowing down.
>Rapid inflation is good
Actually, most western countries are now in a situation of almost 0 inflation or deflation, despite the high debt and money printing.
As long as the printed money is used in productive ways, inflation would not be a problem. Plus some amount of inflation is desired cause it's an incentive to spend money faster and make the economy go round, increasing sales and production.
Il post più ebraico su Sup Forums
>the natural interest rate should be zero
It can't be zero. This would mean that people are indifferent between receiving $1 today and $1 in the future.
But you maybe meant the inflation rate, in which case I would agree in the very, very long term.
Debt is only a problem for countries who don't have their own currency, or try to peg their currency to foreign currencies (like argentina and zimbabwe tried to peg to the dollar and failed, or like the eurozone countries, who also gave up their monetary policy power, by basically "pegging" their currency to a virtual foreign currency called euro).
The probability that a country defaults in debt denominated in its own currency (which the country can print indefinitely) is ZERO, it's a fact.
Countries with a sovreign currency don't actually need bonds to finance themselves, it's just another fancy way to insert money in the system (and increase the private sector's savings). Countries with a sovreign currency don't need bonds, it's just an heritage from when currencies were pegged to precious metals. Now sovreign countries can just print the money out of nowhere, as long as they have control of their currency and it's not pegged to anything.
Low interest rates encourage people to take out more loans which causes inflated bubbles
The U.S is already in the midst of an auto loan, student debt, credit card and housing bubble just like in 2007
All the while the US kept packing on debt because it spent more money than it actually had which means paying off the interest on the debt is gonna get pricey everywhere
Pic related shows just how expensive it was in 2015
You're mostly wrong. American debt is not good or bad, ever since we got on fiat currency we have been a debt based economy. At this point in time there is no way we will ever pay back our debt, there isn't enough real money in the world.
>The probability that a country defaults in debt denominated in its own currency (which the country can print indefinitely) is ZERO, it's a fact.
That's actually wrong. As surprising as it seems, check it out on google, sovereign country have defaulted on local currency denominated debt. That's because the political costs of inflation were deemed worse than default.
>Countries with a sovreign currency don't actually need bonds to finance themselve
They do because printing money doesn't create real value (or very few if some prices are sticky). If the money supply increases by 10% and prices by 10%, it doesn't change shit.
>Actually, most western countries are now in a situation of almost 0 inflation or deflation, despite the high debt and money printing.
You're literally just making shit up
I get what you're trying to do.
You are arguing against your beliefs in order to debate the other side
What if the debt is held by foreign entities?
yes i dont think it can reach zero, just get closer and closer to it.
Of course interest rate and inflation go hand in hand. An interest rate of 20% in a setting when annual inflation is 20% means 0% interest rate in *real* terms.
But there can be settings where people are actually willing to loan money for even negative interest rates (believe it or not, as absurd as it is, it's actually happening right now, european banks are loaning money for negative interest rates). For example, if the central bank enforces negative interest rates, so all bank deposits basically lose money at a certain rate, you could have an incentive to loan that money at a rate that is zero or slightly negative. But that's an extreme case.
zitto, frocio
Decreasing the money supply is good for people with savings.
Vai a scopare Eva, serpente
This is because our fiat currency debt-slavery system relies on debt for growth. This situation is undesirable and is not possible to maintain permanently.
Fisher effect:
(1 + Nominal interest rate) = (1 + inflation rate) * (1 + real interest rate)
The growth in the money supply (thus the inflation rate) should follow to the growth of the economy - and yes, in the very, very long term it's 0%. But the real interest rate will always be above zero because of time preferences.
Some investors buy money with negative interest rates for the following reasons:
1) They have a mandate and have to buy some types of bonds even with negative yields
2)They speculate that the central banks will buy the bonds
3)They speculate on currency movements (hence many investors are ready to invest in safe haven currencies even at negative yields)
Of course if 1, 2, and 3 didn't exist no one would buy bonds with negative yields. It's like throwing money out of the window.
in our case (u.s.) that's less than ~15%
we hold most of our debt unlike say greece, turkey, or all of africa
all that matters is *real* goods and services that are being produced. As long as production is maximized, real wealth is maximized. The amount of debt or bubbles is insignificant, that's just accounting. Even if the bubble explodes and no one pays their debt back, nothing bad happens, as long as the government responds to it by putting enough money in the system quickly.
there's no limit to human stupidity. You can do whatever you want if you have your own currency, if you want to default on debt, sure. You can even repay that debt in the old currency and start using a new currency or whatever, it all depends on the specific terms of the bonds which can be quite different at times.
Global inflation rates have generally been going down:
data.worldbank.org
US inflation rate is still decent but not particularly high either:
fred.stlouisfed.org
And inflation in other western countries like europe and japan especially, has been zero or even negative in recent years.
You don't have to be offshore to be foreign.
And you don't even have to be a non-citizen.
You just have to hate white people.
In that case you technically "owe" them something. But it's denominated in your own currency, so you can do whatever you want basically. Its better to have real goods than currency, cause holding currency of which you dont control supply is risky.
For example, the US imported a lot of REAL goods from china, so that's REAL welath right there. China instead, is not holding a lot of us dollars and us debt. As long as dollars dont depreciate too much and the us doesn't default on debt, they can be somewhat happy with it. But otherwise the'll be fucked (and may or may not go to war for it or something).
In general, importing is better than exporting, cause with imports you obtain real goods, with exports you obtain foreign currency which is always risky.
True, that's why the jews in power who control the media want you to believe that government debt is bad. So all the money they have in their jew-banks will be worth more and more thanks to deflation, and they will hold a larger % of the global wealth.
Good Goym
>Of course if 1, 2, and 3 didn't exist no one would buy bonds with negative yields. It's like throwing money out of the window.
yes, i agree.
>Even if the bubble explodes and no one pays their debt back, nothing bad will happen
Except a downgrade in their credit rating, defaulting on loans or printing more money which leads to high inflation
Look at Illinois right now. They couldn't pay off their massive debts which means they've been downgraded to junk status which means it's gonna be much more difficult for them to attract investors or take out more loans to pay off their workers
This is happening in numerous states
and the consequences will be catastrophic
Burn down your house so you can build a new one, goyim. Debt is good for you.
This would be true if high inflation didn't have an impact on the real economy.
Inflationary spiral:
> Prices go up very quickly
> Higher costs of livings increases wages
> More demand as everyone spends now, since everyone has higher wages and expects prices to keep going up
> Prices go up etc.
> Meanwhile no one saves anymore, interest rates skyrocket and long-term projects (e.g. innovative companies, buying a house or a car) can't be funded; also, bond holders and previous savers are killed in the process (their savings aren't worth a dime anymore)
>interest rates skyrocket
Note: I mean they go up much quicker than inflation itself because of the expectation that inflation will keep going (since inflation reduces the value of fixed payments)
No, smart wop.
Money IS debt.
Money IS credit.
Hence the graph is symmetrical.
No debt, no credit, no credit, no debt. No money.
>government debt is good because it saves money for corporations
>by shifting the debt from those corporations onto citizens
True for countries if the debt is equal. Fiat represents promises.
Babby just learned about MMT. Congrats. Now grow up and realize this does not mean more gov debt=richer private sector. WHY? Because your chart is % of nominal gdp. Says absolutely nothing about real growth or wealth.
Seriously i think u should be underage b&
Money is not debt under normal circumstances. It's a simple mean of exchange.
Because of fractional reserve bankin (banks creating money by lending your deposits), some, but not all of the money supply is actually debt (from the banks to depositors).
You are so deluded. Explain this then.
Fuck off
yep - this post is obviously a joke
haha
What is quantitative easing?
I agree that very high inflation rate is not nice, but mostly because it's uncomfortable.
In practice you could live with an arbitrarily high inflation rate, it's just uncomfortable cause everyone would always have to immediately convert their currency into something else.
There can be policies to make high inflation more "liveable", for example in italy, when we had high inflation in the 60s, salaries by law were automatically adjusted for inflation month by month, or Brazil for example introduced the "REAL" as a unit of measure to replace their highly inflationary currency.
Tbh a state who controls money supply, can always set arbitrary inflation or deflation depending on how much they choose to print and tax. Historically, problems of hyperinflation were always due to exogenous cases, like big swings in the price of oil, or debts that were to be repaid in foreign currencies or gold.
Of course if you are a shitty country who doesnt produce anything other countries want, and you need to import oil or something like that, you can run into problems, but that's not something related to monetary policy.
> Meanwhile no one saves anymore, interest rates skyrocket and long-term projects (e.g. innovative companies, buying a house or a car) can't be funded; also, bond holders and previous savers are killed in the process (their savings aren't worth a dime anymore)
Interest rates go hand in hand with the inflation, so its not really a problem, the *real* interest rates would still be reasonable. Of course it's a problem if you sign a contract with a fixed interest rate when the inflation is high, and then inflation goes down so you end up having to pay more in real terms (that happened to many southern european countries).
The fact that previous savers are killed in the process could actually be a good thing sometimes for some more fair redistribution of wealth.
Anyway I agree that high inflation is not nice.
>Virtually inflating the money supply while physically keeping it at the same volume is a good thing
The central banks buys bonds in large quantity, and not only short term government bonds but also long term and corporate bonds, in order to stimulate the economy by pushing down interest rates.
It is an extreme measure only done when policy interest rates / short term rates are at zero or close to zero but the economy still needs stimulus.
Note: normally central banks buy only short term government bonds in short quantities, it's called "open market operations (OMO)", and is one of the three conventional monetary policies (while QE is unconventional) in this case.
Not true.
Money is credit in the sense that it denotes that you are owed a certain value of goods and/or services etc..
but credit can only be given by also creating debt. If you are owed that much, then you are owed it by someone... in this case it's the rest of the nation that operates on that currency.
Think of that part like company vouchers. You get paid in company vouchers. The company owes you that much in goods at the company store...
Exchanging money is exchanging credit and debt.
tl;dr
a central bank program to buy government bonds. Basically the government loaning money to itself. It's pretty useless and makes it clear how silly the bond system is.
Then why has this emergency policy been on going since 09/10? It creates more money, devaluing current money by making it less scarce. Theft via inflation.
Central banking is a Ponzi scheme, if you don't understand this (and I know you do cos you're not stupid) you're either deluding yourself or playing devil's advocate to get (you)'s
It's a scam.
You need a growing population for this model dipshit.
Why do you think they pump in immigrants.
Bang on, cryptos will hopefully replace this fucking mess. Blue pilled (((degree in economics))) goys will hopefully come to terms with this some day
>This thread is located right next to an Illinois thread in the catalog.
Priceless.
>Money is credit in the sense that it denotes that you are owed a certain value of goods and/or services etc..
Credit is when someone (your debtor) owes you a payment and you can claim it later. With money, the exchange is simultaneous and you cannot "force" anyone to sell you something (if it's a for sale item with a price on it yes but that's because they decided to sell in the first place). So it's best defined as a mean of exchange.
Money created by fractional reserve banks is debt because they owe the money they create and lend to their depositors, who can claim it when they withdraw.
this guy gets it. Money is just a measure of account of credit and debit. The amount of """money""" in the system equals the amount of total debit (and total credit).
Of course it's virtual and potentially infinite, just like points in a game of basketball.
what you are saying is partly right.
The amount of money in circulation is all debt.
Part of it is government debt, and that is the only way to insert "net" money into the private system. Then, due to fractional reserve banking, the total amount of money in the private sector can be increased through private bank loans, that does NOT increase the NET amount of money in the private sector, because both the credit and debit part of the loan are in the private sector, but still, it can increase the punctual amount of "money" in circulation at a given moment.
The majority of "money" around (about 97% i think), is actually "created" by private banks through loans.
The end is coming I think. In the US they haven't been doing it for years. In Australia not sure, I think you have good growth so not sure they have even done it.
I'm just explaining the logic, I don't necessarily agree. I don't entirely believe in equilibrium (that markets will sort out and reach optimum with no intervention) but a lot of central banking decisions can be questioned and some of them lead to the bubble and burst cycles.
everything is a ponzi scheme on a long enough timeframe
no, sorry but you're an idiot. Cryptos will never replace a real currency. A real currency needs a central entity baking it who can do monetary policy and enforce price stability. Cryptos will never be stable in price and thus not a good currency. They are more akin to gold, and we stopped using gold as a currency a long time ago and for good reasons.
If you use something as a "currency" which is in a limited fixed amount, you are just crippling your economy and limiting your growth, also likely going into deflation and creating huge welath disparities.
>for good reasons
fuck off shill
Yes, but you also have a claim on the system. It used to be in gold.
It's the bond that holds an economic community together. You wouldn't accept money as payment if you believed that no one in your country would accept it afterwards.
>Part of it is government debt
I disagree with that. It's a detail since generally most of the money is created through fractional reserves, but you can't claim anything from the government against your € or $ since there is no gold standard. If you can't claim anything it's not debt.
Yes, with gold standard I agree. Now fiat currencies aren't backed by anything, so you can't claim anything.
No u r, I hope you're getting paid for this shit
>Cryptos will never replace a real currency
True. And there are a lot of risks (legal, technological, cyber, competitive). Those who buy and hold cryptos (especially cryptos not backed by real assets - some are backed by precious metals or real estate or shares in companies) will be killed the day the bubble bursts.
sorry dude, cryptos are great, but they are not a viable currency for a proper state. The goal of a currency is price stability, and its supply should reflect the growth and needs of the economy.
Cryptos are too volatile to be used as a proper currency, ever.
The value of a currency (at least according to mmt), is due to the demand for it. And the main demand for a certain currency is taxation in that currency.
So when you say $ are not backed by anything cause there is no gold standard, i say they are actually baked by taxes and government power.
The government requires you to pay taxes in dollars or theyll put you in jail with force, so that's what bakes the value of dollars. What you can "claim" from the government by showing them your dollars, is the ability to not be put in prison.
You're countering your own argument.
>Shouldn't be backed by something tangible, but it is backed by something tangible.
Why are u so invested in scam economics? Are u a jew?
Cryptos are only good (and should be used) for transactions that you want to keep secret. Otherwise, there is no value added.
i said it shouldnt be baked by something finite, not tangible.
If its baked by a finite resource, it is bound to swing a lot in value. Being backed by government imposition through force is a different thing.
true, they're nice for hiding money and transactions from the government. I think that's the main market for cryptos, illegal operations of any kind, and avoiding capital controls
Backing means that it corresponds directly to another value or is redeemable in that value. It's not the case with fiat currencies.
The fact that fiat are the only legal tender guarantees that there will always some demand for it (although in extreme cases - like hyperinflation - people might use cryptos instead but we're still very far from it, most people don't even know cryptos).
Force is limited and an illusion, that's why your country is run by the Mafia, not the gubberment.
The cops will take more and more bribes as the purchasing power of their Fiat salaries (latin for salt, not paper) tapers off which effectively is a debasement or inflation on the amount of force that can actually be applied.
No matter which way you cut it, I'm right and you know it. Ama
What is, the Cyprus banking fiasco of a few years ago?
And how did it effect the price of btc?
I'm not sure for Cyprus. But I know that in the case of Greece Bitcoin went up (not sure if because of Greeks though).
You and I both know what the Greece crisis was about, otherwise we wouldn't be posting in this thread, right?
Google it, it's worth learning. Particularly if you want to have more Fiat money in your account.
what was the greece crisis about according to you?
Of course you can though, practically speaking.
I don't have any money to invest right now anyway.
But if I had, I would put 90% of my money in ETFs (conservative baskets of bonds and equity). If you diversify the geography of your assets (especially if you do so that you replicate the currency exposure of an SDR) you have better protection than with cryptos.
For the remaining 10% I might invest in speculative assets in a "lottery" fashion. Cryptos are in this category. If a real good one comes out (with superior technology, partnerships and downside protection) I might invest. But at the moment there are a lot other options that I find more attractive using derivative contracts.
I'm not against crypto at all, but buying and holding with 100% of your savings is very, very risky.
What can you claim from the Canadian government with 1 CAD?
>more debt
>makes your money worth more
>need more to pay it off
>it's all nothing but an interest payment
Go to bed
Bitcoin was $7 in 2010, do you think it'll go down to that price again?
Saving the euro currency at the expense of Greek sovereignty, next question!
>better protection than with cryptos
Here I'm speaking about pure currency hedging of course. Cryptos are also contracyclical in general (but for that gold or short ETFs are even better).
You expect people to read your deluded crap but won't read a rebuttal?
>muh echo chamber
Just gotta reply to the epic truth bomb I dropped, $7 to $3000 and climbing in 7 years.
Wew lad, them gainz! Especially for a lottery meme asset
>Bitcoin was $7 in 2010, do you think it'll go down to that price again?
I don't know the fundamental value of a bitcoin so it's difficult to say. I find this doubtful if BTC remains the top crypto even if all cryptos go down. But if BTC falls out of favour because everyone switches to ETH or LTC (say, after a ban of BTC in particular or if a mafia takes control of BTC which the creator admitted is possible in the Whitepaper, or for whatever reason), it can even go to 0. This is the problem with cryptos, they don't only have the classical currency risks but also legal, cyber and competitive.
They Jewry is off the charts eh
>Have faith in Fiat goy!! Otherwise our (((plans))) will fail, don't you like your melting pot!? Don't you want your 9-5 job?
You make the incorrect assumption that central banks are owned by governments. In many countries, particularly the Western world, this is not the case. For instance, the Federal Reserve of the United States is not an actual government agency, but a private corporation owned in large part by the Rothschilds. When you owe $20 Trillion to people, they start making demands, and you are no longer in control of your nation.
As to your government debt = private sector savings, this is never true. Government debt is backed by taxes. They may be taxed on the next generation, and not yourself - but it's hardly savings. They're taking YOUR money and paying themselves, often to do shit you don't really want, and rarely ever need.
True wealth is in the production of goods and services, which is an ever decreasing portion of Western GDPs.
That's not a rebuttal, leaf. You posted an image and you expect him to formulate your argument for you out of it. How about you use the information in your graphic to formulate your own argument?
But in the last 7 years, would you say btc was a better or worse investment than real estate, gubberment bonds, blue chip stock?
Just on performance, not rhetoric cos any statement questioning the viability of btc by default applies to fiat
>Saving the euro currency at the expense of Greek sovereignty, next question!
good answer
i just said the contrary. Less government debt means less money in circulation so money will tend to appreciate (deflation). And this favors the people who are already rich (jew bankers).
Furthermore, with deflation and not enough money inserted in the system to pay back interest, regular people will fail to pay their loans back so jew bankers can obtain all their *real* assets, and force them to work for them as slaves.
The jew propaganda has been very good in making people believe that government debt ("our collective debt!") is a bad thing. It's actually a good thing for the average person. It's bad for the jewish bankers.
Good goym.
Right now it may be worse, as US legislation pending will make it extraordinarily unattractive to use here - and of course the other countries in the Western world will follow. Same will apply to Etherium as well. Federal Reserve guys are naturally unhappy at the competition.
Best way to reduce debt is by paying it off.
Sadly it's in the left's interest to only build more debt, so they can put everyone in debt-assistance programmes that only serve to fatten the state some more.
For absolute return, yes bitcoin was much better. But it was also much more risky (as measured by the volatility of the price) and still is. This is why personally, even if I was willing to bet on BTC, I would do it with only a fraction of my savings: if it goes up it's still a nice return, if it goes down at least I'm not bankrupt.
What Mario is getting at is that Illinois can't print dollars.
They legislate against cocaine too, but I'm bullish on cocaine being in fashion next year too.
This is the gradual reversing of gubberment power, they can say whatever they want but enforcement is another question entirely.
Take Australia for example; guns are illegal, but we also have a illegal gun problem cos there's guns everywhere.
Would more gun regulations and banning change this trend? Or would more of the same result in more of the same..
mm thats just like, your opinion man. The fed can be considered a government entity, it is created within the legal system of the government and the government gives it its mandate. Technically yes, private bankers sit on the board of the fed, but that's just because the government decided to make it so. In practice, the fed is a branch of the government.
Its true that real wealth is the roduction of goods and services. I of course agree on that.
Your sentence that its not savings but will go away with future taxes, is actually false.
Of course a government could eliminate their debt by taxing all the population at 100% and removing all the money from the economy, that's the only way to pay back all debt. But of course that will never happen cause no government is stupid enough to do something like that. The entire economy would collapse.
Sovreign countries don't pay their debt back in its entirety and wont tax the population in order to do it. It would be suicidal.
If we had no dollars AND no debt we still would need to pay the interest. More debt means more interest means more dollars. If we ignore it and pay it off or make more we're fucked either way. Nobody has any clue what you're talking about. You're just talking lots and shilling hard. Kikes love usury. And interest. Nothing else makes any sense. You make me tired. It is 5 in the morning in italy. Go to bed
The fed has private shareholders youre not allowed to know who any of these people nor boards are. The fuck are you talking about "in practice is government"? They dont lobby? Don't reply im gone and not reading this shit
You're really missing the point here, if you bought 10k worth of $7 btc in 2010, and forgot you owned it till just now, you'd be a millionaire in fiat currency suddenly.
Worry is in the eye of the beholder, buy and hold nigga, you won't regret it. Post this pic back to me in $7 with your initial invested amount in cryptos vs how much it's grown since.
You can name your first born son 'bruce' to honour this day. Don't waste the money putting him through college either, send him to Australia to be a mad cunt. Your dynasty starts here.