I got bent over twice yesterday..
1) I woke to the news of Obama staying
2) My first colonoscopy
The good news is the colonoscopy went fine.
Printable View
I got bent over twice yesterday..
1) I woke to the news of Obama staying
2) My first colonoscopy
The good news is the colonoscopy went fine.
AKA Carlos, AKA Rocky, AKA Hardrock, AKA Cattails, real name Carl :happy0001:, new plan, move to Mexico, denounce my US citizenship, become citizen of Mexico, come back to US and live off government as Carlos. :4chsmu1:Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
The colonoscopy was the best part of your day. One of my best golf buddies is a general surgeon, we've played for years, always told me he would have my ass one of these days. Well he's had it a few time now and getting ready for another one. On a serious note it is one of the most important things you can do when you turn 50.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueboss
glad you got it done.
Now, how is everything with the back? I know the birds you killed didn't hurt picking them up. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueboss
This is what winning looks like:Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
http://images.bluegartr.com/bucket/g...47fea5abda.PNG
I wonder what portion of those with college degrees understand the word "unsustainable" in reference to the federal government's spending? For grins and giggles they will be introduced to the word austerity in a decade or so too.
Why wait a decade for austerity? You can look to several European countries for how well austerity measures work during times of deep economic recession (hint: they don't). As for your initial question, I'd wager a decent percentage of the college educated understand how economics works better than anyone on this board. At the very least, all the economics majors do. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
I said the same thing to a few friends yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by cattails
I would be willing to bet they don't understand US economics and what it takes to run this country correctly and in many cases their own households based on all of them I see lying in the streets on Wall Street, San Fran, Chicago, and I would put Cititzen up against any of them and he would win a big majority of the time, he would have them so tied up in trying to figure out what he was saying they would look like idiots when he was done with them. Throw in DAllen, cattails, Darrell, Darryl, Mick, dan, doc, cathot, and a few others and I would take my chances with my money.
I have been around alot of young men college educated up to the age of 40 and a vast majority of them are more interested in what app they have than what is going on in this country and what is about to hit us. Between their apps and their video games, they haven't grown up yet, they may do well at their work, but once they leave their brains go into neutral and it is why we lost the last two elections because they are too much mush brains taught by their ultra liberal profs to think and they are all about ideology and not the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
I guess that's why so many college graduates of today end up with huge student loan debt, no real marketable skills and a degree that is pretty much worthless. Yeah, they show a real knowledge of economics. NOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Exactly....Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
Hey it's a great plan, join the worthless that live off the working.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukcatlvr
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Skip my daughter is highly educated from University of Chicago, masters working on PHD, travels the world doing research. Can't see the forest for the trees, die hard Obama, we can't talk about it, like talking to a wall. They live in Lake Shore, both highly educated and blind to what is really happening. Plan to visit during the up coming holiday and election is off the table. Just wait tile they get the new tax structure.
Actually, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Sadly in your chart there's no way to measure experience. Formal education is easily measured, but the kind of education that teaches common sense has no yardstick.
I'm "highly educated" in a formal sense, so I know of which I speak, and I knew lots of people who graduated with me who weren't nearly as "smart" as people who never went to college when it came to political economy. The reason is they had no experience.
In the theoretical world all the leftist theories sound great. That's why they survive in the ivory towers of academia. They don't fall apart until they hit the real world, where they destroy the very fabric of supplying the needs of the consumer that built this nation. People who work doing that every day know that truth, even when not at an "educated" level where they can show the micro economics supporting it.
Of course "educated" means a lot of different things. First let's peel off the Liberal Arts as any help with understanding political economy. Fine majors, nothing against any of it, but just b/c you know literature or a foreign language doesn't mean you understand more about how the free market works than a self employed plumber or a third generation farmer.
We can also eliminate the sciences and mathematics. While they create a certain discipline through the scientific method, since they dont' study and test economic things it's not particularly helpful in that regard. Maybe a little in conditioning a way of thinking, but not much and certainly not more than growing up in the family business.
Even within economics let's just whack out macro economists. Some have it right, most don't, and if you ask 10 of them a question you'll get 14 answers. Macro economics outside of the Chicago school and rational expectations takes a backward approach, ignoring the individual incentive based decision making of each person in the economy that together make up the macro behavior and instead trying to look at the macro and define it without the micro that composes it.
The best part is I get to say these things b/c I in fact studied economics. I've studied macro with a Fed Reserve board member, political economy with the chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisors. So this isn't just me dismissing the educated, this is me knowing my mother who brought herself up by her bootstraps knows 10x as much about how the economy really works than 90% of the people in those classes. She can't tell you about the elasticity of demand in formal terms, but she understands it intuitively and uses the principle of it in her job regularly.
However, the most important part is this:
The notion that formal education is some indicator of understanding of political economy or especially the true nature of the American Experiment is totally unsupported. The American Experiment is based on self reliance and individual liberty. That isn't something one is educated to understand or desire. One either believes in those things or one doesn't.
America wasn't founded with the goal of being the wealthiest nation, or even the healthiest, or anything else. It was founded to be the most free, the nation with the most individual liberty.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You either believe that liberty cannot be compromised for security, economic or otherwise, or you don't. Formal education has nothing to do with it.
It's no coincidence the red states are states with high percentages of people who are self reliant and either own or work in small businesses. They are more self reliant and closer to the economic realities of the free market. They are on the front lines of the notion that to survive you have to meet the needs of others by providing a product they want.
No they didn't all go to college, and having done more than my share of going I can safely say they didn't miss a whole lot when it comes to understanding the nature of America or the vision of the Founders or how economics really works. They may not have the formal eloquence to describe it, but they know it far better than someone who has only seen it from a book.
Citizen is my man, didn't take long.:)
Sadly I'd be disqualified b/c I have a formal economic education and we need people who know this stuff without having had the classes so as to make the case. However I have a list as long as my arm of people I'd be happy to sponsor in such a test.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Of course the reason I really see this the way it is has nothing to do with that education. I could have believed what Lawrence Meyer taught me about macro economics, a devout follower of the IS/LM model. What kept me from it was the understanding I had from outside the classroom.
I grew up with my mother working for herself her whole life, in a family of farmers who by definition work for themselves. I arrived at college already understanding how things really worked b/c I had been taught it in the school of hard knocks.
I took classes with both the regular full time students, 90% of whom had no real work experience, and with the guys coming back to get a degree to be able to move up in their businesses who had decades of real world experience. The difference was beyond stark.
Since I got out I've helped a lot of friends and some family to "formalize" their thoughts for a proposal or RFP or some other written or oral presentation. I'm great at taking it and making it sound sophisticated. I learned it in business school, where so many are in love with the latest buzz words which are the same thing as the old buzz words just sounding different.
What I don't have to do in those cases is teach anyone what they want to say. They know the subject matter, they just need the $5 words I learned in school.
My mother had to get a 2 year associate degree to get some of her designations for real estate, but she knows more about the function of markets than any PhD. I predicted this Fannie Mae disaster to several of my Wall Street friends in detail. They have come back to me and asked me how I knew and I tell them b/c I was smart enough to learn from my mother.
Once you learn to follow the money, to think intuitively in terms of the incentives each party faces, you can see how things will play out. All you have to do is walk through them.
That's no some great feat. Anyone with real experience does it every day. I'm nothing special in that regard. The only difference is that my formal education has allowed me to present it in a formal manner, using the right terms to describe the inescapable truths that need not be taught to anyone who has had to survive by meeting the economic needs of others through supply and demand.
So it sounds better b/c of the $5 words I was taught and b/c I'm idiot enough to work through the steps in a presentation fashion, but no education in the world teaches like the school of hard knocks if you are willing to work hard enough to graduate from it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#ixzz2BkMNnwaQ
Voting for the status quo equates to little understanding of economics
"We can probably get our minds around a million dollars, but beyond that the numbers become mere abstractions. They simply cease to be real. They are not real, because we really cannot visualize them in a meaningful way. We may have gotten used to hearing about billions, but trillions are really beyond our mental grasp. How many of us, for example, can state the number of zeros in a trillion without having to count them? There are twelve. Now try to mentally visualize the number one trillion. Can you do it? Can you really see a "1" followed by twelve zeros in your mind? I can visualize a billion, but that is only nine zeros: three groups of three. It takes some effort to mentally see four groups of three zeros.
Suppose someone was going to give you $1 every second of every minute, of every hour, of every day without stopping. How long would it take them to give you $1 trillion? Well, let's see. There are 60 seconds in a minute, so that is $60 every minute. Then there are 60 minutes in every hour, so that means we would receive $3,600 every hour. Wow! Even my plumber doesn't charge that much. In a single day, therefore, you would receive $86,400. Most people don't get that much in a year.
Since there are 365¼ days in a year, at the rate of $1 per second the pile of dollar bills would amount to only $31,557,600. Now we are talking real money. That is a lottery jackpot most of us would love to win. But that is still just a number in the low millions.
So, at a dollar a second how long would we have to wait before we could see the pile grow to $1 trillion? Are you ready for the answer? Drum roll, please. It would take over 31,688 years. Even at $10 per second they would still have to have started handing you the money more than a thousand years before the birth of Christ! And even at $100 per second none of us could live long enough to get it all.
At $100 per second we are still only talking about $8,640,000 a day. So in a year you would have accumulated only a little over $3 billion. It will take more than 316 years to reach $1 trillion.
A trillion dollars is so much money that you and I would probably not be able to spend that much for ourselves unless we bought a small country somewhere. Most of us would have trouble trying to spend a billion dollars, and a trillion is a thousand billion. So, if the government wants to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, it would have to do the equivalent of cutting a billion dollars from each of one thousand government programs.
You could reduce the government's defense expenditures to zero, and you would still not be cutting a trillion dollars from the budget.
The frightening truth is that Congress cannot easily cut $1 trillion from the deficit. The reality is that if you gave a new congressman on his first day on the job a copy of the budget, and told him to cut $10,000 from the budget every second of every day nonstop, his term in Congress would be up before he had cut out $1 trillion.
The numbers are too big, because the federal government is too big."
It's absolutely true the numbers are too big, certainly for anyone to understand at a fundamental level. The government is far too big, and has amassed such a debt that it will take decades to cut enough and grow the economy enough to even get it within reason.
We can't even get to a balanced budget, and even that would leave us with every penny of the existing debt and the massive interest payments, we just wouldn't be adding more.
Like someone maxing out their credit cards, we're being eaten alive by the interest. This isn't a hard concept to get, and it's not hard to see how it ends up either.
You'd be wrong. But you're wrong on most things, so that's not a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Thanks, all is well with both ends. The neck/back is good to go and we did get after the birds it was a short season this year but we knocked'm down three weekends in a row and then they just dried up. Weird weather I suppose had a lot to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Now we're going to have to hunker down for the next four years and watch the sheep follow him over the cliff.
If you have no formal economic education, you cannot pretend to understand how the political economy works. Reading articles from the Cato Institute doesn't make you a competent economist. Understanding how and why systems are connected and how they work to create a modern world economy does.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
And Austrian economic theories sound great, too! Problem is too much negative liberty, while it sounds great in theory, is bad for anyone that isn't already rich.Quote:
In the theoretical world all the leftist theories sound great. That's why they survive in the ivory towers of academia. They don't fall apart until they hit the real world, where they destroy the very fabric of supplying the needs of the consumer that built this nation. People who work doing that every day know that truth, even when not at an "educated" level where they can show the micro economics supporting it.
Of course "educated" means a lot of different things. First let's peel off the Liberal Arts as any help with understanding political economy. Fine majors, nothing against any of it, but just b/c you know literature or a foreign language doesn't mean you understand more about how the free market works than a self employed plumber or a third generation farmer.
Self-employed plumbers or farmers have not the slightest inkling of how the economy works. They know they provide a service or goods that people want and buy. That's about as far as their "economic" understanding goes, and really that's more business understanding. They don't know how the monetary system works, how the US economy is tied to the economies of the world, or what "world reserve currency" means. Working for yourself doesn't give you an understanding of anything other than how to run a business. Business knowledge =/= economic knowledge.
[QUOTE]We can also eliminate the sciences and mathematics. While they create a certain discipline through the scientific method, since they dont' study and test economic things it's not particularly helpful in that regard. Maybe a little in conditioning a way of thinking, but not much and certainly not more than growing up in the family business.
Even within economics let's just whack out macro economists. Some have it right, most don't, and if you ask 10 of them a question you'll get 14 answers. Macro economics outside of the Chicago school and rational expectations takes a backward approach, ignoring the individual incentive based decision making of each person in the economy that together make up the macro behavior and instead trying to look at the macro and define it without the micro that composes it.
This is all great, but it doesn't mean anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than an ability to repeat Cato Institute BS about bootstraps and self-reliance and unpredictability of human behavior, etc. Your mother I'm sure is a great lady and I applaud her for what she's done. But pulling yourself up by your bootstraps doesn't grant you understanding of economics, either. Studying economics gives you an understanding of economics.Quote:
The best part is I get to say these things b/c I in fact studied economics. I've studied macro with a Fed Reserve board member, political economy with the chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisors. So this isn't just me dismissing the educated, this is me knowing my mother who brought herself up by her bootstraps knows 10x as much about how the economy really works than 90% of the people in those classes. She can't tell you about the elasticity of demand in formal terms, but she understands it intuitively and uses the principle of it in her job regularly.
However, the most important part is this:
The notion that formal education is some indicator of understanding of political economy or especially the true nature of the American Experiment is totally unsupported. The American Experiment is based on self reliance and individual liberty. That isn't something one is educated to understand or desire. One either believes in those things or one doesn't.
The rest of this is idealistic drivel with little relevance to the original question. It's just a massive distraction. I have no interest in debating what you believe to be the "original intent of the founders" in relation to how this economy works, because it isn't relevant. The founders couldn't foresee the size and scope of the US economy, how it would relate to the world economy, or how big the numbers would get. It's why they didn't specify an economic system, only what the government needed to accomplish.Quote:
America wasn't founded with the goal of being the wealthiest nation, or even the healthiest, or anything else. It was founded to be the most free, the nation with the most individual liberty.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You either believe that liberty cannot be compromised for security, economic or otherwise, or you don't. Formal education has nothing to do with it.
It's no coincidence the red states are states with high percentages of people who are self reliant and either own or work in small businesses. They are more self reliant and closer to the economic realities of the free market. They are on the front lines of the notion that to survive you have to meet the needs of others by providing a product they want.
No they didn't all go to college, and having done more than my share of going I can safely say they didn't miss a whole lot when it comes to understanding the nature of America or the vision of the Founders or how economics really works. They may not have the formal eloquence to describe it, but they know it far better than someone who has only seen it from a book.
I did want to address the highlighted statement above because it is insanely hilarious.
Red states are red states because they're full of uneducated, ignorant, poor, white people. Red states take far far far far more money from the federal government for social welfare programs (Social Security/Disability, food stamps, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid) than they give in federal taxes. Red states are red, not because they have a bunch of "self-sufficient go-getters" that just want Uncle Sam outta their pockets, but because the GOP has convinced poor white people that BS like gay marriage and abortion matter more than their own financial security. Oh, they also all believe that MURKA won't be safe until/unless we turn the Middle East into a glass sheet. The most successful places in the country - urban areas - vote Democratic. And it's NOT because those areas are full of people that do nothing but leech off the government taxpayer.
This is a much better post that asks good questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
You cannot, in any way, relate US government spending and debt to personal spending and debt. They have almost nothing to do with one another, and the reason is simple - Because you nor I can print our own money to pay our debts.
:party0052:
You mean like Paul Krugman, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Are you talking about those people wanting their Obamaphones, their Obama dollars, are worried about their ladyparts, and don't know who the VP is? Who knew these people were examples of highly educated people?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
I see what you did there.:trink39: I hope that's a super-duper sized box.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Do you have a point or are you just having fun spouting conservative talking points like they're at all meaningful?Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
FixedQuote:
Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy and France.
Clearly you don't understand "political" economics. Thats different than other kinds of economics. In other types you can't spend more than you take in but with "Political" economics you can. All you need to do is give free **** away to 50.00001% of the voters and you can spend until your heart content. Then when you become overdrawn, you demonize the rich as not paying enough despite them supporting 90% of the federal gov't, or you raise the debt limit so you can borrow from future generations or you just print more money and ignore the fact that all that does is devalue the dollar and make everybody who has money poorer. That other type of economics does not apply because "political" economics means you write the rules as you go along then blame somebody else for your failures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
I'm on my phone, so this will be kind of short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
It is very different. The reason it's different is because the fed can print money to meet its debt obligations. And because the US dollar is the world reserve currency, inflation isn't an issue because demand for the dollar will be there for the foreseeable future.
The reason Greece and Spain are different is because they were not on their own currency, they were on the Euro.
Now, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are. :sAng_soapbox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Nope, just pointing out the contradictions of your learned pontifications.For every unedumacated red-stater, there are five uneducated palm-upward nanny-staters.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Lord I knew this would take a while. Going to have to break this up in parts for time reasons but I promise I'll keep going till I get to your condescending insults about those who live in red states. Can't wait for that one.
First things first, this comment:
If you have no formal economic education, you cannot pretend to understand how the political economy works. Reading articles from the Cato Institute doesn't make you a competent economist. Understanding how and why systems are connected and how they work to create a modern world economy does.
Given your other reference to the Cato institute and me below I think this is directed at me and not the royal "you". I've tried to avoid listing my specific qualifications in large part b/c I don't think they are significant to the discussion (ad hominem fallacy) and it sounds horribly egotistical even though I don't hold paper degrees in terribly high regard. To be clear I have a Bachelors and MBA from a top 20 university including dual masters concentrations in finance and operations and minors in American history and economics. Numerous grad level classes in both history and economics in addition to the undergraduate minor. So I have more than a "read Cato Institute" level of education in the subject.
That said, I love the notion that unless you've been taught something you can't know it. It's nonsense. I once had a discussion with the Dean about this subject, whether a college diploma meant you knew the subject or if it meant simply you'd taken X classes in the subject. He lamented that while it would be nice to be the former, the truth is all they can certify is the latter. That is to say they can prove they led you to the water, they can't prove you drank it in sufficient quantity to be hydrated.
Many of the great minds had no formal education in their field of excellence. Anecdotally we can list
Henry Knox, a book store owner who became one of the finest artillery and logistical officers in US history, Thomas Edison who had a whopping 3 months total of formal schooling his whole life, Benjamin Franklin who had 2 years of education before he was 10, THomas Paine, a staymaker who stopped school at age 13, this is a long list. Two of the great minds on which American political economy is based.
But let's continue on how education is so key to political economy understanding. 25 of the 55 Delegates did not have college degrees. 30 did and that's a super high number, but remember at that time education prior to college was often not structured but a classical version of "reading of the law",which is how one became an attorney. It was far from "formal" with grades and courses but was a matter of reading a lot. Being well read and able to read in Latin, Greek etc. was considered high education and in fact was the entrance requirement to schools like Harvard. There was no standard education at all.
So in essence what these men did was, to borrow your description, read a lot of Cato Institute papers. They educated themselves through reading, something you dismiss as a preposterous basis for claiming to know a subject. As if learning requires buildings and test scores.
Of course of those 25 we have George Washington, a man who understood this nation perhaps more than any other who had almost no "formal" education. Roger sherman had no formal education beyond grammar school. Alexander Hamilton dropped out of King's College to serve in the Revolutionary Army. Anyway, it's a long list of brilliant men.
Then there's the great industrialists. Andrew Carnegie had no education whatsoever and was a child laborer. John Astor didn't have any. Vanderbilt quit school at age 11. John Gates (who did graduate college but had no education in oil or business or certainly not barbed wire). Jay Gould didn't go to college. JP Morgan's education was formal but bizarre thanks to his father, which included a degree in art history and a near obsessive focus on languages. Certainly no education in the many fields which he would manage as a financier. Rockefeller's "higher education" was a 10 week course in bookkeeping, the equivalent of a vocational school today.
Then some more modern examples, from the computer revolution, America's 2nd great economic step forward after industrialization. Notice how I picked the key economic occurrences in America? Gates, who while educated still dropped out of Harvard without a degree and without much of any formal computer training, or Steve Jobs who dropped out of college after 6 months, Steve Wozniak who dropped out of Berkeley after a year to design the Apple I. The entire computer revolution was mostly driven by college dropouts who had no high and mighty formal education in computers or engineering at all. They were just smart.
So the nation was founded by men with no "formal education", was run by men with no formal education, and the great industrial revolution that made us the most powerful nation on earth was driven by men with no formal education, and the most technologically advanced economic event was driven by men with little or no "formal education".
I could do this all day, but suffice to say there is a huge body of anecdotal evidence to disprove your position. So much so in fact it's hard to maintain your hypothesis that if you "have no formal education in XXXXX you cannot pretend to understand how XXXXX works."
I have shown how specifically in the field of political economy some of the greatest thinkers on the subject had little or no formal education in it, as well as how many of those who most impacted the economic structure of modern America had little formal education.
What this shows is that your inverted hypothesis is false. It is true a formal education can show an understanding of a subject such as economics, but that affirmative cannot be reversed to then say formal education is what defines an understanding of economics and lack of such means you don't understand.
It has to do with the notion of learning versus the notion of sitting in class. You can sit in class and pass them till the end of days and still not have learned what someone with a thirst for learning could learn by spending time in the library without teachers and clocks and core course requirements. For literally 1,000s of years the greatest minds in history learned just that way.
So yes you can teach yourself political economy if you are an honest and dedicated student.
In fact I'll let you in on a secret -- those who have to be fed knowledge and cannot learn on their own and teach themselves as they need are the ones who are at a disadvantage in understanding. If you can go learn to weld b/c you need to weld something you are developing a mind that can grasp new concepts and apply critical thinking and reason and draw from other fields instead of just memorizing.
Formal school is largely memorizing. Doing that makes you no smarter than my computer, and with political economy in academia it's a severe case of garbage in garbage out.
Wow. Just wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
It's OK b/c we can devalue our currency as much as we want and demand for it won't change and it will always be the reserve currency of the world just because.
This view is a big reason why we're in this mess. Currency devaluation is costless. wow.
PS - Greece is lucky it's on the Euro, if it weren't it would be so bad off it would make their current state look like paradise. They'd have complete currency collapse, hyperinflation where it would take a wheelbarrow load to buy bread.
Forget the buttered popcorn. Bring me a big tub of popcorn with dark chocolate, white chocolate and raspberry drizzles.:happy0030:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
US debt isn't like consumer debt b/c the US government can just print more money.
I didn't see the first post of this, but between the two this is clearly the statement. And I'm having to defend my formal knowledge of economics? It'll be a while before I can completely formulate a response.
Printing currency to cover debt, devalues currency for that debt and any other spending in the consumer economy. If anything, that situation is worse than the debt itself.
Do you really believe this???? :sCo_huhsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
We're not devaluing the currency. That's the point. There is incredible demand - worldwide - for the US dollar. Because EVERYTHING is purchased with US dollars. OPEC prices oil in US dollars. Exports are bought and sold in US dollars. Until demand for the dollar dries up, which is likely to NEVER happen, it is almost impossible for the United States to devalue its currency to the point of hyperinflation. The Fed has been holding interest at or below 0% for years now, and inflation is at barely 3%. We're nowhere near this hyperinflation debt crisis nightmare the GOP wants people to believe we are, and we're not getting closer to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
You CANNOT relate the debt crises of Greece or Spain to the United States because their currency isn't in demand around the world and neither is the Euro. Hyperinflation of currency occurs when supply vastly outstrips demand. The US isn't anywhere close to that happening because our dollar is used by most of the world to buy and trade internationally.
In most situations, that is true. But because the currency of the United States is used by the worldwide economy as the reserve currency (i.e., countries all over the world buy VAST quantities of it because it is used for global trade pricing, such as oil), it doesn't hold true for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof