Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Exchange Rate Deteriorating

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Exchange Rate Deteriorating
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:33 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

If it is positive, that is nice.

If it is negative, that's not so nice.

If it is negative $75+ TRILLION dollars, such as the case of the US government, then it is game over. You can adjust the model any way you like, you can double GDP growth rate, you can raise taxes like crazy, you can cut government expenses in half, there is no way out of that hole.

There is a way out of that hole. The first step is the federal and state governments defaulting on all debt. The second step is the legal abolition of usury and the termination of the Federal Reserve System. There's more after that, but we've already walked completely out of what is realistically possible given the temperament of the common American citizen and the politicians they elect, so we're stuck with national economic suicide being the prevailing orthodoxy.

Why would the federal government default on its debt? Debt in its own currency that it can print as it likes. Has that ever happened before? A country defaulting on debt of its own currency? What would be the benefit?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:10 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Fox wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

Why would the federal government default on its debt? Debt in its own currency that it can print as it likes.

Because either:

1) It has to pay that debt without printing money, in which case it is transferring wealth from poor taxpayers to rich debt holders, which is both morally and economically problematic.

Or.

2) It has to pay that debt by printing money, in which case it is still transferring wealth from poor taxpayers to rich debt holders, simply through a different mechanism.

Usury itself destabilizes societies, and when the government itself is the target, that only becomes more true. You ask why the government should default on debt in its own currency which it can print as it likes, when instead you should be asking why a government should be borrowing in its own currency which it can print as it likes (and just as importantly, levy taxes in as it likes). Akcrono is too much of an orthodox parrot to get the problem here (he thinks the US is some sort of for profit private enterprise which needs future investment), which is why I refuse to even bother with him, but you're a smart guy, and you can surely understand why this is not merely a problematic state of affairs, but a ridiculous one.

bucheon bum wrote:

A country defaulting on debt of its own currency? What would be the benefit?

If it just defaulted and then went right back to borrowing? None. If it defaulted and then followed up with a suite of policies designed to emancipate it from de facto financial interest rule? The potential for economic stability and increased prosperity due to societal productivity not being siphoned off by a class of semi-hostile, parasitic non-producers.

You need to ask yourself, "Who benefits from the United States being permanently in debt, and who suffers as a result of it?"

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:19 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

If it just defaulted and then went right back to borrowing? None.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Makes more sense now.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:30 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

akcrono wrote:

Defaulting on out debt is incredibly dangerous, as the US will never be able to borrow at low rates, since we'd never be trusted again.

See? The American people are beyond saving here. It's no lack of solution that traps them, it's their own urge to feel "adult" by defending a system which predates upon them. This urge makes them say things like:

akcrono wrote:

There are several valid complaints about the fed, but to get rid of it entirely and not replace it is dangerous. A central bank is very important to a stable currency.

Defaulting on the entire debt would be a waste, at this point. Destroying the Fed creates another problem, what would take its place? I agree that a central bank is important to a national currency, although we should alternative currencies just as we allow alternative opinions.

I 90% agree with akcrono's statements quoted above.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:20 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Destroying the Fed creates another problem, what would take its place? I agree that a central bank is important to a national currency ...

A central bank is not important to a national currency in itself: anything a central bank can do vis a vis currency management, a non-banking institution charged with handling monetary policy in a non-independent fashion at the behest of the national legislature can do. The importance of a central bank in a fiat currency world lies in interest rate manipulation and serving as a lender of last resort, so if usury is to be given the boot, so are central banks. But we've had the usury conversation, and I don't think your opinion on the matter has since changed.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:16 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Destroying the Fed creates another problem, what would take its place? I agree that a central bank is important to a national currency ...

Which just sounds like a mini central bank that you refuse to call a central bank. The problem with such a group (and there would absolutely be a group created for currency management), is that they would be directly accoutnable to the voters, and therefore swayed by both special interests and short term fears. One of the benefits of appointing highly qualified people to the fed is to act as a buffer against such practice.

You have an overly simplistic view of what would happen if the country that prints the world's standard currency were to default.

Fox wrote:

You need to ask yourself, "Who benefits from the United States being permanently in debt, and who suffers as a result of it?"

The United States has only paid off it's debt once in its entire history. In the meantime, it went on to redefine innovation and brought prosperity to millions. Running a reasonable budget deficit as a small % of GDP allows for the country to spend more on its citizens without increasing its debt. Yes, the majority of debt payments go to rich creditors, but the majority of out tax dollars also comes from the wealthy.

Quote:

Akcrono is too much of an orthodox parrot to get the problem here (he thinks the US is some sort of for profit private enterprise which needs future investment).

I don't recall saying that anywhere.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:18 pm Post subject:

Buggy today...

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:01 pm Post subject:

I don't see how clear I have to make the fact that I'm not interested in discussing your banal utterances with you before you'll take my meaning. Yes, yes, you have very strong opinions regarding what "counts" as a central bank, the matter of their independence, and so forth, and I'm sure you can find someone who actually wants to listen to those opinions and nod at your sagacity, but that someone isn't me. How about you and Kuros or Bucheon Bum just chat about your support for independent central banks instead? You'll find lots of common ground, and I'm sure you'll have a great time.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:54 pm Post subject: