Skip to main content

As Dick Cheney famously said, “Deficits don’t matter.” The federal debt not only never DOES get paid back but it CAN’T be paid back under our current debt-based monetary regime. This is because, in some sense, it IS our money supply. As I’ve explained in another article I’m writing now:

Virtually all money today originates as debt, and private debts eventually get repaid, so somebody has to be in “permanent” debt to maintain a stable money supply. The federal debt serves this role. (Compare charts below.) The federal debt has been the basis of the U.S. money supply ever since the Civil War, when the National Banking Act authorized private banks to issue their own banknotes backed by government bonds deposited with the U.S. Treasury.





To meet the demands of an expanding economy, the money supply must be able to expand; and when the money supply is created as a debt (as it is today), that means the federal debt must be able to expand. This was confirmed by Marriner Eccles, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, in hearings before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1941. Representative Wright Patman asked Eccles how the Federal Reserve got the money to buy government bonds.

“We created it,” Eccles replied.

“Out of what?”

“Out of the right to issue credit money.”

“And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government’s credit?”

“That is what our money system is,” Eccles replied. “If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.”

That explains why the federal debt never gets paid off but just continues to grow. The federal debt hasn’t been paid off since the presidency of Andrew Jackson nearly two centuries ago. On Jan. 8, 1835, six years into Jackson's presidency, the debt actually reached zero. According to the Bureau of Public Debt, this officially lasted one day. Not long after, America plunged into a depression.

Read more:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24559.html
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

At the present rate of increase, borrowing will go from 2 or three percent to six to twenty, as its going in Greece, at present.

As creditors refuse to lend the treasury will simple create money. This will result in runaway inflation similar to the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe.

Either, we cut the debt, or we end up as a third world nation.

GDP reached the same percentage to GDP in 1945. We reduced it then and can do so again.
quote:
Fiat money or fiat currency, usually paper money, is a type of currency whose only value is that a government made a fiat (i.e. decreed) that the money is a legal method of exchange. Unlike commodity money or representative money it is not based in another commodity such as gold or silver and is not covered by a special reserve. Fiat money holds its value so long as holders of the currency feel that they can find an exchange partner for it at some later time. Fiat money, by definition, does not have any intrinsic value, nor is it backed by anything other than the confidence holders have in the economy which is covered by the government which decrees it to have value. Its value lies solely in the expectation of later use. Most currencies in the world as of 2004 are fiat monies. However, the situation with major currencies, such as the euro, the United States dollar and the Swiss franc is more complex.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fiat_money

The Dollar only has value because of the value our economy. We don't have enough gold to cover all the paper or computer code in the banking system. Factories, infrastructure, and skilled people make up the value of the Dollar; debt has nothing to do with that value other than to be a negative drag on the value. If debt was a great thing for the economy, why are the S&P folks downgrading the US's credit worthiness?

From the founding of the country until 1913 and the creation of the Fed, "Everyday Average Joe's" money had the same buying power.  Basically a "dollar" bought the same amount in 1890 as it did in 1790.

 

Since 1913, the "dollar" has lost over 95% of it's value.

 

Back then if "Everyday Average Joe's" wanted to save money for the future, all they had to do was to stack up silver and gold coins...they would increase in value, or at the very least be "worth" as much as when he started ac***ulating them...could you do that with "dollars" today?...the question answers itself.

 

Today, "Everyday Average Joe's" have to gamble in the markets with their retirement just to keep up.

 

Everytime the Fed increases the money supply, it reduces the value of the money in "Everyday Average Joe's" wallet...it is an evil hidden tax...the Fed expands the money supply for the government to "buy" more and spend more...without "paying" for it with direct taxes...it pays for it by reducing our purchasing power.

 

What you have described is an evil, insidious monetary system that benefits the politicians and politcally connected rich...and destroys the wealth of "Everyday Average Joe".

 

Question:  If someone offered you $5000 in cash or $5000 in gold and silver at today's prices...free and clear...it's your $5000.  Either cash or in gold and silver.  The only catch is...You have to WAIT five years before you spend it.

 

Which would you take?

 

Talking about the "price of gold" is starting at the wrong end of the horse. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold. If the price of gold expressed in Federal Reserve Note "dollars" is high, that is an indication of the size of the pile of FRNs you must have to exchange them for gold. The more of something you have, the less valuable it becomes.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:

The more of something you have, the less valuable it becomes.


 

Yes, this is exactly what I said...except when the Fed prints money or adds zeros to some politically connected institution's bank account, they get the "use" of the dollar at current value.  When it filters out into the economy...inflation...and less "value" for the money in the average person's wallet.

 

It's a hidden, unseen tax...then when inflation hits, of course spend happy politicians will blame the "economic troubles" on "capitalism" or "free markets" or some other nonsense...they'll blame everything except the real culprits:  corporatism, neo-merchantilism, artificial interest rates, monopoly on the money supply...just about every aspect of the economy interferred with by the government. 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×