--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > No, cutting benefits is not the way to solve the problem. > To get the economy to a point where we can deal with the > debt, we need to increase demand, and that will only > happen if people have money to spend on goods and services. > Taking austerity measures is exactly the opposite of what > we should be doing.
When I said 'benefits' I should've said 'spending' instead. Benefits like Medicare and Social Security, of course they shouldn't be cut. But at the same time, they're not really benefits, they're entitlements. We pay into it, and therefore we're entitled to it. However, I will say that your idea that 'taking austere measures' is uncalled for indicates you have a positive outlook on the American economy and are convinced that there is an easy way out of this mess. I hope you're right, but I don't think so. > > No, there's no reason why we have to have a third-world > economy. No reason at all? That, to me, sounds like typical American optimism. We will never have to endure through the hardships that other people and other nations go through, because we are above those hardships. But irresponsible spending, fiscal policies, and unnecessary wars could very easily lead to a collapsed economy. For some odd reason people think we're above what the Soviet Union experienced in the early 90's. The basis of thinking that way eludes me to this day. It's no different than some of my family members and friends who used to look down on people who live in trailer parks or lower income housing. They think they are so far above everyone else's lower standards of living. Now they are living that way due to poor personal and financial decisions throughout their lives. No different than us as a nation and our sense of being above the challenges that face most countries. > > It's no different than a family earning $50k a year who > > decides to go $1 million in debt. Eventually bankruptcy > > is inevitable. > > No, the government is not like a family. That's a > destructive myth that makes no economic sense at all. A > family can't print its own money. Yes it is a lot like a families income because the government can't print money either. The Federal Reserve prints the money, which is a private bank (although by definition serves public interest). So essentially the government is borrowing the money from the Federal Reserve with the promise of paying it back at a future date. The only difference is that when you or I borrow from a bank, we are borrowing money that already exists and is accounted for in the total amount of dollars in circulation. And we are agreeing to work for the money at a later date in order to pay back the bank. When the government borrows from the Federal Reserve, not only are they committing YOU, ME, AND EVERYONE ELSE to work for the money to pay it back later, but they are also ALTERING THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR simultaneaously because the Federal Reserve IS THE SOURCE of all US Dollars. Double whammy. And to make matters worse, all the money that we have to work for in order to pay the Federal Reserve back, we, as a nation, don't feel like it. To do that much work and not get an IPOD and sports car for it is unacceptable according to our standards. > There is no immediate danger from the deficit; the medium- > term situation will automatically improve as a result of > spending cuts that are already mandated, so that isn't a > concern. Long-term is a problem, but trying to deal with > it during a recession with austerity measures will throttle > the recovery. It's well established that the way to deal > with a recession is deficit spending to increase jobs and > demand. No 'immediate' danger? We really don't know. The Federal Reserve's transparency, or lack thereof, does not indicate how close or far we are from permanent or irreversable damage. I do know that if we had the same surpluses that we had during the Clinton Era every year, we would get this debt paid off in about 164 years given our current debt. When GWB took over, if we would've maintained Clinton's surpluses, we would've solved the national debt by the year 2052 (roughly). You may want to look into Federal Reserve conspiracies. Some of them are stupid, IMO. But some of them really get you thinking about what the hell they are doing and why. They won't tell us what they have in stock and the government and journalism does a poor job of educating us on how it works and why we went to that system in the first place. The first depression a couple of decades is, according to most sources, the primary instigator. One popular theory is that the Federal Reserve wants the US to be indebted so far that it is irreversible. Eventually a merge occurs between the Fed and other banks throughout the world, creating a leviathon banking institution that controls the world. Excerpt from a site below: "The Federal Reserve System has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1913. These criticisms include the assertions that the Federal Reserve System violates the United States Constitution and that it impedes economic prosperity. Critic Miranda Fleschert contends that the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks (as opposed to the entire Federal Reserve System) consider themselves to be private corporations with private funding. The movement to audit the Federal Reserve System has gained national traction; a bill related to the movement was passed through the House of Representatives in 2012. Many critics see auditing the Federal Reserve System as a means of gaining insight into an institution they contend has historically had little to no transparency, that has acted without congressional approval or oversight, and that has the power to create and loan U.S. dollars based on a monetary policy DETERMINED BY ITS OWN INTERESTS" > Once the economy is back on its feet, it will be possible to > address the long-term problem without incurring suffering. > > Krugman: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/opinion/krugman-the-dwindling-deficit.html > > And of course, as Krugman points out, addressing climate > change is *vastly* more urgent than reducing the deficit. Well, you are certainly more optimistic than I am. And I sincerely hope you and Krugman are correct. However, keep in mind that Krugman is strongly criticized for not conveying the reality of our economic situation. I am certain that neither you or I are experts on economics, and neither of us can really contest Krugman's work, or any other economist for that matter. But I do know that this nation is in unchartered territory, and when you are in unknown territory all the expert's advice needs to be taken like a grain of salt. I could also point out quite a few economists that contradict Krugman's theory that it's 'not that bad'. In regards to the Federal Reserve printing money, they print dollar bills. And what is a dollar bill? Some say it is a piece of paper with a number on it, and so it doesn't matter. But it's not just a piece of paper. It is a promise. It is a promise to provide something of service or value, either at the time of the exchange of the piece of paper, or at a later date. When people start scheming of ways to acquire these pieces of paper, a moral imbalance occurs. People who are clever start finding ways to acquire these pieces of paper without doing much of substantial value. More and more pieces of paper begin to travel in the direction of a crowd of people who provide and produce nothing valuable for society. And thus, an economic black hole is created. Banks, policies, and economics are not numbers and pieces of paper. They are accountability measures for the moral guidelines that people in society utilize with each other when trading goods and services. Unfortunately the clever people in our society are growing and the moral people are shrinking. People don't care what they do or how they do it, they want pieces of paper with numbers on them and the things that those pieces of paper can get them. I don't know if you ever watched South Park before. Judging from the tone of your posts, you would probably find it vulgar, obnoxious, unevolved, and immature. But the show, IMO, is genious when it comes to depicting how screwed up our society has become. I would strongly suggest to watch it and just pay attention to the behaviour of Eric Cartman. He is the absolute personification of greed, self-centeredness, self-serving, and pretty much self-everything. He will plot to lie, steal, cheat and kill friends and family just to get what he wants. He talks to his mother in ways I would expect a Prisoner of War to be talked to (much like children disrespecting adults today). Everything in his life is about getting what he wants from sunrise to sunset. He has no morals, and nothing whatsoever to offer anyone in terms of value to them. I mention this character because the more I see him on the show, the more I see him in everybody in my life. Obviously to a lower extent for 'most' people. What's worse is that these characters are the most loved and most revered in our society today - Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, .50 Cent, Octomom, Honey Boo-Boo, Donald Trump. And as long as that is the direction that our society keeps moving in, I really don't know how you can have a positive outlook on the economy, or anything for that matter. seekliberation
