Monetary Tsunami In America!!

crashfrog writes:We want the dollar to buy less in the future than it will today. That's something we want to happen - it's better for people who have debt, which is basically everyone, and it promotes investment and the flow of capital instead of people simply hoarding dollars in a Scrooge McDuck-style money pool.Inflation is a good thing.

jar writes:Someone has to be really really stupid not to notice that the very folk that see the dollar as becoming worthless are also the very folk that are happy to take those soon to be worthless dollars in exchange for what they claim will be the only things of value."This way to the EGRESS folk."But I'll admit his spiel is almost as funny as the Biblical Prophecy preachers.

Crashfrog writes: The government should give people money, to buy things:

crashfrog writes:So why aren't you out buying that, stupid?

subbie writes:Hmmm, you mean 46 years of being wrong doesn't lead you to even consider the possibility that you're mistaken? Color me astounded.

Crashfrog writes:I don't want to take any of your money. I want to print up new money and drop it from helicopters. It's not hard to understand. I'm not suggesting that the government should raise taxes and then redistribute the revenue. I'm saying the government should print new money and give it away.

sac51495 writes:Crashfrog,Your graphs are deceptive. I suspect that this graph is based on the common economic principle that says inflation is an increase in the average price of commodities (is that right?). Lots of major economists teach this.But the other side of the story is that many major economists define inflation as an increase in the aggregate money supply. These economists define then as the root cause of inflation the printing of money, or perhaps an increase in the percentage of money printing (because naturally, for the value of the dollar to remain constant, more must be printed to keep up with population growth). Some say an increase in prices and an increase in the money supply are synonymous. Not necessarily.Printed money is not necessarily invested in the U.S. economy. Some of the money can be used to prop up dictators in foreign countries, such as Mubarak of Egypt. Or it can be invested in an attempt to knock them down, as in the case of Gaddafi of Libya. Its all political. We decided at some point that we like Mubarak (even though he is no less tyrannical than Gaddafi) and we hate Gaddafi. The solution is neutrality, but that is another subject for another thread.Or the money could be used to build squirrel bridges (about this, I am not kidding). Or it could be used to study the effects of marijuana on men living in Turkey. Or $10,000 worth of it could be used to put up one sign informing passers-by that stimulus money is being used to improve a runway. Yes, $10,000 for one sign.Spending money like this won't show up in the price of goods immediately. It just wastes wealth by investing it in useless places. Which economy do you think will do better? The one investing in squirrel bridges, or the one investing in the establishment of justice? The source of our economic theory is not in John Maynard Keynes, or even in Ludwig von Mises. It is in God.

jar writes:Can you explain how Planned Parenthood could possible be a leftest organization or are you just once again making unfounded and false statements?

ringo writes: The migrant workers and the illegals come because there's a demand for their labour. If you want to compete with them, you have to make those jobs more attractive to American workers - e.g. by paying decent wages and benefits.

DrJones* writes: Typical leftist Buz, wanting Big Government to order private companies around.

jar writes:HUH?What percentage of the cost of food is directly related to gasoline?Figures please.