|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 27 2023 05:50 Acrofales wrote:
Eh, there's plenty of people who oppose X after they have taken advantage of it. The candidate for the VVD in the Netherlands opposes asylum laws and says they should be far more restrictive. Her family and her came across the Mediterranean in a leaky boat and were granted asylum. Under the VVD's plans her family would not have been granted asylum.
I would never vote for the VVD. But I do agree with the basic idea that just because you took advantage of something doesn't mean you must ideologically support it. For instance, there are government subsidies that I vote against, and feel shouldn't exist, but as long as they do it just makes economic sense to use them.
I agree with your point but the example is not true. Her father was in personal danger and refugees like that will still be allowed to bring their family even under the VVDs plans.
On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting.
Liberalism (the way we use the word in Europe) is fiscally conservative and socially progressive so they could fit. Not every liberal is an extreme libertarian. E.g. The Economist as a newspaper is liberal but still moderate.
|
I haven't watched tonight's Republican primary debate #2 yet - none of the seven candidates will beat Trump anyway - but I heard that Nikki Haley said to Vivek Ramaswamy: "Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber."
|
On September 28 2023 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I haven't watched tonight's Republican primary debate #2 yet - none of the seven candidates will beat Trump anyway - but I heard that Nikki Haley said to Vivek Ramaswamy: "Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber."
The funny part to me about that is without context I'd be 50/50 on that being a compliment or insult.
|
Are the Ramaswamy things real? He actually suggested closing IRS, FBI, food-aid and whatever the teaching/education body is called?
This is so stupid that in the times of Trump I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually ends up as the number 2 Republican runner right behind Trump.
|
On September 28 2023 15:48 Oukka wrote:
Are the Ramaswamy things real? He actually suggested closing IRS, FBI, food-aid and whatever the teaching/education body is called?
Sounds like pretty normal republican talking points? Who was the guy that suddenly whore glasses to look good smart after his first failed run? From Texas iirc?
|
On September 28 2023 15:48 Oukka wrote:
Are the Ramaswamy things real? He actually suggested closing IRS, FBI, food-aid and whatever the teaching/education body is called?
This is so stupid that in the times of Trump I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually ends up as the number 2 Republican runner right behind Trump.
A lot of what VR says are pretty standard Republican talking points, sadly. VR and DeSantis and Haley (and maybe a few others) are "competing" for 2nd place in the primary polls, but they're all about 40-50 points below Trump: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/
Trump has the Republican primary already locked up, unless he dies or is somehow found ineligible to run. The only way anyone else can win the Republican primary is if Trump is disqualified/removed somehow.
On September 28 2023 19:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 15:48 Oukka wrote:
Are the Ramaswamy things real? He actually suggested closing IRS, FBI, food-aid and whatever the teaching/education body is called?
Sounds like pretty normal republican talking points? Who was the guy that suddenly whore glasses to look good smart after his first failed run? From Texas iirc?
I think you're referring to Rick Perry. He couldn't even name the departments he wanted to eliminate; I believe that Ron Paul or some other opponent had to help him out during that presidential primary debate, a while back.
|
On September 28 2023 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 19:52 Velr wrote:On September 28 2023 15:48 Oukka wrote:
Are the Ramaswamy things real? He actually suggested closing IRS, FBI, food-aid and whatever the teaching/education body is called?
Sounds like pretty normal republican talking points? Who was the guy that suddenly whore glasses to look good smart after his first failed run? From Texas iirc? I think you're referring to Rick Perry. He couldn't even name the departments he wanted to eliminate; I believe that Ron Paul or some other opponent had to help him out during that presidential primary debate, a while back. Was he the guy that wanted to close the Department of Energy until he learned they actually maintain the US's nuclear arsenal and he had to walk that back?
|
Norway28674 Posts
Yeah that was Rick Perry. The 'oops' that follows the 'I guess my run just ended' is pretty awesome.
And under Trump, he, of course, ended up heading the department he forgot that he wanted to eliminate.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting.
Have a balanced checkbook and have surplus instead of a deficit. I’m not against social programs as long as they are well thought out and effective, but I can’t get behind anything until we start paying off our national debt. Once we get better about paying the bills, I’m all for focusing on programs that improve the well being of others.
I’m not even against the idea of Universal Health Care, but I’d like us to focus on our debt first and let’s be honest: When UHC was originally suggested by the left, it looked nothing like what ended up passing. The right destroyed what it should have been through so many concessions and now we are stuck with a really crappy negative version that I think both sides aren’t impressed with. I’d focus more on voting for the right side with the right programs, but I won’t do that if “mom and dad” keep maxing out their credit cards.
|
On September 28 2023 20:36 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting. Have a balanced checkbook and have surplus instead of a deficit. I’m not against social programs as long as they are well thought out and effective, but I can’t get behind anything until we start paying off our national debt. Once we get better about paying the bills, I’m all for focusing on programs that improve the well being of others. I’m not even against the idea of Universal Health Care, but I’d like us to focus on our debt first and let’s be honest: When UHC was originally suggested by the left, it looked nothing like what ended up passing. The right destroyed what it should have been through so many concessions and now we are stuck with a really crappy negative version that I think both sides aren’t impressed with. I’d focus more on voting for the right side with the right programs, but I won’t do that if “mom and dad” keep maxing out their credit cards.
What do you think is the best way to handle the national debt? Raise taxes on the rich? Raise taxes on everyone? Cut military spending? Cut healthcare spending? What would be your ideal way to earn that annual surplus to start chipping away at the national debt?
|
On September 28 2023 20:36 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting. Have a balanced checkbook and have surplus instead of a deficit. I’m not against social programs as long as they are well thought out and effective, but I can’t get behind anything until we start paying off our national debt. Once we get better about paying the bills, I’m all for focusing on programs that improve the well being of others. I’m not even against the idea of Universal Health Care, but I’d like us to focus on our debt first and let’s be honest: When UHC was originally suggested by the left, it looked nothing like what ended up passing. The right destroyed what it should have been through so many concessions and now we are stuck with a really crappy negative version that I think both sides aren’t impressed with. I’d focus more on voting for the right side with the right programs, but I won’t do that if “mom and dad” keep maxing out their credit cards.
An amazing way to save money would be to introduce universal healthcare.
The US currently pays more public money for their broken-ass "private" healthcare system per capita than any nation that actually has a universal healthcare system.
Source
Universal healthcare isn't expensive. The US system is. It is also bad.
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On September 28 2023 20:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 20:36 BisuDagger wrote:On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting. Have a balanced checkbook and have surplus instead of a deficit. I’m not against social programs as long as they are well thought out and effective, but I can’t get behind anything until we start paying off our national debt. Once we get better about paying the bills, I’m all for focusing on programs that improve the well being of others. I’m not even against the idea of Universal Health Care, but I’d like us to focus on our debt first and let’s be honest: When UHC was originally suggested by the left, it looked nothing like what ended up passing. The right destroyed what it should have been through so many concessions and now we are stuck with a really crappy negative version that I think both sides aren’t impressed with. I’d focus more on voting for the right side with the right programs, but I won’t do that if “mom and dad” keep maxing out their credit cards. An amazing way to save money would be to introduce universal healthcare. The US currently pays more public money for their broken-ass "private" healthcare system per capita than any nation that actually has a universal healthcare system. SourceUniversal healthcare isn't expensive. The US system is. It is also bad.
Yup, in total agreement.
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On September 28 2023 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 20:36 BisuDagger wrote:On September 27 2023 07:38 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote:On September 25 2023 01:35 KwarK wrote:
If every attempt at conservatism looks like this and conservative voters keep voting for this then at what point do you admit that it’s not that they’re doing conservatism badly, it’s that your idea of what it means is wrong? Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting. Have a balanced checkbook and have surplus instead of a deficit. I’m not against social programs as long as they are well thought out and effective, but I can’t get behind anything until we start paying off our national debt. Once we get better about paying the bills, I’m all for focusing on programs that improve the well being of others. I’m not even against the idea of Universal Health Care, but I’d like us to focus on our debt first and let’s be honest: When UHC was originally suggested by the left, it looked nothing like what ended up passing. The right destroyed what it should have been through so many concessions and now we are stuck with a really crappy negative version that I think both sides aren’t impressed with. I’d focus more on voting for the right side with the right programs, but I won’t do that if “mom and dad” keep maxing out their credit cards. What do you think is the best way to handle the national debt? Raise taxes on the rich? Raise taxes on everyone? Cut military spending? Cut healthcare spending? What would be your ideal way to earn that annual surplus to start chipping away at the national debt?
I wish I had an ideal way in my head. I’m not even against a revision to our tax system to help fight it. But there are many ways we can cut down on spending, I’d be happy for us to just focus on them one at a time. I keep hoping as a nation we will all elect better and younger officials into office that are smart enough to figure this out instead of the dinosaurs we have now on both sides.
|
United States42778 Posts
Why would you not want a huge national debt given the US status as the global reserve and settlement currency?
Let’s say the year is 0 and there’s a huge gold deposit on your lands. A bunch of other places tell you that even though they produce iron and grain and textiles or whatever they can’t trade with each other without your gold. And so they’d like to give you a bunch of real stuff that your people all need in exchange for that soft yellow metal you find on the ground. It’s the most obvious trade imaginable, iron is useful, you need it for ploughs etc. and they’re offering you lots of it for this stuff.
The situation is rather better for the US because it doesn’t need to even mine the gold, just issue promises. Third parties want to use US promises as a method of exchange with each other without ever cashing them in. You might be philosophically opposed to the idea of having a bunch of promises outstanding but they’re offering you an awful lot of stuff for them and that’s real stuff you can have today.
Dollar inflation remains low, despite massive monetary expansion, because the demand for the dollar by third parties has increased exponentially. The more trade, the more dollars everyone needs. Incidentally this is the old problem with the gold standard, it naturally becomes deflationary as the total economic activity that it is used for increases faster than the supply of currency. It constrains economic growth, people hoard currency. The dollar solves this, the exponential increase in global trade is met with an exponential demand for trade currency which is met by increasing nominal debt. And as far as exports go promises is a good one. They’re environmentally friendly to manufacture, they’ve got a low production cost, and they make the taxpayers happy.
The inverse would be a weird situation. Let’s say China and Brazil come to you and say that they want to trade manufactured goods for soybeans with each other but they don’t think they can make it work unless each of them also gives 10% of the goods to America. The balanced budget people are in favour of telling them to come up with some other plan because they’re not interested in taking 10%. It’d be like living on the gold deposit but refusing to pick up the gold.
People erroneously think of it like the US is buying on credit because they don’t distinguish national debt in a currency of your creation and household debt. They think dollars flowing out in exchange for goods makes a country poorer, not richer. The picture is clearer if we again imagine our land of gold. Despite being full of gold it is the poorest land in the area, it’s people don’t have metal tools, they wear crudely made clothes, they eat low quality rough milled grains etc. They can pass the soft yellow metal between each other but that doesn’t make their diet any better. It is only when every other land collectively decides that they really need gold and start giving the gold land real tangible goods in exchange for it that it becomes rich. Not because it has gold but because it has metal tools and finely woven textiles. The more gold it exports, the richer it gets. And it owes nothing, the other countries got something that they imagine has equal value on the trade.
|
On September 28 2023 21:41 KwarK wrote:
Why would you not want a huge national debt given the US status as the global reserve and settlement currency?
Let’s say the year is 0 and there’s a huge gold deposit on your lands. A bunch of other places tell you that even though they produce iron and grain and textiles or whatever they can’t trade with each other without your gold. And so they’d like to give you a bunch of real stuff that your people all need in exchange for that soft yellow metal you find on the ground. It’s the most obvious trade imaginable, iron is useful, you need it for ploughs etc. and they’re offering you lots of it for this stuff.
The situation is rather better for the US because it doesn’t need to even mine the gold, just issue promises. Third parties want to use US promises as a method of exchange with each other without ever cashing them in. You might be philosophically opposed to the idea of having a bunch of promises outstanding but they’re offering you an awful lot of stuff for them and that’s real stuff you can have today.
Dollar inflation remains low, despite massive monetary expansion, because the demand for the dollar by third parties has increased exponentially. The more trade, the more dollars everyone needs. Incidentally this is the old problem with the gold standard, it naturally becomes deflationary as the total economic activity that it is used for increases faster than the supply of currency. It constrains economic growth, people hoard currency. The dollar solves this, the exponential increase in global trade is met with an exponential demand for trade currency which is met by increasing nominal debt. And as far as exports go promises is a good one. They’re environmentally friendly to manufacture, they’ve got a low production cost, and they make the taxpayers happy.
The inverse would be a weird situation. Let’s say China and Brazil come to you and say that they want to trade manufactured goods for soybeans with each other but they don’t think they can make it work unless each of them also gives 10% of the goods to America. The balanced budget people are in favour of telling them to come up with some other plan because they’re not interested in taking 10%. It’d be like living on the gold deposit but refusing to pick up the gold.
People erroneously think of it like the US is buying on credit because they don’t distinguish national debt in a currency of your creation and household debt. They think dollars flowing out in exchange for goods makes a country poorer, not richer. The picture is clearer if we again imagine our land of gold. Despite being full of gold it is the poorest land in the area, it’s people don’t have metal tools, they wear crudely made clothes, they eat low quality rough milled grains etc. They can pass the soft yellow metal between each other but that doesn’t make their diet any better. It is only when every other land collectively decides that they really need gold and start giving the gold land real tangible goods in exchange for it that it becomes rich. Not because it has gold but because it has metal tools and finely woven textiles. The more gold it exports, the richer it gets. And it owes nothing, the other countries got something that they imagine has equal value on the trade.
This is not a sustainable way to run an economy, though. At some point, it will collapse, but we do not know when. It could take 10 years, it could take 100, but it is not a natural law that the US dollar has to be the go-to trading currency and the safe haven for capital.
|
On September 29 2023 01:38 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 21:41 KwarK wrote:
Why would you not want a huge national debt given the US status as the global reserve and settlement currency?
Let’s say the year is 0 and there’s a huge gold deposit on your lands. A bunch of other places tell you that even though they produce iron and grain and textiles or whatever they can’t trade with each other without your gold. And so they’d like to give you a bunch of real stuff that your people all need in exchange for that soft yellow metal you find on the ground. It’s the most obvious trade imaginable, iron is useful, you need it for ploughs etc. and they’re offering you lots of it for this stuff.
The situation is rather better for the US because it doesn’t need to even mine the gold, just issue promises. Third parties want to use US promises as a method of exchange with each other without ever cashing them in. You might be philosophically opposed to the idea of having a bunch of promises outstanding but they’re offering you an awful lot of stuff for them and that’s real stuff you can have today.
Dollar inflation remains low, despite massive monetary expansion, because the demand for the dollar by third parties has increased exponentially. The more trade, the more dollars everyone needs. Incidentally this is the old problem with the gold standard, it naturally becomes deflationary as the total economic activity that it is used for increases faster than the supply of currency. It constrains economic growth, people hoard currency. The dollar solves this, the exponential increase in global trade is met with an exponential demand for trade currency which is met by increasing nominal debt. And as far as exports go promises is a good one. They’re environmentally friendly to manufacture, they’ve got a low production cost, and they make the taxpayers happy.
The inverse would be a weird situation. Let’s say China and Brazil come to you and say that they want to trade manufactured goods for soybeans with each other but they don’t think they can make it work unless each of them also gives 10% of the goods to America. The balanced budget people are in favour of telling them to come up with some other plan because they’re not interested in taking 10%. It’d be like living on the gold deposit but refusing to pick up the gold.
People erroneously think of it like the US is buying on credit because they don’t distinguish national debt in a currency of your creation and household debt. They think dollars flowing out in exchange for goods makes a country poorer, not richer. The picture is clearer if we again imagine our land of gold. Despite being full of gold it is the poorest land in the area, it’s people don’t have metal tools, they wear crudely made clothes, they eat low quality rough milled grains etc. They can pass the soft yellow metal between each other but that doesn’t make their diet any better. It is only when every other land collectively decides that they really need gold and start giving the gold land real tangible goods in exchange for it that it becomes rich. Not because it has gold but because it has metal tools and finely woven textiles. The more gold it exports, the richer it gets. And it owes nothing, the other countries got something that they imagine has equal value on the trade. This is not a sustainable way to run an economy, though. At some point, it will collapse, but we do not know when. It could take 10 years, it could take 100, but it is not a natural law that the US dollar has to be the go-to trading currency and the safe haven for capital.
Why is it not sustainable and why would it inevitably collapse? Don’t refer to any supposed natural laws in your answer please.
|
On September 29 2023 01:38 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2023 21:41 KwarK wrote:
Why would you not want a huge national debt given the US status as the global reserve and settlement currency?
Let’s say the year is 0 and there’s a huge gold deposit on your lands. A bunch of other places tell you that even though they produce iron and grain and textiles or whatever they can’t trade with each other without your gold. And so they’d like to give you a bunch of real stuff that your people all need in exchange for that soft yellow metal you find on the ground. It’s the most obvious trade imaginable, iron is useful, you need it for ploughs etc. and they’re offering you lots of it for this stuff.
The situation is rather better for the US because it doesn’t need to even mine the gold, just issue promises. Third parties want to use US promises as a method of exchange with each other without ever cashing them in. You might be philosophically opposed to the idea of having a bunch of promises outstanding but they’re offering you an awful lot of stuff for them and that’s real stuff you can have today.
Dollar inflation remains low, despite massive monetary expansion, because the demand for the dollar by third parties has increased exponentially. The more trade, the more dollars everyone needs. Incidentally this is the old problem with the gold standard, it naturally becomes deflationary as the total economic activity that it is used for increases faster than the supply of currency. It constrains economic growth, people hoard currency. The dollar solves this, the exponential increase in global trade is met with an exponential demand for trade currency which is met by increasing nominal debt. And as far as exports go promises is a good one. They’re environmentally friendly to manufacture, they’ve got a low production cost, and they make the taxpayers happy.
The inverse would be a weird situation. Let’s say China and Brazil come to you and say that they want to trade manufactured goods for soybeans with each other but they don’t think they can make it work unless each of them also gives 10% of the goods to America. The balanced budget people are in favour of telling them to come up with some other plan because they’re not interested in taking 10%. It’d be like living on the gold deposit but refusing to pick up the gold.
People erroneously think of it like the US is buying on credit because they don’t distinguish national debt in a currency of your creation and household debt. They think dollars flowing out in exchange for goods makes a country poorer, not richer. The picture is clearer if we again imagine our land of gold. Despite being full of gold it is the poorest land in the area, it’s people don’t have metal tools, they wear crudely made clothes, they eat low quality rough milled grains etc. They can pass the soft yellow metal between each other but that doesn’t make their diet any better. It is only when every other land collectively decides that they really need gold and start giving the gold land real tangible goods in exchange for it that it becomes rich. Not because it has gold but because it has metal tools and finely woven textiles. The more gold it exports, the richer it gets. And it owes nothing, the other countries got something that they imagine has equal value on the trade. This is not a sustainable way to run an economy, though. At some point, it will collapse, but we do not know when. It could take 10 years, it could take 100, but it is not a natural law that the US dollar has to be the go-to trading currency and the safe haven for capital.
Its not a natural law its a man made law that the US has spent its empire on to mantain. It is a very sustainable way to run an economy as long as you don't have people who want to cut taxes and raise spending to prove they're smart with your money.
The US as a byproduct can wreck an economy reliant on its dollars by restricting anyone from trading dollars with someone they don't like as we've seen with russia. When you've created a system of global trade and guarantee its reasonably safe nature across the sea you need to get benefits from it. If the US dollar is no longer the global reserve currency than global trade suffers catastrophically.
We know being a debt based reserve currency is a sustainable and stable concept throughout its lifetime. The British empire did pretty well even when faced with hilariously large debt crisis's. It went well all the way up to when the US took up the torch .
|
United States24690 Posts
Ambassador Kennedy’s time was limited so she didn’t speak for very long. She compared being Ambassador of Japan to being Ambassador of Australia and talked a fair bit about AUKUS. Very little talk about her family. She’s the last surviving member of President Kennedy’s immediate family I believe.
On September 28 2023 20:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Yeah that was Rick Perry. The 'oops' that follows the 'I guess my run just ended' is pretty awesome. And under Trump, he, of course, ended up heading the department he forgot that he wanted to eliminate. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN8uFJz9gTk
At least he didn’t end up causing chaos in the Dept while he was in charge. The irony is still insane.
|
On September 29 2023 02:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2023 01:38 Slydie wrote:On September 28 2023 21:41 KwarK wrote:
Why would you not want a huge national debt given the US status as the global reserve and settlement currency?
Let’s say the year is 0 and there’s a huge gold deposit on your lands. A bunch of other places tell you that even though they produce iron and grain and textiles or whatever they can’t trade with each other without your gold. And so they’d like to give you a bunch of real stuff that your people all need in exchange for that soft yellow metal you find on the ground. It’s the most obvious trade imaginable, iron is useful, you need it for ploughs etc. and they’re offering you lots of it for this stuff.
The situation is rather better for the US because it doesn’t need to even mine the gold, just issue promises. Third parties want to use US promises as a method of exchange with each other without ever cashing them in. You might be philosophically opposed to the idea of having a bunch of promises outstanding but they’re offering you an awful lot of stuff for them and that’s real stuff you can have today.
Dollar inflation remains low, despite massive monetary expansion, because the demand for the dollar by third parties has increased exponentially. The more trade, the more dollars everyone needs. Incidentally this is the old problem with the gold standard, it naturally becomes deflationary as the total economic activity that it is used for increases faster than the supply of currency. It constrains economic growth, people hoard currency. The dollar solves this, the exponential increase in global trade is met with an exponential demand for trade currency which is met by increasing nominal debt. And as far as exports go promises is a good one. They’re environmentally friendly to manufacture, they’ve got a low production cost, and they make the taxpayers happy.
The inverse would be a weird situation. Let’s say China and Brazil come to you and say that they want to trade manufactured goods for soybeans with each other but they don’t think they can make it work unless each of them also gives 10% of the goods to America. The balanced budget people are in favour of telling them to come up with some other plan because they’re not interested in taking 10%. It’d be like living on the gold deposit but refusing to pick up the gold.
People erroneously think of it like the US is buying on credit because they don’t distinguish national debt in a currency of your creation and household debt. They think dollars flowing out in exchange for goods makes a country poorer, not richer. The picture is clearer if we again imagine our land of gold. Despite being full of gold it is the poorest land in the area, it’s people don’t have metal tools, they wear crudely made clothes, they eat low quality rough milled grains etc. They can pass the soft yellow metal between each other but that doesn’t make their diet any better. It is only when every other land collectively decides that they really need gold and start giving the gold land real tangible goods in exchange for it that it becomes rich. Not because it has gold but because it has metal tools and finely woven textiles. The more gold it exports, the richer it gets. And it owes nothing, the other countries got something that they imagine has equal value on the trade. This is not a sustainable way to run an economy, though. At some point, it will collapse, but we do not know when. It could take 10 years, it could take 100, but it is not a natural law that the US dollar has to be the go-to trading currency and the safe haven for capital. Why is it not sustainable and why would it inevitably collapse? Don’t refer to any supposed natural laws in your answer please.
Because the US ensures this control through overwhelming military spending that isn't sustainable. It has already helped the US fall behind many other countries on many other fronts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
