Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Triv: actually. No. Banks can "create" currency via creative accounting.
It works about as so.
Suppose I put 500 dollars in the bank.
The bank now has 500 dollars they technically owe me. But in the meantime they can lend it out to someone else. Suppose thst person banks 450 of this loan in their bank. And then that bank loans 400 out to a third person.
You now have 1350 dollars in circulation.
(Granted, they have to keep a certain amount of their overall money in the vault as a reserve..but past that.,.its free game for infinitely loaning the same money out)
edited 6th Dec '12 3:30:05 PM by Midgetsnowman
A basic understanding of game theory and induction
problems
, taught in high school civics, would make macroeconomics easy to grasp.
![]()
That's money flow, though, not actual increase in money supply.
But I think I see something now. Economic policymaking is an opportunity-based decision to solve targeted problems. Since the government is empowered to tax and spend, you do that appropriately based on the situation.
I don't see why people here say cutting social programs would increase debt, though. Sure it would affect the economy, but in terms of debt, there would be surplus if there's a tax mandate that pays for all the spending.
So I'm wondering, is a debt increase inevitable, or are we instead going to have to raise taxes next year?
edited 6th Dec '12 3:59:22 PM by Trivialis
![]()
Just being taught Rule #1 of the social sciences would be good: "people in a group act most unlike individuals... the bigger the group, the more opposite they get".
edited 6th Dec '12 4:23:44 PM by Euodiachloris
Even I know it's more complicated than that. Otherwise you could just pump up all tax rates to 98% and the economy would thrive like never before.
edited 6th Dec '12 4:22:20 PM by MidnightRambler
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...There's an equilibrium point for taxes. It just happens to be higher than what we currently have so cutting it more is going to get us farther off balance. What our biggest issue is not enough money to the lowest classes. That means that the demand bit of supply and demand breaks down.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
At the risk of sounding like an evil republican, wouldn't it also be a good idea to make it easier to shell out money than horde money? As I understand it, The really rich are encourage by various laws,regulations and so forth to just keep their money in the bank, while the rest of us are kinda screwed if taxes are raised on merely earned income.
edited 6th Dec '12 4:43:07 PM by SecretLink
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”
It's not laws that encourage the rich to hoard. It's a combination of Greed and well, that's just how microeconmics work. The only proven way to stop it is to tax them more heavily. There's no other legislative way to make it work.
Do you have a better way to part the rich with their money? Because they certainly don't want to part with it.
edited 6th Dec '12 5:33:52 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe second graph is kind of confusing. Am I reading it right in saying that China and Japan both hold the majority of American Governmental Dept in foreign hands?
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."Yes. China and Japan are the current two largest foreign holders of US debt. But that makes up a very small percentage of the whole US debt. China itself only holds about 7% of US debt. The biggest person the US government owes is the US government.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickNow I have this mental image of the Treasury Department walking into other departments' offices, breaking stuff, acting threatening, and being all "wow, nice project you've got going here, shame if something would happen to it".
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.De Mint's gone? That's rather unexpected.
The man was probably the most conservative person in the Senate.
I never really felt like I knew who the real Mitt Romney was. I doubt I ever will.
edited 6th Dec '12 5:13:32 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016So apparently the new Conservative plan is to vote out Boehner from the speakership for not being conservative enough via withholding just enough republican votes to confirm him as speaker.
http://www.politicususa.com/fireboehner-hashtag-trends-war-escalates-gop.html
edited 6th Dec '12 6:51:14 PM by Midgetsnowman

Besides, we're on a set payment plan for paying back foreign debt, and we couldn't pay it all off at once anyways.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian