US Dollar maybe shit aug 2nd GO BITCOIN watch video

[elk-tamer]

You're wrong. You are using some preatty fuzzy math to say the least.

All money in the US economy came from the treasury, and it was lent out with interest.  The debt can never be paid back in full - mathematically impossible.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. You seem to ignore that simple fact throughout your analysis.

Explaining why Jafm is wrong to yourself is easy, the real trick is finding a way of convincing him.

[Vod]

Explaining why Jafm is wrong to yourself is easy, the real trick is finding a way of convincing him.

Not really, I'm very open minded.  I've presented my simple argument and no one has yet presented a counter argument to show where I could be wrong.      (BTW I don't consider "you're wrong!" to be a convincing argument)  

You said it best - "Are you imagining dollars as debt that has to "paid back", and an expanding economy as a disruption of the balance sheet between dollars created and dollars owed?".  That is how I see it... is that wrong?  

[elk-tamer]

Not really, I'm very open minded.  I've presented my simple argument and no one has yet presented a counter argument to show where I could be wrong.      (BTW I don't consider "you're wrong!" to be a convincing argument)  

You said it best - "Are you imagining dollars as debt that has to "paid back", and an expanding economy as a disruption of the balance sheet between dollars created and dollars owed?".  That is how I see it... is that wrong?  

Right, unless the counter argument uses the definitions you use,  it's not really useful.

I like the analogy of money being a measure of velocity instead of a inventory count. If there's only $1 in existence, but it get passed around between 10 people, $10 have been spent. i.e. the GDP isn't a measure of how many dollars there are, but of how many are spent.

If $110 is owed back to somewhere but only $100 are in existence, as long as the money continues to circulate the difference is accounted for.

Bob has a hammer. His neighbor John borrows it but Bob wants 2 hammers back in return(interest). John uses the hammer to build a fence for Fred, in exchange for a hammer. Fred buys Bob's hammer from him to pay John for the fence building. John gives Bob his hammer back, waits for Fred to get it back from Bob. Then gives it to Bob again, paying him the interest.

[Vod]

I like the analogy of money being a measure of velocity instead of a inventory count. If there's only $1 in existence, but it get passed around between 10 people, $10 have been spent. i.e. the GDP isn't a measure of how many dollars there are, but of how many are spent.

OK, so $10 are spent, but there is still only that $1 in existence. How are you going to pay the $1.10 the treasury wants back if you only have that dollar - a shortage of $0.10?  It can't be from income tax.  If the second  person had to pay $0.10 tax when he made that $1.00, then he would only have $0.90 to spend on the third person.  There still is only the $1 in existence.

So the second person has $0.90 and he wants to buy something for $1.00 off the third person.  This is impossible unless the treasury releases another $0.10.  Now there is $1.10 in existence but the treasury wants $1.21 back - a shortage of $0.11.

[RandyFolds]

I like the analogy of money being a measure of velocity instead of a inventory count. If there's only $1 in existence, but it get passed around between 10 people, $10 have been spent. i.e. the GDP isn't a measure of how many dollars there are, but of how many are spent.

OK, so $10 are spent, but there is still only that $1 in existence. How are you going to pay the $1.10 the treasury wants back if you only have that dollar - a shortage of $0.10?  It can't be from income tax.  If the second  person had to pay $0.10 tax when he made that $1.00, then he would only have $0.90 to spend on the third person.  There still is only the $1 in existence.

So the second person has $0.90 and he wants to buy something for $1.00 off the third person.  This is impossible unless the treasury releases another $0.10.  Now there is $1.10 in existence but the treasury wants $1.21 back - a shortage of $0.11.

In the course of that dollar being spent ten times, services, consumables and durable goods that are worth money are procured and produced. Cash is not the only part of the game. Cash buys the pump to get the oil out of the ground that in turn is sold for cash... In your system, deflation would run rampant and drive the value of the one dollar in existence through the roof. Every gallon of gasoline that is refined is four more dollars in circulation, though that is not the best example as it is consumable. Think about gold...another ounce found in a mining operation doesn't drop the price of gold in proportion to the overall supply...more dollars are being pulled from the ground.

Printing new money (in theory...I'm not backing the fed here...) merely matches the influx of value from harvested resources and keeps prices stable. A shortage (your missing $.10) doesn't physically exist, it is merely an artifact of the books.

Elk-tamer essentially elaborated on what I meant when I said that it's not zero-sum.

[Vod]

I understand the value of goods and services that are created, but at the end of the day, there is still not enough of the legal currency ($1.10) to pay back what is owed to the treasury.  ($1.21).  

The economy is very complicated and I still don't understand what you guys mean (artifact of the books?), but I don't want to risk alienating people by continuing the discussion further.  I'm honestly not trying to be thick headed or closed minded. Thanks all for trying to explain it to me.  

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Random claims? Please elaborate.... I was going to post the definition of the word fair as fundamental as it seems that is the the problem. I guess if I had a graph on what "fair" is then I could be considered correct. I thought I was being nice..  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

So we are redefining the word "fair" here? You think it's fair to pull the plug on seniors, take away college grants from students, and rip unemployment from the unemployed while we continue to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts to Billionaires? Ever heard of "fair" shared sacrifice?

Paul Ryan sure has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5kgnE1Xvec

This guy gets it.

shackleford, what you are advocating is the opposite of "fair". The billionaires have had their time, as a society we need to care for our other citizens like the elderly, our students, and those down-on-their-luck individuals on welfare instead. If not, our society will collapse into some awful hellhole catering to the whims of the elite.

Some of the most Libertarian country’s on Earth, are the biggest 3'rd world retched hell holes. I am not promoting full-blown socialism, because I do not believe that is the answer. Socialism usually leads to fascism because of the human ego that lies within all of us. The ego is dangerous, and that is why I believe in a perfect balance only granted by the development of new age technologies like Bitcoin. I believe that human beings are inherently imperfect, and I believe that machines have been created to fix these imperfections that we have philosophically imposed on ourselves.

Bitcoin is the first of many cryptographic currencies that will help aide in this balancing act that the world is currently going through. We need to begin to appreciate our world status and progress this planet to a whole new level. We need to push the limits of the 1’st world and literally leave our current reality behind. I have been working on a post for about a month, and I think I am going to have to publish it soon, since the times are getting harder. It will be a fully detailed article on what I personally think Bitcoins are, and how I think the United States government and all of its people can benefit greatly from a new age Internet currency. We used to own the Internet back in the 90’s, now it’s our turn to do it again!

Well congrats, you might be the most reasonable person on these forums. Sorry I was a little harsh on you, I can't wait for the writeup

+1

Count me in for "can't wait for the writeup".

[shackleford]

WHERE IS YOUR MATH SIR?
I asked you a simple question.

Sorry about that.

 $100 <-- USD in existence
-$110 <-- USD owed to treasury
 ------
 ($10) <-- Debt that cannot be paid off.

I was thinking about this the other day.. Money is also created when banks lend(create) money. When people borrow money it gets put into the economy.. if later that debt is forgiven in bankruptcy or death or whatever that money is still in the system.
 
As to the taxes it is pointless to argue because ... some people just will never get it and life is to short.

[FlipPro]

WHERE IS YOUR MATH SIR?
I asked you a simple question.

Sorry about that.

 $100 <-- USD in existence
-$110 <-- USD owed to treasury
 ------
 ($10) <-- Debt that cannot be paid off.

I was thinking about this the other day.. Money is also created when banks lend(create) money. When people borrow money it gets put into the economy.. if later that debt is forgiven in bankruptcy or death or whatever that money is still in the system.
 
As to the taxes it is pointless to argue because ... some people just will never get it and life is to short.

While I agree that some people may "never" get it, the time is approaching for us to have a serious adult conversation about these things. Debt is a serious problem, and we can't go about slashing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. That is some backwards sick ideology if you ask me, and if anything it's anti-modern...

[makomk]

I understand the value of goods and services that are created, but at the end of the day, there is still not enough of the legal currency ($1.10) to pay back what is owed to the treasury.  ($1.21).  

You don't need to pay it back. You probably don't even want to pay it back. If you pay it back, deflation sets in and the economy implodes as there's suddenly not enough money in circulation to do anything.