Quote:
Originally Posted by parsonsj
True enough, though I don't think I'm warning anybody. I'm just trying to round out the discussion a bit. Let's go back to the title of the thread, which implies that $17T is bad. Just... because. It's worth a discussion to see if there is more to it than that. It would be better for us in the long term if we were to do more stimulus to put millions of people back to work, and then pay down the debt with a healthy economy.
We've done it before: after WWII, and again after the 80s.
|
I've said this already, but you seem to ignore it. We had prosperity after WW1 for 3 reasons, and it was not fiat stimulus. More money in the economy resulted from the govt
taking less out of it. Not to mention that consumers are spend happy after wars are over and troops return home.
My theory is when we end these wars and spending overseas, bring our troops home, we will immediately see more consumer confidence and service men and women buying houses, cars and spending their govt money here at home. Just like after WW2.
But people like Dick Cheney saying deficits don't matter is bunk. And it's why our Sec of Treasury was fired after a year, because he said they do matter. In came Hank Paulson, ex Goldman Sachs CEO and the govt got even more in debt and bailed out his old employer.
You need to look at who benefits from govt spending. And there have been plenty in govt to warn against it. The problem is, they seem to get rooted out.
Now back to your theory about stimulus. If that was true, we would have 4-5% official unemployment and a great economy due to QE1 and 2. But like they've tried, they didn't work as we can see now. This is why you and Krugman have such a hard time selling this idea. But like I said, your people are in power, so why aren't things better?
And the myth that more debt = higher value is almost too crazy to talk about. Debt is the antithesis of value, it's negative equity. % of GDP is what matters, and ours is on track for well over 200% which will lead to an even more worthless dollar, that is now worth 95% since 1913, the birth of the Fed. What do you think of that data?
But instead of arguing data, I like to discuss principle. It's a simple idea that we are arguing, who controls the market and the value of its currency. You say it should be done by a monopoly: the Fed and the govt. I say it should be by a free market: the people.