The Simpson Predictions bug me.
9/11
Second Iraq War...
They do predict a Trump presidency that:
>bankrupts the U.S.
>4 year term
Replaced by Madame President Lisa Simpson...
Lisa...
Elizabeth... Warren.
Or... if you notice the hair....
Hillary Clinton.
>>77831651
Simpsons was always throwing signs
>bankrupt
>US
oh boy here we go
As the sole, sovereign issuer of a fiat, floating-rate, non-convertible currency, with all of its debts denominated in that same currency, the U.S. Federal Government can issue as many dollars as it wants, at any time, to anybody, for any reason. Solvency is a non-issue, as there is never a payment that a currency issuer cannot make in its own currency.
Anybody who applies the following expressions to the U.S. Federal government, including, but not limited to:
>"broke",
>"bankrupt",
>"insolvent",
>"going to default",
>"running out of money",
>"where's the money going to come from", >"can't afford X",
>"dependent on taxpayers/Treasury investors", >etc. etc.
can be immediately dismissed and declared to have absolutely no concept of how U.S. fiscal policy and operations work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA
>>77831651
>They do predict a Trump presidency that:
>bankrupts the U.S.
>4 year term
I'm perfectly fine with this.
'Sides, the US is already effectively bankrupted.
>>77831651
wouldn't surprise me at all.
>>77831651
>implying President Lisa wasn't modeled after Hildog
it's a funny cartoon (first ten seasons) and most of the "predictions" (like "Homer Bad Man") were based on shit that was also happening in the 90s when the word "sexism" became meaningless (which is why you always hear "misogyny" used to describe things besides hating women)
>>77831863
Ya because we don't owe it to a private bank whom also has the exclusive rights to printing our money. What are you some kind of shill? You're really bad at this. Fractional reserve lending is a disaster and we as a livestock are the collateral.
>>77831651
and Dude
I remember the time that /pol/ had a thread on how The Simpsons 'predicted' the Ebola outbreak.
Honestly all of this makes me want Trump to become the next president, I'm sick of this boring shit that Obama has brought and I can't stand another 4 years of it, that's why I don't want Hillary to win.
Besides the U.S doesn't go bankrupt if it does it brings the whole world economy down with it.
>>77832371
>FED
>private
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html
The FED is controlled by the president who appoints the director
If we had a president who didn't appoint jews the FED would be a great system
>>77831651
>US
>bankrupt
take a look at this underaged faggot. take a long look and laugh
>bankrupts the US
You know there are so many ways to deal with the debt that you'd have to be a god damn retard to bankrupt the U.S. Besides, we have so much debt already we're basically bankrupt.
>>77832553
Obama gave you the Iran deal so you should love him.
>>77832699
>US
>going bankrupt ever
see
>>77831863
>>77831651
>A fucking leaf.
>Good I posted it, now to throw my legs back and cum in my own face.
wew OP
>>77832781
Do you think I'm fucking retarded?
Why are you samefagging your own post when I'm on your side, dumb shit?
The US is broke now by any conventional definition.
We owe more than we make.
>>77831863
Except the privately owned federal reserve can enact monetary policy that directly contradicts the US government.
>outsourcing monetary policy to literal jews
The Treasury prints millions in physical currency. The Federal Reserve "prints" trillions in notional digital currency.
>>77831651
>a fucking leaf
I remember watching this episode a long time ago.
The things that I recall are actually fuzzy, but I clearly recall:
>Trump bankrupting the US
>India having nuked Pakistan
>Lisa being the first heterosexual female president
So I guess it's Hillary > Trump > Another woman.
>>77832724
The deal doesn't fucking work because the faggot supreme leader doesn't allow it to fucking work properly.
All of this bullshit sanctions was a result of Ahmadinejad's insane faggotry. He legitimately wanted to turn this country into something like North Korea.
I don't give a single fucking shit what happens to it anymore, it's doomed beyond all hope. Just because you see my flag doesn't mean that I worship it. No it's a fraud it's bullshit. IT MUST FUCKING BURN.
And Obama is a bitch, nobody loves him.
OH MY GOD if Simpsons predicts this too, lizard people are coming soon
>>77832624
It is owned by stockholders that keep the profits.
>>77833095
>purchase $200k house with a 30yr mortgage
>make $50k/year
>making double payments
>anon says you're broke
They didn't "predict" Trump it was a throwaway gag that came true.
In a episode of Sliders they go to a alternate universe where women rule the world and Hillary is president (which is a joke because they refer to her as "President Clinton" making the audience think its Bill Clinton.
>>77833107
No
letting the Banking system create the money supply (which is your only option besides the FED) is outsourcing jews
If whites took over the government we would take back control of the money supply.
>>77831863
That's not true. Before August 15 1971 when Richard Nixon took U.S off the Gold Standard the national debt owed money to people in the form of gold. Those people are still going to be expecting their money back so the idea that the U.S government prints money instead of borrowing and that the Debt is just a number is bullshit, they will still want their money back.
>>77833310
This is a bad analogy. You would need to be buying a house even year with 50k to start to approach parity with the US :P
>>77832371
yeah sure buddy
>>77831651
you meant Lisa Van Houten
>>77833401
If that's true why is the U.S in debt if it can print money to pay for it's deficit spending?
>>77833293
the FED creates it's own money
It "injects" money into the banking system. That's not the same as ownership. Ownership=control and ultimately congress and the president are in full control of the FED.
>>77833478
The gold standard ended in 1931
You are thinking of the Gold window which was a completely different thing.
>>77833245
how does it not work? The sanctions ended.
>>77831651
9/11 prediction was shaky as fuck.
Everyone with half a brain knew we where gonna war with Iraq eventually.
DJT has been hinting a run for decades and has received a lot of support for it, and his hinting had made many people make it a joke thinking he didn't have the balls to pull it off.
Only married with children makes predictions come true.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiq-EYObkM
>>77833632
Politics
People are retarded and think we are still on a gold standard and that the debt has to "be paid back" by higher taxes, which is a myth
I suggest actually watching this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA
or this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHEjobYP6mg
>>77833245
BASED IRAN
Really hope we don't war with you guys.
>>77831863
>I took a econ 101 class in community college, I'm an expert on U.S. fiscal policy now
>>77833652
>It "injects" money into the banking system. That's not the same as ownership. Ownership=control and ultimately congress and the president are in full control of the FED.
Except when the Fed "injects" money into the economy all they do is loan it. Which means in the long run the FED will make more money when those loans are paid back. Does the FED give it's money to the treasury? If not then the FED is corrupt
>The gold standard ended in 1931. You are thinking of the gold window
My mistake.
obligatory
>>77831863
wow, booty blasted by a fucking cartoon
never change /pol/
>>77831651
It's worth considering the 1000's and 1000's of things that have happened on the simpsons that HAVEN'T happened in real life though.
>>77831651
If Clinton loses this time around she won't run again
>>77833754
I've been looking everywhere for someone like you who understands the national debt. I've been watching "Minethis1" but it's kind of confusing so need this info.
>People are retarded and think we are still on a gold standard and that the debt has to "be paid back" by higher taxes, which is a myth
But before the gold standard the national debt had to be paid back with real money, if the government borrowed money it had to pay it back. After the gold standard the government can print more money although this gets added to the "debt" it's not really a debt. However won't the people who own treasuries from before 1931 still expect their payments? They loaned money to the U.S Federal Government before the Federal Government switched to this new system, so how will they get their money back? Will it be paid for in higher taxes?
>>77833819
This is the exact opposite of what idiots learn in Econ 101
>>77833830
>Except when the Fed "injects" money into the economy all they do is loan it
No that's the banks when they lend out private debt
When the FED lends out anything it effectively never has to be paid back.
The FED created trillions of dollars after 2008 and nothing happened. The only problem was that they gave it to wall street instead of the real, productive economy
>>77831651
Shillary doesn't have enough gas in the tank to run a second time, she seems ready to croak.
>>77834114
>When the FED lends out anything it effectively never has to be paid back.
So then how can the FED retract money, can't the FED retract money by refusing to loan out anymore and just allow the already loaned out money to be taken back in. If the Debts don't have to be paid off then how will the FED reduce the money supply when it wants.
>>77831651
Zombie simpsons has been wrong about essentially every prediction it's ever made.
I remember in '08 there was an episode where Homer goes to vote for Obongus and the electronic voting booth automatically changes it to McCain, suggesting that the writers thought the election would be rigged in republican favor for some reason (?), despite the opposite actually occuring.
I wonder why a Trump presidency might lead to bankruptcy.
I just can't figure it out. Maybe it will just be an innevitable (((coincidence))).
>>77831651
[INCEPTION HORNS INTENSIFY]
>>77833310
Credit merely aggravates and delays a realization crisis it cannot prevent it. Say a family wants to buy a house trailer, which retails at $10,000. The trailer only costs $5,000 to build, so at a retail price of $10,000 it yields an industrial profit of $2,500 and a profit to the dealer (who bought the trailer wholesale at $7,500) of $2,500.
However, the family doesn’t have $10,000, so the dealer arranges financing, which results in the family signing a ten-year mortgage for $20,000. The commodity (the house trailer) has now been realized, and the dealer is in possession of a $20,000 mortgage. However, the dealer needs cash to carry on his business, so he “discounts” this mortgage to a finance company which gives him $12,000 in cash for the mortgage. The finance company may then rediscount the mortgage (say for $14,000) to another finance company to get cash itself. This rediscounting may go on indefinitely, realizing a sum of money each time the mortgage changes hands. By the time the process is complete, the house-trailer has generated many thousands of dollars in sales over and above the value of the trailer itself.
In the meantime, the house-trailer has fallen apart, and the owner is unable to pay off the mortgage because s/he has been laid off. It is easy to see from this example how, in an economy where real goods are difficult or impossible to realize, money will find its way into the sale of paper.
>>77833632
Because the private sector demands government debt to park its savings into for a 100% guaranteed safe return. The government issues bonds to get the money it prints given back to itself to finance public expenses then taxes workers wages and corporate profit to transfer to pay interest payments to the private lenders.
>>77832624
Oh God, they look like lizards when they're super old!
>>77834417
>Because the private sector demands government debt to park its savings into for a 100% guaranteed safe return. The government issues bonds to get the money it prints given back to itself to finance public expenses then taxes workers wages and corporate profit to transfer to pay interest payments to the private lenders.
But I thought the National Debt isn't really a debt and never has to be paid off. I heard a better way to describe it is a national debit because it's just an accounting entry.
>>77834073
>But before the gold standard the national debt had to be paid back with real money,
No, "during" the gold standard the national debt had to be paid back with real money.
If you ever have your currency tied to a set exchange rate or a commodity you need to pay it back in "real" money.
On the other hand if you have a "floating" exchange rate you can print your way out of debt. This is what the US, or any sovereign country, can do at any time.
>if the government borrowed money it had to pay it back.
Yes during the gold standard. After the gold standard was dropped the US could effectively print whatever it wanted. That is how the US and Germany financed the war effort during WW2.
Britain on the other hand financed their war effort by selling their entire Empire and gold reserves to the United States because they "didn't believe" in printing money. Sucks to be them.
>After the gold standard the government can print more money although this gets added to the "debt" it's not really a debt
For all intents and purposes it doesn't have to be "paid back"
>However won't the people who own treasuries from before 1931 still expect their payments?
They get paid in dollars that aren't backed by gold.
>>77833652
>The sanctions ended.
The U.S congress makes sure that people all around the world don't feel safe about investing in this place (and they shouldn't, it's risky as hell due to the political environment).
And there are tons of elements in this country that don't want the deal to work so they come up with all kinds of excuses right from their sorry asses (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Markazi_v._Peterson)
If Trump becomes the president the progress of the deal getting fucked gets faster, it's just a matter of time.
What you don't know is that the system in here favors the goddamn faggots you know as 'hardliners', basically: The revolutionary guard (faggots who pretty much control everything), the Guardian Council (faggots that throw away all the presidency and Parliament member candidates they don't like) and Assembly of Experts (faggots who chose the leader).
The system is rigged, it favors the status quo. The people who are in power are just typical Islamists that want to tighten their grip on controlling this land, it cannot be fixed. Just nuke us already.
>>77834324
>So then how can the FED retract money,
You raise taxes
Managing the economy is like driving a car
When the economy is in bad shape you create money
when the car is going too slowly you press down on the accelerator
when the economy is in good shape you raise taxes to stop the economy from being "overstimulated"
when a car is going at the right speed you let your foot off the gas and begin to coast.
And so on and so forth.
>>77834859
If you want to be nuked then tell your relatives in the US to vote Hillary
who am I kidding they probably already are voting for her.
Make America Haiti Again
>>77834655
>No, "during" the gold standard the national debt had to be paid back with real money.
Sorry that's what I meant. I meant before Hoover took the U.S off the gold standard it had to be paid back with real money
>If you ever have your currency tied to a set exchange rate or a commodity you need to pay it back in "real" money.
Yes I know that.
>On the other hand if you have a "floating" exchange rate you can print your way out of debt. This is what the US, or any sovereign country, can do at any time.
But won't that cause inflation? I am aware printing money can be great for the economy if you print money and invest it in public infrastructure. However when you borrow money and print money to pay the debt you are just printing money and giving it to rich people who credited money to the U.S Federal Government.
>Yes during the gold standard. After the gold standard was dropped the US could effectively print whatever it wanted. That is how the US and Germany financed the war effort during WW2.
Then how come both the U.S and Nazi Germany both were in massive debt. If they could just print the money they wouldn't be in debt, they would just print money and spend it without the national debt going up. However during FDRs presidency the national debt soured, why didn't he just print the money
>Britain on the other hand financed their war effort by selling their entire Empire and gold reserves to the United States because they "didn't believe" in printing money. Sucks to be them.
I see that. Britains debt went up too.
>For all intents and purposes it doesn't have to be "paid back"
Then why would anyone in their right mind loan money to the U.S Federal Government when they won't be paid back?
>They get paid in dollars that aren't backed by gold.
If the U.S government is just printing money and giving it to creditors won't that cause inflation without growth? It's basically printing money and giving it to wallstreet because most creditors are already rich
>>77834881
I fully agree with that. That's exactly how the economy should be run. But if it really were run that way there should be 0 debt because the government never should have to borrow when it prints money.
>>77831651
they predict Lisa to be the first straight female president
so you are getting 4 years of Shillary before 4 years of MAGA PARTY Trump
then shit goes down
PU70S
>>77833652
What exactly do you think the gold standard is? Because gold was convertible to gold until the 70's in the USA. European countries did removed the gold standard because they had no gold, but that wasn't the case for the USA.
una vela
Dos velas
three candles
>>77835020
>But won't that cause inflation?
You want some inflation in an economy because that spurs investment in productive enterprise
>print money to pay the debt you are just printing money and giving it to rich people who credited money to the U.S Federal Government.
No you can spend the money on productive investment (infrastrucutre, public goods, defense, etc)
>Then how come both the U.S and Nazi Germany both were in massive debt
Because public debt ultimately didn't matter. Only spurring the economy to fund the war machine mattered.
Once the war was over the US went back to normal debt levels with no problem.
>they won't be paid back?
My point is it doesn't have to be "paid back" with taxation. The FED prints the money.
>won't that cause inflation without growth?
No because inflation actually stimulates growth by incentivizing the wealthy to invest.
>>77835251
The gold standard ended in the 30s
you're thinking of the "Gold Window"
>>77831651
In 4 years Hillary will be too old.
She's already too old.
>>77835219
>>77835305
>>77835445
Why is this simpsons thing amongst you hispandex?
Ya calmenle a la verga con esos memes de mierda de los simpsons fumando faso
>>77831651
>Hillary running again after Trump
probably not likely. her health is shit so in 4 years she will be with one foot in the fucking grave.
cinco velitas
>>77834626
It is debt and has to be payed back otherwise confidence will collapse and your currency will become useless but national debt is denominated in a currency which is also controlled by government and can obviously be managed differently than private debt because government controls its own monetary policy.
But paying off all that public debt also will destroy a lot of transfer payments going on likely sending you towards a economic recession. Only the government can really promise 100% safe long term returns so destroying that is going to force safe investments towards more risky private investments which have a larger chance of failing triggering all kinds of other issues.
>>77833245
Why do we have to be at war with you?
Why can't you just ignore the nukes and psyops our people abou Israel until we wake up and help you stomp shlomo?
Seems like Putin is doing a good job of that with his Spetsnaz-tier memes
Russia is actually hilarious and BASED at memetic warfare
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lp8qUeEHPZ0
>>77835593
>You want some inflation in an economy because that spurs investment in productive enterprise
Yes it spurs productivity IF you invest it in infrastructure and things that generate wealth, not if you give it to banks who loaned money to the U.S 40 years ago.
>No you can spend the money on productive investment (infrastrucutre, public goods, defense, etc)
But first you have to pay back the people who loaned the U.S economy money
>Because public debt ultimately didn't matter. Only spurring the economy to fund the war machine mattered.
But we have to pay it back
>Once the war was over the US went back to normal debt levels with no problem.
Then why can't we bring the debt down to 0?
>My point is it doesn't have to be "paid back" with taxation. The FED prints the money.
Then why does the U.S borrow 500 billion every year when they can just print money?
>No because inflation actually stimulates growth by incentivizing the wealthy to invest.
Only if you spend it on infrastructure and productive things, not paying back creditors.
>>77835665
touch the stick cat
>>77835684
JSJAKAJSJAJSJAJAJAJSJAJAJSA 0 7 NOOOO VUELVE +
>>77835665
Io ke ze no soi 100tificoxd
>>77831863
if this were true, why is your economy struggling with the current "recovery"
also look at the inflation after the federal reserve, this is what happens when you print money and if you havent noticed prices have been going up and people need to work more and more to live by their means
if you continue to print as much money as you like you are going to have a problem with hyper inflation
>>77831651
Simpsons aren't predicting Hilary becoming president
they WANT Hilary to be president so they're subtly memeing it. by making Lisa become the President in the future, future Lisa of course being modeled after her
Simpsons has supported the Clintons since they one, they love the shit out of them
>>77836266
el gitANO
>>77836284
*day one
>>77831863
Right now if China brings all the dollar they have to your country your money would've become worthless shit
>>77836457
poo2loo and una vela ahahaha
Is Lisa a Democrat?
>>77835921
>not if you give it to banks who loaned money to the U.S 40 years ago.
The FED creates money and then gives it to the banks who buy government debt anyway.
In effect the FED is just buying back debt that it created itself.
>first you have to pay back the people who loaned the U.S economy money
You can effectively do both
>But we have to pay it back
>Then why can't we bring the debt down to 0?
Again you are just "creating" money so "paying it back" is a misnomer. Governments aren't households since the government can create money at will.
>Then why does the U.S borrow 500 billion every year when they can just print money?
Like I said, it's politics. People think we are still in a gold standard.
>Only if you spend it on infrastructure and productive things, not paying back creditors.
well the wealthy, have to invest in production to get a return "unless" you deregulate wall street and let them speculate on what is essentially gambling on stock prices and foreign currency markets which is what they do today.
>>77836511
Says the Mexican
>>77836266
Because all the money went to wall street instead of the real economy
Our government and FED exist to enrich jews these days not to help the real productive economy as was the case from the 1930s-1970s
>>77836457
The government could effectively tax it all away
Not that China would ever dump the dollar.
Remember when they "predicted" a 2008 Clinton presidency in The Simpsons Movie?
>>77836266
I suggest reading this article on why the "bailout" was only for wall street and not the real economy (despite the fact that it was the jews on wall street that ruined the economy by giving out sub prime mortgages to illegal mexicans)
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-chart-that-explains-everything/
>>77831863
he is right you know
if you have an army as big as the US, you cannot really go bankrupt
>>77836587
>The FED creates money and then gives it to the banks who buy government debt anyway.
So we are printing money, giving it to banks, and they are loaning it to us? So the U.S Federal Government gets NOTHING except debt. That sounds like a terrible system
>You can effectively do both
But if you are paying some money to the banks you have to sacrifice some money you were going to use to invest in infrastructure. You can say "oh but we can print more money", yeah, well then print it and put it all into the economy, not to rich banks.
>Again you are just "creating" money so "paying it back" is a misnomer. Governments aren't households since the government can create money at will.
But you just said the government owes money to banks? Does the government owe people money or not?
>Like I said, it's politics. People think we are still in a gold standard.
So what you are saying is the U.S government doesn't have to be in debt, it chooses to be in debt because politicians are too stupid to print money instead of borrow it? That makes sense but doesn't seem possible because every President since the gold standard ended under (Hoover) borrowed money instead of printing.
Was FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Eisenhower too stupid to print money? Why didn't they print instead of borrowing?
>>77836297
no me hablas amigo, mira a tu propio pais con vuestros problemas antes de decirme qualquier cosa
>>77836742
That's Ted Cruz m8
>>77836698
>>77837014
>>77836585
she is because shes a child
>>77834073
The worst thing that can happen if you don't pay a loan is that they won't lend to you again. It's not like the US can be liquidated. It are explicitly debts that are never supposed to be called in.
>>77836990
>So the U.S Federal Government gets NOTHING except debt
that can be paid back at any time
>But if you are paying some money to the banks you have to sacrifice some money you were going to use to invest in infrastructure
The banks are supposed to be lending out to consumers in order to spur spending and demand so paying bank the banks was thought to be "good"
However since the 80s that hasn't been happening due to deregulation. Now all the money they get is either spent on gambling or hoarded.
>Does the government owe people money or not?
It "owes" them but not in the same sense a private individual "owes" money
you yourself can't just print money to pay back a loanshark.
>U.S government doesn't have to be in debt,
You want a certain level of public debt just like you want a certain level on infaliton because it spurs demand in the economy
If you had a budget surplus that would mean you are increasing taxes on consumers and taking money and demand out of the economy
A lack of demand is bad for the economy and was what prolonged the Great Depression. Anyone calling for higher taxes to "finance spending" (Bernie Sanders) is a complete idiot.
Ironically Trump with his across the board tax cuts is effectively the most pro stimulus candidate.
>>77836703
but again, if you could just print all of the money you wanted, why not print more and put it into the real economy
you can't because this produces inflation, you may not see it in the price of the dollar because the whole world operates on a fiat system where the dollar is the main currency, but the rising prices and cost of living are becoming an issue
at some point the world will stop buying your debt, which they all lose from because of inflation
you can see countries like china, turkey, russia starting to greatly increase their gold supplies
>>77837443
Then why would people ever loan the U.S money?
>>77837621
>that can be paid back at any time
Why borrow in the first place? Why not print the money and directly spend it on infrastructure, why print it, give it out, and then borrow it?
>The banks are supposed to be lending out to consumers in order to spur spending and demand so paying bank the banks was thought to be "good"
Banks only loan out money when they expect to get more given back. So in the long run they will decrease the money supply and cause deflation. Unless that money the banks get bank goes into consumers bank accounts in the form of interest.
>It "owes" them but not in the same sense a private individual "owes" money
>you yourself can't just print money to pay back a loanshark.
If the gov can print money then why did they borrow it in the first place?
>You want a certain level of public debt just like you want a certain level on infaliton because it spurs demand in the economy
How does debt spur the economy?
>If you had a budget surplus that would mean you are increasing taxes on consumers and taking money and demand out of the economy
I agree with government deficits. But don't borrow the extra money, PRINT it and invest it into the economy.
>A lack of demand is bad for the economy and was what prolonged the Great Depression. Anyone calling for higher taxes to "finance spending" (Bernie Sanders) is a complete idiot.
Agreed. I agree with the idea of the gov printing money and spending it into the economy. Not borrowing money from banks and paying them back later which will eventually cause deflation.
>>77836903
>wallstreet did it
>what are ratings agencies
A government granted monopoly
>what is the government pushing the cheaper loans so nigger can have nice houses
Wall street like any other business entity responds to incentives. If the market is warped it's not because they warped it
>>77837443
It would be fun to see a country being liquidated.
>>77837658
>why not print more and put it into the real economy
Wall street doesn't want that
They control economic policy and want all the money printed to go to them.
>increase their gold supplies
Shiny rocks don't matter to an economy, only production matters.
>>77838082
Robert Rubin, a Goldman Sachs and Wall Street insider changed the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) during the Cllinton administration so that sub prime mortgages could be made by wall street and then repealed Glass Steagall which separated commercial from investment banks
After that banking essentially became deregulated gambling.
>>77837976
>Why borrow in the first place?
You technically could. A lot of people think it's a better idea than our current system
>Banks only loan out money when they expect to get more given back
That's another flaw in the neoclassical/neoliberal economic thought that currently controls the world.
Printing trillions of dollars and giving it to wall street/the banks results in them jsut hoarding the cash
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-23/bofa-leads-charge-into-bonds-as-banks-build-2-trillion-hoard
>How does debt spur the economy?
By injecting money into the real economy
>PRINT it and invest it into the economy.
Like I said a lot of people think this would be a better system
>Not borrowing money from banks and paying them back later which will eventually cause deflation
Right that's what is happening. Banks are currently just keeping all the money the FED hands out to them.
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-chart-that-explains-everything/
>>77837621
you cannot pay your debt, dont fool yourself
increasing demand to stimulate the economy is retarded, people always want to buy things but the thing that is stopping them is that they dont have the money
by printing money and putting it into the economy combined with low interest rates will just create a short term "boom" with the same problems returning the moment this stimulus wears off but with the added problem of not enough savings with which people can invest in their businesses to increase their productivity and a decrease of the purchasing power of the currency and rising prices due to inflation
keeping interest rates low will just make it easier for businesses to make mistakes due to the cheaper price of money, while in the meantime no one is saving, their production can increase based on investments made with easy money but while doing that the consumer has not become wealthier(actually the opposite is happening due to the declining purchasing power), so while companies will be able to produce more, less and less people will actually be able to buy their goods or services which leads to a decline in profits(already happening in the US) and an increase of consumer debt which will be unpayable once interest rates rise
this bubble economy can only operate on low interest rates and easy money, so when they are finally raised the bubble will pop
>>77839000
>You technically could. A lot of people think it's a better idea than our current system
Then why hasn't one President in the last 300 years decided to do that?
>That's another flaw in the neoclassical/neoliberal economic thought that currently controls the world.
>Printing trillions of dollars and giving it to wall street/the banks results in them jsut hoarding the cash
Won't they remain in debt until they pay it back?
>By injecting money into the real economy
Do that without debt. Just print the money
>Like I said a lot of people think this would be a better system
Then why hasn't one President EVER tried it
>Right that's what is happening. Banks are currently just keeping all the money the FED hands out to them.
Will Trump do something about this?
>>77839000
then how can you say that the US economy has no problems when wall street is willing to sacrifice it for their own gains?
>>77839037
>you cannot pay your debt, dont fool yourself
It's as simple as pressing a few keys on a keyboard
>people always want to buy things but the thing that is stopping them is that they dont have the money
Exactly
That's why they need to have money to spur production
>"boom" with the same problems returning the moment this stimulus wears off but with the added problem of not enough savings with which people can invest in their businesses to increase their productivity and a decrease of the purchasing power of the currency and rising prices due to inflation
By that logic a car can never go anywhere because once you let your foot off the gas pedal it begins to slow down
But you are ignoring the part that when you stimulated the economy people began producing things which is all that matters
>keeping interest rates low will just make it easier for businesses to make mistakes
>"mistakes"
this sounds like kooky Austrian Business Cycle theory
In reality every business would be a "mistake" and go out of business if you removed all money from people's pockets
All that really matters is that capital is being produced and invested in
>this bubble economy can only operate on low interest rates and easy money, so when they are finally raised the bubble will pop
The only real bubble is in real estate and assets which is caused by deregulation and financial speculation (gambling)
any real production isn't a bubble it's legit production of goods and services that help the economy from electronics to steel, to oil to food, etc spurring the economy to produce and invest is always a good thing.
Industrial capitalism works but only if you stop wall street from fucking it up.
is trump able to fight the establishment
>>77831651
I agree, we should base our predictions of the near future off of some nerd's interpretation of a children's cartoon
What episode did they predict Trudeau ?
>>77839376
>Then why hasn't one President in the last 300 years decided to do that?
politics. Before we had a gold standard. Then after we went off the gold standard in the 1930s people still thought we were on one.
>Won't they remain in debt until they pay it back?
No the banks bought US treasuries so they are getting a return on the free money the FED gave them
>Do that without debt. Just print the money
>Then why hasn't one President EVER tried it
Like I said it's politics
>Will Trump do something about this?
I don't know. The media is crying about him increasing spending which is ironically a good thing during a downturn.
>>77839930
sure
>>77839621
you cannot just press a few keys on a keyboard to pay your debt and you cant stimulate the economy forever by printing money because this will cause hyperinflation and a great loss of purchasing power because of which less and less people will be able to buy your newly created products that came because of this stimulus
>>77839426
Theoretically we would have no problems if it wasn't for the wall street/FED jews sabotaging the economy from the top down by pushing neoliberalism and globalism.
Certainly the debt isn't the source of our problems it's government policy that allows for wall street speculators and criminals to get away with what is tantamount to murder all while they get to rape the rest of the economy.
>>77831651
At least we memed Trump into the office
>>77839961
>politics. Before we had a gold standard. Then after we went off the gold standard in the 1930s people still thought we were on one.
But Presidents have high IQS, at least ONE President should have thought about that. Was FDR so stupid as to when he wanted to spur demand he borrowed instead of printed?
>No the banks bought US treasuries so they are getting a return on the free money the FED gave them
Yes but until the U.S pays the principal on these treasuries they will still be paying interest to the banks.
>Like I said it's politics
But c'mon Presidents are smart people and should no.
>I don't know. The media is crying about him increasing spending which is ironically a good thing during a downturn.
He will increase spending but will he print money to increase spending or will he borrow it?
>>77840099
No you can control the money supply as long as you are the sovereign
money is valued by supply and demand.
All you have to do to increase the value of money is decrease the quantity (taxation).
If you want to decrease the value of money just increase the quantity.
It's the same concept as accelerating and decelerating a car.
>>77840162
wouldnt the "wall street/FED jews" benefit more in the long term if the economy was strong?
>>77831651
There have been over 600 half hour episodes of Simpsons.
After 300 hours of basically anything, you'd be able to predict pretty much everything due to the sheet amount of material.
Or, as South Park said "Simpsons did it already"
>>77840328
>at least ONE President should have thought about that
Most are still in the mindset of the "Gold Standard"
They are also stopped by congress which also still believes in "Gold Standard" ideology
>Was FDR so stupid as to when he wanted to spur demand he borrowed instead of printed
FDR actually had a lot of bad ideas like social security which is effectively a tax on the working class.
He didn't quite seem to understand the concepts even after Keynes explained it to him. Only WW2 really got us out of the great depression when the US government ran a huge deficit.
>He will increase spending but will he print money to increase spending or will he borrow it?
It depends on who he puts in control of the FED
>>77840329
so when people can buy less and less due to inflation you will tax them more?
>>77840329
you are doing god's work but pol is usually completely illiterate when it comes to non-household economics
>>77840692
>Most are still in the mindset of the "Gold Standard"
>They are also stopped by congress which also still believes in "Gold Standard" ideology
That's true. However if the U.S government decided to print money to pay off its debt. All $20 trillion. The people who own U.S National Debt (China, the Banks) would become super rich and our dollar would devalue. I know inflation can be good but not if it's just a bunch of rich people hoarding more money
>He didn't quite seem to understand the concepts even after Keynes explained it to him. Only WW2 really got us out of the great depression when the US government ran a huge deficit.
Keynes believed in borrowing too, he wasn't big on printing money
>It depends on who he puts in control of the FED
How will the FED change anything? Does the FED give it's profits to the treasury?
Also one more thing I have to ask did Nazi Germany print money or borrow it? I looked it up and they had a 101 billion dollar debt so they must of borrowed it meaning Hitler didn't quite understand the system. He still had a gold standard ideology.
>>77840460
No
they benefit far more if the economy is shit as long as they control everything as they get more money from asset speculation, gambling, interest rates, and fees
much like the Oligarchs in Eastern Europe they care about power
>>77840778
wages and prices increase the same under inflation
The difference is that when an economy is productive real consumer prices go down due to an increase in supply while real wages continue to rise
You need to look at real wages and prices adjusted for inflation not nominal rates.
>>77840906
Ok then help me understand this. rrghPSCq is doing a really good job but I still am confused. Why hasn't a single U.S President been smart enough to print money instead of borrowing it. Is it really all because they are too stupid?
>>77832624
Bernanke was an academic, unlike Geithner and most Tresuary secs, he was not in bed with the Wall Street firms. You may disagree with his economic theories, but he wasn't corrupt.
>>77841177
Because
1. The President doesn't pass laws
2. The Fed controls the creation of money to prevent this power from being abused by congress.
But, that doesn't mean it's impossible. The Fed is a creation of congress, so if we really wanted to, we just pass a single law and poof, no Fed. If the country is ever "about to go bankrupt" then pass a single law and poof, problem gone.
Canada can do the same thing.
Eurofags cannot, because no law their governments pass will ever allow them to affect the currency. It's impossible.
>>77841177
at this time there are laws that don't allow treasury bills to be bought directly by the central bank (yet the central bank can buy them from the secondary market).
why such laws? i'm not sure, it's a political choice
>>77841138
so when things turn bad and the economy goes to shit, you stimulate with low rates and an increase of the money supply
because of money velocity there is a short term "recovery" but in the end real wages and real prices go back to normal, i.e. when it was shit so you have to stimulate again
so you end up in an endless stimulus spiral, is this not what is happening in the US right now?
>>77840778
Notice how wages continue to rise with productivity "until" we began the neoliberal policies of mass immigration, outsourcing, and cutting government spending.
>>77840906
I hope /pol/ gets redpilled on economics someday
clinging to jewish neoliberalism/globalism is a bad idea.
>>77841048
>The people who own U.S National Debt (China, the Banks) would become super rich and our dollar would devalue
The sovereign (government) can effectively control the value of the currency it uses through taxation/money creation whenever it wants to.
>Keynes believed in borrowing too, he wasn't big on printing money
Sure but the core idea is to increase demand in the economy.
>How will the FED change anything?
The FED could always shift policy if it wanted to.
>>77841712
But won't the people who the U.S owes money to still expect their money back? You can't just write off debt.
Also if it's just politics can you name me a single country EVER who printed money instead of borrowing?
>>77841756
Why not have the government print the money directly? The Central bank does it in a terrible way because it prints money and loans it out so in the long run it will cause deflation.
WHY DO SOUTH AMERICANS ALWAYS POST STONED SIMPSONS MEMES?
WHY???
>>77841929
Again "velocity" doesn't matter what matters is production
Austrians ignore the real economy because they are so obsessed with "fixed value" like gold they complete ignore what actually matters that is 'real production and consumption in the actual economy.
>>77842092
>The sovereign (government) can effectively control the value of the currency it uses through taxation/money creation whenever it wants to.
So the America would have to face VERY high taxes while China and the credditors get even richer (because the dollar will be worth more with all the taxes
>Sure but the core idea is to increase demand in the economy.
Borrowing money will cause less demand. Because after the spending you will have to have very high taxes to pay off these loans. These high taxes will decrease the money supply and cut demand
>The FED could always shift policy if it wanted to.
I mean how can it directly change the money supply?
>>77839999
QUADS
U
A
D
S
and you didn't even answer my question
have another rare trudeau
>>77831651
It's real but if the economy crashes it won't be because of Trump.
It has to crash or us goto war to save it, also there is a chance he could audit the fed and do a new currency.
As of right now, they are planning on cashless society with Hillary by 2017. IIRC.
Trump has the power to turn this around.
>>77842092
>>77842195
your chart also coincides with the dollar coming off of the gold standard, which allows the government to print more money which they spend on the neoliberal policies
by going off the gold standard the government can print more money than it can handle, which it has done
>>77833401
>letting the Banking system create the money supply (which is your only option besides the FED) is outsourcing jews
No it isn't your only option. You just have to have a nationally owned central bank and not allow fractional reserve banking.
>>77842519
Going to war is bad for the economy. The only good thing about it is the gov must deficit spend but it can do that other ways.
>>77831651
>Hillary Clinton
As if Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination again in 2020 if she loses to Donald Trump this November. Her struggling performance against one loony socialist from Vermont was embarrassing.
>>77842519
It's worth it, imagine being on /pol/ after trump wins? It would be undoubtedly the greatest moment in /pol/ history
>>77842271
>So the America would have to face VERY high taxes while China and the credditors get even richer (because the dollar will be worth more with all the taxes
That's only "if" the Chinese began putting money into the US economy causing inflaiton.
In reality the scenario would probably be more like the 2008 crisis where the FED printed trillion of dollars, gave it to wall street, and nothing happened.
Taxes only need to be raised if there is actual inflation.
> Because after the spending you will have to have very high taxes to pay off these loans
Again you don't need taxes to pay off the loans. You only need taxes if the economy is doing so well that there is "too much" inflation (increase in demand).
>mean how can it directly change the money supply
The FED would have to start buying debt like in Japan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/japan-s-debt-burden-is-quietly-falling-by-the-most-in-the-world
>>77842600
the gold standard has no effect on real wages
the real cause of low wages is a decline in demand for labor (mass immigration, outsourcing)
>Trump presidency
Why even bother with this fable any more?
>>77842779
The reason wars are usually "good" for the economy is because they are usually followed by a monetary expansion.
>>77842766
technically fractional reserve banking doesn't exist banks just "create" money out of money when they lend
the difference between banks lending and government though is that banks demand payment back and interest while the government can just create money and stimulate the economy without putting a debt burden on consumers.
The Simpsons predictions happened because of meme magic. Simpsons were funny, clever and quotable. Everyone loved Simpsons, and people still reference it to this day.
However Simpsons has gone to absolute shit. It has no meme magic, which is why it's never going to make ''predictions'' ever again.
The Lisa being the president episode came after the show went to shit.
It's not going to happen.
On the other hand South Park is full of meme magic. They predicted that Bruce Jenner would support Trump.
>>77831651
1 Post by ID ,
im newfag here ok , but i read some1 poiting a those shilling 1 ID post .
THE AGENT IS ATTACKING THE 4CHIX .
THEY ARE EVERYWHEREEEE . TAKING OVERRR
>>77842985
>That's only "if" the Chinese began putting money into the US economy causing inflaiton.
Well if China gets a ton of USD what else will they do with it?
>Taxes only need to be raised if there is actual inflation.
But it gives China the power to dumb dollars whenever they want if we give them 19 trillion of them
>Again you don't need taxes to pay off the loans. You only need taxes if the economy is doing so well that there is "too much" inflation (increase in demand).
The people will demand their money
>The FED would have to start buying debt like in Japan.
I know this is a circular argument but there should be no debt.
i'll just leave this here as a learning tool http://econviz.org/macroeconomic-balance-sheet-visualizer/
>>77843086
But you can cause monatary expansion by investing in bridges, roads, and government owned mines/factories.
>>77843097
>technically fractional reserve banking doesn't exist banks just "create" money out of money when they lend
That is exactly the problem. The US gave up their power to create money to the Fed and private banks a long time ago.
>>77836984
>Give us the money you owe us!
No
>Give it to us or else!
>Or else we'll invade yo-
MFW
>>77831651
>>77831833
>>77833293
>>77833478
>>77833540
>>77835921
>>77836990
>>77837153
*mounts dog eagerly*
>>77843266
Yes but that usually does not happen because it would not be profitable to the people controlling the monetary system which would be the different financial institutions.
>>77835644
No, I am not. The whole Breton woods system was based on the gold standard, with the golden window being the opening for foreign countries to exchange their dollar reserves for gold (and vice-versa). Again, only European ended the gold standard in the 30's.
>>77843223
>Well if China gets a ton of USD what else will they do with it?
Maybe we'd have a slightly smaller trade deficit
>The people will demand their money
which is why you can theoretically print the money
>>77843717
that was a foreign gold window not a gold standard.
>>77843567
Doesn't the FED aka the U.S Federal Government control the monetary system.
>>77843979
In theory.
In practice the Fed does not have to answer to the Govt. and is technically privately owned (even thought it gives back most of it's profits back to the US Govt.). Also private banks and fractional reserve allows banks to effectively create money.
>>77844505
when will the privately owned etc meme end i wonder.
also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XV3vS1hAM
>>77831863
burger thinks his gubernment issues the money.
>>77844883
>when will the privately owned etc meme end i wonder.
I'm not sure I agree with the term "privately owned", either. It is independent, but still subject to the various statues and laws that the government imposes.
>>77844883
It is not controlled by any government power. Once appointed the people on the board of governors cannot be changed.
It reports to congress but is not obligated in any way to do what they say.
It is effectively an independent organisation that is owned by their 12 regional branches which in turn are owned by private banks that are part of the Federal Reserve System.
>>77832624
Why are there two Yellens?
>>77845877
>Why are there two Yellens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Yellen
She's worked there more than once.
>>77839000
Glass steagal had no effect on the mortgage crisis and you're retarded if you think it would have prevented anything
The mortgages were overrated by the ratings agencies and would never have been purchased but for this fact
>>77841409
So you're saying he was merely incompetent.
Pic related is more sound monetary policy.
>>77846254
Which was as a result of the collusion between the now combined commercial and investment banks which is what Glass Steagall prevented.
Only gullible idiots buy the "hurr muh Clinton dindu nuffin" argument that wall street shits out.
>>77831863
>the us government
>printing money
Pick one
Ever heard of this cartel called the fed?
>>77846497
The Treasury (US Govt) prints physical money.
The Fed de-facto inflates the monetary supply through inter-bank lending rates and "loans" of digital cash that never needs to be printed.
>>77842985
that makes sense, wont argue anymore
>>77846702
Which is backed by fiat currency produced by the Fed
>>77832624
Why is Yellen there twice with her name misspelled once?
>>77831863
>it's OK guys, we have infinite money
>>77846475
>a result of the collusion
the rating agencies are a monopoly, there are 3 and you cannot form another
>which is what glass steagal prevented
t. "Never read it" reddit
>clinton dindu nuffin
I'm not defending clinton. The actually damage he did was his administration pushing the sub prime loans and threatening discrimination suits
I'm not saying wall street was wholly without blame, but I don't think they were instrumental, but rather accessory to.
The worst part is nobody has said anything about my concern, it's not even on the radar
>>77831651
lisa simpsons destroyed the simpsons with that lecturing shit.
I watched this since a kid, when it came, it was the time when people were getting cable everywhere. Loved it. Then at some season it's all lisa bitching, cut it out, because it frankly wasn't funny. You don't watch comedy to be lectured or subverted..
Then it got a bit better, now it doens't even show up in the top torrents... I've actually forgotten about it...
Sad because this show has really had it's moments. Heh Burns is actually based on kikeass nork, Olav Thon, who happened to buy and close down many factories etc in the US in the 80ies, one of those factories the father of producer worked.
Ouch Olav Thon.. He always tries to appear as a folkish man, walking in old poorman nork clothes etc. It's a kike trick, I'm sure he really lives like a king. I've met the fella several times as a kid, as my grand father worked at one of his first malls here as a janitor.
>>77831863
>the U.S. Federal Government can issue as many dollars as it wants
>the us federal government
>issuing dollars
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAH
*breathes*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
>>77836984
No, but you can get nuked.
>>77848250
and still you consume media meant for goys
>>77843962
Exactly, you fucking imbecile. The gold window and the gold standard are related because one feeds the other, you amazingly daft brute.
https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/gold_silver?cc_view=mobile
>>77849680
Did you see that they added gold and silver to the us debt clock a few weeks ago? Bottom right corner, it wasn't there before
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
>>77842092
cutting government spending is a liberal policy?
>>77831865
> Bankruptcy turns out to just be a scheme to close the fed
>>77851323
Making sure our spending is within our means at least. The problem is taxes need to be a thing for a fully functional government and the Republifaggots have convinced their tea party retards that any taxes at all makes us literally as communist as Soviet Russia. And then they run military spending higher then anything the democrats could find to waste money on
