US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson



It's not a household budget.

Now what?

--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson



It's not a household budget.

Now what?

Are you like Larkin, subject to Ron White's opinion ?:-)

Don't those numbers register ominously with you, or are you so left
that you're daft?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 12/28/2012 3:43 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson

If it were that simple, W would not have insisted on a revenue cut,
and more spending on the "credit card".

Even his dad has to raise revenue, no its just politics.

hamilton

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson



It's not a household budget.

Now what?

Are you like Larkin, subject to Ron White's opinion ?:-)


Ron White is an entertainer, last I checked.

Don't those numbers register ominously with you, or are you so left
that you're daft?


The curse-sobriquet "left" is not important here. This here's a matter
of identifying the right model.

If I had wheels, I'd be a bus. I'm not a bus.

Here's the current Federal funds rate:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/om...dfundsdata.cfm

The daily is a *blistering* 0.17%.

...Jim Thompson


--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:31:39 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson



It's not a household budget.

Now what?

Are you like Larkin, subject to Ron White's opinion ?:-)


Ron White is an entertainer, last I checked.

Ron White is a philosopher and sage. Surely you've heard of the Texas
Sage ?:-}


Don't those numbers register ominously with you, or are you so left
that you're daft?


The curse-sobriquet "left" is not important here. This here's a matter
of identifying the right model.

If I had wheels, I'd be a bus. I'm not a bus.

Here's the current Federal funds rate:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/om...dfundsdata.cfm

The daily is a *blistering* 0.17%.

...Jim Thompson


For the slow-minded, it was a RELATIVISTIC comparison.

Now I expect SLOWMAN to butt in here ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...

US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Lets now remove 8 zeros and pretend its a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

As I see it, the last item in the above 'household budget' is what most of
the discussion is about. Whose ox will be gored? All will be gored? Then
whose ox will be gored the most and who can most afford their ox to be gored
and who deserves their fat-ass ox to be gored and who needs their ox
desperately and whose ox is entitled ... tired of this ****. Just me.

On 12/28/2012 6:32 PM, Charles wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...

US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Lets now remove 8 zeros and pretend its a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

As I see it, the last item in the above 'household budget' is what most
of the discussion is about. Whose ox will be gored? All will be
gored? Then whose ox will be gored the most and who can most afford
their ox to be gored and who deserves their fat-ass ox to be gored and
who needs their ox desperately and whose ox is entitled ... tired of
this ****. Just me.

Cut every program 4% every year for the next 5 years.
Yes every SS check, yes welfare, yes foodstamps, yes medicaid, yes military.
Cut every program.

Cut the amount spent last year by 4%, not the amount proposed to be spent.

Yes, I hope to be collecting a SS check. I know it will be smaller,
it's worth it, if it shrinks government.

Mikek

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:31:39 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson



It's not a household budget.

Now what?

Are you like Larkin, subject to Ron White's opinion ?:-)


Ron White is an entertainer, last I checked.

Ron White is a philosopher and sage. Surely you've heard of the Texas
Sage ?:-}


But of course!


Don't those numbers register ominously with you, or are you so left
that you're daft?


The curse-sobriquet "left" is not important here. This here's a matter
of identifying the right model.

If I had wheels, I'd be a bus. I'm not a bus.

Here's the current Federal funds rate:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/om...dfundsdata.cfm

The daily is a *blistering* 0.17%.

...Jim Thompson


For the slow-minded, it was a RELATIVISTIC comparison.


I had no idea we were going that fast! My bad.

Now I expect SLOWMAN to butt in here ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
Les Cargill

Jim Thompson wrote:

US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

LetÂ’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend itÂ’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

So far, it makes sense. But, unlike a household budget, the government has a
few things they can do about the first line item: Annual family income.

They can increase it across the board. And risk finding the other side of
the Laffer curve. They can plug loopholes, increasing the revenue from a
few sources that are relatively insensitive to tax rates and keep rates low
for economic activity that might otherwise disappear or move offshore.

Unlike a family, there's not much flexibility with the second item. Dad
might tell the kids that they aren't getting new shoes this year. And we'll
be eating more macaroni and cheese and less filet mignon. Nobody is going
to vote dad out of office.

That $142,710 isn't like credit card debt. Part of it is, but part of it is
like a car load or a mortgage. And in that sense, a $142K mortgage isn't
completely out of line with the families income.

Oh yeah. There is something we can do about the revenue as well as the
outstanding debt balance. We can print money and inflate our way out of the
mess. That $142,710 is fixed. If we print enough to bring spending and
income together, we can just give the middle finger to the people holding
the outstanding debt. Sure, no one will ever loan money to us again. Big
deal, we just print more. The dollar tanks? Great! That just makes our
exports look cheaper around the rest of the world.

So, in the final analysis, its a lot more complex than your hosehold budget.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I think he's with the CIA.
-- apologies to Hughes Mearns

On 12/28/2012 2:43 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

Can the household print money?
Can the household borrow at .01%? (3 mo. T-bills)
What are the prospects for increasing revenue/income?
Do you think it's that simple?
Where have you been the last 30 years?
Fair enough though, you did say it was for dummies.

On 28/12/2012 22:43, Jim Thompson wrote:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson


Doesn't that preclude the possibility that this family may get its $100
printing press out. Or even a bit of quantitative easing?

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill wrote:

Now what?

Less simplistic thinking?



--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

Les Cargill wrote:
Here's the current Federal funds rate:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/om...dfundsdata.cfm

The daily is a *blistering* 0.17%.

So what is the annual rate? Based on that alone it would be 85%.

If the annual rate on your credit card was 0.17% then would you consider
these numbers acceptable?

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

RipeCrisbies wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill wrote:

Now what?

Less simplistic thinking?




That would be nice.

--
Les Cargill

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Here's the current Federal funds rate:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/om...dfundsdata.cfm

The daily is a *blistering* 0.17%.

So what is the annual rate? Based on that alone it would be 85%.


That is the annualized rate. It's just calculated daily.

If the annual rate on your credit card was 0.17% then would you consider
these numbers acceptable?

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50



My initial comment was that the Federal budget is fundamentally
different from a family budget. I like Dave Ramsey too, but he's
off base on this particular thing.

--
Les Cargill

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:18:25 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

RipeCrisbies wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:54:48 -0600, Les Cargill wrote:

Now what?

Less simplistic thinking?




That would be nice.

Those on the dole always talk that way.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Les Cargill wrote:

My initial comment was that the Federal budget is fundamentally
different from a family budget. I like Dave Ramsey too, but he's
off base on this particular thing.

The difference is that a government can print money, and if that is done for
too long and there is a complete collapse then it can nationalize private
property.

But that is without doubt what some people want.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 12/31/2012 12:42 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

My initial comment was that the Federal budget is fundamentally
different from a family budget. I like Dave Ramsey too, but he's
off base on this particular thing.

The difference is that a government can print money, and if that is done for

Please eplain, how do they print money, then pay interest on it ?


too long and there is a complete collapse then it can nationalize private
property.

But that is without doubt what some people want.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:43:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson

Ok, say a recent interview on this that might shine some light on
where the libs minds are.

The government has the ability to print money. If they liked, they
could just go out tomorrow and print enough money (actually, it is all
electronic, so lets change that) they could just credit all their
debtors with payments that would pay off their debt. And what would
happen? Would inflation immediately result? Not necessarily. You
see, you have to look at who OWNS all that debt.

The large amount is held BY THE US GOVERNMENT! (that is the SS trust
fund that gets bandied about...)

The majority is held by US Banks! When they get excess cash, they
just loan it to uncle sam. They have to do something with it. Wait,
I said cash. Sorry, I meant 'When they have excess credits on their
computers.' No real money ever changes hands at this level.

So, how about the Chinese and Eurobanks and others? Well, they had
excess dollars on their computers too, so to do something with it
(they couldn't just buy US PRODUCTS not could they!) They loaned it
to the US government.

So, really, why doesn't the Fed just declare all debts paid, and we
can all quit worrying? It is all about CONTROL! They use that debt
and the ability to tax, not because they need the money (they can
create that by the magic of computers!) No, they need taxes and debt
as a way to control and influence the populace and these other
nations.

the real problems is that they are cowards. They are afraid to try
and 'balance' the budget, because that would draw out too many funds
from the economy, but they are also afraid of just decaring the whole
charade over because then they loose all that nice control of people
that they have!

On 12/31/2012 1:02 PM, Charlie E. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:43:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50


...Jim Thompson

Ok, say a recent interview on this that might shine some light on
where the libs minds are.

The government has the ability to print money. If they liked, they
could just go out tomorrow and print enough money (actually, it is all
electronic, so lets change that) they could just credit all their
debtors with payments that would pay off their debt. And what would
happen? Would inflation immediately result? Not necessarily. You
see, you have to look at who OWNS all that debt.

The large amount is held BY THE US GOVERNMENT! (that is the SS trust
fund that gets bandied about...)

The majority is held by US Banks! When they get excess cash, they
just loan it to uncle sam. They have to do something with it. Wait,
I said cash. Sorry, I meant 'When they have excess credits on their
computers.' No real money ever changes hands at this level.

So, how about the Chinese and Eurobanks and others? Well, they had
excess dollars on their computers too, so to do something with it
(they couldn't just buy US PRODUCTS not could they!) They loaned it
to the US government.

So, really, why doesn't the Fed just declare all debts paid, and we
can all quit worrying? It is all about CONTROL! They use that debt
and the ability to tax, not because they need the money (they can
create that by the magic of computers!) No, they need taxes and debt
as a way to control and influence the populace and these other
nations.

the real problems is that they are cowards. They are afraid to try
and 'balance' the budget, because that would draw out too many funds
from the economy, but they are also afraid of just decaring the whole
charade over because then they loose all that nice control of people
that they have!

So, "Print more money" is not a true statement, right ??

On 12/31/2012 12:02 PM, Charlie E. wrote:
Ok, say a recent interview on this that might shine some light on
where the libs minds are.

The government has the ability to print money. If they liked, they
could just go out tomorrow and print enough money (actually, it is all
electronic, so lets change that) they could just credit all their
debtors with payments that would pay off their debt. And what would
happen? Would inflation immediately result? Not necessarily. You
see, you have to look at who OWNS all that debt.

The large amount is held BY THE US GOVERNMENT! (that is the SS trust
fund that gets bandied about...)

The majority is held by US Banks! When they get excess cash, they
just loan it to uncle sam. They have to do something with it. Wait,
I said cash. Sorry, I meant 'When they have excess credits on their
computers.' No real money ever changes hands at this level.

So, how about the Chinese and Eurobanks and others? Well, they had
excess dollars on their computers too, so to do something with it
(they couldn't just buy US PRODUCTS not could they!) They loaned it
to the US government.

So, really, why doesn't the Fed just declare all debts paid, and we
can all quit worrying? It is all about CONTROL! They use that debt
and the ability to tax, not because they need the money (they can
create that by the magic of computers!) No, they need taxes and debt
as a way to control and influence the populace and these other
nations.

the real problems is that they are cowards. They are afraid to try
and 'balance' the budget, because that would draw out too many funds
from the economy, but they are also afraid of just decaring the whole
charade over because then they loose all that nice control of people
that they have!

Charley, that's pretty radical. Actually, sometimes I wonder who is
in charge of our money: the government of the Federal Reserve that is
supposedly independent of the government.

On 12/31/2012 3:31 PM, cameo wrote:
Charley, that's pretty radical. Actually, sometimes I wonder who is
in charge of our money: the government of the Federal Reserve that is
supposedly independent of the government.

Oops, a typo there. The "of" in the middle of the 2nd line was supposed
to be "or", making it "government or ..."

Den 28-12-2012 23:43, Jim Thompson skrev:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

No matter - The USA is going to default on the debt anyway, which means
that the rational policy is to run up as much debt as possible and use
it to aquire assets and influence before the inevitable default!

Defaults happen all the time - about 200 times from 1900 to 2000.

Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
Den 28-12-2012 23:43, Jim Thompson skrev:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

No matter - The USA is going to default on the debt anyway, which means
that the rational policy is to run up as much debt as possible and use
it to aquire assets and influence before the inevitable default!

Defaults happen all the time - about 200 times from 1900 to 2000.
HEY!!!
Do you want a ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLAR bill?

On 12/31/12 11:33 AM, hamilton wrote:
On 12/31/2012 12:42 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

My initial comment was that the Federal budget is fundamentally
different from a family budget. I like Dave Ramsey too, but he's
off base on this particular thing.

The difference is that a government can print money, and if that is
done for

Please eplain, how do they print money, then pay interest on it ?

The new printed money devalues existing money. This is called inflation.
At a base level, inflation is good for debt holders as it decreases the
magnitude of their debt. It is bad for savers, and it decreases the
magnitude of their assets. It is also bad for the working class,
because wages don't typically increase along side it, and they are
usually in debt with an interest rate far higher than inflation.


The fed uses inflation as a tool to lessen the amount of debt they have,
but the interest is still paid.

However, the net effect is that those entities with assets in USD are
having their cash's value transferred to those with debts in USD. One
argument for having inflation is that it encourages "savers" to become
"investors" and cause a positive feedback into the economy.
Unfortunately it also encourages people to become over leveraged and we
have the Housing Crises and other issues.

Just my 2 cents (adjusted for inflation).

On 1/2/2013 12:05 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:

The new printed money devalues existing money. This is called inflation.
At a base level, inflation is good for debt holders as it decreases the
magnitude of their debt. It is bad for savers, and it decreases the
magnitude of their assets. It is also bad for the working class,
because wages don't typically increase along side it, and they are
usually in debt with an interest rate far higher than inflation.

It's also good for the government because the inflation and the
subsequent wage adjustments put more people into higher progessive
income tax brackets and the gov. can collect capital gains taxes on
transactions where the gains are purely due to inflation.

Den 02-01-2013 02:44, flipper skrev:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:31:39 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen
wrote:

Den 28-12-2012 23:43, Jim Thompson skrev:
US Budget for Dummies.... (from http://tinyurl.com/cv3wlwx )

No matter - The USA is going to default on the debt anyway, which means
that the rational policy is to run up as much debt as possible and use
it to aquire assets and influence before the inevitable default!

You must think people are complete morons. Tell me, if you're "going
to default... anyway" then why in the world would I loan you money?

"People" a.k.a. countries actually, have little choice: The US Dollar is
what Buyeth The Oil! People, who trade Oil outside of the reserve
currency, gets some "trade embargo", "arab spring" and "humanitarian
intervention" coming to their way soon enough.

*Everybody*, with the possible exception of Europe, knows exactly what
the gig is: But life & trade has to go on nevertheless! "The world as it
is" and all that.

But there are portents.

Russian wheat and Chinese rare earths are becoming hard to buy with USD.
These trade restrictions are coming as a consequence of "people" knowing
that "the US will default somehow, so maybe we don't want to exchange
all our good stuff for not-so-good money". The US have trade
restrictions the "other way" too. "People" holding trillions of USD
cannot freely buy companies inside the US - the decent ones are always
"of strategic importance". The US has erected a barrier against the
flood of money it creates.


Practice what you preach. Loan me a million. I guarantee I won't pay
it back but I want it, so 'loan' it to me. Wait, make that a billion.
You might as well 'loan' me a lot since it's never coming back.

States are different to people - If you owe me, I can eventually send
the boys round to sort the matter out. With a strong state, there is
nothing the investors can really do except reach a settlement. With a
weak and corrupt state the creditors may even use the government to
extract as much value as possible until "the revolution"(tm) happens.
This is indeed how it goes, there is a lot of propaganda on the subject
because it would be pretty bad for "investor confidence" if enough
people to matter at elections found out how easy it is for a nation
state to default compared to an individual situation. BASEL II even
assumes that government debt is as good as cash - which means that
banks, like f.ex. Deutsche Bank, can legally pledge Greek bonds as
reserve capital and leverage them 50 times!

f.ex.
Turkey went bust in the 'noughties - 2001 - I think. One great thing for
the Turks was that they had just bought new telecom networks from
Ericsson and Motorola. Nobody came and repo'ed that while Ericsson had
to sack 30% of the workforce (Motorola was bailed by the US government).

Now Greece and Ireland are being sucked dry, being what economists call
"responsible", while Iceland (irresponsible, default) is recovering fast.

Defaults happen all the time - about 200 times from 1900 to 2000.

If you want to live in a bankrupt third world economy then why don't
you move to one of them?

Like Detroit? Nah, it's wasted effort - the third world is moving here
already and their economy is following ;-)

On 1/5/2013 7:50 AM, flipper wrote:
First let's change to the more accurate euphemism "create money"
rather than limiting ourselves to a printing press since the vast
majority of 'money' is not in actual printed or coin form.

So, how is money 'created'. Money is created by debt. Say you put
$1,000 (never mind, for the moment, where that came from) into a bank.
The bank can then loan 90% of it (10% is, by banking laws, required to
be held in reserve). You, of course, say you have $1,000 "in the bank"
and the person who borrowed $900 has, well, $900 so the 'money supply'
is now $1900. The same thing goes for business borrowing and, indeed,
all borrowing.

And therein lies how the government, in the original euphemism,
'prints money'. Actually, the government doesn't; the Federal Reserve
System (Fed) does. The Fed was expressly created by Congress to
'manage the money', including the money 'supply', but is considered an
independent entity, albeit supposedly under Congressional 'oversight'.
So, as far as 'creating money', the 'government', per see, is not
doing it. The government issues bonds on the 'open market' and if the
FED decides the money supply should be increased then it purchases
some and the government owes interest on those just like if anyone
else had purchased them (which answers your question).

So where did the FED get the money to 'buy' the bonds? No where. It
comes from 'thin air', poof. The FED simply writes in it's books that
it 'has' X dollars and then uses them to buy bonds (or any other
financial instrument).

As for the *actual* 'printing', the Treasury prints them but those are
'purchased' by the FED for 2 cents per note, regardless of
denomination, and then 'circulated' only to the extent the FED
determines there's is a need for 'physical dollars'. But the
'printing' of physical notes is merely a convenience for 'small
transactions' and irrelevant to money creation. They're just a
'physical representation' of a 'thin air' entry in the Fed records and
have nothing 'backing' them, such as gold or silver, other than, as
the saying goes "the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government."

The organization of the Fed is rather complex combination of
government appointees and officers elected by private (member) banks
with the 'primary' power arguably on the government appointee side.
They operate under the laws and regulations as set forth by Congress
but exercise 'their judgment' in fulfilling statutory goals. Their
'independence' comes from an idea similar to how the Judiciary is
allegedly 'independent'. I.E. the government appointee terms are
staggered and for 14 years, allegedly isolating them from the whims of
a particular administration.

The 'problem' we find ourselves in, then, comes from two sources.
First is massive borrowing by the Federal government and the second is
how the Fed is 'managing' the money supply. And while allegedly
'independent' (debatable) the Fed obviously has a 'stake' in seeing
it's 'creator', I.E. the government, survive so irresponsibility in
one can induce wacky decisions in the other, even if the latter were
sane to begin with.

That's the 'sales brochure' picture so now let me give you some scary
but real examples. The Federal government 'fabricates' most of the
'economic indicators' everyone uses to make decisions with. Yes,
really. Everyone probably knows, by now, they underestimate
unemployment by not counting people so discouraged that they've given
up active job seeking (or even simpler, fell off the unemployment
insurance rolls). See? The unemployment problem would be 'solved' if
those persistent *******s would just give up looking for work, which
was why they changed that calculation back in the Kennedy
Administration. They wanted 'full employment' and, as governments love
to so, the simple solution was to just stop counting the 'problem'
and, voile, 'problem' solved.

But that's just the beginning. The government also misrepresents
inflation by not counting, believe it or not, food and energy costs.
Really now, you don't 'need' to eat, do you? On top of that, they
'deflate' the cost of things they think have 'gotten better'. Like,
they'll see a $300 TV but note it has a 'better display' than last
years $300 TV and decide it's really only $200 in 'equivalent' value
to the previous year, so the price 'went down' despite you having to
pay $300 for one. A new telephone, with fancy features, will be
discounted but the fact it's life might be only 4 years, as opposed to
an old time rotary that lasted, say, 30 years 'doesn't matter'. Only
calculations that make things 'look good' are used because, well,
that's the 'purpose' of it. After all, that's what people vote for,
'imaginary good feelings' like "yes we can."

That's just the tip of it and if those haven't made your eye bug out
yet this one will. When prices on a thing go 'up' the government has
decided that people will then 'substitute' something cheaper, so they
don't count the thing that went up but the cheaper 'substitute'. So,
you see, if you used to eat steak but, with prices the way they were,
moved down to rump roast, then hamburger, and are now on baloney
sandwiches then, congratulations, there has been no inflation of food
prices. And whether you did or not the government 'decided' you did,
so there.

Along the same bizarre logic, if prices go up on a category of things,
like healthcare, the government has divined that people will use less
of it so they 'discount' how much of that 'increase' goes into the
inflation calculation. For example, healthcare is around 17% of the
economy but when used for calculating inflation it is weighted at only
6%, so the 'impact' of rising healthcare costs is cut to 1/3 of
actual. You do that too, right? Like, decide to not get sick this flu
season because health costs have increased. You'll just use less, so
says Uncle Sam.

These 'rosy' (arguably falsified) calculation methods were 'invented'
by the Clinton Administration because, like those before, he wanted to
'look good' too.

Getting ****ed yet?

Well, they do the same thing with GDP. Basically, they fabricate a
number better than reality using bizarre logic like the inflation
numbers. For example, do you have a 'free' checking account? Well,
they decided that a checking account should actually 'cost' something
so that you get one for 'free' is counted in GDP despite there being
no transaction of any kind involved. And they do the 'reverse' of
inflation for equipment. Where they 'discounted', in inflation
calculations, what they deem to be 'better features' they inflate
their economic impact since those 'better features' are divined to
have 'more value' than what was paid for them. That's cool, eh? A
$1000 computer might be only $600 for inflation but $1400 for GDP.
Remember, it's all about 'looking good' and that keeps inflation low,
good stuff, and GDP high. What could be 'better'?

And people wonder why none of the numbers ever seem to make sense.
Well, they're not 'confused', they're right.

Btw, these 'fuzzy numbers' might make you wonder about one of the
'proposed solutions' to Social Security, which is to 'adjust' the CPI
(inflation) calculation to an allegedly 'more accurate' number
reflecting 'actual' inflation. No, what they mean is one that is in
line with the rosy 'fuzzy number' fabrication they now use.

Even the, so called, 'national debt' you hear tossed around ad
infinitum these days is a fabrication gratis the Johnson
Administration, which created the "unified budget": a 'nice sounding'
name for pretending that money borrowed from the Social Security trust
fund wasn't borrowed. That was to hide the cost of the Vietnam war and
works thusly. Social Security was running a surplus but since that is
a separate trust fund it showed up there and when the general fund
borrowed money from the trust fund it showed as general fund debt, as
it should. What he did with the 'unified' budget was include SS along
with the general fund so a SS surplus went into the debt calculation
as a surplus and, then, when we borrowed money from SS that surplus
simply went back to 0. I.E. we took X million into SS, the general
fund borrowed X million and the debt increase is 0 because we just
tossed it all into the same bucket, despite it being a separate
bucket. All the surplus is spent, but shows as 'nothing happened', and
there are a bunch of IOUs, in the form of government bonds (debt),
that shows up no where in the budget calculations (just in the trust
fund). See? That LOOKS GOOD. We get to spend X million more dollars
without showing one red cent of borrowing or of increasing the 'debt'.
So the money that has been 'saved' in the trust fund to pay for future
obligations, meaning NOW that the baby boomers are retiring, are to be
paid by government bonds they never reported as debt, but are there
anyway. This, btw, is how you get the seeming contradictory statements
about SS 'solvency' yet there is this mysterious 20 trillion of
unfunded liabilities. That's the money SS 'saved', so their books show
they have it (currently solvent), but it was 'never reported' by the
government as money borrowed (unfunded liability). Of course, ever
increasing payments 'to' Social Security, which can be nothing but
general fund deficit spending, will not 'look good' at all now that
the general fund has to pay off those bonds they never reported as
debt so it will be interesting to see what they fabricate for that
one.

In short, just about everything our government reports is fabricated
nonsense and then the Fed makes 'wise decisions' (sic) on how to
manage the money supply based on these economic fabrications, plus the
fabrications they come up with because, after all, they want to 'look
good' too.

So the people complaining that the federal budget is 'not like' a
family budget are correct, but just not in the way they meant. It's
'different' because they can lie their ass off, and get away with it,
with the only consequence being whoever comes up with the next 'good
sounding' lie gets elected because no one wants to hear 'bad news'.
"Yes we can." Yes we can, what? Don't ask.

Think I'm kidding? Okay, let's imagine we elected, today, someone who
'tells the truth'. The debt is 16 trillion and the next day he
truthfully 'corrects' it for SS debt to 36 trillion. Do you think he's
going to survive to the third day in office to correct for the
Medicare Trust Fund's unfunded liabilities? If he does the debt will
then be 76 trillion so give me odds on the 4'th day. If so and he
truthfully corrects for federal government employee pensions the debt
will be 100 trillion. Give me odds on the 5'th day.

Don't take those as 'actuals' because I may be off 10 trillion here
and there but, hey, we're not counting any of it anyway so no big
deal.

This post is a clasic! I better save it because I've never seen the
current situation explained as well as this.

My main beef is with the Fed that to my understanding was established
with the primary goal of maintaining the value of the Dollar. But look
what happened since they removed the gold backing of the $. The value of
today's $ is nowhere near what it was in years past except in the mind
of IRS when they compute capital gains and taxes owed on that.
Stimulating the economy with money supply is not and should not be the
job of the Fed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think.

cameo wrote:
snip

This post is a clasic! I better save it because I've never seen the
current situation explained as well as this.

My main beef is with the Fed that to my understanding was established
with the primary goal of maintaining the value of the Dollar.

The Fed has a dual mandate - price stability and reducing
unemployment. The second mandate was from the Humphrey Hawkins bill
of 1978 ( 1977? one of those).

But look
what happened since they removed the gold backing of the $. The value of
today's $ is nowhere near what it was in years past except in the mind
of IRS when they compute capital gains and taxes owed on that.

It's messier than that. In parts of the economy, a dollar still buys
the same, but in other parts, no. you/I mainly see that because of
oil shocks and either entitlements or commodities that are under
subsidy that are indexed to inflation - and some other stuff.

The "other stuff" includes real estate, education, medical care
and government. Real estate now, not so much. Each of these things
has regulated supply ( not necessarily government regulated ) and
rising demand because of GDP growth and population increase.

A great deal of stuff gets cheaper year by year, when measured by labor
needed to buy something. Even subsidized commodities get cheaper.
Even automobiles have, adjusted for improvements, stayed a lot the same
for the last 20ish years in pure dollar terms. There's been like 1 or
2% annual increase in price, even though the offerings are usually
better ( have air bags, ABS, better engine control , other stuff ).

Stimulating the economy with money supply is not and should not be the
job of the Fed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think.


It is part of the job of the Fed. Inadequate money supply causes
deflation - the overall goods and services go up due to
GDP growth, population goes up. The money supply has to adjust to
accommodate that growth.

Inflation is painful; but deflation can threaten the basic fabric
of society. If the value of a dollar *goes up* ( which would happen
even if the amount of currency,credit & specie were merely fixed )
then people are incented to hold currency rather than let it at
interest, and economic activity plummets.

The question is how to regulate and govern the money supply. It is
not clear that economists know how to do this; indeed, it's nearly
clear that they don't . There are at least two camps and neither of
the two main ones seems to work.

Our central banks are made up of ... bankers, and they have biases.

--
Les Cargill

On 1/6/2013 11:48 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
cameo wrote:
snip

This post is a clasic! I better save it because I've never seen the
current situation explained as well as this.

My main beef is with the Fed that to my understanding was established
with the primary goal of maintaining the value of the Dollar.

The Fed has a dual mandate - price stability and reducing
unemployment. The second mandate was from the Humphrey Hawkins bill
of 1978 ( 1977? one of those).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphre...Employment_Act


But look
what happened since they removed the gold backing of the $. The value of
today's $ is nowhere near what it was in years past except in the mind
of IRS when they compute capital gains and taxes owed on that.

It's messier than that. In parts of the economy, a dollar still buys
the same, but in other parts, no. you/I mainly see that because of
oil shocks and either entitlements or commodities that are under
subsidy that are indexed to inflation - and some other stuff.

The "other stuff" includes real estate, education, medical care
and government. Real estate now, not so much. Each of these things
has regulated supply ( not necessarily government regulated ) and
rising demand because of GDP growth and population increase.

A great deal of stuff gets cheaper year by year, when measured by labor
needed to buy something. Even subsidized commodities get cheaper.
Even automobiles have, adjusted for improvements, stayed a lot the same
for the last 20ish years in pure dollar terms. There's been like 1 or
2% annual increase in price, even though the offerings are usually
better ( have air bags, ABS, better engine control , other stuff ).

Stimulating the economy with money supply is not and should not be the
job of the Fed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think.


It is part of the job of the Fed. Inadequate money supply causes
deflation - the overall goods and services go up due to
GDP growth, population goes up. The money supply has to adjust to
accommodate that growth.

Inflation is painful; but deflation can threaten the basic fabric
of society. If the value of a dollar *goes up* ( which would happen
even if the amount of currency,credit & specie were merely fixed )
then people are incented to hold currency rather than let it at
interest, and economic activity plummets.

The question is how to regulate and govern the money supply. It is
not clear that economists know how to do this; indeed, it's nearly
clear that they don't . There are at least two camps and neither of
the two main ones seems to work.

Our central banks are made up of ... bankers, and they have biases.

There seems to be two type of bankers.

Ones that are interested in the economy and people who use it

and

"other" that want a profit no matter who gets hurt.

Glass–Steagall "fixed" the economy in 1933 from the "other bankers", and
"Phil" Gramm stole it back for them.

hamilton

On 1/5/2013 11:35 PM, flipper wrote:

Despite the seeming simplicity that's a complex question.

First, one needs to look at the preceding history, which is rather
long, but, to summarize, the nation had no 'central bank' and
experienced numerous economic 'crashes' with the 'final straw' being
the panic of 1907. J.P Morgan pledged large sums of his own money to
shore up the banking system (for the second time after saving the US
Treasury in 1895). The Fed was established in 1913 with the bill
stating it was:

"An Act To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to
furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting
commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking
in the United States, and for other purposes."

For our purposes the salient point is "to furnish an elastic
currency." In simplistic terms the idea was to stabilize the economy
by making 'credit' available to banks during a run (as J.P. Morgan
had), or other economic crisis, and then, ostensibly, shrink the money
supply back to 'normal' once the crisis had passed (the 'elasticity').
This also includes 'regulating' the banks for the obvious reason you
don't want them being 'irresponsible' and then coming to you for a
bailout. (sound familiar?)

Well, then there was 1929, arguably a rather bad thing since we call
it "The Great Depression," and, nostalgia notwithstanding, the post
war period wasn't exactly 'ideal' either. In the early 70s things got
SO bad that both inflation and unemployment hit, hold onto your hat,
6% or so (and you think 8% is bad). This was so catastrophic, on a
plagues of locusts biblical scale, that President Nixon instituted
wage and price controls in "the land of the free." Clearly, something
needed to be done.

At any rate, since 1977 the Fed has had a, so called, "dual mandate,"
which is actually a triple mandate as written in the act: "The Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market
Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit
aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to
increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of
---------------- maximum employment, stable prices and moderate
long-term interest rates.----------------" (emphasis added).

No matter how one would like to 'interpret' those goals they can only
be done by 'manipulating the economy' and the Fed's mechanisms for
doing so are various manipulations of the money supply.

Fortunately this 'solved' everything except for, well, the savings and
loan crisis of the 1980s the dot-com bubble and, of course, the
Subprime mortgage crisis with the current 7.8% unemployment rate (not
counting those who've given up but, if you did, it's upwards to 14%),
to name a few.

Since you brought up the 'gold standard' we should observe it's no
panacea either and the reason we 'went off' the gold standard was
simply that it crashed. In fact, just about everyone else had already
left it and we were 'last' but there simply wasn't enough gold to do
the job. FDR took 'circulating money' off gold because the treasury
couldn't back it all up and Nixon took the 'country', I.E.
international transactions, off it for the same reason. (France did a
'run' on treasury gold reserves)

The problem with gold (or any other 'commodity' currency) is that
you're at the mercy of whoever finds however much of it, but the
economy is not so constrained. By that I mean people build houses and
not necessarily at the same rate someone just 'happens' to mine gold.
So, lets say the gold supply is increasing 2% a year but houses are
increasing at 5% a year (I mean 'real' increase in that there are 5%
more physical structure representing 'real' property and, so, 'real'
value). Your house prices are deflating because you have more and more
real property being 'bought' by less gold (per house). This may not
seem like a 'bad thing' but what happens is people 'defer' buying
because it will be 'cheaper' later (since 'house per gold' is
dropping) and that stifles the economy.

I didn't write I wanted the gold standard back, only that the value of
the $ for noticeably worse since then. The Germans were not on the gold
standard, either, yet they were able to maintain the value of their DM
much better than we do with the $. They pretty much keep the value of
the Euro, too, despite the unique problems of the Euro zone. Our
politicians keep clamoring for ever cheaper $ to help our exports, yet
the Germans don't have export problems with their stronger currency. I
would settle for a Fed policy similar to the German central Bank.