Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: Why don't we simply CANCEL/REPUDIATE the National Debt?

  1. #1



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Or we could just keep adding to the debt that works also
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  4. #3

    Default

    If the debt was cancelled, wouldn't that make it near impossible to borrow money afterwards? Borrowed money is like 35% of spending. I supposed the budget would have to be balanced or 35% reduction.

  5. #4

    Default

    You do realize the vast majority of T-bills are held by the citizenry, don't you?
    Either in direct investments, or via pension plans, fixed income mutual funds, and Social security...

    You can't just pretend those debts never existed... This is ignorant, childish lunacy...

    And no, that is not to say that I am a supporter of all "mainstream" economic thought and policies.. but cmon already...

    You can't proclaim to "woke", to be the smartest guy in the room (as many "austrians" do), and promote such nonesense...

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    You do realize the vast majority of T-bills are held by the citizenry, don't you?
    Either in direct investments, or via pension plans, fixed income mutual funds, and Social security...

    You can't just pretend those debts never existed... This is ignorant, childish lunacy...

    And no, that is not to say that I am a supporter of all "mainstream" economic thought and policies.. but cmon already...

    You can't proclaim to "woke", to be the smartest guy in the room (as many "austrians" do), and promote such nonesense...
    So you're saying citizens hold T-bills from the Fed's QE?

    What do you think of the information presented in this video?


  7. #6

    Default

    The lies are so meshed with society, it would be a shock to the system.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Son_of_Liberty90 View Post
    So you're saying citizens hold T-bills from the Fed's QE?

    What do you think of the information presented in this video?
    The Fed holds Tbills from QE. That is about 11% of US debt. Citizens have their own holdings.

    US Debt (value of US Treasuries) is $20 trillion. The Federal Reserve has $2.4 trillion. $3.8 trillion is held abroad (some by governments, some by investors). Other amounts are held by the government in employee retirement accounts and by the Social Security Administration. Another chunk is held by investors and retirement funds for citizens. Cancelling debt would do serious damage to retirement accounts.

    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-10-2017 at 03:24 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dean.engelhardt View Post
    If the debt was cancelled, wouldn't that make it near impossible to borrow money afterwards? Borrowed money is like 35% of spending. I supposed the budget would have to be balanced or 35% reduction.
    I would be happy with a 35 percent reduction but it would probably destroy peoples retirement accounts ( again ).

  10. #9

    Default

    I don't think it is a coincidence that a lot of the people/sites whom you have linked to have basically gotten nothing right (in terms of the economy and predictions) over the past eight years (going back even further with the exception of a stopped clock).

    The debt is equivalent to private savings. If the private sector wants to save net financial assets, it has to either run a surplus with either the foreign sector (trade deficit) or the government sector (budget deficit). In our current situation, with a ~500 billion dollar trade deficit, if the private sector wants to just break even, the federal government has to run a deficit of ~500 billion dollars. When it doesn't, you see a reduction in net financial assets of the private sector. That's what happened prior to the dot com crash and the financial crash.

    On top of that, the federal government can't really go broke; it issues the currency and can always pay the bills. From a legal standpoint, Congress can forbid the treasury from doing so; there are statues in place, for example. But that is only from a legal standpoint and not from a "technical" standpoint. There is nothing technically preventing the US government from running unlimited deficits.

    There are only real constraints. When the US government spends money, it is buying (bidding on) the productive capacities of the private sector. For example, when the government wants to build a tank, the private sector needs to find the factory space, building materials, labor, infrastructure, etc. to support that project. Those are resources that cannot be used to build air conditioners or microwaves, or whatever. When the government cuts a social security check to someone, that person is bidding on food/entertainment/housing produced by the private sector. That same production cannot be used by someone else. However, there is often "spare capacity" lying around, and the private sector is able to generate new production very effectively. To the extent that government spending is met by this new capacity, all is good (great, in fact, as the private sector has to hire people to meet that capacity). To the extent that government spending is competing with already-maximized resources from the private sector, you will get price inflation. At that point, if inflation is to be reined in, the government has to cut its spending or remove the ability of the private sector to bid on that capacity (taxation).

    So when it comes to debt, deficits, and government spending, the question should never be "where will we find the money" or "can we afford this?" It should be if the government spending will cause inflation; if there is enough spare capacity in the economy that the government can tap into with its deficit spending.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    From a legal standpoint, Congress can forbid the treasury from doing so; there are statues in place, for example.
    Intentionally inserting subtle claims about sculptures in a discussion about the debt only undermines your credibility.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  12. #11

    Default

    Lots of signature material below. Take your pick. LOL.




    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    I don't think it is a coincidence that a lot of the people/sites whom you have linked to have basically gotten nothing right (in terms of the economy and predictions) over the past eight years (going back even further with the exception of a stopped clock).

    The debt is equivalent to private savings. If the private sector wants to save net financial assets, it has to either run a surplus with either the foreign sector (trade deficit) or the government sector (budget deficit). In our current situation, with a ~500 billion dollar trade deficit, if the private sector wants to just break even, the federal government has to run a deficit of ~500 billion dollars. When it doesn't, you see a reduction in net financial assets of the private sector. That's what happened prior to the dot com crash and the financial crash.

    On top of that, the federal government can't really go broke;

    it issues the currency and can always pay the bills. From a legal standpoint, Congress can forbid the treasury from doing so; there are statues in place, for example. But that is only from a legal standpoint and not from a "technical" standpoint. There is nothing technically preventing the US government from running unlimited deficits.

    There are only real constraints. When the US government spends money, it is buying (bidding on) the productive capacities of the private sector. For example, when the government wants to build a tank, the private sector needs to find the factory space, building materials, labor, infrastructure, etc. to support that project. Those are resources that cannot be used to build air conditioners or microwaves, or whatever.
    That same production cannot be used by someone else.

    However, there is often "spare capacity" lying around, and the private sector is able to generate new production very effectively.


    To the extent that government spending is met by this new capacity, all is good (great, in fact, as the private sector has to hire people to meet that capacity). To the extent that government spending is competing with already-maximized resources from the private sector, you will get price inflation. At that point, if inflation is to be reined in, the government has to cut its spending or remove the ability of the private sector to bid on that capacity (taxation).

    So when it comes to debt, deficits, and government spending, the question should never be "where will we find the money" or "can we afford this?" It should be if the government spending will cause inflation; if there is enough spare capacity in the economy that the government can tap into with its deficit spending.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I do think that ID should be required for certain things like carrying a concealed weapon...




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Lots of signature material below. Take your pick. LOL.
    I suppose you also laugh when someone says the sky is blue or that creationism isn't real?

    What I described is a factually accurate description of our monetary system. Take a look at this graph:



    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    Intentionally inserting subtle claims about sculptures in a discussion about the debt only undermines your credibility.
    Well-played, my good man

  14. #13

    Default

    Governments issuing debt is problematic because it diverts savings away from private sector investment, not because we are going to have hyperinflation, a currency crisis or "it is going to end badly" as one of the articles says. Government spending just means a slow down in growth. Instead of buying productive assets people direct resources to government boondoggles. If you paid for government spending with higher taxes instead of issuing debt, you would still be diverting assets away from private sector use AND you would be creating a disincentive to work. The ideal would less government spending in the first place. But these expenditures were incurred.

    Repudiating the debt would just be a large tax on productive savers. Not to mention this would be a massive rule change in the middle of the game. A free society needs predictable policy, even if it less than ideal policy. Government spending is usually bad and repudiating debt would be one way to make government spending more difficult in the future because people will be less inclined to finance government. But people do hold debt. People have bought debt KNOWING that there is no risk of default. Repudiating the debt would be like how African countries randomly just bulldoze someone's business. It is ultimately an arbitrary violation of property rights.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Governments issuing debt is problematic because it diverts savings away from private sector investment, not because we are going to have hyperinflation, a currency crisis or "it is going to end badly" as one of the articles says. Government spending just means a slow down in growth. Instead of buying productive assets people direct resources to government boondoggles. If you paid for government spending with higher taxes instead of issuing debt, you would still be diverting assets away from private sector use AND you would be creating a disincentive to work. The ideal would less government spending in the first place. But these expenditures were incurred.

    Repudiating the debt would just be a large tax on productive savers. Not to mention this would be a massive rule change in the middle of the game. A free society needs predictable policy, even if it less than ideal policy. Government spending is usually bad and repudiating debt would be one way to make government spending more difficult in the future because people will be less inclined to finance government. But people do hold debt. People have bought debt KNOWING that there is no risk of default. Repudiating the debt would be like how African countries randomly just bulldoze someone's business. It is ultimately an arbitrary violation of property rights.
    Is there a shortage of funds available to the private sector? Is the government syphoning off too much money? One could in theory claim that IBM borrowing makes it harder for Joe Smith to borrow money to buy a car. Interest rates will be a clue. That is the price of money- determined by the demand for people wanting to borrow money and the supply of money available to be lent out. If there is a relatively high demand for borrowing while money is scarce (due to government borrowing perhaps), then interest rates (the price of money) should be high. But interest rates are near historic lows meaning there is no crowding out of borrowers by the government- that there is plenty of money available for both public and private sector borrowing. Could it happen in the future? Possibly. Is it happening now? No.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I But interest rates are near historic lows meaning there is no crowding out of borrowers by the government- that there is plenty of money available for both public and private sector borrowing. Could it happen in the future? Possibly.
    The majority of time throughout history increased debt leads to crowding out.

    Even when interest rates are ultra-low there is going to be long term crowding out in practice. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. Nothing that government does besides very basic functions is useful. Once you go down the road of spending money on something it will never end and at some point investors will be lending money to government at the expense of a productive alternative. Even though interest rates haven't gone up in Japan, I have a hard time believing that their debt levels aren't a major contributor to their perpetually slow growth.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 03-11-2017 at 12:46 PM.

  17. #16

    Default

    Why don't we simply CANCEL/REPUDIATE the National Debt?
    Much better to "CANCEL/REPUDIATE" the national debtors....

    Preferably from high trees that're viewed by many....

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    On top of that, the federal government can't really go broke; it issues the currency and can always pay the bills.
    LOL - Tell that to the Soviet Union.

    So when it comes to debt, deficits, and government spending, the question should never be "where will we find the money" or "can we afford this?" It should be if the government spending will cause inflation; if there is enough spare capacity in the economy that the government can tap into with its deficit spending.
    That much is true, and that is why the OP's premise will happen.

    This debt will never be paid.

    It will either be inflated away into nothingness, or defaulted upon when the whole house of cards comes crashing down: when the point is reached that there is no longer any "spare capacity" for the fedgov to leverage against.

  19. #18

    Default

    It will be. Be patient.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks Fishing Boat Rentals

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    I suppose you also laugh when someone says the sky is blue or that creationism isn't real?
    No, but I also laugh when someone like you tries to shamelessly compare his chicanery to such things.

    What I described is a factually accurate description of our monetary system.

    What you described is sloths wheedling money out of hard working people.


    Take a look at this graph:

    Take a look at this graph. It measures my laughing level the more you talk.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I do think that ID should be required for certain things like carrying a concealed weapon...




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  21. #20

    Default

    The US is in a deflationary spiral and has been for a long time. We have a cheap food policy. We have a cheap everything policy. More and more products and services produced with shoddy materials and shoddy labor. This has been the trend for decades. I don't see how it will somehow reverse. We wanted cheap sh*t and we got it.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I do think that ID should be required for certain things like carrying a concealed weapon...




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Governments issuing debt is problematic because it diverts savings away from private sector investment, not because we are going to have hyperinflation, a currency crisis or "it is going to end badly" as one of the articles says. Government spending just means a slow down in growth.
    Proof? There are studies showing a lot of different things, and I generally agree that "large government" is poor for growth, but deficits generally lead to more growth while surpluses (with few datapoints) lead to less growth or even negative growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Instead of buying productive assets people direct resources to government boondoggles. If you paid for government spending with higher taxes instead of issuing debt, you would still be diverting assets away from private sector use AND you would be creating a disincentive to work. The ideal would less government spending in the first place. But these expenditures were incurred.
    Where is the proof? I mean, the studies I have seen show that both higher taxes and lower taxes can disincentivize work. Higher taxes by lowering returns and lower taxes by giving less need for higher returns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The majority of time throughout history increased debt leads to crowding out.
    Proof of this, especially in a post-gold-standard world?

    Again, as long as their balance sheets are healthy, banks are able to endogenously increase the money supply as they see fit. As long as they can find credit-worthy customers, they will expand the money supply and engage in lending. The Federal Reserve, as well as the Treasury (though in practice, not actively) can place upward pressure on the short-term interest rate by draining liquidity from the system (or IOR policy) and imposing a cost on banks for any credit they create (separate from the risk).

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Even when interest rates are ultra-low there is going to be long term crowding out in practice. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. Nothing that government does besides very basic functions is useful. Once you go down the road of spending money on something it will never end and at some point investors will be lending money to government at the expense of a productive alternative. Even though interest rates haven't gone up in Japan, I have a hard time believing that their debt levels aren't a major contributor to their perpetually slow growth.
    This is Barro's theory which has been thoroughly debunked by data. Point refuted a million times, as it were.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Is there a shortage of funds available to the private sector? Is the government syphoning off too much money? One could in theory claim that IBM borrowing makes it harder for Joe Smith to borrow money to buy a car. Interest rates will be a clue. That is the price of money- determined by the demand for people wanting to borrow money and the supply of money available to be lent out. If there is a relatively high demand for borrowing while money is scarce (due to government borrowing perhaps), then interest rates (the price of money) should be high. But interest rates are near historic lows meaning there is no crowding out of borrowers by the government- that there is plenty of money available for both public and private sector borrowing. Could it happen in the future? Possibly. Is it happening now? No.
    Again, banks are able to expand loans and lending as they see fit. As long as their balance sheets are healthy, they will expand credit to the extent that they will find credit-worthy customers. Government policies, including spending, taxation, and regulation can make create more/fewer credit-worthy customers, but banks are not technically inhibited. The supply of money available to be lent out is, in theory, unlimited; the only limits placed on it are the healthiness of the banks's balance sheet (which, if they are healthy and are only adding "worthy" assets are only getting healthier) and central bank policy, which places upward pressure on the short-term interest rate.

  23. #22

    Default

    My answers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    Proof? There are studies showing a lot of different things, and I generally agree that "large government" is poor for growth, but deficits generally lead to more growth while surpluses (with few datapoints) lead to less growth or even negative growth.

    I don't think deficits matter at all and I tried to convey that in my post by pointing out that I think at least in theory deficits are preferable to tax hikes. I do think the absolute level of government spending matters a lot for growth. Government isn't exposed to market forces so when they spend money on something there is no incentive to be efficient. If deficits increase because the economy is in recession or because of tax cuts, I don't see that as a problem. Not that this is a super credible source but the three bullet points listed are the same thing I just said. http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-s...conomic-growth And FWIW, Australia has run surpluses periodically and hasn't had a recession in over 20 years.

    The best illustration is Singapore. When Lee Kuan Yew took power the per capita GDP was around $300. It is close to $60,000 now. Ditto with Hong Kong. Chile. Those 3 places have had some of the highest growth over the last 40 years. The only counterpoints are a couple of very well run Scandanavian countries. I don't think you can easily emulate what they do. And I don't think it is preferable either. Sweden is not a better place to live than the United States. France has a similar level of spending as Sweden and is a disaster.


    Where is the proof? I mean, the studies I have seen show that both higher taxes and lower taxes can disincentivize work. Higher taxes by lowering returns and lower taxes by giving less need for higher returns.

    Incentives matter. A tax is a disincentive. I highly doubt there is evidence that says if you raise taxes it will encourage people to produce more. I couldn't find one on Google.

    Proof of this, especially in a post-gold-standard world.
    The 1970's? That seems like a pretty good example. You had low growth and government competing for investment to finance itself.
    This is Barro's theory which has been thoroughly debunked by data. Point refuted a million times, as it were.

    Public choice theory says politicians respond to incentives just like anyone in business. There is never a political incentive to cut spending. Politicians lose votes if they take something away. I think the growth of government since the 1930's illustrates that pretty well. Broadly unpopular policies like sugar subsidies still exist.

    Last edited by Krugminator2; 03-11-2017 at 04:24 PM.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    My answers.
    I don't think deficits matter at all and I tried to convey that in my post by pointing out that I think at least in theory deficits are preferable to tax hikes. I do think the absolute level of government spending matters a lot for growth. Government isn't exposed to market forces so when they spend money on something there is no incentive to be efficient. If deficits increase because the economy is in recession or because of tax cuts, I don't see that as a problem. Not that this is a super credible source but the three bullet points listed are the same thing I just said. http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-s...conomic-growth And FWIW, Australia has run surpluses periodically and hasn't had a recession in over 20 years.

    Try and find a more respectable, peer-reviewed source. I mean, a quick read through the paper renders it questionable. Comparing EU government spending/growth to US government spending/growth, and then saying less spending = more growth is incredibly deceptive and is a great example of correlation not equating to causation. The paper also is more about giant government overall rather than deficits. I also do not like the over-referencing of ideological books vs. studies/papers.

    I do generally think that government regulation (at its current level) is bad for the economy and that we have too much government intervention, but that is besides the point of spending/deficits. Plus, if I wanted to prove that government needs to be constrained, I'd try and find a source that wasn't just coincidentally right.

    In the case of Australia:

    1) They've had some dips that have correlated with smaller deficits.
    2) They are not nearly as much of an importer as the USA, having a few years with balance of trade surpluses. That adds net financial wealth to the economy.
    3) Much of their growth has been fueled by debt (which is NOT necessarily a bad thing; same thing has happened in this country)! Debt/income has, what, tripled in the past twenty years? That debt can fuel a lot of consumption and investment. The US private sector has typically had between 3-6% of the total credit level in net financial assets. Australia is at 11% today(IIRC)...over twenty years, net financial assets have gone up a hair relative to GDP while debt-to-gdp has nearly tripled. A way of thinking about it is that when some countries, like the US, expanded their credit level, they were going from a level their economy could handle to an unsustainable level; the bubble popped and they had a recession. Australia went from having a credit level too conservative for their economy to a level that their economy could handle.

    The best illustration is Singapore. When Lee Kuan Yew took power the per capita GDP was around $300. It is close to $60,000 now. Ditto with Hong Kong. Chile. Those 3 places have had some of the highest growth over the last 40 years. The only counterpoints are a couple of very well run Scandanavian countries. I don't think you can easily emulate what they do. And I don't think it is preferable either. Sweden is not a better place to live than the United States. France has a similar level of spending as Sweden and is a disaster.
    Singapore and Hong Kong are both, in general, export economies. That is how they add wealth to the private sector; they import financial wealth from oversees (by exporting real wealth, meaning goods and services). In fact, their governments have to be very careful about running deficits, as you can get real inflation by adding too much "bidding" to the economy for the given-produced goods.

    With the European countries, I find it helpful to distinguish between countries like Sweden and Norway who control their own currency, and nations like France, who do not. When you don't control your own currency, you cannot create it out of thin air to purchase goods. Then, you do have to borrow it from the market and face a risk of default.

    Incentives matter. A tax is a disincentive. I highly doubt there is evidence that says if you raise taxes it will encourage people to produce more. I couldn't find one on Google.
    What I am saying is that if you cut taxes, you will disincentivize work as people have more take-home income and will work less. It is a super-marginal effect but it does happen. See this study: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf or https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...le_Samwick.pdf

    I mean, a lot of what I read suggests that we place too much emphasis on tax cuts or hikes on production. Regulation has a bigger effect; in general, taxes are taken on profits, and businesses tend to fight for every penny. Workers also tend to alter their habits based on many factors.

    The same thing is really true for lending as well. We've had high rates and high loan-creation, low rates and low loan-creation, and low rates and high loan-creation. If there balance sheets are healthy and there are opportunities out there, businesses will take the plunge (especially since you have to look at how rates impact the revenue side of things. High rates may mean you pay more to borrow, but it also means that wages go up throughout the economy and you can charge more for goods).

    The 1970's? That seems like a pretty good example. You had low growth and government competing for investment to finance itself.
    I guess if you think that high interest rates imply that government is crowding out private resources. An alternative theory would be that rates were high because the Federal Reserve set a high rate. That's how the Federal Reserve works...

    In fact, in the 70s, deficit-to-GDP ratios stayed rather flat while interest rates jumped all over the place.

    Public choice theory says politicians respond to incentives just like anyone in business. There is never a political incentive to cut spending. Politicians lose votes if they take something away. I think the growth of government since the 1930's illustrates that pretty well. Broadly unpopular policies like sugar subsidies still exist.
    Sure, this is true. But I was talking about Barro's theory of how government spending will never work as people will rationally expect higher tax rates in the future to offset that spending. The whole rational expectations theory which has been blown out of the water academically, as people aren't robots with epistemological certitude.
    Last edited by Dr.No.; 03-12-2017 at 04:59 AM. Reason: Spacing

  25. #24

    Default



    Or as Ron Paul described we can simply pay it off. Mint a single 20 Trillion dollar coin (mint it on Zinc and Tin for further insult), and give it to the Fed. Boom, we are out of debt overnight and paid our bills.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post


    Or as Ron Paul described we can simply pay it off. Mint a single 20 Trillion dollar coin (mint it on Zinc and Tin for further insult), and give it to the Fed. Boom, we are out of debt overnight and paid our bills.
    The Fed does't have $20 trillion of the US debt. You can't buy that much from them. Most you could buy from them is $2.4 trillion. That still leaves over $17.6 trillion and growing. They can have that thing back up to $20T in no time.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-14-2017 at 05:52 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  27. #26

    Default

    I also would like one 2.4 trillion coin , but I only want to pay the three cents for it that it will cost to mint it from zinc .

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Fed does't have $20 trillion of the US debt. You can't buy that much from them. Most you could buy from them is $2.4 trillion. That still leaves over $17.6 trillion and growing. They can have that thing back up to $20T in no time.
    I stand corrected, and a further correction, It seems they have 4.45 Trillion as of 2017.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  29. #28

    Default

    Politicians are addicted to the Debt Machine like a Housewife of (<insert city>) is addicted to using a credit card to buy shoes.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Politicians are addicted to the Debt Machine like a Housewife of (<insert city>) is addicted to using a credit card to buy shoes.
    Who said "The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide"?

    And wouldnt the correct term be "Democide" vs genocide?

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    I stand corrected, and a further correction, It seems they have 4.45 Trillion as of 2017.
    $4.5 trillion is the total assets the Fed holds- that includes several things as well as Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities. $2.46 trillion of it is in the form of US Treasuries. https://www.federalreserve.gov/relea...urrent/h41.htm
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Will California Repudiate Its Debt?
    By lynnf in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-28-2016, 03:48 AM
  2. Repudiate the National Debt
    By Feeding the Abscess in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2013, 06:32 PM
  3. Repudiate the National Debt by Murray N. Rothbard
    By Truth Warrior in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 09:57 AM
  4. Thomas Mellon says we should Repudiate the Debt and Defaut.
    By Dustancostine in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2011, 05:37 PM
  5. FED: Campaign to cancel national debt - by const. ammendment
    By voytechs in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 04:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •