Some thoughts but not a rant

[PCIntern]

So the federal government is going to create SIX TRILLION DOLLARS out of whole cloth: they don’t have to print the money because we are a nearly-cashless society. Ok. Fine. I’m on board if everyone else is

Two things:

1. Doesn’t this devalue existing money relative to a reference point? Gold? Platinum?

B. Imagine if we funded education, homelessness, disease-curing research this way. Just think: four years ago before this genocidal psychopathic asshole arrived in the WH, Congress could have passed a six trillion dollar bill to address all the problems in America that plague the populace. Instead we got complaints about the deficit. Well OK, we gave tax breaks to the wealthy and blew the deficit to frightening levels. Now we added this sum. Wow. And more coming.

As an aside, those who do not believe in evolution need to come up with a pretty good explanation of this as God’s Plan. I’m waiting...

[rampartc]

1. education, homelessness, etc are not problems of the elite

money can only be created in this way to pump up the stock market or to secure natural resources needed to increase wealrh and power.

even better, once they have the money, the added debt can be used as an excuse to cut social programs even more.

[rzemanfl]

2. Gloves and masks will become the new currency.

Like chocolate bars and cigarettes in Europe after WWII.

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. Yeah, my brain has been swirling around the same thoughts. nt

[unblock]

4. creating money doesn't devalue the currency per se, you have to look at how it's used

money's value is based on how readily available it is relative to the size of the economy.

if the government creates money and pisses it away, then that devalues money.

if the government creates money and uses it to create actual wealth, improving the economy, then it doesn't devalue money and may even increase the value of money.

so borrowing or otherwise creating money to hand it over to the rich who will hoard it and/or invest it overseas with little near-term return for the u.s. economy, that's close to pissing it away, so that devalues money.

borrowing to hand invest in the poor, who tend to put it back into the local economy quickly, and to the extent it increases the productivity of those people (through better education, training, transportation opening up more job possibilities, etc.), then this doesn't devalue money and may even increase it.


this is why most republican arguments again how "expensive" democratic programs are is b.s., because most democratic programs increase the size of the economy and are therefore good, solid investments.

republican plans, which invariably amount to "give more money to rich people", improves the economy greatly only in very specific, rare circumstances, when we actually have an economy held back by insufficient investment capital. that can happen, but it's rare.

[dweller]

5. +1

👍🏻

✌🏼

[PCIntern]

6. Good points. Thanks.

I once had a rich acquaintance who patiently explained to me that if you give money to poor people they use it on disposables like food and rent. If you give money to rich people they invest it and make it grow. So i asked him if feeding people was a waste of money if they weren’t rich. He just stared at me and shook his head.

Then I gave him the injection with the 2 1/2 inch needle.

[MLAA]

7. 😬😷

[unblock]

8. lol.

what republicans don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that poor people spending money is *economic activity*, *even* if it's on things they disapprove of like booze or gambling or whatever. the key is that they don't hoard it.

if poor people are spending money, that's an opportunity for rich people to get it. all they have to do is have a business that caters, directly or indirectly, to these poor people who are so eager to spend their money.

let's imagine some republican pearl-clutching scenario, where the government just borrows money in order to hand it to poor people, who all spend it 100% on booze. well, the distillery makes money, the bottle/can maker makes money, the packaging company makes money, the distributor makes money, the retailer makes money, the advertising company makes money, and the government gets money back in taxes.

then all these companies pay their suppliers and their employees, and they spend money on other things.

eventually money winds up in the hands of rich people. they just hate this whole arrangement because it means they have to *work* to get their hands on the money. they'd rather the government just hand it over to them directly.


it doesn't really work in reverse. handing money to rich people really doesn't get money into the hands of poor people. again, except in rare circumstances, such as when there's labor available but no jobs while there's demand for goods, but the jobs aren't happening because there's a capital shortage. only in those rare circumstances will handing money to the rich lead to real job creation that benefits the poor, or at least those who are able to work, anyway.

[RobinA]

9. I Used To Make

a similar argument about money "wasted" on litigation. I was a paralegal for a large law firm and we represented corporate clients. Giant amounts of money exchange hands during corporate litigation and when you get triple figure copying bills the first reaction is that it's a big waste. But no. You've got the whole paper-producing chain, the copier-making chain, the transportation of all of it all chain, the copying chain, the paper-reviewer chain, the storage chain... Even the high priced lawyers. They have money but they aren't corporation rich. So they buy a Lexus. People make the Lexus, transport the Lexus, etc., etc. So money spent on litigation isn't "wasted" it's out there circulating.

[unblock]

10. litigation has a broader effect.

hopefully, it gives a big incentive for businesses to play fair, which is hugely valuable in getting the economy to allocate goods and services appropriately and efficiently. really, it all falls apart without appropriate rule of law and productive social norms.

without that, you wind up with a kleptocracy or other system where resources go to the people who are willing and able to siphon it off unearned, instead of going to the people who provide goods and services in exchange.

hey, kinda like donnie's vision for the american economy. go figure. one of donnie's key areas of expertise is turning the litigation system on its head, a rich guy taking advantage of the flaws in the system to beat up on the little guy. thousands and thousands of times....