Trump’s solution to the debt
For those of you who say that there’s no way Donald Trump could be a worse president than Hillary Clinton, I put before you this story:
Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”
Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.
Experts also described Mr. Trump’s vaguely sketched proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess…
Pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed.
Such a process can apparently can work that way for businesses. But the United States is not a business:
The United States simply cannot pursue a similar strategy. The government runs an annual deficit, so it must borrow to retire existing debt. Any measures that would reduce the value of the existing debt, making it cheaper to repurchase, would increase the cost of issuing new debt. Such a threat also could undermine the stability of global financial markets.
Trump’s business acumen is often touted as being good preparation for the presidency. But I have never thought that argument makes much sense, particularly if the candidate’s experience is limited to business. Business requires a different skill set and a different knowledge base, as well as being a different context with different rules and different forms of power . But far far more importantly and specifically, Trump appears to lack even the humility to understand what knowledge he lacks, and narcissists are not known for hiring knowledgeable people to take up the slack, or for taking their advice (example: Barack Obama).
I find statements like that one from Trump frightening, and it was supposedly in his field of expertise.
Here’s another take on Trump’s statements. Not good.
Right now I observe two types of Trump supporters. The first group wanted him to be the nominee from the start, or at the very least jumped on board before he became the only man standing. I would call them the enthusiasts. Then there are the reluctant ones who are willing to vote for him since he appears to be the nominee, but plan to vote with one hand holding their noses closed and/or with barf bags at the ready. Their main goal is to stop Hillary Clinton. I particularly sympathize with that second group, because it’s possible that one day I might join their numbers.
But I ask both groups whether stories such as the one above give them pause. It certainly gives me pause. Trump’s response seems to be an error of such magnitude that it’s hard to excuse or explain. Nor is this sort of thing the only time he’s said something that shows a similar lack of judgment. Add to this Trump’s character problems and you get a man who could do a great deal of damage, perhaps even more than his opponent.
A while back quite a few people were arguing that there’s no need to worry, because if Trump gets really dangerous then we can count on Congress to impeach him, because Democrats and Republicans would join in. I have to say that what I’ve seen so far doesn’t persuade me that that’s so. What I see a great deal of among politicians on the right is a failure of courage and a refusal to stand up for principles, an aligning with power for power’s sake as well as a fear of being a target of Trump’s lying, accusatory invective. I don’t have much faith in the presence of enough profiles in courage in Congress to make a difference.
[NOTE: The Weekly Standard is trying to drum up enthusiasm for an as-yet-unnamed third party candidate, much like a player to be named later. It’s something I’ve never even considered in any previous election. But I wonder whether the special circumstances of 2016—when both candidates are heartily and widely disliked, even in their own parties—could favor such a third-party run.
I’ll add that I have no independent way of evaluating whether Trump’s proposal as described above is as bad as they say, because my grasp of the economics of it is shaky. But I find the arguments that it could be disastrous pretty persuasive. If you disagree, I’d be curious to hear why.]
File Under Useful Idiots: “NOTE: The Weekly Standard is trying to drum up enthusiasm for an as-yet-unnamed third party candidate” [I’m hoping for Ralph Nadar — Tanned, Rested, and READY!]
Ah yes, The Weekly Standard, in a hurry to cement it’s role in history as the RINO Burying Ground.
The economics of this is simple. US debt earns next to no interest. Its only value is that it’s guaranteed to be repaid 100%. If we flinch even a bit, everyone leaves our debt, and everyone leaves our dollar. It’s as bad as defaulting. Little Donald can do that because his tiny companies are only a few billion dollars, and they don’t make ripples. He can walk away from the table and find another investor. There aren’t $20 trillion worth of investors waiting to jump into Treasury bills that don’t earn interest and aren’t good for their principal.
If it makes you feel better, $20 trillion isn’t a lot of money. It’s the cost of a roll of toilet paper in 2018.
Another beam of sunshine heard from. (Block that metaphor!)
I think that if there was ever going to be a year that a 3rd party candidate could succeed, this is it. DJT is simply not qualified to be POTUS by any measure. Hillary is a lying useless shit bag that shouldn’t have ever been elevated to where she’s at now. I won’t vote for either, and the more people tell me that I “have” to support the nominee, the more they push me away. I hated Romney, McCain, and Dole, but at least by some measure they were qualified to be POTUS, and each could be described as in line with basic party tenants. For that matter, I hated Bush II as well. I don’t know how I can, in good conscience support Hillary or DJT. As Harsanyi says, sometimes there’s no lesser of two evils. I also have to wonder what kind of devastation Trump will do to the party. Attacking Paul Ryan doesn’t help me to get there either. I’ve always had a lot of respect for Ryan, and I think WAY more of him than Trump.
I remember when the financial crisis hit, that German banks who had heavily invested in our banks felt themselves in real danger. I suspect that is a major reason Bush went for TARP–to keep our standing in the world.
Trump understands nothing of this. If foreigners lose trust in the US for financial reasons, they won’t support us on other things, and may have to turn to our enemies. Trump is a lousy businessman.
Not sure Trump thinks. His mouth runs with stuff that may make him feel he looks smart. Then he either ignores it or tries to bull through it.
Thomas Sowell backed the idea of having a third party candidate to keep both parties’ candidates under 270 electoral votes. Personally, I don’t see it happening. I’m not sure we can keep Clinton under 370, personally. I’d vote for a Sasse, a Romney, or a Boaty McBoatface in a heartbeat, but with zero expectation of success. To get even a small percentage of electoral votes, a candidate would have to get a large percentage of votes within a state.
As your know neo and I imagine most others here, I am firmly ensconced within the second group. Trump’s economic pronouncement certainly gives me pause. But not because of its obvious potential for disaster. It gives me pause because it forces me to reflect upon the mathematical fact that our ever increasing, astronomical debt cannot be paid back, given the socio-political dynamics at play and that therefore, America’s and then the world’s fiscal collapse is an utter certainty and thus only a matter of when.
Trump may bring it on sooner, or just as likely, delay it. But either way, the same fate awaits.
Rubio was [partially] correct that growth is a necessary component in restoring our economy. He failed to acknowledge that elimination of many entitlements and the elimination of entire federal departments are also essential components to restoring our economy to full health. That omission by Rubio is understandable, since the great majority can’t handle the truth.
Of course, elimination of entitlements and other severe cut backs are NOT going to happen before a fiscal collapse, short of a decisive civil war in which the left is effectively eliminated. I’m talking heads on pikes decisive. Which of course would destroy the very republic we seek to save.
So again, given the political dynamics, there is no viable path forward. We’re in a disastrous mess and so the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road, until at road’s end, they’ll kick the can off the cliff, while running for the exits.
Had we an honest media, I would be amenable to the argument that having Hillary at the helm would place responsibility upon the democrat’s heads. But whether Trump is there or not, the right will be blamed and the majority will buy into it. That is confirmed by two facts; Obama’s current 51% approval rating and the city of Detroit, where 50 years of democrat governance is absolved of all responsibility.
Liberalism is a mental disease, simply because it’s foundation is denial of reality’s inconvenient truths.
Let’s run a scenario –
Donald Trump opens the convention with a little song he wrote – the first verse rhymes “chicks” with “spics”.
A photo emerges of Hillary Clinton passing classified documents to Assad.
Mike Bloomberg and Colin Powell step forward and say that if elected, they will fill in for four years, and will not nominate any Supreme Court justices.
Do they get your vote?
Tom,
A refusal to choose between Lenin and Caesar will not prevent one or the other from being elected.
Yes, you will be able to say that you supported neither, but whichever is elected, you will have done nothing to prevent.
Kings and dictators have often been overthrown, but it is an historical anomoly for a collective’s ‘representatives’ to be internally deposed by liberty’s advocates.
Despite his later equivocations, Trump has here embraced default. I assume it’s because he thrived on bankruptcy.
Since Trump’s statement was published in the New York Times, it may not be too widely known. If that changes, I’ll be interested to see whether his remarks affect stock market indexes or international exchange rates.
That raises an issue I’ve been wondering about. Trump’s corruption has always been an issue as it applies to the Presidency. Here we can see how he could apply it to his campaign. Can he, at this point, manipulate the stock market with his reckless and foolish statements? Will he or his cronies make a fortune doing this? If so, will his supporters applaud his savvy?
This kind of conspiracy mongering would have embarrassed me as a teenager. Now that I’m old, I can ask it with a straight face. What does that mean?
P.S. I’m neither an economist nor a banker.
Geoffrey,
Voting for one or the other of them won’t prevent them from being elected either. Hahahahahah Given the options, I’d prefer to vote for a Libertarian candidate, or hope for a 3rd party run.
Nick,
Did you have to pick, as an alternative, a liberal/leftist and a RINO?
Instead I offer Texas Gov. Greg Abbot and Sen. Jeff Sessions. Executive and legislative experience.
Cornflower,
The maturity that comes from real world experience?
Tom,
Voting for one may prevent the other from being elected. Only in your dreams is a 3rd party candidate viable.
Geoffrey Britain:
Sessions has been a Trump guy from way back. I have a hunch he has been promised a role in a Trump administration, as well.
And Abbott came out with a statement in February that he will support the nominee, including Trump—although he also said at the same time he was sure the nominee would be Cruz, whom he had endorsed. But he reiterated his statement of support for the nominee just the other day, after it had became clear it would be Trump.
Try again.
Well, what would one expect from a deal maker who has been involved in four bankruptcies? So, a few people who in good faith invest in Trump Inc, or U.S. obligations get hurt? Fools– tough. I guess that is the way business is conducted in Trump’s world; and presumably how he would govern.
Of course it would be ruinous to start talking any kind of deal with creditors; foreign or domestic. In the first place, no one would think of it as a deal; coercion at best since there is no comparable entity to deal with.
GB, the debt is tough. It is scary. But, it is manageable, given the will and discipline over time. So, I hope this also gives you pause about the character of the man who could be President. This is another instance in which the nicest thing you can say is that he is unable to communicate lucidly. Or you could deduce that his first inclination is to cheat people who are vulnerable.
Geoffrey,
I was told, and believed, that there wasn’t a chance in hell Trump could win the nomination, and yet here we are.
Cornflour – Market manipulation is a precision game. Candidate Trump could say that he’ll make gambling legal in all 50 states, then sweep in and buy up the devalued Las Vegas real estate market. He could invest in the wind turbine industry, then promise to give huge tax breaks to alternative energy, then sell a few days later. He could threaten to indict hedge fund managers who don’t contribute to his campaign – that one would be illegal, but he could probably couch it in such a way as to get away with it. Damaging US credit? Too clumsy to make a profit off of it. Too many unintended consequences.
Thanks Nick. My sense of relief is palpable — like a tumor.
expat:
“I suspect that is a major reason Bush went for TARP—to keep our standing in the world.”
FYI, by 2 senior Bush officials who were in the middle of it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/16/bush-ended-financial-crisis-before-obama-took-office-three-important-truths.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/163852744/Observations-on-the-Financial-Crisis-by-Keith-Hennessey-and-Edward-P-Lazear
Excerpt:
“[The] banks began to fail, threatening to collapse the entire financial system and push the global economy into another Great Depression.
In the third week of that September, we saw the fledgling stages of a global financial panic. Had we not done the TARP (and several other coordinated policy moves), it is likely that the panic would have spread, with devastating effects, to the entire nation.”
Tom:
Told by whom, and when?
It’s true that many people pooh-poohed Trump’s chances, especially at the beginning. Some continued to do so for quite some time, even until very recently. But at some point many months ago I noticed that most people I read were taking the possibility of his winning the nomination VERY seriously.
I have taken it seriously almost from the start. It took me a month or two (at the very beginning of last summer I ignored it for a bit because he didn’t interest me much). Very early on, though, I have been taking him very seriously and trying to figure out ways the other candidates might thwart him (pleading for more of them to drop out, for example).
See for example this way back in September; I was certainly taking Trump’s candidacy very seriously. I’ve got many posts that follow over the next few months as Trump continued to be the frontrunner, practically begging other candidates to drop out (to no avail).
In January (before any of the primaries or caucuses had occurred) I summed up my attitude this way:
I knew he could win the nomination even then, but more of my doubt was reserved for the general. The polls showed him to be weak there, as does my intuition. The process of a general is very very different from what’s involved in a primary, and the very things that a lot of GOP voters liked about Trump in the primary are exactly the things that will be used against him in a general.
So the fact that some people (and I think you exaggerate the number, past the first couple of months anyway) felt Trump could not get the nomination has nothing to do with whether he can win the general. Some people being wrong about the first prediction hasn’t got much to do with the second (unless it’s the exact same people).
Geoffrey – Of course I had to pick them. We’re not going to have Pericles or Reagan volunteer for the job. If a good strong conservative could get to 270 electoral votes, he’d be doing it already.
A pure Republican isn’t going to win states against Trump and a reasonably strong Clinton. Clinton is going to have to collapse, and Trump is going to have to continue to collapse, for a third-party candidate to have a chance. You’d need tens of millions of people to agree to vote against their party and believe that enough other people were doing it to make it worthwhile. The Democrats who would consider dropping Hillary Clinton are either Bernie Sanders supporters or blacks who would only turn on Clinton for a black candidate (and not a black conservative). If Sanders runs, then a more conservative third-party candidate could stand a chance. If not, a third-party victor would have to draw from the left and middle.
And to a good number of Republicans, Trump is Pericles and Reagan. You and I might want some outsider to come in and fix this mess, but to them, Trump is the outsider who’s here to fix the mess.
Neo, the context of my comment was Geoffrey’s comment about a 3rd party candidate having no chance to win.
“Tom,
Voting for one may prevent the other from being elected. Only in your dreams is a 3rd party candidate viable.”
My point being that most people believed in the early stages (August, September, October) that Trump zero chance of winning the nomination. If Trump can win the nomination, against all reasonable expectations, then it’s a mistake to say a 3rd party candidate can only win “in my dreams”. I understand that it might be a long shot, but it’s one I’ll take.
I prefer, ” I did nothing to enable it”.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 7th, 2016 at 4:27 pm
As your know neo and I imagine most others here, I am firmly ensconced within the second group. Trump’s economic pronouncement certainly gives me pause. But not because of its obvious potential for disaster. It gives me pause because it forces me to reflect upon the mathematical fact that our ever increasing, astronomical debt cannot be paid back, given the socio-political dynamics at play and that therefore, America’s and then the world’s fiscal collapse is an utter certainty and thus only a matter of when.
%%%%%
The Federal Reserve System is a Quango, at least, or an arm of the government.
A staggering fraction of our debt — especially since 2009 has been ‘retired’ by having it scooped up by the Federal Reserve System.
This liability = those assets in the other pocket.
Next.
A staggering fraction of the debt is ‘fake’ its an accounting gimmick — for Social Security. It’s in the tabulation — but that debt never trades. It’s owned by the Social Security Administration… another arm of the government.
Next.
Red China has a huge amount of US Treasuries.
She HAS TO. They stand in perpetual escrow — backing for Red China’s international trade. Absolutely no-one (ex Putin) wants to subject their trades to the court system of Beijing.
So the actual amount of US Treasuries that Beijing is free to liquidate is astonishingly small. It’s expect to run out entirely before Hillary gets elected.
What this all means is that America owes a staggering amount of debt — to itself. It represents a generational asset trade, as it were.
%%%%%
The first thing the next administration ought to do: slap a tariff on non-NAFTA crude oil imports… say $20/ bbl.
That would reduce the deficit — while not crippling the economy.
It would also save our oil patch — and bond market — and banks.
Naturally, Barry has not advanced such an obvious cure.
Being in the second group – my vote for Trump would be more a vote against Hillary than an enthusiastic endorsement of Trump.
This latest slip of the lip by the Donald does give me pause. He has so much to learn. His knowledge of the issues is an inch deep. Yet, because he has managed to get some people (about 35% of the GOP) to vote for him, he doesn’t seem interested in expanding his knowledge. That leads me to believe that he will sabotage his own campaign – not knowingly, but through making inept blunders such as this.
By November it may not make any difference if I vote for him or not. The contest may already be lost.
It’s depressing. In 2008 I was sure the country could get back on track. That optimism is fading as the country drifts inexorably toward Banana Republic status.
.
Tom:
Agreed that this is a year in which a third-party could actually take off, depending on a whole host of unknowns. I usually dismiss third-parties out of hand, but I am not dismissing it this time.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
A refusal to choose between Lenin and Caesar will not prevent one or the other from being elected.
But if I vote, will that make a difference? No?
Then between voting and bearing some small measure of guilt, and not voting and having clean hands, I choose the latter.
If the Fed ever raises rates then the price of US debt will decline and in theory it could be bought back at a discount. However the minute it was announced prices of that debt would shoot back up. Also unless the US has a budget surplus it would have to borrow money at the new higher rates to finance the repurchase. So the government would retire 100 of debt for 70 but then pay 10% on the 70 rather than 0ish% on 100.
Doesn’t sound like a sensible policy to me.
J.J. Says:
He has so much to learn.
Oh, God. If he hasn’t learned this by age 70, he’s not going to learn it.
Geofrey Britain, Matt_SE:
I don’t accept the Lenin vs. Caesar formulation.
It could be Lenin vs. Nero, or Chavez vs. Caligula. Of any number of other blanks.
Eric,
Thanks for those links. I didn’t remember any of the details, but I do remember the panic feeling I was hearing and reading about in Germany. It irritates me now to hear people talk about Bush as if his only concern was to protect our banks, ignoring his efforts to rein in Fannie and Freddie years before the housing years bubble burst. Bush always saw events from a larger perspective than most who reported on him. I hate to see him criticized by provincial numbskulls. Being president means you have to make hard decisions in situations where there are no good answers.
expat:
“Bush always saw events from a larger perspective than most who reported on him.”
I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 (then I voted for him in 2004). Like many other people, I accepted the media caricature, which to be fair, was bolstered by the impression he gives on TV (then I attended a live event with Bush and he owned the stage, and was substantively well spoken).
My opinion of Bush first turned with his response to the 9/11 attacks.
My opinion of Bush turned hard around while learning about the decision for OIF. The more I reviewed his record on Iraq and the War on Terror in general, and the more I reviewed the primary sources to lay a proper foundation for understanding the Iraq intervention, including HW Bush and Clinton’s records on Iraq, and to a lesser, background extent, Carter and Reagan’s records on Iraq, it grew evident that Bush was a conscientious and dutiful President. From Carter to Obama, Bush was the most ethical President on Iraq. And, simply, Bush right on Iraq.
Perhaps the 9/11 attacks and the exigencies therefrom pulled the leadership out of him, but nonetheless, Bush rose to the challenges of his presidency as well as we wish of our Presidents. The same pattern of scrupulousness is demonstrated with TARP and other major decisions. Bush’s presidential record isn’t perfect, but it is conscientious and dutiful.
Yet President Bush’s legacy has been slandered for doing right by his Office to the point that many Republicans consider his association toxic and his brother called the defining decision of his presidency, OIF – which was correct on the law and the facts and succeeding when he left office – a “mistake”. It shows the activist game, including the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, is the only social cultural/political game there is.
JJ:
“This latest slip of the lip by the Donald does give me pause.”
He panders to the alt-Right in his rhetoric like Hillary Clinton panders to the Left.
Do not be too harsh on Trump’s statement. There are people who own PR debt at about 20 cents on the dollar. They buy that and other sovereign debt, like Argentina’s or Greece’s, at a steep discounts betting that the government will pay off, if not at par, at least at a higher value.
Now, look, we are approaching $20 trillion for the national debt. We cannot continue accumulating that kind of debt. What cannot go on, will not go on. At some point people and government’s will start abandoning US debt or the interest rates will go up. At that point the value of the US debt will decline and we will be forced to live within our means. That will not be a fun time, but it is inevitable,
I remain neverhillarytrump. If the Libertarian nominee, most likely Gary Johnson, could win a few electoral votes it would be a minor tremor for the 2 party system. I think a handful of states could line up that way. Namely, WY, MT, ID, NM, and possibly AK and the Dakotas. Not enough to keep hrc from 270 for the fantasy election in the house; but enough to shake things up.
blert, I have heard that explanation of our debt for going on 50 years now. i.e. We owe it to ourselves. And the foreign nations that own Treasuries are in no position to demand payment.
I’m not enough of a financial genius to quite understand it, but at some point the enormous amount of debt has to become a liability. Doesn’t it? Or can we just grow it into the stratosphere? According to Modern Monetary Theory, we can.
I suppose, since everyone now accepts plastic as a store of value or promise to pay, what matters is perception. As long as everyone agrees that the government can and will pay, all will be well.
Old story. I was selling war savings bonds stamps during WWII. One of my classmates told me his father wouldn’t buy any because he doubted the government’s ability to repay the money. When enough people believe that, the jig may well be up.
Zimbabwe and Argentina certainly indicate that once prosperous countries can fall into ruinous inflation and inability into produce enough to pay their debts. Why, other than our enormous resources and know how, are we inoculated from the same fate?
Matt_SE: “Oh, God. If he hasn’t learned this by age 70, he’s not going to learn it.”
You know he admits to getting his information from the Sunday News shows. That is not exactly world class information. He knows reality TV and PR. He seems to think that’s the way the world works. And in this day and age, maybe it does. It is disturbing.
GB,
I agree with you about the dire straits of our fiscal titanic in search of an iceberg. Nearly ever nation state is a similar or worse situation. But I do not underestimate the ability to build more road for kicking the can. Yes, there will be an inevitable meeting of can and abyss, and it will be slowly and then abrupt. Everyone will be surprised, except you, me and perhaps a few million others. The question is when and that is unknowable.
Obama’s current 51% approval rating
*******
Some make the argument that Obama’s approval numbers were rehabilitated once people started to solve Republican X –with Trump. It might be a less bias way of polling illustrating that Trump’s chances of winning the general election aren’t what his fans might hope they are.
Running a third party candidate across the country isn’t feasible. We can, however, run a third party candidate in the South, Midwest, and Far West. As long as the Not Trump chance has a chance of winning a plurality of the popular vote, I think it can be defended as a legitimate option.
If we only run in five low population states, this movement will die before it can reach critical mass.
Trump’s attack on the establishment was always code for class warfare. He’s talking about increasing taxes on the middle class, he’s talking about a partial default, and he’s talking about increasing the minimum wage.
He’s supporters openly admit their strategy is to go after Bernie supporters. He’s going to admits on the Sunday talk shows that he doesn’t need a united GOP because he’s going for democratic votes. This man is dangerous. We can’t count on Clinton being able to stop him.
Trump and his supporters have destroyed the Republican Party. They would say that the Republican establishment destroyed it. No, they have. The split is irreversible. Palin has just announced that she is going to help unseat Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, the highest ranking Republican office holder, 3rd in line to the Presidency. And Trump says he is open to removing Ryan as party chairman at the convention. The Republican Party is dead.
I must finally agree with others here who have said that was Trump’s plan all along. He’s nothing more than an interloper from the other side brought in to help elect Hillary. He can rot in hell.
Or is that 2nd in line to the Presidency?
The GOP will survive but many people who represent themselves as principled conservatives will fall into well deserved disrepute. Folks like Palin are in the process of discrediting themselves.
J.J. Says:
May 8th, 2016 at 12:29 am
blert, I have heard that explanation of our debt for going on 50 years now. i.e. We owe it to ourselves. And the foreign nations that own Treasuries are in no position to demand payment.
&&&&&&
J.J. the best way to think about it is that even ‘sovereign’ internationals NEED a superior power to co-ordinate relations.
Some nation has to be quarterback, policeman, moralist, and go-to financier, Atlas to the world.
In ancient times this human compulsion took the form of empires.
Since WWII, America has risen above empire — destroying a slew of them 1898–1991 — to become the global hyperpower.
As a DIRECT consequence of that status, Bretton Woods established the US dollar as the currency hegemon
In that status, America is COMPELLED to run perpetual trade deficits and to balance them with exported fiat dollars.
The system CAN’T work any other way.
The dollars are injected into the economy TWO ways.
1) Via the inflation mechanism — which is launched by COMMERCIAL bank lending. Every instance of bank lending expands the money supply.
( The other side of the money coin is debt. Our dollar is backed entirely by IOUs — debt. )
2) Via the hyper-inflation mechanism — which is launched by our central bank — ie Federal Reserve System — lending to the US Government.
BOTH are debt based mechanisms. The former is far more economically efficient — and has been the driving force behind the American miracle.
The latter mechanism received its name for historical reasons — and is almost universally conflated with Weimar Germany.
Weimar was structured IDENTICALLY to the US Federal System.
Where Germany blew off the rails: she monetized far too much government spending.
America, today, is monetizing the national debt. Which is actually a way of RETIRING it.
All Federal Reserve purchases constitute retirement of the debt.
They don’t exist as debts any more!
Instead, they were monetized… made a part of the money supply — directly.
To repeat, debt instruments have been converted into cash// money// currency.
It’s this latter fact that is lost on the vast sway of the population.
When you back out the Federal Reserve figures, the Social Security figures — the national debt collapses.
Japan has the same situation. Her national debt is astounding — far higher than any other sovereign.
Yet, an astounding fraction of that debt is held by the central bank of Japan. In truth, Japanese debt is SHRINKING. It’s being converted into money… same as in America.
The mass export of US dollars ENTIRELY subsidizes the Department of Defense.
Yes, it’s America’s PRIMARY export ‘good’ — more like ‘service.’
Our huge DoD — and its budget — go HAND in HAND with our Bretton Woods privilege.
The tandem is NOT a coincidence.
When Britain decided (Attlee ) to demilitarize (1945–1951) it’s Royal Navy — suddenly all her gilts came flooding home. !!!
My, my.
Their owners were swapping them in for US Treasuries. This epic shift caused a chronic currency crisis for a generation.
Our situation can not be compared to Argentina or Venezuela since our currency is a World Wide currency, a reserve currency. A default by the USA would cause a World wide financial panic which could be as severe as the Great Depression. Donald Trump is one scary dude.
The Other Chuck Says:
May 8th, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Trump and his supporters have destroyed the Republican Party. They would say that the Republican establishment destroyed it. No, they have. The split is irreversible. Palin has just announced that she is going to help unseat Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, the highest ranking Republican office holder, 3rd in line to the Presidency. And Trump says he is open to removing Ryan as party chairman at the convention. The Republican Party is dead.
I must finally agree with others here who have said that was Trump’s plan all along. He’s nothing more than an interloper from the other side brought in to help elect Hillary. He can rot in hell.
*******
Sarah Palin couldn’t even get Trump across the finish line in the Republican presidential race for Alaska. Turn out was only about 15,000.
Still motive here and lack of rational in this case is revealing. It’s almost as if Trump and Palin don’t have winning the Presidency as their primary objective. Well not for Trump, for Hillary.
I hope Palin discredits herself. It’d be great to show the political world that standing up to Trump costs you nothing. That’s assuming that Ryan doesn’t cave in / isn’t perceived as caving in.
blert, thanks for the extra details. I will quit worrying about the debt so much.
But I would still like to see less government spending and a smaller government with less influence in the personal, lives of citizens.
On a side note – about this Lenin vs Caesar analogy: I’m not sure how Caesar is somehow less catastrophic than Lenin (if that’s the point of the analogy). Caesar ended the Roman Republic, named himself dictator for life, and was the start of the Roman Empire, effectively ending representative rule in Rome. Also, untold thousands died in all the turmoil.
Neither Lenin or Caesar are in any way acceptable.
Caesar gave the world Augustus.
And decades of peace and prosperity.
Lenin gave the world Stalin.
You know, the fella that launched WWI in Europe.
The Soviet archives have that IN WRITING.
Stalin — not Hitler — launched WWII in Europe.
What a guy.
Dang typos.
I won’t accept totalitarianism as the price of peace and prosperity
Plus, Caesar was one of the most exceptional people who has ever lived (even though results were awful). Trump’s a flash in the pan. Not comparable, even for people who do hope he’ll be a Caesarian strong man who makes the trains run on time.
Sad that were having to have this conversation.
BIll…
He’s closer to Sulla.
“A while back quite a few people were arguing that there’s no need to worry, because if Trump gets really dangerous then we can count on Congress to impeach him” – Neo
Right.
The irony is that the people now capitulating to Trump are making that argument that somehow the remaining GOP in Congress won’t capitulate to Trump. WTFox!
Every time I hear Trump speak I feeling like I am living in a Three Stooges Movie…
I’ve been practicing holding my nose and punching a ballot — not as easy as it seems. Might have to bring a piece of corrugated cardboard, just in case the voting booth isn’t wood.
A third party is just another name for the traditional Republican circular firing squad. The GOP can survive Trump. it can’t survive the conservative wing splitting off. That would mean the Democrats will be in power permanently, more or less gradually weaning the country into European “democratic socialism.”
Trump may very well mark the tolling of the bell for conservatism. We’ve never been able to sell it to the American public, anyway, so we have no one to blame but ourselves.* Hillary marks, if not the death knell, the turn-off to the cemetery for the United States of America.
And that’s why I’m practicing holding my nose and voting.
*Yes, I know about the Reagan presidency and the Contract for America years. How long, exactly, did they last?