How do you propose we pay off the 18 trillion dollar debt cloud hanging over the US?

I think that you think I'm arguing something else than what I'm actually arguing. Not a surprise since since this thread is at 55 pages and you can't be expected to keep track of all the arguments here. I'm not arguing that the deficit represents a hard number that at some point causes American collapse. I understand that the deficit can rise as long as the the economy, GDP, also increases. The important measures are percentages, not a specific amount.

akphidet2007 is arguing (with me-I realize he has multiple arguments going on) that money generation can be independent of production, GDP, or any sort of economic growth. He touts that infinite money can be generated with no harmful effects forever. Now, my economics background doesn't match yours. That wasn't my major so I only had a year of economics (micro/macro) in college. But I've never come across the economic concept that there isn't even a need to have production, employed labor, or economic activity and still issue checks and there will be no harmful economic effects. I've asked for a real world example of this and he's failed to provide it so if you know one I would like hear about it, since if this can actually work, it's the equivalent of everyone in the country winning the lottery and that sounds great.

 

I asked you previously what economists support your theory of money for nothing and chicks for free?

 

It's your reading comprehension level that is the problem. I have stated numerous times that there is a difference between how much we "can" spend versus how much we "should" spend. My only point is that there is no limit to how much we can spend. So when people say we are running out of money or we can't afford interest payments, or Argentina has run out of money... they are wrong. Never have I once said that there aren't economic effects that could occur based on how much you spend. But just like spending too much, you can also spend too little. It's really not that difficult to figure out, but you are just trolling.

 

No, you asked once to hear an economist come in here and tell you they agree with me. Someone who understands economics has come in and what a shocker, does understand what I'm talking about.

And your question is a strawman. As I have never said there aren't effects to the amount you spend and no economist would disagree with that. So phrase the question in a way that makes you seem semi-intelligent and then we can get some sources.

 

I think I get what Aki's saying here. We could theoretically spend ad infinitum(Like anyone can take a drug that's harmful for their body), but it wouldn't come without cost. IE: Inflationary factors. The link Aki provided explains that taxation is also a source for trying to combat inflation. In reality, we should correlate spending alongside economic barometers. A very simple way to state this, is that macroeconomics works in the inverse operation as Microeconomics.

Whereas Microeconomics(Individual buyers/chain stores, etc) have to manage their budget in direct proportion to the money that comes in, macroeconomics is more concerned with maintaining a proper ratio(or rather, the right volume of size) so as to neatly fit within all of the various Microeconomic activities.

It's best to think of the entire ecosystem as layers built upon the other, each layer could not function without the other. The local economies couldn't function without the larger economy, the larger economy can't function without the lower economy. It's a team effort that requires team work. Unfortunately, the US politically still does not see the economy in these terms and it harms our capabilties as a result. The US has some unique advantages that could assure we'd never see a downturn, ever. If we had the right people at the right places.

 

As I had stated yesterday and you backtracked on and now you are back to where you were yesterday......you agree with me!

- - - Updated - - -

Asked to have an economist come in here...? Are we in the study sipping brandy?

 

All I'm trying to do is dispel their myths about us not having money, us needing to pay back the debt, not having enough money to pay for interest, not having enough money to do this or that, blah blah blah. We have an infinite amount of money. The argument is how much of that infinite amount of money we should spend to increase the productivity of the economy. I can't even get to that point with these guys because they can't even grasp just the basic mechanics of the monetary system.

There's a huge difference in saying we don't have enough money versus we shouldn't spend more money.

They first need to understand that we have as much money as we want, then they can try to unsuccessfully attempt to prove why we shouldn't spend more of it. But because they can't prove that they are stuck with these logical fallacies about how household debt works or making up hypothetical situations of ridiculous interest payments.

It might seem like semantics, but it's really a very crucial aspect in politics. If politicians truly believe we should balance the budget or pay back our debt because we are running out of money that is a huge different than them not wanting to spend money because they feel inflation will sky rocket or there will be side effects. If you get to that point than they have to prove why spending money would cause those issues using our current economic conditions. Not Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe conditions.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are still just dancing around. I asked you to tell me what was your question that I haven't answered. You responded with a strawman. Now you are responding with even more. It's very embarrassing.

 

A lot of Republicans like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are very intelligent when it comes to business but suffer when it comes to economics. Republicans problem is they think a country should be run like a business. That is furthest from the truth and would destroy the country. Cutting costs, trying to maximize profits, those are things that a country does not need to do nor should it do. It is a completely separate function from the business world or private sector. There are almost no similarities behind how a monetary system should work from a business. A monetary system should be used to increase private sector equity... not to get profits. The government should not be making decisions for profit, they should be making decisions for the private sector to increase their profits.

 

I didn't really catch this when I first read through your post... but this is absolute money. I was trying to explain this exact thing with my previous post about how the monetary system works differently than the business/private sector world and the macro side does not care about profits. But you said exactly that in a much better way.

 

No matter what system you use the creation of money is always going to be controversial. Our system is currently the best way to do it as it allows control of it through interest rates. There's no alternative we know that provides a more stable monetary system. It's why every developed country in the world has adopted it.

 

Another possible idea is to propose to Pope Francis that he............ make an offer to pay off the entire USA national debt in the one year of 2017, (the next Jubilee year according to what I have read)...... but Pope Francis gives us a few conditions.

For one......... whoever is President of the USA beginning around the third week or so of January needs to begin discussion with both Muslims as well as Jews regarding the timing for, and specific methods of, rebuilding the Jerusalem Third Temple complex.

Personally, I lean toward that being possible by the year 2030, but many people might consider 2070 much more likely based on the fact that the Temple of Zerubbabel/ Herod the Great was destroyed in 70 C. E. and there is an interesting prediction regarding something interesting happening after two days, which could well mean 2000 years.

Osee (Hosea) 6:3
"He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. We shall know, and we shall follow on, that we may know the Lord. His going forth is prepared as the morning light, and he will come to us as the early and the latter rain to the earth."

Post #51 here will give you some background information on one possible way of wording this:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=419320&page=6&p=1065296538#post1065296538
Dear Pope Francis....... how about we assist the Jews to get Rabbi Nachman back?