For a while now, i have been trying to get this down to "a t." this is my version of how much money the state should have to spend at any time - it is about how many assets they have within their borders, like buildings and machinery, unused land and roads. the thing is, if you add all these things up, they come to a total worth for the economy of the country, but, if you spend the money, the assets remain, so the money remains! this follows from the same logic i have as to how the state can generate funds as they choose and without penalty, as long as it stays in the hands of the state. on the other hand, if they spend money of theirs - their exclusive funds - they will end up with more money if they build, so, the more they spend the more they are worth, yes?
Can you explain your idea but without money being in the picture? Let's say it was a barter economy, or even an economy with a natural, commodity money. How would your version hold up?
Essentially the position seems to be that all debt has to be secured debt, including currency since it is an inherently debt-based system.
Currency typically refers to money in circulation, such as bank notes and coins. Given that definition, how is currency?
How is currency what? The position is basically that there can be no fiat currency if everything has to be secured by something.
Sorry. I meant to write, "How is currency debt?" Also, not all debt has to be secured debt. Credit card debt is not secured debt. I must be missing the point of the OP.
1) It says so right on the US dollar: "“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” 2) I am not saying all debt is secured. I am saying the OP's position seems to be that it should be i.e. there wouldn't be fiat currency.
I agree, it's never a good idea to base the economy too much on future obligations. When people say all their wealth is in the form of debt from someone else who owes them a service, there's a problem with that. Can such a society really have any net wealth if none of it is real asset-based?
I guess I don't understand. You said "the assets remain, so the money remains". But assets like buildings and machinery, unused land and roads are not money. It looks like you're confusing hard, durable assets with money. What am I missing?
This is money for only the state to maintain, an excuse for them to spend - there is no such thing as money, in my honest opnion.
agreed, thread is ridiculous and absurd and OP shows only ignorance of economies and organized thinking but maybe op author wants to learn where he is ignorant and disorganized. Teaching him is a meaningful goal-right?
