Obama seeks $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase

Exactly.

 

I don't think you understand the post you are quoting.

 

You're playing word games. Typical strategy for people who have literally no clue what they are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, it takes two numbers and divides them. Once again, you are left with a number. Why am I supposed to be scared of that number?

 

Where's all this printing money "like it is a job" you are talking about? Looks like we've been printing around the same level for the past 65 years. Should be printing more actually.

 

I am asking you to make sense. If that is to difficult perhaps you can go back to telling people they are afraid of math.

 

You're playing word games. You said let's spend $10 trillion at once, I said let's not spend it all at once... and you are trying to act like that means there is a limit to how much we can spend. It's pretty embarrassing. But I'm sure you'll keep it going since you don't actually understand anything about economics.

 

Cause that's not money.

 

Lol, the only reason M1 has increased like this is because people have reduced their amount of savings deposits. It's not an actual representation of how much money has been "printed".

 

Now, let's look at money velocity:



It is actually at an all time low. That's why there is no significant inflation and there will be no hyperinflation in the near future, unless velocity rises dramatically.

Now, can you give me a reason why the money velocity is so low?

 

I never said spend 10 trillion at once.. You cant even keep track of who says what now!

 

You replied to me about my reply to a comment . You can't even keep track of what you are saying now.

Poster: "Why not just make it 10 trillion so we don't have to do this again next year?"

Me in reply to Poster: "Why not spend what we need this year and what we need next year? No need to get all dramatic."

You: "Why thought you just claimed we cant run out of money..."

Me: "Solid argument, lol. We can't run out of made up money. But we should only spend what we need. No reason to get all dramatic and have to spend it all at once. We can spend what we need this year, next year, and so on. Not all or nothing."



Nice try on turning this in to one of the most useless arguments known to man, lol. Economics are just not your thing bro.

 

" We can't run out of made up money. But we should only spend what we need. No reason to get all dramatic and have to spend it all at once"

Sorry you cant run away from this.... Type "lol" all you want its not helping your cause.

 

What am I running away from? If you want to change spend "an exaggerated amount" all at once instead of "it" you can. Never seen such childish behavior in my life. Is this really what you've been arguing about? Lol

 

Like claiming i said spend 10 trillion at once? Hmm? Hey man if you dont want people to take you to task for the bs you post dont post. Its damn funny you think you can just post "lol" and act like you won something.

 

You replied to my statement where we were talking about $10 trillion. I don't know what your deal is, but this is embarrassing. Are you really having a temper tantrum over me saying "it" instead of "exaggerated amount"? Yikes, lol. Like you honestly think it was a gotcha moment or something that I said "it" in reference to their being a limit we can spend?

 

While your spin is amusing it serves no purpose if you twist what you said while claiming i said something someone else said.. The only temper tantrum is being thrown by you.

Have a nice one.

 

So let me get this straight... this is entire argument revolves around me using the word "it" and you taking that literally to mean that there is a certain amount of money that we can spend. Is this really what you are arguing? Lmao!!! Some people's kids.

 

Not at all. I was quite clear with my first post.. Your desperate ranting and making even more (*)(*)(*)(*) up is not helping you at all.

 

I honestly have no clue what you are arguing about now. If you can reach deep in that brain of yours and try to articulate what you are getting at, it would be much appreciated. You responded to my reply about spending $10 trillion (whoever said it). Not sure what you're trying to get at. Seems like an annoying game to distract from your lack of knowledge in Economics.

 

You think M2 is an accurate representation of physical money, and M1 isn't?

I guess we are done here.

 

I am not shocked that you dont have a clue.

 

First of all I never said anything about "physical money". That's you backtracking. M2 is an accurate representation of liquid money as it also includes savings deposits. So because M2 money can be exchanged in to M1 money (which it did as savings deposits dropped pretty significantly due to the recession) without any "printing" of money, it's not an accurate representation of the money actually created during that time frame. Which I will promise you is not anywhere near the limits that have been reached in the last century.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still shocked you haven't told me what you are talking about and you are arguing over me saying "it" instead of "exaggerated amount (here)".

 

I'm still shocked you cant admit you posted something illogical and are now claiming i am arguing over the word "it". Again my first post to you was quite clear. Hot damn are you desperate to clear your tracks... Perhaps after accusing me of yet another thing?

 

No. Not even hazard a guess. I suck at economics. I am pretty good with logic though. I could ask my money guy. I could google... but I feel doing either would be a misrepresentation of my understanding... which is cursory at best.

Why do you think velocity is low?

 

Ummm... we were talking about printing money. That is physical. M2 covers a great deal more than coin... whereas M1 is the closest representation of PRINTED MONEY, and the source of the disparity.