Solutions that would get us out of debt and fix our economic problems.
Note: This is not a political article, this is an economic article, please don't turn this thread into a political discussion so that it won't get locked...
I like how it said Edison was an inventor, and that Jackson was the only president to have a balanced budjet.
So Edison didn't invent anything, and who else had a balanced budget? It sure wasn't Clinton, I mean he PLANNED a balanced budget, but by the end of the year after he left office they had spent the expected savings AND all the stuff he cut they put back in... basically it was a media farce again...
Solutions that would get us out of debt and fix our economic problems.
euh ... 2 solutions come down to 'revolt'.
Which is horrible if you want to get out of debt. Revolt = unknown future = bad for foreign/global investors & companies = less investors/companies = less money = more debt required
Check out the first few lines on Thomas Alva Edison in English Wikipedia:
Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931) was an American inventor, scientist, and businessman who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including thephonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" (now Edison, New Jersey) by a newspaper reporter, he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large teamwork to the process of invention, and therefore is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.[1]
Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931) was an American inventor, scientist, and businessman who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including thephonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb.
Thomas Alva Edison (Milan (Ohio), 11 februari 1847 – West Orange (New Jersey), 18 oktober 1931) was an American inventor and businessman, who made his fortune by purchasing inventions and patenting them on his own name. If they were succesful, he perfected them and took them to production.
Edison's lightbulb (1879) was an improvement of Henry Goebel's lightbulb (1854)
The Phonograph (1877) was an improvement of the Phonautograph (Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville, 1857 )
And much of credits of the the motion picture invention go to WKL Dickson.
This is extremely.. odd.ShowCheck out the first few lines on Thomas Alva Edison in English Wikipedia:Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931) was an American inventor, scientist, and businessman who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including thephonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" (now Edison, New Jersey) by a newspaper reporter, he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large teamwork to the process of invention, and therefore is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.[1]
Create money? Does he mean print money? So the US government doesn't print money? sadlol
Anyway, another ridiculus article...
No, he means create money. The federal reserve creates virtual money which it then lends out to banks in a virtual form, it then sells these loans to other countries several times over, kind of like in a ponzi scheme. The banks leverage this virtual money in the stockmarket where it virtually goes to different companies... its all a convoluted corrupt process...
Yeah, Edison didn't invent anything. And, about Clinton, you might want to check that. Also,
Yeah, go back and read those articles and note the word 'budget' as in 'A plan of fiscal responsibility' not 'money in hand'
The English, one, I assure you. So many Americans have an American historical figure fetish that they get raging boners at the thought of people like Edison, or the Robber Barons. That then leads to misinformation like that spreading around, especially after Edison, being loaded, tried to bury everyone he stole from, like, say, Tesla.
Yeah, they finally gave Tesla back some of his patents, but only because another country was going to claim credit, and we had to defend our U.S. inventors...
No, he means create money. The federal reserve creates virtual money which it then lends out to banks in a virtual form, it then sells these loans to other countries several times over, kind of like in a ponzi scheme. The banks leverage this virtual money in the stockmarket where it virtually goes to different companies... its all a convoluted corrupt process...
I'm a bit confused about what he thinks "real" money is. If he means the printed format, making lots of that would be bad, as it would lead to hyperinflation, and the "taking-a-wheelbarrow-to-buy-bread" trope. Which, ironically, would favor credit cards, since you could then do without the wheelbarrow.
Same here. I am curious to see what will happen with the default.
What worries me is your second statement. Ok, get rid of all politicians, but in exchange for what? A dictator?
All this talk of worthless politicians, worth less political system, worth judicial system, worries me.
Please confort me squirrel. Hold me tight in your fur.
Hopefully replace them with new elected officials that have an example of what happens when you screw around. Sure, it's just a fairytale and will never happen, but a person can dream.
In any case, it would be a good experience for people to go through. It may hurt, but at this point... people deserve for it to hurt.
Please confort me squirrel. Hold me tight in your fur.
If you want, I can hold you tight to my hot, ruddy scales.
Same here. I am curious to see what will happen with the default.
What worries me is your second statement. Ok, get rid of all politicians, but in exchange for what? A dictator?
All this talk of worthless politicians, worth less political system, worth judicial system, worries me.
Please confort me squirrel. Hold me tight in your fur.
Hopefully replace them with new elected officials that have an example of what happens when you screw around. Sure, it's just a fairytale and will never happen, but a person can dream.
In any case, it would be a good experience for people to go through. It may hurt, but at this point... people deserve for it to hurt.
I can see it now, landslide victories for Tea Party candidates across the nation. Then we're really ****ed.
I can see it now, landslide victories for Tea Party candidates across the nation. Then we're really ****ed.
The Tea Party is one of the reasons I want the U.S. to not reach an agreement. There are some in the Tea Party that believe nothing will happen. Sure, the U.S. will not default on its debt, but there will be some tasty tasty consequences. I'm willing to be that the Dollar will dip and some time in the coming months we will hear about some group of people who made millions betting against the Dollar. It won't be the first time, and It sure as hell wont be the last time.
Create money? Does he mean print money? So the US government doesn't print money?
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, as part of the U.S. government, does print the currency.
But they don't really create the money. If it was as simple as that, the money would be worthless.
Basically, banks create money when they make loans. A bank is a licensed and supervised check-kiter. It gets to lend money it doesn't actually have, provided it meets certain conditions:
- the recipient of the loan has pleged collateral which has the same value as the loan, and
- the bank has a certain percentage of deposits on hand relative to the loans it makes, so as to have effective liquidity.
The banks go to the Federal Reserve to get currency corresponding to the money they have created. So most of the money in circulation, instead of being backed by the gold in Fort Knox, is backed by the collateral on the bank loans in the country - so the money supply, instead of being bound by a small amount of gold, matches the nation's wealth.
Create money? Does he mean print money? So the US government doesn't print money? sadlol
Anyway, another ridiculus article...
No, he means create money. The federal reserve creates virtual money which it then lends out to banks in a virtual form, it then sells these loans to other countries several times over, kind of like in a ponzi scheme. The banks leverage this virtual money in the stockmarket where it virtually goes to different companies... its all a convoluted corrupt process...
Good thing it doesn't work that way in reality.
How does it work in your 'real world'. Do some research, you might be surprised. yeah I simplified the explanation, but that's pretty much what happens... For instance Banks don't have vaults full of the dollars that they lend out. Its mostly done in a computer and on the rare occasion someone wants cash (as opposed to a transfer from one banks account to another banks account which is extremely common like when you purchase something at wal-mart with your debit card. They don't walk over the McDonald's bank with a bag of money, they electronically transfer it) they then grab it out of their extremely limited supply of hard money...
You know... I'm kind of hoping the idiots in government do not come up with a deal to increase the debt limit. You know, just so people can shut up about what will or won't happen and just let it happen. Then we can all have fun with the actual consequences of our incompetent politicians. Maybe... just maybe... people will decide to get rid of the entire lot come the next elections.
Same here. I am curious to see what will happen with the default.
What worries me is your second statement. Ok, get rid of all politicians, but in exchange for what? A dictator?
All this talk of worthless politicians, worth less political system, worth judicial system, worries me.
Please confort me squirrel. Hold me tight in your fur.
Create money? Does he mean print money? So the US government doesn't print money?
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, as part of the U.S. government, does print the currency.
But they don't really create the money. If it was as simple as that, the money would be worthless.
Basically, banks create money when they make loans. A bank is a licensed and supervised check-kiter. It gets to lend money it doesn't actually have, provided it meets certain conditions:
- the recipient of the loan has pleged collateral which has the same value as the loan, and
- the bank has a certain percentage of deposits on hand relative to the loans it makes, so as to have effective liquidity.
The banks go to the Federal Reserve to get currency corresponding to the money they have created. So most of the money in circulation, instead of being backed by the gold in Fort Knox, is backed by the collateral on the bank loans in the country - so the money supply, instead of being bound by a small amount of gold, matches the nation's wealth.
Yes yes. Now try to explain that to Loki.
That's what I said. I simplified it for those without a lot of monetary and fiscal experience...
And of course we will eventually reach the point that we get the borrowing trough cut off and have to live on our budget with bigger debts.
Well, yes, but that's supposed to happen during an economic boom, so we can afford to pay off our debts.
In practice, of course, when you look at history, the only thing that ever seems to end a depression is a war - and after the war is over, that's when you have economic booms (the 1920s, the 1960s). Then the government can ignore the critics who say it's irresponsible to borrow too much money, since "responsibility" isn't worth anything if the result is to be conquered.
And of course we will eventually reach the point that we get the borrowing trough cut off and have to live on our budget with bigger debts.
Well, yes, but that's supposed to happen during an economic boom, so we can afford to pay off our debts.
In practice, of course, when you look at history, the only thing that ever seems to end a depression is a war - and after the war is over, that's when you have economic booms (the 1920s, the 1960s). Then the government can ignore the critics who say it's irresponsible to borrow too much money, since "responsibility" isn't worth anything if the result is to be conquered.
Well not necessarily war. I can think of a few cases where it wasn't the war fighting itself but rather the preparation for waging a future war that ended depression. But yes war has that effect but only if it requires most of the goods and services within a country. With modern technology and being able to fight a huge conflict with relatively little and requiring no extra support from back home I doubt many future wars will do much to stimulate an economy. Or at least not for first world countries.
If we look though at what really happens when a country goes into a full scale war like WW2. From what I remember pretty much the US Government made a crud ton of contracts with a crud ton of businesses. Basically purchasing and subsidizing goods and services. They would of course be later put to the war effort but what it did was allow for smaller businesses receiving contracts to survive and larger businesses to expand. This sort of gives me a thought. Might it be possible for the government to purchase different products to stimulate business and make back a small portion of the money by selling it to the public for cheap or they could just send it to the homeless, poor or peeps in other nations or whateves.
The idea is that in a recession and/or depression people don't have the money to buy stuff and because stuff isn't being bought businesses can't expand. They sometimes have to close up shop in some of their locations and in others fire a few of their employes. With the government buying things from these companies or making contracts with them to make things that the government might actually use these businesses could hire more employees or even expand or even give raises. With more people making more money they're able to buy more stuff and thus helping more businesses out. It might be a bit of a financial burden to the government in the short term but once the economy gets kicked into gear it should pay itself off and whatnot.
idk just a though. all out wars basically do this and it greatly stimulates economies. just wondering if there is a way to do the same in peace time.