3 ms·

If that were the return on a portfolio in a down market, someone might wonder if it were a scam or theft - and then it lands that yes, that is exactly what it i

If that were the return on a portfolio in a down market, someone might wonder if it were a scam or theft - and then it lands that yes, that is exactly what it is. When a government funds itself and its coalition by debasing its currency with interest rates lower than the rate of inflation (which are in effect, negative), reducing the purchasing power of their peoples' dollar, causing consumer prices to rise relative to their supply chain input factors, and deplating the value of the peoples incomes and savings - that is a straight distraction theft by a sanctimonious bandit who tells you they are robbing you for your own good.

ephbit 5y ago
As I understand it, lending and increasing debt is simply the en vogue way of governments to make sure they can finance their budgets. (And budgeting is one of the most important ways in which governments implement their election programmes.) There's different ways in which governments can finance new/increased/additional expenses: 1. raise taxes 2. cut other spending 3. take on more debt With Modern Monetary Theory MMT being enticing and shiny .. and balanced budgeting as just an annoying unnecessary burden on energetic and enthusiastic policy making as the predominant narrative (which is perpetually being pushed by most media; and I have the impression most people fall for it, even though it's dangerous and unsound IMO) .. it seems obvious that politicians - who want to get reelected - tend to choose option 3. Because of this current mainstream opinion about government debt/budgeting, option 3 is currently the least damaging to politicians' popularity .. which is why it's chosen practically all the time. If citizens want less money printing, they simply need to put pressure on politicians to make use of options 1 (raise taxes; for the rich) and 2 (cut other spending) instead of option 3.

ephbit 5y ago

As I understand it, lending and increasing debt is simply the en vogue way of governments to make sure they can finance their budgets. (And budgeting is one of the most important ways in which governments implement their election programmes.) There's different ways in which governments can finance new/increased/additional expenses: 1. raise taxes 2. cut other spending 3. take on more debt With Modern Monetary Theory MMT being enticing and shiny .. and balanced budgeting as just an annoying unnecessary burden on energetic and enthusiastic policy making as the predominant narrative (which is perpetually being pushed by most media; and I have the impression most people fall for it, even though it's dangerous and unsound IMO) .. it seems obvious that politicians - who want to get reelected - tend to choose option 3. Because of this current mainstream opinion about government debt/budgeting, option 3 is currently the least damaging to politicians' popularity .. which is why it's chosen practically all the time. If citizens want less money printing, they simply need to put pressure on politicians to make use of options 1 (raise taxes; for the rich) and 2 (cut other spending) instead of option 3.