tomandlu Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Quite a grown-up article... If you think you know what 'debt' is, read on The problem is by no means new. Thomas Edison summed it up very neatly in 1921: "[Henry Ford] thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30m of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66m – that is what it amounts to, with interest … It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30m in bonds and not $30m in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomed Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Quite a grown-up article... If you think you know what 'debt' is, read on I am surprised that quote actually made the editor's cut. It sums up exactly how absurd the current system is and hopefully wakes a few readers up to exactly what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butthead Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I am surprised that quote actually made the editor's cut. It sums up exactly how absurd the current system is and hopefully wakes a few readers up to exactly what is going on. I'm surprised the article made the editor's cut, given the comment at the end about market forces taking their course. I think the reason it was allowed in is because it's quite vague and doesn't draw any firm conclusions, so as a typical Guardian reader you can conclude that "Government should pay for everything we need and just give people money" if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Quite a grown-up article... Nice article, thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) Quite a grown-up article... If you think you know what 'debt' is, read on that is what it amounts to, with interest … It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30m in bonds and not $30m in currency. Both are promises to pay; Well actually they are quite different, bonds take into consideration state imposed usury, Currency issuance simply ignores state imposed usury within the confines of the state he seems to have omitted the first userer (state driven inflation forced via taxation which is ironic for someone of drachma heritage) which interest is set in place to offset. The natural endpoint to his position is the removal of forced taxes so that the original usury can be avoided, although being the Guardian that endpoint seems to have been omitted Although to be fair from an MMT perspective as long as we owe/give money to ourselves its all ok as apparently borking over your own asset (read population) is perfectly acceptable with no negative consequences such as tax payer (read the underlying asset) repudiation Edited August 5, 2013 by Maria Gorski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) that is what it amounts to, with interest … It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30m in bonds and not $30m in currency. Both are promises to pay; Well actually they are quite different, bonds take into consideration state imposed usury, Currency issuance simply ignores state imposed usury within the confines of the state he seems to have omitted the first userer (state driven inflation forced via taxation which is ironic for someone of drachma heritage) which interest is set in place to offset. The natural endpoint to his position is the removal of forced taxes so that the original usury can be avoided, although being the Guardian that endpoint seems to have been omitted Although to be fair from an MMT perspective as long as we owe/give money to ourselves its all ok as apparently borking over your own asset (read population) is perfectly acceptable with no negative consequences such as tax payer (read the underlying asset) repudiation They're actually almost identical. Except cash has zero maturity, bonds don't. (and even that distinction effectively disappears when the central bank buys £375bn of them. Moreover at present 10yr debt has an effective negative real return so the govt. - i.e. taxpayer - is being paid to issue debt. Good eh?) Edited August 5, 2013 by R K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) Any entity can both sell bonds and print bonds. The difference is, no one will hold the bonds, if you keep doing the latter. When you can force people to hold/spend your 'bonds', then you can pretty much print what you like. However, people wouldn't accept this freely, which is why doing such a thing is oppressive. TBH though, forcing people to repay back previously sold bonds, which they did not directly agree to, is no better though. Until people wake up and realise that it is tyrannical for some to take what is not theirs - on every scale - some will become wealthy from taking advantage of this. Edited August 5, 2013 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.