Quote from Martinghoul:
Right, but that's plain silly, achilles... If I lend myself 10 bucks at 10% daily interest and then pay myself 11 bucks back tomorrow, where have I suffered anything, apart from, potentially, what you call "debasement"?
First, FED debasement via monetization keeps rates artificially low, which fuels Government deficits and asset bubbles. Are you going to tell me that the Nasdaq and Banking Bubble didn't hurt the average American?
Second, debasement (inflation-tax) is real since Government + contractors spend borrowed money first. But the inflation tax is present if the FED monetizes with interest, or without.
Third, the interest charge is a cost to Taxpayers because they have to pay it, and it's the Government + contractors who enjoy the lower prices, because of it. Basically, in effect, a Government subsidy or an additional tax levied on citizens to finance Government deficit spending (a great idea).
Last, if you really think borrowing from ourselves - at interest - is no different then just printing the money without interest,
then why not just print the money without interest?
Quote from Martinghoul:
Furthermore, if you're unhappy about the government issuing treasuries and spending the proceeds in an unproductive fashion, what does that have to do with the Fed? Fix your dysfunctional government...
The FED is part of the dysfunctional Government. This is not an either-or argument. Congress and FED are the problem. The FED loves Congress because they keep it's charter and secrecy intact. And Congress love the FED because it finances endless bubbles and deficits which keep political whores elected. The problem is two-headed. Well, actually three-headed when the IRS is considered (collection-wing for the FED).
Quote from Martinghoul:
Finally, your objection to me sounds analogous to complaining about the IRS while loving the idea of income taxes. If you like the idea of taxes, you'd better accept the costs of running the IRS. If you like the idea of a monetary economy with a unified medium of exchange, you'd better accept the costs of running a Central Bank. If, on the other hand, you think the whole conceptual framework is wrong, there's no point having a discussion.
Nice straw man. I don't love income taxes, nor the IRS. We didn't have either before 1913, yet the Country grew remarkably. Why is that?
The claim we need a Central Bank for any money-based economy is wrong. Gold and silver are unified methods of exchange without the need for a Central Bank. In fact, that's how most of the worlds economies operated before fiat money and Central Banking - gold and silver. Last, if you don't want to talk, that's fine. I'm not forcing you to discuss anything.
Quote from Martinghoul:
Mine wasn't really a question, but point taken. Apologies.
No worries.