Well, there are at least two things we can both be highly confident of: 1) the USD will be the only currency acceptable for paying U.S. taxes, and 2) The money the U.S.Treasury spends into the U.S. economy will only and always be the USD. And I think there is a third thing we can be just about equally confident in, and that is the USD will remain a primary reserve currency for many years to come. It won't be BTC replacing USD as a reserve currency.
This coin I heard about called USD
- Thread starter Illini Trader
- Start date
Are you sitting down?
All of the money the government spends was "printed" at some point, I.e., it was created with a few keystrokes as a deposit into the Treasury's account at the Fed. (I hope you were siting down for that!)
Last edited:
It would be good for those who are concerned about U.S. sovereign debt and deficit spending (deficits actually do matter) to take a step back and consider how money moves from the government's treasury into the economy and how it comes back out of the economy. Every penny that is in the private sector was spent into the economy for goods, services or assets, or as transfer payments which increase a government liability at one place in Treasury's balance sheet and reduces liability elsewhere on the balance sheet by exactly the same amount.
When the government taxes money back out of the private sector, if it takes out exactly what it spends into the economy, net money in the private sector won't change, except for the quarter you dropped between your car seat and center hump that ended up going to the crusher. If the government runs a little deficit, it does so because it spent a little more into the economy than it took out, That will expand bank reserves, in aggregate of course, and the Fed will correct for this by selling bonds through its open market operations. The money used to pay for the bonds will reduce bank reserves when the transaction clears, and net savings will increase by an equivalent amount.
I suppose that worrying about this will be just one more thing to keep some of you awake at night.
When the government taxes money back out of the private sector, if it takes out exactly what it spends into the economy, net money in the private sector won't change, except for the quarter you dropped between your car seat and center hump that ended up going to the crusher. If the government runs a little deficit, it does so because it spent a little more into the economy than it took out, That will expand bank reserves, in aggregate of course, and the Fed will correct for this by selling bonds through its open market operations. The money used to pay for the bonds will reduce bank reserves when the transaction clears, and net savings will increase by an equivalent amount.
I suppose that worrying about this will be just one more thing to keep some of you awake at night.
Last edited:
I know you are being sarcastic, but how can you argue your point with a straight face after I bring up those points. I am by no means anti-bitcoin, but there are things about it that bother me such as:
1. The enormous amount of energy it consumes in order to make it work. Surely there has to be a better way of validating transactions, without using up natural resources to do so. When someone comes up with a viable alternative in this regards, bitcoin goes to zero. If you are an environmentalist, then this should cause you at least some concern.
2. Hard forks create new bitcoins out of thin air, just like the federal reserve can create money out of thin air.
3. There is nothing inherently special about bitcoin. It can be copied easily. It does have first mover advantage, but that does not mean it will "win".
it would have been humorous had you also responded directly to my post:"if the Democrats return to power, Congress will guarantee the debt of the states and will pay the salaries for local government workers. it will pay for it by printing money etc. then the US will become the next Argentina with high inflation and a collapsing US dollar."Are you sitting down?
then again your theory that the Fed can keep rates near zero forever is unproven at best and at worst acts as a support for your views that interest rates should be kept low for the masses, as for people who get by from paycheck to paycheck.
of course, inflation is the curse of countries which have powerful central banks, while still being controlled by populist politicians.
Last edited:
Well, "forever" may be an overstatement. Can we agree on "for as long as the Central Bank, i.e., 'the government' wants" as a substitute. And yes, I think it is proven. Consider Japan for example.
I sense that you're wanting to insert party politics and ideology into the discussion, but I'm not biting. Not today anyway.
Interestingly, there is at least one rather radical U.S. economist that has said holding rates near zero indefinitely would actually work out fine. I don't know whether I could agree with that or not because I haven't spent any time thinking it through.
I admit my memory isn't what it used to be, but frankly I can't recall ever having expressed that view, or even ever having thought about that. Perhaps you can refresh my memory. Or is it your memory that is faulty here?
One thing you alluded to that I think I can go along with is the danger posed by populist politicians if they are allowed to interfere with Central Bank operations. I believe very strongly that the C.B. in every nation should be shielded from political interference. The Rand Paul 'audit the Fed' Bill was an attempt to give Congress greater oversight over Fed policy. Very dangerous in my opinion. I don't have confidence that the average Congressmen's understanding of money, finance, and central bank operations is any better than the average 'elitetrader' participant's knowledge. It seems the average Congressman would be unqualified to be given veto power over or to dictate Fed policy decisions. That's the reason we have the Central bank structure we do. It's a specialty area of banking that requires highly specialized knowledge. Of course the Congress has the final say because the Fed is a creation of Congress. But do we want the Congress interfering with Fed policy decisions or day to day operations? I don't think so!
The kind of audit intended by Paul was not the usual kind of accountant audit, but something else entirely. The Fed's books are now public and available to the world, which is one of the reasons the Fed is so much respected around the world and why central bankers everywhere trust the Fed and are willing to work with the U.S. Fed. And naturally the Fed is audited several times over, both internally and externally, and more or less continuously. The auditors' reports are in the public domain.
Last edited:
All good points except that the "Hard Fork" into Bitcoin Cash did not create new bitcoins. It was like a company spinning off an asset into a new company. You still hold the same shares in the old company and also the "spin off" shares in the new company.
Where have you been? That horse left the barn a loooong time ago. Albeit it had been growing slower and on a far smaller scale than before BTC ever was a glint in Satoshi's eye.
And it was a one and done. No other hard forks ... for BTC anyway.
Actually there is another one looming on the segway thing.