Although I agree there are problems, such as the ones you mention, that may lead to the breakup of the EU, there are two separate kinds of EU entanglement to consider. One is the EU trade, or economic, union; the other is the EU monetary union. Most of what we think of as EU countries are a part of both. The UK, however, wisely in my opinion, decided to opt out of the monetary union. That way they maintained complete sovereignty over their currency. And now of course they have exited the European Trade Union. Of the remaining EU Countries, Bulgaria, Denmark and Poland do not belong to the Monetary Union, i.e., they use their own currencies rather than the Euro.
Who is not printing money?
- Thread starter ValeryN
- Start date
Although I agree there are problems, such as the ones you mention, that may lead to the breakup of the EU, there are two separate kinds of EU entanglement to consider. One is the EU trade, or economic, union; the other is the EU monetary union. Most of what we think of as EU countries are a part of both. The UK, however, wisely in my opinion, decided to opt out of the monetary union. That way they maintained complete sovereignty over their currency. And now of course they have exited the European Trade Union. Of the remaining EU Countries, Bulgaria, Denmark and Poland do not belong to the Monetary Union, i.e., they use their own currencies rather than the Euro.
Yes, but funds are withheld by the lefties; for example, Hungary will have contributed more in 2030 than it received. She will join the east and trade with China, with much more luck than that EU bastard dictated by George Soros.
Also, they ruined the west with idiotic immigration policies - soon, demographics will catch up with them, and more and more areas are no-go where Sharia law rules. EU will be a damned caliphate!
Perhaps "ruined" is a bit of an overreaction to describe what's happened to the Western EU countries as a result of immigration. Seems quite unlikely any of the EU nations will become theocracies in either of our lifetimes. And even less likely after we are both gone.
Education, technology and communication are the enemies of religion. Time will not be kind to either the Christian or Islamic religions. Just look at what's happened to Christianity in the Western Countries over the last 120 years.
It has grown more powerful. The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade. That is religion at work.
Someone posted the US has no external debt? I agree that internal and underfunded Gov. obligations are probably higher than external Fed. But denying the amount that China and Japan hold is just silly.
I have to agree that the overturning of Roe was a step in the other direction. It showed us that even minority religious beliefs, when well organized, can still exercise powerful influence over politics and selection of Court Justices. Nevertheless, I don't see anything to convince me that the overall drift toward a less religious and more secular society has changed.
%%
Because the powers that be still read Webster paper book dictionary: + still remember a S&P US debt downgrade. I noticed newer online versions change definitions..........
As a practical matter last time the ''gov shutdown''\ it was a few parks+ monuments....\LOL
Wall Street seems to like that. [WSJ past editions]Good thing for me; Christianity, Judaism+ Islam are not the same @ all.
In other words, the Bible, Proverbs, the Koran+ Moses -Duet are not he the same @ all.
Looks like markets realized last time , the ''gov shutdown'' that meant some could not overspend + waste money like they had.
Good question
I have posted in ET forums, and this is more than just my personal opinion, that the U.S. has no debt in the sense of private sector debt arising from borrowing. To understand what underlies a statement like this, one must first accept that all money issued by the U.S. government, regardless of form, is a liability of the U.S. government, and also accept that U.S. Treasury bonds are just another form of U.S. money, albeit an interest paying form; yet their great usefulness derives in part from their being neither a part of bank reserves nor of M2. That said, nations that have issued bonds denominated in another nations currency, do have real debt originating from borrowing in the same sense as private sector borrowing.
The U.S., as a matter of established fact and in contradiction to what is commonly believed, does not borrow from the private sector to fund its deficit spending. Instead, it funds deficits by creating new money as needed. Then later it issues bonds in amounts matching the amount of newly created money already spent into the economy. When these bonds are sold, bank reserve accounts are drained in an amount matching the newly created money.* This counters the longer term affect on inflation that the new money might otherwise have had it been left in reserve accounts. Naturally the sale of bonds by the Treasury gives to the general public the appearance of government borrowing to pay for deficit spending. In actual reality however, U.S. Treasury bonds do not fund deficits but instead serve entirely different, but nevertheless essential, purposes.
Consequently what we routinely refer to as the "National Debt" is actually ersatz debt. Even economists who understand these operations will refer to this ersatz debt as simply "debt". There seems to be no other word available that correctly invokes its true nature.
It may be worthwhile for me to point out that although other nations hold significant Treasury bond assets in their U.S. dollar reserve accounts, the vast majority of U.S. Treasury bonds are owned as assets of domestic interests.
For democratic nations with deep sovereignty over their own money and as long as their economies continue to grow, small deficits are a normal fiscal consequence. These nations may, at their option, choose to retire ersatz debt by converting it back into bank reserves as they see fit and as justified by their current monetary policy. Japan, for example, retired about half of their ersatz debt some years ago.
The current clamor over an absurd, nowadays purely political, U.S. statutory debt limit is really about one political party trying to extort concessions from the other. It is not unlike Vladimir Putin's brandishing a threat of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Both Putin's army and the Republican party are in disarray. Neither can succeed because neither can explain their machination in a way that makes sense in other than a context of extortion.
_______________
*This step does not change the amount of money in the private sector it only changes its form.
Last edited:
Dude, we went over this before. You can get into semantics and differences into circumstances and stuff all you want, but U.S. Treasury bonds are a promise to pay a sum certain in the future plus interest. That is exactly what the most basic definition of debt is. The U.S. government CAN default on its Treasury obligations, just like any other non-government debtor CAN default on their debt/loans if they cannot repay them. The U.S. government CANNOT default on U.S. dollars in circulation, because they are not debt.
Probably only difference in substance is that the U.S. government can (although maybe indirectly), pay off its DEBT by printing money, private debtors cannot.
Its debt, dude, no matter what spin you try and put on it.
I should mention something very important here if one is trying to get a correct understanding of U.S. money operations, and that is to recognize U.S. Treasury securities as a form of money.
Many explanations for central bank operations that appear on the internet, such as those from Investopedia, are only correct if one regards Treasury securities as something other than a form of money. So for example, Investopedia will tell you that the Central bank both creates and destroys money. This of course is wrong and would violate the constitution. Only Congress can cause net new private sector money to be created or destroyed. What the Central bank does is: a) change the form of private sector money, but not the amount; b) act as the agent of Congress when it covers Treasury overdrafts. This is the actual new money creation step, but the Central bank has no control over the amount created. That's up to Congress. Any increase or decrease of total, outside money in the economy is entirely up to Congress. The Central Bank at its discretion however can change one form of money to another. But it can not legally affect the amount. Only Congress can do that.
Many explanations for central bank operations that appear on the internet, such as those from Investopedia, are only correct if one regards Treasury securities as something other than a form of money. So for example, Investopedia will tell you that the Central bank both creates and destroys money. This of course is wrong and would violate the constitution. Only Congress can cause net new private sector money to be created or destroyed. What the Central bank does is: a) change the form of private sector money, but not the amount; b) act as the agent of Congress when it covers Treasury overdrafts. This is the actual new money creation step, but the Central bank has no control over the amount created. That's up to Congress. Any increase or decrease of total, outside money in the economy is entirely up to Congress. The Central Bank at its discretion however can change one form of money to another. But it can not legally affect the amount. Only Congress can do that.
Last edited: