Why not just print money without borrowing?

[focusonmoney]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Cant the US govt just print money without having to ask permission and borrow from the Federal Reserve?

If they printed 500 trillion dollars and sent everyone a check (anyone making less that 100K a year, 200K max per couple earnings)

Wont property values go back up? and people spend again?

No because the United States gave up their rights to print money to the investment bankers.. The bankers control most of the world if you really think about it, buts that another story..

So basically every time we need money, we will have to borrow from the greedy bankers.. Which causes more debt for the US and inflation...

 

[adadadog]

Quote from WaveStrider:

Google "Weimar Republic" and "Zimbabwe"

Dollar is a world currency. The impact of massive printing money may not be as bad as the two above examples, because the inflationary burden will shift to over sea dollar holders.

 

[PragmaticIdeals]

Quote from focusonmoney:

No because the United States gave up their rights to print money to the investment bankers.. The bankers control most of the world if you really think about it, buts that another story..

So basically every time we need money, we will have to borrow from the greedy bankers.. Which causes more debt for the US and inflation...

Well, anyone can fund the gov deficit by purchasing T-bills... Bankers just happen to fund most of it probably.

Of course, the Fed has proven it can't fix the price of money and it should be left up to market forces. The only money printing should be done by government in times of need or for very important programs.

Of course, if you have a government that can print money, you need even more control over it, so you should be able to appeal large expenditures to the Supreme court perhaps, or some more power to the treasury and have it elected as well.

 

[austrijec]

Quote from focusonmoney:

No because the United States gave up their rights to print money to the investment bankers.. The bankers control most of the world if you really think about it, buts that another story..

So basically every time we need money, we will have to borrow from the greedy bankers.. Which causes more debt for the US and inflation...

smells to me like another revolution in making ....

probably on global scale.

probably some sort of green movement will lead the thing as current system unsustainable ecologically.

brave new world. ecological footprint of people will have to shrink by 90%.

 

[short&naked]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Cant the US govt just print money without having to ask permission and borrow from the Federal Reserve?

If they printed 500 trillion dollars and sent everyone a check (anyone making less that 100K a year, 200K max per couple earnings)

Wont property values go back up? and people spend again?

The Fed is NOT physically printing more money.

 

[Nattdog]

The govt issues bonds then buys the bonds from itself with currency that it creates.

...So they do buy things with "printed money" but they create this intermediate step that confuses people.

 

[crgarcia]

Quote from focusonmoney:

No because the United States gave up their rights to print money to the investment bankers.. The bankers control most of the world if you really think about it, buts that another story..

So basically every time we need money, we will have to borrow from the greedy bankers.. Which causes more debt for the US and inflation...

Really?
If so why they got su burned down by subprimes?

Why they weren't quickly bailedout outright?

 

[focusonmoney]

Quote from crgarcia:

Really?
If so why they got su burned down by subprimes?

Why they weren't quickly bailedout outright?

Because the bankers I'm talking about are "Private" bankers.. These bankers are low key and have more money then you can imagine..

 

[focusonmoney]

Quote from austrijec:

smells to me like another revolution in making ....

probably on global scale.

probably some sort of green movement will lead the thing as current system unsustainable ecologically.

brave new world. ecological footprint of people will have to shrink by 90%.

Yea it sure sounds like it, but I hope 90 % of the population doesn't shrink.. But the less people around the better control they have I guess...

 

[endsongs]

Responding to the last post, conventional world war is the fastest way to reduce population. It's not a PC thing to say, but it is the truth. In WW2, Russia lost 15 to 20% of their pop in less than 4 years. Japan and Germany both lost about 10% of their pops. China lost a few% of their population. And countries like Poland, that bordered the war zon,e also lost heavily. And in WWI, several countries lost more than 1%, including France which lost more than 4% of their pop.

There are going to be major wars in the coming decades over access to basic items such as water and arable land. That will be a very sad time in human history. It will be good to be in the USA, with our military power, during this future period.