Quote from harrytrader:
Yes since hundreds of years - and even thousands of years as I am reading the history of banking under Roman Empire 
-
and each time it finishes very badly especially for those who were considered as riches and even middle riches
Really? At what point in America's history did it end "very badly"? Or Britain's? Switzerland's? Canada's?
Japan has public debt of over $5 trillion dollars, about 50% more than their GDP. Did you see consumer prices skyrocketing in a hyperinflationary spiral over there in the last decade? The collapse of the currency?
Fiat money inflates at the rate of increase of the money supply relative to the increase in the supply of economic goods - basic economic supply & demand. In a normal economy this will result in moderate year on year inflation. That's it.
For the currency to collapse would require huge continual expansion of the money supply. And while that can definitely happen, in an advanced 1st world economy there are a whole host of interest groups whose power would be destroyed under that eventuality (the Fed staff would be fired, the government would be voted out, banks would be wiped out), so we can be pretty confident it won't happen.
As for debt, even a debt load of 100% of GDP only costs 4.4% a year to service under current interest rates. The US debt load is no way near that. With tax receipts at about a third of GDP, the current interest payment burden is 4.4% of the current debt load as a % of GDP. At a guess that is about 1-1.5% of GDP, and thus about 3-5% of total tax receipts. Even if I am out by a factor of two, that is still a small proportion of government revenues. The idea that this cannot be paid for is complete nonsense.
In any case, the US has had hyperinflation on two occasions - the Revolutionary war, and the Civil War. In both cases the country and economy came back, and a few years after the crisis (which is not unusual in times of war) America went on to much greater prosperity than before. According to your theory, America should have suffered mass poverty and financial ruin at least twice in the 19th century - instead it was the fastest growing economy in the world, with a price level in 1899 that was LOWER than over 50 years previously.
How do your theories stand up in the face of this evidence?
All you have in favour of your belief is a single data point - very sound statistical inference there! And you are even wrong about that - the Roman Empire was one of the longest lasting, most dominant, and most advanced civilisations in history, with higher living standards than many countries in the world today. Even after Nero and others (emperors by the way, so hardly a good comparison with democratic constitutional government) had debased the coinage, Justinian and others ran a very prosperous civilisation in the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople, which lasted until the early middle ages until it was destroyed by *war* not monetary ruin (in fact its coins were prized for their purity). Rome was also a mercantile empire, not a market-based economy.
Finally, if you are so sure of America's impending economic destruction, what about countries like France and Germany? Lower GDP, more ageing populations, no immigration, massively higher taxes and regulatory burdens, and lo and behold exactly the same supposed "problems" of high government debt, budget deficits, and fiat currency. You point to your conspiracy theories about secret communists in America, when France has actual *self-declared* communists and socialists in its representative arm of government, and where communist party candidates *win elections* (when they are not beaten by racist National Front candidates like le Pen, that is).
Any ludicrous criticism you can level at the US on economic grounds is automatically levelled many times more at other far more socialist and economically unsound countries like France. I guess when your beloved collapse comes, you'll be standing in a queue waiting for your green card like the rest of them.
As for your so-called trading competition - traders don't, as a rule, challenge other traders to competitions. They are too busy trading and making money to waste time with some silly event where half the competitors are playing with paper trades or pathetically small stakes. The very fact that you go on about this just shows that you aren't a real trader - just a clueless and irritating wannabe who clogs up a board made for people who are actually looking for advice to help their *real* trading. You are not only putting off the serious posters of ET with knowledge to share, you are also dissuading those who want and even need discussion on serious topics. All that harm done, and for what? To seek attention so you can feed the little ego residing in that closed mind of yours?
Pspr, Speakingout and no doubt others have tried to suggest that you cut out this nonsense and actually try posting about topics relevant to trading. But you continue with your incessant off-topic posts, conspiracy theories, relentless illogic, and political mudslinging while swimming in an intellectual cesspit all of your own. IMO it's about time you either learned to grow up and act as a responsible member of this trading board. Quite why people ask for Scientist and Gordon Gekko to get banned while you continue wittering with impunity is beyond me.
