Business Man versus Politico as President

[PureX]

No businessman in his right mind wants to be president. A president is just another political toady for the people who really make the decisions in this country: the big bank and corporate conglomerate CEOs.

 

[kmoney]

Well, every president since and including Regan have driven the country deeper and deeper into debt. Maybe if somebody can quit racking up the debt then we could start paying it off.

Insanity: Do the same thing over and over in hopes that you will get a different result. I vote to try something different. Better or not remains to be determined, but it is at least different.

I think it's insane that our gov't borrows money in order to fund itself.

End the Fed.
End the borrowing.

 

[kmoney]

That is why I am so intrigued. To win, he would have to learn and play in the political arena. But unlike a career politician, his back ground is business, not winning elections. So once elected, would he be able to hold to the rules of business or would he succumb to the political pressures of Washington.

Likely that one.

 

[rexlunae]

I think it's insane that our gov't borrows money in order to fund itself.

End the Fed.
End the borrowing.

So, what should we cut, or who should we tax?

 

[kmoney]

So, what should we cut, or who should we tax?

:idunno: I don't know exactly. One place I'd almost certainly cut is military spending. I know other steps need to be taken but I don't have a quick list of changes I'd make. My main point was about our method of borrowing for some of our money. Money is a tool. It's not something we have to dig out of the ground or get from other countries. It's a tool that needs to be managed carefully but I don't think it needs to be in the way that we currently manage it, through a reserve bank and borrowing.

 

[kmoney]

So, what should we cut, or who should we tax?

On the topic of SS, one thing that never really made sense to me is the cap on taxable income. Why not tax it all the way up? How much more would that gain? :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

:idunno: I don't know exactly. One place I'd almost certainly cut is military spending. I know other steps need to be taken but I don't have a quick list of changes I'd make. My main point was about our method of borrowing for some of our money. Money is a tool. It's not something we have to dig out of the ground or get from other countries. It's a tool that needs to be managed carefully but I don't think it needs to be in the way that we currently manage it, through a reserve bank and borrowing.

Well, it's a mechanism that has become pretty normative for fiat currency, which in itself has become a norm. I think people obsess over the deficit way too much, because really, we can just make more money. How lose or how tight money is is one of the inputs to the economy that has to be set pretty carefully...by people who know far more about it than I do. The advantage of the Federal Reserve system is that the people who control that parameter tend to be pretty knowledgeable. The downside, of course, is that it empowers bankers with a huge say over the economy, which they might use for personal enrichment instead of good governance..

 

[kmoney]

Well, it's a mechanism that has become pretty normative for fiat currency, which in itself has become a norm. I think people obsess over the deficit way too much, because really, we can just make more money.

But that new money takes the form of debt, which is what I want to move away from.

How lose or how tight money is is one of the inputs to the economy that has to be set pretty carefully...by people who know far more about it than I do. The advantage of the Federal Reserve system is that the people who control that parameter tend to be pretty knowledgeable. The downside, of course, is that it empowers bankers with a huge say over the economy, which they might use for personal enrichment instead of good governance..

Exactly. It's good to have experts in these matters but the Fed has no real accountability to the people. I don't think they even have much accountability to the gov't. Of course, they are appointed by the gov't but I don't know how much oversight is really given to what they do.

 

[rexlunae]

But that new money takes the form of debt, which is what I want to move away from.

Why? When money is essentially free for the government, what good does it do?

Exactly. It's good to have experts in these matters but the Fed has no real accountability to the people. I don't think they even have much accountability to the gov't. Of course, they are appointed by the gov't but I don't know how much oversight is really given to what they do.

It's actually pretty intentional that the Fed is run without a lot of oversight. It's thought that too much democratic exposure for it would lead to politicized monetary policy, which wouldn't be good for anyone, but I also kinda feel like the risk is a little overstated. And what we have now is kinda the foxes guarding the hen-house.

 

[kmoney]

Why? When money is essentially free for the government, what good does it do?

Money could be free, but it's not because of how we do it. It's debt and we pay interest on it, even if the interest is a small portion of the overall budget. And it makes us dependent on outside sources.

It's actually pretty intentional that the Fed is run without a lot of oversight. It's thought that too much democratic exposure for it would lead to politicized monetary policy, which wouldn't be good for anyone, but I also kinda feel like the risk is a little overstated. And what we have now is kinda the foxes guarding the hen-house.

Sure, things could get politicized, I understand that risk. But is that worse than politicizing other things for which there is more accountability? :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

And it makes us dependent on outside sources.

More than we would be otherwise? I'm not so sure. We sell securities based on US debt on an open market. Anyone who wants them can buy them. Should we only sell to domestic buyers and prohibit international transfers? I think that would actually undermine our credibility.

 

[kmoney]

More than we would be otherwise? I'm not so sure. We sell securities based on US debt on an open market. Anyone who wants them can buy them. Should we only sell to domestic buyers and prohibit international transfers? I think that would actually undermine our credibility.

Why should we even sell to US buyers? Why sell securities to create funds at all?