Printing money

I don't understand much about the banking system, but I'm trying to learn. I do know that it is a crooked system (in my estimation). I cannot speak to what you have written, whether it is true or not. But I can say that whoever conrols all this, controls private property and thereby controls people. http://www.thrivemovement.com/banking-history-timeline-follow-money And I found this quote by Jefferson: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Seeing what is going on in the global markets, and in America in particular, I tend to agree with him.

I'm far from an economist, but just the common sense angle of this causes my head to spin around a little. To simplify it for point of this response, just say that a government went crazy printing money and then, I guess, just handed it out. Of course, the value would have to be set on nothing but a created standard. So say the average person has $100 -- let's give them $1,000. Let's make the wealth of a buck the wealth of 10 bucks. The average person, the little business, the mid-sized business, the farmer, the road worker, the government worker, everyone on down the line -- wealth has been increased; they've all be given printed money. The nation has new wealth. But is it wealth? What's there to stabilize prices so that a gallon of milk doesn't go from $5 to $50? With the saturation, prices will inevitably go up. Effectively, the money becomes worth a lot less. It's like Lobster Salad in the Hamptons: Only people with money can afford it, but it's still just lobster and mayonnaise. You'd have to interfere on a massive level to make sure no one jacks up the cost of anything. If they do, well, you could have skipped an entire step in printing, saved some trees, and just decreed that everyone must drop their prices. There's also threat in the artificial nature of the public sector being propped up by this money. As much as we all need public works, there's no real return on roads and bridges and such. I'm guessing employment wouldn't just be a quick shot; you're planning on making it gainful, long-term employment. I suppose the idea is that money then circulates massively, everyone able to spend in the economy due to their wealth. But that leads back around to the previous point. It'd be almost like gouging. It's 3:15am here and I'm having trouble putting thought to words with little sheep dancing behind my eyes. But to quarantine an economy, inflate it tremendously, and then let that exist within itself like some sort of economic perpetual motion just seems to me as if it's going to balance out back to how it was. The reason most people are "poor," I'd argue, isn't necessarily because they can't reach down into their pockets and pull out anything. Some people are seriously that poor, no doubt, but I'd venture a guess that most simply cannot afford the cost of living. If government were to decree any such thing like a massive flood of printed money, they should just as soon decree that everyone's debt is wiped out, that all businesses must give goods to the public sector for public jobs, that everyone be entitled a job, and that prices on X are not allowed to exceed Y. It sounds good on its face, but it's still rather artificial. It just seems to me like it'd balance out very quickly. Except now, $10 is what $1 used to be. And while I suppose shutting the borders, so to speak, would stave off Zimbabwe for a while, I don't see how it'd be avoided, because anyone willing to do this the first time would do it the second, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, every time things started to go back out of whack. Or maybe I'm just too tired to understand this at the moment...

I consider myself a minarchist libertarian, which is to believe limited statism is the best thing. So printing ever more and more money to me would be a no njo, let alone for the economic and productive stifling. (The right wants to regulate personal choices) and the left wants to regulate the economy (although they did block efforts to regulate the big banks here in the U.S. before we had our banking crises which resulted in the government using a mass amount of the people's money to bail them out!) - But it is natural for government to want to grow and grow which of course cannot go on into infinity without being highly dangerous to liberty and well, everything else.. so to me the best thing is to keep government out of things as much as possible, especially any efforts to manipulate the economy.. We can pick and choose companies, and corporations by what we buy and do not buy, and by boycotting, but super government cannot be boycotted. I'm afraid every new program and outreach simply becomes bigger government and usually with very little actual benefit having been accomplished. (Otherwise why would government housing / "the projects" be the absolutely worst places in a city to live?)

when countries print more money it always makes things higher in any country. domestic goods are never cheaper when this happens. prices have to increase because commodities can't be created like money can. when governments print money to fund an economic recovery i consider a hidden form of taxation because it is. for every dollar i pay tax is added to it and over the past 5 years things have really gone up. as far as i'm concerned my government doesn't need to increases taxes because things costs so much more. there does need to be higher taxes for the super rich though as through investments can actually use inflation to their favor.

I understand why the government are doing this because people don't have enough money at the moment, so it might seem as though it makes sense for them to print more of it and let people have a little bit to spend, however looking back over history it is obvious that things like this don't work, and for this reason it is not something that the government should have ever done. This country is in enough of a state at the moment without doing things like this to push up the rate of inflation at the same time like they seem to be doing at the moment.

I do get and agree with your point. The only part is that many countries need vital resources that only certain counties have for medicine and stuff like that. That is the only reason I can see why you would want imports to be fairly inexpensive. It would be nice if every country would take care of their own people instead of being more concerned with their status in the world as a country. I get so upset that the US always has to be the top dog of everything. Yes it may bring us fortunes that many other countries do not get to enjoy but it also comes with great responsibility. Lately it seems to be a burden which is to much for us to handle, due to inept leadership. They do it for the wrong reasons. It never seems to be about improving things for betterment of mankind but rather how much money and power we can obtain so we can say it is for the "betterment of mankind." I think friendly competition is good as it pushes us to be better people over all, but we have competition that brings out the worse in people. We use competition to hold people back because we just want to say we have the most material things in life and obtain social status. So we lie manipulate and cheat to get ahead. The sad thing is it does not have to be this way. People cannot just comprehend working for something else than material things. The only thing you need material things for, is to make improvements in tools that are going to lead to a better life. You do not need 30 cars when 28 are just going to sit their for looks. My philosophy is if I am going to buy something it better have a purpose to make my life a bit easier and not just be something that sits their as some kind of trophy.

I know nothing about economics but it makes sense to me. If it reduced our exchange rate it would make lots of people happy and cut inflation. Then they would not have to keep pressure on the federal reserve to cut official interest rates as they would change accordingly. It makes more sense than attacking the poorest in our society as somehow being to blame for the GFC as the current shadow treasurer is claiming. Apparently it had nothing to do with greedy banks or housing bubbles but it was all the fault of the greedy people who want unemployment benefits. Hmm if that is the case then how come it happened in USA where they do not have unemployment benefits. Anyway to make imports dearer could well save the manufacturing industry if it is not already too late. Too many of them have gone under recently. I have always believed in tarifs to protect our local industries from slave labour in other countries and increasing the cost of imports would have a similar effect without putting in tarifs. It might also stop foreign countries from building mines here and destroying our farmland to do it. The trouble is they will never do it because the rich will never let them and they are the ones who run everything in the background. The opposition is all in favour of the rich and want to have a society like Hong Kong where the poor starve and the rich pay almost no tax. Great if you do not care about your country. Apparently we are supposed to rely on our children to look after us as we lose the ability to work, but the trouble is what do you do if you do not have children.