Hello Wayne,

 >>>> Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

 WH>>> It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

 >> Highly. Very highly. It is the best. The very best. And I am not
 >> the only one who recommends reading this book. It is a true classic,
 >> and is extremely popular among many, including some US Senators.

 >> https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

 WH> This page doesn't recommend the book.  Ron Paul might, I don't know if
 WH> he does.  In any case Ron Paul does seem serious about understanding
 WH> things because he seems to invite serious people who do seriously work
 WH> on understanding things.

Like his son, Paul is on old-school kind of guy. Wants to go back
to the gold and silver standard. No more need to even have a federal
reserve. But if we are going to have a federal reserve, best to let
the bankers run it. In private. No need to tell anybody what they
are doing, or are up to.

 WH> ``What is money?'' by Joseph Salerno
 WH> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vowbrq_g5NM

 WH> ``What is constitutional money?'' by Edwin Vieira
 WH> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gMkKmQSW4

 WH> ``What about money causes economic crisis?'' by Peter Schiff
 WH> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJ0CUT8d_Y

 >>>> The Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The
 >>>> Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the
 >>>> Legislative Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what
 >>>> it cannot own?

 >>>> It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
 >>>> even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

 >>>> Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
 >>>> able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
 >>>> it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
 >>>> just as worthless.

 >>>> IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
 >>>> not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

 >>>> Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
 >>>> are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
 >>>> not spending it themselves.

 >>>> See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

 >>>> What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
 >>>> to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
 >>>> But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
 >>>> will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

 >>>> If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
 >>>> other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
 >>>> loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
 >>>> have no value to begin with.

 >>>> Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
 >>>> And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
 >>>> wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
 >>>> That is no way to build an economy.

 >>>> The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
 >>>> value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
 >>>> tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

 >>>> We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
 >>>> giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
 >>>> from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
 >>>> way.

 >>>> How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
 >>>> If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
 >>>> in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

 >>>> Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
 >>>> What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
 >>>> If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
 >>>> find it, you would not be a happy camper.

 >>>> Back to the original question.

 >>>> How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
 >>>> money of its own?

 >>>> The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
 >>>> little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest
 >>>> rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
 >>>> is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
 >>>> is printed gets out of control?

 >>>> We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
 >>>> not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
 >>>> he promised, and more.

 >>>> We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
 >>>> not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he
 >>>> promised, and more.

 >>>> Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
 >>>> people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 WH>>> I appreciate your attention.  You're not answering the question, but I
 WH>>> take responsibility for it.  I didn't express myself well.  The
 WH>>> question has been snipped, so I'll have to recover it.

 >> That's okay. The article I cited above does give a very concise, and
 >> accurate, answer.

 WH> If you're talking about

 WH>  https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

 WH> then you can't be serious.

There are different schools of thought on this subject. And each
school is quite serious, in its own way.

In the 1930s, government intervention was FDR's response to the
Great Depression, using the basics of Keynesian economics of government
spending and regulation to bring everything under control.

After Nixon was elected, things changed. Less government spending,
and less regulation, became the way. Supply-side economics to promote
economic prosperity.

Clinton and Obama tried to bring some level of Keynesian economics
back into play, but both faced too much opposition in Congress to do
everything they wanted.

GWB was a failure when it came to economics. When he took office,
he had a surplus. Eight months later, before the events of 9-11, he
had a deficit. All because he gave it all away in a tax cut for the
wealthy.

Today, what we have is a total economic disaster. Not just a failure
that can be turned around by competent leadership. 61% of the national
debt will mature within the next four years. This country does not
have the funds to pay for it. Which means, the debt will have to be
refinanced, at a higher interest rate.

This is all due becase an incompetent president gave away all our
money in a tax cut for the wealthy.

Fortunately, the American people have a solution ...

 WH> This page ridicules the work and doesn't answer anything.

With interest rates being basically zero, there is no growth.
And yet, the very wealthy are getting richer. At the expense of
the poor. This fact proves Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" is
flawed thinking on his part.

 WH> I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
 WH> We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

How can an economy continue to grow when there is no increase
in production? Griffin argues that interest rates are an increase
in production. But there is no increase in interest rates. People
are losing jobs. Businesses are closing.

And our national debt continues to increase, along with our
inability to pay.

 WH> [...]

 WH>>> It should be clear now that I'm interested in the process.  I may not
 WH>>> know whether we are counting cats or dogs, but I should be able to see
 WH>>> the arithmetic in clear steps.  If I've counted 3 things already in day
 WH>>> 1 and then I count 4 more things in day 2, then putting these two days
 WH>>> together, I've counted 3 + 4 = 7, which I verify by looking up my
 WH>>> addition table, which is something I assume to be correct.

 >> Oh, I am sure you and others are able to count just fine. Next post
 >> I am going to roast Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" over very hot coals.
 >> And see if there is anything left when the flames subside. Feel free
 >> to comment on my upcoming analysis.

 WH> Sounds great!  Thanks!  (I haven't any new posts on this, though.)

Libertarian economic ideologicals favor even less government
intervention than conservatives. Preferably none at all. Which
makes them almost anarchists.

What if President Trump tells Americans that a vaccine has been
developed, and tells every American to get themselves innoculated.
How many would listen, or comply? Should it even be an option?

--Lee

-- 
I won't fan the flames of hate, ~Joe Biden

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb