'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

Cherico

Well-known member
They won't need to...they'll just use those soldiers to take the money from everyone who resists.

eventually you run out of other peoples money.

The soviet union had a lot more power over peoples lives then our establishment did how well did that end for them? Don't get me wrong getting from point A to point b is going to suck but its not going to last forever. After all the managerial revolution that brought the current establishment into power replaced some one else who replaced some one else.

Elites get swapped out all of the time in american history.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
what happens when they stop paying those 'good soldiers'? Because that moment is going to come.
They won't need to...they'll just use those soldiers to take the money from everyone who resists.
eventually you run out of other peoples money.

The soviet union had a lot more power over peoples lives then our establishment did how well did that end for them? Don't get me wrong getting from point A to point b is going to suck but its not going to last forever. After all the managerial revolution that brought the current establishment into power replaced some one else who replaced some one else.

Elites get swapped out all of the time in american history.
No, you don't run out of 'other people's money', because the Federal Reserve has infinite cash, thus the elite will never run out of money to pay the troops with.

The idea that you can just the run the Fed gov out of money to pay it's troops with has no real relation to reality anymore.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
No, you don't run out of 'other people's money', because the Federal Reserve has infinite cash, thus the elite will never run out of money to pay the troops with.

The idea that you can just the run the Fed gov out of money to pay it's troops with has no real relation to reality anymore.

Then the money essentially becomes worthless because of inflation.

That tactic has been used before too Barcle by rome, by the chinese by the japanes it works for awhile and then people just lose faith in the currency involved.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Then the money essentially becomes worthless because of inflation.

That tactic has been used before too Barcle by rome, by the chinese by the japanes it works for awhile and then people just lose faith in the currency involved.
Eh, none of those had the petro-dollar, the internet, 11 carrier battle groups, nukes, or orbital assets; and as far as I know, none of those existed in a world where barter-based economics was effectively extinct, in favor of only fiat currency.

The worth of America's money is tied to the Fed interest rate more than anything else, not to the idea of the their being a 'limited' amount of dollars to go around.

I know admitting the Fed Reserve has infinite money is not popular among the Right, but the reality we've had in this nation since the gold standard was abandoned. This is also why fiscal conservatism is pointless political stratagem these days; 'fiscal conservatism' still operates like we are in the pre-fiat currency days.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
The worth of America's money is tied to the Fed interest rate more than anything else, not to the idea of the their being a 'limited' amount of dollars to go around.
There is a finite amount of real-value in the country at any given time, that is the sum total of all goods, services and IP. In an ordinary economy, this figure divided by the sum-total of all currency issued establishes the worth of the currency. The US is slightly different in that, at the moment, the US economy is not limited to the borders of the US, but also encompasses portions of every economy that uses the petro-dollar as a means of exchange. This makes the numerator of the equation an impossible figure to determine, which can make things seem infinite, but ultimately there is still a limit.

If the Fed had infinite wealth, in the sense of being able to create value rather than merely print money, then there would be no inflation.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
There is a finite amount of real-value in the country at any given time, that is the sum total of all goods, services and IP. In an ordinary economy, this figure divided by the sum-total of all currency issued establishes the worth of the currency. The US is slightly different in that, at the moment, the US economy is not limited to the borders of the US, but also encompasses portions of every economy that uses the petro-dollar as a means of exchange. This makes the numerator of the equation an impossible figure to determine, which can make things seem infinite, but ultimately there is still a limit.

If the Fed had infinite wealth, in the sense of being able to create value rather than merely print money, then there would be no inflation.
There is a limit to how much physical goods there are, sure; however, the net means that people can produce 'value' without any hard goods or IP changing hands.

After all, Ayn Rand never accounted for OnlyFans, Youtube, or Twitch. People literally pay the bills reacting to other people's content, or make money being e-thots.

And the the Fed may not have infinite 'wealth' in the traditional sense, but traditional economics also doesn't account for 11 carrier battle groups and nukes either.

We are in a new economic reality, and have been for decades; it's just the Right thinks that it can have the pre-fiat dollar times back and operates it's economic policy as such most of the time.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
OnlyFans, Youtube, or Twitch.
This is a form of IP. Essentially the same as someone leasing book-rights and collecting on e-book sales. The content created maybe streams, but it's still your property. You may be saying that you can create an infinite amount of digital content and that this will allow for infinite growth of economic value, this is not true. Things like this are examples of wealth transfer without adding economic value, essentially the same as charity or taxation. You could argue that anything which does not have consequences in the real world does not affect absolute economic value. A piece of CG that increases sales of iPhones increases overall economic value, that same piece of art if just sold on Patreon for its own sake does not.
And the the Fed may not have infinite 'wealth' in the traditional sense, but traditional economics also doesn't account for 11 carrier battle groups and nukes either.
This is essentially a tributary or colonial system of economics, "use our system or face brute force consequences" it's so old it predates classical economics. You are correct that economics doesn't really think on it, it's kind of a grey area where geopolitics, tax-law and economics interact, and no-one wants to claim responsibility for it.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
This is a form of IP. Essentially the same as someone leasing book-rights and collecting on e-book sales. The content created maybe streams, but it's still your property. You may be saying that you can create an infinite amount of digital content and that this will allow for infinite growth of economic value, this is not true. Things like this are examples of wealth transfer without adding economic value, essentially the same as charity or taxation. You could argue that anything which does not have consequences in the real world does not affect absolute economic value. A piece of CG that increases sales of iPhones increases overall economic value, that same piece of art if just sold on Patreon for its own sake does not.
The income from sales and transactions still get taxed, so it can still generate revenue for the state.

I guess classing it as extended IP is reasonable, however it also seems...too small to describe the change in 'traditional' economics that has been brought on.
This is essentially a tributary or colonial system of economics, "use our system or face brute force consequences" it's so old it predates classical economics. You are correct that economics doesn't really think on it, it's kind of a grey area where geopolitics, tax-law and economics interact, and no-one wants to claim responsibility for it.
People want the US to be a hegemon, why are you surprised when we've created a very powerful system of soft-power measures to use as a tributary system, instead of our carriers battle groups and nukes.

There is a reason being cut out of SWIFT is such a dire international banking threat.
 

DarthOne

☦️


(At the risk of being cringe…)


52dodp.jpg
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
what happens when they stop paying those 'good soldiers'? Because that moment is going to come.
They never stop paying the good soldiers. Money printer never stops running, taxation never stops either, even if at gunpoint by said soldiers.
Then the money essentially becomes worthless because of inflation.
Money is already functionally 'worthless' compared to people in the 50's. If you said that a pound of bread would cost about two dollars to a 50's man, he'd laugh in disbelief because that would be the price found in a third world country, not a superpower.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Money is already functionally 'worthless' compared to people in the 50's. If you said that a pound of bread would cost about two dollars to a 50's man, he'd laugh in disbelief because that would be the price found in a third world country, not a superpower.
He was talking about hyper-inflation levels of worthless. Where the face-value of a loaf of bread can go up by a million over night, where currency is worth less than the paper its printed on and no one trusts it, preferring to barter with luxury consumables.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
He was talking about hyper-inflation levels of worthless. Where the face-value of a loaf of bread can go up by a million over night, where currency is worth less than the paper its printed on and no one trusts it, preferring to barter with luxury consumables.
They'll just make bigger denominations and do their regular economic wizardry. It's already all a big sham, making it a bigger sham won't matter much at all.
I don't reckon they'll allow stuff to become hyperinflation-like, but the impact on the average joe will feel the same as it.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
They'll just make bigger denominations and do their regular economic wizardry. It's already all a big sham, making it a bigger sham won't matter much at all.
I don't reckon they'll allow stuff to become hyperinflation-like, but the impact on the average joe will feel the same as it.
Hyperinflation is what happens when a Country chooses to just make the money printer go BRRRRRRR without restraint.

"Well, the states gotta pay them debts. Print out more money!" Then all that money hyperinflates b/c no one puts a break on it b/c they can't if they want to keep the house of cards upright.

You're right that they won't give a crap about how it affects the average citizen...at least until the average citizen become ANGRY, PISSED OFF REBEL...which tend to be heavily backed by the military said state was paying with worthless paper...simply b/c all those soldiers have family getting screwed by the hyperinflation.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
They'll just make bigger denominations and do their regular economic wizardry. It's already all a big sham, making it a bigger sham won't matter much at all.
I don't reckon they'll allow stuff to become hyperinflation-like, but the impact on the average joe will feel the same as it.
@The Whispering Monk is right. However, the other thing to consider is that foreign debts are often not in your own currency. If you have to pay a debt in Yen but the USD is worth less than a thousandth of one Yen, then printing more money won't help because that would merely devalue the currency even more and result in a higher relative payment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top