[neopundit]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It needn't be an all or nothing showdown. There are benefits of running debts. There are costs.

This is true. And I think 2008 proved we're good at using debt stupidly, and there are consequences to that.

Lemmy Lemmy:

But you don't need any understanding of economics (or much of anything else, for that matter) to dismiss conspiracy nuts.

Also true.

Apologies if I came off as brash. I spend a lot of time forum-cruising, and hence read a lot of frustrating bullshit.

[Lemmy]

neopundit neopundit:

Apologies if I came off as brash. I spend a lot of time forum-cruising, and hence read a lot of frustrating bullshit.

Then you can appreciate my natural suspicion that most of the people who waltz in here posting their economics "expertise" haven't a clue what they're talking about.

[neopundit]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You need to read up on the creation of the Federal Reserve in the USA. It's a private company that holds the US by the short hairs.

I know a bit about it.

The "private" part is semantics. It's an arm of the government, and can be eliminated with the stroke of a pen if the desire was there. It also returns profits to the US Treasury, to the tune of almost $100BB per year the past few years (because outside of the GM deal and the Maiden Lane mortgages, the Fed made money on its asset purchases during the meltdown) The fact is, it serves a practical purpose: the lender of last resort. It's hard to have a modern capitalist economy without that role. So if it isn't the Fed, then it's someone else.

Besides, hasn't the past two weeks been proof that the money supply is much safer in the hands of an "independent" entity than the American politicians?