Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (7752)	1/3/2003 1:15:57 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

there is nothing that rivals American Treasury debt interesting post, but what do you mean by this? that there is nothing that rivals the US dollar? it seems there are other things out there that may be a better store of value than claims on the fiat paper of the world's largest debtor. certainly for exporters to the US with structural current acct surpluses that depend on our structural current account deficit, and who are interested in propping up the dollar, there may be no rival. thus perhaps no rival for the mercantilists, but the poor showing of the USD against other currencies and gold over the past year means others question the USD (and hence Treasurys) as a store of value, i would think.

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (7752)	1/3/2003 2:03:51 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Thanks for the thoughtful post. But, 1)the US dollar is also backed in a non-trivial sense by the world's largest economy, not to mention the military presence worldwide. Every time there is US action the dollar gains from flight to safety. That's horribly expensive. Why create more expense for US taxpayers by issuing trillions in bonds... The dollar is safe and reliable, even if subject to inflation, as long as that inflation isn't excessive in the minds of the investors. 2)the gov't debt burden is a proxy for excessive spending, but what I'm exploring are questions why there isn't simply the substitution of gov't issuance of payment for gov't purposes, without consequent issuance of bonds. Yes, that creates inflation to the extent receipts fall short of expenses. However, it's an "honest" accounting that monetizes expenses immediately, rather than debt which gets deferred and lied about (a la Nixon's famous "the national debt is metaphysical concept and doesn't matter" type statements, or regular self-interested administration calculations about future revenues paying off current excesses). The calculation of increased money supply by gov't is subject to immediate unambiguous calculation, rather than used-car-salesman approaches of "the meaning of long-term debt", which is easily obfuscated and of uncertain effect. 3)agreed, the banks need a regulatory system, but the gov't is the responsible party to excesses and deceptive accounting, and using the Fed exclusively allows a too-easy conduit for creating such debt 4)as far as profits to the banks, the question there is whether this system defined as exclusively regulatory is in fact a source of significant profit to the member banks. If so, it's not likely to be an easy number to determine, for obvious reasons of self-interest, but for the same reasons should be reexamined, especially after 90 years. 5)"far more accountable than the pre-Fed system" isn't an issue. These days we should have a web page in realtime showing the expenditures of every public dollar and program, with debt and inflation calculations of current and proposed actions, and impact on every citizen in the country, posted daily. (OT, but there should be added felony penalties for public officials who knowingly lie about disposition of funds, and a similar crime for any gov't funds to be covertly used in the public media.)