Keynesian economics

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Jobs due to better tax policy...

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Yo,

You guys Stateside also have a huge local market too.

I don't understand why LPG ( Liquid Petroleum Gas ) isn't promoted as a "duel-fuel option" to keep your emissions in compliance. Oil companies would make huge profits from gas, as it's cheap to refine, so there'd be no complaints from them, just massive profit to make. Near zero emissions is a huge benefit, that still retains regular manufacturing infrastructure, meaning piston-power remains, & electric cars popularity is slowed.

The only draw-back with gas / LPG, is a comparative drop in performance with a gasoline powered engine of around 10-20%, & an increase in fuel gas consumption also. This is typically because you have to create a restriction in the intake track, so that the engines induction pulse is stronger, to pull the gas into the engine. ( Gas wants to fly-away into the atmosphere, where gasoline is a liquid, & has to be processed into small droplets via injectors / jets & gravity aids the fuel falling into the cylinders ).

Since your volumetric efficiency is reduced, so is the torque & power output, all things remaining equal on the same size engine.

All that said, the market for huge V-8's should ripen to promote restored power delivery, with zero emissions, & cheap cost of fuel...

-- Edited by Rastus on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 08:38:28 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Economy of the United States

Statistics
GDP	$20.5 trillion (2018)
GDP rank	1st (nominal) 2nd (PPP)
GDP growth	3.5% (Q3 2018)
GDP per capita	$65,062 (2019 est.)

There is a notion that has been going around since the Reagan days, that the stimulated GDP growth created by tax cuts will more than offset the cost of said tax cut.

Presently, the trump tax itself is adding over a TRILLION dollars to the national debt EVERY YEAR.

That trillion bucks accounts for 4.87% of our GDP and gains us less than 2.5 percent of GDP in growth. (we already had over 1% growth prior to the tax cut).

In fact, were it not for the Republican tax cuts beginning with Reagan, we would have had an extra $30 TRILLION in revenue to the US Treasury, and since our national debt is presently around $22 Trillion, we would have a NATIONAL SURPLUS. Furthermore, a big chunk of the federal budget would not be spent on debt interest. Just think of the investments we could have made in our future in a situation like that... Investments that would themselves quite stimulative to the economy without any corporate welfare. Hell, in that situation we could cut taxes responsibly without going in to debt to do so.

The only downside to this, would be that you couldn't buy US Treasury bonds, because the Treasury would have no debt to sell you.

Just sayin.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Economy of the United States
Statistics
GDP $20.5 trillion (2018)
GDP rank 1st (nominal) 2nd (PPP)
GDP growth 3.5% (Q3 2018)
GDP per capita $65,062 (2019 est.)

There is a notion that has been going around since the Reagan days, that the stimulated GDP growth created by tax cuts will more than offset the cost of said tax cut.
Presently, the trump tax itself is adding over a TRILLION dollars to the national debt EVERY YEAR.
That trillion bucks accounts for 4.87% of our GDP and gains us less than 2.5 percent of GDP in growth. (we already had over 1% growth prior to the tax cut).
In fact, were it not for the Republican tax cuts beginning with Reagan, we would have had an extra $30 TRILLION in revenue to the US Treasury, and since our national debt is presently around $22 Trillion, we would have a NATIONAL SURPLUS. Furthermore, a big chunk of the federal budget would not be spent on debt interest. Just think of the investments we could have made in our future in a situation like that... Investments that would themselves quite stimulative to the economy without any corporate welfare. Hell, in that situation we could cut taxes responsibly without going in to debt to do so.
The only downside to this, would be that you couldn't buy US Treasury bonds, because the Treasury would have no debt to sell you.
Just sayin.

This is complete NONSENSE...

First the notion was around LONG before Reagan...JFK also agreed with supply side economics...

The idea that it only helps the rich is ridiculous....

The USA has less poverty than a good portion of the planet...in fact most the countries that are doing better than the USA (in regards to poverty by population percentage) are those with 10x the population or the ones beating the USA up in the global economy...

The USA is 129 of 171 in poverty...

You can not simply assume the revenues would have remained unchanged under the higher tax rates...

Our economy was TANKING when Reagan took office...

Reagan cuts turned around a dying economy...

News flash the Obama administration was also increasing deficit way OVER one trillion per year his first two years...

only the GDP was not growing...

So far Trump is increasing the deficit less than Obama did...only he is doing so in a manner that IS INCREASING the GDP...

He is also bringing manufacturing jobs BACK to the United States...something Obama is quoted as saying was just not possible...

Obama is ALSO quoted saying "The new norm on GDP growth is 1% and that 3-4% was just not possible any more...

only it is...and we are seeing it now...

Had Hillary been elected...we would not see the GDP growth we are seeing...

WHY?

because democrats are clueless about the economy and how it works...

The wealthy are fleeing New York State and California due to high taxes...

A New York trader can live anywhere today...

technology is great...

Andrew Cuomo is all upset over his budget issues because so many took their money and left his state...

This idea that you can just tax ever how much you want and the people can do nothing about it is STUPID...

People are not just going to pay outrageous state and local taxes when there are many places where they can move to to avoid those taxes...

Same in California...California no longer has much of a middle class you are either incredibly rich or incredibly poor and dependent on government...

and a large block of the incredibly wealthy are relocating due to high taxes...which leaves nobody to pick up the tab...

The United States who has historically had the strongest economy on the planet has been getting a raw deal in global trade...this all started under NAFTA...

sure a few companies did well moving production to Mexico slashing labor cost and avoiding all regulatory cost...

As this ramped up the Mexican government also started see dollars signs as they got new tax revenues from what was US production...

almost 30 years later does Mexico have any social safety net? NOPE

now the federal corporate tax rates are lower in the US than Mexico with far superior infrastructure...

and business is returning...because why pay the Mexican government 26% for nothing...when you can save 5% off the top by relocating back to the United States...

Sit back and watch New York State under Cuomo...you will quickly see why you can not simply tax high and tell those that hire to take it or leave....

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 02:40:47 PM

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 02:41:15 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

By the way you do realize that the United States has never paid back one single penny of the principal of the debt it has since 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve...

Not one penny borrowed for World War I

Not one penny for money borrowed for World War II

None for Korea also none for Vietnam...

None of the money we borrowed for Desert Storm...

None for Operation Iraqi Freedom...

None for any of the deficit spend that has occurred for the most part my entire life...

We never pay back the principal...

our current debt is held by:

Current Bond holders...

The FICA Trust...

The Federal Reserve...

When the 20 year bonds sold in 1999 mature next year, the Federal Reserve will be allowed to buy that debt from those bond holders...

This is the only way the Federal Reserve can actually obtain US debt...as the Treasury is not allowed to sell directly to the Federal Reserve...

and the Federal Reserve is NOT the Treasury...

The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATELY owned central bank...

AND if you want to reduce the deficit...you cut spending not raise taxes...that is the fundamental flaw that democrats just do not get...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

If you give me a credit card where I can spend 4.87% of GDP and only grow GDP by 2.5%, I could show you how to live large too.

Sure would be nice to start paying down the principal on that debt someday.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
If you give me a credit card where I can spend 4.87% of GDP and only grow GDP by 2.5%, I could show you how to live large too.

Sure would be nice to start paying down the principal on that debt someday.

Trumps deficits are smaller than Obama's....

ONLY under Trump the GDP is growing which leads to better revenue....

under Obama GDP was stagnated at 1%...

Under Obama the FICA surplus went away in 2015...

Under Trump in less than two years the FICA surplus is BACK...

WHY? because revenues are already climbing...

You can not add the jobs that have been added and not grow revenue....

now the increased revenues will NEVER be paid on the principal debt...

but it can lead to smaller deficits at least in the short term...

YOU ADDRESS DEFICITS BY CUTTING SPENDING...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Do you not understand that Reagan took office right about the time the economy reached a tipping point...

We had incredibly HIGH taxes on the top earners...to a point that top earners would no longer try and grow their business as there was no incentive...if they made more a majority of the money would just go to the government...

Why put up additional risk if the government is going to take 70% and up to 90% after a certain point...

being a DEMOCRAT you seem to think that they will just continue to expand the business for the benefits of others...

THEY WILL NOT...

Soon enough socialist policy removes ALL incentives to work hard...

socialist policy has never put the means of production in the hands of the LABOR...

LABOR particularly unskilled labor is just not worth it...

example...

You work for a widget company....

You know how to assemble the widget...

the person who has the resources for you to assemble into a widget controls the means of production...

LABOR has to compete...

as your labor without the necessary materials will only give you a hand job...

and the person who has the resources for those materials had at some point traded their labor to gain the resources...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

When Obama took office the economy was in collapse. He had to bail out 2 of the big 3 auto makers and a bunch of big banks. This required some deficit spending to accomplish. We are about 10 years in to the Obama recovery, and further deficit spending is no longer necessary.

I'm not aware of any Democrats actually advocating socialism, though some Identify as "Democratic Socialists" are in favor of a strong welfare state - myself included.

I should also point out that not all labor is "widget makers" and some of us bring a great deal of expertise, training, tooling etc to the table.

Employers compete for my services, not the other way around. 3 dealerships have tried recruiting me in as many years. My current employer won that bidding war.

By the way, I believe consumer demand is what drives the economy, I know you disagree.

I'm pretty sure I understand very clearly the issue that drives your very soul, your math however I'll never understand.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
When Obama took office the economy was in collapse. He had to bail out 2 of the big 3 auto makers and a bunch of big banks. This required some deficit spending to accomplish. We are about 10 years in to the Obama recovery, and further deficit spending is no longer necessary.

I'm not aware of any Democrats actually advocating socialism, though some Identify as "Democratic Socialists" are in favor of a strong welfare state - myself included.

I should also point out that not all labor is "widget makers" and some of us bring a great deal of expertise, training, tooling etc to the table.

Employers compete for my services, not the other way around. 3 dealerships have tried recruiting me in as many years. My current employer won that bidding war.

By the way, I believe consumer demand is what drives the economy, I know you disagree.

I'm pretty sure I understand very clearly the issue that drives your very soul, your math however I'll never understand.

Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are BOTH advocating COMMUNISM...

Bernie tries to mask his as democratic socialism...which is simply saying the people will vote for how the economy is managed by government...

YOU yourself seem to advocate for a free market as you put your skills out to the highest bidder which is ONLY allowed in a free market...

otherwise the democratic socialist will vote for what your skill is worth...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Here is the federal deficit by year for the last decade:

Deficits in billions
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
$458	$1,413	$1,294	$1,295	$1,087	$679	$485	$438	$585	$665	$779

https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 06:27:16 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

For the record a FREE market is what drives my soul...

And you know a free market is the only way our economy stays strong...

IF not you're a fucking idiot...and I really think you know deep down...

by the way these politicians that tell you the top 1% are going to pay for everything...ARE LYING

if you took all the money from the top 1% you could not support current government for one year...

much less pay for all the programs they want to promise....

everyone making over $52,000 annually will be paying north of 40% in taxes and the inflation that will quickly follow will destroy the United States and very quickly...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:00:35 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:

I should also point out that not all labor is "widget makers" and some of us bring a great deal of expertise, training, tooling etc to the table.

Did you not see this statement above...

"LABOR particularly unskilled labor is just not worth it..."

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Every self described "Democratic Socialist" I know of (including myself) is not actually advocating for socialism, they are actually advocating for a stronger welfare state which still uses capitalism.

I believe in free markets so long as they have enough reasonable regulation to keep them from becoming predatory. I do not believe laissez faire capitalism will lead to anything but oligarchs and feudalism with no middle class between the two extremes. History has shown this to be true.

Capitalism is not, nor should it ever be a religion I would prefer an economic model like Denmark or Finland. They are absolutely capitalist, and among the easiest places to do business. But they are strong welfare states in that they take a slice of the proceeds from their capitalism and reserve it to help the people who aren't winners from it. There are always winners and losers in capitalism, so the ideal way to do it is with a strong welfare state. This way people are free to make their profits, hard work is rewarded with higher pay, but nobody will go bankrupt from medical expenses. And while such a system is closer to socialism on the hierarchy of economic models, it is not actually socialism because free market private enterprise is still alive and doing quite well.

I realize the term welfare state is poisonous in many circles... People envision lazy people gaming the system. This is something that will occur in any system and is a small minority of people. It happens here and would continue to happen even if we did as many on your side suggest and deregulate everything and create a state of complete economic Darwinism.

Even if there are a couple in my party who actually are calling for true socialism (I haven't heard it, but it's possible), they are nothing to be concerned with because that is farther left than even me, and I'm pretty far on the left. It is highly unlikely that even if Democrats held super-majorities in both houses, that such an idea would even be allowed a vote in a single committee, because the overwhelming majority of Democrats are capitalists like me.

Supply side economics is wrong regardless of whatever JFK happened to think about it. John Maynard Keynes knew it, and so did George H W Bush.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 09:09:25 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:
IF not your a fucking idiot...

you're

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Every self described "Democratic Socialist" I know of (including myself) is not actually advocating for socialism, they are actually advocating for a stronger welfare state which still uses capitalism.
I believe in free markets so long as they have enough reasonable regulation to keep them from becoming predatory. I do not believe laissez faire capitalism will lead to anything but oligarchs and feudalism with no middle class between the two extremes. History has shown this to be true.

Capitalism is not, nor should it ever be a religion I would prefer an economic model like Denmark or Finland. They are absolutely capitalist, and among the easiest places to do business. But they are strong welfare states in that they take a slice of the proceeds from their capitalism and reserve it to help the people who aren't winners from it. There are always winners and losers in capitalism, so the ideal way to do it is with a strong welfare state. This way people are free to make their profits, hard work is rewarded with higher pay, but nobody will go bankrupt from medical expenses. And while such a system is closer to socialism on the hierarchy of economic models, it is not actually socialism because free market private enterprise is still alive and doing quite well.

I realize the term welfare state is poisonous in many circles... People envision lazy people gaming the system. This is something that will occur in any system and is a small minority of people. It happens here and would continue to happen even if we did as many on your side suggest and deregulate everything and create a state of complete economic Darwinism.

Even if there are a couple in my party who actually are calling for true socialism (I haven't heard it, but it's possible), they are nothing to be concerned with because that is farther left than even me, and I'm pretty far on the left. It is highly unlikely that even if Democrats held super-majorities in both houses, that such an idea would even be allowed a vote in a single committee, because the overwhelming majority of Democrats are capitalists like me.
Supply side economics is wrong regardless of whatever JFK happened to think about it. John Maynard Keynes knew it, and so did George H W Bush.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 09:09:25 PM

Again democratic socialism is a MYTH...

what democratic socialist want is the government to assume control of the economy...

And it is not the majority of democrats as you want to believe...

A LARGE faction within the party has moved too far left...

Claiming that it is all going to be paid for by the top 1% another huge lie...

most of what they promise could not be paid for with tax rate north of 60%...

Capitalism will voluntarily leave the US due to such tax rates...

NO ONE WILL PRODUCE...

This notion that the citizens will take risk with their own capital when the government is going to take a majority slice of the profit is insane...

WE GET IT YOU WANT the advantages of capitalism but with the government redistributing the profits to what you feel is more fair...

FREE MARKET WILL ONLY WORK IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT IN THE WAY...

The US has made that very clear and now our politicians favor those that support their campaign financially...

So you have a market being manipulated by politicians that sold out American citizens LONG AGO....

ACA was the perfect example of this...

The government FORCED a redistribution form of subsidized healthcare that did not help citizen...

it did not reduce cost...

all it did was create RECORD PROFITS for private for profit insurance companies...

and it also created some very WEALTHY politicians...

but you want to give them even more power....

claiming it is good because the majority will decide how the socialism will be redistributed...

bottom line is it quickly become communism as the government has to force it...

the biggest lie is that they can tax enough to pay for the democratic socialism without impacting the economy or the GDP...

THEY CAN'T

THE POLICY of redistribution and that is what it is...only removes the incentive to expand business...or to take any business risk...

you can try and deny it all you like...but look at Venezuela in less than a decade it went from the number three economy on the planet with a currency second only to the dollar...

The producers LEAVE...and then there is no one to provide goods and the whole country implodes...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:17:51 PM

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:21:05 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Keynesian economics

Has it completely backwards...

Claiming government stimulus (interference) will stabilize the economy...

Reality is every time the government gets involved the government is what actually causes the boom and bust cycle...

artificial stimulus creates a bubble...when the stimulus ends the bubble bust...

rather than using tax payer money give away to try and stimulate the economy...reducing the tax burden opens up capital to expand...creates an environment for new business...creates a lower cost of doing business bring companies to remain in and RETURN TO our country...

Bill Gates who is very LEFT WING...has recently called out democrats for their failure to understand the reality of macro economics...specifically Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...

Biggest Mistake in the history of the United States was repealing Glass Steagall...allowing investment banks to gamble with FDIC insured commercial banks debt...

The entire purpose of Glass Steagall was to protect against that very thing...if the tax payers were going to have to INSURE the deposits of commercial banks...investment banks could not cross over into that...

the repeal of Glass Steagall open the door for EXACTLY THAT...other factors (like a bond rating system that made it's profits by giving unwarranted AAA ratings) helped keep it masked for a much longer time so the bust was catastrophic...

Policy like NAFTA and repealing banking regulations were due to Alan Greenspan's FLAWED economic theory...took him 30 years to realize his ignorance...and that is what it was he was so convinced he was right he would not even consider what turned out to be reality...

Greenspan was convinced that it did not matter where a product was produced as long as it sold...and that a consumer based economy could sustain itself and it can't...

You know who NAFTA helped? the greedy capitalist...You know at who's expense? the American economy...just another in a long line of how government trying to control the economy actually does more damage than good...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:53:17 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

George doesn't get your math either, is he an idiot too?

Image result for voodoo economics meme

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:58:52 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
George doesn't get your math either, is he an idiot too?

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 10:58:52 PM

YES, He was an idiot on economic theory...And if you recall it is why he was only president for one term...

Not all presidents understand the economy...Carter sure as hell did not...

Try getting your information from someone who truly understand economics like a Peter Schiff...

As you have made it abundantly clear you have NO FUCKING CLUE about economics...

You frame it completely wrong to begin with...

Corporations do not create jobs because of tax cuts...

At the same time corporations will not expand when the cost of business is inflated by taxes either...

so when they have the demand (which is WHY a corporation would create jobs)...they do not expand as they are giving away too much of their capital to the federal government...

This is due to Reagan...The whole VooDoo economics was Reagan's misunderstanding of the concept...

Reagan was the one who started the whole tax cuts create jobs...

Tax cuts do not create jobs...but high taxes WILL prevent jobs from being created...

Eventually you are going to have to wake the fuck up and understand that our country has been taking way too much in taxes...

The problem is SPENDING...

OUR GOVERNMENT SPENDS WAY TOO MUCH MONEY...

OUR POLITICIANS ARE WAY OVER PAID...

look at what these tax cuts HAVE ACCOMPLISHED...

FICA surplus is BACK

SNAP (food stamps) is at a 10 year LOW...

GDP is growth is back to normal...

while deficit is still there...the deficit when the cut was made was projected to create a first year $1.4 trillion dollar deficit...

reality is the revenue growth that resulted from the economic boom as well as the reduction to programs like SNAP as more people got back to work, less recipients were eligible for SNAP...

This is why the deficit came in at just under $800 billion for 2018, rather than the estimated $1.4 trillion.

-- Edited by Nuffan on Thursday 28th of February 2019 07:27:35 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Well at least if I'm an idiot, I'm in some good company with former presidents and world famous economists, so that makes me feel better!

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Well at least if I'm an idiot, I'm in some good company with former presidents and world famous economists, so that makes me feel better!

Maybe you should stop listening to Karl Marx...

being world famous does not mean they are right...just means they are well known...

Trying listening to John Nash or Alfred Marshall also world famous neither were fans of Marx...

or more recent Warren Buffet or Peter Schiff...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Guys...

It's the UK that print your $$$, & therefore control your economy...

More money in the system devalues the existing money.

Get rid of the Central Banks & take control of your / The US-of-A's future.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Can I get the UK to print me some? I could use some right now. :)

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Rastus wrote:
Guys...

It's the UK that print your $$$, & therefore control your economy...

More money in the system devalues the existing money.

Get rid of the Central Banks & take control of your / The US-of-A's future.

The UK does not print US currency....

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington DC and Fort Worth Texas prints our currency and our coins are produced by the US mint...

The Federal Reserve is the US central bank and it is privately owned...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Friday 1st of March 2019 08:16:26 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I toured the DC Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 1992 and watched paper money getting printed... Wishing I had just one ream of those uncut $100 bills. Also I toured the Denver Mint in 1988 and watched coins being punched and stamped in enormous quantities which was cool as hell. I got to walk through a hallway of windows which overlooked all of the running machinery and watch as people push around big carts full of newly minted coins. It blew my mind.

I understand the Federal Reserve as a public/private joint venture. It was created by an act of Congress, and could be ended by an act of Congress too, though I wouldn't recommend it because it has served us as well as it possibly could. Sometimes there are bad trade policies (or any economic policies) that are enacted by Congress for which the Fed tries to compensate with monetary policy changes, it rarely works well, and the Fed gets blamed for it, but those things are really beyond their control anyway.

As I recall, the Federal Reserve bank is in charge of all paper money printing, while the U.S. Treasury department makes all coins. It has been theorized that our national debt could be eliminated completely by having the Treasury print a $22 Trillion dollar coin, and deposit it within its own account, though doing so would devalue all US currency which is why they don't. Not that quantitative easing (Federal Reserve buying Treasury bonds) doesn't devalue our currency too, but at least they are professionals and know what they are doing rather than a bunch of political hacks.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

As I recall, the Federal Reserve bank is in charge of all paper money printing, while the U.S. Treasury department makes all coins. It has been theorized that our national debt could be eliminated completely by having the Treasury print a $22 Trillion dollar coin, and deposit it within its own account, though doing so would devalue all US currency which is why they don't. Not that quantitative easing (Federal Reserve buying Treasury bonds) doesn't devalue our currency too, but at least they are professionals and know what they are doing rather than a bunch of political hacks.

I recall us having this discussion on many occasion back in the Obama days PowerStroker, and in theory you are absolutely correct. Money now days is made out of thin air, but the control that money brings to the entire world is such that it will never go away. Be it paper, coin, stock, bond, crypto, or whatever they come up with next.

The things that really matter in life can not be bought anyway... Most people with big money and power already know this.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
I toured the DC Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 1992 and watched paper money getting printed... Wishing I had just one ream of those uncut $100 bills. Also I toured the Denver Mint in 1988 and watched coins being punched and stamped in enormous quantities which was cool as hell. I got to walk through a hallway of windows which overlooked all of the running machinery and watch as people push around big carts full of newly minted coins. It blew my mind.

I understand the Federal Reserve as a public/private joint venture. It was created by an act of Congress, and could be ended by an act of Congress too, though I wouldn't recommend it because it has served us as well as it possibly could. Sometimes there are bad trade policies (or any economic policies) that are enacted by Congress for which the Fed tries to compensate with monetary policy changes, it rarely works well, and the Fed gets blamed for it, but those things are really beyond their control anyway.

As I recall, the Federal Reserve bank is in charge of all paper money printing, while the U.S. Treasury department makes all coins. It has been theorized that our national debt could be eliminated completely by having the Treasury print a $22 Trillion dollar coin, and deposit it within its own account, though doing so would devalue all US currency which is why they don't. Not that quantitative easing (Federal Reserve buying Treasury bonds) doesn't devalue our currency too, but at least they are professionals and know what they are doing rather than a bunch of political hacks.

The Federal Reserve does not have anything to do with coins or currency...

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is part of the US Treasury...

There is NOTHING public about the Federal Reserve...nor is there anything FEDERAL about it...

The Federal Reserve is simply a lender of last resort...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:

The Federal Reserve does not have anything to do with coins or currency...
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is part of the US Treasury...
There is NOTHING public about the Federal Reserve...nor is there anything FEDERAL about it...

The Federal Reserve is simply a lender of last resort...

This should clear up the confusion:

"At the core of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors, or Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., is a federal government agency that is the Fed's centralized component. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. These Governors guide the Federal Reserve's policy actions."

https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/federal-reserve-board-of-governors

"The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank's board of directors."

https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks

Does the Federal Reserve Print Money?

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

By Laura Hopper, Public Affairs Staff

Thinkstock/ValeriyLebedev

"One of the most common questions about the Federal Reserve is this: Does the Fed print money?

There are really two ways to address this question. In terms of the actual, physical printing, no, the Fed doesnt actually print or produce money in any form. Coins come from the U.S. Mint, and paper currency comes from the U.S. Treasurys Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The Fed distributes currency after its printed.

Controlling How Much Money Is Available

However, what many questioners might really be asking is whether the Fed has the ability to control how much money is in our economy. Thats a different story.

The Fed adds to (or subtracts from) the amount of money in the economy by buying (or selling) U.S. Treasury securities and other financial instruments. This is referred to as open market operations, since these transactions take place in the open market. (The Fed isnt allowed to buy securities directly from the U.S. Treasury.)

The Fed pays for those securities by crediting funds to the reserves that banks are required to hold, either cash in their vaults or deposits at a Reserve bank.

So, in that sense, we can think of printing money as adding reserves to the banking system, said David Wheelock, vice president and deputy director of research."

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2017/november/does-federal-reserve-print-money

The Fed Decides How Much Money Is Created

The Fed decides how much money gets made. That's true for both credit and paper currency. Paper currency is called Federal Reserve notes. In 2018, there was $1.7 trillion of these notes in circulation. The Fed spends almost $700 million a year to manage the currency. It pays for printing, transportation, and destruction of the mutilated currency.

The Federal Reserve Board estimates how much demand there is for paper currency. Most of it goes to replace mutilated or outdated bills.

Another Way the Fed Creates Money

The Fed's ability to create and destroy money gives it another power. It's able to monetize the U.S. debt. When the U.S. government auctions Treasurys, it's selling U.S. debt to Treasury buyers. The Fed is one of these buyers. It keeps the Treasurys on its balance sheet. Technically, the Treasury must pay the Fed back one day. Until then, the Fed has given the federal government more money to spend.

How does the Fed do this? It removes those Treasurys from circulation. Decreasing the supply of Treasurys makes the remaining bonds more valuable. These higher-value Treasurys don't have to pay as much in interest to get buyers. The lower yield drives down interest rates on the U.S. debt. Lower interest rates mean the government doesn't have to spend as much to pay off its loans. That's money it can use for other programs.

https://www.thebalance.com/is-the-federal-reserve-printing-money-3305842

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:

The Federal Reserve is the US central bank and it is privately owned...

Oh....

So WHO OWNS the Federal Reserve ?...And since they own your money, wouldn't that mean they own your government too ?...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Rastus wrote:
Nuffan wrote:

The Federal Reserve is the US central bank and it is privately owned...

Oh....
So WHO OWNS the Federal Reserve ?...And since they own your money, wouldn't that mean they own your government too ?...

10 individuals...OWN the federal Reserve...with ROTHSCHILD having shares in EVERY CENTRAL BANK ON THE PLANET....

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

This is all you need to know about the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government,

it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

The is virtually NOTHING PUBLIC AT ALL about the Federal Reserve...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

So lets review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get appropriations from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in open market operations.

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to expand the money supply (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called open market operations because the Fed buys the bonds on the open market from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the reserves that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as fractional reserve lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve a total money-making machine. He wrote:

When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Feds operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered for profit corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their reserves. The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in reserve can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total loans and leases in bank credit as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Rastus wrote:
Nuffan wrote:

The Federal Reserve is the US central bank and it is privately owned...

Oh....
So WHO OWNS the Federal Reserve ?...And since they own your money, wouldn't that mean they own your government too ?...

NOW YOU ARE FINALLY CATCHING ON...

YES We the people are the bitches to the Federal Reserve...Tax payers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Who Owns the Federal Reserve?

Brian O'Connell

Sep 26, 2018 4:25 PM EDT

Nobody actually owns the Federal Reserve, just as nobody actually owns the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Federal Reserve was created to serve the public interest, as its functioning Federal Reserve Board of Governors reports to and is accountable to Congress, which acts on behalf of the U.S. public.

To delve deeper into the ownership issue, it's worth taking a look at how the Federal Reserve is created - it shows an independent, public and private institution that's charter is to both help steer U.S. economic policy, provide financial services to the federal government, and to serve the interests of the American people.

Structurally, the Fed has three key pillars:

A central governing board, also known as the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
A decentralized operating structure involving all 12 Federal Reserve Banks
A balance of public and private operating characteristics

Under this quasi-balanced approach, the Federal Reserve remains independent, and is not funded by Congress - its 12 separate Federal Reserve Bank are responsible for their own income, each with their own board of directors, and their own separately incorporated status.

Consequently, the Federal Reserve Banks do not operate with the goal of making a profit, relying on a system of interest earned on U.S. government securities it owns through everyday market transactions, and by stock owned by commercial banks to fund its operations. Any profits the Fed does earn are turned over to the U.S. Treasury, after paying for expenses incurred by the Fed in its day-to-to-day operations. The Fed also makes dividend payments to stock owners, and is allowed to have a moderate surplus fund on hand as part of its charter.

That all said, while the Federal Reserve isn't actually "owned" by anyone, the Fed is accountable to Congress and to the U.S. public, and regularly issues reports, statements, and notes on its operations, and on its view of the economy and on lending and credit conditions, to provide transparency.

https://www.thestreet.com/markets/what-is-federal-reserve-purpose-14723711

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 04:15:58 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Who Owns the Federal Reserve?

Nobody actually owns the Federal Reserve, just as nobody actually owns the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Federal Reserve was created to serve the public interest, as its functioning Federal Reserve Board of Governors reports to and is accountable to Congress, which acts on behalf of the U.S. public.

To delve deeper into the ownership issue, it's worth taking a look at how the Federal Reserve is created - it shows an independent, public and private institution that's charter is to both help steer U.S. economic policy, provide financial services to the federal government, and to serve the interests of the American people.

Structurally, the Fed has three key pillars:
A central governing board, also known as the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
A decentralized operating structure involving all 12 Federal Reserve Banks
A balance of public and private operating characteristics

Under this quasi-balanced approach, the Federal Reserve remains independent, and is not funded by Congress - its 12 separate Federal Reserve Bank are responsible for their own income, each with their own board of directors, and their own separately incorporated status.

Consequently, the Federal Reserve Banks do not operate with the goal of making a profit, relying on a system of interest earned on U.S. government securities it owns through everyday market transactions, and by stock owned by commercial banks to fund its operations. Any profits the Fed does earn are turned over to the U.S. Treasury, after paying for expenses incurred by the Fed in its day-to-to-day operations. The Fed also makes dividend payments to stock owners, and is allowed to have a moderate surplus fund on hand as part of its charter.

That all said, while the Federal Reserve isn't actually "owned" by anyone, the Fed is accountable to Congress and to the U.S. public, and regularly issues reports, statements, and notes on its operations, and on its view of the economy and on lending and credit conditions, to provide transparency.
https://www.thestreet.com/markets/what-is-federal-reserve-purpose-14723711

Those 12 Federal Reserve Banks are ALL privately owned...

ROTHSCHILD and ROCKEFELLER own shares in all 12 US Federal Reserve banks and those two also have shares in all central banks on the planet...

The tax payers pay interest to the shareholders...in which the US Treasury gets a 6% share...

This is COMMON knowledge...but this idea that the Federal Reserve is not OWNED is fucking ignorant as hell...

You really did not know that our central banking system is privately held with Rothschild and Rockefeller holding share in every central bank on the planet...

There are only three countries left without a Rothschild central bank...

Cuba, Iran and North Korea

I am not really against the FED so to speak...probably better these share holders control the currency as they protect their interest...our leaders would have us bankrupt in nothing flat...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Complete List of BANKS Owned or Controlled by the Rothschild Family (As of 2013)

Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Came Roon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The Peoples Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte dIvoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya (Their most recent conquest)
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philip Pines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Any profits the Fed does earn are turned over to the U.S. Treasury, after paying for expenses incurred by the Fed in its day-to-to-day operations.

The Fed also makes dividend payments to "stock owners", and is allowed to have a moderate surplus fund on hand as part of its charter.

The Federal Reserve pays the US Treasury 6%

The dividends paid to it's share holders will LEAVE exactly 6%, to pay the US Treasury...leaving no profit...LOL

This is how they cover the LIE up...

You claim the Federal Reserve is not owned by anyone...well who the fuck are the stock holders drawing an annual dividend?

-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 02:29:41 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Dude, my sources are from the St. Louis Federal Reserve bank website, the street.com, and thebalance.com.

Clearly your knowledge of fractional banking, and all things money related is far superior to any of them. So if you dispute their assertions, perhaps you should write letters to their editors about it?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Dude, my sources are from the St. Louis Federal Reserve bank website, the street.com, and thebalance.com.

Clearly your knowledge of fractional banking, and all things money related is far superior to any of them. So if you dispute their assertions, perhaps you should write letters to their editors about it?

You CLAIM the bank has no owners...

YOUR SOURCE proves you wrong...

how exactly do you reconcile no owners with your information explaining dividends paid to stock owners?

The bank is OWNED by private individuals...that pays the Treasury 6%...

your source is correct...you are too fucking ignorant to understand your source....

-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 06:28:07 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

What claim did I personally make exactly that you have an issue with? All I said is that it is a public/private joint venture.

I'm not the one who said the Fed had no owners that was thestreet.com that made that assertion.

I'm indifferent about it actually. It would seem your argument is with thestreet.com, and like I suggest, perhaps a letter to their editor could explain to them how things really work?

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 06:50:52 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
What claim did I personally make exactly that you have an issue with? All I said is that it is a public/private joint venture.
I'm not the one who said the Fed had no owners, that was thestreet.com that made that assertion.
I'm indifferent about it actually. It would seem your argument is with thestreet.com, and like I suggest, perhaps a letter to their editor could explain to them how things really work?

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 04:08:21 PM

You posted it here...it was YOUR source that clearly contradicts itself...

Now you want to back pedal and say it is not your claim...if that is not YOUR claim...why did you post it?

I am indifferent to how clueless you and your sources are...maybe you should find a knowledgeable source...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 06:42:13 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I posted it to show there is contradictory information on the internet from seemingly reputable sources, so that we could work together and find the truth.

I don't actually have a dog in this fight dude. Fed ownership isn't something I ever cared about. It seems to get you pretty worked up though for some reason.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
I posted it to show there is contradictory information on the internet from seemingly reputable sources, so that we could work together and find the truth.

I don't actually have a dog in this fight dude. Fed ownership isn't something I ever cared about. It seems to get you pretty worked up though for some reason.

You do not care about it...but continue to post on the issue...

So you do not care and just want to be a forum TROLL?

GOT IT...least I know to not waste time on you anymore...no time for TROLLS...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

That I haven't cared about something doesn't mean that a discussion of it doesn't make me curious about it.

But by all means, feel free to not waste your time with me anymore.

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Here's some great general trend analysis....

www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/08/gender-class-and-capitalism/

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:
That I haven't cared about something doesn't mean that a discussion of it doesn't make me curious about it.

But by all means, feel free to not waste your time with me anymore.

Yes, we should all quit wasting so much time!

Just mint the $50 trillion dollar coin already and deposit it... Bam - $28 trillion surplus! Done! Have a nice day!

Right PowerStroker!? lol

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Rastus wrote:
Yo,

You guys Stateside also have a huge local market too.

I don't understand why LPG ( Liquid Petroleum Gas ) isn't promoted as a "duel-fuel option" to keep your emissions in compliance. Oil companies would make huge profits from gas, as it's cheap to refine, so there'd be no complaints from them, just massive profit to make. Near zero emissions is a huge benefit, that still retains regular manufacturing infrastructure, meaning piston-power remains, & electric cars popularity is slowed.

The only draw-back with gas / LPG, is a comparative drop in performance with a gasoline powered engine of around 10-20%, & an increase in fuel gas consumption also. This is typically because you have to create a restriction in the intake track, so that the engines induction pulse is stronger, to pull the gas into the engine. ( Gas wants to fly-away into the atmosphere, where gasoline is a liquid, & has to be processed into small droplets via injectors / jets & gravity aids the fuel falling into the cylinders ).

Since your volumetric efficiency is reduced, so is the torque & power output, all things remaining equal on the same size engine.

All that said, the market for huge V-8's should ripen to promote restored power delivery, with zero emissions, & cheap cost of fuel...

-- Edited by Rastus on Wednesday 27th of February 2019 08:38:28 AM

I got no prob with LPG. In WA state used to see vehicles with a large tank in the bed. I do remember living there and LPG was so CHEAP it was unreal. Then they ran pipes, you could replace your furnace and appliances and hook up free when they were there. Then LPG went up 1600% In 79 WA (Puget Power) said they would raise electric 400% and in 2 years they did!!!

Stellar007 · Member

Shawnee_B wrote:
I got no prob with LPG. In WA state used to see vehicles with a large tank in the bed. I do remember living there and LPG was so CHEAP it was unreal. Then they ran pipes, you could replace your furnace and appliances and hook up free when they were there. Then LPG went up 1600% In 79 WA (Puget Power) said they would raise electric 400% and in 2 years they did!!!

People in California passing out when they opened that gas bill last month...