What if the government borrowed and invested?

Murrmurr said:
I remember now; I was thinking of border security, immigration, and immigration services.
Click to expand...
There most likely no shortage of digital moneys in the foreseeable future.
But why didn't the Donald rename the Gulf of U.S. The Fed steals, no need to borrow.
 

Last edited:
papa tiger said:
I noticed we have a $150 Trillion Dollar nest egg in the ground of the USA.

The "$150 trillion American birthright" refers to claims made by financial commentator Jim Rickards about a vast national wealth potentially accessible to Americans, based on a legal provision in U.S. law. Copper reserves are incredible even tho there is a shortage now.

Background of the Claim​

Jim Rickards, a financial commentator, asserts that a provision in Title 30 of the U.S. Code, established by the 42nd Congress in 1872, has created a "national trust fund" that has accumulated approximately $150 trillion in mineral wealth over the years. This claim suggests that this wealth is largely untapped and could be unlocked for the benefit of American citizens.
Click to expand...
Here's the summary of that claim: Rickards sells subscriptions to his market prediction newsletter for financial gain, and his claims are often sensational and misleading. He quoted the $150 trillion figure without citing any sources, credible or otherwise, and directed viewers to companies he has investments in.
 
papa tiger said:
There most likely no shortage of digital moneys in the foreseeable future.
But why didn't the Donald rename the Gulf of U.S.
Click to expand...
I don't know....doesn't a president have to have congressional agreement before they go renaming stuff?

I think so, or he probly would have renamed my state Loserville long time ago.
 

bobcat said:
I agree. There are plenty who don't want to kill the goose that's eating all their grain as long as it's laying them another egg. In addition, everyone kicks the can down the road because the solution is unpalatable with the majority of society. It's an unfortunate situation where a politician's main goal is to get re-elected. To do that, they must tell the public what they want to hear.

Nevertheless, most can understand on a personal level, that there is a difference between what you want and what you can afford. If it's not in the budget, then you settle for what is. Not using that mindset when it comes to governing a country has led us to this mess. There was an adage from years ago that said: "When the government takes responsibility for the people, the people stop taking responsibility for themselves". I think it was a spinoff from Thomas Jefferson's philosophy that too much government interferes with autonomy. It's always a delicate balance.

Whatever the case, once a problem gets to enormous proportions, finding a solution is almost impossible (Climate change comes to mind). Is it too late to deflect this financial killer asteroid without blowing up our economy in the process. I think most in power don't want to risk being the ones to blame for that. It's easier to just point fingers at someone else. I think it's time to realize that identifying a problem isn't the same as finding a solution. Maybe it's a Hail Mary pass.
Click to expand...

Sadly (!) we get the government we deserve. We have also taken the basic principles of capitalism and applied it to all and everything, as though it is the only way to operate in every circumstance. This has led to money invading the decision making on a national scale. Money needs to be removed from the process, but the only people that can make that happen are the people profiting from it, so.......

Once you've lived long enough, it becomes clear that tribal politics does not lead to good solutions. Instead it divides and confuses simple issues. Like claims of nationalism - sure there are instances nearer the bottom of the ocean that can engender national pride, but the roots of the system are rotten and corrupted, can we truly be proud of that?

Can we be proud of our democracies, but in the end has that brought us to optimal solutions? Or even close? I guess I'm more fatalistic these days. We're getting ready (via the great equalizer known as death) to hand over this world to younger folk. I'm not especially proud of the systems of governing we are going to leave behind.
 
VaughanJB said:
Can we be proud of our democracies, but in the end has that brought us to optimal solutions? Or even close? I guess I'm more fatalistic these days. We're getting ready (via the great equalizer known as death) to hand over this world to younger folk. I'm not especially proud of the systems of governing we are going to leave behind.
Click to expand...
A capitalist economy with a democratic governance is superior to any of the alternatives, imo, particularly for a country the size of the US. The problem isn't the system; as with every system that exists, the problem is corruptible/greedy politicians. We need a system for regulating and auditing them that isn't corruptible...but guess who gets to decide how that system works and who's involved?
 
Actually, it's the EPA and California / Illinois etc. mostly Democratic Parties & their laws.
A few years ago, Illionois wouldn't let us dig until an impact study was done for arrowheads.
And our governance isn't actually democratic, its majority screws the minority. State Govs.
Fed. Gov. Screw U policies. Nothing fair. Scotus proves this today. It's all about majorities.
Party in power draws up voting districts, says who can vote etc. The Constitutions have become a joke.

The Donalds getting told to go F himself in negotiations. Pack of lies is all his self says.

Actually Tribal politics has become very self-improving. Look at the Gambling casinos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top