760
♫ Imagine... ♫ Life is truly noncredible Warcrimeposting $ GIVE WAR A CHANCE $ (media.piefed.social)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/noncredibledefense@piefed.social
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

Whats hard to understand. They use the CPI to determine the money supply should grow at roughly 7% on average, as they survey boomers that bought their house for a sack of potatoes what they would rent their own house for to determine housing inflation, as they deduct the inflating price of goods based on subjective measures of technological improvement like Doby speakers that may or may not offer any tangible benefit, and when people get too poor and substitute to cheaper goods they change the basket.

This then lets them spend large deficits with no fear of default, because their debt gets cheaper to pay back as more currency circulates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    "The government is lying to us about living standards" doesn't relate to the issue of taxes and the national budget, unless you think people are deciding their reaction to declining living standards based on whether the government is telling them their living standards have declined, improved, or stagnated.

    Would you like to trace the national debt, defense spending, and deficit through the past century, just in the US? Or should I talk about the massive deficits ran up by European countries even in the golden age (ha) of representative commodity money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    As I said initially, if the government had to directly tax them for all this then they'd actually care about the cost. If their living standards fall thats more of a mystery to them, they blame corporations or whatever their political leaning dictates.

    I dont think we did have as large of military waste historically, in fact I think even entering WWII was resisted. Of course places like France and the UK had a well funded military, in order to colonize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 months ago

    As I said initially, if the government had to directly tax them for all this then they’d actually care about the cost.

    ... would they? The fucking government under the GOP reduces taxes and increases spending. Functionally, what is the difference between that and increasing spending without increasing taxes? What would be different, in this scenario, speaking from the perspective of the electorate, under a non-fiat currency?

    If you think that government policy is only being pursued because it IS sustainable under a fiat system, and that if it wasn't sustainable, it wouldn't be pursued, I have a whole case file of fascinating-yet-horrifying actions of governments and orgs throughout history.

    ... and also feel the need to point out that it's not sustainable under this system either.

    If their living standards fall thats more of a mystery to them, they blame corporations or whatever their political leaning dictates.

    Then what is the relevance of the entire subsistence basket point?

    I dont think we did have as large of military waste historically, in fact I think even entering WWII was resisted.

    We had dozens of interventions in Latin America and Asia during the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s. The only differences are that life was cheaper then, both politically and financially, and extraction of 'reparations' from occupied countries was more acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent