Donald Trump

Is it that what they teach in finance´s, got to be a joke right and doesnt quiet answer the question, but i dare to challenge you, because you seem to be very smart. ;)
Did i miss a new Invention that can Transport particles from the future over hear?

I once heared somewhere, that we the People of this planet, couldn´t pay back the worlds depts by selling it three times (fictionaly).

I think some dept´s ocoure naturaly and are healthy, because it counteract´s Inflation, assuming they leave the currency supply.
""Each time a egg is created, 1dollar should be printed and evry time 1 is eaten, 1dollar should leave"",primitiv example and unrealistic, but evrything else is essentialy scam.

Anyways, if mayor countries of this world, would ever come close to paying back those depts, they will initiate another financecrisis with there various method´s (Inflation,Devlation thru shadowwealth and secret companies). And evrybody will run to the bank´s, to get some worthless paper. Well not quiet, next time it´s some data in my Hand, its shore a lot cheaper to create.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/05/donald-trump-backs-out-of-debate-with-bernie-sanders-223674?cmpid=sf

I have a new nickname for Trump: Weak Donald.

My thinking on that decision is that Trump didn't want to alienate Bernie voters by going all out on Bernie in a debate, as he will need to flip some of them to have a chance of beating Hillary. If he couldn't go all out, he might indeed look week in the debate.

I am disappointed at this decision, because I think it would have been a very interesting debate. Bernie would be unleashed and could go full out, and Trump would have had to been civil and magnanimous and rely more on logic and facts.

My guess is the campaign team said something along the lines of "This will be like you debating Santa Claus - you'll lose either way".

I'm a bit disappointed in The Donald even though I get why he's backing out (I bet tons of consultants etc were grinding his ass about blowing this debate off). This was a high risk debate but he shouldn't have spontaneuously said yes. Yuge blow to his frame.

vote trump, its been like 70 years since we all had a proper war, about damn time.

"

VictorDoom wrote:

vote trump, its been like 70 years since we all had a proper war, about damn time.

If people want war they should vote Shillary tbh.

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

Is it that what they teach in finance´s, got to be a joke right and doesnt quiet answer the question,

Debts or loans are by definition borrowing one person's current money, with the intent to pay it back in the future. In this case, the central banks/governments might be borrowing money from other nations, or they might be borrowing from themselves. In the latter case, this is money they don't have, so it is in a sense imaginary.

Governments can issue bonds, to be sold to the public with a lower profit rate, but usually considered a more reliable debt than most other types. With any loan, there is a risk of the creditor defaulting. Governments usually have a lower risk rating because they tend to not go bankrupt as often as companies do, and even when they do, the country isn't usually dissolved.

Sometimes this imaginary money, doesn't end up with any bonds or anything backing it, and this can cause a nation's currency to become devalued. This can cause hyperinflation. If the government has a history of reliably paying its debt, (even if they are slow at doing so) then this probably won't spiral out of control.

When the perception is that a government won't be paying back the debt, and the confidence is eroded, is when people begin to pull money out of banks and things can get very dire.



This is a snapshot from 2006:
Munyaradzi Rusike, who works at a food outlet in central Harare, said it was impossible to plan a family budget.

"If you forget to buy something in a shop in the morning and return in the afternoon, there is a good chance that you will find the price doubled."
http://reliefweb.int/report/zimbabwe/living-inflation-life-zimbabwe-gets-tougher

There's a decent article on the worst case of hyperinflation (Hungary) here:
https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/?p=2382

So, in essence, you are very correct to be concerned about where the banks and governments are getting this money from. It's a big reason why governments need to consider trying to balance their budgets. There was/is a line of thinking that the actual dollar amount of the debt didn't matter as much as what the debt was as a percentage of the GDP (total annual economy of goods and services).

The thinking goes like this: If the debt is $20, but I make $2000, the debt is only 1% of my income. If the interest on the debt is 5%, then as long as my income grows by more than 5%, the debt ratio will go down, even though the dollar amount goes up.

So, I might owe $21.05 in 2017, but if my income/economy grows by 6%, then I'll make $2,120 in 2017. In which case, I would owe 0.99% of my annual income/economy to pay off the debt.
That only worked as long as governments weren't adding additional debt faster than the economy grew.

In the graphic I posted, the change between the three blocks shows how well or how poorly some nations have done using that strategy and with their spending.

If governments can reign in their free spending habits, in most cases, the private sector can eventually make up for a lot of it. I can't speak to other nations private vs government efficiency rates, but the rule of thumb for the US economy is that for every dollar the government taxes, 7 additional dollars could have been made by leaving that money alone. When the government spends that taxed dollar, it usually doesn't generate anywhere near the same number of "turns". Bah, I don't recall the average government turn rate off the top of my head at the moment - I want to say its around 2.5-3 turns, but I could be mistaken.

This has to do with the money getting spent by one company, respent by the next company and so on, until it is reabsorbed. The government is borrowing the money, so right off the bat, they have to pay interest on it and are at a spending efficiency disadvantage. From there on out, usually the contracts they award and the manner in which they award them are not always to efficient companies, and the delay between acquiring the money and spending it also cause a loss, so a larger chunk gets lost at each step.

I'm not a Keynesian expert by any stretch of the imagination, so anyone who has a better knowledge of this, feel free to correct any errors in my perception or explanation.

Those Z$100 TRILLION notes are a popular novelty: I have one, myself, date of issue 2008.

I also have another, less-novel, yet almost equally important Z banknote to go with it, a ONE CENT Bearer Cheque for the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, date of issue 2006.

Ponder that for a moment. In two years, Zimbabwe went from an economy in which their dollar was, for a while, worth MORE than a US dollar, an economy in which it was economically-viable to print a banknote with a face value of one cent, to an economy in which a bushel basket of Z$100 trillion notes wouldn't buy the basket, itself.

Hyperinflation is real, and it can happen THAT FAST. For another, relatively modern example, look up Weimar Germany in the post WW I era. Things were SO bad in those days that mothers would prostitute their own daughters to foreign visitors (whose money was worth something) in order to have money for food.

Think it can't happen "here" (wherever "here" happens to be for you)? Neither did the Germans, or any of the many other nations in history whose fiat economies collapsed. ='[.]'=

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

VictorDoom wrote:

vote trump, its been like 70 years since we all had a proper war, about damn time.

If people want war they should vote Shillary tbh.

In any case, war will be good, a good proper, long, war is what humanity needs now, it is in human nature to kill each other. Its good for the environment, for us as a species since we are too many, and for society in general, young men have war in their hearts, these last generations are turning into pampered pussies because none of them had to take any shit in the army or fight.

I vote for war.

"

VictorDoom wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

VictorDoom wrote:

vote trump, its been like 70 years since we all had a proper war, about damn time.

If people want war they should vote Shillary tbh.

In any case, war will be good, a good proper, long, war is what humanity needs now, it is in human nature to kill each other. Its good for the environment, for us as a species since we are too many, and for society in general, young men have war in their hearts, these last generations are turning into pampered pussies because none of them had to take any shit in the army or fight.

I vote for war.

If you're serious, you're an entitled, privileged, naive manchild.

War is not good for the environment; have you actually seen the aftermath of the support infrastructure needed for an invasion/defense? What, you think tanks just drive around the trees? Do you just not know what napalm is?

Good for population? Have you never heard the term Baby Boomers?

Good for society? The fuck does that even mean?

I'm curious to see who you think should die. This is probably the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read on this forum... edit: if only there was some way you could volunteer for military service... if only...

"

Antnee wrote:

"

VictorDoom wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

If people want war they should vote Shillary tbh.

In any case, war will be good, a good proper, long, war is what humanity needs now, it is in human nature to kill each other. Its good for the environment, for us as a species since we are too many, and for society in general, young men have war in their hearts, these last generations are turning into pampered pussies because none of them had to take any shit in the army or fight.

I vote for war.

If you're serious, you're an entitled, privileged, naive manchild.

War is not good for the environment; have you actually seen the aftermath of the support infrastructure needed for an invasion/defense? What, you think tanks just drive around the trees? Do you just not know what napalm is?

Good for population? Have you never heard the term Baby Boomers?

Good for society? The fuck does that even mean?

I'm curious to see who you think should die. This is probably the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read on this forum... edit: if only there was some way you could volunteer for military service... if only...

I think pregnant women and children should die first, then middle aged people and leave the old people alive only, they know whats going on.