Talk:US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita

Citing Wiktionary

@Ottawahitech: Did you have anything in mind with your note re, "vignette proprietary?" other than trying to cite a Wiktionary entry?

You will see that I made that work by spelling out "Wiktionary" completely, as "Wiktionary:Vignette (software)".

Thanks for your interest in this article. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Thank you for the note above, and thank you for pinging me. Let me try and explain why I tried to clarify the introduction of this article (course?)

Since I don't see a course prequisite llst on the page, I assume that anyone who can read and understand English is the audience? But right in the introduction I see terminology that I believe will be a hindrence to over 99% of reasonably educated people. I tried to find a wiki-link that may help, but as you see I failed. Am I making sense? Cheers Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Thanks for the comment. Yes: The audience is anyone with internet access, at least with a computer. I'm an independent researcher not affiliated with any organization with people who might use this. It's just a topic that seems to me should make an important contribution to current political discussions.

I haven't tried this on a smart phone, and I haven't tried the web interface for R Studio, so I don't know if that will work as I suggest. If you try either, please let me know if it works -- or make changes to reflect your experience.

I revised the first paragraph. I hope it's more inviting to a novice. Feel free to revise or try to describe for me any remaining deficiencies you see. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Thanks for the elaborate response.

Just to let you know I have added Category:Political science since you said in your message that the page should make an:

important contribution to current political discussions.

I hope you consider this a worthwhile addition to the page. Regards, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued to keep discussion on proper talk page

@DavidMCEddy: I don't quite understand. This is a quote from your resource: "This is important, because it supports the MMT claims that any nation with its own sovereign currency, like the US, can have faster, more stable, and more broadly shared economic growth with a job guarantee.". The US does not have its own sovereign currency. The Federal Reserve is not controlled by the US government. They caused the great depression to consolidate wealth and power: "Although most Americans have never heard that the Fed was the cause of the Depression, this is well-known amongst the top economists. Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist, now of Stanford University, said the same thing in a national public radio interview in 1969: "The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933." Milton Friedman ... Once Roosevelt was in office however, sweeping emergency banking measures were immediately announced, which did nothing but increase the Fed's power over the money supply. Then and only then did the Fed finally begin to loosen the purse strings and feed new money out to the starving American people. " (source, which you may find interesting) MMT advocates against private/independent central banks. That's the whole point, right?

You really have to fix this resource. It's way, way, waaaaaay off base. Roosevelt's presidency was the exact point at which we departed from the principles MMT is based on. For the love of god, please fix this. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve was created by congress and can be changed any time the US government wants to.

If you say so. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Barry Goldwater

I agree with the quote re. w:Milton Friedman's comments on the Great Depression.

Why do you think The Fed crashed America's economy?

Do you think the plots in this article are bogus? I got the data from a source that looks pretty credible to me. And the plots seem to support the claims I've made in this article. By contrast, I do not see references nor data in "Bill Still's Monetary Reforum".

No, I'm sure your plots are fine. Much of what's written in that transcript is a matter of public record and quotes are all attributed. (rather unfortunate that it starts off with a quote from larry bates, but it's a pretty solid read nonetheless) Since you've described yourself as a "compulsive fact checker", it looks like you have your work cut out for you. Keep in mind it's a transcript of a video documentary, so excuse the narrative-like style. In any case, I think you're misrepresenting the fundamental point of MMT. Whether you're doing so intentionally or not, I do not know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If not, and you've been honest with me up until this point, then I beg you to do some more research on the topic so that you don't misrepresent our history or misunderstand the social problems that you write about. You're correct that the media's bought and sold, and about a lot of other things. I'm not trying to criticize your work unduly or out of frustration. I just want you to have the right idea. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You say, "All quotes are attributed", but I don't see one serious reference that makes it feasible for me to check. I'm a big fan of Wikiquote:Wikiquote, because they insist on giving complete citations. Other "quotations" websites are not so careful and are more prone to errors as a result. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked me "to do some more research on the topic so that you don't misrepresent our history or misunderstand the social problems that you write about." Can you please provide me with serious, credible sources that will help me understand what you think I'm missing? I do not find "Bill Still's Monetary Reforum" useful for the reasons I've mentioned above.

DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a transcript of a video documentary. Humor me and give it a whirl, or watch the video. Just a few years after being created, The Fed caused the depression and strong-armed America. Roosevelt robbed Americans of their gold (sounds pretty familiar to the currency act of 1764 I mentioned earlier). Wilson seems to have regretted this deeply: "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ... a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.... Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."-- Woodrow Wilson Before his death in 1924 President Wilson realized the full extent of the damage he had done to America when he confessed: "I have unwittingly ruined my country." That's a pretty terrible thing. I'm sure your time is valuable but personally I wouldn't write it off just because it's not in Wikiquote, APA, MLA, etc. format. By the way, there's a more recent erratum with a few attributions to our own Wikiquote. I do feel your pain though. It would really benefit from a set of complete citations. By and large however, it seems to be grounded firmly in historical fact. At least more so than most of the information we consume. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Over less than a century this information went from widely accepted fact, to debatable, to "fringe", and finally now to "conspiracy theory". It is the history of America, and how we turned from a great nation of brave men into the Whore of Babylon the very moment we gave international bankers an inch of ground. They have profited from suffering on a global scale, and they continue to live lives of unimaginable luxury at the expense of America and the even less fortunate people who they force America to fight. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To my surprise, Bill Still seems to have an active youtube channel. I'm glad he hasn't disappeared in the Bermuda triangle or some such nonsense. Perhaps you can take the citation issue up with him.

However, I don't know whether he understands the nature of modern political media. My earlier conjecture about political polarization and the watershed effect of political media is my own. I'd be interested in reading any similar work, but I'm not sure that any exists at this time (except perhaps yours, but I consider it different for reasons I've already stated). I believe this is largely what keeps people from being politically effective as activists. This is a trap almost everyone falls into, without exception. It's truly a well-engineered and precisely executed public relations strategy, and I haven't thought of a good way to explain it to the average person. I get furious just thinking about it, so it's hard to keep that out of my writing. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding other literature on political polarization and the media, have you reviewed the following, cited in my Confirmation bias and conflict:

• Siva Vaidhyanathan (12 June 2018). Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (in en). Oxford University Press. Wikidata Q56027099. ISBN 978-0-19-084118-8. . This is completely devoted to this question.
• H. R. McMaster (2020). Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World (in en). HarperCollins. Wikidata Q104774898. ISBN 978-0-06-289948-4. . McMaster was President Trump's second National Security Advisor. Part of this book says that Russia in particular is actively exploiting the defects in the structure of social media described by Vaidhyanathan to weaken the US and its allies by disrupting sensible political discourse.

DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it has much to do with Russia necessarily. It's our own politicians. The press conferences, speechs, the news reports. It's all political theatre designed to get a rise out of you. Actually, I've never visited Facebook in my life. You really have to forget about any commercial or money-making motivation on their part. Sure, that's ostensibly part of it, but at its core, it's a public relations strategy. Crowd control. They don't want any of our paper dollars, or our labor, or skill, unless we apply that skill to help them control other people. They want our information not to sell us things, but to learn more about human behavior and genetics. This helps them get better at crowd control and augment their progeny genetically. It's probably what I'd do if I were a megalomaniac. I have no reason to believe they think any differently. Once you understand that this is their frame of mind, it makes a lot more sense and becomes a lot less complicated. Sadly though, all I can do is pose these baseless conjectures. To my knowledge, there are no public research papers on the psychological state and beliefs of oligarchs and bankers, so I'm afraid you'll not be able to fact check any of this. You think if I asked real nice I could get a few of them together for a study? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to hypothesize justification for demonizing an out group, and existing media systems sometimes amplify wild allegations. People too often believe things that are not true or are cherry picked to support inappropriate claims. Whether allegations are true or are fabrications, it's often smarter to seek common ground and avoid violence even when some leaders insist, "We have to defend ourselves." Some calls to violence are justified by misunderstandings and become counterproductive.

When people are killed and property destroyed, it becomes harder to find common ground, though sometimes still not impossible. The 1994 Rwandan genocide included many atrocities, but the survivors have since learned to live in peace, even intermarrying again.

A very different but crudely similar process has transpired between loggers and tree-huggers in w:John Day, Oregon. A few years ago, Susan Jane Brown, an attorney for environmental tree huggers, initiated a discussion with loggers over sustainable forest management to reduce the risk of a major destructive fire by removing accumulated fuel and logging some smaller trees. It's not as profitable as clear cutting, but it saved the last sawmill in John Day from closing.

DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "demonizing" any particular ethnicity, if that's what you're concerned about. I know that historical information on central banking tends to focus on Jewish people (to varying degrees) but we have to remember that there were plenty of gentiles involved, such as JP Morgan. It's of no use to scapegoat "The Jews", because that does not give us the full picture, and no doubt most Jews are entirely uninvolved. That's why I like Still's documentary, since it's not constantly harping about "The Jews" this "The Jews" that. The word "Jew" only appears three times in the entire transcript, albeit all in the very short section "Who are these money changers?", which just summarizes "The Cleansing of the Temple". Real subtle, Bill :P. Really I wish he'd redo the entire intro. It starts off with an interview of Larry Bates, then makes an out-dated (and rather silly) reference to the yellow pages, and then goes straight into a biblical story. I really can't blame anyone who'd turn it off at that point, which is a real shame. The rest is great but the intro aged very badly, and I don't think many people in 2021 have the attention span to stick with it unless the intro has a solid hook. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And I hope the irony isn't lost on you that Jesus, an otherwise strict pacifist, actually whipped the snot out of them. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I correct that under Roman Emporar Constantine, the Christians of that day defeated the superpower without firing a shot? I've seen that claimed, but I don't find it now in Wikipedia, so there may not be a consensus on that. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, guns wouldn't be invented for at least another thousand years or so. So you got me there. What was it that happened to Rome after that? My memory is a little foggy, but I presume they all lived happily ever after with their newfound pacifist religion. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, I remember what happened now. The most advanced civilization on earth collapsed into darkness and it took the west almost two thousand years to recover. At least there wasn't any gun violence, that would just be senseless. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And unfortunately, the people who control our education system do not see fit to pass on to us the wisdom of antiquity. Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction—at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted others as settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted. --Aristotle. This is not racism, it's a simple observation that pluralism leads to the debasement of at least one given faction. I want it to work, perhaps it even can work, but it must be approached with caution and not blind optimism. How many times will we have to learn this lesson? Our own history is being revised and so we learn nothing from it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And I'll let you look into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I would not be upset if every gesture of goodwill that the American people extended was not immediately thrown back in their faces and used to debase them and all their progeny, and then the history of such events aggressively purged from textbooks and public memory. It doesn't even make any sense to me. Why would they be so cruel and malicious toward the people who generally offered them mercy and came to their aid? And no, I'm not speaking of "The Jews", just a very small subset who seem intent on destroying me. What recourse does anyone have in dealing with people who cannot be reasoned with and do not seem to understand reciprocity? I am fully open to seeking common ground with anyone, as long as they don't put a knife in my belly while we shake hands. What more can you or anyone else reasonably ask of me? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that the US may not have been as generous to others as you claim?

The mainstream media everywhere sell changes in audience behaviors to the people who give them money. The people who control the money for and the editorial policies of the mainstream media in the US want you to believe we have been as generous and altruistic as you claim. I think the vast majority of Americans have been as generous and altruistic as you claim. However, with a few exceptions, the results have rarely benefitted anyone other than the elites, who have controlled the money for the media.

Among the many events listed in "w:United States involvement in regime change", I think all were driven by US international business interests. The literature I've seen suggests a consensus that the US occupations of Europe and Japan after World War II have been very beneficial for all, the US, Japan, and the Western Europeans. For everything else on that list since 1890, it is easy to find reasonable literature supporting claims that the vast majority of the people in those countries are worse off today as a result of the US interventions there. DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no bearing on US foreign policy. None whatsoever. It is not up to me. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want a "kosher" take on the media's role in foreign policy, you might like Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". It's not too bad. The American public aren't really guilty of anything except ignorance, which is part of what I'm trying to correct here in the first place. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, we got off topic. I know you're busy with your other work right now but please revise this resource when you have time. The "zig zag" you see in the plot has nothing to do with FDR himself, and everything to do with the fed contracting and then expanding the money supply. They caused mass suffering to get their way, and then when Roosevelt acquiesced they expanded the currency supply. Nearly the first thing they did after being given power was to bring America to the brink of destruction in order to obtain more power. It's something all of my grandparents lived through in poverty. My great grandfather survived world-war 1, then survived the depression along with my grandfather, who then survived world war 2. It's very likely that bankers also had a hand in both world wars, and it's quite astounding I even exist in the first place. You'll have to forgive me if I'm irked by all this being omitted from the history and social studies books, and public dialog. While I really enjoy hearing about how terrible white privilege is, perhaps these historical details and how we got to this point deserve a small mention as well. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please promise me you'll change it. Otherwise I'll have to edit it at some point. In its current state, it's a gross misrepresentation (even if unintentional) of both MMT and the events leading up to, during, and shortly after the great depression. I'm certain you would wish for an accurate historical recording of Vietnam. It's history, nothing more, nothing less. It happened almost a century ago, so I don't see any harm in telling the true story. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please edit it as you see fit, subject to the standard Wikimedia rules. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything except the data itself would have to be changed. I would like you to take responsibility for it, at your leisure. I cannot go around trying to correct all the misinformation by myself. Earlier you seemed to imply that all these events ended up benefiting the west during postwar occupations. There was nothing beneficial about the early-to-mid twentieth century for those nations at all. The majority of their best men, who were brave enough to enlist or at least comply with the draft, were gracelessly fed into a meat grinder (WW1), then impoverished, then their gold was stolen, and then their sons were fed into another meat grinder (WW2). Despite this ruthless treatment, we still flourished in the latter half of the century, only to be antagonized and vilified in the media and painted as some sort of "privileged" bourgeois. As though we've been lounging beside pools made of marble and drinking wine while being fanned by slaves. Nothing could be farther from the truth. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide references that you think provide documentation that can be used to correct the deficiencies you perceive in this article? DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is where you omit the cause of the depression, then attribute the subsequent growth merely to FDR's "spending", and then call it an instance of MMT in action. MMT advocates against independent central banks (not central banks in general). In the early twentieth century, we had just chartered an independent central bank (the fed). Almost instantly, they destroyed America by contracting the money supply, causing the great depression. While the transcript I cited earlier does not come with Wikiquote citations, it should be a good place to start in terms of piecing this series of events together (The act of which is known as "research" or "scholarship". You can't expect everything to come neatly packaged, although that documentary does a fairly impressive job). The laws themselves are a matter of public record. It cites many reputable individuals and scholars who were alive at the time and gave first-hand accounts. What more do you want? A Washington-post-fact-checked™ statement from The Fed themselves? The media and education dwell on every sin committed by my ancestors but there is no mention of this whatsoever. No mention of the adversity they faced and overcame. It's simply not a fair treatment. Like I said, it happened over a century ago. Is there any harm in an accurate historical account, except that we might learn something from our history? I'm not making any wild demand here. If it seems wild to you, then we are not at all on the same page. How can you expect me to be amiable and willing to seek common ground when there is no mutual respect? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And let's also discard idea that there should always exist a "trusted secondary source" to corroborate things like this. Money is no object to the people who have a vested interest in obscuring this information, it is quite literally no more than paper. Wikipedia discourages primary sources, but I see no real reason for this, and I think it has encouraged an unfortunate culture whereby the "truth" is determined by how much partisan propaganda one can bring to bear in favor of one's viewpoint. Fortunately though, that is not the case here at Wikiversity, and it would be foolish to ignore the vested interests involved in any given issue. This seems like common sense but there are many people who choose to feign ignorance when you point out such things, and that is why I am deeply suspicious of Wikipedia's policies like "no primary sources" and "AGF". Critical thought is all but forbidden by Wikipedia policy itself, and even this observation itself could be construed as a minor breach of WP:AGF if I were to state it on Wikipedia. That's why I like it here better. Rather than scoffing at Bill's work, you should consider yourself damned lucky that someone has done that much. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

I'll end for now on an interesting sentence from w:Crisco: "They used advertising techniques that encouraged consumers not to be concerned about ingredients but to trust in a reliable brand." I can't think of a more perfect analogy for our current attitudes about information. Crisco is disgusting mystery grease that clogs our blood vessels and kills us before we can collect social security. Mass media is hardly any more wholesome. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, if I'm honest here, I think that the proliferation of "fake news" has nothing to do with Russia or the "alt-right" or any of that. It's probably just a way to drown out independent journalism and make it seem less trustworthy, while shoring up (undeserved) faith in mass media. This is why pundits are always preoccupied with "fake news" and "fact checking". Not that getting your facts straight isn't important, but it's a terrible mistake to be so preoccupied with "production quality", for lack of a better term. The best and most honest journalism is not going to be found on TV, Reddit, or any of the alexa top 500 (at least not in any conspicuous form). If there's anything that I want most for people to take away from my work here at Wikiversity, it's this. Throwing up a bunch of websites with bogus news or half-truths is dirt cheap. A monkey could do it. Is there any easier way to make mass media seem more credible while undermining independent journalism at the same time? If I were trying to destroy free and independent journalism, it's exactly what I'd do. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

On the other talk page, you asked me how we should fix cultural and intellectual decay, which is destroying American culture from the inside out. Cultural decay is intentional, they want to see us barefoot and ignorant, if not dead entirely. It is an existential threat. None of anyone's efforts on Wikiversity or Wikipedia will truly help people if these organizations are used for misdirection or misinformation. It's a poisoned meal. The better you make it, the more appealing and dangerous it will be. There is no middle ground, poison is poison no matter how good it looks or tastes, and I'm sure many poisons taste far better than their antidotes. I'd rather these places not exist in the first place if they are going to be used to disseminate misinformation or disinformation. We can always study at the library, but it's awfully hard to repair a broken culture or learn solid principles from a distorted picture of history. The world is quickly becoming a place that I want no part of. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Just a reminder

@DavidMCEddy:

To summarize, I think that this article needs to

• Clearly state that the decline in GDP during the great depression was a direct result of The Fed contracting the money supply.
• Avoid conflating FDR's spending with applied MMT. Avoid using weasel words e.g. "The proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) insist that the phenomena portrayed in Figures 1 and 2 were due to two things".
• Define "sovereign currency" in the context of MMT. As I understand it, a country does not have a "sovereign currency" if they get their money from an independent central bank such as The Fed. The Fed was chartered as an independent central bank shortly before the great depression.
• Perhaps describe the process by which USD is created and enters the economy.

The resource also asserts a relationship between inflation and mergers/monopolies/advertising. I am not an economist and the relationship is not clear to me. A more detailed explanation would be helpful, otherwise it seems like a non-sequitur. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll also say that I think this article would be very valuable if it were corrected and gave an accurate analysis of the chart, so I don't want you to give up on it. I agree that the economic growth during FDR's presidency does indirectly support the case for MMT, but not exactly in the manner described by the resource. Again, I'm not an economist, so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. It is my understanding that presently, The Fed controls the money supply partly by buying and selling bonds. When they buy a bond from a bank, that bank is credited with USD created from thin air, which they have to pay back with interest. In other words, the U.S. treasury does not create its own money. It borrows money (though not directly from The Fed) e.g. by selling its own bonds, and collects taxes. This is not a "sovereign currency", because ultimately money is created by The Fed, not the US treasury. If the US government actually controlled the US dollar then how would it ever be possible to default on debt denominated in USD? It wouldn't, that should make clear the difference between a "sovereign" currency vis-a-vis one issued by an independent bank. Incidentally, I do not know exactly how FDR got the money, perhaps that would be a good addition to the resource. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, if anyone who knows more than I do can comment or recommend any literature, please do. I don't know very much about monetary policy but I've been trying to understand the basics, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Here's my question: Why should our government have to sell bonds on an open market to raise money? Suppose China buys a bond from the United States treasury. Then we (the taxpayers) have to pay back this debt, with interest, to a foreign nation. Essentially, wealth is needlessly transferred from the United States citizenry to a foreign nation. Would it not make more sense to simply issue that much more USD? In that case, 1) we would not have to pay interest, and 2) it's (on the whole) no worse than being taxed to pay back the debt at a later point. The "taxation" here is in the form of inflation, which isn't necessarily good, but is it worse than putting the US taxpayers into interest-bearing debt to a third party, and still having high inflation anyway like we do now? Now we are both in debt and subject to severe inflation. A new, middle-of-the-road ford f150 costs $50,000. I am a millennial, and at the time I was born they were around $8,000. Many claim (excuse the weasel words, I don't have any particular citation) that The Fed cannot raise interest rates without crashing the economy. US citizens get the short end of the stick here (in particular, my generation and younger). Banks that are clients/members (or whatever they're called) of The Fed make tons of money through fractional reserve banking, The Fed has essentially unlimited wealth, people who own our debts collect interest and US citizens are robbed in the process. Politicians raise the debt ceiling and kick the can down the road by borrowing more. Who's going to deal with this unholy mess? We're being robbed in broad daylight. And all the while people are bickering about George Floyd, bickering about who gets to use which bathroom, forgoing hard-won rights with "responsible gun policy" (small wonder they want us disarmed), etc. It's so ridiculous I can hardly believe it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Dave, it's been a month and a half. I know you're busy, but you have to fix this. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)