French classes fucking suck. I studied it for 3 years and then I went to Paris, I was baffled and didn't understand a word.

Your grandpa is a wise man.

you are not a clever man

Because a whore picks her clothes based on 'what feels good'.

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

if you're in college, I would definitely suggest taking at least an intro macro-econ class.

it's interesting to learn that on a country-sized scale, money almost works the opposite of how you think it should.

for example, debt=good
if you don't have debt, it means no one trusts you enough to let you borrow. ahem Greece

Not in college yet, still want to learn though. But how does that make sense? I know that a country is supposed to function while in debt (not how or why mind you, but I just know it's supposed to and that the US has gone off the deep end in that regard), but how does that translate into a trust issue?

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

pretty much the things I just mentioned in my last sentence.

wikipedia does a pretty decent job of covering the different theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

but in case you're worried about it, there's no need to be. inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact a low and steady rate of inflation is preferred). it's only bad when inflation happens at a high rate in a short amount of time.
inflation-meh
hyperinflation-holyshitwe'rescrewed

Not worried, just curious. I like to learn and like to be informed about what's going on and why, especially when the US is so close with Canada in terms of relations. Thanks man, have a good night.

if you're in college, I would definitely suggest taking at least an intro macro-econ class.

it's interesting to learn that on a country-sized scale, money almost works the opposite of how you think it should.

for example, debt=good
if you don't have debt, it means no one trusts you enough to let you borrow. ahem Greece

Not in college yet, still want to learn though. But how does that make sense? I know that a country is supposed to function while in debt (not how or why mind you, but I just know it's supposed to and that the US has gone off the deep end in that regard), but how does that translate into a trust issue?

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

I wouldn't say that the Fed CAUSES inflation. yes, inflation can be caused by an excess of available currency (or in other words, the available money supply, which can be affected by both the Fed and the gov't), but the rate of production has a negligible effect on inflation relative to other things such as exchange rates, unemployment, cyclical patterns, and supply/demand shifts

So you seem to know what's up, what is causing it then? You don't need to give me a thesis or anything, just chuck a couple points. It'll be the last thing I ask ya.

pretty much the things I just mentioned in my last sentence.

wikipedia does a pretty decent job of covering the different theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

but in case you're worried about it, there's no need to be. inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact a low and steady rate of inflation is preferred). it's only bad when inflation happens at a high rate in a short amount of time.
inflation-meh
hyperinflation-holyshitwe'rescrewed

Not worried, just curious. I like to learn and like to be informed about what's going on and why, especially when the US is so close with Canada in terms of relations. Thanks man, have a good night.

if you're in college, I would definitely suggest taking at least an intro macro-econ class.

it's interesting to learn that on a country-sized scale, money almost works the opposite of how you think it should.

for example, debt=good
if you don't have debt, it means no one trusts you enough to let you borrow. ahem Greece

Not in college yet, still want to learn though. But how does that make sense? I know that a country is supposed to function while in debt (not how or why mind you, but I just know it's supposed to and that the US has gone off the deep end in that regard), but how does that translate into a trust issue?

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

well, first, think about what the Fed does.
1.) it regulates the money supply through three methods (I can explain those if you need me to, but they aren't important)
2.) it maintains financial stability
3.) provides financial services to other banks, such as facilitating exchanges

keeping the Fed separate from the Gov't provides a separation from political bias and banking needs.

more importantly, because the Fed is independent from the gov't, its directors are long-term which allows for them to make long-term decisions. political cycles are too short for long-term planning to be useful (such as inflation and economic growth), so keeping it separate prevents political bias from interfering with fiscal planning

note that congress can also affect the money supply, but it almost never does. congress takes too long to actually get anything done, so it just lets the Fed take care of it

I'm no economist, but that seems to make enough sense. The main part of that that worried me is the idea of the people not having control over their own money, since it's technically a private company/sector. So as long as congress can step in if the people push enough, then all is well. I thought the fed had a major hand in the cause of inflation as well though? As it's printing money like candy.

I wouldn't say that the Fed CAUSES inflation. yes, inflation can be caused by an excess of available currency (or in other words, the available money supply, which can be affected by both the Fed and the gov't), but the rate of production has a negligible effect on inflation relative to other things such as exchange rates, unemployment, cyclical patterns, and supply/demand shifts

So you seem to know what's up, what is causing it then? You don't need to give me a thesis or anything, just chuck a couple points. It'll be the last thing I ask ya.

pretty much the things I just mentioned in my last sentence.

wikipedia does a pretty decent job of covering the different theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

but in case you're worried about it, there's no need to be. inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact a low and steady rate of inflation is preferred). it's only bad when inflation happens at a high rate in a short amount of time.
inflation-meh
hyperinflation-holyshitwe'rescrewed

Not worried, just curious. I like to learn and like to be informed about what's going on and why, especially when the US is so close with Canada in terms of relations. Thanks man, have a good night.

if you're in college, I would definitely suggest taking at least an intro macro-econ class.

it's interesting to learn that on a country-sized scale, money almost works the opposite of how you think it should.

for example, debt=good
if you don't have debt, it means no one trusts you enough to let you borrow. ahem Greece

Not in college yet, still want to learn though. But how does that make sense? I know that a country is supposed to function while in debt (not how or why mind you, but I just know it's supposed to and that the US has gone off the deep end in that regard), but how does that translate into a trust issue?

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

But wouldn't they be able to put a cap on the printing of money if it was government controlled? Assuming people would be bothered to do that. Sure they might spend money like hell, but calming the printing process down may help with inflation.

no, making the Fed part of the government would be a bad idea.

Why?

well, first, think about what the Fed does.
1.) it regulates the money supply through three methods (I can explain those if you need me to, but they aren't important)
2.) it maintains financial stability
3.) provides financial services to other banks, such as facilitating exchanges

keeping the Fed separate from the Gov't provides a separation from political bias and banking needs.

more importantly, because the Fed is independent from the gov't, its directors are long-term which allows for them to make long-term decisions. political cycles are too short for long-term planning to be useful (such as inflation and economic growth), so keeping it separate prevents political bias from interfering with fiscal planning

note that congress can also affect the money supply, but it almost never does. congress takes too long to actually get anything done, so it just lets the Fed take care of it

I'm no economist, but that seems to make enough sense. The main part of that that worried me is the idea of the people not having control over their own money, since it's technically a private company/sector. So as long as congress can step in if the people push enough, then all is well. I thought the fed had a major hand in the cause of inflation as well though? As it's printing money like candy.

I wouldn't say that the Fed CAUSES inflation. yes, inflation can be caused by an excess of available currency (or in other words, the available money supply, which can be affected by both the Fed and the gov't), but the rate of production has a negligible effect on inflation relative to other things such as exchange rates, unemployment, cyclical patterns, and supply/demand shifts

So you seem to know what's up, what is causing it then? You don't need to give me a thesis or anything, just chuck a couple points. It'll be the last thing I ask ya.

pretty much the things I just mentioned in my last sentence.

wikipedia does a pretty decent job of covering the different theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

but in case you're worried about it, there's no need to be. inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact a low and steady rate of inflation is preferred). it's only bad when inflation happens at a high rate in a short amount of time.
inflation-meh
hyperinflation-holyshitwe'rescrewed

Not worried, just curious. I like to learn and like to be informed about what's going on and why, especially when the US is so close with Canada in terms of relations. Thanks man, have a good night.

if you're in college, I would definitely suggest taking at least an intro macro-econ class.

it's interesting to learn that on a country-sized scale, money almost works the opposite of how you think it should.

for example, debt=good
if you don't have debt, it means no one trusts you enough to let you borrow. ahem Greece

Not in college yet, still want to learn though. But how does that make sense? I know that a country is supposed to function while in debt (not how or why mind you, but I just know it's supposed to and that the US has gone off the deep end in that regard), but how does that translate into a trust issue?

person A needs x money, so person B lends them x money

after y amount of time, A pays B x money + q money to pay for the opportunity cost of B not having x money for y amount of time

if B says "no, I'm not lending you x money," then there are three reasons:
1.)he doesn't have x money
2.)he can't afford the opportunity cost of not having x money for y amount of time
3.) he doesn't trust A to repay x+q money

for a country, 1 and 2 don't make sense. the countries made up the money in the first place, so for them, it's not real, tangible stuff. They definitely have x money, and they don't have any problems with parting with it for y amount of time.
plus, the country WANTS to lend the money, because it means long-term profit for them, so regardless of whether or not they like each other, it's in their financial interest to do the transaction. so the only reason why they wouldn't borrow the money is if they didn't trust the country to repay them.
debt can (in a round-about way) be correlated with trustworthiness.

But wouldn't they be able to put a cap on the printing of money if it was government controlled? Assuming people would be bothered to do that. Sure they might spend money like hell, but calming the printing process down may help with inflation.

anything to justify his hatred for blacks, that's what happens when you've sucked too many pimps off so you don't get beat not even quite sure what i'm going for here besides he sucks cock

Maus sez hallo