The Debt Crisis effects on renewable energy in Europe

[Jurg]

The Debt crisis effects on renewable energy in Europe | TimeECO/
Instead of cutting couldn't it also be an option putting the price up of non-renewable energy in an attempt to start charging the real cost of it ?

[Joit]

Politicans can explain anything at this sick System with her budget deficit.
And sad thing is, that there are to much Peoples, what believe in this Stupidity.
In the Name of the Peoples. Amen.

[barbosi]

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

[rickoff]

The Debt crisis effects on renewable energy in Europe | TimeECO/
Instead of cutting couldn't it also be an option putting the price up of non-renewable energy in an attempt to start charging the real cost of it ?

Pricing is an effect of supply and demand. As long as supply meets demand the price remains stable. If supply is lowered while demand remains the same or increases, price increases, and this is how the Arabs attempt to keep the price on the high side. During a recession, or depression, people have less money to spend and therefore consume less, thus reducing demand, and this is where we currently are at in the overall picture of things. Price can, of course, be arbitrarily jacked up by governments, who can add federal, state, and local taxes, which is already a sizeable component of the pricing of fuels. Politicians understand that they probably won't be reelected if they impose more direct taxes on consumer items, so they are reluctant to do this. Instead, they come up with schemes like the Cap and Trade carbon tax, and tell us that the big polluters (petrochemical companies and utilities) will be paying this. Any sane person would realize, however, that these polluters will keep right on polluting now that they can buy "carbon credits," and will simply pass their increased cost of doing business on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Higher prices for carbon based fuels will not bring about an end to their usage or production. The only thing that will do this is the widespread introduction of low cost renewable energy sources.

Rick

[gasman]

"Politicians understand that they probably won't be reelected if they impose more direct taxes on consumer items, so they are reluctant to do this. Instead, they come up with schemes like the Cap and Trade carbon tax, and tell us that the big polluters (petrochemical companies and utilities) will be paying this. Any sane person would realize, however, that these polluters will keep right on polluting now that they can buy "carbon credits," and will simply pass their increased cost of doing business on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Higher prices for carbon based fuels will not bring about an end to their usage or production. The only thing that will do this is the widespread introduction of low cost renewable energy sources."

yes. edit: I should add that the costs don't get directly passed to us. First, all the costs of bureaucracy, and other added overhead costs, are added in first. So if it costs 10% more, there will probably be about a 11.5% increase in price we pay (that type of overhead is generally about 15%).

to the first part of the post... well, kindof...

the price-demand model is far more complicated than that. A slightly more complicated, but far more accurate/useful model is MV=PQ, where M is the total money in the system, V is the velocity (average number of times each dollar is spent), P is price, and Q is the total quantity of goods and services available. This model is based on explaining one system (complete, isolated economy). Therefore, it is most accurate in explaining macroeconomics. It does have use with individual economies, though its limitations should be kept in mind.

The model is mostly self-explanatory; just play with variable values and algebraic manipulations. Take data or assumptions about current state, then see how changing one or more variables will affect the rest of the system. Hours of fun!

It also assumes you know the basics of how economies manipulate growth and support stability (stuff like the US fed reserve monetary policy tools: open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements).

The model doesn't explain everything, though. Such as the human factor: economies are numerical (and pseudo-physical) representations of collective beliefs. If people (in general) believe the economy is weak, that very fact means the economy becomes weak, even if there are no physical changes or other causes for such beliefs. It is also worth noting that all 3 of the fed reserve's monetary policy tools were maxed out, which is why the stimulus was desperately needed. The economy certainly would have collapsed if they hadn't passed that in time. Also, those 3 tools are still pretty close to maxed out (they haven't had the years of time necessary to build back up). The recent talk about stopping stimulus spending would very likely lead to a recession again. This time, there would be no saving the economy. It would need to completely collapse in order to build back up again. Food for thought.

I won't bore anyone here with scenarios or more details. That's enough info to play with for a while on its own. if you have any questions, though, feel free to ask.

[rickoff]

[quote=gasman;103610 The recent talk about stopping stimulus spending would very likely lead to a recession again.[/quote]

Again? What makes you think that we ever got out of the recession? We have only sunken lower. The U.S. economy is in the “early stages” of a depression, one which will be much more severe than the Great Depression, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman warns.

“We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression....the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will be immense,” he wrote in the Times.
"Unemployment — especially long-term unemployment — remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down,” writes Krugman.

Other elite opinion-makers seem to concur with this tragic hypothesis. The Washington Post is reporting that the late June G-20 Summit was a “prelude to a depression.”


Massive budget shortfalls and plunging tax revenues are currently affecting 48 states, and a great many cities across the US are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pvIn3Y_z_lxZCY_clxptNi1M-GQVtAe9y80j0__1AZSBF6VAFJyYERe3vM1dMQzwl5DoqG9Ya2dlJdGDrpU3p6w/statemap.jpg?psid=1

Among them:
Colorado Springs has let 1/3rd of its streetlights go dark… sold police helicopters on eBay… and halted all street paving.
Arizona has sold – then leased back – its State House and Senate buildings… a desperate one-time move to raise cash.
Illinois’ liquid assets have dipped below $1 million… as they scramble to limit fallout from a giant $12.8 BILLION deficit.
States from Kansas to Hawaii have considered bills to cut the five-day school week down to four… or cancel entire grade-years altogether.
The capital of Pennsylvania has already skipped its 2010 debt payments… and has been downgraded to “high risk junk” by Moody’s.
And Toledo, Ohio, admits it may have to lay off EVERY government employee.

The pork laden "Stimulus Bill" has done little, if anything, other than to greatly increase the US budget deficit and the national debt. The national debt now stands at over $13 trillion and the White House estimates that the cost of servicing the debt will rise to more than $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion last year. The Times suggests that $700 billion annual payment cost may be conservative. The additional $500 billion a year in interest payments would surpass the combined budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Times observes.

Note: For those who don't understand what "debt servicing" is, please be advised that is simply the amount required to pay the annual interest fee on the national debt, and does not pay off even one penny of the actual debt owed. With ever increasing and irresponsible government spending, the national debt is growing at an alarming rate, and the resulting debt servicing is no longer manageable. Even now we cannot afford the current debt servicing cost of $202 billion, so how does Congress expect that we will somehow be able to afford $700 billion ten years from now? The answer is, of course, that they don't expect to be able to cover that expense without more than tripling taxes. Such a tax increase is unaffordable, and therefore unsustainable. It is the surest path to complete and utter financial ruin of our country in the shortest possible time.

[Joit]

This is so ridicoulus to read again and again and again,
when you realize, the Dept they/we all have are only the Interests at the Banks.

[gasman]

Again? What makes you think that we ever got out of the recession? We have only sunken lower. The U.S. economy is in the “early stages” of a depression, one which will be much more severe than the Great Depression, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman warns.

The pork laden "Stimulus Bill" has done little, if anything, other than to greatly increase the US budget deficit and the national debt. The national debt now stands at over $13 trillion and the White House estimates that the cost of servicing the debt will rise to more than $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion last year. The Times suggests that $700 billion annual payment cost may be conservative. The additional $500 billion a year in interest payments would surpass the combined budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Times observes.

(edited for space)

On that first paragraph, sorry about that. The way I worded my statements was misleading. To be perfectly clear, I agree with you that we are clearly not out of a recession. A recession ends when 1. people work and spend again, and 2. when the buffers (like the fed reserve's tools of monetary policy) are built back up to safe levels. (A third, perhaps, is paying off the debt that we used to get 1 back.) The official definition is x periods of "growth" (the measurement of which has little to do with actual growth, and is pretty much completely a political figure). So that really means nothing. It is also worth noting that descriptions of an economy's status generally aren't accurate until years after the fact. For instance, it was in 2009 when the "official statements" about the economy's status said that the recession actually stated years before, without much notice. Some high-level economists pointed it out, but nobody (banks) didn't pay attention. Greed, IMO.

Anyway, about the stimulus. I take it you disagree with the stimulus?

First off, the pork pisses me off as well. To think that the decision-makers basically blackmailed the citizens they are sworn to protect sickens me. Especially since it was at a time like that.

That aside, we need to define "work." It was intended to take a desperate situation and stop the immediate decline, in hopes that the economy would then have a chance to recover. That was goal 1 (of 2, which I'll get to later), and it is 100% successful on that. I should point out that it was only through bipartisan support that the stimulus bills passed, and that two presidents with divergent views both agreed to their necessity and supported them. It is also worth pointing out that both democrats and republicans had input on all sections, including the "pork." Some try to say it was the democrats or the GOP that were responsible for the pork, but it was both parties.

The only other option was to leave it be, and see what happened. The economy almost certainly would have collapsed in short order after that, as the only other monetary policy tools (the red reserve ones) were maxed out. The stimulus is effectively a fourth tool of monetary policy that went from necessity to invention to implementation very quickly. Nobody liked it... but there just was not another choice.

Again, some politicians using the desperate situation by pushing personal agendas through is sad. However, not signing it would basically be saying that a few ticks in the bill is worth killing the entire economy over. As much as it sucked, the economy was more important than the relatively petty issues. There are other disgusting examples of politicians that try to "spin" the truth and try to say that by signing the bill, they supported all the "pork." That is obviously absurd.

Before the stimulus went into effect, the stock markets (among other things) were in tatters. The DJIA, for example, went from 13k+ volume to around 6k in a short period of time. Large, important banks failed. I'll say again: Large financial institutions failed-- some that even survived the great depression. Have people forgotten about that already? After the stimulus, people can borrow money and buy things again, and their jobs are safer (plus lots of other signs of stabilization).

But the stimulus is more than just short-term benefits. Goal 2. is, once goal 1 is achieved (immediate failure avoided), to A. build back up the 3 fed reserve monetary tools, and then B. to repay the debt of the stimulus. We are working on Goal 2.A. atm. Goals 2.B. can only be achieved by keeping the stimulus going enough to build up the fed reserve tools to safe levels (goal 2.A.). The economy hasn't recovered yet, BUT it is on the road to recovery. It has achieved goal 1, and is starting to rebuild the fed reserve tools, and those are huge steps. But we have to keep fighting the good fight. If we stop the stimulus before we rebuild the fed reserve tools, the economy will almost certainly collapse within a couple of years. Then, there would be no turning back, and the economy would have to hit rock bottom before building back up. In that scenario (stimulus started, but not followed through), not only would we have a collapsed economy, but also a huge debt. The stimulus is an all-or-nothing tool... follow it through, or it was pointless. It also sickens me that some politicians try to spin that for their own goals.

The REAL results of the borrowed money are invaluable. We effectively paid several hundred billion dollars to save an economy that would have cost trillions (in cash alone, plus priceless other costs) if it failed. We had a black-and-white choice: do we want to save the economy with debt, or do we want the economy to fail? Our politicians made the only real choice they could have. I applaud them for that, and for not letting red herrings kill the economy.

[rickoff]

. Anyway, about the stimulus. I take it you disagree with the stimulus?

Most definitely, and also with all of the other reckless government spending that has burdened each and every US citizen with a debt of over $40,000. I can't afford that debt, and neither can my children or grandchildren. Can you? I worked hard all my life, saved money, and made darned certain that all my debts were affordable. If something unforseen was to occur (loss of employment income, etc.)that threatened to ruin me financially, I sized up my situation and prospects and took whatever action was necessary to remain solvent (eliminated car payment by selling car, sold home and downsized to something more affordable, worked multiple part time jobs to avoid blowing my savings, cut out all discretionary spending, etc.) Many people will not go to these lengths to avoid sinking in financial quicksand, and instead start using multiple credit cards to pay bills so that they can go on living the same lifestyle. When you do that, it doesn't take long before you are in a situation where you can only afford to pay the "minimum payment" amount on your credit cards, and the amount that you owe automatically escalates every month until it becomes so large as to be unrepayable. And then when your credit rating goes to hell you file for bankruptcy. It is simply common sense that one can not spend their way out of debt, and the same holds true for the federal and state governments. We have 48 states who have inadequate funds to pay their debt obligations, which were due July 1st. What happens when cities, then entire states, go bankrupt? Who bails them out when the government says they are "too big to fail?" Continuation of failed policy only ensures failure. About the only thing that could possibly save us now is to end the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and the illegal IRS, announce worldwide 100% debt forgiveness between all nations, and to outlaw money lending with interest charges by private bankers and credit card companies. Let the Treasury print its own money interest free, and loan money to credit worthy individuals and businesses at a nominal charge, of say 1%, to cover administrative costs.

You appear to think that the purpose of the Federal Reserve is to safeguard the economy, but in actuality it has only served to destroy the economy and the US dollar. Since its inception in 1913, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value while the private banking cartel that operates the Fed has become wealthy beyond one's wildest imagination. That should tell us something, right? And now that we see the former head of the Federal Reserve New York branch, Tim Geithner, acting as Secretary of the Treasury, and having sole discretion on the distribution of TARP funds, isn't that akin to the fox guarding the henhouse?

Rick

[Joit]

gasman,
No offend, but what do you think does a stimulus do. It is only like dug in the Dirt and turn it around few times.
That is a argument, which what they brainwash Peoples since a long time.
Where do you think does the Money come from for a stimulus.
The Fed is the only Bank, what can give out Money, and they sproad it worldwide.

And thats the Start. They give out, lets say 100k for 2% Interest.
They never give out the Interest. But they want it back from the Government/ Country, what get this Credit.

Its like you are on a Island, and a Banker gives you 1000$, but after a Year you have to give him 1010$ back.
Where do you wanna get this 10$ from, when the Banker only had this 1000$.
In our Case is it the Bank, what are the only one, what is allowed to print Money.
You may go around the Island, and look for another Guy, where the Banker did give 1000$ also.
So you can take 10$ from this Guy, but he has only 990$ now,
but shall pay back 1010$ also.
All he can do it, after a Year, to come to you, and ask you for 20$ Dollar as Credit, that he can pay back his Dept.

Ok back to the Schoolbook with the 100 000$. They say, the Interests from this Credit for a Country should be given back with the Interests, when someone brings Money to the Bank.
Thats why its called Capitalism.
You get how much interests ? Lets say 5%. First thing i did calculate is,
how much Capital must be there then, i came to 40 000 from this 100 000,
what someone has to bring to the bank only for the Interests.
But then comes the Bank again.
They can give away this Capital from 40k 10x times again for someone else,
who wants a Credit,
right now, they call it, 'Stimulate the Economy' and they take again, how much? 10% Interests?
That is creating new Interests over and over, what are not given into the System with the first Credit, and all what everyone can do, is still only pay only Interests back, nothing else, and that is, what this System sucks out.
And there even does not help when the Economy grows,
because this dont make new Money, at the moment only more disposable Article, that they can keep her sales,
but this dont produce the Money for the Interests.

It may takes a while till you figure out, what this means, and probatly, because you may even cant believe, that this System is so stupid build, but that is the Truth, and that is, why this System will crash every 60-80 Years.

All time, when i read this Things like Rick describes above, that they have to cut here and there, just to come over the Rounds, and noone really can or will do something against, then i really get p..eeved.

And its the same by us allready, that noone really knows,
where the Money should come from, we (Germany) need 800Years to pay back our Depts,
and all what you hear from our Jerks, is, " We did life over our Standards",
but the Banks still create more and more new "Air-money" without backup,
so far theyr Computers can take the Digits, what they type in.

[gasman]

Thank you both for your replies

For the first part of rickoff's post (not quoted below): Yes, budgeting is important. It does seem silly that the government cannot even do what we citizens do on a daily basis. Though it has been proposed numerous times, a mandated balanced federal budget has never passed.

Regarding the tarp in particular, I see what you're saying. It is expensive, and we (because of the economic situation), do not have the cash to pay for it, and it must be borrowed. Joit, you, and I all agree that it is expensive. With all due respect, however, that is also the only section of the arguments that you have addressed. The (basic) things to be considered are: (for this situation)

What are the costs (of the stimulus)? (expensive, but well within the ability of us to repay), the risk of failure, and the risk of not following it through intentionally.

What are the benefits? (I discussed these earlier)

Are there other options? Yes, to do nothing.

What are the costs of the other option? Economic collapse and depression.

What are the benefits of the other option? Proponents of letting the economy fail say that it will eventually fail anyway, and we are postponing the inevitable. Therefore, we will be in the same boat at a later date, just without the added debt.

The counter to the latter is that, if the stimulus (collectively) works, it will have effectively limited a would-be depression to a recession, with minimal impact (recoverable debt vs economic collapse). More on this later, though...

... It is simply common sense that one can not spend their way out of debt, and the same holds true for the federal and state governments. We have 48 states who have inadequate funds to pay their debt obligations, which were due July 1st. What happens when cities, then entire states, go bankrupt? Who bails them out when the government says they are "too big to fail?" Continuation of failed policy only ensures failure. About the only thing that could possibly save us now is to end the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and the illegal IRS, announce worldwide 100% debt forgiveness between all nations, and to outlaw money lending with interest charges by private bankers and credit card companies. Let the Treasury print its own money interest free, and loan money to credit worthy individuals and businesses at a nominal charge, of say 1%, to cover administrative costs.

You appear to think that the purpose of the Federal Reserve is to safeguard the economy, but in actuality it has only served to destroy the economy and the US dollar. Since its inception in 1913, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value while the private banking cartel that operates the Fed has become wealthy beyond one's wildest imagination. That should tell us something, right? And now that we see the former head of the Federal Reserve New York branch, Tim Geithner, acting as Secretary of the Treasury, and having sole discretion on the distribution of TARP funds, isn't that akin to the fox guarding the henhouse?

Rick

You mention the TARP/Stimulus, and then mention "spending ones way out of debt." The latter has nothing to do with the former. With all due respect, if you were implying that you think the two are similar, I have a lot to teach you about how economies work. I won't go into details here, as you really didn't expand upon that sentence in your post, though (so I really don't know what you were getting at).

All US states are federally required to have a balanced budget, and all have that. Some have been required to make cuts they didn't like in order to get there because of a loss of tax revenue, but such is life. All those issues, including contingency plans, are red herrings, though. Those issues aren't debatable, and are clearly codified. Just google them if you are really that interested.

and regarding this quote: "About the only thing that could possibly save us now is to end the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and the illegal IRS, announce worldwide 100% debt forgiveness between all nations, and to outlaw money lending with interest charges by private bankers and credit card companies."

Are you serious?

Unconstitutional federal reserve? Mind posting the US Supreme Court case that held the federal reserve as unconstitutional? I couldn't find anything on WestLaw or LexisNexis. It will be in the form of "XXX U.S. XXX", "XX S.Ct. XXX" or "XX L.Ed. XXX", depending on the reporter (with the X's being numbers). It could be in another format on other reporters, as well. The last time I checked (just now), the federal reserve was still active. Apparently I'm not the only one who has yet to receive the memo.

The same goes for the IRS issue.

100% debt forgiveness between all nations? What does that even mean? First you are talking about two nations... then you say all nations? Which ones? Caucasians and Asians, perhaps? What about the others? What should these mysterious, unnamed pair of nations do to the rest? Forgive them for being in debt? Most of the world is free from the threat of debtor's prisons. Release of these prisoners would be a nice demonstration of (something?), but what on earth do small diplomatic favors have to do with the economy? There will be, perhaps, several thousand debtors freed. To make matters worse, they are typically in the poorest states anyway. Even then, the whole point of a debtor's prison is to release them afterward with a clean slate. Are you implying you would want to re-establish their debt? If so, then what did they serve time for? That sounds very cruel to me. But even then, several thousand people working to pay off their debt will be a drop in the bucket for the world economy (actually, far, far less than that).

"and to outlaw money lending with interest charges by private bankers and credit card companies."

What? You mean lend money with no interest? An interesting concept. But it is a moot point, and I doubt it will get any traction. I don't see how setting up a purely fee-based financial system would accomplish anything at all. Personally, I hate the current trend toward emphasizing fee-based income. Personally, I would like to see banks, and other lending institutions as purely interest-based. Fees bring nothing to the table, only added overhead... which, in turn, must be covered (with profit) by other means of income... and so on. It is dishonest, IMO.

I see the apparent conflicts of interest with Tim as red herrings. He has far more interest in the survival of the economy than he does for personal profit. There is always going to be some sort of conflict of interest with anyone in that position... period. Plus, he seems to be doing a good job, so I have no issue with him. Read some of Greenspan's stuff after he held the office for some interesting reading...

I think the purpose of the federal reserve is to safeguard the economy because... that is precisely the purpose of the federal reserve. The government was doing poorly at the time (the recession of 1912), and some bankers (who knew far more than congress on the matter) convinced congress to sign over power. Yeah, they understood it far more.. but not perfectly. Ideas of averages abounded, and the herd-like group dynamics were simply not well-known at the time. All the worlds' economies learned a lesson after they kept the interest rate low (which means no economic buffer) and crashed the economy in 1929. New regulations were put in place to reduce the chances of that happening again, and here we are. Many decades later, and still no other depression. In fact, we averted one recently with the stimulus, which went through all channels in time to save the economy. From that near-disaster, we learned about another weak point (what is now referred to as toxic debt). New legislation was just passed to avoid further problems with that. As the economy advances, however, we must all understand that there will always be new challenges from unforeseen weaknesses. The point is 1. to have buffers to protect the economy, and 2. to use the buffers in such a way as to extend the time between major buffer depletions enough that the buffers can rebuild. So far, it has worked-- though our government barely passed the legislation in time with the most recent event.

That last part addresses Joit's post. A completely unregulated, fully free economy WILL collapse at regular and short periods, all else being the same. Poorly regulated free economies will also collapse regularly, though with longer periods. A well-regulated (and enforced) economy will fluctuate (as a sine wave, but less perfect as more factors are added in), but not collapse (eg, a smaller amplitude than that of a less-regulated free economy). The length of the period of the sine wave of such an economy is directly proportional to how effectively it is regulated. The reason for this is because as the economy lowers, buffer is used, and as the economy recovers, buffers are raised. Ideally, both cancel out and the result is a perfectly straight line (mathematically). And the slope of that line is the desired (and presumably sustainable) growth percentage.

It is somewhat like running. You can sprint for short times, but you will collapse. The better you pace yourself, the more consistent your times will be. The economy, though, does not need to ever stop. (until all physical resources are used up, or humanity is destroyed in an unforeseen catastrophe, and so on... but those are stories for another day ).

I should add that the numbers the both of you used were very... something. But just what that something is, is beyond me. Dollars have lost 94% of their value? based on what? How much would an F-22 raptor cost in 1913? The fact is, all the world's economies together couldn't buy a single one. What does that mean? ... not really anything. If the figure "94%" has any meaning, I didn't catch it That doesn't mean it didn't have meaning, just that the significance wasn't explained enough to be clearly understood with text. The same goes for the rest of the numbers. All I got was "I like/don't like X. numbers (presumably somehow supporting the premise?). And that's why I like/don't like X." Just too little info on numbers. After failing to understand the logic, I just read through to address premises and went from there. I hope I didn't miss anything too important...

[Joit]

gasman
that is absolute not true, that a free Economy will collapse.
There been a Experiment at Austria 1932 with own Money.
Before it, they had a high unemployed rate, but the Economy did recover there over Time.
But after 1 Year the Austrain National Bank did sue against it, that they are the only one, who are allowed to print Money.
It seems you still dont understand what Interest are.
it is a Value, what is not given out into the System, and every 'stimulus' is only a new Credit,
what is uncovered, and, with new Interests.
The Value of one Dollar, figure, you could buy before 80 Years 10 Bread with One Dollar,
and today you only can buy one Bread.
You call that buying Power.
Of course did you not have really a depression over the last Years,
because USA only did print her Money by her own to catch the Currency from falling.
The Citizen did not, but the Gouvernment and the Bank did.
YouTube - Inconvenient Debt - Glenn Beck
But that is not a Argument for to say, this System works in any Way.
At Europe right now are other Facts, a lot of other Nations have a bad Economy like Greek and Italian.
Germany still Exports theyr Excess, but that is, what other Countrys prevent, that theyr Economy recovers again.
Yes, this Depts need to be gone, where anyone has by someone else.

Tell us and enlighten us, By Whom we all do have the Depth,
what they use to cut or Payments and increase the Tax every Year and where the result is, that all Currency lost over Time the Value, but the Depts still grow and grow.
Grow? Is that, because the Economy did go back? For sure not.


Money actually is the Countervalue of done Work.
When you had before 80 Years to catch a Fish, is it today lesser worth or
lesser Work to catch a Fish,
that you can give it away, and someone can eat as before 80 or 50 Years?
Think about it, and who get the Money today, and what 'Work' he do for it.

I dont see anywhere a Problem at it, when you get allways your One Dollar for your One Fish.