What is their counter argument, would it increase the velocity of money and inflation, raising interest rates for everyone and inhibiting economic growth? Or would it be that we’d need to raise capital gains taxes, which would cause US investment to flee?
How should it be run, like a Keynesian, an MMT, a monetarist, something else?
Didnt Reagan under a conservative government allow the money to be spent, in order to pay for the debt left over after the great society act?
It therefore would now be a ponzi scheme, where past investors pay new investors, until the outflows outpace inflows and it fails.
Then another company called Deepseek will release a system called low level programming that replaces CUDA.
Can someone explain to me why this is worse than Europes VAT tax?
According to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) study, any nation that switches to VAT initially feels the negative impact of reduced tax revenues. In the long run, however, the study concluded that VAT adoption has in the majority of cases increased government revenue and proved effective.
It seems to be proven quite effective, and Europe still has them, so why is Trumps worse/better than a VAT?
We need a dictator then?
Do you live in a house? Somebody spent a lot of effort to build it, and expecting it for free would be silly, and its the same with many other things.
The thing that youre mad about is the fact living standards are falling, because your central bank can print unlimited sums of money out of nothing, as interest rates are set artificially low to monetize debt; which encourages debt accumulation via the cantillon effect, which creates serfdom via a gatekeeping system on an inelastic good.
The closer to the gold standard you were born the cheaper things like your house was, and the less debt was required as debt was actually a liability instead of an asset, because it is inevitably eroded by future money printing.
Ah interesting, thanks for the correction. Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme, in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population to pay for the redeemed bond to fund the old?
If we are looking at our existing scenario with the baby boomers I’d assume we must be close to being forced to liquidate, and taxes will rise on the young for the bond repayment?
If they allowed people to opt out would it not be the case that as people opt out you’d need to raise taxes on the young as more people opted out, since none of the money actually still exists, cascading into an insolvent system just like how a standard ponzi scheme unwinds?