Economics 101 (discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

So, I would like to start this thread, so that the smart people can explain to us dumb people, how certain economics work. So, as long as it is a economics point, please share!

 

I will start this off with a dumb question..........................

 

So, as this Covid really puts pressure on the Federal Government, in terms of money out for programs to prop the family and business community's up. I have wondered why the government just does not print more money, and release that? I mean, we do not use the gold standard any more, and internally, it would not matter, and if it made imports more expensive, because the dollar fell a little, I question, would it really hurt?

 

Please feel free to slap me!

[Phil_314]

From what I remember from years ago, by printing more money there's also the risk of deflation and devaluation of the currency (strictly because there's more supply of it floating around), and we're not like the US who could do that because they had the inherently perceived value of their dollar (seeing how they're the US and all).  Unless I'm mistaken there could be some pressures at play which would also drive up inflation for goods, again because the physical dollars are more available.  There's already very low interest rate (less than 1% from the bank, last time I checked) and people aren't exactly driven to invest or take risks due to the economic slump.

EDIT: Googled and found this link, basically what I said above: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/ 

I'm sure I missed a lot so feel free to correct or tack on as you see fit (and have hopefully verified).  

Edited November 22, 2020 by Phil_314

[-AJ-]

Money, like all commodities, has its value partially linked to supply. In effect, the more money you print, the less valuable it is.

 

See Germany post-WWI and the Treaty of Versailles as a classic example. They were in bad financial shape after having to pay reparations for WWI and resorted to printing money, which drastically reduced the value of their money. Famously, citizens saw money as so worthless that they used it as kindling for fire.

 

I'm not an economics expert (just an accounting degree), but I suspect that you would lose at least as much as you gained in GDP if you simply printed tons of money, perhaps even more.

[Sharpshooter]

Buy low, sell high, and step on the little guy. 

[24K PureCool]

They do, it is called quantitative easing. As long as you don't flood the market with the printed bills, the dollar value and inflation can be kept in check. But most countries is severally limited in their ability to do this as their currency value is usually measured against the US dollar as it is the reserve currency of the world. That is why national debt in the US is not a huge deal as they can always just print more money over time and get away with it cause of their reserve currency status.

[J.I.A.H.N]

40 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

From what I remember from years ago, by printing more money there's also the risk of deflation and devaluation of the currency (strictly because there's more supply of it floating around), and we're not like the US who could do that because they had the inherently perceived value of their dollar (seeing how they're the US and all).  Unless I'm mistaken there could be some pressures at play which would also drive up inflation for goods, again because the physical dollars are more available.  There's already very low interest rate (less than 1% from the bank, last time I checked) and people aren't exactly driven to invest or take risks due to the economic slump.

EDIT: Googled and found this link, basically what I said above: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/ 

I'm sure I missed a lot so feel free to correct or tack on as you see fit (and have hopefully verified).  

This excerpt is from the link you provided....interesting read............Thanks

 

Printing money doesn’t always cause inflation

In a recession, with periods of deflation, it is possible to increase the money supply without causing inflation.

This is because the money supply depends not just on the monetary base, but also the velocity of circulation. For example, if there is a sharp fall in transactions (velocity of circulation) then it may be necessary to print money to avoid deflation (see: example of US and increasing money supply)

In the liquidity trap of 2008-2012, the Bank of England pursued quantitative easing (increasing the monetary base) but this only had a minimal impact on underlying inflation. This is because although banks saw an increase in their reserves, they were reluctant to increase bank lending.

However, if a Central Bank pursued quantitative easing (increasing the money supply) during a normal period of economic activity then it would cause inflation.

[Chris12345]

At some point currency becomes worthless and people realize it's only paper and the government or centralized bank goes belly up.

 

At that point you can no longer import and you can't buy on credit and your money is worthless. 

 

 

 

 

[CaptKirk888]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

Money, like all commodities, has its value partially linked to supply. In effect, the more money you print, the less valuable it is.

 

See Germany post-WWI and the Treaty of Versailles as a classic example. They were in bad financial shape after having to pay reparations for WWI and resorted to printing money, which drastically reduced the value of their money. Famously, citizens saw money as so worthless that they used it as kindling for fire.

 

I'm not an economics expert (just an accounting degree), but I suspect that you would lose at least as much as you gained in GDP if you simply printed tons of money, perhaps even more.

AJ has it right for the most part. Money is based on commodities and assets, from Wikipedia and very educational:

 

Also "Futures" a well know stock term where in monetary value is measured in potential future gains.

 

 

 

 

Money creation

Money supply[edit]

Main article: Money supply

The term "money supply" commonly denotes the total, safe, financial assets that households and businesses can use to make payments or to hold as short-term investment.^[2] The money supply is measured using the so-called "monetary aggregates", defined in accordance to their respective level of liquidity: In the United States, for example, M0 for currency in circulation; M1 for M0 plus transaction deposits at depository institutions, such as drawing accounts at banks; M2 for M1 plus savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money-market mutual fund shares.^[2]

The money supply is understood to increase through activities by government authorities,^{[note 3]} by the central bank of the nation,^{[note 4]} and by commercial banks.^[3]

Money creation by the central bank[edit]

Central banks[edit]

Main article: Central banks

The authority through which monetary policy is conducted is the central bank of the nation. The mandate of a central bank typically includes either one of the three following objectives or a combination of them, in varying order of preference, according to the country or the region: Price stability, i.e. inflation-targeting; the facilitation of maximum employment in the economy; the assurance of moderate, long term, interest rates.^[4]

The central bank is the banker of the government^{[note 5]} and provides to the government a range of services at the operational level, such as managing the Treasury's single account, and also acting as its fiscal agent (e.g. by running auctions), its settlement agent, and its bond registrar.^[5] A central bank cannot become insolvent in its own currency. However, a central bank can become insolvent in liabilities on foreign currency.^[6]

Central banks operate in practically every nation in the world, with few exceptions.^[7] There are some groups of countries, for which, through agreement, a single entity acts as their central bank, such as the organization of states of Central Africa, ^{[note 6]} which all have a common central bank, the Bank of Central African States, or monetary unions, such as the Eurozone, whereby nations retain their respective central bank yet submit to the policies of the central entity, the ECB. Central banking institutions are generally independent of the government executive.^[1]

The central bank's activities directly affect interest rates, through controlling the base rate, and indirectly affect stock prices, the economy's wealth, and the national currency's exchange rate.^[4] Monetarists and some Austrians^{[note 7][8]} argue that the central bank should control the money supply, through its monetary operations.^{[note 8][9][10]} Critics of the mainstream view maintain that central-bank operations can affect but not control the money supply.^{[note 9]}

Open-market operations[edit]

Open-market operations (OMOs) concern the purchase and sale of securities in the open market by a central bank. OMOs essentially swap one type of financial assets for another; when the central bank buys bonds held by the banks or the private sector, bank reserves increase while bonds held by the banks or the public decrease. Temporary operations are typically used to address reserve needs that are deemed to be transitory in nature, while permanent operations accommodate the longer-term factors driving the expansion of the central bank's balance sheet; such a primary factor is typically the trend of the money-supply growth in the economy. Among the temporary, open-market operations are repurchase agreements (repos) or reverse repos, while permanent ones involve outright purchases or sales of securities.^[11] Each open-market operation by the central bank affects its balance sheet.^[11]

Monetary policy[edit]

Main article: Monetary policy

Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country, typically the central bank (or the currency board), manages the level of short-term interest rates^{[note 10][12]} and influences the availability and the cost of credit in the economy,^[4] as well as overall economic activity.^[13]

Central banks conduct monetary policy usually through open market operations. The purchase of debt, and the resulting increase in bank reserves, is called "monetary easing." An extraordinary process of monetary easing is denoted as "quantitative easing", whose intent is to stimulate the economy by increasing liquidity and promoting bank lending.

Money creation by government spending[edit]

State spending is part of the state's fiscal policy. Deficit spending involves the state spending into the economy more than it receives (in taxes and other payments) within a certain period of time, typically the budget year.^[14]

Deficit spending increases the money supply.^[15] The extent and the timing of budget deficits is disputed among schools of economic analysis. The mainstream view is that net spending by the public sector is inflationary in so far as it is "financed" by the banking system, including the central bank, and not by the sale of state debt to the public.^[16]

The existence itself of budget deficits is generally considered inflationary by mainstream economics,^[15] so policies are prescribed for the lowering of the deficit,^{[note 11]} while heterodox economists such as Post-Keynesians treat deficit spending as "simply" a fiscal policy option.^[17]

Role of banks in money creation[edit]

Main article: Money multiplier

When commercial banks lend money, they expand the amount of bank deposits.^[18] The banking system can expand the money supply of a country beyond the amount created or targeted by the central bank, creating most of the broad money in a process called the multiplier effect.^[18]

Banks are limited in the total amount they can lend by their capital adequacy ratios, and their required reserve ratios. The required-reserves ratio obliges banks to keep a minimum, predetermined, percentage of their deposits at an account at the central bank.^{[note 12]} The theory holds that, in a system of fractional-reserve banking, where banks ordinarily keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserves, an initial bank loan creates more money than it initially lent out.

The maximum ratio of loans to deposits is the required-reserve ratio RRR, which is determined by the central bank, as

{\displaystyle {\mathit {RRR}}={\frac {R}{D}}}

where R are reserves and D are deposits.

In practice, if the central bank imposes a required reserve ratio (RRR) of 0.10, then each commercial bank is obliged to keep at least 10% of its total deposits as reserves, i.e. in the account it has at the central bank.

The process of money creation can be illustrated with the following United States example:

1. Corporation A deposits $100,000 into Bank of America.
2. Bank of America keeps $10,000 as reserves at the Federal Reserve (the central bank of the United States). To make a profit, Bank of America loans the remaining $90,000 to the federal government.
3. The government spends the $90,000 by buying something from corporation B.
4. B deposits the $90,000 into its account with Wells Fargo.
5. Wells Fargo keeps $9,000 as reserves at the Federal Reserve, and then lends the remaining $81,000 to the government.

If this chain continues indefinitely then, in the end, an amount approximating $1,000,000 has gone into circulation and has therefore become part of the total money supply.^[19] Furthermore, the Federal Reserve itself can and does lend money to banks as well as to the federal government.^{[20][failed verification]}

There is currently neither an explanation on where the money comes from to pay the interest on all these loans,^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]} nor is there an explanation as to how the United States Department of the Treasury manages default on said loans (see Lehman Brothers).^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]}A negative supply of money is predicted to occur in the event that all loans are repaid at the same time.

The ratio of the total money added to the money supply (in this case, $1,000,000) to the total money added originally in the monetary base (in this case, $100,000) is the money multiplier.^{[note 13]} In this context, the money multiplier relates changes in the monetary base,^{[note 14]} which is the sum of bank reserves and issued currency, to changes in the money supply.^[15]

If changes in the monetary base cause a change in the money supply, then

{\displaystyle M_{1}={\mathit {MB}}\cdot m\,}

where M₁ is the new money supply, MB is the monetary base, and m is the money multiplier. Therefore, the money multiplier is:^[15]

{\displaystyle m={\frac {M_{1}}{\mathit {MB}}}\leq {\frac {1}{\mathit {RRR}}}}

The central bank can control the money supply, according to this theory, by controlling the monetary base as long as the money multiplier is limited by the required reserve ratio.

Credit theory of money[edit]

Main article: Credit theory of money

The fractional reserve theory where the money supply is limited by the money multiplier has come under increased criticism since the financial crisis of 2007–2008. It has been observed that the bank reserves are not a limiting factor because the central banks supply more reserves than necessary^[21] and because banks have been able to build up additional reserves when they were needed.^[22] Many economists and bankers now believe that the amount of money in circulation is limited only by the demand for loans, not by reserve requirements.^[23][24][18]

When a bank issues a loan of $1,000 to a customer, they debit the customer's loan account with $1,000 and at the same time they credit the customer's deposit account with $1,000, ready for using. The bank now has a new asset of $1,000 and a new liability of $1,000. The bank's accounts are still in balance because the assets and liabilities are increased by the same amount. The bank does not take the $1,000 out of its reserves. It takes it from the pool of client funds, deposited with it, that would be out of circulation, if the bank didn't re-lend it.

The claim that to this $1,000 is new circulating money that did not exist prior to the transaction^[24] is not entirely accurate, because it was originally sourced from the bank's depositing customer(s), and removed from circulation on deposit. It is this incompletely recognised concept that the "credit theory of money" is largely based.

A study of banking software demonstrates that the bank does nothing else than adding an amount to the two accounts when they issue a loan.^[22] The observation that there appears to be no limit to the amount of credit money that banks can bring into circulation in this way has given rise to the often-heard expression that "Banks are creating money out of thin air".^[21] The exact mechanism behind the creation of commercial bank money has been a controversial issue. In 2014, a study titled "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence" empirically tested the manner in which this type of money is created by monitoring a cooperating bank's internal records^[25]:

This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, "out of thin air".

The amount of money that is created in this way when a loan is issued is equal to the principal of the loan, but the money needed for paying the compound interest of the loan has not been created. As a consequence of this process, the amount of debt in the world exceeds the total money supply. Critics of the current banking system are calling for monetary reform for this reason.

The credit theory of money, initiated by Joseph Schumpeter, asserts the central role of banks as creators and allocators of the money supply, and distinguishes between "productive credit creation" (allowing non-inflationary economic growth even at full employment, in the presence of technological progress) and "unproductive credit creation" (resulting in inflation of either the consumer- or asset-price variety).^[26]

The model of bank lending stimulated through central-bank operations (such as "monetary easing") has been rejected by Neo-Keynesian^{[note 15][27]} and Post-Keynesian analysis^[28][19] as well as central banks.^{[29][30][note 16]} The major argument offered by dissident analysis is that any bank balance-sheet expansion (e.g. through a new loan) that leaves the bank short of the required reserves may affect the return it can expect on the loan, because of the extra cost the bank will undertake to return within the ratios limits – but this does not and "will never impede the bank's capacity to give the loan in the first place." Banks first lend and then cover their reserve ratios: The decision whether or not to lend is generally independent of their reserves with the central bank or their deposits from customers; banks are not lending out deposits or reserves, anyway. Banks lend on the basis of lending criteria, such as the status of the customer's business, the loan's prospects, and/or the overall economic situation.^[31]

Physical currency[edit]

The central bank, or other competent, state authorities (such as the treasury), are typically empowered to create new, physical currency, i.e. paper notes and coins, in order to meet the needs of commercial banks for cash withdrawals, and to replace worn and/or destroyed currency.^[32] The process does not increase the money supply, as such; the term "printing [new] money" is considered a misnomer.^[1]

In modern economies, relatively little of the supply of broad money is in physical currency.^{[note 17]}

Monetary financing[edit]

Main article: Debt monetization

Policy[edit]

"Monetary financing", also "debt monetization", occurs when the country's central bank purchases government debt.^[33] It is considered by mainstream analysis to cause inflation, and often hyperinflation.^[34] IMF's former chief economist Olivier Blanchard states that

governments do not create money; the central bank does. But with the central bank's cooperation, the government can in effect finance itself by money creation. It can issue bonds and ask the central bank to buy them. The central bank then pays the government with money it creates, and the government in turn uses that money to finance the deficit. This process is called debt monetization.^[35]

The description of the process differs in heterodox analysis. Modern chartalists state:

the central bank does not have the option to monetize any of the outstanding government debt or newly issued government debt...[A]s long as the central bank has a mandate to maintain a short-term interest rate target, the size of its purchases and sales of government debt are not discretionary. The central bank's lack of control over the quantity of reserves underscores the impossibility of debt monetization. The central bank is unable to monetize the government debt by purchasing government securities at will because to do so would cause the short-term target rate to fall to zero or to any support rate that it might have in place for excess reserves.^[17]

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by CaptKirk888

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

So, I would like to start this thread, so that the smart people can explain to us dumb people, how certain economics work. So, as long as it is a economics point, please share!

 

I will start this off with a dumb question..........................

 

So, as this Covid really puts pressure on the Federal Government, in terms of money out for programs to prop the family and business community's up. I have wondered why the government just does not print more money, and release that? I mean, we do not use the gold standard any more, and internally, it would not matter, and if it made imports more expensive, because the dollar fell a little, I question, would it really hurt?

 

Please feel free to slap me!

In normal economic theory printing money is inflationary. You increase the monetary supply. The economy will balance that by increasing prices as demand increases. Runaway inflation is the death knell for any economy.

 

Central Banks have been increasing monetary supply at a rapid rate since the Great Recession 2008. And yet this has not resulted in inflation. In fact, not one major Central Bank has managed to hit their internal targets of 2% inflation. So they just keep on running deficits and expanding the money supply. Common sense dictates that at some point in the future this will result in runaway inflation. Until then every Central Bank is gonna party like it's 1999.

[J.I.A.H.N]

10 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

In normal economic theory printing money is inflationary. You increase the monetary supply. The economy will balance that by increasing prices as demand increases. Runaway inflation is the death knell for any economy.

 

Central Banks have been increasing monetary supply at a rapid rate since the Great Recession 2008. And yet this has not resulted in inflation. In fact, not one major Central Bank has managed to hit their internal targets of 2% inflation. So they just keep on running deficits and expanding the money supply. Common sense dictates that at some point in the future this will result in runaway inflation. Until then every Central Bank is gonna party like it's 1999.

Yes, every since they gave up the gold standard.........IMO, it has to do with the increase in population, and as long as they keep that subtle balance they are ok

 

But what do I know?

[J.I.A.H.N]

Here is another one, I need answered...............

 

OK, so the BC government announces a program, which will entail grants for all BCers that by electric cars........it is a 50% grant and Car companies can not increase sticker prices more than the manufactures retail sticker price, so the price is capped........now just for argument sake this is a $1,000,000,000 dollar grant for British Columbians......

 

Now the Government, does not have this money, and borrows it for minimal costs............

 

So that Billion dollars goes into the economy, and circulates , not once. not twice or 3 times, every time the Government collects 5% sales tax, Income Tax, Environmental Tax, until it circulates so many times that the Billion dollars is collected and paid back (with interest) 

 

So, I am wondering why this is not done more........................ 

[Phil_314]

Didn't think I'd be sitting at home, researching and learning on a Saturday night #CovidThings

[Lancaster]

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

So, I would like to start this thread, so that the smart people can explain to us dumb people, how certain economics work. So, as long as it is a economics point, please share!

 

I will start this off with a dumb question..........................

 

So, as this Covid really puts pressure on the Federal Government, in terms of money out for programs to prop the family and business community's up. I have wondered why the government just does not print more money, and release that? I mean, we do not use the gold standard any more, and internally, it would not matter, and if it made imports more expensive, because the dollar fell a little, I question, would it really hurt?

 

Please feel free to slap me!

A currency doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is competing against other global currencies like the US dollar, British Pound, EU Euro, Japanese Yen, etc. 

Canada could start the printing press and give everyone a million dollars... but it creates inflationary pressure.  Money isn't wealth.... money is just a representation of wealth.  So if the Canadian government issues a $1 million to every single person in Canada, everyone doesn't become the 1%.  

 

Money is a representation of a nation's wealth.  Eg.  Doubling up Canada's currency doesn't mean it gets twice as rich.  GDP stays the same, economic output remains the same, population level stays the same.... so a Canadian dollar will just worth 50% as much as before since fundamentally nothing changed, either than just labels.

 

Examples of countries deciding to just print money non-stop....

Zimbawbe:

 

and one that had a huge impact on the world... Weimar Germany:

This probably worth less than even Monopoly money.  

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Yes, every since they gave up the gold standard.........IMO, it has to do with the increase in population, and as long as they keep that subtle balance they are ok

 

But what do I know?

When the poop hits the fan it'll hit hard. You'll see things you never imagined possible. Like this ........

 

 

Owning gold was made illegal. All holders of gold had to surrender it to the government.

 

A slowing population is the end game. These modern economies are predicated on a growing economy. More people working and paying taxes to support healthcare, entitlements and retirees. If you have a drop in population growth you have a major economic problem. The way to fix that problem is with immigration. That usually means brown people. Then the white population gets uneasy as their neighborhoods get more ethnic or as Fox News calls it "dirtier", and you get populism.

 

IMO the 2020's are shaping up a lot like the 1920's. In 1920 the world was coming off a World War and then a crushing pandemic and was awash in populism. The economies were in tatters. Then you had the probably the greatest economic party of all time "The Roaring 20's" which was a debt fueled mega party.

 

In 2020, while there was no World War there was a pandemic. Albeit it with way less loss of life. The economic damage is immense. The populism is certainly there. People are tired of being cooped up. Those who can afford it, can't wait to get on a cruise, or sit in a restaurant or go to Burning Man or hike Kilimanjaro or whatever people do. I see the 2020's shaping up as a possible repeat of the 1920's, a debt fueled economic party orchestrated by central banks. Then of course, after what will then be 50 years of deficit spending then you can have a massive reset. And it won't be pretty. It'll look a lot like the Great Depression and Central Banks by that time saddled with crushing debt will be powerless. That's when you want to own land and gold.

Edited November 22, 2020 by nuckin_futz

[luckylager]

51 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Yes, every since they gave up the gold standard.........IMO, it has to do with the increase in population, and as long as they keep that subtle balance they are ok

 

But what do I know?

Gold backed currency eh...

 

That's a bit of a rabbit hole

[J.I.A.H.N]

27 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Gold backed currency eh...

 

That's a bit of a rabbit hole

Well, that is what I thought it was back in the day......

[luckylager]

3 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, that is what I thought it was back in the day......

No, I'm talking about countries not using the petrodollar and what happened to almost of all of them in recent history.

[J.I.A.H.N]

33 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

When the poop hits the fan it'll hit hard. You'll see things you never imagined possible. Like this ........

 

 

Owning gold was made illegal. All holders of gold had to surrender it to the government.

 

A slowing population is the end game. These modern economies are predicated on a growing economy. More people working and paying taxes to support healthcare, entitlements and retirees. If you have a drop in population growth you have a major economic problem. The way to fix that problem is with immigration. That usually means brown people. Then the white population gets uneasy as their neighborhoods get more ethnic or as Fox News calls it "dirtier", and you get populism.

 

IMO the 2020's are shaping up a lot like the 1920's. In 1920 the world was coming off a World War and then a crushing pandemic and was awash in populism. The economies were in tatters. Then you had the probably the greatest economic party of all time "The Roaring 20's" which was a debt fueled mega party.

 

In 2020, while there was no World War there was a pandemic. Albeit it with way less loss of life. The economic damage is immense. The populism is certainly there. People are tired of being cooped up. Those who can afford it, can't wait to get on a cruise, or sit in a restaurant or go to Burning Man or hike Kilimanjaro or whatever people do. I see the 2020's shaping up as a possible repeat of the 1920's, a debt fueled economic party orchestrated by central banks. Then of course, after what will then be 50 years of deficit spending then you can have a massive reset. And it won't be pretty. It'll look a lot like the Great Depression and Central Banks by that time saddled with crushing debt will be powerless. That's when you want to own land and gold.

Very interesting observations.....

Considering that generally, there is the same amount of money(wealth) in the world as there was 10 months ago.........the problem is to get it moving again

 

The Republicans think that Big business will hire more, therefore starting to spend money

The Democrats think that you give it to the people who will start spending it more

 

One is the trickle down theory (Reps)
One is the trickle up theory (Dems)

 

Funny thing is........one starts with the little guy saving money

One starts with the big guy making money

 

Pretty funny really

[Ghostsof1915]

I won't forget my economics instructor at Kwantlen.

 

All fixed on guns or bread. My argument was if you have guns and threaten the people that make the bread. What are you going to do shoot them? If you shoot them you starve.

You are better off learning to grow food, and when you are fed. Then you sell the excess and can hire guys to make sure others don't take your bread. 

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Good questions/thread, JIHN.

 

An interesting scientist I like talks of the 5 stages of grief(environmental context), in homage to Eliz Kubler Ross, & her wonderful 1960's insight: denial, anger, bargaining, depression & acceptance.

To these he added: gallow's humour. Finally he added stage 7: F**k it!

 

This was a wonderful intellectual-leap.. & I'd say, in an economic-sense, we're likely meandering into stage 7 decline, & subsequent, wanton destruction!

 

& the mug's query?.. If Big Gov & Megabanks(stock market, etc..) are makin it work in this economic quagmire, why were we ALL dutifully workin/payin taxes for all 'dem decades prior?! It's a F***ing shell game, & elites will surely rig things to keep the 99% hamsters runnin' on the wheel. I haven't read 'Animal Farm' since I was 14 yrs old, but strangely passages come back, & make more & more sense, as the SHTF!