Wayne Harris - Lee Lofaso <0@6.221.2> writes:

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[...]

I know all there is to know about fiat money. I have a university
degree to show for it. I also know that there's a limit to how many
trillions (US -- not metric) of dollars the FED can print and get away >> >> with it.

Great to know! I will probably have a lot of question. If I may start >> WH> with one, where can we find out when money is printed and how much?
(This must be public information, I suppose.) Does the question make >> WH> sense? Thank you!

Jekyll Island. Meet the Creature. Learn everything you have always
wanted to know ...

Thank you for the recommendation. I completely read part I and II and
continue the reading, but I think I can open some tangents on my reading
to ask some clarification and do some verifications.

On page 192 of the 5th edition, George Edward Griffin begins to describe
the ``Mandrake Mechanism''. I was warned that the process might not
make much sense, but I'm not trying to find any sense in this. My
interest in only in clarity.

``First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does
not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It
acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise
most of its inventory.)''

Let me take each step carefully. The government issues bonds. Some
people buy it. Some bonds are not bought. How does Congress get
involved in this? Is it the case that Congress buys all those people
did not buy? With what money does Congress buy? Is Griffin saying that
the Fed itself ``writes a check to Congress'' so that Congress can
afford it?

Let me begin with these questions only. Thank you.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

[...]

I know all there is to know about fiat money. I have a university
degree to show for it. I also know that there's a limit to how many
trillions (US -- not metric) of dollars the FED can print and get

away

with it.

Great to know! I will probably have a lot of question. If I may

start

with one, where can we find out when money is printed and how much?
(This must be public information, I suppose.) Does the question

make

sense? Thank you!

Jekyll Island. Meet the Creature. Learn everything you have always
wanted to know ...

Thank you for the recommendation. I completely read part I and II and continue the reading, but I think I can open some tangents on my reading to ask some clarification and do some verifications.

Money is not what most folks think it is. Look at it as more of a
process. Who controls it, and how it is used.

On page 192 of the 5th edition, George Edward Griffin begins to describe the ``Mandrake Mechanism''. I was warned that the process might not
make much sense, but I'm not trying to find any sense in this. My interest in only in clarity.

``First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does
not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It
acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise
most of its inventory.)''

Let me take each step carefully. The government issues bonds. Some people buy it. Some bonds are not bought. How does Congress get
involved in this? Is it the case that Congress buys all those people
did not buy? With what money does Congress buy? Is Griffin saying that the Fed itself ``writes a check to Congress'' so that Congress can
afford it?

Let me begin with these questions only. Thank you.

The Congress does not spend money. It merely appropreates funds.
That is what most folks fail to realize, or simply do not understand.
Bankers understand the process, and how to make money work for them.
You see, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. And as you
know, no real money ever passes hands in Congress.

--Lee

--
Make 7-Up Yours

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

[...]

On page 192 of the 5th edition, George Edward Griffin begins to describe the ``Mandrake Mechanism''. I was warned that the process might not make much sense, but I'm not trying to find any sense in this. My interest in only in clarity.

``First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does
not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It
acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise
most of its inventory.)''

Let me take each step carefully. The government issues bonds. Some people buy it. Some bonds are not bought. How does Congress get involved in this? Is it the case that Congress buys all those people did not buy? With what money does Congress buy? Is Griffin saying that the Fed itself ``writes a check to Congress'' so that Congress can afford it?

Let me begin with these questions only. Thank you.

The Congress does not spend money. It merely appropreates funds.
That is what most folks fail to realize, or simply do not understand.
Bankers understand the process, and how to make money work for them.
You see, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. And as you
know, no real money ever passes hands in Congress.

I think you answer the questions above, but not in an explicit way as I
need to. I'm slow. I need more explicit help. You might be saying the
Fed provides Congress with the money for buying out the bonds the people
did not buy, but it's not clear. If you're saying that, I'd need you to
say it explicitly and hopefully with a pointer of the accounting events
that would show it.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Let me begin with these questions only. Thank you.

The Congress does not spend money. It merely appropreates funds.
That is what most folks fail to realize, or simply do not understand.
Bankers understand the process, and how to make money work for them.
You see, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. And as you
know, no real money ever passes hands in Congress.

I think you answer the questions above, but not in an explicit way as I need to. I'm slow. I need more explicit help. You might be saying the Fed provides Congress with the money for buying out the bonds the people did not buy, but it's not clear. If you're saying that, I'd need you to say it explicitly and hopefully with a pointer of the accounting events that would show it.

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work. The
Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The Department
of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative
Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what it cannot
own?

It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
just as worthless.

IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
not spending it themselves.

See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
have no value to begin with.

Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
That is no way to build an economy.

The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
way.

How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
find it, you would not be a happy camper.

Back to the original question.

How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
money of its own?

The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest
rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
is printed gets out of control?

We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
he promised, and more.

We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he
promised, and more.

Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

--Lee

--
Say it loud! Say it clear! / Refugees are welcome here!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hi, Lee.

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Let me begin with these questions only. Thank you.

The Congress does not spend money. It merely appropreates funds.
That is what most folks fail to realize, or simply do not understand.
Bankers understand the process, and how to make money work for them.
You see, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. And as you
know, no real money ever passes hands in Congress.

I think you answer the questions above, but not in an explicit way as I need to. I'm slow. I need more explicit help. You might be saying the Fed provides Congress with the money for buying out the bonds the people did not buy, but it's not clear. If you're saying that, I'd need you to say it explicitly and hopefully with a pointer of the accounting events that would show it.

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

The Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The
Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what
it cannot own?

It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
just as worthless.

IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
not spending it themselves.

See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
have no value to begin with.

Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
That is no way to build an economy.

The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
way.

How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
find it, you would not be a happy camper.

Back to the original question.

How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
money of its own?

The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
is printed gets out of control?

We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
he promised, and more.

We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he promised, and more.

Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I appreciate your attention. You're not answering the question, but I
take responsibility for it. I didn't express myself well. The question
has been snipped, so I'll have to recover it.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
On page 192 of the 5th edition, George Edward Griffin begins to describe
the ``Mandrake Mechanism''. I was warned that the process might not
make much sense, but I'm not trying to find any sense in this. My
interest in only in clarity.

``First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does
not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It
acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise
most of its inventory.)''

Let me take each step carefully. The government issues bonds. Some
people buy it. Some bonds are not bought. How does Congress get
involved in this? Is it the case that Congress buys all those people
did not buy? With what money does Congress buy? Is Griffin saying that
the Fed itself ``writes a check to Congress'' so that Congress can
afford it?
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

As I tried to convey above, I'm interested in understanding each step of
the process with a maximum of clarity.

Child A slapped child B in school and there is no question as to the
fact --- it's been filmed by a security camera and many people have
already seen it. Parents are making a whole fuss about it. A meeting
has been scheduled. Some claim it was an act of evil and others said
it's just normal children stuff. These are all profound questions. All
I'm asking is to see the video: it must show the fact and I haven't seen
it yet.

My own attempt at answering the question might clarify, but it won't be
as clear as I would like it to be, so please rewrite it or fill it in as
you can.

Governments eventually find themselves having spent all the resources
they had. More resources are coming all the time through the revenue
service, so when pockets are empty they could first check with the
Department of Treasury whether they've earned some more in the meantime. Suppose the answer is no: the government has spent it all from their
``last paycheck''. They'll need a plan B.

As a plan B, the government decides to sell bonds. Some people buy it
because it's considered by many a very good investment, after all it's
the treasury promising to pay it back with an interest. However, after
selling all securities people were willing to buy, they still didn't
raise all they needed, so they need a plan C.

As a plan C, the Treasury approaches the Federal Reserve to provide the resources they couldn't raise by themselves. The Federal Reserve
provides the Treasury with _something_ that allows the Treasury to let government start spending, which they do. From here on money starting
flowing hand in hand as payments are made and banks go on lending it to
whoever borrows and earning interests over their ``excess reserves'' ---
for sure the best business model there is.

So, when Griffin says ``the Fed takes all the government bonds which the
public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for
them'', perhaps he means that the Federal Reserve buys all bonds the
public did not buy, letting the Treasury raise the resources they wanted
to, but couldn't do it themselves alone (because people just didn't buy
it all.)

It should be clear now that I'm interested in the process. I may not
know whether we are counting cats or dogs, but I should be able to see
the arithmetic in clear steps. If I've counted 3 things already in day
1 and then I count 4 more things in day 2, then putting these two days together, I've counted 3 + 4 = 7, which I verify by looking up my
addition table, which is something I assume to be correct.

Thank you!

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

Highly. Very highly. It is the best. The very best. And I am not
the only one who recommends reading this book. It is a true classic,
and is extremely popular among many, including some US Senators.

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

The Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The
Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the
Legislative Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what
it cannot own?

It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
just as worthless.

IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
not spending it themselves.

See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
have no value to begin with.

Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
That is no way to build an economy.

The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
way.

How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
find it, you would not be a happy camper.

Back to the original question.

How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
money of its own?

The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest
rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
is printed gets out of control?

We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
he promised, and more.

We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he
promised, and more.

Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I appreciate your attention. You're not answering the question, but I take responsibility for it. I didn't express myself well. The question has been snipped, so I'll have to recover it.

That's okay. The article I cited above does give a very concise, and
accurate, answer.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
On page 192 of the 5th edition, George Edward Griffin begins to describe
the ``Mandrake Mechanism''. I was warned that the process might not
make much sense, but I'm not trying to find any sense in this. My
interest in only in clarity.

``First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does
not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It
acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise
most of its inventory.)''

Let me take each step carefully. The government issues bonds. Some
people buy it. Some bonds are not bought. How does Congress get
involved in this? Is it the case that Congress buys all those people
did not buy? With what money does Congress buy? Is Griffin saying that
the Fed itself ``writes a check to Congress'' so that Congress can
afford it?
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

As I tried to convey above, I'm interested in understanding each step of the process with a maximum of clarity.

The process is very simple. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'll give you a recent example.

President Obama had to deal with a huge financial crisis when he
took office. One of the programs he initiated (through the Congress)
was his "Cash for Clunkers" program. People could trade in their
old cars that did not run for a few thousand bucks, no questions
asked. This program saved US car companies, which had been having
a very difficult time selling their new cars. See how that works?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Child A slapped child B in school and there is no question as to the
fact --- it's been filmed by a security camera and many people have already seen it. Parents are making a whole fuss about it. A meeting
has been scheduled. Some claim it was an act of evil and others said
it's just normal children stuff. These are all profound questions. All I'm asking is to see the video: it must show the fact and I haven't seen it yet.

My own attempt at answering the question might clarify, but it won't be
as clear as I would like it to be, so please rewrite it or fill it in as you can.

The writer of the article cited above answers your question in a way
that is direct and to the point.

Governments eventually find themselves having spent all the resources
they had. More resources are coming all the time through the revenue service, so when pockets are empty they could first check with the Department of Treasury whether they've earned some more in the meantime. Suppose the answer is no: the government has spent it all from their ``last paycheck''. They'll need a plan B.

There is no plan B. When government runs out of revenue, no services
can be provided. IOW, there is no government. All that is left is
"laughable bullshit". Nothing more, nothing less. Time to hang it up
and milk the cows. All by yourself.

As a plan B, the government decides to sell bonds. Some people buy it because it's considered by many a very good investment, after all it's
the treasury promising to pay it back with an interest. However, after selling all securities people were willing to buy, they still didn't
raise all they needed, so they need a plan C.

There is no plan C any more than there was a plan B.

As a plan C, the Treasury approaches the Federal Reserve to provide the resources they couldn't raise by themselves. The Federal Reserve
provides the Treasury with _something_ that allows the Treasury to let government start spending, which they do. From here on money starting flowing hand in hand as payments are made and banks go on lending it to whoever borrows and earning interests over their ``excess reserves'' --- for sure the best business model there is.

The Fed does not have an army. And all armies need to get paid.
No money, no soldiers. No soldiers, no army. It really is that simple.

So, when Griffin says ``the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for
them'', perhaps he means that the Federal Reserve buys all bonds the public did not buy, letting the Treasury raise the resources they wanted to, but couldn't do it themselves alone (because people just didn't buy
it all.)

Griffin is taking one kernel of truth and then adding a whole lot
of "laughable bullshit" to his argument. His ideas are unsupported
and unsubstantiated. No credence whatsoever. But his book is a very
fun read. Loads and loads of fun.

It should be clear now that I'm interested in the process. I may not
know whether we are counting cats or dogs, but I should be able to see
the arithmetic in clear steps. If I've counted 3 things already in day
1 and then I count 4 more things in day 2, then putting these two days together, I've counted 3 + 4 = 7, which I verify by looking up my
addition table, which is something I assume to be correct.

Oh, I am sure you and others are able to count just fine. Next post
I am going to roast Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" over very hot coals.
And see if there is anything left when the flames subside. Feel free
to comment on my upcoming analysis.

Thank you!

Griffin argues for abolishing the Fed, citing seven reasons in his
book. However, all his arguments are "laughable bullshit", as noted
by critics of his work.

According to Griffin, the real problem is ideologies and philosophies
such as collectivism (the group is more important that the individual).
His view is to get rid of anything and everything that even smells of collectivism. Kind of like a John Bircher on steroids.

The Federal Reserve was created in late 1913 as a central banking
system in response to a string of fincancial crises. Then came WWI.
And the US entry into that war. Then the Spanish Flu pandemic of
1918/19.

Now, if only President Trump had a PhD like Woodrow Wilson, we might
somehow survive ...

--Lee

--
We're Great In Bed

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

These are his stated beliefs. Make of them what you will.
From his very own homepage -

https://freedomforceinternational.org/position-statements/


Enjoy his entire site. Lots there.

Here is a talk by him, on a different site -

https://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm


That should be enough to give you an idea as to where he is
coming from. In all his writings, he is consistent with his POV.

Not that I necessarily agree with everything he has to say/write.
Such as vaccines. Should vaccines be compulsory? Or should individuals
have the right to refuse? Suppose we are told the US has a vaccine for
the coronavirus, and refusal to accept vaccination is not an option.
You have no idea what is about to be put into your body. Do you want
to allow something that might very well kill you (or worse) be
injected?

Maybe global warming really is a hoax. Maybe chemtrails really are
responsible for giving us all cancer, or some other deadly disease.

But hey. This is a free country. Where folks can write whatever they
want on a web page. Or on facebook. Or on twitter. Unless one is from
Belgium, in which case the account gets suspended (ask Ward D.).

--Lee

--
Everybody Loves Our Buns

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hi, Lee.

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

Highly. Very highly. It is the best. The very best. And I am not
the only one who recommends reading this book. It is a true classic,
and is extremely popular among many, including some US Senators.

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

This page doesn't recommend the book. Ron Paul might, I don't know if
he does. In any case Ron Paul does seem serious about understanding
things because he seems to invite serious people who do seriously work
on understanding things.

``What is money?'' by Joseph Salerno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vowbrq_g5NM

``What is constitutional money?'' by Edwin Vieira https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gMkKmQSW4

``What about money causes economic crisis?'' by Peter Schiff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJ0CUT8d_Y

The Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The
Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the
Legislative Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what
it cannot own?

It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
just as worthless.

IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
not spending it themselves.

See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
have no value to begin with.

Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
That is no way to build an economy.

The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
way.

How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
find it, you would not be a happy camper.

Back to the original question.

How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
money of its own?

The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest
rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
is printed gets out of control?

We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
he promised, and more.

We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he
promised, and more.

Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I appreciate your attention. You're not answering the question, but I take responsibility for it. I didn't express myself well. The question has been snipped, so I'll have to recover it.

That's okay. The article I cited above does give a very concise, and accurate, answer.

If you're talking about

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

then you can't be serious. This page ridicules the work and doesn't
answer anything. I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

[...]

It should be clear now that I'm interested in the process. I may not know whether we are counting cats or dogs, but I should be able to see the arithmetic in clear steps. If I've counted 3 things already in day 1 and then I count 4 more things in day 2, then putting these two days together, I've counted 3 + 4 = 7, which I verify by looking up my addition table, which is something I assume to be correct.

Oh, I am sure you and others are able to count just fine. Next post
I am going to roast Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" over very hot coals.
And see if there is anything left when the flames subside. Feel free
to comment on my upcoming analysis.

Sounds great! Thanks! (I haven't any new posts on this, though.)

[...]

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Lee.

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[..]

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

These are his stated beliefs. Make of them what you will.
From his very own homepage -

https://freedomforceinternational.org/position-statements/

Enjoy his entire site. Lots there.

Here is a talk by him, on a different site -

https://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

Thanks. Incidentally, I had already read this talk. That does clarify
his meanings of some of his description in chapter ten of ``The Creature
from Jekyll Island''.

That should be enough to give you an idea as to where he is
coming from. In all his writings, he is consistent with his POV.

Yes, thanks.

But, you see, I'm not worried about his position or ``where he is coming from''. Of course it's a very interesting thing to understand a person
deeply, but for Wayne Harris right now the moment is to verify
arithmetic. We begin verifying that ``2 + 2 = 4'' and then then we move
to claims such as ``17 is a prime number''. We'll leave interesting
stories of how Gauss really found the normal distribution for a more retrospective moment of life. The moment is to know it exists and to
use it to calculate probabilities. In other words, most of the causes
Griffin lays out in his talks and books are not important to the
beginner: what matters most is how things work and how we can verify it.

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_ reporter of
the US national debt? (If so, where does it show it the amount?) A
follow-up question would be: how can we get an official history of the increases in the national debt? (That is, where is the accounting
statements for the number over the last few decades?)

Thanks so much.

[...]

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

Highly. Very highly. It is the best. The very best. And I am not
the only one who recommends reading this book. It is a true classic,
and is extremely popular among many, including some US Senators.

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

This page doesn't recommend the book. Ron Paul might, I don't know if
he does. In any case Ron Paul does seem serious about understanding things because he seems to invite serious people who do seriously work
on understanding things.

Like his son, Paul is on old-school kind of guy. Wants to go back
to the gold and silver standard. No more need to even have a federal
reserve. But if we are going to have a federal reserve, best to let
the bankers run it. In private. No need to tell anybody what they
are doing, or are up to.

``What is money?'' by Joseph Salerno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vowbrq_g5NM

``What is constitutional money?'' by Edwin Vieira https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gMkKmQSW4

``What about money causes economic crisis?'' by Peter Schiff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJ0CUT8d_Y

The Congress does not spend money. It appropriates funds. The
Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch, not the
Legislative Branch. How can the Department of the Treasury sell what
it cannot own?

It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There has to be a victim,
even if that victim never realizes he/she is the victim.

Paper bills and coins made of metal have no real value. People are
able to spend it as "legal tender" only because government endorsed
it. Otherwise, those paper bills and coins made of metal would be
just as worthless.

IOW, people spend it because they believe it has value. If they did
not believe it had value, it would be used for something else.

Some people like to save it rather than spend it. But what they
are actually doing is allow other people to spend it since they are
not spending it themselves.

See how that works? Are you catching on yet?

What Griffin calls the "Mandrake Mechanism" is his way of trying
to put the blame on inflation as being the root cause of all evil.
But if you take the time to analyze what is really happening, you
will find deflation to be far more destructive than inflation.

If you want to make money you have to spend money. Preferably
other people's money. Saving money is losing money, since all money
loses value over time. And you are talking about paper bills, which
have no value to begin with.

Austerity has never worked in the past. It will not work now.
And it will never work in the future. What happens, is people just
wait. And wait. And wait. For prices to drop. And drop. And drop.
That is no way to build an economy.

The idea of fiat money, or scrip, is nothing new. People place
value on objects of their own choice, or what the leaders of their
tribe have dictated. Even primitive societies use fiat money.

We could just as well be using snake oil. The people of Yap use
giant round stones as their currency. They haul these giant stones
from island to island, hoping their canoe does not sink along the
way.

How much gold is stored at Ft. Knox? Or at any vault in the US?
If Germany requested the US to return its stash of gold being held
in US vaults, would the US comply? I doubt it.

Suppose the US no longer has the gold it was storing for Germany.
What would happen to whatever investments the US has in Germany?
If I was holding your gold, and you wanted it back, and I couldn't
find it, you would not be a happy camper.

Back to the original question.

How can the Fed give money to the Congress when the Fed has no
money of its own?

The Fed can print money. Or what it calls money. As much, or as
little, as it wants. It can raise interest rates. It can lower interest
rates. It can do lots of other things. It can create, and control, what
is commonly called "money". But what happens when all the money that
is printed gets out of control?

We know what happened in Germany. People had so much money they did
not what to do with it. Then came Hitler, who gave Germans everything
he promised, and more.

We also know what happeed in the USA. People had no money, and did
not know what to do. Then came FDR, who gave Americans everything he
promised, and more.

Yep. If you want to make money, gotta spend money, preferably other
people's money. Kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I appreciate your attention. You're not answering the question, but I
take responsibility for it. I didn't express myself well. The
question has been snipped, so I'll have to recover it.

That's okay. The article I cited above does give a very concise, and
accurate, answer.

If you're talking about

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

then you can't be serious.

There are different schools of thought on this subject. And each
school is quite serious, in its own way.

In the 1930s, government intervention was FDR's response to the
Great Depression, using the basics of Keynesian economics of government spending and regulation to bring everything under control.

After Nixon was elected, things changed. Less government spending,
and less regulation, became the way. Supply-side economics to promote
economic prosperity.

Clinton and Obama tried to bring some level of Keynesian economics
back into play, but both faced too much opposition in Congress to do
everything they wanted.

GWB was a failure when it came to economics. When he took office,
he had a surplus. Eight months later, before the events of 9-11, he
had a deficit. All because he gave it all away in a tax cut for the
wealthy.

Today, what we have is a total economic disaster. Not just a failure
that can be turned around by competent leadership. 61% of the national
debt will mature within the next four years. This country does not
have the funds to pay for it. Which means, the debt will have to be
refinanced, at a higher interest rate.

This is all due becase an incompetent president gave away all our
money in a tax cut for the wealthy.

Fortunately, the American people have a solution ...

This page ridicules the work and doesn't answer anything.

With interest rates being basically zero, there is no growth.
And yet, the very wealthy are getting richer. At the expense of
the poor. This fact proves Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" is
flawed thinking on his part.

I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

How can an economy continue to grow when there is no increase
in production? Griffin argues that interest rates are an increase
in production. But there is no increase in interest rates. People
are losing jobs. Businesses are closing.

And our national debt continues to increase, along with our
inability to pay.

[...]

It should be clear now that I'm interested in the process. I may not
know whether we are counting cats or dogs, but I should be able to see
the arithmetic in clear steps. If I've counted 3 things already in day
1 and then I count 4 more things in day 2, then putting these two days
together, I've counted 3 + 4 = 7, which I verify by looking up my
addition table, which is something I assume to be correct.

Oh, I am sure you and others are able to count just fine. Next post
I am going to roast Griffin's "mandrake mechanism" over very hot coals.
And see if there is anything left when the flames subside. Feel free
to comment on my upcoming analysis.

Sounds great! Thanks! (I haven't any new posts on this, though.)

Libertarian economic ideologicals favor even less government
intervention than conservatives. Preferably none at all. Which
makes them almost anarchists.

What if President Trump tells Americans that a vaccine has been
developed, and tells every American to get themselves innoculated.
How many would listen, or comply? Should it even be an option?

--Lee

--
I won't fan the flames of hate, ~Joe Biden

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Wayne,

Griffin does not have a very good grasp on how things work.

It was you who recommended me the book. :-)

These are his stated beliefs. Make of them what you will.
From his very own homepage -

https://freedomforceinternational.org/position-statements/

Enjoy his entire site. Lots there.

Here is a talk by him, on a different site -

https://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

Thanks. Incidentally, I had already read this talk. That does clarify his meanings of some of his description in chapter ten of ``The Creature from Jekyll Island''.

That should be enough to give you an idea as to where he is
coming from. In all his writings, he is consistent with his POV.

Yes, thanks.

His position is to eliminate the fed. Go back to the gold and silver
standard, in accordance to what is stated in the US Constitution.

But, you see, I'm not worried about his position or ``where he is coming from''. Of course it's a very interesting thing to understand a person deeply, but for Wayne Harris right now the moment is to verify
arithmetic. We begin verifying that ``2 + 2 = 4'' and then then we move to claims such as ``17 is a prime number''. We'll leave interesting stories of how Gauss really found the normal distribution for a more retrospective moment of life. The moment is to know it exists and to
use it to calculate probabilities. In other words, most of the causes Griffin lays out in his talks and books are not important to the
beginner: what matters most is how things work and how we can verify it.

How things work are how those in power intend for things to work.

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_ reporter of the
US national debt? (If so, where does it show it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

A follow-up question would be: how can we get an official history of the increases in the national debt? (That is, where is the accounting statements for the number over the last few decades?)

Same source. They keep the books, remember?

Thanks so much.

You'll have to do your own math to figure it all out.

--Lee

--
Popular vote!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hi, Lee.

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

[...]

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_ reporter of the
US national debt? (If so, where does it show it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

That makes perfect sense. I get to

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx

and then I go to

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The question is which report tells me the total national debt and where.
I'm not interested in budget deficits or anything. I just to see how
and where does the Treasury report the total national debt. Can you
point an accurate arrow to it? I appreciate that! Thanks!

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Lee!

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

[...]

If you're talking about

https://tinyurl.com/st3feq3

then you can't be serious.

There are different schools of thought on this subject. And each
school is quite serious, in its own way.

This page ridicules the book without precisely pointing anything wrong
with it. That's not a serious observation about the subject.

[...]

Fortunately, the American people have a solution ...

Edwin Vieira lays out a very reasonable plan. I suppose you have read

The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the U.S. Constitution

That's not the multi-volume Pieces of Eight; that's just the report
written to the Gold Commission in 1982, which is not a long read.

I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

How can an economy continue to grow when there is no increase
in production? Griffin argues that interest rates are an increase
in production. But there is no increase in interest rates. People
are losing jobs. Businesses are closing.

Where does he say that interest rates are an increase in production?

Thanks!

[...]

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

[...]

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_

reporter of the

US national debt? (If so, where does it show it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

That makes perfect sense. I get to

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx

and then I go to

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The question is which report tells me the total national debt and where. I'm not interested in budget deficits or anything. I just to see how
and where does the Treasury report the total national debt. Can you
point an accurate arrow to it? I appreciate that! Thanks!

Here is a site that breaks it down in chunks, year by year -

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008


You can find the same info at the Department of the Treasury site,
but it is not nearly as colorful. :)

"Deficits don't matter." ~Dick Cheney

--Lee

--
Dieting doesn't work, Weight Watchers does

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hi, Lee!

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[...]

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_
reporter of the US national debt? (If so, where does it show
it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

That makes perfect sense. I get to
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx
and then I go to
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The question is which report tells me the total national debt and where. I'm not interested in budget deficits or anything. I just to see how and where does the Treasury report the total national debt. Can you point an accurate arrow to it? I appreciate that! Thanks!

Here is a site that breaks it down in chunks, year by year -

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008

Wonderful! Thanks so much for this.

You can find the same info at the Department of the Treasury site,
but it is not nearly as colorful. :)

I suppose. I'll do this confirmation as my next step.

"Deficits don't matter." ~Dick Cheney

Sadly funny! :-)

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello Wayne,

There are different schools of thought on this subject. And each
school is quite serious, in its own way.

This page ridicules the book without precisely pointing anything wrong with it. That's not a serious observation about the subject.

It presents an angle not all will agree with.

[...]

Fortunately, the American people have a solution ...

Edwin Vieira lays out a very reasonable plan. I suppose you have read

The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the U.S. Constitution

That's not the multi-volume Pieces of Eight; that's just the report written to the Gold Commission in 1982, which is not a long read.

Far shorter is Anthony Sutton's "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy".

I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

How can an economy continue to grow when there is no increase
in production? Griffin argues that interest rates are an increase
in production. But there is no increase in interest rates. People
are losing jobs. Businesses are closing.

Where does he say that interest rates are an increase in production?

That is the "magic money" created by the Fed due to the "mandrake
mechanism" written about by Griffin. This is what the Fed creates out
of thin air, how we can spend our way out of debt. Just think about
the benefits. When that 61% of bonds that comes due within four years
needs to be paid, all the Fed needs to do is raise interest rates.
Then, we refinance those bonds so there is no default.

All the faith and credit backed up by the US government. Guess which
country do you think will benefit the most? If you guessed China, you
would be right.

Thanks!

China owns us. Only we do not realize it yet.

--Lee

--
Our Nuts, Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Wayne Harris - Lee Lofaso <0@6.221.2> writes:

Hi, Lee!

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[...]

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_
reporter of the US national debt? (If so, where does it show
it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

That makes perfect sense. I get to
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx
and then I go to
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The question is which report tells me the total national debt and where.
I'm not interested in budget deficits or anything. I just to see how >> WH> and where does the Treasury report the total national debt. Can you
point an accurate arrow to it? I appreciate that! Thanks!

Here is a site that breaks it down in chunks, year by year -

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008

Wonderful! Thanks so much for this.

You can find the same info at the Department of the Treasury site,
but it is not nearly as colorful. :)

I suppose. I'll do this confirmation as my next step.

The Treasury on

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debttothepenny.htm

reports the national total debt as far back as 2009. If we look at the
table built by thestreet.com, we see that in 2009 they picked the number

11,909,829,003,511.70

and the Treasury reports that number on September 30th 2009:

09/30/2009's total debt of $11,909,829,003,511.75

We can see thestreet.com rounds down the cents. If we compare 2018, we
see thestreet.com picked the number

21,516,058,183,180.20

and the Treasury reports that number on September 29th 2018:

09/28/2018's total debt of $21,516,058,183,180.23.

The Treasury is currently offering a new data provider at

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/

where we can get the data going back to 1993. That seems to be all they
can offer at the moment. Thestreet.com did a nice summary over those
very interesting years. I wish I could drop the author a thank you
note, something which wouldn't even come up were not for Lee Lofaso's
advising and assistance. My sincere THANKS!

I've just verified that 2 + 2 = 4. My most profound step so far.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Lee.

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

There are different schools of thought on this subject. And each
school is quite serious, in its own way.

This page ridicules the book without precisely pointing anything wrong with it. That's not a serious observation about the subject.

It presents an angle not all will agree with.

It what, who? The page, or Griffin?

[...]

Fortunately, the American people have a solution ...

Edwin Vieira lays out a very reasonable plan. I suppose you have read

The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the U.S. Constitution

That's not the multi-volume Pieces of Eight; that's just the report written to the Gold Commission in 1982, which is not a long read.

Far shorter is Anthony Sutton's "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy".

Interesting. I'll check it out, though in terms of identifying
precisely who did what, where and when is less important to me. But if
he exposes the history in more technical details than Griffin, then that
should be well appreciated by me.

I'm perplexed you'd say this page answer the question.
We must be having a serious miscommunication here.

How can an economy continue to grow when there is no increase
in production? Griffin argues that interest rates are an increase
in production. But there is no increase in interest rates. People
are losing jobs. Businesses are closing.

Where does he say that interest rates are an increase in production?

That is the "magic money" created by the Fed due to the "mandrake
mechanism" written about by Griffin. This is what the Fed creates out
of thin air, how we can spend our way out of debt. Just think about
the benefits. When that 61% of bonds that comes due within four years
needs to be paid, all the Fed needs to do is raise interest rates.
Then, we refinance those bonds so there is no default.

All the faith and credit backed up by the US government. Guess which
country do you think will benefit the most? If you guessed China, you
would be right.

I thought you were going to point out somewhere where Griffin says
something that's incorrect.

Thanks!

China owns us. Only we do not realize it yet.

The situation is interesting. Once the US doesn't pay any more
interests or perhaps China begins to refuse any more payment with a
medium of exchange it doesn't care to get more any longer, we could
perhaps say that this would be a hard fall of the dollar --- but in a
certain sense that is also China's loss. The US will lose the currency
it worked hard to build, but if the US thinks it's already a losing
battle, might as well enjoy the fact that it won't pay anything back.
Maybe China is perhaps buying the fall of the dollar. I don't know.
Maybe Russian, Brazil, India, China would enjoy such fall. They have
slowly looking for alternatives to the dollar. Have they not?

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Wayne Harris - Lee Lofaso <0@6.221.2> writes:

Hi, Lee!

Lee Lofaso - Wayne Harris <0@2.203.2> writes:

Hello Wayne,

[...]

So here's a pretty simple question. Is there an _official_
reporter of the US national debt? (If so, where does it show
it the amount?)

The Department of the Treasury.
The stats can be viewed online.

That makes perfect sense. I get to
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx
and then I go to
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The question is which report tells me the total national debt and where.
I'm not interested in budget deficits or anything. I just to see how >> WH> and where does the Treasury report the total national debt. Can you
point an accurate arrow to it? I appreciate that! Thanks!

Here is a site that breaks it down in chunks, year by year -

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008

Wonderful! Thanks so much for this.

Here's an interesting passage.

``[...] At the time Hamilton called for such action, the states owed a
collective $25 million (approximately $684 million in today's
terms). [...]'' -- Eric Reed

Clearly, the reporter is able to update an old value to the loss of
value over the course of inflation. How can I confirm his arithmetic?
I'll read an entire book to learn how to do that, if anyone can point me
out a nice publication on the topic.

But, in fact, with the little we've been learning, we could even take a
guess at producing such measures. We have the total public debt. Maybe
we can produce a measure of the loss of value out of the increase in the
public debt relative to a past point in time. We can then update that
old value to ``today's terms'' and see how we get.

Let's assume Eric Reed's table are all correct. (We previously took a
small sample and verified it to the cent and it looked good.) From 1790
to 2018 the total public debt went from 71060508.50 to 21516058183180.20.
This must be encoding the loss in dollar value. How much does
71060508.50 compare to 21516058183180.20? We can say that the debt in
1790 is roughly

3.30 * 10^{-6}

percent of the debt today. Perhaps we can say that the loss of value of currency is directly proportional to the total monetary supply. Let's
try that. If we take the total debt as a measure of the monetary supply
both in 1790 and today, we get a loss of 3.30 * 10^{-6} in each dollar.

Similarly, we can see how much each dollar in 1790 would compare to
today's dollar. We can measure such thing by dividing the total debt
today by the total debt in 1790, getting

302785.02979162044

as the increase in value. Therefore, to know how much 25 million in
1790 is today, we multiply 25 million by the number above, getting

7,569,625,744,790.511

which is a far larger amount than the 684 million computed by Eric Reed.
We are likely wrong. (If we would reduce 684 million by that loss
factor we computed, we'd get roughly 2,259 dollars, which is much less
than 25 million dollars. We don't get close either way. What did we
learn? That are very likely wrong on this attempt.)

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)