No causing Dr. Locke.
So the basic idea is that we should include jobs and resource losses on the debt calculation. I believe this will create a more real anti inflammatory economic calculation.
The definition of debt. If debt is a form of liability being held abroad - the assets in holdings. Which is the basic calculation which means there is a liabity holding surplus and not an assets surplus. Then all liabilities are held accountable for those being held abroad.
To judge our countries ownership of debt by foreign governments we must take into account all assets owned by the foreign country of the USA. Which means, foreign ownership of homes, resource loses, job loses, stocks, bonds, interests, opportunity costs, and anything else that is considered an asset that is owned by a foreign country that creates a liability holding against our country. That is a debt. Especially when the negative assets of the USA is in a surplus for liabilities in a positive asset ownership for the Communist Chinese.
If it is the other way around and assets-liabilities create a positive number then we have a surplus.
However if you use the ineffecient non Marshallian theory of debt as just those things we are being loaned and occur interest on, you could still properly use a thorough investigation of our assets - liabilities to show that loss of jobs does create an interest loss. The way to do this is to take the jobs we have gained from the Communist Chinese minus the jobs lost. In which the ones lost would create a negative holding. Much like a liability. Which this liability then acts like a debt. As it means that our ability to create a production is lost until the specific job has been replaced. If it is not replaced we are in debt. As the CCP owns the job (stock, bond, loan note), and thus forces us to pay them on much like a loan for the products that it produces and sells back to us. Furthermore, we lose the interest of skill, resource demand (national security), and the taxes for that lost job. Therefore the lost job acts exactly like a loan, stock purchase or other debt entity from the CCP.
On the other hand the jobs loss can't be seen as an asset to the USA, as we create no value from that loss, and incur liabilities, which are the major substantial part of our debts to not only our self's but to others. What they own of us is in a surplus of what we own of them. Which is way above 8% if properly calculated in a real Marshallian manner.
Did you calculate lost jobs into that. How about lost resources, did you do a single linear approach to your research. Or did you do a Marshallian Economic style everything into the report. Because from my calculations based on lost jobs alone as a debt source. There is a loss of over 76 trillion a year. How much debt is 8%?
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-05/27/content_12589436.htm
So 8% is around about 800 billion or so. So your Marshallian Economics with everything taken into account, is way off. I would say that in reality as compared if we add in the debt of jobs. They pretty much account for the majority of ownership of our debt. As the US's does not own its own debt, the Citizens do, which means as we lose our jobs and we the citizens have lost 76 trillion a year, that adds up to about
Locke Did you even do a job loss debt ratio? How much do you get paid? That is the biggest part of our debt. Our lost jobs, we are in debt in jobs. What is that number, and proper Marshallian Economic units.
No I mean I apologize to Dr. Locke. However, the loss of our ability to demand resources because of the loss of US production and other jobs that demand resources, alone levy a much higher resource debt just in matters, with out the proper Marshallian analysis of every little thing we are in debt to the Communist for.
Along with that how could say that our debt to the Communist Chinese does not affect our foreign policy when I have document after document stating that the lack of our resource holdings and our own balanced ownership of resource contracts in the international market alone is one of our biggest national security matters.
Why did he not ask me my opinion via a proper cloak. What does he not think the mad man who runs the special library is not smart enough for the suit with the great pay and nice living. Geese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxTsXRjNTw
Lets do just the debt calculation for jobs.
So how many jobs have we lost to the Communist since we have traded with them. Ok how many jobs have we gained. Ok subtract that. Then what is holding. Ok then what is the fluctuation. Ok then how much money comparatively is the worth of each job in today's market. Therefore, multiply and you get our job debt loss. Which the Communist hold.
So lets do the resource holdings lost debt to the Communists. So we take the demand that was created by the jobs lost. In which the demand for resources in this country was lost due to specific jobs and industries. As such, we then take the value added to see what the value is to the USA to own those resource contracts today. Therefore, as the calculation will show that we have lost jobs that caused a demand in resources, so we are also in a resource debt. Which means our country can't gain those resource holdings back and that holds value to our citizens and security. This value can easily be added via the cost it would take the US to supplement those holdings back to a stable and balanced level.
So lets do my famous job debt Marshallian Economic theory. As such I believe it raises the debt level holding of the Communist alone into the hundreds of percentile.
I love you Locke but you should define your terms better. If you mean our stock debt, then that is one thing. However, if you are doing a US debt to the Communist please do a proper Marshallian Economics analysis. My lord Dr. Locke you are please humble wipe the floor with rough analysis cause I know I am way off but I also know you are too. So lets meet in the middle big Dog.
Please
I mean big dog that stock debt thing is archaic. I mean the new wave cosmic economists sees it all like the old school classical Marshallian economists, who takes it all in. As economics is just the management of ones surroundings. Therefore, debt is all things if you speak in vaguities or for the proper non creator types speaking vaguely.
I think 8% is way to nice on those good committee folks. We should go full boar on the analysis and make sure by the time they are done you are sweating up a storm telling the good story about the research and calculations.
Jobs lost to the recession a massive part of that goes to the Communist Chinese 9 mill lost
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/bank-owned_homes_will_continue.html
Jobs lost to Communist Chinese:
Why do we not have a job's lost commission, or is there an agency that deals with the jobs loss, so they can properly be gathered when our big dogs due reports on matters? Little pup does not like to bark at the big dogs because little pup get bit, don't like that, however, will do it.
See this only works if I have access to all the necessary agencies.
CAF
2.4 million jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/find-out-how-many-jobs-ha_b_510279.html
So then I just add in another 100,000 for service jobs lost. Then we take the flux rate at about 500,000 then we see that is about 2 million jobs that we are in debt to the Communist Chinese.
As such we then tack in about a medium range of about $38,000 for each job and we multiple, the number goes very high. I have done this before. Therefore, I round the non professional non suit paid and nice cushy bed and house style up to about 76 trillion dollars of economic debt we have lost due to the loss of jobs. Then if the opposition tries to say we have had an opportunity gain. However, then I show them how many high tech jobs we have lost to and rebutt that. I could go on if I had a nice place to marry my dream women. I have to go fight with Baidu, SOSO, and Yadao. Along with start school and look for a job.
See the theory that I think was used is that we do not want the Communist to think they affect our foreign policy. However, this lieing stupid stuff is for children playing house. The Communist ain't stupid. You need to start telling the truth about these folks so the people can see the real threat. Even then, we ain't going to let no Communist bully us. You know why cause of red necks like me and apaches in the hills and fighter jets in the seas. That's why, darn love my country. I mean first the President Clinton thing now this, I mean we need the real cognition to get the folks to vote proper like and to place a fire under the big dogs butts.
That should be a song, apaches in the hills, jets in the sea, rednecks like me, keep this place free.
. outstanding debt definition: Unpaid portion of a debt that may include interest accrued on the balance.
The debt that is owed to a foreign country. Which if our jobs are gone creates a debt we have that is owed. So if the balance of lost jobs is 2 million dollars and there is an incurred interest rate of each year and the lost creation of an asset via the jobs. We see that jobs lost are and should be considered under the outstanding debt definition.
We have outstanding balances in these areas to the Communist Chinese my fellow Committee Members.
1. Stocks liability
2. Bonds liability
3. Resources liability
4. Jobs liability
5. Home ownership liability
6. Lost Opportunity costs. liability
7. National security costs liability
We currently do not have one surplus in the outstanding debt category with the Communist Chinese.
Thank you committee I will be drinking tea and eating crackers as I fight Communist Chinese search engines and created the worlds first push for green streets. You can see me in the Oval office in 40 years.
Furthmore, our relations with the Communist Chinese are just one liability after another. Committee I do not see any clear days or proper balances with the Communist Chinese in the future as they act currently.
I eat tea and crackers and you sit there and give me a simple stock analysis of single category big dog. that's not good.
debt, money service or material owed to another person as the result of a previous agreement. Which would mean agreements that allow our capital production jobs and service jobs are considered in which create a ownership of those jobs to a foreign entity, in which leaves us with a liability, especially if we can't replace them to make them an asset. Job is a service that creates a negative asset if lost.
The basic elementry theory of debt is I would like to borrow money. Which means one allows another to gain capital. That is elementary the money that they have given to us would not be a Marshallian economic accounting principle. The MS Econ principle would be that all things that create a negative on the assets sheet account for a debt. As it is a liability. As then if a liability is a debt and a debt is a liability, then jobs and resources and other things should go under the reality of what we owe to Communist China. We owe them this much money, which means each job is lost money that we owe to them as they hold the capital and allow us to borrow such goods unless we can produce the same amount of goods to create an asset. So each job lost is a liability.
Rogue road scholar holler.
Let see debt owning something. So if we lose a job and we do not recreate that job then the job creates a liability which then means we owe. As liabilities are owed. How this has been off sheeted for so long is beyond me.
debit accounting any amount in dollars and cents that, when posted, will increase the balance of an asset or expense account and decrease the balance of a liability account. That is the opposite of a debt.
Therefore jobs when debited to the USA increase the account balance and thus decrease the liability account. However, when the jobs are lost then they do the opposite which means they create a debt. As they increase the liability and decrease the assets. As such, creating a debt. Therefore it is outstanding because we have not yet turned that debt into a debit.
debit go up, debt down, debit go up debt down. So if jobs make it go down, then they are an outstanding balance until they can be replaced. Which we can trace to specific trade with countries, to see how fair they are for specific anti trust violations if the country does not allow a proper full debit of the jobs. This is illegal the actions that the Communist have taken.
By you not properly defining this matter as jobs lost are a debt. You are also leaving major wholes in anti trust prosecution and laws, in my unprofessional opinion. As we need to know when our debt becomes a debit with regards to trade as job creation and loss, or after such a long time they are in violation of anti trust policies for unfair trade. in my unprofessional opinion.
Rider you need to take your notes and re write them. After the loss of 80% of our stimulus then this improper defining of debt without the major anti trust calculation in the necessary element to prosecute the Communist for violation of unfair trade via non allowance of debt to turn into debit. I need to solidify this theory, Please rider, remember to come back to this you crazy man and place it in logic an reasonable order.
I need to rewrite this and then send it to Fitch and then send it to Moody to see if makes sense. I think it is darn on. However, I need the elder like to say you stupid or good to go. I think I a might be onto something. I also need to know if I drop our credit rating what will that do to our economy. Will it allow us to sell more and create more jobs to gain more foreign treasury, or will it cause use to go some other direction. Please rider you mad man remember tomorrow morning when you awake re read and Analise your thoughts and write a proper prose.
\
Rider I
another thing I need to do is like, um, well, what happens if our credit rating goes down. That means we can't borrow anymore money. Which means we if we wish to move forward we have to create a positive balance sheet, as we can't move forward by moving backwards anymore. So um, I know when my credit rating goes down I can't borrow. Which mean I need to work more. So maybe that will be a good thing. The more we borrow the higher the inflation and fictious economy becomes, which means when the bubbles pop if they get to big we fall hard, and that hurts. That hurts, causes major economic instability. As such, maybe I should whoop big dog Dr. Locke again with another fancy dancy investigative research report. I love the man I do, however, that last one with all the stimulus for our new productive industry leaving the country like, well um, that was not good, we need those production jobs. The only way to get our labor going again was to starve out the others and enrich ours, like the Communist did with their stimulus in green tech. Well who knows, tomorrow I will wake up be called by my best friend and this whole article adventure will be forgotten good night you old crow of an owl. Maybe you are onto something.
So if we debit one side we must then be able to debit the other side. As such, if we lose a job we thus then need to gain a job to be out of that lost jobs debt. It is the same with money, if we lose a dollar we must then gain that dollar. If that we owe a dollar it is because we have lost that dollar, for us to repay that we must then create an asset.
So the basic idea is that we should include jobs and resource losses on the debt calculation. I believe this will create a more real anti inflammatory economic calculation.
What is an anti inflamatory calculation. Well if we see inflation as something that is created via a continuing rse in the general price level attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services. One might think that if we could create an anti inflamatory calculation we might be able to stop the liquidation of our assets via inflation. This is because, if we place the proper jobs and resources on the debt calculation and stop off sheeting them, we will then see a proper decrease in our credit rating. In which will show the reality of our ability to produce exports via production of goods and services. In which will then place a force upon the USA to stop borrowing, and then start to create more jobs. Which means inflation will go down as the production of goods goes up. Therefore, instead of the USA having to liquidate its country and assets to pay its debts, which we are doing, the country will be able to solidify its country with more supply side surplus. As we would be forced to creator more instead of borrow more and have more folks not working and sitting around barking at big dogs.
This then means the USA will have to become more competitive in the market for resources. As we will need jobs that produce value as we will no longer be able to borrow money. Therefore, if this comes true then our national security top of the list problem of not having a proper balance of resource contracts will start to be eroded as we produce more and our country demands more resources. In which will then help us to produce more markets.
So a calculation that places the loss of jobs and resources on the debt sheet, allows for a proper decrease in credit as we are inflating and have not the goods and services to pay for our bills, so we then can't borrow anymore money to move forwards while moving back, thus causing a ripple affect of having to force the USA books keepers and power holders to force upon the will of the USA to produce more and thus seek more resources. Which will then force us to export more, and compete with the Communists. Thus balancing out the centralized worlds wealth, as we spread it out to other nations that need products to develop and bigger markets.
Ya I think it flies. I just need to do it proper like.
Rider i
So the basic idea is that we should include jobs and resource losses on the debt calculation. I believe this will create a more real anti inflammatory economic calculation.
The definition of debt. If debt is a form of liability being held abroad - the assets in holdings. Which is the basic calculation which means there is a liabity holding surplus and not an assets surplus. Then all liabilities are held accountable for those being held abroad.
To judge our countries ownership of debt by foreign governments we must take into account all assets owned by the foreign country of the USA. Which means, foreign ownership of homes, resource loses, job loses, stocks, bonds, interests, opportunity costs, and anything else that is considered an asset that is owned by a foreign country that creates a liability holding against our country. That is a debt. Especially when the negative assets of the USA is in a surplus for liabilities in a positive asset ownership for the Communist Chinese.
If it is the other way around and assets-liabilities create a positive number then we have a surplus.
However if you use the ineffecient non Marshallian theory of debt as just those things we are being loaned and occur interest on, you could still properly use a thorough investigation of our assets - liabilities to show that loss of jobs does create an interest loss. The way to do this is to take the jobs we have gained from the Communist Chinese minus the jobs lost. In which the ones lost would create a negative holding. Much like a liability. Which this liability then acts like a debt. As it means that our ability to create a production is lost until the specific job has been replaced. If it is not replaced we are in debt. As the CCP owns the job (stock, bond, loan note), and thus forces us to pay them on much like a loan for the products that it produces and sells back to us. Furthermore, we lose the interest of skill, resource demand (national security), and the taxes for that lost job. Therefore the lost job acts exactly like a loan, stock purchase or other debt entity from the CCP.
On the other hand the jobs loss can't be seen as an asset to the USA, as we create no value from that loss, and incur liabilities, which are the major substantial part of our debts to not only our self's but to others. What they own of us is in a surplus of what we own of them. Which is way above 8% if properly calculated in a real Marshallian manner.
Did you calculate lost jobs into that. How about lost resources, did you do a single linear approach to your research. Or did you do a Marshallian Economic style everything into the report. Because from my calculations based on lost jobs alone as a debt source. There is a loss of over 76 trillion a year. How much debt is 8%?
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-05/27/content_12589436.htm
So 8% is around about 800 billion or so. So your Marshallian Economics with everything taken into account, is way off. I would say that in reality as compared if we add in the debt of jobs. They pretty much account for the majority of ownership of our debt. As the US's does not own its own debt, the Citizens do, which means as we lose our jobs and we the citizens have lost 76 trillion a year, that adds up to about
Locke Did you even do a job loss debt ratio? How much do you get paid? That is the biggest part of our debt. Our lost jobs, we are in debt in jobs. What is that number, and proper Marshallian Economic units.
No I mean I apologize to Dr. Locke. However, the loss of our ability to demand resources because of the loss of US production and other jobs that demand resources, alone levy a much higher resource debt just in matters, with out the proper Marshallian analysis of every little thing we are in debt to the Communist for.
Along with that how could say that our debt to the Communist Chinese does not affect our foreign policy when I have document after document stating that the lack of our resource holdings and our own balanced ownership of resource contracts in the international market alone is one of our biggest national security matters.
Why did he not ask me my opinion via a proper cloak. What does he not think the mad man who runs the special library is not smart enough for the suit with the great pay and nice living. Geese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxTsXRjNTw
Lets do just the debt calculation for jobs.
So how many jobs have we lost to the Communist since we have traded with them. Ok how many jobs have we gained. Ok subtract that. Then what is holding. Ok then what is the fluctuation. Ok then how much money comparatively is the worth of each job in today's market. Therefore, multiply and you get our job debt loss. Which the Communist hold.
So lets do the resource holdings lost debt to the Communists. So we take the demand that was created by the jobs lost. In which the demand for resources in this country was lost due to specific jobs and industries. As such, we then take the value added to see what the value is to the USA to own those resource contracts today. Therefore, as the calculation will show that we have lost jobs that caused a demand in resources, so we are also in a resource debt. Which means our country can't gain those resource holdings back and that holds value to our citizens and security. This value can easily be added via the cost it would take the US to supplement those holdings back to a stable and balanced level.
So lets do my famous job debt Marshallian Economic theory. As such I believe it raises the debt level holding of the Communist alone into the hundreds of percentile.
I love you Locke but you should define your terms better. If you mean our stock debt, then that is one thing. However, if you are doing a US debt to the Communist please do a proper Marshallian Economics analysis. My lord Dr. Locke you are please humble wipe the floor with rough analysis cause I know I am way off but I also know you are too. So lets meet in the middle big Dog.
Please
I mean big dog that stock debt thing is archaic. I mean the new wave cosmic economists sees it all like the old school classical Marshallian economists, who takes it all in. As economics is just the management of ones surroundings. Therefore, debt is all things if you speak in vaguities or for the proper non creator types speaking vaguely.
I think 8% is way to nice on those good committee folks. We should go full boar on the analysis and make sure by the time they are done you are sweating up a storm telling the good story about the research and calculations.
Jobs lost to the recession a massive part of that goes to the Communist Chinese 9 mill lost
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/bank-owned_homes_will_continue.html
Jobs lost to Communist Chinese:
Why do we not have a job's lost commission, or is there an agency that deals with the jobs loss, so they can properly be gathered when our big dogs due reports on matters? Little pup does not like to bark at the big dogs because little pup get bit, don't like that, however, will do it.
See this only works if I have access to all the necessary agencies.
CAF
2.4 million jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/find-out-how-many-jobs-ha_b_510279.html
So then I just add in another 100,000 for service jobs lost. Then we take the flux rate at about 500,000 then we see that is about 2 million jobs that we are in debt to the Communist Chinese.
As such we then tack in about a medium range of about $38,000 for each job and we multiple, the number goes very high. I have done this before. Therefore, I round the non professional non suit paid and nice cushy bed and house style up to about 76 trillion dollars of economic debt we have lost due to the loss of jobs. Then if the opposition tries to say we have had an opportunity gain. However, then I show them how many high tech jobs we have lost to and rebutt that. I could go on if I had a nice place to marry my dream women. I have to go fight with Baidu, SOSO, and Yadao. Along with start school and look for a job.
See the theory that I think was used is that we do not want the Communist to think they affect our foreign policy. However, this lieing stupid stuff is for children playing house. The Communist ain't stupid. You need to start telling the truth about these folks so the people can see the real threat. Even then, we ain't going to let no Communist bully us. You know why cause of red necks like me and apaches in the hills and fighter jets in the seas. That's why, darn love my country. I mean first the President Clinton thing now this, I mean we need the real cognition to get the folks to vote proper like and to place a fire under the big dogs butts.
That should be a song, apaches in the hills, jets in the sea, rednecks like me, keep this place free.
. outstanding debt definition: Unpaid portion of a debt that may include interest accrued on the balance.
The debt that is owed to a foreign country. Which if our jobs are gone creates a debt we have that is owed. So if the balance of lost jobs is 2 million dollars and there is an incurred interest rate of each year and the lost creation of an asset via the jobs. We see that jobs lost are and should be considered under the outstanding debt definition.
We have outstanding balances in these areas to the Communist Chinese my fellow Committee Members.
1. Stocks liability
2. Bonds liability
3. Resources liability
4. Jobs liability
5. Home ownership liability
6. Lost Opportunity costs. liability
7. National security costs liability
We currently do not have one surplus in the outstanding debt category with the Communist Chinese.
Thank you committee I will be drinking tea and eating crackers as I fight Communist Chinese search engines and created the worlds first push for green streets. You can see me in the Oval office in 40 years.
Furthmore, our relations with the Communist Chinese are just one liability after another. Committee I do not see any clear days or proper balances with the Communist Chinese in the future as they act currently.
I eat tea and crackers and you sit there and give me a simple stock analysis of single category big dog. that's not good.
debt, money service or material owed to another person as the result of a previous agreement. Which would mean agreements that allow our capital production jobs and service jobs are considered in which create a ownership of those jobs to a foreign entity, in which leaves us with a liability, especially if we can't replace them to make them an asset. Job is a service that creates a negative asset if lost.
The basic elementry theory of debt is I would like to borrow money. Which means one allows another to gain capital. That is elementary the money that they have given to us would not be a Marshallian economic accounting principle. The MS Econ principle would be that all things that create a negative on the assets sheet account for a debt. As it is a liability. As then if a liability is a debt and a debt is a liability, then jobs and resources and other things should go under the reality of what we owe to Communist China. We owe them this much money, which means each job is lost money that we owe to them as they hold the capital and allow us to borrow such goods unless we can produce the same amount of goods to create an asset. So each job lost is a liability.
Rogue road scholar holler.
Let see debt owning something. So if we lose a job and we do not recreate that job then the job creates a liability which then means we owe. As liabilities are owed. How this has been off sheeted for so long is beyond me.
debit accounting any amount in dollars and cents that, when posted, will increase the balance of an asset or expense account and decrease the balance of a liability account. That is the opposite of a debt.
Therefore jobs when debited to the USA increase the account balance and thus decrease the liability account. However, when the jobs are lost then they do the opposite which means they create a debt. As they increase the liability and decrease the assets. As such, creating a debt. Therefore it is outstanding because we have not yet turned that debt into a debit.
debit go up, debt down, debit go up debt down. So if jobs make it go down, then they are an outstanding balance until they can be replaced. Which we can trace to specific trade with countries, to see how fair they are for specific anti trust violations if the country does not allow a proper full debit of the jobs. This is illegal the actions that the Communist have taken.
By you not properly defining this matter as jobs lost are a debt. You are also leaving major wholes in anti trust prosecution and laws, in my unprofessional opinion. As we need to know when our debt becomes a debit with regards to trade as job creation and loss, or after such a long time they are in violation of anti trust policies for unfair trade. in my unprofessional opinion.
Rider you need to take your notes and re write them. After the loss of 80% of our stimulus then this improper defining of debt without the major anti trust calculation in the necessary element to prosecute the Communist for violation of unfair trade via non allowance of debt to turn into debit. I need to solidify this theory, Please rider, remember to come back to this you crazy man and place it in logic an reasonable order.
I need to rewrite this and then send it to Fitch and then send it to Moody to see if makes sense. I think it is darn on. However, I need the elder like to say you stupid or good to go. I think I a might be onto something. I also need to know if I drop our credit rating what will that do to our economy. Will it allow us to sell more and create more jobs to gain more foreign treasury, or will it cause use to go some other direction. Please rider you mad man remember tomorrow morning when you awake re read and Analise your thoughts and write a proper prose.
\
Rider I
another thing I need to do is like, um, well, what happens if our credit rating goes down. That means we can't borrow anymore money. Which means we if we wish to move forward we have to create a positive balance sheet, as we can't move forward by moving backwards anymore. So um, I know when my credit rating goes down I can't borrow. Which mean I need to work more. So maybe that will be a good thing. The more we borrow the higher the inflation and fictious economy becomes, which means when the bubbles pop if they get to big we fall hard, and that hurts. That hurts, causes major economic instability. As such, maybe I should whoop big dog Dr. Locke again with another fancy dancy investigative research report. I love the man I do, however, that last one with all the stimulus for our new productive industry leaving the country like, well um, that was not good, we need those production jobs. The only way to get our labor going again was to starve out the others and enrich ours, like the Communist did with their stimulus in green tech. Well who knows, tomorrow I will wake up be called by my best friend and this whole article adventure will be forgotten good night you old crow of an owl. Maybe you are onto something.
So if we debit one side we must then be able to debit the other side. As such, if we lose a job we thus then need to gain a job to be out of that lost jobs debt. It is the same with money, if we lose a dollar we must then gain that dollar. If that we owe a dollar it is because we have lost that dollar, for us to repay that we must then create an asset.
So the basic idea is that we should include jobs and resource losses on the debt calculation. I believe this will create a more real anti inflammatory economic calculation.
What is an anti inflamatory calculation. Well if we see inflation as something that is created via a continuing rse in the general price level attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services. One might think that if we could create an anti inflamatory calculation we might be able to stop the liquidation of our assets via inflation. This is because, if we place the proper jobs and resources on the debt calculation and stop off sheeting them, we will then see a proper decrease in our credit rating. In which will show the reality of our ability to produce exports via production of goods and services. In which will then place a force upon the USA to stop borrowing, and then start to create more jobs. Which means inflation will go down as the production of goods goes up. Therefore, instead of the USA having to liquidate its country and assets to pay its debts, which we are doing, the country will be able to solidify its country with more supply side surplus. As we would be forced to creator more instead of borrow more and have more folks not working and sitting around barking at big dogs.
This then means the USA will have to become more competitive in the market for resources. As we will need jobs that produce value as we will no longer be able to borrow money. Therefore, if this comes true then our national security top of the list problem of not having a proper balance of resource contracts will start to be eroded as we produce more and our country demands more resources. In which will then help us to produce more markets.
So a calculation that places the loss of jobs and resources on the debt sheet, allows for a proper decrease in credit as we are inflating and have not the goods and services to pay for our bills, so we then can't borrow anymore money to move forwards while moving back, thus causing a ripple affect of having to force the USA books keepers and power holders to force upon the will of the USA to produce more and thus seek more resources. Which will then force us to export more, and compete with the Communists. Thus balancing out the centralized worlds wealth, as we spread it out to other nations that need products to develop and bigger markets.
Ya I think it flies. I just need to do it proper like.
Rider i
No comments:
Post a Comment