General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

93. The amount of dollars in circulation is based on

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:59 AM

Jun 2012

the economic activity of the private sector. If there is $10 trillion in economic activity the fed will (should) keep $10 trillion in currency in circulation. The fed will expand or contract the money supply based on prevailing economic conditions. That money is then provided to the banks who loan it and or use it to pay demands.

There are policy exceptions to this, naturally, but money doesn't come from the government spending it into the economy. The fact that the government collects tax revenues refutes that contention. If your point was even remotely correct the government would have to spend enough money every year to feed all private sector currency demands. As the US has $13 trillion economy and collects roughtly $2 trillion in tax receipts and spend roughly $3.5 trillion in spending this is demonstrably not the case.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all] kentuck Jun 2012 OP

It's a matter of scapegoating and ignorance. tblue Jun 2012 #1

As if everyone in the private sector walks on water.... kentuck Jun 2012 #2

I got a public sector job in 1972.....when all my friends went to college....my parents couldn't a kennedy Jun 2012 #9

AND most of the so-called "private sector" jobsl contract with the government and steal nanabugg Jun 2012 #34

Private gives much better odds for exploitative profit TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #3

Nailed it. freshwest Jun 2012 #4

It goes back to at least that idiot Reagan Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #14

I concur in the opinion of TheKentuckian. nt hifiguy Jun 2012 #49

Ka-Ching n/t Strelnikov_ Jun 2012 #83

You have hit on the reason that the greedy capitalists were so afraid of the Soviet Union. MnExpat Jun 2012 #5

The USSR collapsed because of its dynasty of brutal dictatorships. Zalatix Jun 2012 #7

Marks and Engles both agreed that revolution sometimes has comes from the barrel of a gun MnExpat Jun 2012 #15

The "European moneyed familys" would that be the JOOOOOOOS?? tritsofme Jun 2012 #65

I would expect that kind of MnExpat Jun 2012 #69

Give me a break. tritsofme Jun 2012 #82

what? tralala Jun 2012 #70

The Soviet Experiment might work in an ideal world. Bake Jun 2012 #44

You would be justified in saying that if the Soviet Union didn't last ~65 years tralala Jun 2012 #76

65 years is NOTHING. Bake Jun 2012 #77

Plus the fact they became terminal tralala Jun 2012 #78

The problem could have been the pesky anti-Semitic dictatorship thingy. Zalatix Jun 2012 #97

Perestroika was a *result* of their failure, not the reason for it. joshcryer Jun 2012 #114

Sears and Roebuck lasted longer Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #88

If private sector employees didn't first earn the money and pay taxes... badtoworse Jun 2012 #6

And if you didn't have a teacher to teach you how to read... kentuck Jun 2012 #8

I went to private schools and I have done quite well. badtoworse Jun 2012 #27

Corporate charters aren't created generally to benefit the public. mmonk Jun 2012 #32

The same is true for public sector workers. Who do you think public employee unions represent? badtoworse Jun 2012 #33

If the private sector can provide a service more efficiently.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #62

A great many services would be more expensive if we did that jmowreader Jun 2012 #101

Nobody ever got a job before there were public school teachers to teach them how to read. slackmaster Jun 2012 #90

I never went to public school... badtoworse Jun 2012 #107

If the federal government didn't first spend the money into existence.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #21

The concept of money existed before the government started printing it. badtoworse Jun 2012 #30

Countries without governments don't do so well. CJCRANE Jun 2012 #46

See Post No. 54 badtoworse Jun 2012 #55

The money Americans use today.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #56

In my (non-economist) opinion money derives its value from the good and services you can buy with it badtoworse Jun 2012 #105

Stick to engineering. U4ikLefty Jun 2012 #109

Wow, you get a lot of things really wrong here. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #115

Seashells, salt, or flakes of metal found in streams slackmaster Jun 2012 #91

Shame on you for inserting logic into this Puzzledtraveller Jun 2012 #29

Customers pay private salaries - what goes around comes around. CJCRANE Jun 2012 #45

I'm assuming you're paid in dollars. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #57

The amount of dollars in circulation is based on Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #93

So you believe we don't have a government that spends money into the economy? girl gone mad Jun 2012 #96

Just for the purpose of education.. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #98

Without the police and the courts, your private business is dead. JoePhilly Jun 2012 #51

I never said we don't need any public sector jobs badtoworse Jun 2012 #54

The private sector doesn't generate money. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #58

Again I return to the Defense Industry. JoePhilly Jun 2012 #68

The private sector provided the money that enabled the government to do those things badtoworse Jun 2012 #106

Nobody ever conducted business before there were police or courts slackmaster Jun 2012 #92

Yeah, we saw the results of that scenario. U4ikLefty Jun 2012 #110

Yes, the police and courts have sure fixed that one slackmaster Jun 2012 #111

When I did an assignment for the government way back when in 2004, I saw the memo Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #10

Yes. Privatization = corruption. It's about pay-offs to buddies and campaign supporters. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #20

This is an important point. It's not just abstract philosophy and ideology for the privatizers. limpyhobbler Jun 2012 #24

absolutely...explains school vouchers - friends own private schools - more people go - more Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #61

The private sector is where republicans get to pay you the least jp11 Jun 2012 #11

As a proud public employee Rain Mcloud Jun 2012 #12

Imagine a Repub Presidency, Judiciary, Senate and House at the same time. Zax2me Jun 2012 #13

It's not especially in a service economy you get low paying jobs like fast food and retail with no craigmatic Jun 2012 #16

Because rich people can make a killing exploiting the private sector. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #17

people trumpet how "inefficient" big government is ibegurpard Jun 2012 #18

because the upper 20% makes money on it. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #19

It's a combination of hatred for paying taxes... LeftishBrit Jun 2012 #22

CORRECT Skittles Jun 2012 #23

i am sure as shit happy those firefighters keeping my happy self safe tonight are public employees fizzgig Jun 2012 #25

Because we are run by small town plutocracies that want to get their hands directly Baitball Blogger Jun 2012 #26

It is more RW bullshit libtodeath Jun 2012 #28

Because ideologues have kept repeating the mantra... ljm2002 Jun 2012 #31

There is no CEO getting rich off of the public sector tabbycat31 Jun 2012 #35

Lots of companies get government contracts and government subsidies... CJCRANE Jun 2012 #48

The CEO of Lockheed Martin would beg to differ. JoePhilly Jun 2012 #52

Both are necessary 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #36

True, and what else are people ready to give up? kentuck Jun 2012 #37

To choose one example: 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #41

I would agree. kentuck Jun 2012 #43

I've encountered bat crazy libertarians who have suggested just such a thing Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #94

I'd consider them no different than hardcore 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #95

The idea is that the one must pay for the other--the "public sector" is not self-supporting. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #38

I would say they are investments... kentuck Jun 2012 #40

I don't disagree. But the fact remains... nt Romulox Jun 2012 #42

But the fact is not accurate. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #64

The public sector is funded with tax revenue. It's not controversial. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #67

This is not true at the federal level. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #80

The banks are not self-supporting. Public money bailed them out. CJCRANE Jun 2012 #50

Private sector would have no dollars without public sector. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #63

I don't disagree (at all). The point STILL remains: the "public sector" requires tax revenue to Romulox Jun 2012 #66

You've set it up as if the two sectors are in competition for money. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #75

No, I did not. I won't argue points only *YOU* have made. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #86

Or using gold backed paper. dkf Jun 2012 #112

Yup tralala Jun 2012 #72

It seems to me that the teaching profession is supporting the entire structure of civilization aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2012 #103

Because ... ananda Jun 2012 #39

The argument that private enterprise is less bureaucratic is absolutely ludicrous. randome Jun 2012 #47

too true ThomThom Jun 2012 #53

He is targeting the wrong "Public Sector" Overpaid Congressmen and Senators is where the fat needs Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2012 #59

Both sectors do some things better than the other Hippo_Tron Jun 2012 #60

If the public sector doesn't include nationalized industries tralala Jun 2012 #71

If "the public sector is "sponging" off of the value produced by the private sector..." kentuck Jun 2012 #73

The government pays people to provide services and/or create goods. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #79

The government pays for its services/employees out of tralala Jun 2012 #81

This is an incomplete view of the role of the government in a modern economy. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #84

If divide & conquer didn't work, politicians and corporations wouldn't use it. nt shcrane71 Jun 2012 #74

There's a good book called "The Gardens of Democracy" gulliver Jun 2012 #85

Well, without a private sector, the public sector could not exist IndyPragmatist123 Jun 2012 #87

Tax revenue doesn't fund spending at the federal level. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #104

I guess I must have not paid attention during my 6 years of economics studies IndyPragmatist123 Jun 2012 #116

It's not better. It's much bigger and much more important to the economy in terms of job creation. slackmaster Jun 2012 #89

If you want people beholden to you Aerows Jun 2012 #99

BIGGER and EASIER BRIBES for politicians ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2012 #100

Because Reagan said it...and Clinton said it...and it's what is WINNING in Political America. KoKo Jun 2012 #102

I've worked in both... TroglodyteScholar Jun 2012 #108

I don't think that it is, necessarily. But you can regulate out cronyism from the private sector. joshcryer Jun 2012 #113