Replies

That’s the technical argument but I don’t think it holds up to scrutiny. The money doesn’t have to come back if Saudi Arabia accepts it for oil and then just sends it back to China to purchase goods. The Canadian dollar, the Mexican Peso and other currencies aren’t universally accepted, the dollar is.

To make the argument that it has to come back at some point (even if to support deficit spending) doesn’t really solve the problem. It could take years, and while it’s gone it isn’t circulating here.

The other issue of course the devaluation of the yuan. What other course of actions exists short of weakening our own currency? I’m being honest here. I can’t think of another thing you could do.

There's a reason why the U.S. dollar is accepted as a reserve currency while those other currencies -- including the yuan -- are not. In international trade the dollar has value that they don't have -- and the dollar's value isn't really based on foreign countries using it for trade with each other.

The yuan is a perfect case in point. The "devaluation" you mention completely misses the point. The yuan has never been "devalued" in any objective sense. The yuan is heavily OVERVALUED because it has no value other than for trade with China. It's a modern-day version of credits at a company store: it's worthless to anyone who wants to do business anywhere other then the company store. The fact that China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil use it for trade among themselves speaks volumes about just how worthless their own currencies are.

I think you've missed the point entirely with the "multiplier" discussion in the video. If you're really concerned about the multiplier effect of $20 dollars spent on imported products from China, then you're actually making the case for the very first scenario in the video -- where the U.S. government takes the money from one person and gives it to someone else. The multiplier effect of money taken from taxpayers and given out to people who don't earn it is exactly what Democrats have in mind when they push that kind of nonsense. Under that argument, a public school district that spends $20,000 per student and hires illiterate teachers is doing just fine ... because the money is ultimately going to be spent on groceries, haircuts, cable TV cell phones, and even prison cells for the students who are taught by those illiterate teachers -- right?