Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

The state is not in a position to do this and is in a much worse position than private companies. So even if the state could obtain credit, it would have to pay a comparatively high interest rate, severely restricting its scope for credit financing.

Could the state as we know it today still exist at all?

It basically would have little or no money to finance political promises.

The state is not in a position to do this and is in a much worse position than private companies. So even if the state could obtain credit, it would have to pay a comparatively high interest rate, severely restricting its scope for credit financing. Could the state as we know it today still exist at all? It basically would have little or no money to finance political promises.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Correct. Because they would not be able to print their way out of it.

This is why historically bonds played a huge role in county and city management. It forces city managers and planners to go to the people for approval as otherwise they simply don't have the funds available to do all of this insanity. Which means those who can effectively get shit done stay in office and those who can't get tar and feathered.

You can easily see by Jews prefer the fiat currency model (not constitutional) over the physical money model (constitutional).

[–] • 1 pt

The state would just issue bonds for specific projects. For example, this was how the Golden Gate Bridge was funded, with the last bond being paid off in the 1970's.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes. That's a reasonable justification.