Comment: I'm actually under the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Awesome. Thanks MM. (see in situ)

I'm actually under the

I'm actually under the impression that Ron Paul and Tom Woods use the terms interchangeably. Because the people who create the money ARE the people who get to use it first because they now have money that came out of nowhere.

In turn, the people who get to use the money second, third, fourth etc. still have an advantage n my opinion (although less and less every time money changes hands because demand will increase prices of the local stores that the previous people visited) because they're getting money that wasn't supposed to be in the market in the first place. For example, let's say the money changes hands 4 times and the 4th guy is a guy who sells backpacks. The guy who sells backpacks now gets a new customer that wouldn't have even bought anything had no money been created. So as prices increase, the people wo didnt get to touch the money once now have diminished money.

What made you think that "people who create the money" and "people who spend the money first" aren't the same person, by the way? I'm 100% sure they are referring to the same entity because the creator spends it first.

It's kind of like how the MIC works. The Fed monetized debt therefore allowing the Treasury a humongous budget to spend, and they give a lot of contracts to military contractors and stuff. So both the warmongers who love the MIC and the MIC itself receive superb benefits from nflation. I suppose that in this example, I would consider the warmongering Congressmen as the first party that uses the money first, and the MIC as the party that gets to use the money second. Since the money hasn't changed hands a lot yet, I use the slang term and group the MIC and warmongering Congressmen into a single group and loosely say that Both of them got to use the money "first."