David_N
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,562
- Reaction score
- 2,769
- Location
- The United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Let's start where Grant does, with the idea that the federal budget is like a family's budget. As Grant awkwardly half admits later, this is totally wrong. Individuals, families, and businesses are all cash-constrained. To get money, they have to go out and do something: get a job, sell goods and services, or borrow. That's not true of the federal government, since the Constitution invests it with the unique power to create money. We've divided that power up between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and we usually speak of the former as "controlling the money supply." But as Grant says, the Fed is ultimately a creation of Congress.
So any government with a fiat currency system, which is what America and most advanced Western nations have now, can always just create money to pay off creditors in a pinch. That's why interest rates on U.S. debt are so low — a sign of investors' trust. It's why we've happily run a debt for almost two centuries, and why Japan's interest rates remain quite low despite a debt load far larger than ours.
It's true, as Grant says, that printing money is not wealth creation. But it can enable wealth creation. The government can hire people to build roads and bridges, to clean up public spaces and parks; to provide education and health care. All that is real economic production made possible by the government's power to borrow and create money. Similarly, while simply giving money to the poor doesn't create wealth, it does give them the initial resources they may need to re-enter the economy — and thus begin creating wealth again.
Grant mocks the idea of stimulus, saying we doubled the size of the federal debt after the Great Recession and got only a sluggish recovery for our efforts. But plenty of economists looked at the economic hole left by the 2008 financial crisis, and concluded the stimulus policies on the table weren't nearly big enough to fill it. The size of the hole is all that matters. Whatever level of deficit spending is required to fill it is the right level of deficit spending. In fact, as the government has moved away from the things Grant pines for — like balanced budgets and "sound money" — the economy has become less volatile, and periods of mass unemployment far more rare.
Historically, though, hyperinflations have been really hard to pull off, precisely because the government has to go to such an extreme. Most have been associated with war or some other similar calamity. Even our massive debt and deficit buildups in WWII only briefly rocketed inflation to 10 percent before quickly falling back to earth.
Moreover, inflation is not a universal evil. Moderate inflation, in the range of 3 to 4 percent, is one sign of a healthy economy. It means employment is plentiful, labor markets are tight, and wages are increasing — which is what puts upward pressure on prices. What's remarkable is not that the Fed is trying to increase inflation, as Grant complains. It's that inflation is rock bottom and the Fed can't seem to make it go higher.
This is in response to a recent time magazine piece about the national debt which attempts to scare readers.
Why America's gigantic national debt is a good thing
Thoughts?
Well, for a currency issuer that doesn't peg its currency, with no debts in another currency, and no gold standard with plenty of available resources/potential output, government bonds will never become a real issue. In my opinion.. Just ask Japan. Their problem doesn't come from their bonds, hell, they're desperate for inflation, which helps counter the idea that government debt increases inflation.Yep, Spross is pretty much spot on.
The only thing I think he omitted is that at a certain point, debts still can become unsustainable, and economic conditions may not be favorable to inflating the currency to fix that issue. But, as he points out, it all depends on how willing people are to buy government debt.
And people are definitely willing to buy it. Consider Argentina, which has had major debt issues in the past ~20 years. They defaulted on their debts, tried to pay off a fraction of it, but a bunch of hedge funders bought a bunch of that debt and are fighting tooth and nail to be paid in full. Despite all sorts of shenanigans over those issues, and years of bad reputation and legal barriers to issuing new debt, Argentina roared back into the bond market a few days ago by selling $16.5 billion in debt, a record for emerging markets.
It seems to me that a lot of people just don't understand government debt, and how substantially different it is from personal debts.
Well, for a currency issuer that doesn't peg its currency, with no debts in another currency, and no gold standard with plenty of available resources/potential output, government bonds will never become a real issue. In my opinion.. Just ask Japan. Their problem doesn't come from their bonds, hell, they're desperate for inflation, which helps counter the idea that government debt increases inflation.
This is in response to a recent time magazine piece about the national debt which attempts to scare readers.
Why America's gigantic national debt is a good thing
Thoughts?
Why do you continue to post such DISHONEST drivel ? Such blatant propaganda ??? Who do you think youre fooling ?
Where?Why do you continue to post such DISHONEST drivel ? Such blatant propaganda ??? Who do you think youre fooling ?
/snip
Huh?Does integrity and honor and character mean anything to you ??
Huh?Because I know YOU KNOW this crap is a blatant misrepresentation of reality so why do you keep posting it ?
You mean returns on bonds? Bonds aren't meant to be profitable, investors don't care.There's not ONE mention in that ridiculous article of the FEDs or the Bank of Japans UNPRECEDENTED Monetary actions that have by design suprpressed yields down to nothing for the last EIGHT YEARS
And?There's NO MENTION of the fact that the FED now owns more US debt ( 66% more ) than China or any mention of China's unloading of US Treasuries.
Grant may be a moron, I never said I agreed with everything in his piece.There's also nothing " remarkable " about the lack of inflation after QE increased the money supply. Grant may think its " remarkable " but he also thinks our interest rate is a function of " investor trust "
Yes, we need fiscal stimulus.Monetary stimulus doesn't create demand for consumer credit. It doesn't incentivize new private sector growth and it doesn't instill " trust " in the American dollar.
Where?
Huh?
Huh?
You mean returns on bonds? Bonds aren't meant to be profitable, investors don't care.
And?
http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
Russia also dumped treasuries at some point if I recall, we felt no effects. Boo-hoo.
Grant may be a moron, I never said I agreed with everything in his piece.
Yes, we need fiscal stimulus.
While the Fed is not going to ignore the banks, they don't take their marching orders from the banks, either.Don't forget that crap about the Fed being a creation of Congress. That's utter B/S! It's a creation of the major banking interests who control it.
1) Low rates of inflation (2-5%) are beneficial for everyone, including John Q Citizen.Also, these "theories" intentionally ignore how the average citizen is affected by inflation. So the banks, big business, and our government are going to be okay? It's just John Q. Citizen who can't save or have any financial stability....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?