Replying to Avatar DefiantDandelion

In reply to the Jared Bernstein video.

My understanding of what he should have been able to say:

The government prints money primarily to replace bills and coins in circulation. While It taxes and borrows money to finance government operations. When the government borrows (foreign or domestic) or taxes the public, the money is “coming from somewhere” and so the money supply is not as increased as if the government would finance itself with new money “coming from nowhere” by just printing it. When the government prints to finance operations, essentially every dollar spent is a new dollar and it dilutes the value of all other dollars in proportion to their existence in circulation. AND then when the government pays payroll or pays contracts, that money is put into banks by people and companies and additionally the fractional reserve banking system increases the money supply through the money multiplier effect. (Essentially the government debt held by a bank can then be used as collateral for loans to they bank which they can then loan out at an interest rate higher than the interest rate they are paying, which cascades into a number of other loans. So the loan then gets deposited and loaned again to some limit determined by the policies of the FED and market dynamics)

When the government finances from borrowing, the only inflation that occurs is from the money multiplier effect not on any direct increase in currency in circulation.

When the government finances purely from taxes therefore, no debt created, then there is no inflation.

Yes, but I can't wrap my head around this: how can a loan made of debt be taken seriously in economical context? How can people say: "lets accept loans from someone who is 32 trillion in debt". How

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Well, you would loan the amount if you think the return you will make on the loan compared to the risk of them not being able to pay it back is a good trade off.

Beyond that it’s individual preference but apparently there are still enough people buying bonds. However the credit worthiness has declined slightly from atleast two of the rating agencies I believe.

Yes but here is the thing: what are they paying with?

If Alice gets a loan from Charlie who is famous for being in -$32000000000000+ debt, how is Bob gonna accept that? What does he get from Alice? He gets a breath of fresh air because Alice has nothing to give, because how can Charlie lend money when she does not own any money?

The distinction exists between what debt is and what the unit of account is.

Debt is not negative dollars. (Negative units) it is a promise to pay someone something in the future. So even though Charlie has a debt of 32 trillion dollars (a promise to pay someone 32 trillion in the future) it isn’t the case that Charlie has 0 or a negative number of dollars in his checking account.

Specifically if Charlie gets a 32 trillion dollar loan, that means someone gives him 32 trillion dollars today in exchange for charlie’s promise to pay it back in the future. So unless Charlie has already spent the loan he should have 32 trillion dollars in his checking account.

What Charlie has to give out as a loan to Alice is a secondary question unrelated to what Charlie owes someone in the future.

And why would Bob accept Alice’s payment when it comes from Charlie who owes 32 trillion? Because Bob isn’t getting paid with a promise to be paid in the future backed by Charlie who is at risk of bankruptcy. Bob is getting cash from Alice who borrowed it from Charlie. Where did Charlie get the cash to give to Alice. Bob doesn’t know and doesn’t care. what he is getting from Alice is non revocable. Alice has borrowed from Charlie but given what she has borrowed to Bob. Alice might get her legs broke if she doesn’t pay Charlie back. That’s not Bob’s problem. And if Alice’s failure to pay Charlie causes Charlie to be unable to pay back a portion of his 32 trillion debt that’s not Bob’s problem. Does that make sense?

Yes thanks