• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Economist Stephanie Kelton on The Deficit Myth

Governments can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in the currency that they issue.

I like the way you phrase that.

Some in this thread have been saying it another way, that there is zero possibility of default. That's not exactly true, as we know since the Republicans got our credit rating lowered by refusing to raise the "debt ceiling."

The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency, but it might inexplicably choose to default.
 
Governments can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in the currency that they issue.

I like the way you phrase that.

Some in this thread have been saying it another way, that there is zero possibility of default. That's not exactly true, as we know since the Republicans got our credit rating lowered by refusing to raise the "debt ceiling."

The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency, but it might inexplicably choose to default.

Yup. There's an important difference between can't pay and won't pay.
 
Governments can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in the currency that they issue.

I like the way you phrase that.

Some in this thread have been saying it another way, that there is zero possibility of default. That's not exactly true, as we know since the Republicans got our credit rating lowered by refusing to raise the "debt ceiling."

The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency, but it might inexplicably choose to default.
Actually that's not quite true since some of the debt instruments are inflation adjusted.
 
Governments can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in the currency that they issue.

I like the way you phrase that.

Some in this thread have been saying it another way, that there is zero possibility of default. That's not exactly true, as we know since the Republicans got our credit rating lowered by refusing to raise the "debt ceiling."

The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency, but it might inexplicably choose to default.
Actually that's not quite true since some of the debt instruments are inflation adjusted.

But none of them are adjusted for future inflation that may result from paying off the debt instruments.
 
Actually that's not quite true since some of the debt instruments are inflation adjusted.

But none of them are adjusted for future inflation that may result from paying off the debt instruments.
They are adjusted on the day of repayment, so yes, you have to convert it very quickly preferably in seconds.


So this statement is true: "The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency."
 
It's another legacy of the gold standard that interest paying securities accounts at the Fed (i.e. Treasuries) are not considered "money", but non-interest bearing reserve accounts (cash) are.

Because in the gold standard days, cash was backed by gold whereas Treasuries weren't.
 
Some in this thread have been saying it another way, that there is zero possibility of default. That's not exactly true, as we know since the Republicans got our credit rating lowered by refusing to raise the "debt ceiling."

The government can never be unable to pay a debt denominated in it's own currency, but it might inexplicably choose to default.

That was me and my mate Alan Greenspan :)

In our defense, we were both addressing the idea that increased govt debt means increased likelihood of default, spiking bond yields, bond vigilante apocalypse, dah-de-dah..

Of course the govt could choose to default but can never be forced to do so "in respect to obligations in its own currency". As (then) Fed Chairman, Big Al could say with some authority that the likelihood of voluntary default remained about zero.

If you have to spell out the whole gallimaufry in every post, it can get a bit long and wordy.
 
Borrowing and the printing press are two completely different means of obtaining money. You have to repay borrowing, there's nothing to repay with the printing press.


I notice that you didn't answer my question.

I was pointing out the difference, it seems to me that shows they are different!
 
Borrowing and the printing press are two completely different means of obtaining money. You have to repay borrowing, there's nothing to repay with the printing press.
They are NOT different in any important way IF YOU ARE A CURRENCY ISSUING GOVERNMENT.

The fundamental difference is the printing press increases the money supply, the bonds do not.

If they were the same you wouldn't see government issuing bonds, they would always just print. They don't do that because they see the difference.
 
Borrowing and the printing press are two completely different means of obtaining money. You have to repay borrowing, there's nothing to repay with the printing press.
They are NOT different in any important way IF YOU ARE A CURRENCY ISSUING GOVERNMENT.

The fundamental difference is the printing press increases the money supply, the bonds do not.

If they were the same you wouldn't see government issuing bonds, they would always just print. They don't do that because they see the difference.

They do that because it's not been changed since we went off the gold standard. Now it's a distinction without a difference.
 
Borrowing and the printing press are two completely different means of obtaining money. You have to repay borrowing, there's nothing to repay with the printing press.


I notice that you didn't answer my question.

I was pointing out the difference, it seems to me that shows they are different!


Seems to me you are stubbornly refusing to answer the question.

You said something that seemed incoherent to me. I've asked for clarification repeatedly. I suspected, eventually, that you're using a personal definition I'm not familiar with. Or maybe it's familiar to everyone but me.

I'm not even asking you to provide a definition; I'm providing the definition for you to either endorse or repudiate.

But you won't do it.

If you provided your definition, or endorsed or rejected the one I have provided for you, then I could go back and read the post I found confusing, see if it made sense now.

But you don't want to do that, and I'm losing interest.
 
I'm late to this thread and haven't read all 30 pages yet. I have a simple question none of my friends can answer about this (sorry if it has been covered here).

How come I still have to pay taxes if printing money is the way to go now. Everyone said the money printing in 2008 would cause hyper inflation and it didn't. Now they are doing it again as a casual response to people out of work. If the fed has a perpetual money printing machine that does not cause hyper inflation, why don't they use it to build roads and other infrastructure as well? And yes, why do I have to pay federal taxes now? They can just print what they need for the roads and other stuff and leave me alone. I would like that a lot.

Can anyone here answer that question?
 
I'm late to this thread and haven't read all 30 pages yet. I have a simple question none of my friends can answer about this (sorry if it has been covered here).

How come I still have to pay taxes if printing money is the way to go now. Everyone said the money printing in 2008 would cause hyper inflation and it didn't. Now they are doing it again as a casual response to people out of work. If the fed has a perpetual money printing machine that does not cause hyper inflation, why don't they use it to build roads and other infrastructure as well? And yes, why do I have to pay federal taxes now? They can just print what they need for the roads and other stuff and leave me alone. I would like that a lot.

Can anyone here answer that question?

Because taxes remove money from circulation. If the govt/central bank just spent it into circulation without removing it, there'd be too much of it in circulation and you'd get inflation, eventually hyperinflation.

No one's quite saying "printing money is the way to go now". Printing money is the reality, whether anyone likes it or not. Not because money grows on trees, but because it doesn't.
 
I'm late to this thread and haven't read all 30 pages yet. I have a simple question none of my friends can answer about this (sorry if it has been covered here).

How come I still have to pay taxes if printing money is the way to go now. Everyone said the money printing in 2008 would cause hyper inflation and it didn't. Now they are doing it again as a casual response to people out of work. If the fed has a perpetual money printing machine that does not cause hyper inflation, why don't they use it to build roads and other infrastructure as well? And yes, why do I have to pay federal taxes now? They can just print what they need for the roads and other stuff and leave me alone. I would like that a lot.

Can anyone here answer that question?

This is from 1946:
TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

by Beardsley Ruml
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
[...]
By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as “the avoidance of inflation”; and without the use of federal taxation all other means of stabilization, such as monetary policy and price controls and subsidies, are unavailing. All other means, in any case, must be integrated with federal tax policy if we are to have tomorrow a dollar which has a value near to what it has today.

The war has taught the government, and the government has taught the people, that federal taxation has much to do with inflation and deflation, with the prices which have to be paid for the things that are bought and sold. If federal taxes are insufficient or of the wrong kind, the purchasing power in the hands of the public is likely to be greater than the output of goods and services with which this purchasing demand can be satisfied. If the demand becomes too great, the result will be a rise in prices, and there will be no proportionate increase in the quantity of things for sale. This will mean that the dollar is worth less than it was before — that is inflation. On the other hand, if federal taxes are too heavy or are of the wrong kind, effective purchasing power in the hands of the public will be insufficient to take from the producers of goods and services all the things these producers would like to make. This will mean widespread unemployment.

The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.

To Distribute the Wealth

The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.

The third reason for federal taxes is to provide a subsidy for some industrial or economic interest. The most conspicuous example of these taxes is the tariffs on imports. Originally, taxes of this type were imposed to serve a double purpose since, a century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order to pay its bills. Today, tariffs on imports are no longer needed for revenue. These taxes are nothing more than devices to provide subsidies to selected industries; their social purpose is to provide a price floor above which a domestic industry can compete with goods which can be produced abroad and sold in this country more cheaply except for the tariff protection. The subsidy is paid, not at the port of entry where the imported goods are taxed, but in the higher price level for all goods of the same type produced and sold at home.

The fourth purpose served by federal taxes is to assess, directly and visibly, the costs of certain benefits. Such taxation is highly desirable in order to limit the benefits to amounts which the people who benefit are willing to pay. The most conspicuous examples of such measures are the social security benefits, old-age and unemployment insurance. The social purposes of giving such benefits and of assessing specific taxes to meet the costs are obvious. Unfortunately and unnecessarily, in both cases, the programs have involved staggering deflationary consequences as a result of the excess of current receipts over current disbursements.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/taxes-for-revenue-are-obsolete.html
 
Back
Top Bottom