Saturday, September 24, 2011
Andrei... you've lost another submarine?
Another government shutdown??
I'll tell you the problem:
1. Republicans think the Federal debt is a result of Federal spending.
2. Democrats think the Federal debt is a result of Federal spending.
3. And you think the Federal debt is a result of Federal spending.
That's the problem. That, and the Federal debt is not the result of Federal spending. Debt is not the result of spending.
Debt is the result of credit use.
I'll tell you the problem:
1. U.S. economic policy fights inflation by removing money from circulation.
2. U.S. economic policy induces growth by encouraging the use of credit.
3. U.S. economic policy removes money from circulation and encourages credit use. And debt is the result of credit use.
We don't have all this debt because of spending. We have all this debt because of stupid ideas about money and stupid ideas about credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Federal Debt is simply the time summation of revenues - expenses. Credit use is a resultant not a cause.
You got this right, though: "Federal debt is not the result of Federal spending."
Federal debt is caused by revenue shortfalls directly resulting from insufficient taxation.
This is the clearly stated goal of Grover Norquist, and ever Rethug politician at the national level has signed a pledge to never, ever raise any kind of tax. Ever.
THAT is why WASF!
JzB
Art,
You left out the part about stupid ideas about taxes.
The advanced world is drowning in debt. Greece is at the end of the road, but other countries are not far behind.
According to the IMF, the average debt level in advanced countries is 100 percent of GDP.
The IMF on debt levels in advanced countries
The magnitude of the fiscal adjustment needed to return to sustainability is historically unprecedented.
Its a pure credit economy
Liminal, thanks, it is a great link.
If our economy looks like a "pure credit economy" this is the reason: U.S. economic policy removes money from circulation and encourages credit use.
It does not matter, as an economic consideration, whether money is "metallic" or paper or plastic. What matters is cost. Is there an interest cost associated with the use of the money, or is there not? From this distinction arises the difference between "money" and "credit".
Your linked site refers to "the evolution of the US monetary system into a pure credit economy during the 20th century." Evolution implies change. And the "credit-ness" of our economy DOES change. This is one of the things my Debt-per-Dollar graph shows. Empirically.
As the economy becomes more credit-based, the factor-cost of money rises relative to the factor-cost of labor and the factor-cost of capital. This happened in our economy, and it is why finance was the vibrant sector of our economy for a long time.
But the economy cannot survive on finance alone. Production is also needed. When financial costs hinder production, the troubles have begun.
The last paragraph of your link (before the hat-tip note) is pretty much exactly in line with my thinking. A "system of direct transfers" is equivalent to my "print money and use it to pay off debt." And the necessary "snap-back" to a more monetary economy appears three times in my debt-per-dollar graph. All we need is an appropriate policy to do it fast, quick, and easy.
you'll find that macroresilience.com is a treasure trove of quality, sensible big picture analysis.
that said, in this instance I don't agree with ashwin about his conclusions, and I'll do a post about that soon.
BTW, you ought to also read the paper by that swedish guy that is linked in ashwin's post - it'll be worth your while.
Art,
You might be interested in Yamaguchi's paper - Workings of A Public Money System of Open Macroeconomies
It models the NEED act HR 2990 introduced by Kucinich in the 112th congress
I think you will like what it says
Post a Comment