for those that think we can just print our way out of debt...

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, Jul 7, 2017.

  1. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is sooo much wrong here.....


    You can't "print" your way out of debt in this economy. It's literally impossible.

    When the Treasury creates $1, that dollar is offset by $1 in debt. Creating $20 trillion dollars would increase the debt to $40 trillion.

    You can't create the dollar without the debt. Chocolate chip cookies without the chocolate chips aren't chocolate chip cookies. Dollars created without debt, aren't dollars. Unless your plan is to fundamentally change the way the system works.



    I'm guessing you are assuming that increasing the number of dollars automatically creates inflation. That's not how inflation is calculated. Inflation is based on the rate of change of the price of goods and services, not on the number of dollars in existence.

    But let's say the Treasury created $20 trillion dollars, just by printing up the dollars, not by selling securities and it didn't record the $20 trillion it created as a debt. Then it used the $20 trillion to repay all the treasury securities in existence.

    So....

    This is a screen cap from the daily Treasury statement from June 17:
    [​IMG]


    See the part that I've highlighted?

    If you created dollars and used them to repay the debt, those $5.4 trillion dollars would vanish. They literally would cease to exist. The government, in order to create those dollars, went -$5.4 trillion, thus adding $5.4 trillion would equal zero meaning that money would vanish.

    Now if you held a $1 treasury and the government used its newly printed money to buy it back Treasuries in circulation (the measure of "debt"), the government would simply convert treasury liabilities into dollars, adding $14.1 trillion dollars to the economy, a net gain of $9 trillion.

    Thus the government would be "debt free" and the economy would gain $8 trillion dollars ($28t).

    Given the fact that the economy added about that much between 2008 through today, if you phased in that $9 trillion over 8 years, I doubt you see much inflation at all. Certainly NOTHING like the 2000% you predict.

    Remember that after repaying itself (which would result in the destruction of $5.4 trillion), the private sector would hold $14 trillion. If your government added $14 trillion more to the economy to pay off outstanding Treasuries, $14t+$14t=$28t not $40t

    See, here you want it both ways.

    You want to create money independent of the debt obligation that backs it (all money is created from debt), then you want to claim that the government has to borrow from the private sector and would therefore be subject to interest rates.

    Your premise contradicts itself.


    All of this is based on your misunderstanding of what debt acctually is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  2. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Neither.....

    Since holding a dollar gives you no claim whatsoever on the assets held by the US government or the Fed, unquestioningly, the value of the dollar is based only what you can buy in US dollars relative to how hard they are to acquire.

    Again, you are looking only at the asset side. The Fed has liabilities as well, subtract the two and you get the Fed's acctual capital:

    [​IMG]

    The deficit is the difference between what the government collects in revenues and what it spends. The Fed does not "buy it up". The Fed has purchased trillions in private sector debt, not public sector debt (see the portion in the budget statement above that says "mortgage backed securities").
     
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More importantly see the portion in the budget statement above it says US government securities .
     
  4. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I rethought this and I'm totally wrong. I said that creating $20 trillion to repay $20 trillion would create $40 trillion in debt. That's not correct.

    First, the government holds $5.4 trillion already, so repaying $5.4 trillion with another $5.4 trillion wouldn't change the amount owed that the government holds itself. All it would do is shift who owes the money internally from whatever agency had the debt to the US Treasury.

    As evidenced by the treasury statement above, the non-government holds $14.2 trillion. Assuming everyone that held treasuries agreed to sell them, the government's intragovernmental holdings would increase by $14 trillion to $20 trillion. What would change is who holds the debt. ALL debt would become non-government debt. The government would literally owe $20 trillion to itself.

    But, more interestingly, I've always maintained that Treasuries sold to the US private sector aren't to fund the government but prevent inflation. This exercise proves that point. If the government purchased back all gov debt than the private sec would lose all the treasures it held and in its place would be $14 trillion dollars.

    Given that most people hold treasuries as a vehicle for savings, I'd guess that the markets would look for other places to save causing MASSIVE asset, stock, and other investments to inflate wildly.
     
  5. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually if the govt printed $14 trillion it would cause inflation; if they taxed it it would not. Econ 101
     
  6. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You still have no credibility James. You make wild claims and are unwilling to substantiate them when asked. Do I need to post the screenshots again?
     
  7. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not wild claim: If the govt printed $14 trillion it would cause inflation; if they taxed it it would not. Econ 101
     
  8. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said that was a problem, in fact it is the benefit of a fiat currency. All of us labor under illusions created over time that money represents an intrinsic value by itself. It comes from our collective myopia about fiat currency. Fiat currency is the reason why we have so much wealth today. The creation of money through lending is the key to increasing wealth for those who issue the debt. Those who owe the debt must have offsetting income in order to be solvent. That income is again ultimately sourced by someone's debt. It may seem like an asset to you but in the macro economy, every asset ends up having a corresponding liability somewhere down the line. Double entry accounting folks, we cannot escape it.
     
  9. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wonderful example. Say the government created 14 trillion in dollars by not issuing any debt instruments at all, they just "printed" it in the fashion most of us think it is done. We would have an extra 14 trillion instantly. Now say they gave it to me and then slapped me with a 100% tax. It would magically disappear the second they taxed it and I paid it. The net affect would be zero. But what if during the interim I took a loan out with Vinnie the Shark for 14 trillion backed by that 14 trillion the government gave me. I would owe Vinnie interest plus principal. But after paying the tax, I no longer have the 14 trillion let alone money to pay the interest. But I bought 500 Mar Lagos with that loan Vinnie gave me so I sell them all for 15 trillion, pay Vinnie the principal and 1 trillion in interest and again the net affect on the macro money supply is zero. I got the extra trillion from my savings account. Or I find another source of money to pay Vinnie, keep the 500 Mar Lagos but the source I used was my savings and stocks. I liquidated everything but the 500 Mar Lagos and paid off Vinnie. Again, the macro event is a wash. Just keep doing this over and over again until you find the ultimate source for all the money and as the MMT folks keep saying, it all starts with the government making money and then spending it or giving it away while demanding we pay them in taxes using the same currency.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  10. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    total inane gibberish given that nobody is trying to escape it
     
  11. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    more total inane gibberish give that we have wealth because of so many new inventions
     
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    more inane gibberish given that govt does not disappear or burn money it taxes but rather spends it
     
  13. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    more totally inane gibberish as everyone on earth knows the govt is the ultimate source of money and inventors are the ultimate source of our always increasing standard of living. Do you understand now?
     
  14. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so???? and the govt buys and sells to prevent both inflation /deflation depending on monetary position at any point in time??
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand what you are trying to say here. However, if you think about it a little more, there is really nothing inconsistent about what I said. It's not one or the other, it's a little bit of both. The fact that the government would be trying to print its way out of debt does not preclude the fact that there is still U.S. debt in private hands that needs to periodically be reserviced. So to try to print it's way out of debt, the government (or rather the Fed) would need to take into account both at the same time. You can't just slowly start printing your way out of some debt without addressing private investors and how that debt (especially the more short-term debt) is going to be reserviced (i.e. who's going to buy it, and how much of a discount they will demand in light of the fact that they know there's going to be a high rate of inflation going on).

    To put it more basically, government having to borrow from the private sector would be rendered a non-issue if they tried to print their way out of debt all at once. Otherwise, the government still has to rely on the private sector as long as it has outstanding debt. (You do realize that Treasury debt has maturity dates?)
     

Share This Page