Say, Looks Like That Supply-Side Stuff Works After All

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then why were you arguing that our federal government is in need of borrowing money or being funded by our tax dollars? Local and state governments are in need of being funded by taxes and the federal government, but Washington DC is the exclusive issuer of the USD, creating it ex-nihilo, it doesn't need to borrow money as we do as users of the currency. The fact that taxes serve to take money out of the economy (helping to regulate inflation and maintaining the value of the dollar), isn't equivalent to taxes funding our federal government nor does it reflect a need for taxes in the way right-wingers (and many Democrats as well) often erroneously assert.

Fearmongering about our federal government becoming insolvent or bankrupt is misleading at best.

Top Three National Infrastructural Priorities:
​

1) Manufacturing Renaissance & Automation:

Reindustrialization: Prioritize high-tech sectors including semiconductors, robotics, and advanced materials for a robust domestic manufacturing base.

Automated Production: Heavily invest in technology that automates production processes, from food harvesting robots to automated assembly lines, ensuring consistency, efficiency, and scale.

Vocational Training: Provide nationwide training programs focused on upskilling the workforce for the automated future.

Increase funding for Job-Corps and eliminate its age-cap, making all Americans eligible for training:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Tax and Trade Incentives: Create fiscal policies promoting domestic production, emphasizing "MADE IN THE USA" as a global hallmark.

​

2) Energy Revolution: Nuclear and Beyond:

Advanced Fission Reactors: Highlight that today's nuclear fission reactors are safe, efficient, and can provide the bulk of our electricity needs.
Micro-Modular Nuclear Reactors: Push for the deployment of these smaller, yet efficient reactors that can be situated closer to energy demand centers.
Fusion Energy Development: Allocate resources to expedite breakthroughs in fusion energy, aiming for a cleaner and nearly limitless energy future.

3) Transportation and Digital Infrastructure:

High-speed Rail and Broadband Expansion: Link cities with efficient rail systems and ensure nationwide high-speed internet access to democratize the digital economy.
Ports, Roads, and Airports: Modernize transportation hubs for improved safety and seamless economic activities.

Key Social and Policy Priorities:​

1. Healthcare for All:
   
   • Medicare for All/Single-Payer System: Design a universal healthcare system for comprehensive coverage.
   • National Health Service: Propose a government-operated health system with a parallel private sector, ensuring choice and widespread coverage.
2. Education and Employment Guarantee:
   
   • Economic Bill of Rights: Codify access to education, housing, and employment as human rights.
   • Vocational Training: Provide all-inclusive access to industry-aligned training and education.
   • University Education: Invest heavily in universities, emphasizing research, advanced degrees, and collaborations with industries to remain at the forefront of global academia.
   • Public Sector Employment: Assure job opportunities in the public sector as technology challenges traditional employment.
3. Housing for All:
   
   • Affordable Housing Initiatives: Drive efforts to create and renovate homes, ensuring universal housing access.
   • Homeless Rehabilitation: Integrate homeless individuals into society, especially those battling substance abuse, through rehab centers and sustained support.
4. Decriminalization & Substance Abuse Reform:
   
   • Rehab over Punishment: Pivot from incarceration to rehabilitation for those struggling with substance abuse.
   • Capital Crimes: Recognize transport and sale of extremely harmful drugs, such as Fentanyl, as major offenses, deterring their proliferation.
5. Robust Social Safety Net:
   
   • Craft protective measures for the working class, ensuring their welfare, especially in economic downturns.

Expanded Infrastructural and Policy Projects:​

1. Space Endeavors: Exploration and Manufacturing:
   
   • Space Factories: Foster facilities in space to manufacture unique materials, like highly-efficient batteries and specialized biotech products.
   • Orbital and Lunar Infrastructure: Initiate infrastructure projects for space exploration, research, and colonization, aiming for an interplanetary future. ,
2. Sea Colonization and Exploration:
   
   • Oceanic Habitats: Pioneer and maintain floating habitats, exploring new living conditions and opportunities in the oceans.
   • Deep-sea Exploration: Unlock the oceans' potential, focusing on sustainable resource extraction and research.
   • 
     
   • 
     
3. Sustainable and Green Infrastructure:
   
   • Renewable Energy Grids: Integrate wind, solar, and other green energy sources into the national grid.
   • Water Infrastructure: Modernize and expand systems for efficient water distribution, usage, and management.
4. Education, Research, and Technological Development:
   
   • Tech and Research Institutes: Champion specialized educational institutions focused on modern manufacturing, space sciences, and oceanography.
   • Public-Private Collaborations: Foster alliances with corporate innovators to co-drive the nation's technological advancement.
5. Disaster Preparedness and Response:
   
   • Safety Infrastructure: Establish robust structures and systems resilient to natural disasters, ensuring citizen safety and rapid response.
6. Reimagining Relations with Latin America:
   
   • Trade and Development: Terminate economic embargoes and collaborate on infrastructure projects, uplifting regional economies.
   • Non-interference Policy: Prioritize mutual respect, national sovereignty, and collaboration, moving away from interventionist practices.

All of the above will increase our GDP. It's an investment in our nation's future and success.

Then why were you arguing that our federal government is in need of borrowing money or being funded by our tax dollars?

Because they do need tax dollars and borrowing.
Saying they can print instead is just stupid.

The fact that taxes serve to take money out of the economy (helping to regulate inflation and maintaining the value of the dollar), isn't equivalent to taxes funding our federal government

They need to tax because 100% printing turns a currency into unusable shit.

Thanks for the list of "investments".

Now what about your secret ways to end inflation?

 

[Red Front]

Then why were you arguing that our federal government is in need of borrowing money or being funded by our tax dollars?

Because they do need tax dollars and borrowing.
Saying they can print instead is just stupid.

The fact that taxes serve to take money out of the economy (helping to regulate inflation and maintaining the value of the dollar), isn't equivalent to taxes funding our federal government

They need to tax because 100% printing turns a currency into unusable shit.

Thanks for the list of "investments".

Now what about your secret ways to end inflation?

Because they do need tax dollars and borrowing.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federal finance operates in the context of a nation with a sovereign currency. Let me help you:

1. Taxes and Federal Funding: The U.S. federal government, as the sole issuer of its currency, doesn't require tax revenue to fund its operations in the same way a household or a business does. It doesn't need revenue before it spends. Instead, taxes serve other purposes: they drive demand for the currency, help manage inflation, redistribute wealth, and incentivize or disincentivize certain behaviors in the economy.
2. Printing Money and Inflation: I never suggested the federal government should print money recklessly. Inflation occurs when demand outstrips supply. Therefore, spending that leads to productive investments, like infrastructure, can actually increase our productive capacity, ensuring that the supply side keeps up with the demand, and thereby not leading to hyperinflation or even any inflation, depending on what amount of inflation we're ready to tolerate and regulate. A bit of inflation isn't the end of the world, it's manageable (I prefer inflation to economic deflation).
3. Borrowing and Sovereign Currency: The notion of the federal government "borrowing" through the issuance of treasuries is different from how an individual, a business, or even a local government borrows. When the government issues bonds, it's not to "get dollars" to spend. The government can create dollars at will. Instead, bonds help manage the money supply and set interest rates. It's more of an operational tool rather than a financial necessity. Wake up.
4. Inflation Control without imposing taxes or selling bonds:

1. Interest Rate Adjustments: Central banks, like our Federal Reserve, can adjust the interest rates at which banks borrow money. By raising these rates, borrowing becomes more expensive, which can reduce the amount of money in circulation and dampen inflationary pressures.
2. Reserve Requirements: Central banks can modify the reserve requirements for commercial banks. By increasing the proportion of deposits that banks must hold in reserve, the amount of money available for lending can be reduced. This can lead to a reduction in the money supply and temper inflationary pressures.
3. Open Market Operations (Other than Treasury Bonds): While treasury bonds are the most common tool for open market operations, central banks can also use other instruments like repurchase agreements or foreign exchange interventions to influence the money supply.
4. Currency Appreciation: A stronger domestic currency can reduce inflation by making imported goods cheaper. Central banks can buy their own currency in the foreign exchange markets to drive up its value, thereby making imports less expensive and tempering inflation.
5. Wage and Price Controls: This is a direct intervention method where the government sets limits on how much wages and prices can rise. However, this method in a capitalist, for-profit system of production, can lead to supply shortages and black markets. It's typically used as a short-term measure in extreme cases.
6. Supply Side Policies: Governments can take steps to increase the supply of goods and services in the economy. This might involve removing regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure (my favorite), or providing incentives for businesses to increase production. By increasing the supply side of the economy, inflationary pressures can be mitigated.
7. Public Communication and Forward Guidance: Central banks can influence expectations about future inflation through communication strategies. By clearly communicating their intent to combat inflation and laying out their strategy, central banks can influence businesses' and consumers' behaviors, helping to anchor inflation expectations.
8. Capital Controls: By regulating or restricting the flow of capital in and out of a country, governments can influence demand for their currency and thereby influence inflation. For example, a country experiencing rapid inflation might restrict the amount of money that can be sent abroad to stabilize its currency's value.
9. Encouraging Savings: By promoting or incentivizing savings among the public (e.g., through special savings accounts or campaigns), the disposable income available for immediate consumption can be reduced, thereby curbing demand-pull inflation.

So as you can see, in a capitalist economy or "mixed economy", there are several methods that a government with a sovereign fiat currency can employ to control inflation. As a communist, I work toward heavy industrialization and technological innovation in production, which eventually renders all of the above financial instruments and capitalist market dynamics unnecessary and completely superfluous.

In essence, a nation with a sovereign fiat currency, like the U.S., operates under different financial mechanics than entities within its borders (consumers, users of its currency). The key is understanding the actual constraints, which are real resources and productive capacity, rather than arbitrary budget numbers (which right-wingers like you emphasize out of ignorance and hatred for anything that reminds you of socialism). Investing in areas that expand our productive capacity ensures that we use our sovereign currency capability wisely and productively. We have more than enough money for Social Security, Medicare..etc, so give the fearmongering a break. Relax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federal finance operates in the context of a nation with a sovereign currency. Let me help you:

1. Taxes and Federal Funding: The U.S. federal government, as the sole issuer of its currency, doesn't require tax revenue to fund its operations in the same way a household or a business does. It doesn't need revenue before it spends. Instead, taxes serve other purposes: they drive demand for the currency, help manage inflation, redistribute wealth, and incentivize or disincentivize certain behaviors in the economy.
2. Printing Money and Inflation: I never suggested the federal government should print money recklessly. Inflation occurs when demand outstrips supply. Therefore, spending that leads to productive investments, like infrastructure, can actually increase our productive capacity, ensuring that the supply side keeps up with the demand, and thereby not leading to hyperinflation or even any inflation, depending on what amount of inflation we're ready to tolerate and regulate. A bit of inflation isn't the end of the world, it's manageable (I prefer inflation to economic deflation).
3. Borrowing and Sovereign Currency: The notion of the federal government "borrowing" through the issuance of treasuries is different from how an individual, a business, or even a local government borrows. When the government issues bonds, it's not to "get dollars" to spend. The government can create dollars at will. Instead, bonds help manage the money supply and set interest rates. It's more of an operational tool rather than a financial necessity. Wake up.
4. Inflation Control without imposing taxes or selling bonds:

1. Interest Rate Adjustments: Central banks, like our Federal Reserve, can adjust the interest rates at which banks borrow money. By raising these rates, borrowing becomes more expensive, which can reduce the amount of money in circulation and dampen inflationary pressures.
2. Reserve Requirements: Central banks can modify the reserve requirements for commercial banks. By increasing the proportion of deposits that banks must hold in reserve, the amount of money available for lending can be reduced. This can lead to a reduction in the money supply and temper inflationary pressures.
3. Open Market Operations (Other than Treasury Bonds): While treasury bonds are the most common tool for open market operations, central banks can also use other instruments like repurchase agreements or foreign exchange interventions to influence the money supply.
4. Currency Appreciation: A stronger domestic currency can reduce inflation by making imported goods cheaper. Central banks can buy their own currency in the foreign exchange markets to drive up its value, thereby making imports less expensive and tempering inflation.
5. Wage and Price Controls: This is a direct intervention method where the government sets limits on how much wages and prices can rise. However, this method in a capitalist, for-profit system of production, can lead to supply shortages and black markets. It's typically used as a short-term measure in extreme cases.
6. Supply Side Policies: Governments can take steps to increase the supply of goods and services in the economy. This might involve removing regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure (my favorite), or providing incentives for businesses to increase production. By increasing the supply side of the economy, inflationary pressures can be mitigated.
7. Public Communication and Forward Guidance: Central banks can influence expectations about future inflation through communication strategies. By clearly communicating their intent to combat inflation and laying out their strategy, central banks can influence businesses' and consumers' behaviors, helping to anchor inflation expectations.
8. Capital Controls: By regulating or restricting the flow of capital in and out of a country, governments can influence demand for their currency and thereby influence inflation. For example, a country experiencing rapid inflation might restrict the amount of money that can be sent abroad to stabilize its currency's value.
9. Encouraging Savings: By promoting or incentivizing savings among the public (e.g., through special savings accounts or campaigns), the disposable income available for immediate consumption can be reduced, thereby curbing demand-pull inflation.

So as you can see, in a capitalist economy or "mixed economy", there are several methods that a government with a sovereign fiat currency can employ to control inflation. As a communist, I work toward heavy industrialization and technological innovation in production, which eventually renders all of the above financial instruments and capitalist market dynamics unnecessary and completely superfluous.

In essence, a nation with a sovereign fiat currency, like the U.S., operates under different financial mechanics than entities within its borders (consumers, users of its currency). The key is understanding the actual constraints, which are real resources and productive capacity, rather than arbitrary budget numbers (which right-wingers like you emphasize out of ignorance and hatred for anything that reminds you of socialism). Investing in areas that expand our productive capacity ensures that we use our sovereign currency capability wisely and productively. We have more than enough money for Social Security, Medicare..etc, so give the fearmongering a break. Relax.

The U.S. federal government, as the sole issuer of its currency, doesn't require tax revenue to fund its operations in the same way a household or a business does. It doesn't need revenue before it spends.

Right. But it does need revenue at some point.
Wait, that is kind of like a household. LOL!

I never suggested the federal government should print money recklessly.

And I never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received.

Therefore, spending that leads to productive investments, like infrastructure, can actually increase our productive capacity, ensuring that the supply side keeps up with the demand, and thereby not leading to hyperinflation or even any inflation, depending on what amount of inflation we're ready to tolerate and regulate.

A little bit, sometimes, with a lag. You'll never get so much increased production from a trillion in printed money spending to have zero impact on inflation.

When the government issues bonds, it's not to "get dollars" to spend. The government can create dollars at will.

Of course, it's to "get dollars" Creating dollars at will instead of issuing bonds is stupid and no one would ever suggest it.

It's more of an operational tool rather than a financial necessity.

An operational tool that is also a financial necessity.

Supply Side Policies: Governments can take steps to increase the supply of goods and services in the economy. This might involve removing regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure (my favorite), or providing incentives for businesses to increase production. By increasing the supply side of the economy, inflationary pressures can be mitigated.

Supply side is awesome!
The government can print money to pay for stuff and counteract the inflationary impact by providing incentives for businesses to increase production ... cutting taxes!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have more than enough money for Social Security, Medicare..etc, so give the fearmongering a break. Relax.

Exactly! We should feel free to print to pay for Social Security because the government
is going to increase our output with smart government spending.

LOL!

 

[Red Front]

The U.S. federal government, as the sole issuer of its currency, doesn't require tax revenue to fund its operations in the same way a household or a business does. It doesn't need revenue before it spends.

Right. But it does need revenue at some point.
Wait, that is kind of like a household. LOL!

I never suggested the federal government should print money recklessly.

And I never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received.

Therefore, spending that leads to productive investments, like infrastructure, can actually increase our productive capacity, ensuring that the supply side keeps up with the demand, and thereby not leading to hyperinflation or even any inflation, depending on what amount of inflation we're ready to tolerate and regulate.

A little bit, sometimes, with a lag. You'll never get so much increased production from a trillion in printed money spending to have zero impact on inflation.

When the government issues bonds, it's not to "get dollars" to spend. The government can create dollars at will.

Of course, it's to "get dollars" Creating dollars at will instead of issuing bonds is stupid and no one would ever suggest it.

It's more of an operational tool rather than a financial necessity.

An operational tool that is also a financial necessity.

Supply Side Policies: Governments can take steps to increase the supply of goods and services in the economy. This might involve removing regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure (my favorite), or providing incentives for businesses to increase production. By increasing the supply side of the economy, inflationary pressures can be mitigated.

Supply side is awesome!
The government can print money to pay for stuff and counteract the inflationary impact by providing incentives for businesses to increase production ... cutting taxes!!!

On the need for revenue:

Todd, the core distinction I'm making here is that the U.S. federal government, as the issuer of the currency, doesn't rely on revenue the way a household does. When we say it doesn't need revenue before it spends, we're highlighting the sequencing. The government spends new money into the economy first, which can then be collected back as taxes. In fact, without government spending, there wouldn't be any dollars in the economy to collect as taxes in the first place.

---

On the claim about tax dollars:

It's interesting you mention that you never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received. Yet, you frequently ask, "How are we going to pay for it?" when discussing social projects. This gives the impression that you believe the government is financially constrained like a household. If we understand that the government doesn't require tax revenue upfront to spend, then the primary question should be about the real resources available and the potential inflationary impact of spending, not about the "funding" per se.

---

On infrastructure and inflation:

Infrastructure investments, especially when there's unused capacity in the economy, can lead to significant increases in productivity. The idea isn't that every dollar spent will directly negate inflation, but rather that strategic spending can facilitate economic growth without necessarily causing inflation. The goal is to ensure that demand doesn't vastly outstrip supply, which is where inflationary pressures generally come from.

---

On issuing bonds vs. creating dollars:

Bonds are issued more for the purpose of managing the monetary policy (like controlling the interest rate) than for "funding" government spending. By selling bonds, the government can drain excess reserves from the banking system, which supports the target interest rate set by the central bank. It's not about needing the money from bonds to spend.

---

On supply-side policies:

I'm glad we can find some common ground on the benefits of supply-side policies! However, it's essential to note that "supply-side economics" as practiced in the Reagan era (often termed "Reaganomics") is not the sole approach to enhancing the supply side. Improving infrastructure, education, and technology can all bolster productive capacity. And while tax cuts can stimulate business investment, they're not the only, or always the best, tool for every economic situation.

---

On taxes:

I'm not against tax cuts per se. The perspective I'm coming from is that taxes serve particular purposes: they can regulate demand to prevent inflation, they can be used to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, and they help to ensure the currency's demand. However, the federal government doesn't need taxes to "fund" its operations in the conventional sense. Taxes play a different role in a fiat currency system than in, say, a gold-standard system.

---

It's crucial to understand these nuances. The way we think about federal finances can profoundly impact the policies we advocate for and the kind of society we end up building.

 

[Red Front]

Exactly! We should feel free to print to pay for Social Security because the government
is going to increase our output with smart government spending.

LOL!

No one is suggesting that the government should simply print money recklessly for programs like Social Security or Medicare. The idea is that a sovereign government like the U.S., which issues its own currency, isn't financially constrained in the same way a household or business is.

It's about understanding the real limits of our economy: Do we have the real resources (doctors, nurses, medical equipment, etc.) to provide healthcare? Do we have the productive capacity to meet the demands of the population? If the answer is yes, then the government can fund these programs without causing inflation.

The fear often stems from misunderstanding the nature of government deficits and the role of taxes. A deficit for the government is a surplus for the private sector. And in the context of Social Security and Medicare, these are investments in our citizenry, ensuring they have a decent quality of life and access to essential services.

So, instead of boiling the conversation down to a simplistic notion of "printing money," it's more productive to discuss how best to manage our economy's real resources and capacity to serve the population effectively.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On the need for revenue:

Todd, the core distinction I'm making here is that the U.S. federal government, as the issuer of the currency, doesn't rely on revenue the way a household does. When we say it doesn't need revenue before it spends, we're highlighting the sequencing. The government spends new money into the economy first, which can then be collected back as taxes. In fact, without government spending, there wouldn't be any dollars in the economy to collect as taxes in the first place.

---

On the claim about tax dollars:

It's interesting you mention that you never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received. Yet, you frequently ask, "How are we going to pay for it?" when discussing social projects. This gives the impression that you believe the government is financially constrained like a household. If we understand that the government doesn't require tax revenue upfront to spend, then the primary question should be about the real resources available and the potential inflationary impact of spending, not about the "funding" per se.

---

On infrastructure and inflation:

Infrastructure investments, especially when there's unused capacity in the economy, can lead to significant increases in productivity. The idea isn't that every dollar spent will directly negate inflation, but rather that strategic spending can facilitate economic growth without necessarily causing inflation. The goal is to ensure that demand doesn't vastly outstrip supply, which is where inflationary pressures generally come from.

---

On issuing bonds vs. creating dollars:

Bonds are issued more for the purpose of managing the monetary policy (like controlling the interest rate) than for "funding" government spending. By selling bonds, the government can drain excess reserves from the banking system, which supports the target interest rate set by the central bank. It's not about needing the money from bonds to spend.

---

On supply-side policies:

I'm glad we can find some common ground on the benefits of supply-side policies! However, it's essential to note that "supply-side economics" as practiced in the Reagan era (often termed "Reaganomics") is not the sole approach to enhancing the supply side. Improving infrastructure, education, and technology can all bolster productive capacity. And while tax cuts can stimulate business investment, they're not the only, or always the best, tool for every economic situation.

---

On taxes:

I'm not against tax cuts per se. The perspective I'm coming from is that taxes serve particular purposes: they can regulate demand to prevent inflation, they can be used to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, and they help to ensure the currency's demand. However, the federal government doesn't need taxes to "fund" its operations in the conventional sense. Taxes play a different role in a fiat currency system than in, say, a gold-standard system.

---

It's crucial to understand these nuances. The way we think about federal finances can profoundly impact the policies we advocate for and the kind of society we end up building.

Todd, the core distinction I'm making here is that the U.S. federal government, as the issuer of the currency, doesn't rely on revenue the way a household does.

Right. But it still relies on revenue in a different way than a household.



It's interesting you mention that you never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received. Yet, you frequently ask, "How are we going to pay for it?" when discussing social projects.

Spending $1 trillion now, because you printed it, and then collecting the taxes a week, a month or a year later doesn't make today's spending magically better.

Wasted money is wasted money. Wasting it after printing it is also inflationary.

This gives the impression that you believe the government is financially constrained like a household.

Not at all. They could print all they want.
Until people decide they just won't hold or use dollars.

Infrastructure investments, especially when there's unused capacity in the economy, can lead to significant increases in productivity.

Most infrastructure investments have significant waste and tiny increases in productivity.

Bonds are issued more for the purpose of managing the monetary policy (like controlling the interest rate) than for "funding" government spending.

Baloney

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one is suggesting that the government should simply print money recklessly for programs like Social Security or Medicare. The idea is that a sovereign government like the U.S., which issues its own currency, isn't financially constrained in the same way a household or business is.

It's about understanding the real limits of our economy: Do we have the real resources (doctors, nurses, medical equipment, etc.) to provide healthcare? Do we have the productive capacity to meet the demands of the population? If the answer is yes, then the government can fund these programs without causing inflation.

The fear often stems from misunderstanding the nature of government deficits and the role of taxes. A deficit for the government is a surplus for the private sector. And in the context of Social Security and Medicare, these are investments in our citizenry, ensuring they have a decent quality of life and access to essential services.

So, instead of boiling the conversation down to a simplistic notion of "printing money," it's more productive to discuss how best to manage our economy's real resources and capacity to serve the population effectively.

No one is suggesting that the government should simply print money recklessly for programs like Social Security or Medicare.

When you say "they don't rely on tax revenue", that's exactly what it sounds like you're suggesting.

The idea is that a sovereign government like the U.S., which issues its own currency, isn't financially constrained in the same way a household or business is.
I don't think anyone says a household or business can print currency like
the US can.
It's about understanding the real limits of our economy: Do we have the real resources (doctors, nurses, medical equipment, etc.) to provide healthcare? Do we have the productive capacity to meet the demands of the population? If the answer is yes, then the government can fund these programs without causing inflation.
How much of US GDP is healthcare? More than $4 trillion?
Does that mean the government should print $4 trillion to provide healthcare?

A deficit for the government is a surplus for the private sector.
Cool story. So, should we have a $100 trillion deficit? No downside, right?
So, instead of boiling the conversation down to a simplistic notion of "printing money," it's more productive to discuss how best to manage our economy's real resources and capacity to serve the population effectively.

And you're happy to have the government manage it.

 

[Red Front]

Todd, the core distinction I'm making here is that the U.S. federal government, as the issuer of the currency, doesn't rely on revenue the way a household does.

Right. But it still relies on revenue in a different way than a household.



It's interesting you mention that you never suggested the government can only spend after tax dollars are received. Yet, you frequently ask, "How are we going to pay for it?" when discussing social projects.

Spending $1 trillion now, because you printed it, and then collecting the taxes a week, a month or a year later doesn't make today's spending magically better.

Wasted money is wasted money. Wasting it after printing it is also inflationary.

This gives the impression that you believe the government is financially constrained like a household.

Not at all. They could print all they want.
Until people decide they just won't hold or use dollars.

Infrastructure investments, especially when there's unused capacity in the economy, can lead to significant increases in productivity.

Most infrastructure investments have significant waste and tiny increases in productivity.

Bonds are issued more for the purpose of managing the monetary policy (like controlling the interest rate) than for "funding" government spending.

Baloney

Todd

1. Regarding the Reliance on Revenue: You've pointed out that the federal government relies on revenue in a different way than a household. I'm not disputing that taxes have their place, but it's crucial to understand the nature of that place. The federal government doesn't require tax revenue to commence spending; it, in fact, spends first, which then injects money into the economy. Taxes then serve to regulate that money supply and address inflation. It's a balancing act, and it's different from the notion of a government "earning" before it spends.
2. On Spending and Taxes: Your assertion about spending $1 trillion and then collecting taxes afterward misses the point. The government doesn't spend money and then hunts for the exact amount later through taxes. Instead, it evaluates the real productive capacity of the economy.
3. Waste and Inflation: Not all government and private sector spending is efficient. However, the idea that most infrastructure investments lead to "significant waste and tiny increases in productivity" is simply false. Our country wouldn't have become the industrial giant it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, if not for government spending in our nation's infrastructure. Properly managed and thought-out infrastructure projects have lasting economic benefits. And no, not all government spending is automatically inflationary. Inflation arises when demand outpaces supply. If the spending leads to an increase in productive capacity (e.g., infrastructure that improves logistics), it balances out demand.
4. On the Role of Bonds: Bonds do serve as tools for monetary policy. By offering bonds, the government provides a safe asset for investors and also drains reserves from the banking system, which can influence interest rates. This isn't "baloney" but a fundamental aspect of modern macroeconomic operations.

The USD isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future:

• Legal Tender Laws: U.S. federal law recognizes the dollar as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. This means if someone owes you money or if you owe someone else, the debt can be legally satisfied with U.S. dollars. Refusing dollars as payment in these contexts is tantamount to waiving the debt.
• Taxation in Dollars: The U.S. government requires taxes to be paid in U.S. dollars. This, in itself, creates a constant demand for the currency. Every entity, be it an individual, business, or corporation, needs dollars to settle its tax obligations.
• Domestic Economic Structure: The entire U.S. economic structure is built around the dollar. Salaries, pensions, benefits, savings – everything operates in dollars. This deeply embedded system ensures a continued demand for the currency.
• Banking Regulations: U.S. banking and financial regulations mandate that most domestic transactions, including all official ones, be conducted in dollars. This means for the vast majority of economic activities, from buying a house to investing in stocks, the dollar is not just preferred – it's often the only option.
• Global Financial Systems: Beyond its status as a reserve currency, the U.S. has significant influence over global financial institutions and systems. Swift, the system used for international money and security transfers, is heavily influenced by the U.S. Any country or entity trying to move away from the dollar faces not only economic but also political repercussions.
• Trust and Stability: The dollar represents the economic and political stability of the U.S. It's not just about paper bills or digits in a bank account. It's a representation of trust in the U.S. government, its institutions, and its rule of law. Even during global crises, investors flock to the dollar as a safe haven, not just because it's the reserve currency, but because of the trust it commands.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd

1. Regarding the Reliance on Revenue: You've pointed out that the federal government relies on revenue in a different way than a household. I'm not disputing that taxes have their place, but it's crucial to understand the nature of that place. The federal government doesn't require tax revenue to commence spending; it, in fact, spends first, which then injects money into the economy. Taxes then serve to regulate that money supply and address inflation. It's a balancing act, and it's different from the notion of a government "earning" before it spends.
2. On Spending and Taxes: Your assertion about spending $1 trillion and then collecting taxes afterward misses the point. The government doesn't spend money and then hunts for the exact amount later through taxes. Instead, it evaluates the real productive capacity of the economy.
3. Waste and Inflation: Not all government and private sector spending is efficient. However, the idea that most infrastructure investments lead to "significant waste and tiny increases in productivity" is simply false. Our country wouldn't have become the industrial giant it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, if not for government spending in our nation's infrastructure. Properly managed and thought-out infrastructure projects have lasting economic benefits. And no, not all government spending is automatically inflationary. Inflation arises when demand outpaces supply. If the spending leads to an increase in productive capacity (e.g., infrastructure that improves logistics), it balances out demand.
4. On the Role of Bonds: Bonds do serve as tools for monetary policy. By offering bonds, the government provides a safe asset for investors and also drains reserves from the banking system, which can influence interest rates. This isn't "baloney" but a fundamental aspect of modern macroeconomic operations.

The USD isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future:

• Legal Tender Laws: U.S. federal law recognizes the dollar as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. This means if someone owes you money or if you owe someone else, the debt can be legally satisfied with U.S. dollars. Refusing dollars as payment in these contexts is tantamount to waiving the debt.
• Taxation in Dollars: The U.S. government requires taxes to be paid in U.S. dollars. This, in itself, creates a constant demand for the currency. Every entity, be it an individual, business, or corporation, needs dollars to settle its tax obligations.
• Domestic Economic Structure: The entire U.S. economic structure is built around the dollar. Salaries, pensions, benefits, savings – everything operates in dollars. This deeply embedded system ensures a continued demand for the currency.
• Banking Regulations: U.S. banking and financial regulations mandate that most domestic transactions, including all official ones, be conducted in dollars. This means for the vast majority of economic activities, from buying a house to investing in stocks, the dollar is not just preferred – it's often the only option.
• Global Financial Systems: Beyond its status as a reserve currency, the U.S. has significant influence over global financial institutions and systems. Swift, the system used for international money and security transfers, is heavily influenced by the U.S. Any country or entity trying to move away from the dollar faces not only economic but also political repercussions.
• Trust and Stability: The dollar represents the economic and political stability of the U.S. It's not just about paper bills or digits in a bank account. It's a representation of trust in the U.S. government, its institutions, and its rule of law. Even during global crises, investors flock to the dollar as a safe haven, not just because it's the reserve currency, but because of the trust it commands.

Our country wouldn't have become the industrial giant it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, if not for government spending in our nation's infrastructure.

Yeah, infrastructure spending 200 years ago was much more important than "bridges to nowhere" are today. It's not even close.

How much growth is California going to see from their $9 billion high speed rail project?
I mean $30 billion....er....$60 billion. Wait, $88 billion. Or is it $128 billion?

Properly managed and thought-out infrastructure projects have lasting economic benefits.
And unneeded, wasteful projects don't have benefits.

Bonds do serve as tools for monetary policy.
Of the $23 plus trillion of net bond issuance since 2008, how much were
for monetary policy and how many were to finance federal spending?

U.S. federal law recognizes the dollar as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
That doesn't mean you have to hold them or use them for anything else.
It doesn't mean that foreigners have to use them.

This means if someone owes you money or if you owe someone else, the debt can be legally satisfied with U.S. dollars.
Venezuela probably has similar laws.
Doesn't mean they aren't using dollars instead.

The entire U.S. economic structure is built around the dollar. Salaries, pensions, benefits, savings – everything operates in dollars. This deeply embedded system ensures a continued demand for the currency.
It's true, too much printing is going to fuck over most Americans.

U.S. banking and financial regulations mandate that most domestic transactions, including all official ones, be conducted in dollars.

I'm sure there is no way that multinational organizations will structure transactions to avoid dollars if President AOC decides to fuck around and find out.

Even during global crises, investors flock to the dollar as a safe haven, not just because it's the reserve currency, but because of the trust it commands.

Such trust is not unlimited.

 

[Red Front]

No one is suggesting that the government should simply print money recklessly for programs like Social Security or Medicare.

When you say "they don't rely on tax revenue", that's exactly what it sounds like you're suggesting.

The idea is that a sovereign government like the U.S., which issues its own currency, isn't financially constrained in the same way a household or business is.
I don't think anyone says a household or business can print currency like
the US can.
It's about understanding the real limits of our economy: Do we have the real resources (doctors, nurses, medical equipment, etc.) to provide healthcare? Do we have the productive capacity to meet the demands of the population? If the answer is yes, then the government can fund these programs without causing inflation.
How much of US GDP is healthcare? More than $4 trillion?
Does that mean the government should print $4 trillion to provide healthcare?

A deficit for the government is a surplus for the private sector.
Cool story. So, should we have a $100 trillion deficit? No downside, right?
So, instead of boiling the conversation down to a simplistic notion of "printing money," it's more productive to discuss how best to manage our economy's real resources and capacity to serve the population effectively.

And you're happy to have the government manage it.

Todd,

When I mention the government's unique relationship with its currency, I'm not suggesting a free-for-all printing bonanza.

Regarding your contention that by saying "they don't rely on tax revenue," it sounds like reckless money printing. I understand the apprehension, but it's a bit of a leap. The U.S. government's ability to issue currency provides it with flexibility, not an invitation to be imprudent.

You mention healthcare's significant portion of the GDP. True, it's a significant expense. However, many countries with universal healthcare models manage to deliver healthcare more efficiently and at a lower cost per capita than the U.S. So, when discussing Medicare for All or similar programs, the idea isn't about the government printing the entire GDP equivalent but about creating a more efficient, equitable system that may, in fact, cost less overall. As for other countries managing it, remember that economies of scale, reduced administrative overheads, and negotiated pricing can make national healthcare programs more cost-effective than our fragmented system.

Having a healthy workforce also increases GDP.

Your comment on a "$100 trillion deficit" is a hyperbolic take. No one is suggesting such an extreme. However, when discussing the national deficit, it's crucial to understand it in context. A government deficit, in macroeconomic terms, does mean a private sector surplus. It's a straightforward accounting identity. This isn't a "cool story"; it's how macroeconomic balances work.

Now, about the national debt. It's a misrepresentation to equate it to household debt. Households have to pay back their debts or face consequences. In contrast, the national "debt" is more a tally of issued currency not yet returned to the government through taxes. It's not a burden on future generations; instead, it represents assets in the private sector. And where there's debt, there's an equivalent asset. It's essential to see both sides of the balance sheet.

Lastly, on the matter of government management: It's not about blind trust in the government versus the private sector. It's about recognizing that certain sectors, like healthcare or infrastructure, often involve significant externalities, market failures, or public goods that the free market alone doesn't adequately address. A democratic government, accountable to its citizens, plays a vital role in ensuring the broader public interest is served. This doesn't discount the importance of the private sector in a capitalist-market economy like ours but emphasizes collaboration for the common good.

 

[Red Front]

Our country wouldn't have become the industrial giant it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, if not for government spending in our nation's infrastructure.

Yeah, infrastructure spending 200 years ago was much more important than "bridges to nowhere" are today. It's not even close.

How much growth is California going to see from their $9 billion high speed rail project?
I mean $30 billion....er....$60 billion. Wait, $88 billion. Or is it $128 billion?

Properly managed and thought-out infrastructure projects have lasting economic benefits.
And unneeded, wasteful projects don't have benefits.

Bonds do serve as tools for monetary policy.
Of the $23 plus trillion of net bond issuance since 2008, how much were
for monetary policy and how many were to finance federal spending?

U.S. federal law recognizes the dollar as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
That doesn't mean you have to hold them or use them for anything else.
It doesn't mean that foreigners have to use them.

This means if someone owes you money or if you owe someone else, the debt can be legally satisfied with U.S. dollars.
Venezuela probably has similar laws.
Doesn't mean they aren't using dollars instead.

The entire U.S. economic structure is built around the dollar. Salaries, pensions, benefits, savings – everything operates in dollars. This deeply embedded system ensures a continued demand for the currency.
It's true, too much printing is going to fuck over most Americans.

U.S. banking and financial regulations mandate that most domestic transactions, including all official ones, be conducted in dollars.

I'm sure there is no way that multinational organizations will structure transactions to avoid dollars if President AOC decides to fuck around and find out.

Even during global crises, investors flock to the dollar as a safe haven, not just because it's the reserve currency, but because of the trust it commands.

Such trust is not unlimited.

On Infrastructure Spending in the 19th and 20th Centuries:

While it's true that the nature of essential infrastructure has evolved, the principle remains the same. Critical infrastructure spending drives economic growth, facilitates commerce, and improves quality of life.

High-speed rail projects need funding and a well-designed development plan. If California can't complete the project that doesn't imply the federal government can't or other states can't do it. It also says nothing about the importance of such projects and how they would contribute to the economy.

---

On Bonds for Monetary Policy vs. Financing Federal Spending:

While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending, it doesn't diminish their role in monetary policy. By issuing or buying back bonds, the Federal Reserve can manage liquidity in the economy, influencing interest rates and, by extension, borrowing and investment. The two roles of bonds aren't mutually exclusive; they serve multiple purposes.

---

On the Dollar as Legal Tender:

The U.S. dollar's global role, combined with the U.S.'s political stability, diverse economy, and robust institutions, makes it incomparable to most other currencies. While legal tender laws ensure the domestic use of the currency, the global demand for the dollar, driven by its stability and ubiquity in global transactions, ensures its continued relevance.

---

On the U.S. Economic Structure:

To your assertion that "too much printing is going to mess over most Americans," it's essential to recognize that currency issuance isn't done in a vacuum. The Federal Reserve and other institutions monitor potential inflationary pressures and other economic indicators. Responsible fiscal and monetary policy ensures that currency issuance aligns with economic growth and needs.

---

On U.S. Banking and Financial Regulations:

Multinational organizations already work in multiple currencies, but the sheer scale, stability, and efficiency of the U.S. financial system ensure the dollar's continued prominence. It's not merely about regulations but also about the ease and security of transacting in USD.

---

On Trust in the Dollar:

Trust isn't unlimited. However, trust in a currency, especially one as deeply embedded globally as the dollar, doesn't erode overnight. Trust is built over centuries and is maintained by institutions, systems, and policies that have shown resilience over time. It's also a relative measure. Even if trust in the dollar wanes, it would require a more trusted, more stable alternative to replace it, which doesn't exist presently.

---

In conclusion, it's crucial to recognize that while the U.S. system and the dollar have their challenges, they also have unparalleled strengths, borne out of centuries of stability, innovation, and adaptability. Addressing those challenges doesn't negate those strengths but ensures that they endure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd,

When I mention the government's unique relationship with its currency, I'm not suggesting a free-for-all printing bonanza.

Regarding your contention that by saying "they don't rely on tax revenue," it sounds like reckless money printing. I understand the apprehension, but it's a bit of a leap. The U.S. government's ability to issue currency provides it with flexibility, not an invitation to be imprudent.

You mention healthcare's significant portion of the GDP. True, it's a significant expense. However, many countries with universal healthcare models manage to deliver healthcare more efficiently and at a lower cost per capita than the U.S. So, when discussing Medicare for All or similar programs, the idea isn't about the government printing the entire GDP equivalent but about creating a more efficient, equitable system that may, in fact, cost less overall. As for other countries managing it, remember that economies of scale, reduced administrative overheads, and negotiated pricing can make national healthcare programs more cost-effective than our fragmented system.

Having a healthy workforce also increases GDP.

Your comment on a "$100 trillion deficit" is a hyperbolic take. No one is suggesting such an extreme. However, when discussing the national deficit, it's crucial to understand it in context. A government deficit, in macroeconomic terms, does mean a private sector surplus. It's a straightforward accounting identity. This isn't a "cool story"; it's how macroeconomic balances work.

Now, about the national debt. It's a misrepresentation to equate it to household debt. Households have to pay back their debts or face consequences. In contrast, the national "debt" is more a tally of issued currency not yet returned to the government through taxes. It's not a burden on future generations; instead, it represents assets in the private sector. And where there's debt, there's an equivalent asset. It's essential to see both sides of the balance sheet.

Lastly, on the matter of government management: It's not about blind trust in the government versus the private sector. It's about recognizing that certain sectors, like healthcare or infrastructure, often involve significant externalities, market failures, or public goods that the free market alone doesn't adequately address. A democratic government, accountable to its citizens, plays a vital role in ensuring the broader public interest is served. This doesn't discount the importance of the private sector in a capitalist-market economy like ours but emphasizes collaboration for the common good.

Regarding your contention that by saying "they don't rely on tax revenue," it sounds like reckless money printing. I understand the apprehension, but it's a bit of a leap. The U.S. government's ability to issue currency provides it with flexibility, not an invitation to be imprudent.

When you mentioned a $10 trillion figure upthread and increased GDP, you didn't mean printing an additional $10 trillion?

However, many countries with universal healthcare models manage to deliver healthcare more efficiently and at a lower cost per capita than the U.S.
It's true, delivering less healthcare and using rationing and long lines makes
your healthcare spending lower.

Your comment on a "$100 trillion deficit" is a hyperbolic take. No one is suggesting such an extreme.
What's extreme about having a much larger private sector surplus?

Now, about the national debt. It's a misrepresentation to equate it to household debt.
Who did the equating? Where?

Households have to pay back their debts or face consequences.

Years or decades later.

In contrast, the national "debt" is more a tally of issued currency not yet returned to the government through taxes. It's not a burden on future generations; instead, it represents assets in the private sector.

Assets in the private sector that the government can seize.
Are they going to seize mine to pay Social Security benefits?
And it's not a burden on future generations, because we'll seize their assets
to pay my Social Security benefits?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On Infrastructure Spending in the 19th and 20th Centuries:

While it's true that the nature of essential infrastructure has evolved, the principle remains the same. Critical infrastructure spending drives economic growth, facilitates commerce, and improves quality of life.

High-speed rail projects need funding and a well-designed development plan. If California can't complete the project that doesn't imply the federal government can't or other states can't do it. It also says nothing about the importance of such projects and how they would contribute to the economy.

---

On Bonds for Monetary Policy vs. Financing Federal Spending:

While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending, it doesn't diminish their role in monetary policy. By issuing or buying back bonds, the Federal Reserve can manage liquidity in the economy, influencing interest rates and, by extension, borrowing and investment. The two roles of bonds aren't mutually exclusive; they serve multiple purposes.

---

On the Dollar as Legal Tender:

The U.S. dollar's global role, combined with the U.S.'s political stability, diverse economy, and robust institutions, makes it incomparable to most other currencies. While legal tender laws ensure the domestic use of the currency, the global demand for the dollar, driven by its stability and ubiquity in global transactions, ensures its continued relevance.

---

On the U.S. Economic Structure:

To your assertion that "too much printing is going to mess over most Americans," it's essential to recognize that currency issuance isn't done in a vacuum. The Federal Reserve and other institutions monitor potential inflationary pressures and other economic indicators. Responsible fiscal and monetary policy ensures that currency issuance aligns with economic growth and needs.

---

On U.S. Banking and Financial Regulations:

Multinational organizations already work in multiple currencies, but the sheer scale, stability, and efficiency of the U.S. financial system ensure the dollar's continued prominence. It's not merely about regulations but also about the ease and security of transacting in USD.

---

On Trust in the Dollar:

Trust isn't unlimited. However, trust in a currency, especially one as deeply embedded globally as the dollar, doesn't erode overnight. Trust is built over centuries and is maintained by institutions, systems, and policies that have shown resilience over time. It's also a relative measure. Even if trust in the dollar wanes, it would require a more trusted, more stable alternative to replace it, which doesn't exist presently.

---

In conclusion, it's crucial to recognize that while the U.S. system and the dollar have their challenges, they also have unparalleled strengths, borne out of centuries of stability, innovation, and adaptability. Addressing those challenges doesn't negate those strengths but ensures that they endure.

High-speed rail projects need funding and a well-designed development plan.

Strike 2.

It also says nothing about the importance of such projects and how they would contribute to the economy.
What is the contribution to California GDP for a lightly used high speed rail?

While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending, it doesn't diminish their role in monetary policy.

Right, so what percentage of $23 trillion since 2008?

The U.S. dollar's global role, combined with the U.S.'s political stability, diverse economy, and robust institutions, makes it incomparable to most other currencies.

Yes, but it's not invulnerable to governmental idiocy.

 

[Red Front]

High-speed rail projects need funding and a well-designed development plan.

Strike 2.

It also says nothing about the importance of such projects and how they would contribute to the economy.
What is the contribution to California GDP for a lightly used high speed rail?

While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending, it doesn't diminish their role in monetary policy.

Right, so what percentage of $23 trillion since 2008?

The U.S. dollar's global role, combined with the U.S.'s political stability, diverse economy, and robust institutions, makes it incomparable to most other currencies.

Yes, but it's not invulnerable to governmental idiocy.

Strike 2.

How so?

What is the contribution to California's GDP for a lightly used high-speed rail?

High-speed rail projects are all the same, with the exact same issues California is having. Every high-speed rail will be lightly used because Todd claims it's lightly used in California. If the state of California does a crappy job managing a high-speed rail project, that is exactly what will occur throughout America, even if the federal government takes control of the project or another state government manages it. By citing an infrastructural project in California that is poorly managed, Todd thinks he's proven that investing in the nation's infrastructure is a waste of money. This is known as "Todd-Logic".


Right, so what percentage of $23 trillion since 2008?

More fuzzy "Todd-Logic".

Yes, but it's not invulnerable to governmental idiocy. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....

Only governments are vulnerable to human frailty, not the private sector or Todd's mysterious "invisible hand".

 

[Red Front]

Regarding your contention that by saying "they don't rely on tax revenue," it sounds like reckless money printing. I understand the apprehension, but it's a bit of a leap. The U.S. government's ability to issue currency provides it with flexibility, not an invitation to be imprudent.

When you mentioned a $10 trillion figure upthread and increased GDP, you didn't mean printing an additional $10 trillion?

However, many countries with universal healthcare models manage to deliver healthcare more efficiently and at a lower cost per capita than the U.S.
It's true, delivering less healthcare and using rationing and long lines makes
your healthcare spending lower.

Your comment on a "$100 trillion deficit" is a hyperbolic take. No one is suggesting such an extreme.
What's extreme about having a much larger private sector surplus?

Now, about the national debt. It's a misrepresentation to equate it to household debt.
Who did the equating? Where?

Households have to pay back their debts or face consequences.

Years or decades later.

In contrast, the national "debt" is more a tally of issued currency not yet returned to the government through taxes. It's not a burden on future generations; instead, it represents assets in the private sector.

Assets in the private sector that the government can seize.
Are they going to seize mine to pay Social Security benefits?
And it's not a burden on future generations, because we'll seize their assets
to pay my Social Security benefits?

When you mentioned a $10 trillion figure upthread and increased GDP, you didn't mean printing an additional $10 trillion?

I mentioned a 10 trillion figure? Be more specific.

It's true, delivering less healthcare and using rationing and long lines makes
your healthcare spending lower.


Disingenuous Todd-logic, coupled with baseless assumptions.

What's extreme about having a much larger private sector surplus?

The government's debt or red ink is the private sector's black ink or surplus. It reflects assets. Where there's a debt there's also an asset in the economy.

Who did the equating? Where?

You think the US federal government needs the currency user to fund it (the currency issuer) with its own currency.

Assets in the private sector that the government can seize.
Are they going to seize mine to pay Social Security benefits?
And it's not a burden on future generations, because we'll seize their assets
to pay my Social Security benefits?

Assets such as investments, savings, real estate..etc. How do you figure the government can just willy-nilly seize your legally obtained and owned assets?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Strike 2.

How so?

What is the contribution to California's GDP for a lightly used high-speed rail?

High-speed rail projects are all the same, with the exact same issues California is having. Every high-speed rail will be lightly used because Todd claims it's lightly used in California. If the state of California does a crappy job managing a high-speed rail project, that is exactly what will occur throughout America, even if the federal government takes control of the project or another state government manages it. By citing an infrastructural project in California that is poorly managed, Todd thinks he's proven that investing in the nation's infrastructure is a waste of money. This is known as "Todd-Logic".


Right, so what percentage of $23 trillion since 2008?

More fuzzy "Todd-Logic".

Yes, but it's not invulnerable to governmental idiocy. Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....

Only governments are vulnerable to human frailty, not the private sector or Todd's mysterious "invisible hand".

need funding

Strike 1

and a well-designed development plan.

Probably strike 2, 3 and 4.

Every high-speed rail will be lightly used because Todd claims it's lightly used in California.

What's the starting point? The ending point? How heavily used will it be? DURR

More fuzzy "Todd-Logic".

You said, "While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending"

What portion financed federal spending? What portion was monetary policy?

Only governments are vulnerable to human frailty,

I'm not the one pretending "reserve currency status" is forever, no matter the government policy idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I mentioned a 10 trillion figure? Be more specific.

If the 10 trillion you're referring to is used to develop our infrastructure, it will only expand our GDP (production capacity), improving our economy.

Say, Looks Like That Supply-Side Stuff Works After All

Companies in the S&P 500 spent $806 billion on stock buybacks in 2018, blowing away the previous record of nearly $590 billion set in 2007. Oh no! My 401K went up.........LOL! Oh' no Trump just wasted another $3 trillion on a lie. Teabaggers rejoice.

www.usmessageboard.com

The government's debt or red ink is the private sector's black ink or surplus.

Obviously. $100 trillion!

You think the US federal government needs the currency user to fund it (the currency issuer) with its own currency.

I think the government needs to be funded with taxes and borrowing.
Only idiots think more than a fraction of spending can be funded by Fed money creation.

How do you figure the government can just willy-nilly seize your legally obtained and owned assets?

The same way they seize them today.

 

[Red Front]

If the 10 trillion you're referring to is used to develop our infrastructure, it will only expand our GDP (production capacity), improving our economy.

Say, Looks Like That Supply-Side Stuff Works After All

Companies in the S&P 500 spent $806 billion on stock buybacks in 2018, blowing away the previous record of nearly $590 billion set in 2007. Oh no! My 401K went up.........LOL! Oh' no Trump just wasted another $3 trillion on a lie. Teabaggers rejoice.

www.usmessageboard.com

The government's debt or red ink is the private sector's black ink or surplus.

Obviously. $100 trillion!

You think the US federal government needs the currency user to fund it (the currency issuer) with its own currency.

I think the government needs to be funded with taxes and borrowing.
Only idiots think more than a fraction of spending can be funded by Fed money creation.

How do you figure the government can just willy-nilly seize your legally obtained and owned assets?

The same way they seize them today.

Only idiots think the issuer of the currency needs to borrow the money it issues.

Go ahead, how is the US government going to arbitrarily, without a legal warrant, seize everyone's property? Why hasn't the government done it already, collapsing the economy? The public has plenty of assets right now, no need to wait. You're not making any sense.

 

[Red Front]

need funding

Strike 1

and a well-designed development plan.

Probably strike 2, 3 and 4.

Every high-speed rail will be lightly used because Todd claims it's lightly used in California.

What's the starting point? The ending point? How heavily used will it be? DURR

More fuzzy "Todd-Logic".

You said, "While a portion of bond issuance might be used to finance federal spending"

What portion financed federal spending? What portion was monetary policy?

Only governments are vulnerable to human frailty,

I'm not the one pretending "reserve currency status" is forever, no matter the government policy idiocy.

Nothing is forever, so your point is moot.

Todd rejects infrastructural development on the basis of a poorly planned high-speed rail project in California. Fuzzy Todd-Logic.