Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No they don't.
OK, so government's can sometimes buy a few $billion in bonds by issuing Fed money, but they only do that to control deflation and it has to go right back when inflation reappears. In fact, at the end of 2012 the Fed held a smaller % of the national debt than in 2011 --10.3% down from 10.6%. Compare that to say, 1974 when the Fed owned 17%.
Fact is that more than 4/5 of all spending is paid by taxes and the rest was covered by borrowing --and almost all of that will be paid back by tax revenue.
Um, yes they do.
It all starts with government spending, not taxation, which adds to the money supply. Treasuries are then issued for the same amount which replenishes the money supply and Treasurys FED account to what is was BEFORE spending. The order of operations are as follows: spending, issue US Treasuries to refill the FED account. All Treasuries provide is a way to move funds from banks to more liquid assets in the form of US Treasuries
Under our current monetary arrangement, spending precedes taxation or any of this alleged borrowing. Where do you think the money comes from to buy bonds or pay taxes in the first place? We can't get our hands on money in any capacity until the national government spends it into existence.
The money is created when the FED puts it in the Treasury account, you bonehead. Government couldn't spend a thing if it had nothing in its account to spend.
The borrowing isn't "alleged." It's real borrowing.
Where does anyone learn these idiocies?
??If you look at the Swiss demographics and the economy, this proposal is not as absurd as it might sound. They are a very small but wealthy country compared to the US with substantial social services which could be eliminated by this proposal.
Swiss wealth is $513,000 per adult over twice the US number.
Swiss unemployment is 4.2%
Swiss populations of 7.4 million of with includes nearly 2 million foreign permanent residents.
Enacting and Implementing this in the US would make the Affordable Care Act a walk in the park.
Salary Survey in Switzerland| Salary Comparison
Switzerland will vote on US$2800 per month basic income for all adults
but they ban everybody
Not expressing support for this, but it does make for an interesting discussion and there are some sensible arguments made. Could such a proposal work in the United States?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html
A Basic Income for all: Could Switzerland's experiment work in the US?
One of the most inane ideas I have ever heard.
"With a guaranteed basic income, work would no longer be required to survive, poverty would be eliminated in one move. Where did they get this radical idea?"
And exactly who is going to pay for this?
They probably got the national minimum income idea from Tom Paine, one of our nation's founders and author of "Common Sense". Imagine, USA with no hungry or homeless people.
One of the most inane ideas I have ever heard.
"With a guaranteed basic income, work would no longer be required to survive, poverty would be eliminated in one move. Where did they get this radical idea?"
And exactly who is going to pay for this?
They probably got the national minimum income idea from Tom Paine, one of our nation's founders and author of "Common Sense". Imagine, USA with no hungry or homeless people.
We could afford it. enough to establish a subsistence floor something like social security. More like permanent unemployment. It's been my experience that most people want to work if jobs are available. Jobs are becoming less available due to america's pro corporate trade and immigration policies. This national income would be there so nobody has to go hungry or homeless as a backup. There are always some people too lazy to work but if they have kids the kids suffer, especially since food stamps is always on the chopping block. We could afford it by cutting way back on our military, tax automatic computer transactions, end multibillionaires and corporations using foreign countries as residences for tax purposes. Many ways we can afford it but america has to stop it's wasting so much money on the military. There's not a country out there that can endanger this country. Maybe China in the future because we enable here by giving her all the work that used to be done by americans, and now China is investing heavily in military. That policy of enabling china could end overnight by eliminating most favored nation and allow americans to make the things we consume once again.
How the hell does an income guarantee serve as an "inflation anchor?" What is the mechanism in play here? You want to know how a government keeps inflation in check? It quits printing money! Simply quit spewing out trillions of dollars and the dollar will retain its value. Wow, what a revelation!
I'm also curious about this "job guarantee." If there is anything that would disincline employers to hire more people, it's a guaranteed job. That means employers can't get rid of people who turn out to be non-performers. That means employers will think long and hard about whether to hire any given person.
I've seen how this concept in foreign countries that having something similar. Getting a job is something of a miracle. The only reason anyone gets a job in the first place is that they are on probation for a year. During that year they work like borrowed mules. At the end of the year a lot of them get sent packing because the employer isn't going to give a guaranteed job to anyone unless that person is almost perfect.
Yeah, more great ideas from the government toady economist.
That's usually how sovereign, currency issuing governments pay for things...The usual answer I hear for that question is 'the government'....exactly who is going to pay for this?
Other than the FY12 numbers we're still not working with real life balances and accounts that we can verify with links. Sure, it's no problem for an econ forum, but sadly this is how most people form opinions on government spending policy --no basis in fact....the government simply cannot spend without "borrowing"/taxing, nor can the government borrow/tax without spending. The goal is to keep the reserve market in equilibrium, not borrow $$$$ to spend....words without numbers. The record has FY 12 with $3-1/2T spending, $2-1/2T receipts, and a $1T increase in the national debt from $15T to $16T. That's what America's working with.
They probably got the national minimum income idea from Tom Paine, one of our nation's founders and author of "Common Sense". Imagine, USA with no hungry or homeless people.
We could afford it. enough to establish a subsistence floor something like social security. More like permanent unemployment. It's been my experience that most people want to work if jobs are available. Jobs are becoming less available due to america's pro corporate trade and immigration policies. This national income would be there so nobody has to go hungry or homeless as a backup. There are always some people too lazy to work but if they have kids the kids suffer, especially since food stamps is always on the chopping block. We could afford it by cutting way back on our military, tax automatic computer transactions, end multibillionaires and corporations using foreign countries as residences for tax purposes. Many ways we can afford it but america has to stop it's wasting so much money on the military. There's not a country out there that can endanger this country. Maybe China in the future because we enable here by giving her all the work that used to be done by americans, and now China is investing heavily in military. That policy of enabling china could end overnight by eliminating most favored nation and allow americans to make the things we consume once again.
If we can afford it why are all our programs nearing insolvency? Social Security doesn't have the funds to make future payouts and is now running annual deficits.
There is a limit to redistribution and taxation, France is trying that experiment right now.
They probably got the national minimum income idea from Tom Paine, one of our nation's founders and author of "Common Sense". Imagine, USA with no hungry or homeless people.
We could afford it. enough to establish a subsistence floor something like social security. More like permanent unemployment. It's been my experience that most people want to work if jobs are available. Jobs are becoming less available due to america's pro corporate trade and immigration policies. This national income would be there so nobody has to go hungry or homeless as a backup. There are always some people too lazy to work but if they have kids the kids suffer, especially since food stamps is always on the chopping block. We could afford it by cutting way back on our military, tax automatic computer transactions, end multibillionaires and corporations using foreign countries as residences for tax purposes. Many ways we can afford it but america has to stop it's wasting so much money on the military. There's not a country out there that can endanger this country. Maybe China in the future because we enable here by giving her all the work that used to be done by americans, and now China is investing heavily in military. That policy of enabling china could end overnight by eliminating most favored nation and allow americans to make the things we consume once again.
If we can afford it why are all our programs nearing insolvency? Social Security doesn't have the funds to make future payouts and is now running annual deficits.
There is a limit to redistribution and taxation, France is trying that experiment right now.
Other than the FY12 numbers we're still not working with real life balances and accounts that we can verify with links. Sure, it's no problem for an econ forum, but sadly this is how most people form opinions on government spending policy --no basis in fact.
Remember we started here discussing Switzerland's minimum income proposal and my comment was about how too many people simply expect 'the government' to pay for everything. So many people believe 'the government' has an infinite amount of wealth it can spend. Our big problem is that when leaders implement this insanity into policy we end up with the current disaster of ten million out of work and plummeting incomes.
How the hell does an income guarantee serve as an "inflation anchor?" What is the mechanism in play here? You want to know how a government keeps inflation in check? It quits printing money! Simply quit spewing out trillions of dollars and the dollar will retain its value. Wow, what a revelation!
Um, no, inflation isn't the result of printing money contrary to Austrian tautology.
Money in the hands of people means higher incomes and savings, which is then used/invested and results in increased demand and overall productive capacity. This increases the supply of real goods and services, which is REAL wealth. Also, an increase in increase in goods and services keeps prices in check.
A continuous increase in the price level means that we have effective demand which surpasses the capacity of the economy to expand so it can meet increased production. This can only occur if government spending surpasses the desire of the non-government to save at close to full employment.
Viewing money creation/spending as a separate entity from demand relative to supply will not yield an accurate forecast about inflation.
The Job Guarantee is a public sector jobs program. It would create a national buffer stock which would provide the private sector with a trained pool of labor. This is better than the current NAIRU arrangement.
Modern capitalist economies cannot support full employment.
We should no longer use unemployment as way to control inflation. We should replace NAIRU with a national buffer stock. We can stabilize unemployment through a buffer stock..
This buffer stock could suck up labor demand, as opposed to repeatedly targeting the output gap, which obviously doesn't work. We can tie deficit spending to employment. With automatic stabilizers, we know how much money we would have to spend. If we need to employ X amount of people, it will cost Y amount of dollars.
