National Debt And Stuff

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does hyperinflation cause "printing money" - inflation
(and not the other way around)? "Chicken & Egg" -- which came first?
Hyperinflation causes more "printing of money"?

Would someone explain how this works, other than just declaring it as a new religious cult doctrine handed down FROM ON HIGH.

And hyperinflation is something completely different. It requires the collapse of productivity, or the forced export of the products of an economy without payment.

Hyperinflation requires the rapid printing of vast amounts of money, but that's an effect, not a cause, of hyperinflation.

So in all cases of inflation (or hyperinflation), the real cause of it is something that happens BEFORE the "printing of money" (i.e., the inflation comes first -- and then only AFTER the prices have soared to 100% or 1000%, then the state starts printing money for everyone so they can afford those skyrocketing prices? according to this theory?

And this increase in currency everywhere, requiring consumers to run out quickly to buy stuff, with a wheelbarrow-full of large bills, does or does not contribute to the inflation and cause it to increase still higher?

Are you saying the prices would still increase just as much anyway? even if no new money was "printed"? or does all this new money created have a further inflationary effect, causing the inflation to become even worse?

I came across this item

Myth-Busting: Money Printing Must Create Inflation

Shouldn’t all the recent monetary and fiscal stimulus lead to higher inflation? Maybe not.

blogs.cfainstitute.org

Myth-Busting: Money Printing Must Create Inflation​

i.e., debunking the idea that "printing" money causes inflation


It's clear that some crusaders want to debunk the notion that "more money being printed" is what causes inflation.

The argument seems to be based on empirical measurements of what happened when someone expanded money, like banks or the central bank "printing" new money and yet there was no inflation as a result, etc.

Or showing other causes of inflation happening even when there was reduction of the money supply, or reduced "printing" of money. Or also there could be increased money supply and yet reduced money "printing" and so on. Much semantics about how money supply is measured and what is money "creation" or "printing" etc. Also, in addition to the multiple causes phenomenon, there's also the matter of timing, or the chronology, such as how long it took for some new money issuing act to cause an effect somewhere.

Isn't there at least a consensus that vast money "printing" causes some inflation?
E.g., does anyone deny that if a nation doubles its money supply, by simply "printing" bills, it would cause all prices to rise?

There is still an admission that "too much" money being "printed" or "created" would likely cause inflation or higher prices. But still there is an insistence that there are many other causes of inflation, and these are more important.


The only argument that makes any sense is that an increase of "money" (like massive "printing" of bills) causes some inflation, but otherwise there are likely hundreds of causes, and these other causes might be much more significant if "printing" money is kept very low.

What does it mean to say the "hyperinflation" existed first and only then did the extra money "printed" cause some extra inflation? How do we know that the hyperinflation came before the money was printed?

According to

hyperinflation germany 1920s - Google Search

it's the opposite. In Germany in the 1920s the government "simply printed more money" and this led to hyperinflation. Not that the hyperinflation existed first and then led to the "printing" of money.

In order to pay the striking workers the government simply printed more money. This flood of money led to hyperinflation as the more money was printed, the more prices rose. Prices ran out of control, for example a loaf of bread, which cost 250 marks in January 1923, had risen to 200,000 million marks in November 1923.

How do we know which came first?

The idea that the hyperinflation actually comes first, and ONLY AFTER that is there the money "printing" seems to be a new religious cult doctrine, which has not been proven, other than to use many empirical examples to show how there might be some other patterns of inflation caused in different ways, and that we need considerable inflation for some mystical or cosmic power it exerts on the economy, to give the economy a "shot in the arm" or a "stimulus" in order to cause "economic growth" and cause "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" etc.

Except for this, no one is giving any reason or evidence or theory explaining why we need a certain amount of INFLATION in order to have a healthy economy.

An ongoing deficit could be defended as serving some purpose, as long as it's kept below a certain level as a percent of the total economy. But no one ever gives a coherent argument why we need to have inflation. The Fed seems to have a doctrine that a 2% inflation rate is healthy as something regular to strive for. But it has never given a reason for this, other than the usual "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble nonsense.

Can someone explain why the economy needs a regular inflation rate above 0%? without the usual "economic stimulus" babble? Even the "economic growth" babble makes no sense, in that the only meaning of "economic growth" is more and more dollars spent (or more and more GDP), and by that logic, all we need in order to make the economy perform better is more and more bridges to nowhere. Because every dollar wasted on another unneeded program is another dollar of "economic growth" -- and isn't some of this "economic growth" actually more harm than good?

When we define "growth" as simply more spending, spending, spending (on anything no matter how wasteful), more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and more waste and pork and corporate welfare, where is the evidence that we're better off from all this spending just for the sake of spending per se?

 

[bilby]

Does hyperinflation cause "printing money" - inflation
(and not the other way around)? "Chicken & Egg" -- which came first?
Hyperinflation causes more "printing of money"?

Literally nobody has said this, and it's not even vaguely coherent.

As usual, you have complete failed to grasp what others are saying, and as usual you're assuming that your lack of understanding is evidence that they[/i,] and not you, are the ones lacking comprehension.

"printing money" - inflation

Isn't a thing.

Inflation is an increase in the velocity of money, which implies a decrease in its value.

Hyperinflation is, as it's name suggests, a large amount of inflation.

When money has a very high and rapidly increasing velocity, it's necessary to generate more monetary tokens (ie banknotes) to prevent the collapse of the entire money system. This increase is a consequence of, and not a cause of, inflation.

The vast majority of money today does not exist as banknotes; The idea of "printing money" is, as a consequence, pretty much irrelevant.

Historically, hyperinflation has been a result of collapsing productivity. In 1920s Germany, this was because the products of the economy were being given away to the Great War winners as reparations; In Zimbabwe in the 2007-2010 period, it was due to the productive capacity of farms being almost completely destroyed by the direct intervention of the Mugabe regime. Similarly, in Venezuela, the government directly caused a crash in production.

You could probably cause hyperinflation by creating money, but nobody's dumb enough to do that. What happens is that a supply shock causes a massive increase in the demand for money (aka a collapse in its value), and the resulting loss of confidence creates a feedback loop whereby inflation reduces confidence, which causes more inflation. Nobody wants to hold on to money, but if required to take it, they want a lot of it, and they want to get rid of it quickly.

"Printing money" as a cause of hyperinflation is a simplistic myth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does hyperinflation cause "printing money" - inflation
(and not the other way around)? "Chicken & Egg" -- which came first?
Hyperinflation causes more "printing of money"?

Literally nobody has said this, and it's not even vaguely coherent.

Your statement was:

Hyperinflation requires the rapid printing of vast amounts of money, but that's an effect, not a cause, of hyperinflation.

This was the quoted statement earlier, saying that the "printing" of money was caused by the hyperinflation which came first. Which you're acknowledging was incorrect. Rather it's the "rapid printing of vast amounts of money" which causes the hyperinflation, not the other way around.

I.e., you clearly said that "Hyperinflation" resulted in the excess "printing" of money, but "that's an effect" = the printing of the money was the result of the hyperinflation which came first. So you said the hyperinflation of the 1920s came BEFORE Germany printed vast amounts of money and the phenomenon of shoppers filling their wheelbarrows with bills.

As usual, you have complete failed to grasp what others are saying, and as usual you're assuming that your lack of understanding is evidence that they[/i,] and not you, are the ones lacking comprehension.

"printing money" - inflation

Isn't a thing.

Inflation is an increase in the velocity of money, which implies a decrease in its value.

Hyperinflation is, as it's name suggests, a large amount of inflation.

When money has a very high and rapidly increasing velocity, it's necessary to generate more monetary tokens (ie banknotes) to prevent the collapse of the entire money system. This increase is a consequence of, and not a cause of, inflation.

No, it's a cause of still further inflation, and worse inflation. And the very worst inflation, way out of proportion, is this later inflation -- hyperinflation -- caused by creating money (= more inflation) as a response to the original modest inflation caused by the economic collapse. It would have been better to not do the added inflation ("printing" money) as a response to the original economic collapse.

The vast majority of money today does not exist as banknotes; The idea of "printing money" is, as a consequence, pretty much irrelevant.

"printing" = any creating of new money which can be used to buy and sell. Let's not get hung up on the terminology.

Historically, hyperinflation has been a result of collapsing productivity. In 1920s Germany, this was because the products of the economy were being given away to the Great War winners as reparations; In Zimbabwe in the 2007-2010 period, it was due to the productive capacity of farms being almost completely destroyed by the direct intervention of the Mugabe regime. Similarly, in Venezuela, the government directly caused a crash in production.

You could probably cause hyperinflation by creating money, but nobody's dumb enough to do that. What happens is that a supply shock causes a massive increase in the demand for money (aka a collapse in its value), and the resulting loss of confidence creates a feedback loop whereby inflation reduces confidence, which causes more inflation. Nobody wants to hold on to money, but if required to take it, they want a lot of it, and they want to get rid of it quickly.

"Printing money" as a cause of hyperinflation is a simplistic myth.

The above analysis does not show that the hyperinflation caused the printing of money. Rather, the facts seem to be that first there was collapse of the economy, prices rose on the production which still existed, but there would have been no hyperinflation if the gov't had not "printed" money in response to the collapse of the economy.

What it should have done was hire whatever workers it could in order to get some needed production done. Borrow some, if possible, maybe issue promissory notes -- whatever to get needed workers going or whatever to get needed work done. Desperate conditions might require desperate measures. But massive "printing" money is not the solution in this case, and without this excess money creation there would not have been the hyperinflation which took place.

Nothing here shows that the hyperinflation came first and that this caused the "printing" of money leading to the much higher prices and Germans paying one wheelbarrow-full of Marks for a loaf of bread. It was very bad times, which could not be fixed immediately -- no instant gratification. Only very slow gradual improvement was possible. Some suffering had to happen with no way to prevent it. The excess "printing" money made a bad situation worse, not better.

That seems to be what happened.

You've not shown that "printing" more money fixes anything, or that inflation is generally a necessary mechanism to make the economy function better.

 

[bilby]

Let me put this another way:

In the event that your nation is experiencing high inflation, would "not producing any more money" be a viable strategy to correct this situation?

I hold that it would not - not only would it fail to help, but it would also cause a slew of new economic woes.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let me put this another way:

In the event that your nation is experiencing high inflation, would "not producing any more money" be a viable strategy to correct this situation?

I hold that it would not - not only would it fail to help, but it would also cause a slew of new economic woes.

It appears your strategy was put to the test by Germany in the 1920s, and it caused the opposite of your prediction here, causing worse economic woes. Whereas "not producing any more money" would have been better.

 

[bilby]

Let me put this another way:

In the event that your nation is experiencing high inflation, would "not producing any more money" be a viable strategy to correct this situation?

I hold that it would not - not only would it fail to help, but it would also cause a slew of new economic woes.

It appears your strategy was put to the test by Germany in the 1920s, and it caused the opposite of your prediction here, causing worse economic woes. Whereas "not producing any more money" would have been better.

Really? How would it have been better?

Be specific.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Lumpy's fiscal "policy" consists entirely of barenaked pronouncements.

 

[TomC]

It appears your strategy was put to the test by Germany in the 1920s, and it caused the opposite of your prediction here, causing worse economic woes. Whereas "not producing any more money" would have been better.

Seriously?
You're comparing post WWI Germany to the current situation in the U.S.? As if there were some important relevance?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a world where you aren't repaying the borrowing there is no adequate countering pressure to spend more! Thus hyperinflation.

There are plenty of unstated assumptions in your analysis. For example if debt (no net rep payment of debt)stays constant while GDP grows, there is no reason to expect an increase in inflation, let alone hyperinflation. If the rate of increase in real production exceeds the rate of growth in debt, there is no hyperinflation.

Which has nothing to do with reality.

Yes, you could make a viable no-tax government that set government spending to the real economic growth rate.

However, such a government would be around 1/10th of the size of ours.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taxation is the thing (perhaps the only thing) that gives fiat money value. Taxation without adequate spending - and "adequate" must inherently mean greater than the amount of taxation in a growing economy - is deflationary, and deflation is economically disastrous.

So both taxes and spending are needed; And spending must exceed taxes: That is, deficits are an essential characteristic of a growing fiat money economy.

No--you can have spending without taxation so long as it's limited to the growth in the economy.

That "fiscal conservatives" want to eliminate deficits and slash taxes is simply an indication that these are clueless morons who should under no circumstances be permitted to run anything as financially complex as a lemonade stand, much less to influence policy in a modern fiat currency issuing nation state.

You're giving them a lot of credit in saying they could run a lemonade stand.

 

[laughing dog]

In a world where you aren't repaying the borrowing there is no adequate countering pressure to spend more! Thus hyperinflation.

There are plenty of unstated assumptions in your analysis. For example if debt (no net rep payment of debt)stays constant while GDP grows, there is no reason to expect an increase in inflation, let alone hyperinflation. If the rate of increase in real production exceeds the rate of growth in debt, there is no hyperinflation.

Which has nothing to do with reality.

Yes, you could make a viable no-tax government that set government spending to the real economic growth rate.

However, such a government would be around 1/10th of the size of ours.

I showed that your assertion that in a world without repaying debt necessarily leads to inflation is false. I said nothing about no taxes, so why are you babbling no taxes.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let me put this another way:

In the event that your nation is experiencing high inflation, would "not producing any more money" be a viable strategy to correct this situation?

I hold that it would not - not only would it fail to help, but it would also cause a slew of new economic woes.

It appears your strategy was put to the test by Germany in the 1920s, and it caused the opposite of your prediction here, causing worse economic woes. Whereas "not producing any more money" would have been better.

Really? How would it have been better?

Be specific.

The inflation % would have been much lower if they had not followed your advice to create more money. I.e., if they had not "printed" so many bills (or had "printed" even none at all).

In such an extreme case it's better for consumers to resort to barter. Also for the gov't to declare bankruptcy, or "default" rather than print money.

There are probably a million theories about what Germany should have done. But what evidence is there that "printing" more money solved anything? Are you saying that all the experts today agree with you that the "printing" more money by Germany was their best choice at the time? (I admit I don't know otherwise. No one seems to say it was the right thing to do.)

Has there been some analysis showing that Germany should have printed only half as much? or 1/10 as much? or 1/100? Or does everyone agree that it was necessary to print so many bills that these would be used for wallpaper?

Is there something published which says Germany only did what it was forced to do, because of the War Reparations, and anything else would have been even worse?

Everything about Germany in the 1920s seems to say that all those bills only made the economy worse, not better. And yet maybe not. Maybe no one has ever published anything on what Germany should have done instead.

In some cases maybe it's better to do NOTHING (including default on debt/reparations) than to print money = inflation. That would have resulted in some barter. Also some alternative kind of currency could have evolved for trading. How did the wallpaper currency and wheelbarrows solve anything?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Basic Doctrines of the INCREASE-THE-DEBT cult

The fact still remains that raising the debt ceiling higher (or eliminating the debt ceiling) results in lower taxes on the rich, because there's less need for that tax revenue.

That's not true. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with it; Voting to reduce taxes on the rich is what results in lower taxes on the rich.

Yes, but that vote (to reduce taxes) results from the higher debt which reduces the need for tax revenue. I.e., with higher debt available, the spending can be paid for by running up more debt rather than tax revenue, which then reduces the need for tax revenue to pay for it.


doctrine: need for tax revenue is a myth

The "need" for tax revenue is largely mythical;

You see the logic -- the debt should be increased (and revenue reduced) because there is no need for tax revenue to pay for gov't programs.


doctrine: gov't doesn't need revenue in order to spend

taxes aren't needed to have something to spend, spending is needed to have something to tax.

So when the gov't needs to pay for its spending, higher tax revenue is not a means for meeting that need. Got it? We do not need more tax revenue in order to pay for more gov't spending.


A new kind of "Truth"

Nevermind that there are millions of examples where higher tax revenue is extracted in order to pay for some gov't spending. The Mystic Truth of the higher-debt cult is that gov't does not need more revenue, or tax revenue, to pay for anything. And so because of Truth like this -- there's no need for gov't revenue to pay for its spending -- we must raise the debt higher and higher.


doctrine: tax (or tax revenues) do not "support" gov't spending

Taxes support the value of money. They don't support the spending of money by government.

So, it's because gov't has no need for tax revenue to pay for its spending that we must always raise the debt higher and higher.

Why is it that the reasons for higher and higher debt have to be something which contradicts the simple facts of life everyone knows? something like: gov't has no need to tax people in order to pay for its programs?

The arguments for raising the debt ceiling (or eliminating the debt ceiling) are all based on such denials as these, or on pronouncements which contradict normal facts of life.

Usually when you deny the basic facts everyone assumes are so, you give a reason, or evidence, or facts in order to show that this is the case. But the basic doctrines of the Higher-Debt cult are never accompanied by evidence or reasoning. They are just articles of faith, or dogmas, proclaimed by the Higher-Debt gurus as creeds handed down from on high. There are several other such dogmas in addition to this one which says that gov't does not need taxes or tax revenue in order to pay for its programs.


Why is it that the "Raise-the-Debt-Ceiling" crusaders have to rely on such dogmas in order to promote their campaign to eliminate the debt ceiling?

 

[bilby]

So, it's because gov't has no need for tax revenue to pay for its spending that we must always raise the debt higher and higher.

No, it's because the economy is growing that you must always raise the debt higher and higher.

A larger economy requires more money, and one source of that money is the difference between spending and taxation - aka "the national debt".

To reduce the debt is to stifle growth.

Which is why every single time austerity has been implemented anywhere in the world, the economy of that nation has tanked.

How many times does your preferred policy have to end in disaster before you get it into your head that it's a bad policy?

If a balanced budget is so damn desirable, how is it that you can't point to a single instance of its success?

 

[bilby]

Why is it that the reasons for higher and higher debt have to be something which contradicts the simple facts of life everyone knows?

The same reason why other "simple facts of life which everyone knows" must be contradicted - they're not true.

That the Earth is flat is a simple fact of life which everyone knows. That nature abhors a vacuum is a simple fact of life that everyone knows. That an object in motion will come to a stop unless a continuous force is applied is a simple fact of life that everyone knows.

Let's test your simple fact in a super simple simulation. A game of Monopoly.

The game is unpacked from its box, and the players are ready to start. Before they can, though, first they must be issued some money. But in your world, they cannot be issued money until and unless that money was first collected from the players. It's an impasse. Nobody can have any money, because nobody has money until some is issued; And according to you, issuing of fiat money requires first collecting that money.

Of course, in reality, money is just handed out. Then everyone has some, and the game can begin. During the game, money is both issued for various reasons (mostly because players "pass go"), and collected in various fines and taxes.

At no time in the game can the amount of money collected be equal to the amount issued, because such a "zero debt" situation implies that nobody can play because no player has any money.

Fiat money doesn't exist unless and until it has been issued as debt; and it exists only until that debt is repaid. Because money IS debt, and debt IS money.

The debt can be private or public, but it can only be issued privately by lenders who have reserves against which to issue it. Those reserves ultimately must come from the currency issuing authority whose money it is. And until the first dollar has been issued, nothing could be collected as taxes, because up to that moment, nobody had any money to pay in taxes.

Households (and indeed any entity that doesn't issue currency) must obtain money before they can spend it.

Currency issuing authorities are in the EXACT OPPOSITE SITUATION. They must spend money before they can tax it.

That is the basic and fundamental reason why applying folk wisdom to national budgets is fucking insane.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why must we raise the debt ceiling? or eliminate the debt ceiling?
or keep raising the debt higher and higher?

Because the facts everyone knows are not true?

Why is it that the reasons for higher and higher debt have to be something which contradicts the simple facts of life everyone knows?

The same reason why other "simple facts of life which everyone knows" must be contradicted - they're not true.

That the Earth is flat is a simple fact of life which everyone knows.

No it's not. Stop talking in riddles. If you want to refute my point, do it without using riddles and parables. Name a real fact of life which everyone knows but which is not true.

I.e., gravity. Everyone knows that there is something called "gravity" such that if you hold up an object in your hand and then release it, it falls to the ground. Etc. There are many such facts of life which everyone knows.

And the higher-debt crusaders are unable to explain why we must have higher debt without contradicting some of these basic simple facts which everyone knows.

E.g. governments need tax revenue in order to pay for their programs, like infrastructure, war, police, etc. And yet the need to always increase public debt, raise the debt ceiling, etc., requires idiotic statements which contradict this basic fact everyone knows. Saying that the need for tax revenue is a myth, etc. It's not a myth. Governments really do require revenue / resources to pay for the programs, and taxation is probably the most common way to obtain those resources.

So give a serious response and stop pretending to be a fool by saying everyone knows the fact that the earth is flat. Are you saying this because you wish to be locked up as a lunatic? Or maybe you're pretending to be a poet? Poetry is not what we need in order to address the question of the higher and higher public debt. Something is wrong with an economic/political theory which requires denying basic facts which everyone knows. Or which makes a doctrine out of denying obvious facts we all know.

This is one starting point for seriously addressing such an issue. Straight talk rather than riddles or poetry.

 

[bilby]

I.e., gravity. Everyone knows that there is something called "gravity" such that if you hold up an object in your hand and then release it, it falls to the ground. Etc. There are many such facts of life which everyone knows.

OK, gravity. Gravity, as everyone since Newton knows, is a force.

But according to Einstein's theory, as confirmed by Eddington's observations of the apparent positions of stars close to the Sun, gravity isn't a force at all, it's a curvature of spacetime.

Money is debt. In a world without debt, nobody has any money.

It follows that in order for anyone to have any money to tax, the issuer of that money must first distribute some money. The national debt is the money issued by the government, as a sole consequence of which, money exists. You can't tax and then spend as a fiat money issuer; The only option is to spend and then tax.

What do you think money is?

Where do you think money comes from? How did (and/or does) money start to exist?

That you cannot grasp this simple and logically necessary situation is both unsurprising, and pathetic. Your history of letting your beliefs blind you to simple logical arguments is clear for all to see, and here we have yet another example.

Before you can possibly generate useful policy ideas, or even useful criticism of the policy ideas of others, first you must be willing and able to think. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are neither - you have some set of behaviours that you think ape the behaviour of people who are thinking and applying logic, but you haven't even grasped the essence of what they're doing, so you do something that you sincerely but incorrectly believe to be thinking and logic.

What part of "know" don't you understand??

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I.e., gravity. Everyone knows that there is something called "gravity" such that if you hold up an object in your hand and then release it, it falls to the ground. Etc. There are many such facts of life which everyone knows.

OK, gravity. Gravity, as everyone since Newton knows, is a force.

But according to Einstein's theory, as confirmed by Eddington's observations of the apparent positions of stars close to the Sun, gravity isn't a force at all, it's a curvature of spacetime.

Money is debt. In a world without debt, nobody has any money.

Whatever your point is, it does not change the commonly-known fact that governments need to assess taxes in order to raise revenue to spend on its programs. So your proclamation is false:

The "need" for tax revenue is largely mythical; taxes aren't needed to have something to spend, spending is needed to have something to tax.

Like your similar proclamation:

No hyperinflation in history has been preceded by massive increases in money supply; Such increases are the response to, not the cause of, hyperinflation.

No, the increases in the money supply have caused the worst examples of hyperinflation -- and the chronology is always that the increased money happened first, followed by the hyperinflation. To insist that the opposite is what happened contradicts all the historians. Why is this contradicting of the standard facts of history a necessary part of your reasoning why the debt must be raised higher and higher?

Why must you rely on falsehoods like these in order to explain why the debt ceiling must be raised, or eliminated altogether, and why the public debt must rise higher and higher (as a percent of the economy)? These pronouncements are known to be false by not only the average person, but by most experts also. If you must resort to these falsehoods in order to give your reason, then it indicates that your reasoning is wrong, and the real need is the opposite of what you're saying, i.e., the need is to reduce the public debt and not raise it still higher (as a percent of the economy).

Similarly the need for tax revenue is not a "myth" simply because you make these pronouncements for dramatic shock effect. It's popularly known, as well as known by all the decision-makers and experts, that tax revenues are needed. There are obviously many cases requiring government to increase taxes in order to pay for the budget. And such collection of revenue is often better than more borrowing. Maybe borrowing too is appropriate, up to a point, but tax revenue also is needed. Today the debt is too much and should be replaced by higher taxes. And also spending cuts are necessary.

You can give reasons why some debt is needed, but not why the need for tax revenue is a myth because such tax revenue is not needed for spending. Your definitions of "money" and "debt" do not change the fact that tax revenue is needed and that much of the spending is paid for by taxes rather than debt.

Taxes support the value of money. They don't support the spending of money by government.

Pronouncements like these, even if True in the Cosmic sense, do not change the fact that tax revenue is needed by government in order to pay for the public programs. There is such a need, in the popular mind, and this popular perception is not false, as you imply. The popular perception that it gets colder in the winter and also the perception that government needs tax revenue, along with many other popular perceptions, are true. Not false just because of your Metaphysical Ontological Doctrine about Money. It's fine to prove that a popular belief is false, but you must explain how you know it's false, not must make these Ontological Pronouncements.

It follows that in order for anyone to have any money to tax, the issuer of that money must first distribute some money. The national debt is the money issued by the government, as a sole consequence of which, money exists.

No, there can be money issued by the government without there being any debt. It can mean an obligation on the government, but it's not debt that is owed and has to be repaid by a due date, such as the national debt (or payment to bondholders). And there have been times when there was money issued but zero public debt. (Maybe rare, but the 2 are different, so there can be one without the other.) Money issued cannot be debt if it's possible for either the debt or the money to exist alone without the other. So the "money" and the "debt" cannot be equivalent.

You can't tax and then spend as a fiat money issuer; The only option is to spend and then tax.

What do you think money is?

Where do you think money comes from? How did (and/or does) money start to exist?

That you cannot grasp this simple and logically necessary situation is both unsurprising, and pathetic. Your history of letting your beliefs blind you to simple logical arguments is clear for all to see, and here we have yet another example.

Before you can possibly generate useful policy ideas, or even useful criticism of the policy ideas of others, first you must be willing and able to think. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are neither - you have some set of behaviours that you think ape the behaviour of people who are thinking and applying logic, but you haven't even grasped the essence of what they're doing, so you do something that you sincerely but incorrectly believe to be thinking and logic.

What part of "know" don't you understand??

Let's assume all your Cosmology about gravity and economics and astrophysics etc. is accurate. There's no need for everyone to have it all figured out like you do (or pretend to), or to submit to your Catechism of Economics in order to know what money and taxes and debt are about.

Even if you have this superior comprehension that others don't have, you still cannot base your argument on denying straightforward facts that we all know and assume when we consider an issue such as whether a spending program should be cut or whether to issue new debt rather than raise taxes. You still have to stick to the plain facts -- your superior intelligence doesn't entitle you to make up some facts of your own, such as claiming that governments do not need tax revenue in order to pay for their programs. Or that printing money doesn't cause inflation. If this is the only way you can explain why the debt has to keep being raised higher and higher (as a percent of the economy), then we should not believe you or your Gospel of Higher and Higher Debt without limit.

You need to base your doctrines on something other than just your Higher Level of Consciousness and superior Contact with the Ultimate Truths of the Cosmos.

The simple plain truth right now is that we need some kind of higher taxes along with spending cuts in order to reduce the public debt as a percent of the economy. Nothing you've said shows otherwise. You've given no facts to show that the excess debt experienced for about the last 90 years has produced any net benefit.

When there's new debt, such as an "economic stimulus," there is obviously some immediate benefit, or INSTANT GRATIFICATION, from that instant money to be spent, but years later that debt has to be repaid to the lenders, with interest, which means there's a net loss at that later point, and it's necessary to consider if this later damage is a price worth paying for the benefit. This is what decides the issue of the higher debt, not pronouncements from on High about the Cosmic Nature of Money.

 

[bilby]

the commonly-known fact that governments need to assess taxes in order to raise revenue to spend on its programs

Isn't a fact.

It's a falsehood.

And you believe it, and will never stop believing it.

So you will be wrong, forever. Sucks to be you.

Goodbye.

 

[Jarhyn]

the commonly-known fact that governments need to assess taxes in order to raise revenue to spend on its programs

Isn't a fact.

It's a falsehood.

And you believe it, and will never stop believing it.

So you will be wrong, forever. Sucks to be you.

Goodbye.

This, really, is the thing that makes fiscal conservative policy exist at all: the failure to understand on a basic level where money comes from and why taxes happen.

Really, it's about sources/sinks and supply stability, not about debt vs revenue. It's about balanced systemic rates, not final quantities.