Economist Stephanie Kelton on The Deficit Myth

[bigfield]

You need to explain to which of those those things you think should be cut. The article just says that they're "weird"; it doesn't call for them to be cut.

Some are questionable, some could be said to be a waste of tax payer dollars, while others disagree. It was a quick grab.

Which ones are "a waste of tax payer dollars"?

There are plenty of examples. Another one is the ongoing submarine debacle and other defense purchases;
Quote;
3 Collins-Class Submarine Replacement Project. This $50 billion project seeks to replace Australia's problem-plagued Collins-class submarines with subs from French shipbuilder DCNS. The project has design issues because standard French subs are nuclear-powered. There is a bipartisan commitment to buying diesel-electric powered subs, and (seemingly for vote-buying reasons) to building them in Adelaide, even though this might add 40 per cent to the cost. The Australian contractor, Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), also has a dreadful record on other projects.
Advertisement

Anecdotal evidence suggests that (privately) our defence professionals support buying off-the-shelf nuclear-powered submarines, for reasons of performance, reliability, and much more bang-for-the-buck.

The mistake of the sub project is being repeated in the recently announced decision to spend $35 billion building nine British-designed anti-submarine frigates (mainly) at SA's Osborne shipping yard. ASC is again to be the main domestic player (in another vote-buying exercise), with the contract being rushed in order to prevent the Adelaide shipyards being shut down due to lack of other work. It seems that the hull will be Australian built with most of the systems and internal workings coming from overseas.

The stark truth is that the government could be saving tens of billions, and be getting more reliable vessels by instead shutting down Australia's (uncompetitive) ship/sub building industry, and buying the superior overseas product at much lower cost.''

That's disputable.

Firstly, where's the evidence--besides Reilly's hearsay--that the Government could have bought a cheaper, more reliable, better performing, nuclear sub?

Secondly, there's a huge difference between importing ships vs. building them locally. By building the ships in Australia, a lot of the money is spent in the local economy, and it is taxed over and over again. The government gets much of its money back as tax revenue. If the government buys imported ships, it doesn't reclaim any of its money.

When you're comparing domestic vendors and overseas vendors, you can't just compare them on price. You also have to evaluate the economic activity they generate.

 

[bigfield]

Sure, but since the government has to convert the shares back to money in order to buy things, what's the point of spending money on shares in the first place?

(And yes, in theory the parties could swap shares for goods, but this isn't what happens in practice.)

What's the expected effect if the government offloads 10s or 100s of billions worth of shares in (domestic) companies during a time of recession/crisis in order to convert their "emergency fund" to cash? Doesn't that even run the danger of deepening the crisis?

Yes, it does. Every dollar the government collects from the sale of the shares is removed from the money supply. It would also hurt the companies whose stocks are being dumped by the government.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'd like to know where are the economies that run surpluses by taxing more than they spend. According to DBT, that's basic good management. Some country must be doing it.

Of course there are critics, but The Howard government in Australia ran surpluses.

That's pretty weak tea. I would think if surpluses were basic good management, it would be more common.

It's not necessarily a matter of taxing more, but reducing unnecessary expenditure in the form of wasting money

The effect is the same, no? Tax receipts> expenditures.

 

[laughing dog]

The government would need to be investing its savings, purchasing assets. During good times, this increases business investment which increases the production capacity of the country. Inflation would be mitigated when those assets are sold and the resulting money spent by the government during bad times since the economy is able to produce more output. Additionally, savings can be invested internationally, which will tend to increase exports. During bad times those savings can be cashed in to bring in imports, which is another way to reduce the inflation you are talking about since we are effectively utilizing the output capacity of other countries when we buy imports.

Even if the money is put into a commercial bank account and available for lending during good times, that will also increase business investment to an extent and mitigate inflation in the manner I described.

The federal gov't using a private commercial bank (or banks) for deposits creates an advantage for those banks and opens up an avenue for corruption since those banks now have access to more loanable deposits. Which in turn, means that the supply of money will increase to the extent those deposits are lent. In otherwords, there is a very real risk of inflation from gov't saving.

Don't we already have that problem with the federal reserve increasing bank reserves via treasury purchases and loaning funds to banks?

No.

Why would the government holding accounts at commercial banks increase corruptability? Don't many state and local governments hold accounts with commercial banks? If the evidence is there that it does more harm than good I'm with you. I don't have a dog in that fight.

If you cannot understand how getting free reserves from the federal gov't might be an inducement to corruption, then I cannot help you.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps for those who think "Smoke and Mirrors and Kabuki Theatre" are accurate descriptions of the modern financial and economic system.

One of the basics of accounting that your proposals ignore is that total assets = total liabilities. When a gov't has a surplus and saves it some form (i.e. an asset), there is a corresponding liability somewhere.

In addition, you ignore the idea of "opportunity cost". When a gov't runs a surplus, the surplus funds are taken from taxpayers. So, while the gov't may take those funds and "invest" in some assets, those funds would have been used by the taxpayers. You ignore the foregone return and benefits from those funds.

Sorry, you are completely wrong from an accounting standpoint. Total assets = total liabilities + equity. Assets can just simply be part of equity.

You mean equity can be part of the assets. But that would mean socialism - gov't ownership of private companies.

 

[bigfield]

Perhaps for those who think "Smoke and Mirrors and Kabuki Theatre" are accurate descriptions of the modern financial and economic system.

One of the basics of accounting that your proposals ignore is that total assets = total liabilities. When a gov't has a surplus and saves it some form (i.e. an asset), there is a corresponding liability somewhere.

In addition, you ignore the idea of "opportunity cost". When a gov't runs a surplus, the surplus funds are taken from taxpayers. So, while the gov't may take those funds and "invest" in some assets, those funds would have been used by the taxpayers. You ignore the foregone return and benefits from those funds.

Sorry, you are completely wrong from an accounting standpoint. Total assets = total liabilities + equity. Assets can just simply be part of equity.

You mean equity can be part of the assets. But that would mean socialism - gov't ownership of private companies.

"Total assets = total liabilities + equity" is the correct equation. If you have more assets than liabilities, the difference between the two is your equity.

 

[SimpleDon]

What case, exactly? Why must it cause one of those? Why do you say there is no way to pay that debt? Please, show your reasoning.

The debt is too large. The only real way to pay the debt is to raise taxes which would hurt the economic "growth" which is the reason why you have debt in the first place - nobody wanted to hurt the "economy".

And why is the debt too large? I can tell you but you are going to have to tolerate some economic theory and some number of paragraphs of explanation. It is more complicated than simply saying debt is bad, while that, for the most part, is true especially private debt because it causes debt deflation. Our large public and private debt is what it is because of the way we run our economy today.

A core belief of the Milton Friedman neoliberals in the government who now run the economy is that Irving Fisher was correct in his theory that the money supply has a direct result on the price levels in the economy. That as a result of this now widely accepted fact the money supply must grow for the economy to grow.

This is why Milton Friedman's neoliberals believe that changing interest rates is the best and the only way needed to control inflation and to prevent deflation. Their theory is that high-interest rates discourage borrowing and the money creation that the discouraged borrowing would have put into the economy, thereby lowering inflation. Conversely, lowering interest rates would encourage borrowing and would increase the money supply. This theory is called monetarism and while there are serious problems with the theory and the implantation of it, it is what is used to by the Federal Reserve to control the money supply and to control inflation.

Unfortunately for the economy, the Milton Friedman neoliberals also believe in free trade and no restriction on the free flow of capital out of the country. They believe this largely in order to increase profits by suppressing wages to increase the incomes of the already rich, who enthusiastically sponsored Milton Friedman and his neoliberalism as well as the movement conservatism that gives the neoliberals the political strength required to run the economy.

This combination of beliefs virtually guarantees that the federal government has to run a budget deficit and that personal and small business debt must grow. Why? Because the trade deficit caused by the adherence to free trade and to free capital flows result in the net loss of the money supply and debt is required to make up the difference, to increase the money supply to make up for the money that leaves the country.

So a prudent government who wants to control its own debt and to reduce personal and business debt in its country would do what is required to reduce or eliminate its trade deficit and to restrict the flow of capital out of the country. But this doesn't accomplish what has to be the Milton Friedman neoliberals' main goal to increase profits and the incomes of the already rich.

Unfortunately, this almost single-minded dedication to maximizing profits and the incomes of the already rich has produced an underperforming economy because the main driver of the economy is consumer demand, and increasing the incomes of the rich instead of paying higher wages reduces consumer demand and the activity in the economy. Why? Because the 1% have a greater propensity to save their money than the 99% who have a greater propensity to spend their money. And savings removes the money circulating in the economy and reduces the effective money supply, resulting in more personal and business debt.

This explains the main features of the economy in the neoliberal period; high-income inequality, stagnate wages, low inflation, high debt, low business investment, and an underperforming economy in terms of growth.

This explains why all of these things have happened and why it is the only one that fits with all of the facts of today's economy. If you have an explanation as complete as the one above for why and how the economy has changed in the neoliberal period, the last fifty years or so, let's hear it.

 

[SimpleDon]

No, it's not. Every case of hyperinflation has a clear cause unrelated to the printing of money.

Printing money is a forced response to, not a cause of, hyperinflation.

Yes, printing money would be forced (by too much accumulated debt) response.
And it is a fucking cause of hyperinflation.
Alternative would be paying up, ask Greece about that.

Correlation isn't causation, and you have your horse being pulled by a cart.

And Hitler was a bad dude.

Greece is not a sovereign state because it doesn't have its own currency. For all practical purposes, it uses Germany's currency, the euro. And other than that Greece didn't have a problem with hyperinflation, while it had high levels of debt. This means that your example is one that doesn't support your assertion that high levels of debt cause hyperinflation. You might want to think longer about what you say before you press the submit button.

Can you cite an example of a sovereign country that printed too much money because it had too much debt in its own currency? I can't think of one. All of the examples of hyperinflation that I know of had a high debt in another country's currency or a gold debt, or the catastrophic loss of production capacity leading to a huge trade deficit. Or in one case, Germany after the first world war, both.

 

[SimpleDon]

Did the people who lived thru World War 2 hope to die because of that debt?

I resent your comparison of debt to kill Hitler with debt to buy an iPhone.
That debt was a reason why it was invented - for actual emergencies.
Current debt was mostly wasted and stolen.

Agreed. Our current debt was built primarily to give tax cuts to the already rich, to cover the trade deficit that results from our insane desire to ship our manufacturing and its jobs to Red China, to pay for the recovery from the Great Financial Crisis and Depression, and to fight continuous wars in the Middle East started by mistake. This is not to mention the debt that we are racking up currently to fight the pandemic, a debt in both lives and money made larger through the inaction of our tragically incompetent president and his administration.

 

[DBT]

Which ones are "a waste of tax payer dollars"?

There are plenty of examples. Another one is the ongoing submarine debacle and other defense purchases;
Quote;
3 Collins-Class Submarine Replacement Project. This $50 billion project seeks to replace Australia's problem-plagued Collins-class submarines with subs from French shipbuilder DCNS. The project has design issues because standard French subs are nuclear-powered. There is a bipartisan commitment to buying diesel-electric powered subs, and (seemingly for vote-buying reasons) to building them in Adelaide, even though this might add 40 per cent to the cost. The Australian contractor, Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), also has a dreadful record on other projects.
Advertisement

Anecdotal evidence suggests that (privately) our defence professionals support buying off-the-shelf nuclear-powered submarines, for reasons of performance, reliability, and much more bang-for-the-buck.

The mistake of the sub project is being repeated in the recently announced decision to spend $35 billion building nine British-designed anti-submarine frigates (mainly) at SA's Osborne shipping yard. ASC is again to be the main domestic player (in another vote-buying exercise), with the contract being rushed in order to prevent the Adelaide shipyards being shut down due to lack of other work. It seems that the hull will be Australian built with most of the systems and internal workings coming from overseas.

The stark truth is that the government could be saving tens of billions, and be getting more reliable vessels by instead shutting down Australia's (uncompetitive) ship/sub building industry, and buying the superior overseas product at much lower cost.''

That's disputable.

Firstly, where's the evidence--besides Reilly's hearsay--that the Government could have bought a cheaper, more reliable, better performing, nuclear sub?

Secondly, there's a huge difference between importing ships vs. building them locally. By building the ships in Australia, a lot of the money is spent in the local economy, and it is taxed over and over again. The government gets much of its money back as tax revenue. If the government buys imported ships, it doesn't reclaim any of its money.

When you're comparing domestic vendors and overseas vendors, you can't just compare them on price. You also have to evaluate the economic activity they generate.

Disputable? The purchase of submarines was supposed to be for defence purposes, not a job creation scheme. According to the experts, it fails to deliver in relation to defence by producing a substandard product....nor efficient or ideal as a job creation scheme. You might argue that it keeps Australian manufacturing alive but that doesn't balance the product fuck up.

 

[bilby]

Which ones are "a waste of tax payer dollars"?

There are plenty of examples. Another one is the ongoing submarine debacle and other defense purchases;
Quote;
3 Collins-Class Submarine Replacement Project. This $50 billion project seeks to replace Australia's problem-plagued Collins-class submarines with subs from French shipbuilder DCNS. The project has design issues because standard French subs are nuclear-powered. There is a bipartisan commitment to buying diesel-electric powered subs, and (seemingly for vote-buying reasons) to building them in Adelaide, even though this might add 40 per cent to the cost. The Australian contractor, Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), also has a dreadful record on other projects.
Advertisement

Anecdotal evidence suggests that (privately) our defence professionals support buying off-the-shelf nuclear-powered submarines, for reasons of performance, reliability, and much more bang-for-the-buck.

The mistake of the sub project is being repeated in the recently announced decision to spend $35 billion building nine British-designed anti-submarine frigates (mainly) at SA's Osborne shipping yard. ASC is again to be the main domestic player (in another vote-buying exercise), with the contract being rushed in order to prevent the Adelaide shipyards being shut down due to lack of other work. It seems that the hull will be Australian built with most of the systems and internal workings coming from overseas.

The stark truth is that the government could be saving tens of billions, and be getting more reliable vessels by instead shutting down Australia's (uncompetitive) ship/sub building industry, and buying the superior overseas product at much lower cost.''

That's disputable.

Firstly, where's the evidence--besides Reilly's hearsay--that the Government could have bought a cheaper, more reliable, better performing, nuclear sub?

Secondly, there's a huge difference between importing ships vs. building them locally. By building the ships in Australia, a lot of the money is spent in the local economy, and it is taxed over and over again. The government gets much of its money back as tax revenue. If the government buys imported ships, it doesn't reclaim any of its money.

When you're comparing domestic vendors and overseas vendors, you can't just compare them on price. You also have to evaluate the economic activity they generate.

Disputable? The purchase of submarines was supposed to be for defence purposes, not a job creation scheme. According to the experts, it fails to deliver in relation to defence by producing a substandard product....nor efficient or ideal as a job creation scheme. You might argue that it keeps Australian manufacturing alive but that doesn't balance the product fuck up.

There are good non-financial reasons why it might be wise to manufacture weapons and weapons platforms locally, rather than depend on foreign manufacturing and support for your defense infrastructure.

Avoiding dependency on foreign manufacturers seems like it fits the definition of 'defense purposes' quite well.

Even if the supplier is a completely dependable ally (if such a thing exists), having a transoceanic supply line seems strategically dubious in the event of any war or dispute requiring Australian submarines to defend our shores.

 

[DBT]

Disputable? The purchase of submarines was supposed to be for defence purposes, not a job creation scheme. According to the experts, it fails to deliver in relation to defence by producing a substandard product....nor efficient or ideal as a job creation scheme. You might argue that it keeps Australian manufacturing alive but that doesn't balance the product fuck up.

There are good non-financial reasons why it might be wise to manufacture weapons and weapons platforms locally, rather than depend on foreign manufacturing and support for your defense infrastructure.

Avoiding dependency on foreign manufacturers seems like it fits the definition of 'defense purposes' quite well.

Even if the supplier is a completely dependable ally (if such a thing exists), having a transoceanic supply line seems strategically dubious in the event of any war or dispute requiring Australian submarines to defend our shores.

Keeping manufacturing alive in Australia is the positive side....pity that the powers to be didn't learn a thing from the Collins class debacle by choosing a project that was not another debacle, yet another set of sub standard submarines. One fuck up after another, billions wasted. You'd think they'd learn.


Sinking billions on an outdated weapon

''Australia is locked in to a diesel-electric submarine capability after signing a $50 billion "framework agreement" with French shipbuilding company DCNS to build 12 Shortfin Barracuda subs in Australia. It is said to be the largest, most complex defence-acquisition project in our history.

The Australian government ruled out nuclear propulsion because of: our lack of an indigenous nuclear industry; concerns about maintenance dependence and sovereignty issues if we bought or leased a nuclear-powered sub; and likely public opposition to nuclear technology.

So the Royal Australian Navy was not given the option of considering nuclear power. It would, however, have been cheaper and more practical, because we could have bought a proven nuclear-powered vessel (such as the US Virginia class), without the need to modify it, for about $4 billion each. (Virginia-class subs are designed for a broad range of open-ocean and shallow, coastal-water missions.)''

 

[barbos]

Yes, printing money would be forced (by too much accumulated debt) response.
And it is a fucking cause of hyperinflation.
Alternative would be paying up, ask Greece about that.

And Hitler was a bad dude.

Greece is not a sovereign state because it doesn't have its own currency. For all practical purposes, it uses Germany's currency, the euro. And other than that Greece didn't have a problem with hyperinflation, while it had high levels of debt. This means that your example is one that doesn't support your assertion that high levels of debt cause hyperinflation. You might want to think longer about what you say before you press the submit button.

You are late to the reading miscomprehension Olympics.
I never said debt cause hyperinflation, I said uncontrolled printing money cause hyperinflation.
And uncontrolled money printing is a solution suggested by resident and not "economists"
So you might use your own advice and read before you hit the button.

 

[barbos]

What case, exactly? Why must it cause one of those? Why do you say there is no way to pay that debt? Please, show your reasoning.

The debt is too large. The only real way to pay the debt is to raise taxes which would hurt the economic "growth" which is the reason why you have debt in the first place - nobody wanted to hurt the "economy".

And why is the debt too large? I can tell you but you are going to have to tolerate some economic theory and some number of paragraphs of explanation. It is more complicated than simply saying debt is bad, while that, for the most part, is true especially private debt because it causes debt deflation. Our large public and private debt is what it is because of the way we run our economy today.

A core belief of the Milton Friedman neoliberals in the government who now run the economy is that Irving Fisher was correct in his theory that the money supply has a direct result on the price levels in the economy. That as a result of this now widely accepted fact the money supply must grow for the economy to grow.

This is why Milton Friedman's neoliberals believe that changing interest rates is the best and the only way needed to control inflation and to prevent deflation. Their theory is that high-interest rates discourage borrowing and the money creation that the discouraged borrowing would have put into the economy, thereby lowering inflation. Conversely, lowering interest rates would encourage borrowing and would increase the money supply. This theory is called monetarism and while there are serious problems with the theory and the implantation of it, it is what is used to by the Federal Reserve to control the money supply and to control inflation.

Unfortunately for the economy, the Milton Friedman neoliberals also believe in free trade and no restriction on the free flow of capital out of the country. They believe this largely in order to increase profits by suppressing wages to increase the incomes of the already rich, who enthusiastically sponsored Milton Friedman and his neoliberalism as well as the movement conservatism that gives the neoliberals the political strength required to run the economy.

This combination of beliefs virtually guarantees that the federal government has to run a budget deficit and that personal and small business debt must grow. Why? Because the trade deficit caused by the adherence to free trade and to free capital flows result in the net loss of the money supply and debt is required to make up the difference, to increase the money supply to make up for the money that leaves the country.

So a prudent government who wants to control its own debt and to reduce personal and business debt in its country would do what is required to reduce or eliminate its trade deficit and to restrict the flow of capital out of the country. But this doesn't accomplish what has to be the Milton Friedman neoliberals' main goal to increase profits and the incomes of the already rich.

Unfortunately, this almost single-minded dedication to maximizing profits and the incomes of the already rich has produced an underperforming economy because the main driver of the economy is consumer demand, and increasing the incomes of the rich instead of paying higher wages reduces consumer demand and the activity in the economy. Why? Because the 1% have a greater propensity to save their money than the 99% who have a greater propensity to spend their money. And savings removes the money circulating in the economy and reduces the effective money supply, resulting in more personal and business debt.

This explains the main features of the economy in the neoliberal period; high-income inequality, stagnate wages, low inflation, high debt, low business investment, and an underperforming economy in terms of growth.

This explains why all of these things have happened and why it is the only one that fits with all of the facts of today's economy. If you have an explanation as complete as the one above for why and how the economy has changed in the neoliberal period, the last fifty years or so, let's hear it.

I gave my explanation in my second post here.
US debt are the rich peoples money/wealth which get more and more disconnected from economic reality. It's very much like a Madoff affair, which by the way had lasted remarkably long time.

 

[bilby]

Disputable? The purchase of submarines was supposed to be for defence purposes, not a job creation scheme. According to the experts, it fails to deliver in relation to defence by producing a substandard product....nor efficient or ideal as a job creation scheme. You might argue that it keeps Australian manufacturing alive but that doesn't balance the product fuck up.

There are good non-financial reasons why it might be wise to manufacture weapons and weapons platforms locally, rather than depend on foreign manufacturing and support for your defense infrastructure.

Avoiding dependency on foreign manufacturers seems like it fits the definition of 'defense purposes' quite well.

Even if the supplier is a completely dependable ally (if such a thing exists), having a transoceanic supply line seems strategically dubious in the event of any war or dispute requiring Australian submarines to defend our shores.

Keeping manufacturing alive in Australia is the positive side....pity that the powers to be didn't learn a thing from the Collins class debacle by choosing a project that was not another debacle, yet another set of sub standard submarines. One fuck up after another, billions wasted. You'd think they'd learn.


Sinking billions on an outdated weapon

''Australia is locked in to a diesel-electric submarine capability after signing a $50 billion "framework agreement" with French shipbuilding company DCNS to build 12 Shortfin Barracuda subs in Australia. It is said to be the largest, most complex defence-acquisition project in our history.

The Australian government ruled out nuclear propulsion because of: our lack of an indigenous nuclear industry; concerns about maintenance dependence and sovereignty issues if we bought or leased a nuclear-powered sub; and likely public opposition to nuclear technology.

So the Royal Australian Navy was not given the option of considering nuclear power. It would, however, have been cheaper and more practical, because we could have bought a proven nuclear-powered vessel (such as the US Virginia class), without the need to modify it, for about $4 billion each. (Virginia-class subs are designed for a broad range of open-ocean and shallow, coastal-water missions.)''

Yup; A nuclear powered sub would have been by any measure the best option; But in Australia 'nuclear' is still synonymous with 'evil'.

So the irrationality of the electorate demanded that the government waste a shit-ton of money.

That's not an economic or financial issue; It's just another case of too much democracy, giving power to the ignorant but vocal.

 

[bilby]

Yes, printing money would be forced (by too much accumulated debt) response.
And it is a fucking cause of hyperinflation.
Alternative would be paying up, ask Greece about that.

And Hitler was a bad dude.

Greece is not a sovereign state because it doesn't have its own currency. For all practical purposes, it uses Germany's currency, the euro. And other than that Greece didn't have a problem with hyperinflation, while it had high levels of debt. This means that your example is one that doesn't support your assertion that high levels of debt cause hyperinflation. You might want to think longer about what you say before you press the submit button.

You are late to the reading miscomprehension Olympics.
I never said debt cause hyperinflation, I said uncontrolled printing money cause hyperinflation.

You were wrong.

Hyperinflation is caused by massive debt denominated in somebody else's currency; Or by a collapse in production; Or both.

Printing money is a forced response to hyperinflation, not a cause of it.

And uncontrolled money printing is a solution suggested by resident and not "economists"
So you might use your own advice and read before you hit the button.

Nobody is advocating uncontrolled money printing.

 

[barbos]

You are late to the reading miscomprehension Olympics.
I never said debt cause hyperinflation, I said uncontrolled printing money cause hyperinflation.

You were wrong.

Hyperinflation is caused by massive debt denominated in somebody else's currency; Or by a collapse in production; Or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Causes :

While there can be a number of causes of high inflation, most hyperinflations have been caused by government budget deficits financed by money creation

Printing money is a forced response to hyperinflation, not a cause of it.

And uncontrolled money printing is a solution suggested by resident and not "economists"
So you might use your own advice and read before you hit the button.

Nobody is advocating uncontrolled money printing.

I agree, Alan Greenspan is fucking nobody.

 

[bilby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Causes :

While there can be a number of causes of high inflation, most hyperinflations have been caused by government budget deficits financed by money creation

Printing money is a forced response to hyperinflation, not a cause of it.

And uncontrolled money printing is a solution suggested by resident and not "economists"
So you might use your own advice and read before you hit the button.

Nobody is advocating uncontrolled money printing.

I agree, Alan Greenspan is fucking nobody.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information on anything even vaguely contentious.

Congratulations, you have proven that most people haven't a clue about macroeconomics. Well done - it's almost as though that were somehow news.

Following up with an unfounded slander of Alan Greenspan was unnecessary, but certainly in keeping with your general kack of actual knowledge of this subject.

Stick to physics. Perhaps you're not totally fucking incompetent in that field.

 

[barbos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Causes :

Printing money is a forced response to hyperinflation, not a cause of it.

And uncontrolled money printing is a solution suggested by resident and not "economists"
So you might use your own advice and read before you hit the button.

Nobody is advocating uncontrolled money printing.

I agree, Alan Greenspan is fucking nobody.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information on anything even vaguely contentious.

How convenient. I am sorry but it's not contentious. Not outside of this thread at least.

Congratulations, you have proven that most people haven't a clue about macroeconomics. Well done - it's almost as though that were somehow news.

And of course you are not most people.

Following up with an unfounded slander of Alan Greenspan was unnecessary, but certainly in keeping with your general kack of actual knowledge of this subject.

Kack of actual knowledge is all yours. Greenspan did advocate for money printing solution (if necessary of course)

Stick to physics. Perhaps you're not totally fucking incompetent in that field.

Physics includes everything, even such thing as "economics" which is applied physics.
And it is you who is incompetent.

 

[Jokodo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Causes :

Printing money is a forced response to hyperinflation, not a cause of it.


Nobody is advocating uncontrolled money printing.

I agree, Alan Greenspan is fucking nobody.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information on anything even vaguely contentious.

How convenient. I am sorry but it's not contentious. Not outside of this thread at least.

Congratulations, you have proven that most people haven't a clue about macroeconomics. Well done - it's almost as though that were somehow news.

And of course you are not most people.

Following up with an unfounded slander of Alan Greenspan was unnecessary, but certainly in keeping with your general kack of actual knowledge of this subject.

Kack of actual knowledge is all yours. Greenspan did advocate for money printing solution (if necessary of course)

Stick to physics. Perhaps you're not totally fucking incompetent in that field.

Physics includes everything, even such thing as "economics" which is applied physics.
And it is you who is incompetent.

And physics is applied mathematics, but a mathematician saying that our figures for the planets' distances from the sun have to be wrong because he has a hunch they should be proportional to the first eight primes is still spectacularly incompetent, full of themselves, and most importantly wrong.