• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What drives US debt?

If the currency is pegged, it's sovereign in name only. Not at all like the situation with the US.

Do you know what the word "sovereign" means? If Venezuela issues debt denominated in dollars that is still sovereign debt of Venezuela.

A bigger question given your belief countries have no check on borrowing really ought to be why they must borrow in dollars at all.

Why do you imagine that might be the case?
 
Because there are limits on real resources.

Ok, why not just fund the maximum resource acquisition that is possible by floating debt?

And, obviously there's no need for taxes to fund our current level of resource acquisition, so let's start by eliminating them and floating debt to cover all spending we currently do.

Taxes are essential. Requiring tax liabilities to be paid in the currency gives the currency value. Taxes can also be used to control inflation, similar to how FOMC activities maintain the overnight rate.

The goal of fiscal policy should be realization of full potential;no idle capacity. There's currently a lot of slack in the economy. Deficit spending would address that.
 
Ok, why not just fund the maximum resource acquisition that is possible by floating debt?

And, obviously there's no need for taxes to fund our current level of resource acquisition, so let's start by eliminating them and floating debt to cover all spending we currently do.

Taxes are essential. Requiring tax liabilities to be paid in the currency gives the currency value. Taxes can also be used to control inflation, similar to how FOMC activities maintain the overnight rate.

The goal of fiscal policy should be realization of full potential;no idle capacity. There's currently a lot of slack in the economy. Deficit spending would address that.

Nonsense. Taxes are used to fund government spending. They don't create or destroy money, they shuffle it from one person's pocket to another. If government spending can be funded entirely with debt there is no need for taxes.
 
Taxes are essential. Requiring tax liabilities to be paid in the currency gives the currency value. Taxes can also be used to control inflation, similar to how FOMC activities maintain the overnight rate.

The goal of fiscal policy should be realization of full potential;no idle capacity. There's currently a lot of slack in the economy. Deficit spending would address that.

Nonsense. Taxes are used to fund government spending. They don't create or destroy money, they shuffle it from one person's pocket to another. If government spending can be funded entirely with debt there is no need for taxes.

No. The budget constraint is a myth.

Govts create money by spending or issuing debt, and they destroy it when taxes are collected. The difference is a mere accounting identity. Meaningless, but useful for intimidating people who compare govts to households.

The important thing is whether enough credit is created to grow the economy. If the private sector can't do it, the govt should. Business cycles are inevitable, but the impact on peoples lives can be ameliorated.
 
Nonsense. Taxes are used to fund government spending. They don't create or destroy money, they shuffle it from one person's pocket to another. If government spending can be funded entirely with debt there is no need for taxes.

No. The budget constraint is a myth.

Govts create money by spending or issuing debt, and they destroy it when taxes are collected. The difference is a mere accounting identity. Meaningless, but useful for intimidating people who compare govts to households.

The important thing is whether enough credit is created to grow the economy. If the private sector can't do it, the govt should. Business cycles are inevitable, but the impact on peoples lives can be ameliorated.

You have now descended from talking nonsense to talking nonsense on stilts.

When the government taxes a dollar from Bob, Bob has one less dollar and the government has one more. When the government gives the dollar to Sue, Sue has one more dollar and the government has one less.

No dollars are harmed in these transactions. The dollars are exchanged, not created or destroyed.
 
Yeah, I've argued that too: we don't have a spending problem, we have a funding problem.

Tip: Deficit = [receipts] - [outlays]

You don't get a deficit because of one or the other, but by one being bigger than the other.

This really says it all (as long as receipts < outlays).

That means there are three obvious solutions:
1. Cut outlays
2. Increase receipts
3. A combination of 1 and 2

Then there are the less obvious solutions.
4. Just print more money until the difference is covered.

Of course that would mean the Department of the Treasury nationalizing the Federal Reserve, but why no?
 
No. The budget constraint is a myth.

Govts create money by spending or issuing debt, and they destroy it when taxes are collected. The difference is a mere accounting identity. Meaningless, but useful for intimidating people who compare govts to households.

The important thing is whether enough credit is created to grow the economy. If the private sector can't do it, the govt should. Business cycles are inevitable, but the impact on peoples lives can be ameliorated.

You have now descended from talking nonsense to talking nonsense on stilts.

When the government taxes a dollar from Bob, Bob has one less dollar and the government has one more. When the government gives the dollar to Sue, Sue has one more dollar and the government has one less.

No dollars are harmed in these transactions. The dollars are exchanged, not created or destroyed.

The "amount" of dollars the govt has is infinite, because it can create them at will. Nothing in the way of its ability to tax or spend is altered in the slightest by the amount it takes in or pays out. Bob has one less dollar, Sue has one more, and the govt still has infinite dollars.
 
You have now descended from talking nonsense to talking nonsense on stilts.

When the government taxes a dollar from Bob, Bob has one less dollar and the government has one more. When the government gives the dollar to Sue, Sue has one more dollar and the government has one less.

No dollars are harmed in these transactions. The dollars are exchanged, not created or destroyed.

The "amount" of dollars the govt has is infinite, because it can create them at will. Nothing in the way of its ability to tax or spend is altered in the slightest by the amount it takes in or pays out. Bob has one less dollar, Sue has one more, and the govt still has infinite dollars.

It cannot create them at will. The money supply is controlled by the Fed and is constrained by law to conduct opetations that acheive full employment and a stable value of the currency. It is also independent from the executive branch of the US. The US treasury can not ask it for free dollars and expect the request to be fulfilled.
 
The "amount" of dollars the govt has is infinite, because it can create them at will. Nothing in the way of its ability to tax or spend is altered in the slightest by the amount it takes in or pays out. Bob has one less dollar, Sue has one more, and the govt still has infinite dollars.

It cannot create them at will. The money supply is controlled by the Fed and is constrained by law to conduct opetations that acheive full employment and a stable value of the currency. It is also independent from the executive branch of the US. The US treasury can not ask it for free dollars and expect the request to be fulfilled.

Has the Fed ever refused to cash a Treasury check?
 
“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.” Alan Greenspan

“In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets.” Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR

“In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default.” Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser

“There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency.” Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial

“There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spending…When the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate.” Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund

“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid “crowding out” private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.” L. Randall Wray

Taxes aren’t about getting money to spend, they are about regulating our spending power to make sure we don’t have too much and cause inflation, or too little which causes unemployment and recessions. — Warren Mosler

“A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.” L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute.

SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

RYAN: “Do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure?”
GREENSPAN: “Well, I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase.”
...
 
It cannot create them at will. The money supply is controlled by the Fed and is constrained by law to conduct opetations that acheive full employment and a stable value of the currency. It is also independent from the executive branch of the US. The US treasury can not ask it for free dollars and expect the request to be fulfilled.

Has the Fed ever refused to cash a Treasury check?

Not sure what you mean?
 
If the currency is pegged, it's sovereign in name only. Not at all like the situation with the US.

Do you know what the word "sovereign" means? If Venezuela issues debt denominated in dollars that is still sovereign debt of Venezuela.

A bigger question given your belief countries have no check on borrowing really ought to be why they must borrow in dollars at all.

Why do you imagine that might be the case?

We're not discussing sovereignty, we're discussing sovereign currencies, which float. Argentina and Venezuela's don't float; they're not comparable in that regard to the US.

As to why they borrow in dollars, it's probably because there's more wealth available, along with a nice rake off for the deal makers and their buddies.
 
Well in 2011 S&P downgraded the US for a failure to raise the debt ceiling. This includes borrowing against intergovernmental agencies (gross debt), so while we typically don't "default" on debt, that doesn't mean that our inter-tribal bickering hasn't resulted in it being more expensive for us to borrow money. (This is probably the worst possible consequence, since default is impossible).

aa
 
We have both a revenue problem and a spending problem.

The spending problem is a matter of how inefficiently the government runs. Vast sums are spent on things because they're in the district of some powerful congresscritter rather than due to need. Other things are underfunded so they make a total mess that often ends up costing more in the long run.

So you are proposing that the government should fund its programs based solely on need and its revenues solely on ability to pay? There is something familiar about that idea. I just can't put my finger on it.

I'm talking about things like NASA's budget that is increasingly a pile of pork rather than useful science. For example, plenty of money poured into the SLS--but basically nothing for any mission that needs it. The SLS is effectively pork.
 
The "amount" of dollars the govt has is infinite, because it can create them at will. Nothing in the way of its ability to tax or spend is altered in the slightest by the amount it takes in or pays out. Bob has one less dollar, Sue has one more, and the govt still has infinite dollars.

The government's dollars are limited by inflation. Try to actually use those infinite dollars and you do infinite damage to your economy.
 
It cannot create them at will. The money supply is controlled by the Fed and is constrained by law to conduct opetations that acheive full employment and a stable value of the currency. It is also independent from the executive branch of the US. The US treasury can not ask it for free dollars and expect the request to be fulfilled.

Has the Fed ever refused to cash a Treasury check?

Their continued independence is dependent on them not doing that.
 
The US has debts for the same reason an individual has debts...because they spend more than they make. I would have thought this was common sense?
 
The "amount" of dollars the govt has is infinite, because it can create them at will. Nothing in the way of its ability to tax or spend is altered in the slightest by the amount it takes in or pays out. Bob has one less dollar, Sue has one more, and the govt still has infinite dollars.

The government's dollars are limited by inflation. Try to actually use those infinite dollars and you do infinite damage to your economy.

Misses the point.

- - - Updated - - -

Has the Fed ever refused to cash a Treasury check?

Their continued independence is dependent on them not doing that.

Which is not very independent.
 
Back
Top Bottom