4 ms·

In the short term, yes, but long term, deficits will put an upward pressure on tax revenue, so you'll end up paying more in the end (than you would have if othe

In the short term, yes, but long term, deficits will put an upward pressure on tax revenue, so you'll end up paying more in the end (than you would have if other people paid more taxes).

wycx 11y ago
Only if you are borrowing the money to fund the deficit. Public money (as opposed to bank money) is a legitimate, but ignored, alternative. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
- force_reboot 11y ago
  That would cause inflation, and would cause markets to raise interest rates to account for this one they knew about the policy. Modern monetary theory is very non mainstream, flawed economics. It has a Wikipedia page, but very very few academic proponents. Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criticisms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criti... if you're interested in reading more criticism of MMT
  - wycx 11y ago
    Mainstream (neoliberal/monetarist) economics has abundant academic proponents and is demonstrably flawed, so I am not sure counting the number of academic proponents is much of an indicator of anything other than what is academically fashionable. In a similarly patronising way to your comment, I suggest checking out http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ if you are interested in reading more criticism of neoliberalism and learning more about MMT than is presented on the wikipedia page.
    - force_reboot 11y ago
      You keep making assertions, but my original point in posting that reference, is that if your style of argumentation is to make assertions, and then pass the reader off to another source to verify your assertions, then all other things being equal, the source with the most academic backing is going to win. Either you directly argue the point, or you argue by authority. If you argue by authority, academia has the most authority.

In the short term, yes, but long term, deficits will put an upward pressure on tax revenue, so you'll end up paying more in the end (than you would have if other people paid more taxes).

wycx 11y ago

Only if you are borrowing the money to fund the deficit. Public money (as opposed to bank money) is a legitimate, but ignored, alternative. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

force_reboot 11y ago
That would cause inflation, and would cause markets to raise interest rates to account for this one they knew about the policy. Modern monetary theory is very non mainstream, flawed economics. It has a Wikipedia page, but very very few academic proponents. Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criticisms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criti... if you're interested in reading more criticism of MMT
- wycx 11y ago
  Mainstream (neoliberal/monetarist) economics has abundant academic proponents and is demonstrably flawed, so I am not sure counting the number of academic proponents is much of an indicator of anything other than what is academically fashionable. In a similarly patronising way to your comment, I suggest checking out http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ if you are interested in reading more criticism of neoliberalism and learning more about MMT than is presented on the wikipedia page.
  - force_reboot 11y ago
    You keep making assertions, but my original point in posting that reference, is that if your style of argumentation is to make assertions, and then pass the reader off to another source to verify your assertions, then all other things being equal, the source with the most academic backing is going to win. Either you directly argue the point, or you argue by authority. If you argue by authority, academia has the most authority.