3 ms·

> Where is it? It was spent on crap rather than invested in assets. What makes something crap rather than an asset? How could they have done it "the right way"

> Where is it? It was spent on crap rather than invested in assets. What makes something crap rather than an asset? How could they have done it "the right way"?

gaius 9y ago
Governments spend a lot of this money on job creation. So the question is, what are those jobs? Are they creating value-adding infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels that accelerate movement between commercial centres? Or are they doing the equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again, such as employing huge bureaucracies to shuffle paper around and sit in meetings eating biscuits? Another example is a person who borrows money and spends it on home improvements. He or she still has to pay back the money and the interest, but if the value of the improvements is greater than the cost, that money can be recovered later by selling the house. Or that person could have spent the money on... nothing. That might have been fun, but it still needs to be paid back...
- RobertoG 9y ago
  A household an a government are very different things. A government that issue its own currency is not limited in the same way that a household. A government, that issue its own currency, could spend (constrained by the real resources available) without creating debt at the same time. It's true that it would be wise to spend in creating more real capacity in the economy, instead of digging holes and fill them again.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Printing money inexorably leads to inflation. So the money might be there "on paper" but worth less (or even worthless). The net result is the same - money moved from the future into the present, then the same rules on how to spend or invest it apply.
    - RobertoG 9y ago
      "Printing money inexorably leads to inflation" That's not true. Inflation could be though as a ratio between the money in circulation and the productivity in the economy. If you increase both, numerator and denominator you don't get inflation. Also, "printing money" doesn't create inflation. Spending it when there is not enough available resources can create inflation. If you have doubts, check the QE programs of the FED and the ECB (ongoing). In fact, the more famous episodes of hyperinflation are originated because a collapse in the productive economy (the denominator), and not because an increase in money (the numerator). If real resources are increased, a 'space' is generated for spending, and it would be a real pity if that opportunity is wasted.
      - gaius 9y ago
        Sure, I should have been more precise. If the productivity in the real economy is growing then of course the money supply should increase to maintain the parity. But the context here is that holes in the budget don't matter because you can just print money to pay them off - yes technically you can, but not without consequences that may be worse than just biting the bullet!

> Where is it? It was spent on crap rather than invested in assets. What makes something crap rather than an asset? How could they have done it "the right way"?

gaius 9y ago

Governments spend a lot of this money on job creation. So the question is, what are those jobs? Are they creating value-adding infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels that accelerate movement between commercial centres? Or are they doing the equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again, such as employing huge bureaucracies to shuffle paper around and sit in meetings eating biscuits? Another example is a person who borrows money and spends it on home improvements. He or she still has to pay back the money and the interest, but if the value of the improvements is greater than the cost, that money can be recovered later by selling the house. Or that person could have spent the money on... nothing. That might have been fun, but it still needs to be paid back...

RobertoG 9y ago
A household an a government are very different things. A government that issue its own currency is not limited in the same way that a household. A government, that issue its own currency, could spend (constrained by the real resources available) without creating debt at the same time. It's true that it would be wise to spend in creating more real capacity in the economy, instead of digging holes and fill them again.
- gaius 9y ago
  Printing money inexorably leads to inflation. So the money might be there "on paper" but worth less (or even worthless). The net result is the same - money moved from the future into the present, then the same rules on how to spend or invest it apply.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    "Printing money inexorably leads to inflation" That's not true. Inflation could be though as a ratio between the money in circulation and the productivity in the economy. If you increase both, numerator and denominator you don't get inflation. Also, "printing money" doesn't create inflation. Spending it when there is not enough available resources can create inflation. If you have doubts, check the QE programs of the FED and the ECB (ongoing). In fact, the more famous episodes of hyperinflation are originated because a collapse in the productive economy (the denominator), and not because an increase in money (the numerator). If real resources are increased, a 'space' is generated for spending, and it would be a real pity if that opportunity is wasted.
    - gaius 9y ago
      Sure, I should have been more precise. If the productivity in the real economy is growing then of course the money supply should increase to maintain the parity. But the context here is that holes in the budget don't matter because you can just print money to pay them off - yes technically you can, but not without consequences that may be worse than just biting the bullet!