4 ms·
But that $3 trillion is all spent. Is it not?
by muninn_ 9y ago
But that $3 trillion is all spent. Is it not?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> But that $3 trillion is all spent. Is it not? And the $1.9 trillion isn't? At the micro level, economies are just transactions. People (e.g. natural persons, companies and governments) buy goods and services with money or credit. Credit creates debt. "Money" would still exist if we zeroed out debt, e.g. gold-based economies of yore, but that destroys the double-entry ledger system [1] that serves as a a distributed error-correcting mechanism. It also decouples the currency from economic growth, which produces all kinds of nasty side effects. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping_syste...
- paulpauper 9y agoIt want to capital infusions for major banks and QE-related asset swaps. It's not like money was printed and given to people.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> It want to capital infusions for major banks and QE-related asset swaps The $3 trillion figure is from the 2016 budget. I don't believe any capital was infused into banks à la TARP [1] last year. Also, QE refers to the Federal Reserve, instead of just buying Treasury bonds from banks, buying a broader portfolio of assets. This is done off the Fed's balance sheet and does not come out of tax proceeds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program