3 ms·

The federal government cannot be crippled because it can issue currency ad-infinitem. As AOC is wonderfully publicizing, the notion that government finance work

The federal government cannot be crippled because it can issue currency ad-infinitem. As AOC is wonderfully publicizing, the notion that government finance works like household and business finance is finally starting to be debunked and at least talked about openly. There maybe other problems with universal healthcare, but financing it is not one of them.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
nope, doesn't work that way. USA issues a lot of debt, maybe more than it should, but issuing trillions of new dollars a year is not good policy.
moduspol 8y ago
It's truly worrying that comments like these are made unironically. Is there any amount of currency printing that you believe might be problematic? Or is the sky the limit? Perhaps most importantly: What happens if we accept your claim, spend and print money ad infinitem, and then you're wrong?
- danieltillett 8y ago
  MMT sounds awfully like the Magic Pudding [1]. If governments can just print any amount of money they like to pay for everything whence cometh hyperinflation? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Pudding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Pudding
  - Forbo 8y ago
    I don't understand why this discussion often turns to the Fed issuing more money, rather than the re-allocation of existing funds. It's pretty clear that the US is already spending more as far as %/GDP/per capita on healthcare than other countries that have socialized medicine. To me that just screams waste and inefficiency, er, I mean... profits!
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Because it has become the magic solution to solving difficult problems. You don't have to make difficult choices between spending options, just buy everything and put it on the nations credit card. Reforming the US healthcare system is incredibly difficult because everything is interconnected. If you try to reform it piecemeal things start to fall apart.
  - bubbleRefuge 8y ago
    Thank you very much. This is precisely conversation we need to have. Exhibit A: Obama boom we hit 10% GDP deficits, the biggest since WWII resulting in no inflation and in fact slight deflation and GDP never averaged above 3% annually. Exhibit B: WWII, we hit around 22% GDP deficits. Full employment ( with a very high labor participation rate [rosy the rivoter, etc]) no hyperinflation and probably not much inflation.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      The Obama boom was during the worst recession since the Great Depression so there was plenty of slack in the economy to absorb money creation. WW2 is more complicated as there were price controls and rationing in place to prevent inflation. it is unlikely that you could impose such controls outside of a total war situation. All the historical examples of hyperinflation have occurred when governments have printed far more currrency than they have raised in tax or via the debt market. Spending tens trillions dollars more than you raise in taxes is likely to end in tears.
- bubbleRefuge 8y ago
  Inflation! Why can't the conversation be "how far can we go before we hit inflation?" instead of "we can't afford it" because we of the household analogy ?

onetimemanytime 8y ago

nope, doesn't work that way. USA issues a lot of debt, maybe more than it should, but issuing trillions of new dollars a year is not good policy.

moduspol 8y ago

It's truly worrying that comments like these are made unironically. Is there any amount of currency printing that you believe might be problematic? Or is the sky the limit? Perhaps most importantly: What happens if we accept your claim, spend and print money ad infinitem, and then you're wrong?

danieltillett 8y ago
MMT sounds awfully like the Magic Pudding [1]. If governments can just print any amount of money they like to pay for everything whence cometh hyperinflation? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Pudding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Pudding
- Forbo 8y ago
  I don't understand why this discussion often turns to the Fed issuing more money, rather than the re-allocation of existing funds. It's pretty clear that the US is already spending more as far as %/GDP/per capita on healthcare than other countries that have socialized medicine. To me that just screams waste and inefficiency, er, I mean... profits!
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Because it has become the magic solution to solving difficult problems. You don't have to make difficult choices between spending options, just buy everything and put it on the nations credit card. Reforming the US healthcare system is incredibly difficult because everything is interconnected. If you try to reform it piecemeal things start to fall apart.
- bubbleRefuge 8y ago
  Thank you very much. This is precisely conversation we need to have. Exhibit A: Obama boom we hit 10% GDP deficits, the biggest since WWII resulting in no inflation and in fact slight deflation and GDP never averaged above 3% annually. Exhibit B: WWII, we hit around 22% GDP deficits. Full employment ( with a very high labor participation rate [rosy the rivoter, etc]) no hyperinflation and probably not much inflation.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    The Obama boom was during the worst recession since the Great Depression so there was plenty of slack in the economy to absorb money creation. WW2 is more complicated as there were price controls and rationing in place to prevent inflation. it is unlikely that you could impose such controls outside of a total war situation. All the historical examples of hyperinflation have occurred when governments have printed far more currrency than they have raised in tax or via the debt market. Spending tens trillions dollars more than you raise in taxes is likely to end in tears.
bubbleRefuge 8y ago
Inflation! Why can't the conversation be "how far can we go before we hit inflation?" instead of "we can't afford it" because we of the household analogy ?