4 ms·

I knew I'd get this kneejerk reaction to "simply create and allocate the currency," I was holding out hope that responders would finish reading the sentence. W

I knew I'd get this kneejerk reaction to "simply create and allocate the currency," I was holding out hope that responders would finish reading the sentence. What I said was: >a nation-state... can create and allocate the currency to serve this purpose. I totally agree with you in a general sense. Creating and allocating currency and distributing it to the general population equally will cause the scenario you describe. "More dollars chasing fewer goods," as Greenspan described[1]. However, if we take the hypothetical scenario that the government agrees to pay exactly the current cost of the procedure at Narayana for medical procedures, none of what you described will come to pass. Wait times at Narayana might increase because more people might come in to have the services performed, but it will not cause runaway across-the-board inflation. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU

kbutler 8y ago
The point is that inflating the money supply is a tax, just a hidden one spread across all holders of assets denominated in that currency (cash, loans, salaries, ...) Smaller amounts of "print and spend" inflate less than large amounts, but they do cause inflation, and the wish list is never just healthcare. Controlling a fiat currency lets you hide some taxation as inflation, but it is no free lunch.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  It is no free lunch, but I never claimed it was. It is an option on the table, not one without consequences. It’s never just healthcare, sure: move the goalposts and set up your slippery slope. But consider this: what if the tax produced value over the cost of its implementation? What if it prevented harder, more expensive downline complications or made the population more productive—more likely to gain, retain and apply their education? What if we looked to it as an investment in our people? Why is it then not justifiable?
  - kbutler 8y ago
    Proposing that it is a justifiable tax for investment is very different from saying "the concept of 'a nation can't afford' does not make sense [for] a nation-state with control of its own currency". It looks like you understand why even a nation that controls it's own currency may not be able to afford nationalized healthcare: 1) because creating and allocating currency inflates prices, it just hides the cost rather than eliminating it 2) because we cannot eliminate the cost by creating currency, cost and benefit of healthcare spending must still be evaluated in comparison to other spending priorities Good discussion.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      If printing the money results in commensurate levels of increased productivity, then printing the money will not cause price inflation. That’s why most nations grow their money supply over time, after all :)

kbutler 8y ago

The point is that inflating the money supply is a tax, just a hidden one spread across all holders of assets denominated in that currency (cash, loans, salaries, ...) Smaller amounts of "print and spend" inflate less than large amounts, but they do cause inflation, and the wish list is never just healthcare. Controlling a fiat currency lets you hide some taxation as inflation, but it is no free lunch.

omegaworks 8y ago
It is no free lunch, but I never claimed it was. It is an option on the table, not one without consequences. It’s never just healthcare, sure: move the goalposts and set up your slippery slope. But consider this: what if the tax produced value over the cost of its implementation? What if it prevented harder, more expensive downline complications or made the population more productive—more likely to gain, retain and apply their education? What if we looked to it as an investment in our people? Why is it then not justifiable?
- kbutler 8y ago
  Proposing that it is a justifiable tax for investment is very different from saying "the concept of 'a nation can't afford' does not make sense [for] a nation-state with control of its own currency". It looks like you understand why even a nation that controls it's own currency may not be able to afford nationalized healthcare: 1) because creating and allocating currency inflates prices, it just hides the cost rather than eliminating it 2) because we cannot eliminate the cost by creating currency, cost and benefit of healthcare spending must still be evaluated in comparison to other spending priorities Good discussion.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    If printing the money results in commensurate levels of increased productivity, then printing the money will not cause price inflation. That’s why most nations grow their money supply over time, after all :)