4 ms·

"Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy. The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the

"Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy. The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the checks. "But but but debt--" Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional. Just write the checks. "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks. I realize, of course, I am shouting into the wind. I understand that it isn't actually about the economically underprivileged, because we'd write the checks. And it isn't actually about the Small Business Owner--service industry small business owner checking in, doing fine, thanks--being threatened, because we'd write the checks. It's about something much darker and much more mendacious and the rhetoric that is so readily adopted by useful idiots who want their haircuts or whatever. We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks. And that is the downfall of civic society before all else.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I'm not even against these checks, but as far as the debt concern goes: doesn't it require paying interest? At which point when you can't pay the interest, you'll have to print money, resulting in massive inflation? I never understood why people say it's fictional. Is it somehow fictional under the assumption of playing by the rules? Or under the assumption that when the US is demanded to pay it'll just say "make me" and then erase the debt that way?
- eropple 6y ago
  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these debts do not begin at "fictional" and go from there (and this is a viewpoint I don't personally hold, so long as reserves are denominated in the U.S. dollar its motion and not the numbers on a balance sheet are what actually matter): spending creates money, taxes destroy money. If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns. This is a generality and of course it's more nuanced than just this, but "spend in bad times, tax in good times" is a reasonable place to start. Where we have problems is that the "tax in good times" side of this keeps getting dropped for one reason or another. Cynically, I notice that this "for one reason or another" coincides strongly with a particular political party being elected once good times are back so that they can proceed to drive it off the nearest hillside yet again and somehow blame "government" for it.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns. I mean, I'm not arguing about how to avoid inflation. My question is about the debt being fictional. When you say "debt is fictional" that means that you can rack it up endlessly without consequences, but this clearly means there are consequences that you have to mitigate in another way. To argue that it's fictional you'd need to argue those problems don't come up at all. Otherwise you might as well say heart attacks are fictional because we can treat them, snake bites are fictional because we can treat them, etc...
JPKab 6y ago
" "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks." Nobody in this thread said anything about that. "Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional." I studied economics. I can assure you, that's a radical oversimplification of how international debt works. Are you aware of how US government debt is taken on? I don't think you are. You are acting as if the risk profile remains unchanged as policies are pursued. I'm not debating Keynesian economics here. If the economy is in a deflationary spiral, then creating money isn't going to be destructive in pure terms, provided it's done correctly. "We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks." Again, I'm not against writing the checks. I'm against writing the checks if it's not necessary and there isn't a benefit to doing so. The same callousness you highlight in that line could also be said about allowing small businesses to fail (ruining young people's lives) to protect grandma, who had elderly people in previous generations just accept deadly diseases as a part of reality rather than shutting down whole economies to protect themselves. Glad you, as a small service business owner, are doing fine. But every day, the percentage of business owners who aren't doing fine goes up. What's the stop criteria for this in your opinion? What is the signal that SHOULD be used for opening back up? Waiting for a vaccine relies on hope, and that as we all know, is not a strategy.

mehrdadn 6y ago

I'm not even against these checks, but as far as the debt concern goes: doesn't it require paying interest? At which point when you can't pay the interest, you'll have to print money, resulting in massive inflation? I never understood why people say it's fictional. Is it somehow fictional under the assumption of playing by the rules? Or under the assumption that when the US is demanded to pay it'll just say "make me" and then erase the debt that way?

eropple 6y ago
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these debts do not begin at "fictional" and go from there (and this is a viewpoint I don't personally hold, so long as reserves are denominated in the U.S. dollar its motion and not the numbers on a balance sheet are what actually matter): spending creates money, taxes destroy money. If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns. This is a generality and of course it's more nuanced than just this, but "spend in bad times, tax in good times" is a reasonable place to start. Where we have problems is that the "tax in good times" side of this keeps getting dropped for one reason or another. Cynically, I notice that this "for one reason or another" coincides strongly with a particular political party being elected once good times are back so that they can proceed to drive it off the nearest hillside yet again and somehow blame "government" for it.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns. I mean, I'm not arguing about how to avoid inflation. My question is about the debt being fictional. When you say "debt is fictional" that means that you can rack it up endlessly without consequences, but this clearly means there are consequences that you have to mitigate in another way. To argue that it's fictional you'd need to argue those problems don't come up at all. Otherwise you might as well say heart attacks are fictional because we can treat them, snake bites are fictional because we can treat them, etc...

JPKab 6y ago

" "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks." Nobody in this thread said anything about that. "Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional." I studied economics. I can assure you, that's a radical oversimplification of how international debt works. Are you aware of how US government debt is taken on? I don't think you are. You are acting as if the risk profile remains unchanged as policies are pursued. I'm not debating Keynesian economics here. If the economy is in a deflationary spiral, then creating money isn't going to be destructive in pure terms, provided it's done correctly. "We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks." Again, I'm not against writing the checks. I'm against writing the checks if it's not necessary and there isn't a benefit to doing so. The same callousness you highlight in that line could also be said about allowing small businesses to fail (ruining young people's lives) to protect grandma, who had elderly people in previous generations just accept deadly diseases as a part of reality rather than shutting down whole economies to protect themselves. Glad you, as a small service business owner, are doing fine. But every day, the percentage of business owners who aren't doing fine goes up. What's the stop criteria for this in your opinion? What is the signal that SHOULD be used for opening back up? Waiting for a vaccine relies on hope, and that as we all know, is not a strategy.