4 ms·

It’s “all too common” because it’s how most 1st world economies work (though to be fair: your fear-based view and false belief that it is anomalous is the true

It’s “all too common” because it’s how most 1st world economies work (though to be fair: your fear-based view and false belief that it is anomalous is the true “all too common” viewpoint). Case in point is the US that has been running deficit budgets for decades - and yet it still exists! It is still an economic power house! The general disconnect is that nearly all discretionary spending is directed towards the military, which somehow eludes all those who ask the question “but how are we going to pay for that?” whenever anyone proposes providing money to people who definitively need it.

voisin 6y ago
I am unclear on your first sentence and bracketed section. My point was that people generally share the view that printing money is without cost and that this is incorrect. The government cannot magically print money and provide goods and services without cost, via future tax increases or inflation. There’s no free lunch.
- OpieCunningham 6y ago
  The cost is so low as to be non-existent. The downsides of printing money are effectively nil. If this were not true the modern global economy would have died out decades ago, when printing money became the primary method of commerce. Your concern here cannot rationally be a concern for printing money, a ship that sailed long ago. So I’d have to assume your concern is how the printed money should or should not be used. And in this case you were replying with concern to a post that recommended using printed money to pay high-risk people a sustainable income when their jobs should be furloughed. But instead of making a case as to why high-risk people should continue to sustain high-risk, you instead want to falsely claim printing money is significantly detrimental.
  - BryanBigs 6y ago
    If this is true then why do any of us pay taxes? We could just print all the money we need.

voisin 6y ago

I am unclear on your first sentence and bracketed section. My point was that people generally share the view that printing money is without cost and that this is incorrect. The government cannot magically print money and provide goods and services without cost, via future tax increases or inflation. There’s no free lunch.

OpieCunningham 6y ago
The cost is so low as to be non-existent. The downsides of printing money are effectively nil. If this were not true the modern global economy would have died out decades ago, when printing money became the primary method of commerce. Your concern here cannot rationally be a concern for printing money, a ship that sailed long ago. So I’d have to assume your concern is how the printed money should or should not be used. And in this case you were replying with concern to a post that recommended using printed money to pay high-risk people a sustainable income when their jobs should be furloughed. But instead of making a case as to why high-risk people should continue to sustain high-risk, you instead want to falsely claim printing money is significantly detrimental.
- BryanBigs 6y ago
  If this is true then why do any of us pay taxes? We could just print all the money we need.