3 ms·

I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying about private savings. You can certainly consider deposits/savings as loans to a bank, is that what you mean? I think the

I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying about private savings. You can certainly consider deposits/savings as loans to a bank, is that what you mean? I think the point I trying to make to is that deficits should not be anything to worry about - they are just a balancing item that reflects normal monetary operations as desired by the population. As long as the country remains capable of producing useful stuff, everything is going to be fine, since that's what _actually_ matters.

mindslight 2y ago
> I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying about private savings. You can certainly consider deposits/savings as loans to a bank, is that what you mean? Yes, in a previous comment you said this: > If the private sector wishes to save and import, then if the government wish to not starve the economy of money, they necessarily have to run a deficit My point is that the private sector saving does not itself starve the economy of money. Savings is generally done into banks, which then choose where to invest that money onwards. What makes it possible to starve the economy of money from this is precisely that the government takes loans from a private sector looking to save - either through banks that buy Treasuries, or even Treasuries bought directly - which forms [part of what is currently considered] the deficit. > I think the point I trying to make to is that deficits should not be anything to worry about - they are just a balancing item that reflects normal monetary operations as desired by the population My original argument had an even stronger implicit point - being able to run a deficit without the consequence of significant price inflation is an extremely beneficial situation. It implies an ever growing value of the ecosystem of that currency, sustaining the new money. We can certainly debate how that value should be realized and what it should be spent on. But pulling back from the world stands to destroy that value creation.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  Ah, I see. The problem is that banks can't really invest their reserve holdings because they need them to balance the deposit. The best they can do is shuffle it around the vertical circuit, that is, they can buy government bonds. They could also take a deposit at another bank (indeed, the whole system can run on that basis without reserves), but that would be strictly on less beneficial terms than a deposit at the central bank (because the corresponding bank would need to balance the deposit made to _it_). The mainstream idea is that swapping a fixed price floating interest financial asset (reserves) for a floating price fixed interest financial asset (bonds) somehow locks it up, but that's just wishful thinking. I'm not sure if in your final point your implying something about the quantity theory of money, which is something I reject (flows being the important measure). Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by destroying the value creation? Is this a statement about closed economies being less valuable than open ones?

mindslight 2y ago

> I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying about private savings. You can certainly consider deposits/savings as loans to a bank, is that what you mean? Yes, in a previous comment you said this: > If the private sector wishes to save and import, then if the government wish to not starve the economy of money, they necessarily have to run a deficit My point is that the private sector saving does not itself starve the economy of money. Savings is generally done into banks, which then choose where to invest that money onwards. What makes it possible to starve the economy of money from this is precisely that the government takes loans from a private sector looking to save - either through banks that buy Treasuries, or even Treasuries bought directly - which forms [part of what is currently considered] the deficit. > I think the point I trying to make to is that deficits should not be anything to worry about - they are just a balancing item that reflects normal monetary operations as desired by the population My original argument had an even stronger implicit point - being able to run a deficit without the consequence of significant price inflation is an extremely beneficial situation. It implies an ever growing value of the ecosystem of that currency, sustaining the new money. We can certainly debate how that value should be realized and what it should be spent on. But pulling back from the world stands to destroy that value creation.

hgomersall 2y ago
Ah, I see. The problem is that banks can't really invest their reserve holdings because they need them to balance the deposit. The best they can do is shuffle it around the vertical circuit, that is, they can buy government bonds. They could also take a deposit at another bank (indeed, the whole system can run on that basis without reserves), but that would be strictly on less beneficial terms than a deposit at the central bank (because the corresponding bank would need to balance the deposit made to _it_). The mainstream idea is that swapping a fixed price floating interest financial asset (reserves) for a floating price fixed interest financial asset (bonds) somehow locks it up, but that's just wishful thinking. I'm not sure if in your final point your implying something about the quantity theory of money, which is something I reject (flows being the important measure). Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by destroying the value creation? Is this a statement about closed economies being less valuable than open ones?