Bingo!! Without reading it, econ when the fiscal policy creates money by spending the American public does a lot better. The American industrialists do a lot better.
I get some people bought into supply side econ as if religion. Time for a hard wake up call, you have been lied to endlessly for 40 years.
Usually when someone is lied to endlessly for 40 years we have a word for that person.
Politician.
Lawyer.
Clergy.
Ponzi.
I couldn’t find a transcript. You have to listen to it.
They have been claiming it since the 1890s. At that time, it was called “horse and sparrow economics”. Didn’t work then AND has never worked at any time it was tried. Remember Kansas? LOL !!! Epic failure.
The OP video gist is that making a $1T platinum coin is allowed by law, but may not be accepted by the markets or the FED. A $1T platinum coin is a gimmick, but may be the only legal action POTUS can take if the debt ceiling is not lifted. (All debts must be paid, spending and taxes must follow Congress’s intent. Congress says a $1T coin can be minted.) The debt ceiling is also a gimmick, and money could be considered a gimmick as well. The government creates money, and so can never “run out of money”. Goverment debt is different than personal debt. Personal debt is borrowing from someone else. Government debt is the creation of money.
Government has an option when raising cash. In exchange for a worker’s cash, the government can issue a tax bill or a bond. The cashflow is the same. The difference is in the distribution of liabilities.
Jerry,
Suckers
all twenty plus letters
It is not a gimmick. It is uber inflationary. Obviously it adds $1 tr to the money supply immediately. There is no GDP growth when it is just added to the supply overnight.
Increased money supply is not inflationary if the money is not spent, expected to be spent, or used as collateral. But the FED or the markets might think a $1T coin is inflationary, and either refuse the deposit or change inflation expectations. The $1T coin could be inflationary if it changed inflation or spending expectations.
And the real reason to refuse would not be because it would be inflationary, but because it would curb Fed and BigBank power and enhance that of the Prez’s. I would worry about that power enhancement, but not as much as I worry about a small cabal of nitwits in Congress shooting their hostage because of… political psychosis and ignorance.
If no deal emerges in time I hope the coin is minted and the 14th invoked along with a White House statement pledging to redeem the coin from the Fed, putting a whole through its center to symbolically destroy it before turning it over to the Smithsonian or National Archive, the moment Congress abolishes the law enabling this insanity. If some bunch wants to balance the budget then make them win the seats in Congress to do so. I would support that in a second (and was a founding member of the Concord Coalition aiming to do so long long long ago), so long as the balancing pivoted on Keynesian use of monetary policy to keep inflation controlled and disinflation nearly impossible.
david fb.
How is it not supposed to be spent when it will be applied to the prior debt? Or applied to this year’s $1 tr to $2 tr in debt?
That means the bond holders have more cash. That is exactly what the FOMC does in the open markets to add to the money supply.
The FED could retire more bonds with the money but one hand then does not know what the other is doing. Since it is all the same budget year it adds to the money supply.
WE are supposed to be adding debt to pay for infrastructure right now. The longer term goal is to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. The goal is not to reduce the debt. There is a big difference.
What is the longer term goal for the debt to GDP ratio? Not zero, because investors like Treasury Bonds. Not lower than now, because there’s no sign of stress in the medium term bond market. 7-year Treasuries are getting a low 3.5% interest rate. Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond Yield is 5.8%, lower than the long term average of 8%.
Some fiscal discipline is needed. Maybe keep interest expense as a percent of tax receipts less than 50%. If bond investors see a problem, interest expense will go higher and trigger spending cuts.
“interest expense as percent of tax revenues – the primary measure of the burden of the national debt on government finances… In the 1980s, interest expense as a percent of tax receipts was around 50%.”
Retooling the US economy to create economies of scale. A much better tax base will be forming. The debt to GDP ratio will drop.
You are using the current backward looking mirror to predicate what will be done. It wont create success for our country.
The argument is rarely about spending. The argument is about how the money is spent. Spend on infrastructure and education, for instance, or spend it on the military that already gets more than the next several country spend, combined, and more tax cuts for the “JCs”.
Steve