31
Aug
2011
Quotable Quotes
“If money is redirected because of damage, it sure as hell results in less money somewhere else, regardless of the unemployment situation. [The Broken Window Fallacy] holds. (Even if the loner was hoarding the money as part of his cash balance, it means the loner now has a lower cash balance, which presumably would mean he considers himself less wealthy.)” —Bob Wenzel
“The boilerplate Keynesian position is to increase spending and lower taxes during a downturn. So there is no proposal of taking money from anybody. The point is to create money or other safe, liquid assets (like, say, Treasury debt) for which there is an excess demand.” —Daniel Kuehn
Yeah, I did a double-take on Daniel_Kuehn’s remark there. Real-world Keynesians really oppose all taxation during “downturns” and believe the government should be funded solely by inflation and debt issuance? Coulda fooled me…
It’s kinda strange how all Keynesian pronouncements are retroactively decreed to be un-Keynesian once you point out how stupid they are, you know?
and believe the government should be funded solely by inflation and debt issuance? Coulda fooled me…
I did a double-take that the above didn’t constitute “taking money from anybody.”
Real-world Keynesians really oppose all taxation during “downturns” and believe the government should be funded solely by inflation and debt issuance?
The standard Keynesian position is to cut taxes in a downturn, not to stop collecting taxes altogether.
True, but that’s not what Daniel_Kuehn said.
Get a damn dictionary and look up the word “lower”. God you’re tiresome.
“So there is no proposal of taking money from anybody.”
I’m sorry you can’t say what you mean, but that’s not really my fault, now, is it?
Who says “oppose all taxation”? I just said “lower” taxes. How does your brain translate that into “oppose all taxation”???
You said there’s not proposal of taking money from anybody. Well, that’s what taxes do. And so I’m pretty sure your statement is wrong: you do, in fact, propose taking money from somebodys.
If I may arbitrate the dispute here:
Daniel Kuehn says, “I think in a recession the government should lower taxes and boost spending, by floating more debt. This doesn’t involve the conversion of oxygen into carbon dioxide.”
Silas says: “So you want us to hold our breaths during the recession??”
Daniel: “Damn you Silas, can’t you read? I’m saying the specific things I mentioned don’t involve respiration per se. Obviously we are still going to be breathing all this time.”
It would be more like:
Daniel_Kuehn: “I think in a recession the government should impose lower breathing rates on the population. This doesn’t involve the conversion of O2 into CO2.”
Silas_Barta: “So you want us to hold our breaths in a recession?”
Daniel_Kuehn: “Damn you Silas, can’t you read? I’m saying the specific things I mentioned don’t involve respiration per se. Obviously we are still going to be breathing all this time, just nto converting O2 into CO2.”
Silas_Barta: “???”
“Public deficits = private sector savings. By the rules of double entry accounting. To the penny. All the time. No way around it. So by cheerleading for a smaller deficit, you are cheerleading for diminished savings. Thus, any action to shrink the public deficit via unnecessary austerity will result in lower private sector savings, and ultimately sink the economy.”
-AP Lerner
Say it again. Say it again. And make sure you shout it to average people.
You are also deaf? You might be older than what you admitted.
Say the magic equation again!
What for if you don’t get it?
But I was one (among many) who taught you what the equation actually implies.
I get it more than you do, and it’s supposed to be your “contribution” here. Hilarious.
Ha ha, your are my pavlovian poodle. Love to get you salivating whenever I want.
Now sit down.
Bastiat to the rescue, yet again. MMTer’s should try reading more economics and less accounting.
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/economics/money/6428-what-is-money.html
“Public deficits = private sector savings.
False. You can’t even get the dumb MMT story right. It’s
Public deficits = Private NET savings
In other words,
Inflation from government and taking real wealth out of economy and consuming it and giving it to their friends = Increase in private sector cash balances and loss of real wealth
So by cheerleading for a smaller deficit, you are cheerleading for diminished savings.
You MMTers are defining inflation of the money supply and thus increase in private sector cash balances as “saving”, when saving is in reality at the individual level, where an individual abstains from consuming out of their earnings in production, and invests it instead.
Cheerleading for a smaller deficit is cheerleading for less inflation and less government consumption of real wealth . That there will be lower cash balances (what you yahoos call “savings”) does not mean people in general will be worse off. They will be better off, because they will be receiving more money from those who earned it through production, rather than spending it after printing the dollars off.
The significance of savings is at the gross level, not the net level. Saving out of net income only takes place BECAUSE of the government’s inflating of the currency and thus increase in nominal incomes. Once inflation stops, once deficits fall to zero, then saving out of net income will come to an end, and there will be enough accumulated savings to enable full employment and growth in productivity on a foundation of gradually falling prices of capital goods (and hence business costs).
Thus, any action to shrink the public deficit via unnecessary austerity will result in lower private sector savings, and ultimately sink the economy.”
False. That cash balances will no longer keep rising does not mean that the economy will “sink”. It means that people will save out of gross earnings, and no longer save out of net incomes.
It’s truly remarkable watching MMTers take a tautological accounting truism, change the words, and then digging to absurd conclusions that if the government doesn’t print and spend money it didn’t earn, then those who are producing for paper instead of real wealth are going to sink into the abyss.
MMT is Keynesianism on meth.
MF i love your MMT smackdowns. You and Roddis.
The most bizzare thing about MMT is that they think inflation can be cured by just raising taxes. In other words, just tax away the excess “demand.”
Surley, Zimbabwe would benefit from having an MMT overseer running their economy. MMT could do wonders for Zimbabwe right?
Someone at the Onion should write a piece called “MMT comes to Zimbabwe.” Boy that would be funny.
What exactly do the MMTers mean by taxes sopping up inflation? Are our elected reps going to announce a big tax hike right before an election to sop up excess inflation? When has this ever happened? How would they know what rates to apply in advance? How could the populace plan for such a catastrophe? How do they reconcile all that with the call to forbid all prices changes without a permit if taxes can sop up inflation?
David Colander, a co-author of a 1980 book with the original Abba Ptachya Lerner (he of “The Economics of Control” fame and darling of our own AP “Hut Tax“ Lerner) wrote:
Initially he [Lerner] toyed with various administrative wage and price control policies, but he found those lacking and soon gave them up. He replaced them, first, with a tax based incomes policy and ultimately, a market based[!!!] incomes policy in which property rights in prices are set and individuals have to buy the right to change prices from others who change their price in the opposite direction. It was this idea that formed the basis of our market anti inflation (MAP) book. (Lerner and Colander 1980) Under MAP, rights in value added prices would be tradable so that any firm wanting to change its nominal price would have to make a trade with another firm that wanted to change its nominal price in the opposite direction. Thus, by law, the average price level would be constant but relative prices would be free to change [page 12]
http://tinyurl.com/4rfk3jk
When has an MMTer ever addressed an Austrian concern? Ever.
Let them blab.
” think inflation can be cured by just raising taxes”
just to clarify, if your taxes doubled overnight, your purchasing power would remain the same?
Also, you do realize Zimbabwe’s inflation was the result of the theft of productive farm lands and given to unproductive owners, forcing food prices to sky rocket, right?
just to clarify, if your taxes doubled overnight, your purchasing power would remain the same?
How can that be a question for clarification? Nothing of what Zack said implies any unclear answer to that question.
The taxes the government collects are spent. They are not hoarded.
Also, you do realize Zimbabwe’s inflation was the result of the theft of productive farm lands and given to unproductive owners, forcing food prices to sky rocket, right?
No, it was the result of the Zimbabwe central bank printing money like bonkers.
If the central bank did not inflate, then any rise in the demand for food, will necessarily accompany an equal and opposite demand for everything else. There can be no general increase in demand which a general increase in prices requires (assuming no fall in aggregate supply).
The rate of inflation was in the millions of percent. It is impossible for the explanation to be anything other than printing money.
It’s odd how during the 90’s, when the government did actually eliminate the deficit, that private sector savings fell to zero.
““saving”, when saving is in reality at the individual level, where an individual abstains from consuming out of their earnings in production, and invests it instead.”
so just to clarify, if, say, the payroll tax were eliminated, your potential savings would not rise? or are you saying if the payroll tax was eliminated, the public deficit would not increase?
so just to clarify, if, say, the payroll tax were eliminated, your potential savings would not rise?
Taxes are spent. My potential savings would rise, but those who used to be given my tax money, their potential savings would diminish dollar for dollar.
or are you saying if the payroll tax was eliminated, the public deficit would not increase?
It depends on how much the government borrows, prints, and spends.
If the payroll tax were eliminated, then those who EARNED their payroll income would get to keep it, and those who used to take ownership of the payroll taxes, would no longer receive unearned income.
“Taxes are spent”
You are correct at the state/local level. Not at the federal. Taxes do not fund spending at the federal level. The federal government has a monopoly on creating USD’s, and has no need to tax or borrow before spending. The reality is the government MUST spend before it taxes, otherwise there would be no currency to tax. Federal taxation removes financial assets from the private sector after spending has already taken place.
you may not like it, but that’s the reality of the monetary system.
“Taxes are spent”
You are correct at the state/local level. Not at the federal. Taxes do not fund spending at the federal level. The federal government has a monopoly on creating USD’s, and has no need to tax or borrow before spending.
That they have no need to tax if they want to spend because they can just print the money does not at all mean that they don’t in reality tax and spend money. They do tax people. Those taxes are spent.
The reality is the government MUST spend before it taxes, otherwise there would be no currency to tax.
False. Money existed prior to government. The government taxed people before it spent its first dollar. Since then, they have taxed and printed and spent money, and yes, if they taxed everyone 100% and did not spend it, then they could not tax anyone anymore. But that doesn’t mean that spending precedes taxes. It means that the printing of money has raised the supply of money, and so a constant tax rate will collect more and more money over time.
Federal taxation removes financial assets from the private sector after spending has already taken place.
First, who cares, second, why do you MMTers keeping calling MONEY “financial assets”?
Why don’t you just say money or dollars? “Financial assets” is a term usually reserved for things like bonds, t-bills and other assets that provide a cash flow.
you may not like it, but that’s the reality of the monetary system.
You know what I just noticed? MMTers are like Objectivists. They have a very small bag of one liners that they keep repeating over and over again, and every MMTer who says one of them, says it like nobody has ever heard it before.
I know the MMT mantras AP, you don’t have to keep repeating them.
Yes, in an inflationary economy, in order for the government to collect more dollars from the taxpayers, they first have to create more dollars that have to find their way into the taxpayer’s bank accounts. Duh. It’s not profound. It’s boring.
If the government didn’t create any money, and only spent what it taxed and borrowed, then aggregate cash balances would not rise. All trading would take place using a fixed supply of money. As production increases, prices for most everything will fall. As prices fall, then costs and revenues will fall, leaving the difference positive, and thus profit will remain positive.
Full employment can be had with gradually falling wage rates as the population grows and the same nominal demand for labor buys more and more labor over time.
Full resource utilization can be had with gradually falling capital goods prices as the supply of capital goods rises and the same nominal demand for capital goods buys more and more capital goods over time.
A growing economy does not need an external entity whose only “contribution” is to spend money it did not earn, on resources produced by people who did earn their money through production. An entity that spends money it did not earn through previous production means that others have to support it through their production.
It’s odd how during the 90′s, when the government did actually eliminate the deficit, that private sector savings fell to zero.
You mean it’s odd when the government did not eliminate the deficit (just borrowed from SS trust fund), but ran a smaller deficit, the private sector’s cash balances were not increasing as fast?
Savings are not cash balances. Cash balances are the money supply.
Savings are expenditures of money for the purposes other than consumption.
The economy does not need “net savings” as the MMTer comprehends the term. It does not need to have constantly increasing cash balances through the introduction of inflation.
” It does not need to have constantly increasing cash balances”
that’s true. nobody said it did. but it does need net new financial assets to save. otherwise, we would all be trading assets back and forth, and nobody could add to savings.
fyi – corporations have savings as well.
” It does not need to have constantly increasing cash balances”
that’s true. nobody said it did.
You did.
You wrote:
“Thus, any action to shrink the public deficit via unnecessary austerity will result in lower private sector savings, and ultimately sink the economy.”
You said that if the government shrinks the deficit, and thus decreases the rate at which cash balances rise, then the economy will “sink.”
but it does need net new financial assets to save.
Your definition of “saving” just means “rising cash balances.” Of COURSE if there is going to be rising cash balances, then inflation has to take place.
But the key question you MMTers perpetually ignore is that cash balances do not need to keep rising for there to be saving as in saving out of gross earnings and investing instead of consuming.
Saving out of gross revenues does NOT require inflation from an external entity to “accommodate” it.
There can be a fixed supply of money, no inflation, and people can continuously save out of their gross earnings, and accommodate the purchase of all capital goods and labor, provided the prices are low enough.
otherwise, we would all be trading assets back and forth, and nobody could add to savings.
Trading MONEY back and forth. And trading MONEY back and forth CAN facilitate a growing supply of capital goods and labor and production, by gradually falling prices. The same aggregate demand, the same money supply, can go back and forth and buy more and more capital goods, labor, and consumer goods over time as the prices for them falls.
The private sector does not need to have an addition to its cash balances in order for people to save and produce and grow the economy.
You are equivocating the terms saving and inflation.
fyi – corporations have savings as well.
FYI all corporations can save out of their gross revenues even if the supply of money does not rise, which in the MMT world means “saving” does not rise.
Public defecits = private sector savings – all investment other than gov’t bonds
but you could say that about any financial asset
I’ve been reading through Leland Yeager’s The Fluttering Veil the past few days. Kind of weird how so much of it is inadvertently is about MMT. The essays “Essential Properties of Medium of Exchange,” “What are Banks?,” and “Individual and Overall Viewpoints of Monetary Theory” are especially must read for the MTTers.
” it means the loner now has a lower cash balance, which presumably would mean he considers himself less wealthy”
What does that imply, if anything?
I thought it came dangerously close to saying cash balances are a part of someone’s savings.
That would have been hilarious.
I would consider my computer and my clothes as “wealth,” but I would not consider them “savings”, since they are consumer goods, not capital wealth or stocks/bonds. I didn’t abstain from consumption in order to acquire them. I in fact went ahead and consumed with my money to acquire them.
If money is savings, then so should everything be savings, shouldn’t they? I mean if the mere holding of something like money is saving, then why not hamburgers and socks as well? EVERYTHING can be savings. But is everything savings? That sounds weird.
It is not wrong to hold that your cash balance is wealth, is it? All economic objects of action that people derive utility from can be considered “wealth,” can they not? If I owned a yacht for my leisure, it can be considered “wealthy”. If someone stole it, I too would consider myself less wealthy.
LOL, please don’t start it again.
If creating money does not entail taking money from somebody, then why can’t we all create money?
STOP THINKING!! You’re spoiling the MMT/Keynesian party.
LOL
As has been pointed out on this blog, and others, many times, only the government has the ability to create money. They have a monopoly on this ability. While you and I may not like this, it’s reality. And since the government has the only monopoly on creating money, there is no need for the government to take anything from anyone to create money.
You didn’t answer Hewitt’s question. He realizes that the government has a monopoly on printing money.
He is saying that if printing money isn’t taking anything from anyone, then why can’t everyone do it, instead of only the government? If there is no taking involved, then if everyone could print their own money, there would be no taking of anything from anyone either.
The idea that inflation is theft is not only not entailed by Rothbardian principles, but is actually inconsistent with them.
You don’t own purchasing power. You own a piece of paper (or a bit of silver, or a cow or whatever). The fact that the exchange value of this piece of paper goes down because someone else makes more of it amounts to diddly squat, morally speaking.
At least, that’s what a Rothbardian would say if the subject were anything other than printing money.
This would be correct in the case of increased gold production under a hard-money standard. But when the money in question is fiat money enforced by monopoly privilege, the reduction in people’s purchasing power occurs through means that they have every moral right in the world to object to.
But when the money in question is fiat money enforced by monopoly privilege, the reduction in people’s purchasing power occurs through means that they have every moral right in the world to object to.
Consider the case of NYC taxi medallions. To drive a taxi in NYC, you need a medallion issued by the city. The value of the medallions is enforced by monopoly privilege. Does that mean that, if the city issues more medallions, it is stealing from the current medallion holders?
You’re a slippery fellow, Blackadder. I especially liked your jujitsu in the other thread, about how libertarians point out that minimum wage laws cause unemployment and then we think we’re done, yet in other contexts we stress that labor per se is a bad thing to be minimized. (Note that I still think we are right on each issue–fiat inflation is like theft, min. wage laws are bad, causing employment through destruction is not a social gain, etc.–but you do a good job of pointing out problems in our rhetoric behind these positions.)
Bob,
Now if only I would use my powers for good, instead of evil. 🙂
Btw, just so you know where I am going with this: if inflation is not theft, then from the Rothbardian perspective I believe government has a duty to inflate, as the only alternate method of paying its debts is via taxation, which is theft according to Rothbardian principles.
I’d think you’d lose Rothbard when you say government has a duty to inflate because the only other alternative of paying its debts is inflation. I’m imagine Rothbard would say the only duty government has is to cease existing!
I mean speaking for myself, I’m fine saying inflation is not theft. I’m totally fine with a government failing to pay its debts. Its interesting that you would attempt to tie up the Rothbardian perspective this way, by implying government defaulting on its debts is why one must strive to avoid. The Rothbardian view is a government defaulting on its debts is perfectly fine. Government is what a Rothbardian strives to avoid. The failure of a government to function (raise money to pay its debts) which you construct as the end which must be avoided in this thought experiment, is the exact opposite to the Rothbardian, it is the ultimate goal!
whoops, theres at least 2 typos in my above comment.
In my first sentence the last word is inflation and it should be taxation instead.
And here:
“by implying government defaulting on its debts is why one must strive to avoid.”
Should read “WHAT one must strive to avoid.
Ok I need a nap, getting too tired.
I’m imagine Rothbard would say the only duty government has is to cease existing!
Presumably the government has an obligation to pay its debts, just like anyone else. In a prior thread, Bob even conceded that the government had an obligation to keep paying Social Security and Medicare benefits to the extent it could do so by selling off assets (the strategic oil reserve, federal lands, etc.)
The way Rothbardians typically get around this problem is by claiming that the only way the government could pay off the debts is by robbing people. If I owe you $1000, that doesn’t mean I can rob a bank even if that’s the only way I can pay you back. But if inflation isn’t theft then there is a way for the government to pay its debts without stealing. So it would be obligated to inflate enough to do so.
In a prior thread, Bob even conceded that the government had an obligation to keep paying Social Security…
I don’t think I said that. I’d be surprised if I said that.
Rothbard was in favor of repudiating the national debt.
http://mises.org/daily/1423
“For unlike the rest of us, government sells no productive good or service and therefore earns nothing. It can only get money by looting our resources through taxes, or through the hidden tax of legalized counterfeiting known as “inflation.”
So Rothbardians claim inflation is just a hidden tax, in other words, theft. There is no problem for us to get around.
Fundamentally there should be no government monopoly on the supply of money. If there is and the government is in debt and the only way it can pay off its debt is by inflation or taxation, the Rothbardian would rightly say taxation is theft, we disapprove. Having a monopoly on the money supply is unjust we disapprove.
We recognize there is an obligation to pay back debts. We do not recognize an obligation to pay back debts is sufficient to justify theft, the continuation and implementation of an unjust monopoly on the monetary system, or any other criminal or immoral act.
Please default on your debts and cease to exist.
Btw, just so you know where I am going with this: if inflation is not theft, then from the Rothbardian perspective I believe government has a duty to inflate, as the only alternate method of paying its debts is via taxation, which is theft according to Rothbardian principles.
Both are theft. They just steal from different people in different ways.
The Rothbardian thing to do would be to liquidate all US debt and default, to stop any further theft.
Blackadder,
Bob is right to praise you, your jujitsu is strong. Regarding the case of NYC taxi medallions I would say that the real issue is the government imposed monopoly itself. Which is what Tom said in his comment of his that you quoted. Whenever such a government imposed monopoly of a good exists, certainly whenever they alter the supply of the good in question, be it NYC medallions or fiat currency, it will benefit certain groups of people and harm others.
In the sense that one would describe those harmed by devaluation of currency through artificial increases in its supply as having their purchasing power “stolen”, then yes it would be “stealing” from current medallion holders when that supply is increased and thus value of their medallion falls. Which I think is a very good example to show that using the word “stealing” in this context is wrong. Which I think was your point, so nicely done!
Of course, the moral arguments against the institution of a government monopoly itself, on any good, remains just as strong and convincing as ever.
Robert,
I would agree that the imposition of the monopoly is an injustice. However, given the monopoly, there is no further injustice that comes from printing more money or issuing more medallions.
The first thing that needs to be made clear is that money is not analogous to other economic goods; production or consumption. So given the significance money plays it is certainly reasonable to suggest manipulations that affect money are going to be more profound and have a larger negative effect than identical manipulations on any other economic good.
I’m not sure how to measure the degrees of injustice or if any further injustice occurs when an unjust institution engages in its operations. Although it seem it would right? If the institution itself we agree is unjust, why wouldn’t its manifestations also be unjust?
The first thing that needs to be made clear is that money is not analogous to other economic goods.
It can simply be a matter of money being special. Gold mining isn’t theft, even in a society that uses gold as money.
If the institution itself we agree is unjust, why wouldn’t its manifestations also be unjust?
Yes, but since all of its manifestations are equally unjust, there is no grounds for condemning one manifestation rather than another. In the NYC taxi case, the monopoly is unjust, but there is nothing unjust about increasing the number of medallions given the monopoly.
This is part of what’s going on, and why I think the Rothbardian stances are OK. Issuing more medallions benefits the public and hurts the medallion owners. But it helps the public more than it hurts the medallion owners. (Right?) Just like getting rid of the medallion system altogether–which is the same as issuing an infinite number of medallions–would increase per capita wealth and income.
But with government money none of that is true, in fact the opposite is (once you take account of business cycle etc.).
Bob, I think where you are going with this is similar to my thinking on the subject. Medallions are a restriction on commerce, whereas government money is both an imposition and a restriction on commerce. One cannot treat them as being equal.
All the medallions do is restrict competition. While government money also restricts competition, it goes some steps further in imposing compliance to the monopoly holder.
You don’t necessarily have to take a taxi that holds a medallion- you can walk, take the subway, car pool, drive, ride a bike, become a hermit, stay local, take a helicopter, swim, ride a skateboard, hire a driver, take a rickshaw, etc. Sure, there is a restriction on competition with regard to taxi travel, but you have a myriad of substitutes at your avail. Obviously, the release of this restriction would only serve to the benefit of the consumer, if only for the simple reason of greater choice. Another aspect of greater competition would be the tendency for lower prices for a taxi ride, thus increasing utility. But, most importantly, the increasing of medallions doesn’t serve a single entity, or a cartel of entities, rather it serves the consumer (i.e. each and every one of us).
Government money doesn’t even come close to being comparable with taxi medallions in this regard. First, as we know, it is restrictive. There are no other entities that can produce goods to be used as money for exchange other than those granted such. But, we must go one step further, each and every entity/individual is also further barred from using anything else but the monopoly-holders’ issue of money in exchange.
Further, the increase of the supply of money confers no general utility to the consumer. Rather than seeing a drop in price of goods/services due to an increased number of competing parties, instead we see a single party (a monopoly) increasing the supply of the general medium of exchange, the price of the money will necessarily decline all other things being equal. The prices of goods/services will increase, thus conferring a general benefit to those who hold monopoly issuance of the money (and, those closely associated with them).
BA is attempting to pass the old ploy that increasing supply is always a good thing, yet he forgets the implications and dynamics of the cases that he is comparing. Death and famine would most assuredly be things that BA would not wish to increase, but his logic on the distinction between money and medallions only serves to make such a case.
I said:
“the increase of the supply of money confers no general utility to the consumer”
I am speaking in temporal terms, and with due regard to capital accumulation.
As you have pointed out the monopoly itself is unjust. When the supply of money is a monopoly privilege by a violent enforcer, every particular supply of this monopoly money is unjust. It is a result of the lack of “open entry” in money production, so every rate it could happen to have necessarily makes someone worse off. This is unjust.
When the supply of money is a monopoly privilege by a violent enforcer, every particular supply of this monopoly money is unjust.
Right, so there is no reason to specifically condemn an increase in the supply, as opposed to not doing so.
@ BA
Logically, that is correct. But, I don’t think that that is the position that IG is taking. Rather, I believe that his contention is that it is unjust to grant monopoly privilege to a group, no matter what the good/service in question.
No matter what, you’re still granting unjust benefits to a specific group of peoples. To exacerbate the dynamic, the favored group typically enjoys benefits not available to others, and that such benefits may actually harm those that are not party to the favored group.
Rothbard explained his position on the supply of money in The Mystery of Banking, Chapter 4, section 1. What Should the Supply of Money Be
http://mises.org/books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
You’re ignoring the violence that backs fiat money.
The boilerplate Keynesian position is to increase spending and lower taxes during a downturn. So there is no proposal of taking money from anybody. The point is to create money or other safe, liquid assets (like, say, Treasury debt) for which there is an excess demand.” –Daniel Kuehn
LOL, what a loon.
After all, when money is spent by the government, it comes from the magical fairy land of no violence backed wealth transfer, direct (taxation) or indirect (inflation)!
It’s amazing how they almost seem to WANT to live like children, coming home from school on Friday to receive a weekly money allowance from their parents, who of course got that money from the magical fairy land, having no conception of where the money comes from, how it was earned. Keynesians are physical adults who never grew up mentally and thus want to be taken care of by benevolent angels who can grant freebies and violate the no free lunch truism by magic.
MF, I can’t believe the stuff you say. Everyone knows that Obama has a stash of cash and that all this money comes from Obama’s Stash. Get with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA