Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of that woman is simply: let the deficit go up ad infinitum (in USD value), it doesn't matter because as the central bank keeps printing money, the value of the deficit actually goes down (because the USD value goes down), so the value of the deficit is stable even if we don't perceive it to be this way. Quite BS imo
What’s BS about it? Using inflation to cheapen debts is pretty common knowledge.
Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
11–20 of 249 posts
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of that woman is simply: let the deficit go up ad infinitum (in USD value), it doesn't matter because as the central bank keeps printing money, the value of the deficit actually goes down (because the USD value goes down), so the value of the deficit is stable even if we don't perceive it to be this way. Quite BS imo
Have you in the process also just wiped out everyone on a fixed income and who keep their savings in the bank?
Inflation (in controlled amounts) can act as a redistribution mechanism between debtors and creditors (basically a way to lessen the huge inequality gap we have today).
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you in the process also just wiped out everyone on a fixed income and who keep their savings in the bank?
Isn’t that what people want? To eliminate rent-seeking behavior?
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#14The fact that new money is mostly backed by debt is irrelevant because those who own a lot of capital assets know that they will always be able to use their assets as collateral to take increasingly large loans in the future... Wealthy capital holders can always take new, bigger loans to pay off old smaller loans.
Those who value growth above independence must enslave themselves to banks in order to guarantee that they can keep borrowing in perpetuity. If you know that you can borrow in perpetuity to buyback your stock and make repayments on your old loans, then you can rest assured that debt is never going to be a problem for you. You can just do what the government does with treasury bonds; issue new bonds to pay off your old bonds; the government is not the only institution which can do this.
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#15If they print money to put in stocks and real estate -> bad.
The one thing creates real value and enables more real value creation in the future.
The other one has no effect on the real economy and wages.
Driving real estate prices is even bad: at some point, no real economic strategy (aka. business model) is able to sustain the needed profits to pay for it, and no company can be profitable enough to justify the high stock prices. It therefore literally becomes to expensive to do business, because nobody can match the returns of the central bank buying up your garbage!
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of that woman is simply: let the deficit go up ad infinitum (in USD value), it doesn't matter because as the central bank keeps printing money, the value of the deficit actually goes down (because the USD value goes down), so the value of the deficit is stable even if we don't perceive it to be this way. Quite BS imo
What’s BS about it? Using inflation to cheapen debts is pretty common knowledge.
It encourages irresponsibility and debt, and discourages people from saving, planning for their future, and over all acting in a way that is not filled with instant gratification, or extremely leveraging themselves
That provides good short term growth, but then you have recessions and depressions because at some point those balance sheets have to be balanced
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#17Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#18I guess that for the foreseeable future Congress will continue to rescue large corporations with taxpayer money ad nauseam - tax money to which the same corporations contribute almost nothing these days, too.
Wonderful.
Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#19Re: Banks, QE, and Money-Printing
#20A huge exogenous shock with no potential for moral hazard seems like a pretty clear case where a sort of social insurance (i.e. a government bailout) would be the optimal solution.