Live data from Hacker News

No one knows how much the government can borrow

noahpinion.substack.com

281–290 of 326 posts

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, my issue with the term "sloshing" is that it implies the money is floating around in liquid form ready to tick up inflation. It's not. There are a lot of places where this money has gone that are illiquid though. One would be American property; for most households a good chunk of their wealth is their house. In high-COL, high-property areas the main thing preventing a fall in house price is the lack of su…

Exactly all of this. A lot of people (myself included) are just kind of nervously waiting for the other shoe to drop. That the money exists but isn’t moving through the economy means that we’re essentially building more pressure in a system that is already at 0% interest rates. This should be concerning to everyone. The absence of velocity will encourage central banks to print more money in the belief that it will en…

> That the money exists but isn’t moving through the economy means that we’re essentially building more pressure in a system that is already at 0% interest rates.

You're not wrong, but it's a problem I'd "like" to have: too much economic activity. I'd rather worry about inflation and things running hot, with low unemployment (or high participation rate), than the opposite.

Remember late 2019, when the US unemployment rate was 3.5%?

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE

> The absence of velocity will encourage central banks to print more money in the belief that it will encourage spending when it clearly hasn’t done that.

When the central bank's rate is zero, they're flooding the market with liquidity, and bond yields are zero (or negative), then that's a signal for governments to open the taps:

> I would summarize the Keynesian view in terms of four points:

> 1. Economies sometimes produce much less than they could, and employ many fewer workers than they should, because there just isn’t enough spending. Such episodes can happen for a variety of reasons; the question is how to respond.

> 2. There are normally forces that tend to push the economy back toward full employment. But they work slowly; a hands-off policy toward depressed economies means accepting a long, unnecessary period of pain.

> 3. It is often possible to drastically shorten this period of pain and greatly reduce the human and financial losses by “printing money”, using the central bank’s power of currency creation to push interest rates down.

> 4. Sometimes, however, monetary policy loses its effectiveness, especially when rates are close to zero. In that case temporary deficit spending can provide a useful boost. And conversely, fiscal austerity in a depressed economy imposes large economic losses.

* https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/keynesianism-ex...

When rates are non-zero and bond yields are high(er), then it is dangerous to print money, and government spending could 'crowd out' private economic activity.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#282
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the inelastic necessities of healthcare, education, and housing, which don't make it into the CPI basket.

> the inelastic necessities of healthcare, education, and housing, which don't make it into the CPI basket. they are all covered: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm#Question_1... see : https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/medical-care.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/college-tuition.htm

I stand corrected. Is this a new addition? Does it look at what people actually pay, or what insurance does? (Not trying to undermine your point - just genuinely curious.)

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#283

If anyone’s interested, I recently explored this theme in my essay “How money works” https://invertedpassion.com/how-money-works/

I had a read of your essay. You should read “what is money?” by Alfred Mitchell-Innes. Some key things:

The “double coincidence of wants” stylised by Adam smith is most likely nonsense. Do we really believe that people didn’t trade if they didn’t have what each other wanted? What would really happen is that one would be in debt to the other and that debt would be repaid at some point in the future.

It was only until recent times eg 1900s US that Gold and silver became a “medium of exchange”. That experiment has of course ended because it didn’t work particularly well -> deflation. In the past governments set some amount of precious metal as the unit of account but the issued coins were usually made of something else and were of different weights and sizes even for the same denomination of coin. The coins had a nominal value which was always greater then the intrinsic value of the coin (otherwise if the nominal value was the same or less than intrinsic value then people would melt the coins into bullion). These coins were an acknowledgement of indebtedness of the government. They held value because people needed to use them to pay taxes.

Banks did not evolve from “gold warehouses”. Instead banks always have been and continue to be market makers for IOUs or debt/credit.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not convinced that more of it is sloshing. A lot of the 'inflationistas' only look at the quantity/supply of money (M1/2), and don't bother examining what it is doing. The velocity of money is an important component: > This view can also be represented by the so-called “quantity theory of money,” which relates the general price level, the total goods and services produced in a given period, the total money supp…

Really good video explanation of the difference (and the importance therein) between the monetary supply and the velocity of money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0mh7cCjwDU

At least the first ten minutes of that (hour-long) video should be mandatory viewing before someone is allowed to post about inflation on the Internet (or write a op-ed in some big name newspaper).

I think this is going be a go-to video for me to post when anyone says "printing money" or "money supply". Thanks.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#285

It’s quite simple: Anyone can borrow as much as someone is willing to lend. That said, the government doesn’t borrow money. They create it.

I think you are right. They can borrow as much as creditors are willing to provide. Also, borrowing money and creating it are the same thing! Indeed, when money is borrowed, money is created:

DR Loan 100 CR deposit 100

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, my issue with the term "sloshing" is that it implies the money is floating around in liquid form ready to tick up inflation. It's not. There are a lot of places where this money has gone that are illiquid though. One would be American property; for most households a good chunk of their wealth is their house. In high-COL, high-property areas the main thing preventing a fall in house price is the lack of su…

Exactly all of this. A lot of people (myself included) are just kind of nervously waiting for the other shoe to drop. That the money exists but isn’t moving through the economy means that we’re essentially building more pressure in a system that is already at 0% interest rates. This should be concerning to everyone. The absence of velocity will encourage central banks to print more money in the belief that it will en…

> That the money exists but isn’t moving through the economy means that we’re essentially building more pressure in a system that is already at 0% interest rates. This should be concerning to everyone.

I use a carbon / global warming metaphor instead of pressure, but same intuition. You're taking actions today that will play out in the future.

Assuming most excess money supply has gone into (a) stocks, pushing valuations up, & (b) real estate, pushing valuations up, what would cause a freeing of that money? Because until it's liquified, it's not impacting inflation.

The only way substantial amounts of money move out of stocks is if the Fed raises rates and bond yields improve. It has to go somewhere, and that's the only sink big enough to swallow the flow.

Real estate is trickier. There's only so much volume that the (at least in the US) inefficient process can handle, which means there's a fundamental process against a flash liquidation.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation, please? Krugman has been laudably willing to confess error; I wasn't aware he'd done so on this point.

Here's one: > And so during the 1990s a number of economists, myself included (Krugman 1995), tried to assess the role of Stolper-Samuelson-type effects in rising inequality. Inevitably given the standard framework, such analyses did in fact find some depressing effect of growing trade on the wages of less-educated workers in advanced countries. As a quantitative matter, however, they generally suggested that the eff…

Thanks, but these citations don't at all support the GP's sweeping assertion that "Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted."

Krugman's cited gc.cuny.edu paper is titled, "Globalization: What Did We Miss?" It concludes, not that economists were wrong per se, but that they didn't adequately take into account the pace of globalization: "Basically, the big problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for broadly defined factors of production as the disruption caused by rapid change. And that rapid change appears to be largely behind us ...." (Emphasis added.)

The summary in the University of Melbourne piece (the third cite) is to basically the same effect.

(I don't have time to watch a one-hour YouTube video, but thanks for the link.)

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#289
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people just ramp up their lifestyle when they make more money. I've been petty conservative about doing that and living below my means since the start of my career. In the beginning I was saving 80% of my income. That dropped over time as I got married and had to accept ramping up my expenses, but I've saved enough over the years to be about halfway to financial independence by my mid thirties. I strongly recomm…

The trouble with this approach (although rational for an individual) is that if everyone who can does this, we end up with even more of a global savings glut than we already have, and interest rates go even more negative. As an aside, it's very odd to me that we have so much money sloshing around, and yet we're not spending it on infrastructure that would help us get off the fossil fuel treadmill and towards a more s…

The biggest predictor of future economic growth is the amount of savings the people have. Not a huge surprise there. So I don't think it's bad even at a societal level.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one: > And so during the 1990s a number of economists, myself included (Krugman 1995), tried to assess the role of Stolper-Samuelson-type effects in rising inequality. Inevitably given the standard framework, such analyses did in fact find some depressing effect of growing trade on the wages of less-educated workers in advanced countries. As a quantitative matter, however, they generally suggested that the eff…

Thanks, but these citations don't at all support the GP's sweeping assertion that "Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted." Krugman's cited gc.cuny.edu paper is titled, "Globalization: What Did We Miss?" It concludes, not that economists were wrong per se, but that they didn't adequately take into account the pace of globalization: "Basically, t…

> Thanks, but these citations don't at all support the GP's sweeping assertion that

Agreed, it was hyperbolic. But it was a correction nonetheless, and IMHO it should be noted as form of intellectual honesty.

Post reply on HN