Live data from Hacker News

No one knows how much the government can borrow

noahpinion.substack.com

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Dalio has publicly anticipated cash and bonds being poor investments in 2020, I'm making a blanket statement regarding appeals to authority (similar to you). But when authorities are to be invoked, economists are generally just sideline-experts with no skin in the game, who are unable to translate their understanding of markets into alpha. This is in response to you stating in your first post that economists ar…

> While Dalio has publicly anticipated cash and bonds being poor investments in 2020, I'm making a blanket statement regarding appeals to authority (similar to you). Sure. But my appeal-to-authority has peer-reviewed models behind him. Does yours? [citation needed] :) > I am curious though -- can you expand on what you believe Krugman's position to be here, and why it makes sense? He doesn't seem to worry about infla…

While it’s true that the maximum tax rates in Eisenhower’s time were much higher compared with our own, they also only phased in at almost 10X more income - to hit the max tax bracket back then you needed to have an inflation adjusted income of over four million a year versus the $518,401 for today.

Moreover, such taxes seem terribly unfair for a person who works hard to get a single payout one time, versus a steady high income for many years - someone who makes ten million one time and then nothing else for nine years gets FAR more taken from them that a person who earns a million a year for ten years, despite the same total earnings.

Why should the first person have to pay so much more than the second?

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, Mark is a PhD and teaches the CFA which is obviously no-bullshit. His channel is fantastic, and half of the time it really is him talking about CFA prep.

Hard to find a purer source of financial information than analysis from someone who makes analysts. He sometimes talks about markets and how he's positioned and that's a gold mine as well.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#313
post #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

To nitpick, I think it’s more accurate to say what government does isn’t borrowing. And fractional reserve banking isn’t lending, it’s accounting fraud.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#314
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To nitpick, I think it’s more accurate to say what government does isn’t borrowing. And fractional reserve banking isn’t lending, it’s accounting fraud.

Wow! Accounting fraud? You do realise that if you kept personal accounts and you lent money to me, you would post exactly the same journals as the bank because you are carrying out exactly the same operation. The only difference between you and the bank is that the bank’s IOU is widely accepted and yours isn’t.

I used to be an advocate of Austrian economics until I worked as a bank auditor and really got to understand operationally how they work. Now, I feel the Austrian economist movement has done the world a great disservice and it’s a crying shame because there’s nothing wrong or insidious about banking.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#315
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the smaller countries and the USA is, the dollar is basically the world's currency now. The world can afford to let Venezuela fail, but if the USA fails, the whole world goes down with it, so IMO they'll happily "lend" the USA more money. With the Roman Empire, I'm guessing other problems caused it to fall; it didn't fall because of money printing, but it was printing money because it was falli…

> The world can afford to let Venezuela fail, but if the USA fails, the whole world goes down with it Hypothetically if the riots at the Capitol had gotten really bad and America fell even close to Civil War a couple of weeks ago, I'm quite certain the rest of the Developed World would have quickly switched to using the Euro or the Yen or the Yuan or some combination of those and more. I seriously doubt it would take…

I'm not an expert in this area, but I doubt the world changing their debt to a different currency is that simplistic... and I doubt you're an expert either.

For one thing everyone wanting to get rid of their USD and buying EUR would cause the USD to crash and EUR to spike, so, well, there's their economic crisis (because suddenly your 10000 USD debt would turn from a ca. 8200 EUR debt to something like a 20000 EUR one).

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#316
Debt is exists to increase efficiency in a certain situation. Namely when there is idle production capacity because of a lack of resources and simultaneously an excess of resources because production capacity has been fully utilized somewhere else.

Person A needs a computer, electricity and access to the internet to run his software company.

Person B manufactures computers.

If you want to maximize economic efficiency then person B has to give his resources to person A. But why would person B do that in the first place? Of course, to make money. So person B will charge person A but person A can pay at a later time, when he has a stable income. That's debt.

What about electricity and internet? Instead of making a deal with every person directly you can increase efficiency of debt by denoting it in the money needed to buy the product or service. Person B lends you $2000 and sells his product for $1000. You spend $1000 and get a computer. As long as person A earns enough money to pay for the computer and the electricity and internet person A consumes then person B will be better off.

As long as person B has spare computers he can keep lending them out in the form of dollars. If person B doesn't have enough computers for everyone he will instead allocate his computers to the highest bidder.

Now introduce person C who does the same thing as person A but promises to give 20% more money than he borrowed. Person B wants the highest possible return for the loan and thus lends the money to C but he also would lend to A if he had enough spare computers.

Now lets take the macroscopic perspective. The government is a giant borrower. It can borrow resources that exist in the economy, but only if they actually exist. One very valuable resource is labor. If there is unemployment you can borrow until all the labor is actively used. Once you have reached full employment any money you borrow and spend on labor will directly translate into inflation. Mild inflation of 2% is necessary to have a well functioning economy.

What does inflation do? The free market is basically a continuous auction that allocates resources to the highest bidders. If there is lots of demand for labor then inflation will go up. The question is whether the labor is spent on economically useful work. Private borrowers tend to use the borrowed money carefully and with the intention to turn a profit so if inflation goes up slightly too much (think of 5%) then they will just allocate their workers to the most efficient use. This is basically solving the problem of too much bad debt automatically.

However, what if you are insane and keep borrowing money despite hitting 2% inflation goals? If you are debt ridden Germany after WW1 then you are forced to spend the borrowed money on war reparations. Meaning, lots of people will start working on undoing the damage the war has caused. The problem with that is that working for the government can end up being so "profitable" compared to private industries that those industries get neglected. This can be a very big deal if that private industry is the agriculture sector.

Summary? You can borrow and print money as long as you spend it wisely and hit your 2% inflation target.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#317
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To nitpick, I think it’s more accurate to say what government does isn’t borrowing. And fractional reserve banking isn’t lending, it’s accounting fraud.

Wow! Accounting fraud? You do realise that if you kept personal accounts and you lent money to me, you would post exactly the same journals as the bank because you are carrying out exactly the same operation. The only difference between you and the bank is that the bank’s IOU is widely accepted and yours isn’t. I used to be an advocate of Austrian economics until I worked as a bank auditor and really got to understan…

I'm aware of how accounting and banking works. Borrowing does not create money in FRB, since all loans are deposits. Unless of course, the bank creates more certificates than deposits (but don't call it fraud!), which the Fed did prior to 1971, as did many private banks prior to the Fed.

FRB always ended in bankruptcy and bank runs. A central bank was created to bail them out. And what happened? The central bank went bankrupt doing the same thing. In 1971 the US couldn't honor its foreign gold obligations – which is exactly what happens when you promise to deliver something you don't have. The US defaulted on their obligations.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has had the resources and status to access any scholar on the topic he would like. So did Bill Gross of PIMCO, one of the largest fixed-income (bond) management firms in the world (AUM: $1.9T): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIMCO He bet that interest rates would rise in 2011 after QE(2). Keynesian macroeconomists like Krugman said they wouldn't. Krugam was right: * https://www.businessinsider.com/this-was-the-…

Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted.

Those who admit they are wrong are more trustworthy than those that don't.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#319

I can't help feeling that the question is ill-posed. It's not "how much", but "why" that matters. Think about it: Would you borrow $10,000 to a friend who opens a dentist with a solid business plan? Probably yes. Would you borrow $1000 to a friend to cover an existing debt? Probably not, or, if you are very generous, you would gift them the money. If a government can demonstrate that it borrows money to invest in the…

> If a government can demonstrate that it borrows money to invest in the economy and increase future taxes -- e.g., by building infrastructure, educating the population, researching top-notch tech -- by all means, borrow more! That's remarkably shortsighted. You're missing whole swaths of knock-on effects of borrowing. What if I told you that the government only borrows money on the backs of the working class, who pa…

Stop with the bogeyman conspiracy. The working class prefers low unemployment and high salaries over losing a few percent on a checking account. Inflation is generally good for workers and bad for owners of unproductive capital. Yeah, sure, owners of productive capital benefit, but only by employing workers which is a net loss compared to getting free money without productive investments.

Re: No one knows how much the government can borrow

#320
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT works so long as you've got the ability to conjure your own money. (Eg, not on the Euro, or a currency pegged to another currency.) The idea is that you create money to pay for things, and then pull back excess money through taxes. (As opposed to pulling in money through taxes, using it to pay for things, and whining that you don't have enough.) So it 'works' as long as you have your own independent national curr…

Another mind flip: the scarce resource isn't labor - but energy . Edit: A gallon of oil is equivalent to roughly 400 hours of human labor. Manual work is nothing compared to the energy contained in fossil fuels (or external energy sources in general). An argument could be made that the economy is in decline due to this, that the sources of fossil fuels are getting more expensive. Most of the cheap sources have been u…

Renewable energy is cheaper, so cheap that some people on HN sarcastically suggested to use renewable energy to extract oil from tar sands.
Post reply on HN