Your saying they went bankrupt ... And tried to print there way out of it . If I couldnt produce goods and produced money to make up for it...it would be worthless to ...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When Inflation Wipes out a Country's Currency...
- Thread starter zghorner
- Start date
There is a mis-understanding here. The United States has no debt, so there is no debt to pay! But the U.S. has created a lot of money which must be backed by its productivity and taxing power. Its money is in two forms, One form consists of bank deposits and cash, the other form consists of Treasury securities. The question you really want to know is what would happen if the U.S. decided to convert all its Treasury securities to bank deposits and cash. It is unlikely to want to do this because Treasury Securities are so useful, but at least the thought experiment can be done. Economists are divided on what the outcome would be. Some say it would amount to a net loss of private sector wealth which would dampen inflation, others say we would experience high inflation.The issue is not that the govt would be able to print enough money to pay it's debt. The issue is that by doing so it could destroy the value of the dollar as a means to fund the ongoing operations of the government.
By the way, Japan, another country that has no debt, not long ago, converted about 50% of its JGBs to bank deposits, i.e. Japans the central bank "bought" them back. There was no calamity!
That's exactly what I am saying. It wasn't the printing that caused the "bankruptcy". It never is. It was the "bankruptcy" that caused the printing. Now you've got it! Excessive printing is always a symptom of a serious defect or distortion in the economy. No country with a sound economy will just start printing money like crazy for the hell of it.Your saying they went bankrupt ... And tried to print there way out of it . If I couldnt produce goods and produced money to make up for it...it would be worthless to ...
Once Zimbabwe correctly identified what caused the collapse of their economy, they were in a position to do something about it. Now they are attempting to tackle the problem head on. Once things get as far as hyperinflation, however, a country may need outside help to turn its economy around. That's where the IMF may step in and help.
We do have one example of an economy being turned around by the arrival of a charismatic leader. Unfortunately the charismatic leader turned out to be a hard right nationalist and criminal! I'm speaking of Germany in the 1930s. Germany's rapid economic transformation from the Weimar Republic to the Third Reich still stands as a truly amazing example of the application of Keynesian economics. (It turns out to be rather telling that "Reich" mean "empire" in German.)
Last edited:
There is a mis-understanding here. The United States has no debt, so there is no debt to pay! But the U.S. has created a lot of money which must be backed by its productivity and taxing power. Its money is in two forms, One form consists of bank deposits and cash, the other form consists of Treasury securities. The question you really want to know is what would happen if the U.S. decided to convert all its Treasury securities to bank deposits and cash. It is unlikely to want to do this because Treasury Securities are so useful, but at least the thought experiment can be done. Economists are divided on what the outcome would be. Some say it would amount to a net loss of private sector wealth which would dampen inflation, others say we would experience high inflation.
By the way, Japan, another country that has no debt, not long ago, converted about 50% of its JGBs to bank deposits, i.e. Japan's the central bank "bought" them back. There was no calamity!
I am against an intervention in any form just to let you know... Printing money only exasperates the problem subsidizes bad behavior.. and it as well dilutes working class people. Earnings don't keep up with the cost of living.. the only people that benefit are people holding assets that follow inflation. Your average person might realize equity in their house but the wage earning class gets nailed.. printing money does nothing but exasperate the problem
We see problems in the U.S, economy similarly, but we have vastly different opinions on the causes and what should be done.I am against an intervention in any form just to let you know... Printing money only exasperates the problem subsidizes bad behavior.. and it as well dilutes working class people. Earnings don't keep up with the cost of living.. the only people that benefit are people holding assets that follow inflation. Your average person might realize equity in their house but the wage earning class gets nailed.. printing money does nothing but exasperate the problem
There is a mis-understanding here. The United States has no debt, so there is no debt to pay!
You can say that a thousand times but it won't make it accurate. As a former holder of US Government debt, I can say with certainty that such a thing is real.
Zimbabwe was run by a murderous, racist dictator. That may be the root cause of their problems but currency inflation is due to printing.
You may think that Treasury securities represent real debt because they appear to you just like other debt instruments on which you earn interest.You can say that a thousand times but it won't make it accurate. As a former holder of US Government debt, I can say with certainty that such a thing is real.
Zimbabwe was run by a murderous, racist dictator. That may be the root cause of their problems but currency inflation is due to printing.
The interest the Treasury pays on its securities is a non-discretionary budget item that will add to the deficit whenever expenditures exceed revenues. The principle, on what you believe is debt, is a treasury liability, once transferred to the private sector. This liability is booked against the outside money previously printed, spent into the private sector, and now returned to the Treasury upon
sale of the security to the sector. When you thought you were buying debt, you were in reality just exchanging one type of treasury liability, the "outside " money you paid for the bond, for another type of treasury liability, the bond you bought.
You see, when you or I borrow, we borrow first and then we spend the money we've borrowed. The U.S. Treasury does not do that. Instead the treasury is directed by the Congress to spend. If they net spend in excess of revenue, the Central bank "prints" the difference between revenue and expenditure. This happens when the Central Bank covers a net overdraft in the Treasury's reserve account. (I am uncertain how this transaction is booked on the Central Banks ledger, perhaps it is as a negative liability, as a negative liability = an asset) Then later, sometimes much later, the Treasury will auction securities to primary dealers in an amount matching the amount of this new outside money already "printed" and spent. In other words by the time the treasury gets around to offering securities, enough money to buy them back has already been "printed" and spent into the private sector economy! In real borrowing there would be no
net increase in the total amount of treasury liability in the private sector. When the U.S. spends in deficit, however, the total of Treasury liabilities in the private sector increases. Remember, money in all forms, once in the private sector, is a Treasury liability. U.S. Treasury securities are just an interest paying store of money. They are a non-readily spendable form of money that pays interest! They too are a Treasury liability, just like a dollar bill or a dime.
You will note easily enough that the Treasury procedure I have outlined involves spending first, then "printing", and only after printing, appearing to borrow. You will want to contrast that to what goes on in real borrowing. In real borrowing, we borrow first, then we spend, and there is no "printing step".
What I have outlined for you is the reason economists say the government, the U.S. government anyway, always money finances its spending, it never borrows to spend!!!
If you have an interest in U.S. Treasury and Central Bank operations I would recommend Jospeh Wang's book on central bank operations. Wang was a trader on the NY Feds Bond Desk. Especially recommended is L. Randall Wrays classic monograph "Understanding Modern Money." There's also a popular book out by former, U.S. Senate economist Stephanie Kelton, "The deficit Myth". Kelton's book can be read even if your economics background is not very strong.
If it is any comfort, millions of citizens, many politicians, most bankers, and even some Central Bankers don't understand what you don't understand. You're in good company.
I did not come easily by the knowledge I have. I used to think exactly as you, incorrectly of course. I have been a student of economics for about 15 years, the latter part spent mostly on money theory economics. If I hadn't started out with my head filled with nonsense it would have been much easier. I think it was only last year that the first undergraduate Economics text came out that corrects the mistakes that are in those chapters on money and banking in all the classical texts, including Samuelson, which was my basic text.
Last edited:
Your a self proclaimed economist basically that brings rationale to a subject that is simpler then you have explained it.... However you would like to name the fiduciary media is fine with me talking to people like they know less than you just shows your own ignorance. I've read plenty of economics in the last 20 years and the only thing that makes sense to me is the Austrian School mises bastiat rothbard etc. Your explanation just sounds like a defensive statement interventionism put crafty words on printing money and diluting our currency. The bottom line is inflation is theftYou may think that Treasury securities represent real debt because they appear to you just like other debt instruments on which you earn interest.
The interest the Treasury pays on its securities is a non-discretionary budget item that will add to the deficit whenever expenditures exceed revenues. The principle, on what you believe is debt, is a treasury liability, once transferred to the private sector. This liability is booked against the outside money previously printed, spent into the private sector, and now returned to the Treasury upon
sale of the security to the sector. When you thought you were buying debt, you were in reality just exchanging one type of treasury liability, the "outside " money you paid for the bond, for another type of treasury liability, the bond you bought.
You see, when you or I borrow, we borrow first and then we spend the money we've borrowed. The U.S. Treasury does not do that. Instead the treasury is directed by the Congress to spend. If they net spend in excess of revenue, the Central bank "prints" the difference between revenue and expenditure. This happens when the Central Bank covers a net overdraft in the Treasury's reserve account. (I am uncertain how this transaction is booked on the Central Banks ledger, perhaps it is as a negative liability, as a negative liability = an asset) Then later, sometimes much later, the Treasury will auction securities to primary dealers in an amount matching the amount of this new outside money already "printed" and spent. In other words by the time the treasury gets around to offering securities, enough money to buy them back has already been "printed" and spent into the private sector economy! In real borrowing there would be no
net increase in the total amount of treasury liability in the private sector. When the U.S. spends in deficit, however, the total of Treasury liabilities in the private sector increases. Remember, money in all forms, once in the private sector, is a Treasury liability. U.S. Treasury securities are just an interest paying store of money. They are a non-readily spendable form of money that pays interest! They too are a Treasury liability, just like a dollar bill or a dime.
You will note easily enough that the Treasury procedure I have outlined involves spending first, then "printing", and only after printing, appearing to borrow. You will want to contrast that to what goes on in real borrowing. In real borrowing, we borrow first, then we spend, and there is no "printing step".
What I have outlined for you is the reason economists say the government, the U.S. government anyway, always money finances its spending, it never borrows to spend!!!
If you have an interest in U.S. Treasury and Central Bank operations I would recommend Jospeh Wang's book on central bank operations. Wang was a trader on the NY Feds Bond Desk. Especially recommended is L. Randall Wrays classic monograph "Understanding Modern Money." There's also a popular book out by former, U.S. Senate economist Stephanie Kelton, "The deficit Myth". Kelton's book can be read even if your economics background is not very strong.
If it is any comfort, millions of citizens, many politicians, most bankers, and even some Central Bankers don't understand what you don't understand. You're in good company.
I did not come easily by the knowledge I have. I used to think exactly as you, incorrectly of course. I have been a student of economics for about 15 years, the latter part spent mostly on money theory economics. If I hadn't started out with my head filled with nonsense it would have been much easier. I think it was only last year that the first undergraduate Economics text came out that corrects the mistakes that are in those chapters on money and banking in all the classical texts, including Samuelson, which was my basic text.