I suspect you are beyond help. But here goes anyway.
There is no national debt, only national savings. That's what causes it and what it is in accounting terms.
We can easily get rid of the national debt simply by confiscating all the excess savings via taxation.
If you have $100 in a drawer and you're saving it, how does that cause inflation?
Presumably you'll happy to offer up all your savings to eliminate the national debt you so despise.
It's not the quantity of money that matters. It's the demand for transactions relative to the capacity to supply that matters - effective demand. Savings don't demand.
I got it. Nice. It’s all National savings. And then if any slacker saves a nickel Progressive leadership may confiscate all the excess savings via taxation. Why ever save. Confiscate!
It's not progressive leadership that wants to confiscate it. It's those who want a balanced budget. That's what it brings about - a depression and destruction of savings.
Progressive leadership accommodates excess savings by realising that borrowing doesn't really exist. What reactionaries call 'borrowing' is actually just a carried forward balancing item in the accounts. It occurs costlessly and automatically as a function of the way double entry bookkeeping works.
Those who get excited about it are just hard of accounting. They should be ignored.
""Progressive leadership accommodates excess savings by realising that borrowing doesn't really exist. What reactionaries call 'borrowing' is actually just a carried forward balancing item in the accounts. It occurs costlessly and automatically as a function of the way double entry bookkeeping works."
LOL. And you call Dave 'hopeless', ??
Public "Borrowing" in this country is so real that it has always EXISTED by that name - in absolutely the most-real of financial law - since 1791.
Then came along Moslerian 'funny-money' talk and with his "reserve add and drain" announcements to the monetarily-ignorant Post-Keynesians, and denied our nation's history.
Nice work, guys and girls.
Fifteen years later
Where has it gotten MMT?
A huge cadre of mis-informed 'followers' that cannot figure out what's wrong, but nobody listening where it counts, on Bernie's Budget Committee.
""There is no national debt, only national savings. That's what causes it and what it is in accounting terms.
We can easily get rid of the national debt simply by confiscating all the excess savings via taxation. ""
Wait a minute ! I thought you said there WAS NO NATIONAL DEBT.
So, what's to "get rid of" ??
LOL.
Guv collects around $3.3 TRILLION$ in TOTAL tax revenues every year,
If we Doubled that every year for the next ten years, so til 2033, then we would still NOT be able to pay our Debt Principal Due. And what about the Interest ?
This is just another MMT WAN.
In doing so, the disposable income of the Nation's taxpayers would be reduced by $3.3 TRILLION$ every year. A corresponding reduction in National Income would manifest.
What is called 'debt' isn't really debt, it's just the closing item in the books.
If there is $50 bn of 'national savings' there will be $50bn of 'balancing items'. Confiscate the $50bn and the balancing items disappear at the same time.
Watch the Dark Crystal and see what happens to the urRu when a skeksis dies. You might get it then. It's about your level.
FYI, as per Dr. Frederick Soddy - noted author on money and Physical Science Nobelist -
writing in his epic book "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" (1934) that which the $50 Bn savings initially held represents, really, is Virtual Wealth. Use it to produce goods, and you end up with Wealth. Accumulate and lend that $50 Bn, you get Debt". It's not a bookkeeping matter. It's an understanding about the relationship among economic/financial forms of monetary-economic things.
The biggest FAIL of MMT is in its approach to "modern money' through a lens focused on a Bank Corporate Balance Sheet, and it's resulting Double-Entry Bookkeeping ......as opposed to say a beginning study of either the HISTORY of Monetary SYSTEMS, or simply The Science of Money, both authored by noted Historian and National Statistician, Alexander Del Mar. The latter book includes an edifying Chapter on The Law of Money.
Alternatively, for finding some clarity of these vague and rote-learned MMT concepts being advanced here about what a DEBT is, and is not, and about what Money IS, and is not, may I suggest comprehending F.A. Mann's The Legal Aspect of Money - any edition.
I'll repeat therefrom, parenthetically - for the A Mitchell Innes fans - Legally, Debt can not BE money.
Because Money is the only thing that can pay/satisfy or settle a debt.
Neil, glad to debate you on any of this ? On MMT ??
I suspect you are beyond help. But here goes anyway.
There is no national debt, only national savings. That's what causes it and what it is in accounting terms.
We can easily get rid of the national debt simply by confiscating all the excess savings via taxation.
If you have $100 in a drawer and you're saving it, how does that cause inflation?
Presumably you'll happy to offer up all your savings to eliminate the national debt you so despise.
It's not the quantity of money that matters. It's the demand for transactions relative to the capacity to supply that matters - effective demand. Savings don't demand.
I got it. Nice. It’s all National savings. And then if any slacker saves a nickel Progressive leadership may confiscate all the excess savings via taxation. Why ever save. Confiscate!
I was right with the beyond hope then.
It's not progressive leadership that wants to confiscate it. It's those who want a balanced budget. That's what it brings about - a depression and destruction of savings.
Progressive leadership accommodates excess savings by realising that borrowing doesn't really exist. What reactionaries call 'borrowing' is actually just a carried forward balancing item in the accounts. It occurs costlessly and automatically as a function of the way double entry bookkeeping works.
Those who get excited about it are just hard of accounting. They should be ignored.
""Progressive leadership accommodates excess savings by realising that borrowing doesn't really exist. What reactionaries call 'borrowing' is actually just a carried forward balancing item in the accounts. It occurs costlessly and automatically as a function of the way double entry bookkeeping works."
LOL. And you call Dave 'hopeless', ??
Public "Borrowing" in this country is so real that it has always EXISTED by that name - in absolutely the most-real of financial law - since 1791.
Then came along Moslerian 'funny-money' talk and with his "reserve add and drain" announcements to the monetarily-ignorant Post-Keynesians, and denied our nation's history.
Nice work, guys and girls.
Fifteen years later
Where has it gotten MMT?
A huge cadre of mis-informed 'followers' that cannot figure out what's wrong, but nobody listening where it counts, on Bernie's Budget Committee.
MMT Fail.
The Money Apprentice
""There is no national debt, only national savings. That's what causes it and what it is in accounting terms.
We can easily get rid of the national debt simply by confiscating all the excess savings via taxation. ""
Wait a minute ! I thought you said there WAS NO NATIONAL DEBT.
So, what's to "get rid of" ??
LOL.
Guv collects around $3.3 TRILLION$ in TOTAL tax revenues every year,
If we Doubled that every year for the next ten years, so til 2033, then we would still NOT be able to pay our Debt Principal Due. And what about the Interest ?
This is just another MMT WAN.
In doing so, the disposable income of the Nation's taxpayers would be reduced by $3.3 TRILLION$ every year. A corresponding reduction in National Income would manifest.
The Money Apprentice
For every asset there is a balancing figure.
What is called 'debt' isn't really debt, it's just the closing item in the books.
If there is $50 bn of 'national savings' there will be $50bn of 'balancing items'. Confiscate the $50bn and the balancing items disappear at the same time.
Watch the Dark Crystal and see what happens to the urRu when a skeksis dies. You might get it then. It's about your level.
Almost too squishy for words, Neil.
FYI, as per Dr. Frederick Soddy - noted author on money and Physical Science Nobelist -
writing in his epic book "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" (1934) that which the $50 Bn savings initially held represents, really, is Virtual Wealth. Use it to produce goods, and you end up with Wealth. Accumulate and lend that $50 Bn, you get Debt". It's not a bookkeeping matter. It's an understanding about the relationship among economic/financial forms of monetary-economic things.
The biggest FAIL of MMT is in its approach to "modern money' through a lens focused on a Bank Corporate Balance Sheet, and it's resulting Double-Entry Bookkeeping ......as opposed to say a beginning study of either the HISTORY of Monetary SYSTEMS, or simply The Science of Money, both authored by noted Historian and National Statistician, Alexander Del Mar. The latter book includes an edifying Chapter on The Law of Money.
Alternatively, for finding some clarity of these vague and rote-learned MMT concepts being advanced here about what a DEBT is, and is not, and about what Money IS, and is not, may I suggest comprehending F.A. Mann's The Legal Aspect of Money - any edition.
I'll repeat therefrom, parenthetically - for the A Mitchell Innes fans - Legally, Debt can not BE money.
Because Money is the only thing that can pay/satisfy or settle a debt.
Neil, glad to debate you on any of this ? On MMT ??
Let me know. Here or via email.
The Money Apprentice