Re: National Review Online - Questions

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mosler dot ORG BBS ]

Posted by Warren Mosler (207.69.137.37) on 06:06:57 03/29/04

In Reply to: Re: National Review Online - Questions posted by Uwe Burkheiser

:
: >>>Warren, let s agree to disagree on the above point. Since 70 years (Lautenbach) we know that there can be no national net savings in the form of monetary assets in a closed a closed economy. In an open economy that s different and most of us will live to see how the savers fare.

True with a fixed exchange rate, (sort of) but not functionally applicable with a floating exchange rate as govt debt is qualitatively different than non govt debt, so counting govt debt as dissavings in a floating exchange rate totally misses the point though definitionally correct. In your 'closed' example you put some functional significance on 'national savings' as defined where I say with that definition it has none, except as another way to state total non resident savings of $US net financial assets.

:
: All chartalist assurances that there is no inherent limit

Right, no nominal limit. The real limit is the desire to net save of the non govt sector. That's why Turkey, for example, in lira can spend quadrillions more than it taxes without bouncing its checks, etc.

on government spending and that deficits don t matter

They do matter very much, as they directly feed into non govt savings of net financial assets.

will not erase this simple truth as long as the government does not escape to create MZM without the Fed and the private banking system.

The Fed IS the government, and so any such constraints are self imposed. Self imposed constraints nearly caused the US govt to default a few years ago when congress didn't pass the debt ceiling, for example.

:
: You're missing the point regarding mzm.
: >>>Same solution here. Let s just disagree, but I promise to keep learning.

Your position is just that.

:
: :
: : Chartalism is a great tool to explain the workings of a fiat money system as long as you don t look at the gruesome beginnings (which it cannot explain economically)
:
: Of course it does- that's what it's all about.
: >>>No, this point is not granted. You need to do some reading.
:
:
: and at the likely end (which it will not explain for good economic reasons).
:
: The 'end' to a particular currency (not chartalism) is hyper inflation, should tax collection end, etc.
: >>>Agreed better wording.
:
: Will be back when running my live permits:
: Thanks!!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:	Re: National Review Online - Questions
Comments:	: : : : : >>>Warren, let s agree to disagree on the above point. Since 70 years (Lautenbach) we know that there can be no national net savings in the form of monetary assets in a closed a closed economy. In an open economy that s different and most of us will live to see how the savers fare. : : True with a fixed exchange rate, (sort of) but not functionally applicable with a floating exchange rate as govt debt is qualitatively different than non govt debt, so counting govt debt as dissavings in a floating exchange rate totally misses the point though definitionally correct. In your 'closed' example you put some functional significance on 'national savings' as defined where I say with that definition it has none, except as another way to state total non resident savings of $US net financial assets. : : : : : All chartalist assurances that there is no inherent limit : : Right, no nominal limit. The real limit is the desire to net save of the non govt sector. That's why Turkey, for example, in lira can spend quadrillions more than it taxes without bouncing its checks, etc. : : on government spending and that deficits don t matter : : They do matter very much, as they directly feed into non govt savings of net financial assets. : : : will not erase this simple truth as long as the government does not escape to create MZM without the Fed and the private banking system. : : The Fed IS the government, and so any such constraints are self imposed. Self imposed constraints nearly caused the US govt to default a few years ago when congress didn't pass the debt ceiling, for example. : : : : : You're missing the point regarding mzm. : : >>>Same solution here. Let s just disagree, but I promise to keep learning. : : Your position is just that. : : : : : : : : : Chartalism is a great tool to explain the workings of a fiat money system as long as you don t look at the gruesome beginnings (which it cannot explain economically) : : : : Of course it does- that's what it's all about. : : >>>No, this point is not granted. You need to do some reading. : : : : : : and at the likely end (which it will not explain for good economic reasons). : : : : The 'end' to a particular currency (not chartalism) is hyper inflation, should tax collection end, etc. : : >>>Agreed better wording. : : : : Will be back when running my live permits: : : Thanks!! :
Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Enter the characters you see in the box:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mosler dot ORG BBS ]