[Steve_American]

A fact he could have determined by consulting any good accounting textbook that describes banks' ledger entries.

Maybe he could, but mainstream econ. refused to accept that it was so.

They still are refusing. As he said in the video, as he was about to publish his results of the 200K euro experiment, the Bank of England put out a statement that it knew that all along. But, after he published, the BoE put out 2 statements denying that it is true.

This assumption is fundamental to all MS econ. theories. This is because MS econ. falsely says that, saving doesn't keep money out of the economy. Instead, saving lets banks make loans for investment. Selling Gov. bonds crowds out money for investors by taking savings out of banks to buy the bonds. Then, without savings in the banks, they can't make loans to comp. to buy capital things like factories to increase production. This then damages the economy as time goes on, because production isn't increased.

Unlike a proper science MS econ. has not changed how it teaches econ. to college students as parts of its theories are proven to be untrue. It has been 8 years now and you can still hear economists go on about how Gov. deficits with bond sales deny money to comps. & corps. for investments.
.

[Steve_American]

1] Only in *systemic* terms. I'm *not* a defender of capitalism, so I'll be glad to *discuss* these things empirically, but I have no interests in the continuation of capitalism. The system has actually become a *fetter* to further, greater social activity because of all of this necessary *fussing* over where it's going to go next, since everything's left to the 'invisible hand'.


2] Wouldn't this [only selling US Gov. bonds at 1- 2% interest rates] artificially invert the yield curve, though -- ?

It would tend to subsidize the *short-term* at the expense of the *long-term*.


3] Why should people 'learn to consume less' -- ? (And why should the economy *contract*?)

That's definitely a systemic 'market failure', if the economy isn't providing for *people* in the ways that they require.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

4] You're content to blame *global warming* for a failure of *capitalist economics* -- ?


5] Steve, this part [the ratio of debt to GDP increasing during a surplus] of yours doesn't make any sense -- the thing that causes the debt-to-GDP ratio to *increase* is *more borrowing* (from savers, for 'economic nationalism'). I'm not a moralist about it, I'm just saying that, as with *any* investment, the 'opportunity' looks less and less attractive to the prospective investor as its *risk of default* increases (as with any corporate bond).


6] Okay, I don't think I said anything to indicate anything otherwise.


7] Yup, agreed, [that one should never compare the US to Greece or Spain].

1] IMHO, whether or not capitalism is finished doesn't matter much in the current situation. Climate Change will kill every human in 100 years if we don't act now to stop it. So, we don't have time to figure out how to change capitalism for the long run. Like in the US in WWII, we need to do what seems necessary which may be the Gov. building factories and running them, etc.

2] Professional MMTers don't agree that that would be a problem. They point out that not repairing infrastructure is cheating the future out of good infrastructure, for example.

3] People in the west need to learn to be happy consuming less because the world is in overshoot. It is just like a population of cattle on a range. If there are too many cattle, the grass will be damaged because it can't grow back before more, closer to the ground, is eaten. Yes, for a while they don't die, but they are damaging the range, so that fewer cattle can live there going forward. And if some cattle are not removed or die, then almost all of them will die.

It is not a market failure. It is a result of capitalism assuming that the world is infinite. This is the failure. The market can't solve the problem that there are about 3 times more people on earth than it can support without damage to the "range". And, as the world's poor lead better lives the west will have to consume less to make "resource" or economic room for them; or we will have to reduce the total population to less than 1/3 of now. Maybe the 1/6 of now.
. . . If you-all don't like this result, tough shit. Mother nature doesn't care what you like. She can't be fooled. She can't be changed. This is reality biting us on the ass.
. . . If you think that the world has infinite resources then you are just as bad as capitalists when it comes to destroying our only environment now to consume a little more now at the expense of future generations.

4] NO. It is impossible for any economic system to deliver more consumption than the world can sustain. Trying to consume more just puts off the reckoning. [Yes, I believe in a reckoning, I just reject that it comes because of deficit spending.]

5] Perhaps you didn't grok that paying down the debt requires a surplus.
. . . GDP is total income, so when the Gov. spends less, it reduces the GDP. This is austerity.
. . . Let me assume that the debt is reduced by the amount of the surplus.
. . . If the debt is > the GDP, then.

We start with debt/GDP.
Then later this becomes debt-surplus/GDP-surplus. Right?

I'll use numbers to show you how the math works. debt = 120 units, GDP = 100 units, & surplus = 10 units.
So, we start with the ratio = 120/100 = 1.2 = 120%. Later it becomes, 120-10/100-10 = 110/90 = 1.222 = 122.2%.

So, if the ratio is over 100% having a surplus will just make the ratio increase.

What risk of bond default? MMTers assert that there is zero default risk, because the US can sell bonds to the Fed directly and pay the bonds coming due as long as the rich agree to change the law (which they always will because they own the bonds that would otherwise not be paid). Yes, in poor nations which have borrowed dollars and in Europe, it is quite different.

6] What you had said, that I was responding to was, "That said, though -- since you made a point of it -- I don't think the (U.S.) capitalist economy can survive any kind of excessive debt-to-GDP ratio, and *no country* can. The past 20 years is a history of *bad debt*, and we've seen that (EU) countries themselves are not immune to becoming overextended, with their 'sovereign debt' at-risk (2012), especially when the economy *snaps back* at times."

There you compared the US to Europe. I responded to say that is always an error. And, you asked where you had said that. Well, there is where you had said it.

7] OK, good.

.

[ckaihatsu]

1] IMHO, whether or not capitalism is finished doesn't matter much in the current situation. Climate Change will kill every human in 100 years if we don't act now to stop it. So, we don't have time to figure out how to change capitalism for the long run. Like in the US in WWII, we need to do what seems necessary which may be the Gov. building factories and running them, etc.

In October 2019, Erica Eisen, an XR participant, wrote an article for Current Affairs in which she linked the movement's "beyond politics" slogan not only to the demand for a citizens' assembly but also to a refusal to take stances on issues beyond the environment, in order to gain as broad a base of support as possible, highlighting the movement's ban on organising community groups based on political identity. She argued that "our current economic system is [not] compatible with continued life on this planet. It is unrealistic and irresponsible to pretend that a proposed climate solution which keeps capitalism intact is any kind of solution at all." In her view, failing to articulate an anti-capitalist position undermined the movement's credibility by "lend[ing] tacit support" to large companies responsible for environmentally destructive behaviour. She also suggested that failing to embrace leftist positions would give space for far right groups to piggyback and exploit environmentalist rhetoric, citing the examples of the Christchurch mosque shootings and 2019 El Paso shooting, both of whose perpetrators left manifestos which mentioned environmental concerns.[110] Writing for i-D in December 2019, Nathalie Olah drew parallels between XR and earlier decentralised protest movements such as the events of May 68 in France and the Occupy movement, suggesting that a shared lack of clarity in concrete demands had stunted the political impact of the latter two movements and arguing that climate change and class politics were "inextricable" as "a small minority are responsible for a high proportion of emissions, and because the poorest stand to face the worst repercussions".[111][111]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinctio ... d_ideology

---

2] Professional MMTers don't agree that that would be a problem. They point out that not repairing infrastructure is cheating the future out of good infrastructure, for example.

Okay, no contention.

3] People in the west need to learn to be happy consuming less because the world is in overshoot. It is just like a population of cattle on a range. If there are too many cattle, the grass will be damaged because it can't grow back before more, closer to the ground, is eaten. Yes, for a while they don't die, but they are damaging the range, so that fewer cattle can live there going forward. And if some cattle are not removed or die, then almost all of them will die.

Sure, everyone needs to be *conscientious*, and there are entire social *modalities* that need to be shifted, such as to solar, etc. -- but, in terms of *politics*, it's not for a typically-white, bourgeois-type government to *tell* people what to get or not-get, pandemic-style, because there's no medical emergency here necessitating that kind of political authority. I'd say 'see point #1', and this also has to do with societal *production*, meaning what gets *produced*, and what doesn't, and the best authority for *that* should be the workers themselves, the world's working class.

It is not a market failure. It is a result of capitalism assuming that the world is infinite. This is the failure.

In terms of *politics*, your description here is *academic*. I don't disagree with your particular characterization, but I wouldn't happen to *use* it myself, either.

Maybe *elaborate* on the political / real-world aspects of what kind of a 'failure' it *is*, and what kind of societal response to it would be most appropriate.

The market can't solve the problem that there are about 3 times more people on earth than it can support without damage to the "range". And, as the world's poor lead better lives the west will have to consume less to make "resource" or economic room for them; or we will have to reduce the total population to less than 1/3 of now. Maybe the 1/6 of now.
. . . If you-all don't like this result, tough shit. Mother nature doesn't care what you like. She can't be fooled. She can't be changed. This is reality biting us on the ass.
. . . If you think that the world has infinite resources then you are just as bad as capitalists when it comes to destroying our only environment now to consume a little more now at the expense of future generations.

No, I don't doubt or question the *empirical* data, and even many of your conclusions (here).

From a position of *principled politics*, though, the response to global warming has to be *collective*, and *social* -- *not* imposed from above, which implies that there are genuine bottom-up socio-political processes to *indicate* social policy. Abortion comes to mind here, but in the reality of it now being disallowed, for no good reason.

4] NO. It is impossible for any economic system to deliver more consumption than the world can sustain. Trying to consume more just puts off the reckoning. [Yes, I believe in a reckoning, I just reject that it comes because of deficit spending.]

Okay.

5] Perhaps you didn't grok that paying down the debt requires a surplus.
. . . GDP is total income, so when the Gov. spends less, it reduces the GDP. This is austerity.
. . . Let me assume that the debt is reduced by the amount of the surplus.
. . . If the debt is > the GDP, then.

I'm not the kind who even *suggests* that the U.S. national debt is a problem. I'm 'tolerant', shall we say, of MMT.

We start with debt/GDP.
Then later this becomes debt-surplus/GDP-surplus. Right?

I'll use numbers to show you how the math works. debt = 120 units, GDP = 100 units, & surplus = 10 units.
So, we start with the ratio = 120/100 = 1.2 = 120%. Later it becomes, 120-10/100-10 = 110/90 = 1.222 = 122.2%.

So, if the ratio is over 100% having a surplus will just make the ratio increase.

Debt isn't reflected in GDP:

[If] a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP.

GDP and GNI

GDP can be contrasted with gross national product (GNP) or, as it is now known, gross national income (GNI). The difference is that GDP defines its scope according to location, while GNI defines its scope according to ownership. In a global context, world GDP and world GNI are, therefore, equivalent terms.

GDP is product produced within a country's borders; GNI is product produced by enterprises owned by a country's citizens. The two would be the same if all of the productive enterprises in a country were owned by its own citizens, and those citizens did not own productive enterprises in any other countries. In practice, however, foreign ownership makes GDP and GNI non-identical. Production within a country's borders, but by an enterprise owned by somebody outside the country, counts as part of its GDP but not its GNI; on the other hand, production by an enterprise located outside the country, but owned by one of its citizens, counts as part of its GNI but not its GDP.

For example, the GNI of the USA is the value of output produced by American-owned firms, regardless of where the firms are located. Similarly, if a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP. Similarly, if a country sells off its resources to entities outside their country this will also be reflected over time in decreased GNI, but not decreased GDP. This would make the use of GDP more attractive for politicians in countries with increasing national debt and decreasing assets.

Gross national income (GNI) equals GDP plus income receipts from the rest of the world minus income payments to the rest of the world.[21]

In 1991, the United States switched from using GNP to using GDP as its primary measure of production.[22] The relationship between United States GDP and GNP is shown in table 1.7.5 of the National Income and Product Accounts.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_dom ... DP_and_GNI

---

What risk of bond default? MMTers assert that there is zero default risk, because the US can sell bonds to the Fed directly and pay the bonds coming due as long as the rich agree to change the law (which they always will because they own the bonds that would otherwise not be paid). Yes, in poor nations which have borrowed dollars and in Europe, it is quite different.

Okay.

6] What you had said, that I was responding to was, "That said, though -- since you made a point of it -- I don't think the (U.S.) capitalist economy can survive any kind of excessive debt-to-GDP ratio, and *no country* can. The past 20 years is a history of *bad debt*, and we've seen that (EU) countries themselves are not immune to becoming overextended, with their 'sovereign debt' at-risk (2012), especially when the economy *snaps back* at times."

There you compared the US to Europe. I responded to say that is always an error. And, you asked where you had said that. Well, there is where you had said it.

Okay, I get your point -- yeah, the U.S. holds the world's reserve currency, so the 'physics' of that is fundamentally different from how all the rest of the world's currencies are valued, essentially to a dollar peg, directly or indirectly.

7] OK, good.

.

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu, I snipped the parts where we agreed.

However, you wrote, "Debt isn't reflected in GDP:

[If] a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP.

GDP and GNI

GDP can be contrasted with gross national product (GNP) or, as it is now known, gross national income (GNI). The difference is that GDP defines its scope according to location, while GNI defines its scope according to ownership. In a global context, world GDP and world GNI are, therefore, equivalent terms.

GDP is product produced within a country's borders; GNI is product produced by enterprises owned by a country's citizens. The two would be the same if all of the productive enterprises in a country were owned by its own citizens, and those citizens did not own productive enterprises in any other countries. In practice, however, foreign ownership makes GDP and GNI non-identical. Production within a country's borders, but by an enterprise owned by somebody outside the country, counts as part of its GDP but not its GNI; on the other hand, production by an enterprise located outside the country, but owned by one of its citizens, counts as part of its GNI but not its GDP.

For example, the GNI of the USA is the value of output produced by American-owned firms, regardless of where the firms are located. Similarly, if a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP. Similarly, if a country sells off its resources to entities outside their country this will also be reflected over time in decreased GNI, but not decreased GDP. This would make the use of GDP more attractive for politicians in countries with increasing national debt and decreasing assets.

Gross national income (GNI) equals GDP plus income receipts from the rest of the world minus income payments to the rest of the world.[21]

In 1991, the United States switched from using GNP to using GDP as its primary measure of production.[22] The relationship between United States GDP and GNP is shown in table 1.7.5 of the National Income and Product Accounts.[23]"

Sir, I don't get your point. 1st, you wrote, "Debt isn't reflected in GDP:"
. . . MMTers assert that increases in debt from deficit spending are seen in the GDP figures for that year. Someone got paid that money and it is their income, so it is included in the GDP figure. MMTers never write about GNI, that I have seen. Anyway, it follows that changing from deficits to a surplus will remove the extra income that the deficit added to the nation. So, we get "GDP-surplus". This is the old GDP - the surplus. I suppose this is very rough because the claim I'm making is that this years GDP will be last years GDP minus the amount of the surplus. Clearly this is wrong. However, reducing someone's income will also reduce the incomes of a few others, so the total reduction is greater than the surplus, but (see below) the reduction of the debt is less than the surplus.

In the same way, the term I created of => debt - surplus is also rough. It might be debt + interest payments - (surplus - interest payments) = debt + 2x interest payments - surplus.

So, the final formula becomes debt/GDP; later debt - surplus + 2x interest payments / GDP - surplus - some more.
Using the same numbers => 120/100; later 120-10+3.6 / 100-10-3 = 113.6/93 = 1.2215 = 122.15%.

However, the point is that changing the denominator when debt is > GDP can cause the ratio to increase.

After the GFC/2008 many leaders in Europe were surprised that reducing Gov. spending with austerity caused the ratio to increase. It was common or universal in nations with a ratio over 100%.


2nd, you changed form GDP to GNI. The world uses GDP now. So, I use GDP.

AFAIK, GDP includes the income of Wall St. speculators who don't produce anything for others to buy. This is a distortion of what is good in an economy. But, how does this change the math?

If the numerator changes the same negative amount as the denominator and Num. was > Dem., then the ratio will increase.
.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, I snipped the parts where we agreed.

However, you wrote, "Debt isn't reflected in GDP:

[If] a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP.

GDP and GNI

GDP can be contrasted with gross national product (GNP) or, as it is now known, gross national income (GNI). The difference is that GDP defines its scope according to location, while GNI defines its scope according to ownership. In a global context, world GDP and world GNI are, therefore, equivalent terms.

GDP is product produced within a country's borders; GNI is product produced by enterprises owned by a country's citizens. The two would be the same if all of the productive enterprises in a country were owned by its own citizens, and those citizens did not own productive enterprises in any other countries. In practice, however, foreign ownership makes GDP and GNI non-identical. Production within a country's borders, but by an enterprise owned by somebody outside the country, counts as part of its GDP but not its GNI; on the other hand, production by an enterprise located outside the country, but owned by one of its citizens, counts as part of its GNI but not its GDP.

For example, the GNI of the USA is the value of output produced by American-owned firms, regardless of where the firms are located. Similarly, if a country becomes increasingly in debt, and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI but not a decreased GDP. Similarly, if a country sells off its resources to entities outside their country this will also be reflected over time in decreased GNI, but not decreased GDP. This would make the use of GDP more attractive for politicians in countries with increasing national debt and decreasing assets.

Gross national income (GNI) equals GDP plus income receipts from the rest of the world minus income payments to the rest of the world.[21]

In 1991, the United States switched from using GNP to using GDP as its primary measure of production.[22] The relationship between United States GDP and GNP is shown in table 1.7.5 of the National Income and Product Accounts.[23]"

Sir, I don't get your point. 1st, you wrote, "Debt isn't reflected in GDP:"
. . . MMTers assert that increases in debt from deficit spending are seen in the GDP figures for that year. Someone got paid that money and it is their income, so it is included in the GDP figure. MMTers never write about GNI, that I have seen. Anyway, it follows that changing from deficits to a surplus will remove the extra income that the deficit added to the nation. So, we get "GDP-surplus". This is the old GDP - the surplus. I suppose this is very rough because the claim I'm making is that this years GDP will be last years GDP minus the amount of the surplus. Clearly this is wrong. However, reducing someone's income will also reduce the incomes of a few others, so the total reduction is greater than the surplus, but (see below) the reduction of the debt is less than the surplus.

In the same way, the term I created of => debt - surplus is also rough. It might be debt + interest payments - (surplus - interest payments) = debt + 2x interest payments - surplus.

So, the final formula becomes debt/GDP; later debt - surplus + 2x interest payments / GDP - surplus - some more.
Using the same numbers => 120/100; later 120-10+3.6 / 100-10-3 = 113.6/93 = 1.2215 = 122.15%.

However, the point is that changing the denominator when debt is > GDP can cause the ratio to increase.

After the GFC/2008 many leaders in Europe were surprised that reducing Gov. spending with austerity caused the ratio to increase. It was common or universal in nations with a ratio over 100%.


2nd, you changed form GDP to GNI. The world uses GDP now. So, I use GDP.

AFAIK, GDP includes the income of Wall St. speculators who don't produce anything for others to buy. This is a distortion of what is good in an economy. But, how does this change the math?

If the numerator changes the same negative amount as the denominator and Num. was > Dem., then the ratio will increase.
.

Steve, excuse me, but the term 'debt-to-GDP-ratio' *explicitly* disincludes debt from GDP -- the metric itself *counterposes* the two because debt is *not* new value, and it actually *extracts* *pre-existing* values in the forms of rent payments and interest payments, to it, as *rentier*-type capital. In other words debt is *finance*, and should *not* be reflected in GDP because GDP measures:

GDP definitions are maintained by a number of national and international economic organizations. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines GDP as "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident and institutional units engaged in production and services (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs)".[6] An IMF publication states that, "GDP measures the monetary value of final goods and services—that are bought by the final user—produced in a country in a given period of time (say a quarter or a year)."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

[ckaihatsu]

measure of production

production and services

(I gotta add in my latest -- note the 'production process', and the tan-arrow 'products' [and services] in the diagram.) (Services, of course, are immediately consumed at the point of production.)


material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

[Steve_American]

Steve, excuse me, but the term 'debt-to-GDP-ratio' *explicitly* disincludes debt from GDP -- the metric itself *counterposes* the two because debt is *not* new value, and it actually *extracts* *pre-existing* values in the forms of rent payments and interest payments, to it, as *rentier*-type capital. In other words debt is *finance*, and should *not* be reflected in GDP because GDP measures:

We mostly agree, right?

Sir, again I don't get your point.

AFAIK, the term 'debt to GDP ratio' , just takes 2 numbers published by each nation and divides 1 by the other.

The nation before 2008 had bee publishing their debt, their GDP and the ratio of them. After austerity was imposed in Europe the ratios increased in many nations.

Can you please explain it to me? Then explain how debt is disincluded from GDP. I don't understand.
_________________________________________.___________________________________________


Let me ramble a little, please.
The nation's debt is a number, so many dollars =$YY.
However, the nation's GDP is $XX/year.
So, when you do the math you get confused.
So, $YY / $XX/yr = (YY/XX) years. So, now we get ZZ% years. Just what is a % year.

The problem is that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow, right?

Really, this ratio is not useful because dividing a stock by a flow is not allowed, right?
.

[Steve_American]

Much off totic.

I have been saying that if the US has a problem it is mostly the trade deficit.

MS Neo-liberal Econ. saw nothing wrong with allowing other nations to get a huge number of dollars. This let other nations become dependent on imports, because the US was buying their exports with magic tree dollars. When this process stops there will be Hell to pay.

Those importing nations will not be able to import, see Sri Lanka. Like I said, Hell to pay.

The US will also suffer, because nations will want to send those dollars to the US to buy something. We don't make things for them to buy, so they may try to buy real estate and corp. stock. Letting foreigners own $3T worth of land and corps in the US is a really bad idea. Like I said, Hell to pay.
.

[ckaihatsu]

We mostly agree, right?

On what, exactly -- ? I welcome 'granular'.

Sir, again I don't get your point.

AFAIK, the term 'debt to GDP ratio' , just takes 2 numbers published by each nation and divides 1 by the other.

The nation before 2008 had bee publishing their debt, their GDP and the ratio of them. After austerity was imposed in Europe the ratios increased in many nations.

Can you please explain it to me? Then explain how debt is disincluded from GDP. I don't understand.
_________________________________________.___________________________________________


Let me ramble a little, please.
The nation's debt is a number, so many dollars =$YY.
However, the nation's GDP is $XX/year.
So, when you do the math you get confused.
So, $YY / $XX/yr = (YY/XX) years. So, now we get ZZ% years. Just what is a % year.

The problem is that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow, right?

Really, this ratio is not useful because dividing a stock by a flow is not allowed, right?
.

My point about [PT01] Debt not being any *new value*, stands.

Okay, so debt *is* a finite and relatively constant number, and 'domestic goods and services' happens to be measured annually, or in realtime, basically.

Debt, though, usually *increments* according to its rate, so that means debt is *realtime*, too, as a financial / capital-goods valuation.

It looks as though we have *two* quantities / variables that are both measured in realtime.

Does this help at all?

[Steve_American]

Much off totic.

I have been saying that if the US has a problem it is mostly the trade deficit.

MS Neo-liberal Econ. saw nothing wrong with allowing other nations to get a huge number of dollars. This let other nations become dependent on imports, because the US was buying their exports with magic tree dollars. When this process stops there will be Hell to pay.

Those importing nations will not be able to import, see Sri Lanka. Like I said, Hell to pay.

The US will also suffer, because nations will want to send those dollars to the US to buy something. We don't make things for them to buy, so they may try to buy real estate and corp. stock. Letting foreigners own $3T worth of land and corps in the US is a really bad idea. Like I said, Hell to pay.
.

[ckaihatsu]

Much off totic.

I have been saying that if the US has a problem it is mostly the trade deficit.

MS Neo-liberal Econ. saw nothing wrong with allowing other nations to get a huge number of dollars. This let other nations become dependent on imports, because the US was buying their exports with magic tree dollars. When this process stops there will be Hell to pay.

Those importing nations will not be able to import, see Sri Lanka. Like I said, Hell to pay.

The US will also suffer, because nations will want to send those dollars to the US to buy something. We don't make things for them to buy, so they may try to buy real estate and corp. stock. Letting foreigners own $3T worth of land and corps in the US is a really bad idea. Like I said, Hell to pay.
.

Fall of Rome, brah -- nothing new. Happens like that to *any* empire, basically.

At least today we got UFC, not that I *watch* it, myself.

(grin)

[Steve_American]

On what, exactly -- ? I welcome 'granular'.


My point about [PT01] Debt not being any *new value*, stands.

Okay, so debt *is* a finite and relatively constant number, and 'domestic goods and services' happens to be measured annually, or in realtime, basically.

Debt, though, usually *increments* according to its rate, so that means debt is *realtime*, too, as a financial / capital-goods valuation.

It looks as though we have *two* quantities / variables that are both measured in real time.

Does this help at all?

For our agreement see the above replies where you did seem to agree with me.

As for the rest, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I asked about stocks and flows, not 'real time'. I really don't understand stocks vs flows.
.

[ckaihatsu]

For our agreement see the above replies where you did seem to agree with me.

As for the rest, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I asked about stocks and flows, not 'real time'. I really don't understand stocks vs flows.
.

You're going to have to make your own point here.

Stocks are quantities of *investment capital*, used as *equity* in the capitalist *production process* that necessarily economically exploits the labor commodity (and causes class-based oppression of social minorities in society).

'Flows' could be *anything*, so it's a more-abstract / more-general term than the specific quantity of 'stocks' [equity capital].

*Stocks* could be thought-of as a 'flow' of fluctuating categorized exchange-value, in realtime, over time.

[ckaihatsu]

Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show

[Steve_American]

Lurkers, I'm still seeing people like Puffer Fish refusing to see that my proof is valid, that Mainstream Econ. Theories are based on deductive logic with some false premises.

I have provided evidence in the OP that several of its premises are not true. I thought that everyone knew that you can't use false premises to prove your conclusions.

So, lurkers, can you agree that in logic false premises are totally not allowed, and that some of MS Econ's premises are obviously false?

If so, then you must agree that MS econ has proven nothing about reality. In this case, you should refuse to accept any of MS economists predictions of what will happen if policy A is followed. No matter what policy A is.
. . . Specifically, that Gov. deficit spending by a nation with its own fiat currency and no debt in another currency, funded with bond sales to the public can not cause inflation. That in fact, all inflations were caused by shortages, and this includes the current inflation.

If you don't agree that in logic false premises are totally not allowed, and that some of MS Econ's premises are obviously false, then which part of my proof do you not agree with.
. . 1] Do you think that close enough premises are OK, despite the rise of Chaos theory that showed the small errors will grow in many systems like the weather or the economic system as a whole?
. . 2] Did you not agree that at least one of the list of premises of modern Mainstream Econ. is obviously false?

.