Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

62% Positive

Analyzed from 4041 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#more#money#currency#debt#https#trump#treasuries#world#gdp#tax

Discussion (117 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

throw0101dabout 2 hours ago
From 2018, "Sadly, Fiscal Restraint Is No Longer a Core Principle of the GOP":

* https://www.cato.org/commentary/sadly-fiscal-restraint-no-lo...

When you've lost the Cato Institute…

More recently in 2025, "The petrodollar, not GOP fiscal restraint, is what sustains our unsustainable debt":

* https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5465671-republican-fisca...

Not that I believe the folks at the top at the GOP really cared about it, ever, going back to (at least) Reagan; it was mostly an excuse to cut taxes on the wealth and cut social programs:

* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazi...

smallmancontrovabout 2 hours ago

    Democrats          Change In Deficit
    -----------        --------
    Joe Biden          -$999B
    Barack Obama       -$747B
    Bill Clinton       -$383B
    Jimmy Carter       +$25.3B

    Republicans        Change In Deficit
    -----------        --------
    Donald Trump       +$2.108T
    George W. Bush     +$1.541T
    George H. W. Bush  +$102B
    Ronald Reagan      +$73.7B
    Gerald Ford        +$47.5B
    Richard Nixon      +$9.4B
    Dwight Eisenhower  -$3.2B
msandfordabout 2 hours ago
It would be nice to see change in debt numbers vs change in deficit numbers. I think only Clinton ran a surplus in the last 30 years.
dgellowabout 2 hours ago
With all the infrastructure work needed to adapt to a changing climate that’s very unlikely to happen. Assuming we decide to take the threat seriously
smallmancontrovabout 2 hours ago
Yep, and the last Republican to run a surplus was Eisenhower during FY 1960.
itbeho24 minutes ago
You should be comparing which party controlled congress as well.
goaliecaabout 1 hour ago
Not an American here, but doesn’t Congress pass budgets? Everyone always blames the president but as I look in from the outside, it’s entirely the house and the senate who bungle things.
dataflowabout 1 hour ago
I've had the same question for a long time and I suspect the answer is something like "the executive is still the one doing the analysis and making the proposals" - presumably Congress doesn't just allocate with complete disregard for what the executive requests. If the executive requests less then it (usually) gets less. But I'd definitely appreciate a more satisfactory answer.
Y-barabout 1 hour ago
Two thumbs up for bringing numbers.

Though I would like to see which dates were used to calculate them. And if it was from ”first day to last day of office” it would also be interesting to calculate with a certain ”lag” to account for the fact that effect of some legislation may not show until a bit later.

refurbabout 2 hours ago
You need to adjust for inflation.

Also the correct measure is % of GDP

fluidcruftabout 2 hours ago

    Democrats          Change in Deficit
    ---------          -----------------
    Joe Biden              -6.1% GDP
    Barack Obama           -6.4% GDP
    Bill Clinton           -5.0% GDP
    Jimmy Carter           -0.2% GDP

    Republicans        Change in Deficit
    -----------        -----------------
    Donald Trump           +8.6% GDP
    George W. Bush        +11.0% GDP
    George H. W. Bush      +1.1% GDP
    Ronald Reagan          +0.2% GDP
    Gerald Ford            +2.3% GDP
    Richard Nixon          +0.7% GDP
    Dwight Eisenhower      -1.1% GDP
via ChatGPT which among other things verified the original table. I didn't bother with inflation adjustment since it's normalized by GDP.
actionfromafarabout 1 hour ago

    President                    Change pp
    Eisenhower                   -1.8
    Nixon                        +0.8
    Ford                         +0.8
    Carter                        0
    Reagan                       +0.5
    GHW Bush                     +1.8
    Clinton                      -6.1
    GW Bush                      +4.3
    Obama                        -6.6
    Trump                        +11
    Biden                        -5.8

But Trump 2 will definitely lower it, more than anyone has ever seen before.
jmyeetabout 2 hours ago
The idea that the GOP was ever about "fiscal restraint" is one of the most successful propaganda exercises ever because this hasn't been true since probably the Eisenhower administration.

What's funny is that this era (the 1950s) is often fetishized by people who absolutely oppose the policies that made that possible, including a top marginal tax rate of 91% and a CEO to median worker ratio of 20-25x instead of the 400x+ it is now.

So the Cato Institute finally realized something that hasn't been true for 50+ years. What we're witnessing is the looting of government coffers and transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich on a scale never seen before. And they don't care about the consequences because capital is mobile. They'll simply leave.

_heimdall39 minutes ago
If you go back that far, you have to keep in mind major shifts in party alignment. The two parties changed drastically coming out of the civil rights era and by the 80s had effectively flipped.

I can't speak to the Republican politicians if the era, but all the Republican voters I know where legitimately focused on fiscal issues and balancing a budget until Trump showed up. Most of the older Republicans in my family have since left the party and registered independent, the younger Republicans I know are just about Trump though and, similar to Trump, don't really seem to hold any principles that underlie their views on any one topic.

smallmancontrov23 minutes ago
6th Party System Republicans were selectively focused on balancing a budget precisely when Democratic legislative priorities were in question. If you wanted to bust the budget on tax breaks for billionaires or pointless wars, they had excuses all lined up.
FrustratedMonky27 minutes ago
" younger Republicans I know are just about Trump though and, similar to Trump, don't really seem to hold any principles that underlie their views on any one topic"

This a big worry. I thought Trump was for old angry people shaking their fist at sky. The ones with dementia. Why are young into him?

throwaway1492about 2 hours ago
Former Republican here aka Rino. It’s easily explained; the GOP ceased to exist when they all fell in line with Trump first term. Trump threatened to to form his own party with his massive following and make the GOP the third choice on the ballot. Trumpism is not conservative in any sense; it’s jingoistic nationalism to benefit Trumps interest.
dataflow34 minutes ago
Not to veer too far off-topic but are former-Republican and RINO mutually exclusive? How can one simultaneously be a Republican (in name or otherwise) while calling themself a former Republican? Either you've stopped voting Republican (in which case you're no longer RINO) or you still are (in which case you're a current Republican)...
stetrainabout 2 hours ago
The GOP was not fiscally conservative before Trump either.
peaseageeabout 1 hour ago
Exactly. I remember hearing "tax and spend Democrats" as a slur back in the 90s/00s, but seeing the GOP spend without taxing during those years showed what it was really all about...
michaeltabout 1 hour ago
Yes, in the 1970s-1980s the GOP came up with the idea of "starve the beast" [1] which allowed them describe unfunded tax cuts and deficit spending as "fiscally conservative", like a parent taking away a child's allowance.

Complete nonsense in practice, obviously - but political gold! Voters get all the same public services, lower taxes, and to think they're being responsible with money. And if you're a 65-year-old legislator, you'll be dead and buried before the consequences start to bite.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

kyproabout 1 hour ago
> From 2018, "Sadly, Fiscal Restraint Is No Longer a Core Principle of the GOP":

While I agree, surely the assumption that the Democrats will be more fiscally responsible isn't true either?

This is more an issue with modern political expectations imo – compounded by challenges of aging demographics.

I can only give my view as a Brit, but I think the same applies here as in the US. Here people expect far more from the government today than at any point in history. Some of these exceptions are reasonable, but many are not.

But either way, despite huge government revenues theres just never enough money to fund all of the social programs voters ideally want. And under this pressure the only option to win elections is to borrow.

I guess to frame it another way – what spending would people want to see the politicians cut? I suspect the only way Western governments will get spending under control is to understand that government can't solve every problem, however nice it might be if they could.

jlokierabout 1 hour ago
> While I agree, surely the assumption that the Democrats will be more fiscally responsible isn't true either?

See the sibling thread parallel to yours, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49329791

Democrats have a track record that speaks to them being more fiscally responsible than GOP, in spite of the rhetorical narrative.

You can't assume anything about the next crew. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But if you're predicting fiscal responsibility, past performance favours the Democrats.

cmiles8about 2 hours ago
Financial markets work in strange ways.

The markets generally respond to US concerns by buying more US treasuries. That’s counter-intuitive but reflects the situation that if things hit the fan they feel loaning the US money is still the safest place for their money.

For better or worse there’s unlikely to be a scenario where the US becomes insolvent but it’s not far worse for those outside the US.

root-parentabout 2 hours ago
The US will become insolvent by trying to prop up Japan.

"The Insane US-Japan Currency Bailout" - https://youtu.be/yh18YXKMk3g

Why does the US need to prop Japan? Because they are the biggest holder of US treasuries ...and if they need to prop up their own currency, they will need to sell them. <Insert Pearl Harbor reference...>

thephyberabout 2 hours ago
Yes, and...

The US sold Euros to do the propping of Japanese bonds without telling the EU. Not only did we spend a lot to save our biggest sovereign buyer, but we undermined our relationship with another. And we didn't buy the Japanese much time.

Worth mentioning that lots of buyers is jumping into Chinese bonds over the past week.

It feels like the BRICS are taking over as of this month.

ericmayabout 2 hours ago
> Worth mentioning that lots of buyers is jumping into Chinese bonds over the past week.

How many?

> It feels like the BRICS are taking over as of this month.

Taking over what?

ericmayabout 2 hours ago
> The US will become insolvent by trying to prop up Japan.

No, it won’t. The worst case we are looking at is paying more interest on debt. It’s not great but we aren’t in danger of becoming insolvent because of Japan.

thephyber37 minutes ago
There's a non-zero chance that actually following through on Bessent's statements about support for the largest sovereign buyer of US bonds would push us towards insolvency. You are just stating an opinion that we would stop short of it becoming such a large support program that it would push the US past the tipping point towards inevitable insolvency.
IsTomabout 1 hour ago
It's already ~20% of US government revenue. Every percentage point more of yield on bonds is going to be tough.
spottabout 1 hour ago
“Biggest holder of us treasuries”

3.1 percent. Just for context.

_heimdall34 minutes ago
If Japan were to quickly unload a meaningful chunk of their $1.2 trillion in treasuries it would wreck the treasuries market.

If I'm not mistaken, $1.2T is roughly the year-to-date trading volume of the treasuries market [1].

[1] https://www.sifma.org/research/statistics/us-treasury-securi...

crossroadsguyabout 2 hours ago
May sound very similar but it's more like if everything is going down, the strongest one is going to go down last. It's not really "unlikely to be a scenario where the US becomes insolvent" — it's that if it happens, it happens last. And a lot of that just has to be because the US "owns" the dollar, and the world ended up picking (let's not get into how) the dollar as the reference point for their own currencies; aka everyone's reserve currency.

So no matter how much the US fucks up, they just print more and more dollars and ensure the entire world collectively pays up for their fuck-ups. But if the US doesn't fuck up and does something good, then the benefits of that? Oh, that's a different story. No excessive benefit printing, no sir.

All hail exorbitant privilege.

thephyber31 minutes ago
The US world reserve currency status only happens by norm. When RU invaded UA the US cut off RU from most of their access to USD / US-allied banking. At that point, CN and the BRICS countries started working on a decentralized version of a "world reserve currency" which is partially implemented.

Investors know the US is going to lose this status if the current momentum continues and there are some possible alternatives.

Investors won't sit by and tolerate MONEY PRINTER GO BRRRRR if they have ANY alternatives and they have LOTS of incentives to find any.

gruezabout 2 hours ago
>The markets generally respond to US concerns by buying more US treasuries. That’s counter-intuitive but reflects the situation that if things hit the fan they feel loaning the US money is still the safest place for their money.

I thought that dynamic broke down with the liberation day tariffs, where both stocks and bonds dropped at the same time?

j16sdizabout 2 hours ago
> The markets generally respond to US concerns by buying more US treasuries.

I think the market is buying more gold from US than ever -- this is trading US dollar for gold

US gold export is at its all-time high.

thephyberabout 2 hours ago
The financial markets only bought US treasuries under those conditions because they were the least bad option during risky moments. There's no law of physics which says that will always be the same.

Trumpanomics is trying to weaken the dollar to make us more competitive as an exporter (along with tariffs which make imports into the US less competitive with domestic goods) and he is Trump's Congress is blowing away previous deficits, so investors are wise to reevaluate their previous risk mitigation strategies.

The Yen Carry Trade is now fully in reverse and both JP and US are going to see higher interest rates, causing both of their debt service to take up an increasing slice of the budget pie.

Investors are jumping into CN bonds now and are likely to look to the rest of the BRICS nations as the IS looks increasingly unable to manage a responsible budget, an economy that doesn't seem to be growing much, and sovereign bonds which have fewer buyers today than a month ago.

lotsofpulpabout 2 hours ago
>For better or worse there’s unlikely to be a scenario where the US becomes insolvent

How can any organization that issues its own fiat currency become insolvent? Being solvent is simply an issue of adding digits to the borrowers' account in an electronic database.

The only thing that happens (and is happening) is the increase in the supply of currency outpaces the increase in the economic value of goods and services that can be exported, hence the currency loses purchasing power.

The US also used to have the distinction of being the most stable large organization, allowing it to earn a "trust" premium on its currency. But we are voluntarily giving that up.

root-parentabout 2 hours ago
latentframeabout 1 hour ago
Interesting part is the gap between beliefs and prices => if the investors expect a US debt crisis we expect it to show up somewhere in the term premium real yields dollar or inflation expectations ; those signals can remain muted for a long time
thelastgallonabout 2 hours ago
What happens if US becomes insolvent? Is USD going to be inflated? hyperinflated? Will other currencies appreciate or just devalue their own currency by the same percentage to keep up the exports and continue to earn USD for oil?
ahnickabout 1 hour ago
I'll tell you what is going to happen, b/c it is happening as we speak. The U.S. Government is soft-defaulting on the debt by devaluing the currency. (The debasement rate is somewhere in the 7%-8% range)

There will never be a real default, but it is likely that the USD will lose reserve currency status. The U.S. Government has $114+ Trillion in total debt. (Something like $325,000 per person in the US) We are never paying that off. The only way we can do anything about it is to grow the economy and devalue the debt via inflation.

matwood38 minutes ago
> but it is likely that the USD will lose reserve currency status

To what though? Even if we accept the US and USD have issues, there is no other currency even close to be able to step in.

cjs_ac31 minutes ago
To all the other currencies that are currently used as reserve currencies, other than the US dollar. There has never been a single reserve currency in the world.
_ink_about 1 hour ago
But who will take over world reserve currency status?
ahnick36 minutes ago
It will likely be a cryptocurrency or perhaps a basket of cryptocurrencies. You essentially want a way to store wealth directly on the Internet as it is the fastest and easiest way to reassign ownership of money or collateral. The nice benefit too, then is the U.S. (and no other country as well) is subject to the Triffin Dilemma.
Havocabout 2 hours ago
Nobody knows. There is no precedent for that happening in a post globalisation world.

Think sht would get very real for everyone fast both inside and outside the US.

Global economy can’t even deal with a ship stuck in the suez without wobbling…

Tangurena235 minutes ago
> continue to earn USD for oil?

Iraq started taking Euros for oil. Shortly after that, they were invaded. Venezuela started selling oil for Yuan. Shortly after that, their president was kidnapped by American troops. Iran is selling oil in Yuan. Shortly after that, American bombs started falling on them.

There is a very strong incentive for oil producing nations to only accept USD.

317070about 2 hours ago
If the US becomes insolvent, that would severely impact the USD. But other currencies will not try to follow the USD, there would be no point in that. The USD would just lose more status as an anchoring point. The US is also not a major oil exporter, so presumably most oil will trade for other currencies, rather than try to sell for an inflationary currency.

In short, if the US becomes insolvent, the rest of the world will largely ignore what happens in the (at that point) 8th economy in the world, and mostly try to untie their economy from it.

petcatabout 2 hours ago
> The US is also not a major oil exporter

I believe this is wrong? USA is the largest oil producer in the world, and also one of the 5 largest oil exporters.

gruezabout 2 hours ago
"Largest producer" != "largest exporter"
GJimabout 2 hours ago
> and mostly try to untie their economy from it.

That is already happening.

The rest of the world is finding the likes of China to be more stable and predictable trading partners than the USA.

mrngldabout 1 hour ago
Absolutely no one serious thinks that, but when you feel like you need to diversify you don't have to find a like-for-like replacement. Any port in a storm.

Just consult Google. All a country has to do to find itself on the receiving end of punishing Chinese trade actions is being mildly critical of China in the wrong way, and next thing they know their exporters to China report being held up for months. The EU has taken offense at how China kicks around smaller EU members, Australia has been on the receiving end of it more than once.

If you'd said the EU might be seen as a relatively more stable trading partner, that may be true, the EU does seem to be fairly happy deindustrializing itself. Though it's fueling a rise in the fractured politics there too.

blahblaherabout 2 hours ago
There is no way, unless by political choice, for the US to become insolvent, meaning, not paying it's "debt" in US dollars
florkborkabout 2 hours ago
There is no way (except for the way I just articulated)...
iAMkenoughabout 2 hours ago
There is a deliberate effort by the current administration to weaken the dollar.

Given their track record and interest in other forms of currency, I could see them going too far.

neilwilsonabout 1 hour ago
The US can’t become insolvent. Those who say it can are just hard of accounting.

It’s scaremongering nonsense.

All treasuries will be swapped back into dollars on maturity and interest settled

alfiedotwtfabout 2 hours ago
America will move to Trump Coin of course!

/s

apiabout 1 hour ago
He would legitimately try this. There’s no limit to the cartoonish narcissism. It’s absurd and would fail of course.
epsteingptabout 2 hours ago
No one serious is worried about American solvency. The paper says 50% over the next 10 years, but even most economists misunderstand how the monetary system works.

There are so many other issues to worry about at the moment more immediate than solvency.

root-parentabout 2 hours ago
>> There are so many other issues to worry about at the moment more immediate than solvency.

The U.S. government spends about one-third! (roughly 33% to 39%) of individual income tax revenue strictly to pay the interest on the national debt and that is not even paying off the principal balance itself:

https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/cbo_baseline_february...

A raise in interest rates for treasuries, can bring this into 50% to 60% within days.

Yeah...worry about other things...

softwaredougabout 1 hour ago
That 33%-39% goes back into stimulating the global economic system where America is at the center. To people like me that own US Treasuries.

You’re not wrong. But it’s not as simple as 33-39% disappearing into a black hoe.

root-parentabout 1 hour ago
You are trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps...
lotsofpulpabout 1 hour ago
Why is the individual income tax revenue important to compare to interest costs? Total interest cost as a percent of total revenue seems like a more holistic comparison, which is 15%.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Grombobulousabout 2 hours ago
The word in the headline “solvency” versus the phrase in the article “debt crisis” is a major difference.

To your point, I don’t think anyone has to be worried about American solvency, but a looming debt crisis doesn’t seem like a stretch of imagination at all.

Zigurdabout 1 hour ago
Our creditors will be reliable because of American soft power. Do you think we could lose that in single presidential term, much less a year?

Wait...

bilekasabout 2 hours ago
> but even most economists misunderstand how the monetary system works.

It seems to be more of a subjective topic to me. Otherwise we would all have a perfect plan and never any monetary concerns. Highlighting weak links in the system is I believe a perfectly healthy thing to do. A sanity check would go a long way these days.

danesparzaabout 2 hours ago
Tell that to the Romans.
wowocabout 1 hour ago
The Romans couldn't manufacture new cash by flipping bits in computers' memory
cherryteastainless than a minute ago
They did the equivalent in their time which was cutting the precious metal content of their coinage.
TSiegeabout 1 hour ago
The Romans used the gold standard the US does not
d--babout 2 hours ago
When enough non-"serious" people believe it, they still sell the bonds, and shit can hit the fan pretty quickly.
DarkmSparksabout 2 hours ago
The US ticked all the boxes that are credited with the break up of the USSR last year aiui.

Anyone not taking that seriously is in for the most hilarious of surprises.

hn9zmdcaouabout 2 hours ago
Well reasoned throughout
refurbabout 2 hours ago
US government solvency is backed by the power to tax and tap into the massive US economy.

Considering the US has one of the lower overall tax rates of developed economies, I’m not sure we’ve reached any sort of crisis level

Zigurdabout 1 hour ago
This is the truest and most impactful point so far on this thread. Rescinding the Trump I tax cut (IIRC technically the permanent extension of a temporary tax cut) would fix a lot of problems. That and not being belligerent to our creditors gets you pretty close to a complete solution.
OneManHordeabout 2 hours ago
I am sure this is a nice article, but I'm always surprised when something with a hard paywall makes it this high up on HN. Does everybody but me have a Financial Times subscription?
layer8about 1 hour ago
chicken-stewabout 1 hour ago
I guess most promote the title by sentiment.
mono442about 1 hour ago
The US emits two types of scrapes of paper, one of which (bonds) promises the other (the us dollar) and the "experts" somehow think america can actually go bankrupt. That's hilarious.
ahnickabout 1 hour ago
The US is not going to go bankrupt, but the purchasing power of the dollar will continue to go down and down and down.
TSiegeabout 1 hour ago
So US manufacturing would go up and up by that logic. Not to mention the US can simultaneously restrict the money supply via increased taxes at same time. The US also could just stop issuing bonds entirely and simply create the currency directly rather than the Rube Goldberg that is the bond market
root-parentabout 1 hour ago
You will not go bankrupt, its just that a BigMac will cost you $10,000.
EGregabout 2 hours ago
This is why UBI is inevitable.

There is less and less demand for US treasuries, and Trump’s tariff war has only accelerated it.

The GENIUS act gets US a set of entitites that are forced by law to buy US treasuries - stablecoin issuers. It helps the digital dollar be used around the world, and treasuries to still have some demand. That is probably why it is called “genius”. This is the last step before the demand shock.

The US will have to stop borrowing and eventually print money to service its sovereign debt.

And when they do, they could either send it to banks, corporations, fatcats and pork projects — or they can send it to every American equally. The latter would be a UBI that would trickle up into the economy, with people spending it on their actual needs. It would increase most health outcomes, emotional health as well, raise average effective IQ by 13 points. And then they could tax the corporations and robots, and pay down the debt.

As it is, there are literally not enough dollars in existence to pay down that debt. The US will have to print them, or default.

iamnothereabout 1 hour ago
They don’t need to print—they could revalue US gold holdings (artificially held at $42.22/oz). Revaluing this to current market value (over $4k/oz) would instantly generate hundreds of billions on paper, enough to slightly offset debt-to-GDP. Revaluing it even higher would weaken the dollar without any printing. This can be done statutorily even if the statutory price is higher than the market price.
wincyabout 1 hour ago
If all hell breaks loose wouldn’t the US just say “screw you we aren’t paying” and utilize the largest military (by far) in the world to keep the goods flowing? Some version of that seems far more likely than UBI does. I’m not saying this would be good (it wouldn’t) and it would be a terrible threat to quality of life and make the US an absolute hellhole, but let’s be real here, if the bread and circuses stop the US citizenry is going to call for blood long before they even remotely consider UBI.
Zigurdabout 1 hour ago
We've done a hell of a job keeping the oil flowing haven't we?
EGregabout 1 hour ago
It says a lot about the prevailing mindset of our politicians if they’d rather turn the country into a hellhole and kill a lot of people than just give the plebs $1000 a month and increase their healrh outcomes. The fact that we can spend trillions on bombs and totally avoidable wars, but ask how we can afford insulin and healthcare for our own citizens, is in my opinion a massive political sickness.

“Are we the baddies”? Well, our empire might be. If we are really a democracy, we should try to reform it.

orangedogabout 1 hour ago
UBI is usually proposed at 1k per month. Nobody is living off that. But doing that increases the budget by 3 trillion.

Why exactly would UBI help the average person? It gives them pennies and only worsens US spending.

EGreg44 minutes ago
US spending and the sovereign debt we racked up is already unsustainable. You have it backwards. Money IS credit. If we paid it back, we’d have no money. We need to print MORE money, give it to the spenders, and eventually it will trickle to the treasury holders, so we keep our promises. There will be more USD in the world - so what? It is bound to be devalued gradually anyway.

How would it help the average person? Because it lets people have better health outcomes, including mental health, including for kids and elderly, makes everyone have 13 points higher IQ and productivity. Helps them renegotiate with their employer, without minimum wage laws. Helps them be more entrepreneurial and start their own businesses. That $1000 a month can pay for a ton of AI spend for example, and will soon be able to pay for timeshared robots.

The average person will be paid less and less or even be laid off soon. We dint have a mechanism to supplement their income. At least we have medicaid, I guess.

Elon Musk is more extreme than me — he says money won’t even matter in 10 years. Meanwhile the guy is worth $1 trillion on paper. I don’t want to tax him. I want to tax his corporations as they lay off workers.

mrngldabout 1 hour ago
Sounds like a reheated version of MMT, modern monetary theory. The "just print money" approach exploded in a mushroom cloud of inflation during the COVID years, just as any economist even remotely aligned with the Austrian school of thought could've predicted. And you're still seeing the inflation, it's just partly hidden in and taking place in frothy equity markets.

MMT isn't inevitable. You're describing a path to where Argentina was before Milei. A path to amplifying all the social issues that started in the US with the creation of the welfare state. The alternative would simply be fiscal restraint.

The only real problem or question is if democracy is capable of restraint. The answer is unclear, seems like it may be 'no'.

EGregabout 1 hour ago
Mild inflation (in global terms) is fine and actually rebalances money from savers/hoarders to spenders. Look at the Miracle of Worgl. And the inflation is only the result of the money supply being increased, due to the politicians fear of raising taxes on the corporations.

You need to increase taxes on corporations and automation if you want to prevent inflation, otherwise you aren’t removing money from the economy.

Printing money on the one hand can be counterbalanced by taxing the money on the other hand — if you actually burn the money collected by the taxes in a giant hole.

But instead the money from the taxes can be used to pay the treasury holders, and make them whole. This is in fact what the Grace commission found in the 80s under Reagan:

With two thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services that taxpayers expect from their government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Commission

actionfromafarabout 1 hour ago
Sounds vaguely like the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There too, assets of the State were distributed to the People. Somehow it all ended with oligarchs in the end.
EGregabout 1 hour ago
Vague indeed. Why would you compare “shock therapy” privatization (essentially looting) of public resources directly to a handful of oligarchs hands promoted by the Chicago School (founded by Milton Friedman, who also advocated this with Chile’s Pinochet)

with a UBI gradually given directly to the People, and raising taxes on corporations?

The former led to a 1993 constitutional crisis where the parliament wanted to oust Yeltsin (“our man in the white house”) and Yeltsin had troops fire on the parliament and arrest the congress, which represented the people fed up with the wage repression and looting

Yeltsin had a 6% approval rating and we helped him win re-election by meddling in Russian elections. We bragged about in 1996 with movies like “Spinning Boris” and “Yanks to the Rescue” Time Magazine cover.

The latter led to - amazing health, business and productivity outcomes under MINCOME in Canada, and the lowest gini index in America under Alaska’s Permanent Fund

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUiyQ-yrk7k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...

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

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

actionfromafar28 minutes ago
It's just that I think that it ever come to servicing debts by printing money instead of borrowing, "shock therapy" would result. Not from the UBI proposal, but from the world order crumbling. And when chaos comes, there's always a small number of people on top taking advantage. Exactly who gets to run Gas Town may not possible to know in advance, but someone will.
Advertisement