Re: Government Debt versus Private Debt

From: Peter Lawrence (peterl_at_netlink.com.au)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:20:55 GMT

William F Hummel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:38:42 GMT, Peter Lawrence
> <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
> >William F Hummel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:46:55 GMT, Peter Lawrence
> >> <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >William F Hummel wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That's an illusion that almost everyone holds. If necessary the
> >> >> government could borrow from the Fed to cover its deficit spending, so
> >> >> the government doesn't "need" to borrow from the public. The fact
> >> >> that it does so is what creates the illusion.
> >> >
> >> >That's US-centric.
> >> >
> >> >In general, governments only tax and borrow to tame the inflation that
> >> >"printing money" would induce. But they don't have to borrow.
> >> >
> >> Every modern nation with a central bank (including Australia) operates
> >> in basically the same way. The government balances its books, and
> >> borrows from the central bank if necessary to do so. However the
> >> public will readily lend to the government at a market interest rate
> >> because its bonds are viewed as a riskless investment.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
> >
> >You are describing what governments do in practice. They do that for a number
> >of reasons, including convenience. It is NOT something they are somehow
> >constrained to do. I was pointing that out - that they do not "have" to
> >borrow, either internally or externally, whether they do that in practice or
> >not.
>
> Right, and not jumping out of a window on the 51st floor is normal
> practice too. We don't do it because it hurts if we do.

You're still making the same mistake.

You were going on about what HAS to happen, and further down you went into
theoretical arguments. You can't prove what HAS to happen by listing what
DOES happen, though of course you can use counterexamples as disproof of
opposite assertions. what does happen really matters, but you are changing
the subject from your earlier assertions. It was those earlier assertions I
was looking at, showing how they went too far. It's fair enough for you to
retreat to a more limited position, but not to pretend that that was what you
first said. Whether you meant what you first said or just got a bit tangled,
what you first said went too far.

Readers, go and look what the first assertions were.

> >> >.
> >> >> The private sector needs the base money created through government
> >> >> spending in order to pay its taxes. On purely theoretical grounds,
> >> >> government (deficit) spending must come before the first taxes can be
> >> >> paid.
> >> >
> >> >No - that only applies in the rare case that there was nothing monetary
> >> >already in existence. In general, governments don't come along to such a
> >> >tabula rasa, they displace something from some earlier regime. Fiat money was
> >> >generally brought in by making bank notes that were convertible for bullion,
> >> >then ceasing to convert them (while still giving them backing by accepting
> >> >them for taxes). Variations on this theme happened in different countries,
> >> >but mostly something like that happened nearly everywhere during the first
> >> >half of the twentieth century.
> >> >
> >> If you had read more thoughtfully, you might have recognized that I
> >> was not arguing from a historical perspective. Why else would I have
> >> used the qualifier "on purely theoretical grounds"?
> >
> >Hang on - I did read what you put. Your qualifier is precisely what I was
> >refuting, since you aren't now merely describing what actually happens but
> >what is constrained to happen in all situations.
>
> Nothing was claimed about all situations. That's your
> mis-interpretation. The original statement referred specifically to
> the US system, as indicated by the reference to the Fed.

Wrong. That may well have been what you had in mind, but you actually said
something far more sweeping. There was nothing specific to the US in the
original post. Indeed, I seem to recall that somebody else pointed out that
other countries were different.

Did you know that "Fed", an abbreviation of "federal" or "federation", is
meaningful in some other countries too?

>
> >A historical counterexample,
> >or several similar ones, refutes the theoretical argument precisely because
> >it shows that that is not true. If your theory says "this is what happens",
> >and I can point to something different, your theory is wrong. You can't turn
> >round and say "I wasn't talking about anything real, my theory is purer than
> >that."
> >
> >Your theory only applies in the special case where a currency is being
> >introduced from scratch and taxes cannot be compounded with payments in kind.
> >Even in colonial situations they usually found they had to allow for tax
> >debts to be worked off, e.g. on the roads, with currency coming in AFTER the
> >need for it was artificially generated. In some colonies there were stocks of
> >bullion around, or exploitable export resources, but not always and not
> >always enough. PML.
>
> Nonsense. It applies logically on theoretical grounds. I invoked no
> argument involving the historical record.

I know you didn't. I showed you what really happened, as a disproof of your
theory. Your "theoretical grounds" plain aren't the only case, and the
nearest approximation was how colonialists introduced cash economies with
token coinages - a rare case. PML. 

-- 
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production 
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment. 
See http://member.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other 
items on that page for some reasons why.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Increasing ICMP Echo Requests
    ... Your assertions are correct in a theoretical sense. ... They exist in practice. ... that we 1) track those who opts out and 2) if they fail to stay current ... Adjunct Information Security Officer ...
    (Incidents)
  • Re: The Taxman Cometh - Tonight
    ... It's right and proper that they not be allowed to target a practice. ... practice's clients, to the unfair detriment of most of them (because ... are you saying that an accountant who fiddles tax isn't ... against a good solid background of honest activity. ...
    (uk.business.accountancy)
  • Re: Question about the ip I developed
    ... that the tax incentive of free home computers for employees was to stop. ... Treasury are trying to stifle it. ... In practice there will be a definition of "significant use" which stifle use ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: World greenhouse gas emissions rising faster
    ... pre-Reagan levels (with an inflation adjustment for income) at least ... because that will turn it into just a general tax ... Also, the flat tax ... So, in practice, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Reclaiming SRQ
    ... on matters of faith and practice I can make assertions that might ... at some point in the year 2000): "That Canadian Yearly Meeting establish ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)