Because an asset is by definition something of value. The more bonds are issued with no prospect of any future productivity behind them to be paid back the more the asset is devalued. The government could print $16000 trillion in bonds and the private sector would not be better off because that "asset" would be worthless. That's what I meant by the Half Distance paradox. The accounting may be right but it is meaningless. Do you think Detroit could go back to health by issuing bonds in its own currency to its inhabitants?TennPaGa wrote:How is the government's liability not the private sector's asset? To me, this is simply an accounting identity.Mdraf wrote: Re: " The government's liability is the private sector's asset."
LOL. You guys. Your logic reminds me of Zeno's Half Distance paradox.
Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
You are correct that the asset could be devalued by issuing too many without enough productive capacity — nobody disputes that.Mdraf wrote:The more bonds are issued with no prospect of any future productivity behind them to be paid back the more the asset is devalued.
But, I don't understand why you still think that the bonds are at risk of not being "paid back". There is never a risk of the bonds not being "paid back" regardless of productivity. For instance, see the statement above about how the debt from WWII has never been "paid off" — and certainly not from any tax collection from the private sector. It was "paid back" by issuing new debt. The debt from WWII simply became our private sector assets. The WWII debt is not an economic burden. These debt deposits in the private sector represent real goods and services in the economy (that's what they were given to us for!). But, that has nothing to do with "paying" the debt. The debt is a creation of the government that will always be "paid back" regardless of any productivity or not.
Furthermore, nobody is advocating any amount of spending here. We are just stating mechanics and accounting identities (i.e. the government's liability is the private sector's asset). The government can provide those assets to the private sector in exchange for real goods and services if the elected politicians vote to do so. That's pretty straightforward.
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Who has been buying all of the new issuance of Japanese bonds: the Japanese central bank, foreign buyers, or domestic private purchasers?moda0306 wrote: Libertarian666,
What's your take on Japan being so much further down the rabbit hole for so much more time than us?
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Circa 2008:Libertarian666 wrote:Who has been buying all of the new issuance of Japanese bonds: the Japanese central bank, foreign buyers, or domestic private purchasers?moda0306 wrote: Libertarian666,
What's your take on Japan being so much further down the rabbit hole for so much more time than us?
[align=center][/align]
Of course, all this shows is that the Yen is mostly just a domestically held currency — and not much of a globally held currency. A global reserve currency would obviously have far more foreign holders.
Usually people try to argue that the US can spend by being the world's global reserve currency, but explaining Japan's massive spending and low inflation requires ignoring the "global reserve currency" argument
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Gumby,Gumby wrote:Circa 2008:Libertarian666 wrote:Who has been buying all of the new issuance of Japanese bonds: the Japanese central bank, foreign buyers, or domestic private purchasers?moda0306 wrote: Libertarian666,
What's your take on Japan being so much further down the rabbit hole for so much more time than us?
[align=center][/align]
You've probably added months if-not years to my life by helping me in MR discussions. I hate posting links and quotes.
But to your point on Japan, not only that, but inflation has been all-but nonexistent for decades now in Japan. One of the key indicators of "artificially low interest rates" is high inflation, because if you can borrow at less than the rate of inflation with ease you'd be an idiot not to, which induces more inflation, which leaves rates even more attractive in comparison, etc, etc.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
As we can see from the pie chart, a lot of Japanese debt is simply purchased by the "Post Bank" which is the largest bank in Japan (it is literally in every Post Office). So, Japanese Savings accounts are responsible for a lot of their government bond purchases. That just illustrates the Japanese citizens' desire to save their money. The net financial assets to fund these savings accounts mostly comes from government spending that lands in people's pockets. Yen is spent into existence, and stays in the Japanese banking system. It's not like everyone in Japan needs to think about buying bonds. All Japanese citizens have to do is put their money into savings accounts and the banks (mostly Japan's "Post Bank") take care of the risk-free bond purchases for them behind the scenes.
This isn't any different from Primary Dealers and private banks purchasing bonds for us when we deposit dollars in our own savings accounts. The only difference between us and Japan is that more foreign investors are willing to hold our government debt — which, by definition, is what makes a global reserve currency.
So, Japan's currency is mostly domestic and ours is more globally held. No massive inflation is currently happening either way.
This isn't any different from Primary Dealers and private banks purchasing bonds for us when we deposit dollars in our own savings accounts. The only difference between us and Japan is that more foreign investors are willing to hold our government debt — which, by definition, is what makes a global reserve currency.
So, Japan's currency is mostly domestic and ours is more globally held. No massive inflation is currently happening either way.
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
I maintain that WWII debt was paid back and absorbed by inflation. In other words IF those WWII bonds hadn't been issued in the first place (hypothetical since I believe we had no other choice) the private sector would have been better off. Impossible to measure though.Gumby wrote:You are correct that the asset could be devalued by issuing too many without enough productive capacity — nobody disputes that.Mdraf wrote:The more bonds are issued with no prospect of any future productivity behind them to be paid back the more the asset is devalued.
But, I don't understand why you still think that the bonds are at risk of not being "paid back". There is never a risk of the bonds not being "paid back" regardless of productivity. For instance, see the statement above about how the debt from WWII has never been "paid off" — and certainly not from any tax collection from the private sector. It was "paid back" by issuing new debt. The debt from WWII simply became our private sector assets. The WWII debt is not an economic burden. These debt deposits in the private sector represent real goods and services in the economy (that's what they were given to us for!). But, that has nothing to do with "paying" the debt. The debt is a creation of the government that will always be "paid back" regardless of any productivity or not.
Furthermore, nobody is advocating any amount of spending here. We are just stating mechanics and accounting identities (i.e. the government's liability is the private sector's asset). The government can provide those assets to the private sector in exchange for real goods and services if the elected politicians vote to do so. That's pretty straightforward.
Accounting is a language, not a science. We use it to describe and make sense of a situation. It is by no means definite and final in so much as other countries have different accounting rules. Even ours keep changing over time. By our accounting rules all those Credit Default Swaps were assets on the banks' balance sheets. But were they really?
Yes, the government can provide those assets to the private sector in exchange for real goods and services but only if the private sector values them to be worth those goods and services. Currently here in the US they do. But it is not an absolute rule.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Well, the debt hasn't diminished so the debt from WWII was literally "paid for" with more debt.Mdraf wrote:I maintain that WWII debt was paid back and absorbed by inflation. In other words IF those WWII bonds hadn't been issued in the first place (hypothetical since I believe we had no other choice) the private sector would have been better off. Impossible to measure though.
But how exactly has the American saver been hurt from WWII inflation? Despite the mild inflation that ensued from WWII, we are now one of the wealthiest countries on Earth in terms of living standards. You might feel warm and fuzzy inside if it took only $5 to by a bicycle, or an ice cream cost a nickel, but your wages and your savings would likely be 1% of what they are now. Meanwhile our standard of living has increased dramatically since then. And even Harry Browne has pointed out that if you put all your cash into Short Term Treasuries decades ago your savings would have done just fine. The whole "our dollar is now worthless" argument is mostly meaningless political misdirection used to rile up constituents.
In our world, yes, because all of our money comes from debt in the first place. That's what money is in our society. It's an IOU. So, CDS is just a form of private credit (i.e. money).Mdraf wrote:By our accounting rules all those Credit Default Swaps were assets on the banks' balance sheets. But were they really?
Agreed. But the necessity to pay taxes — and thus stay out of jail — with only that currency does give it some value.Mdraf wrote:Yes, the government can provide those assets to the private sector in exchange for real goods and services but only if the private sector values them to be worth those goods and services. Currently here in the US they do. But it is not an absolute rule.
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.Gumby wrote: Despite the mild inflation that ensued from WWII, we are now one of the wealthiest countries on Earth in terms of living standards.
A worthless IOU is commonly written off according to our accounting standardsGumby wrote: In our world, yes, because all of our money comes from debt in the first place. That's what money is in our society. It's an IOU.
If there is nothing to tax there is no tax. If productivity is too low there is not enough tax to make good on the bondGumby wrote: Agreed. But the necessity to pay taxes — and thus stay out of jail — with only that currency does give it some value.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Exactly. But we're not Zimbabwe. We're probably the opposite of Zimbabwe, really. It seems like you're now grasping that this whole house of cards works best in a healthy, prosperous, and productive society--and that's exactly right! If the government decided to utterly destroy the productive capacity of the economy without slashing the money supply (which of course it would never do), the result would be hyperinflation and currency collapse.Mdraf wrote: If there is nothing to tax there is no tax. If productivity is too low there is not enough tax to make good on the bond
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! The debt is much larger now. We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt. The amount of work had nothing to do with the means to pay the coupons. As you correctly point out, the hard work is only necessary to give the currency real value (i.e. the currency represents real goods and services).Mdraf wrote:I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.Gumby wrote: Despite the mild inflation that ensued from WWII, we are now one of the wealthiest countries on Earth in terms of living standards.
So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Well yes, of course. But it is always predicated by the theoretical possibility of payback. -> Future taxation-> future productivity.Gumby wrote:But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt.Mdraf wrote:I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.Gumby wrote: Despite the mild inflation that ensued from WWII, we are now one of the wealthiest countries on Earth in terms of living standards.
You can refinance your mortgage again and again, but always within your credit rating.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Except for a country that creates it own currency by issuing more debt.Mdraf wrote:Well yes, of course. But it is always predicated by the theoretical possibility of payback. -> Future taxation-> future productivity.Gumby wrote:But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt.Mdraf wrote: I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.
You can refinance your mortgage again and again, but always within your credit rating.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Exactly. Bottom line is productivity. And productivity = value. So government bonds cannot exceed productivity (present and expected )Gumby wrote:But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! The debt is much larger now. We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt. The amount of work had nothing to do with the means to pay the coupons. As you correctly point out, the hard work is only necessary to give the currency real value (i.e. the currency represents real goods and services).Mdraf wrote:I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.Gumby wrote: Despite the mild inflation that ensued from WWII, we are now one of the wealthiest countries on Earth in terms of living standards.
So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
YES!!!Mdraf wrote:Exactly. Bottom line is productivity. And productivity = value. So government bonds cannot exceed productivity (present and expected )Gumby wrote:So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Productivity. Is. Everything.Gumby wrote:YES!!!Mdraf wrote:Exactly. Bottom line is productivity. And productivity = value. So government bonds cannot exceed productivity (present and expected )Gumby wrote:So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
The implication of that is that the government owns everything in the country, or (equivalently) that they can tax everything at 100%. I'm not sure that would work out too well.Mdraf wrote:Exactly. Bottom line is productivity. And productivity = value. So government bonds cannot exceed productivity (present and expected )Gumby wrote:But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! The debt is much larger now. We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt. The amount of work had nothing to do with the means to pay the coupons. As you correctly point out, the hard work is only necessary to give the currency real value (i.e. the currency represents real goods and services).Mdraf wrote: I would turn that around and say because of our post WWII enormous productivity we managed to absorb and work off the debt.
So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
They do, and they can. Now, of course it wouldn't work out well. But you and I both know that the government is actually the true owner of everything.Libertarian666 wrote: The implication of that is that the government owns everything in the country, or (equivalently) that they can tax everything at 100%. I'm not sure that would work out too well.
Try not paying your property taxes sometime and see what I mean. You don't own your land; you're renting it from the government.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Once taxation gets too high productivity drops and there is less to tax so it's "self-adjusting". There's an equilibrium which keeps things going. It can be broken if citizens revolt and stop paying taxes (Boston Tea Party) or government spends too much and tries to tax (or print) more than what the economy can provide.
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
No, the government doesn't own everything (though, like most governments, they could theoretically apply the physical force necessary to steal/destroy most property).Libertarian666 wrote:The implication of that is that the government owns everything in the country, or (equivalently) that they can tax everything at 100%. I'm not sure that would work out too well.Mdraf wrote:Exactly. Bottom line is productivity. And productivity = value. So government bonds cannot exceed productivity (present and expected )Gumby wrote: But the point is that we never "worked off" the debt! The debt is much larger now. We paid back the coupons by issuing more debt and we spent more and more. The debt doesn't get "paid off". The coupons are paid by issuing more debt. The amount of work had nothing to do with the means to pay the coupons. As you correctly point out, the hard work is only necessary to give the currency real value (i.e. the currency represents real goods and services).
So, maybe we are saying the same thing. We work hard, and the government gives us more debt to pay the previous debt payments.
The government provides fiat financial tools to the economy with which people can then use as a medium of exchange and/or store of value. If they provide too many of these tools there will be inflation... not enough, deflation... but both base money AND treasury bonds represent these tools... and it gets even more complex when the rest of the world wants to use these tools in their economy as well.
Just because government provided the tool that we hold on our balance sheets doesn't mean they "own" the productivity that those tools will act as claims on.
They could try to tax everything, I suppose, but they could do that before (they have a military to help collect taxes if need be), and it would be idiotic if they tried to collect all property as government property. Further, the U.S. has one of the best track records for low taxation and recognizing/defending property in the world. I suppose that could change, and in some ways is slowly changing, but I don't see a promise land anywhere else that I'm very confident would survive the collapse of the most previously stable economy and entity in the world...
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
But "printing" is best represented by deficits, not "monetizing the debt." And if you factor how far under capacity our economy was in 2009-2012, the deficits weren't actually that large from a stand point of the government wanting "more than the economy can provide."Mdraf wrote: Once taxation gets too high productivity drops and there is less to tax so it's "self-adjusting". There's an equilibrium which keeps things going. It can be broken if citizens revolt and stop paying taxes (Boston Tea Party) or government spends too much and tries to tax (or print) more than what the economy can provide.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Yes, of course I know that. The question is whether people who lend them money (e.g. investors in the HBPP) can really count on their being able to tax at 100% in determining the value (if any) of their bonds.Pointedstick wrote:They do, and they can. Now, of course it wouldn't work out well. But you and I both know that the government is actually the true owner of everything.Libertarian666 wrote: The implication of that is that the government owns everything in the country, or (equivalently) that they can tax everything at 100%. I'm not sure that would work out too well.
Try not paying your property taxes sometime and see what I mean. You don't own your land; you're renting it from the government.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
The government bonds I buy don't have value because the government could ruin the economy by confiscating or destroying everyone's property. It's just the opposite: they have value because the government doesn't.Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, of course I know that. The question is whether people who lend them money (e.g. investors in the HBPP) can really count on their being able to tax at 100% in determining the value (if any) of their bonds.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Then you agree that the assumption that they could tax at 100% is not a valid way of determining the value of their bonds.Pointedstick wrote:The government bonds I buy don't have value because the government could ruin the economy by confiscating or destroying everyone's property. It's just the opposite: they have value because the government doesn't.Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, of course I know that. The question is whether people who lend them money (e.g. investors in the HBPP) can really count on their being able to tax at 100% in determining the value (if any) of their bonds.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad
Yes.Libertarian666 wrote:Then you agree that the assumption that they could tax at 100% is not a valid way of determining the value of their bonds.Pointedstick wrote:The government bonds I buy don't have value because the government could ruin the economy by confiscating or destroying everyone's property. It's just the opposite: they have value because the government doesn't.Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, of course I know that. The question is whether people who lend them money (e.g. investors in the HBPP) can really count on their being able to tax at 100% in determining the value (if any) of their bonds.
I think the problem here is that we can talk all day about accounting identities until we're blue in the face, but deriving the value of a bond issued by a fiat reserve currency issuer is a lot more of a subjective process. There's this subtle interplay between the productivity of the economy and the size of the money supply, which is complicated by the fact that we don't have unbacked fiat currency, we have debt-backed fiat currency. And not only that, but the majority of the currency is actually created by banks, and every act of creating debt-backed currency involves getting someone else to become indebted to the entity creating the currency, which may be a private bank, the treasury, or a pseudo-public-private bank that backs the other banks and facilitates the treasury's actions.
It's all pretty crazy. Yet somehow, it hasn't collapsed yet. The power of human beings to prop up something that looks unsustainable is always surprising.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan