Tag: government borrowing

–Another attempt to explain why taxpayers don’t pay for federal spending

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

In my never-ending effort to explain more clearly why federal spending costs taxpayers nothing, here is a new thought that perhaps will make the concept more intuitive. It was precipitated by a question from Mr. Tyler Fairleigh, which is published in the comment section at Monetary Sovereignty.

Imagine John Jones sells something to the federal government for $100. John sends the government a “bill.” A bill is nothing more than a little note containing this instruction: “Please credit John Jones $100.” It costs John nothing to send that note. In fact, John could send such a note (bill) to the government every day for the next ten years, and still it would cost John nothing.

Of course, the government is under no obligation to do as John requests, but the point is, that little note costs John nothing. He need have no money in the bank to send it.

Assume, the government checks its records and finds that indeed it owes John $100, so it sends him a check for $100, which he deposits in his bank. The government’s check is not money; it is an instruction. The check is a little note containing this instruction: “John’s bank. Please mark up the number in John’s account by $100.”

The government has the power to send an unlimited number of instructions (aka “checks”) at any time. These instructions do not require the government to “have” any money. They merely are instructions made by a monetarily sovereign government.

So John’s bank obediently raises the number in his account by $100, then informs the Federal Reserve Bank of what it has done. For accounting reasons, all sorts of accounts are credited and debited, some of which may or may not be related to taxes. But in reality, all that has happened was, John’s bank received an instruction from the federal government and did as it was told.

These instructions also cost taxpayers nothing. Taxpayers are not even involved. Even if no one was paying taxes, our monetarily sovereign government still could send an unlimited number of instructions to banks all over the world, and they all would obey. Why? Because they know the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States will mark up their accounts by the exact amount of the check. Why? Because the U.S. government is monetarily sovereign, meaning it has the unlimited power to mark up accounts.

Compare this with Greece, Spain, Illinois, California, General Motors, Chicago, you and me. None of us in monetarily sovereign, so none of us has the unlimited power to mark up bank accounts. Our power is limited by the number in our own bank account or by what we can borrow.

Yes, you too could send an unlimited number of such instructions, but unless your bank account had a high enough number, your bank would not obey these instructions (aka bounce your check). But no bank bounces the federal government’s instructions. Never has; never will. A monetarily sovereign nation cannot be forced into bankruptcy.

And what about that worrisome federal debt? It is the total of the T-securities (aka IOUs) the government creates from thin air. It can do this forever.

To pay the debt, the federal government merely sends notes to the various T-security holders’ banks, instructing them to mark up accounts. Taxpayers don’t owe the government’s debt, nor do your children nor grandchildren. You aren’t even involved.

And as for the federal deficit, it is just a balance sheet entry, showing the difference between taxes collected and money spent, or more accurately, the difference between the number subtracted from taxpayers’ bank accounts and the numbers added to vendors’ bank accounts. Of course, taxes do not pay for spending. The government could add numbers to vendor’s bank accounts without subtracting from taxpayers’ accounts.

So that’s it. Government spending is just instructions to banks. The debt is just IOUs created from thin air. Paying the debt is just instructions to banks to raise numbers in accounts. The deficit merely is an arithmetic difference. And taxpayers neither pay for, no owe, any of this.

Does that make things clearer?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What should the U.S. do next? Hunt like a lion

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

A reader, KK Tipton, asked what I suggest our government actually do, since being monetarily sovereign, it has the unlimited power to create money, without support from taxes or borrowing. First a little background:

Yes, the spending by a monetarily sovereign government is constrained neither by tax receipts nor by borrowing. So with no financial constraints, it could, as KK humorously suggests, build “ . . .two walls of aircraft carriers, end to end tomorrow, to protect our shores. Why not?”

Well, the “why not?” has to do with the only constraint on federal spending: Inflation. There is a point at which federal spending could become so massive as to cause inflation. Pump $100 trillion into the economy next month and I can guarantee a great big inflation.

However, we are nowhere near that point, and have been nowhere near that point since 1971, the year in which the U.S. federal government became monetarily sovereign. Even the inflation of 1979 was not caused by federal deficit spending, but rather by oil prices.

Graph 1

The above graph shows that inflation (red line) generally reached its peak at a time when federal deficit spending (blue line) was reaching a trough, and that inflation peaks correlated most closely with peaks in energy prices (green line).

Because federal deficits stimulate the economy and are constrained only by inflation, the goal is to maximize stimulation while keeping inflation at an acceptable level, perhaps 2% – 3%. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds that inflation can be cured by increasing taxes. This is true, but it’s like preventing facial acne by cutting off your head. Increasing taxes removes money from the economy, which is anti-growth, causing recessions and depressions. (See: A quick summary of the facts )

I prefer to prevent and cure inflation by increasing interest rates, which increases the reward for owning money. This increases the demand for money and makes money more valuable. MMT followers say high interest rates increase business costs, thereby actually causing inflation. Nice theory, but not in accord with the facts. Contrary to popular wisdom, there is no relationship between high rates and slow growth, or low rates and fast growth. See: Interest Rates . Both Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke may have learned this after 20 rate reductions accomplished nothing.

Given all of the above as a background, here’s what I suggest we do:

1. Eliminate T-securities. A monetarily sovereign nation does not need to borrow the money it created earlier – money it can create without limit. This would end all federal debt along with the misguided concerns about federal debt – concerns that have helped destroy our economy..

[All of the next suggested activities would be done incrementally, the way a lion stalks its prey. Make a small move, then stop to see what happens, then make another move, always getting closer and closer to your goal of maximum growth with acceptable inflation.]

2. Eliminate the FICA tax. This is a tax collected weekly or monthly, so it neatly allows for the “lion stalking” approach. A more complete discussion is at Ten reasons to eliminate FICA, but briefly, this would put about $1 trillion (See: Budget of the United States Government 2011) into the economy next year, exactly where it is needed most: Half in the hands of business; half in the hands of employees.

3. Eliminate taxes on business. These are projected to be about $300 billion next year, less than 12% of total federal projected receipts of $2.6 trillion. Business is the engine of our economy. Pulling money out of the engine is the worst way to grow an economy.

4. Gradually reduce personal income tax collections, which are projected to be $1.1 trillion next year, by increasing the standard deduction. We could begin by freeing from taxes, anyone earning less than $50,000 a year. Then we could incrementally raise the amount, until the last people in America paying personal income tax would be Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. (Of course, we would have to find jobs for all those accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees, prosecutors and federal prison guards, whose livelihoods depend wholly or partly on income taxes. But a healthy growing economy should take care of that.)

As you can see, I would begin by slowly but persistently eliminating taxes, and putting the money back in the hands of the people. After the tax situation was resolved, I would begin to increase spending, on humanitarian things like Social Security, universal health care insurance and unemployment insurance. I would fund the states by providing a per-capita allowance. Being monetarily non-sovereign, they cannot create money, and so require outside support (See: “–Here is the financial solution for your state, county and city”).

So there you have a quick summary. Like a lion, creeping up on a covey of ignorant debt hawks, I first would reduce/eliminate taxes, then increase federal spending.

What are your thoughts?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What will the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury purchase accomplish?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==============================================================================================================================

Here’s how it works; you be the judge.

The first question is, if the Fed is buying, who is selling? Answer: The banks and the public. If the banks exchange their T-bonds for cash, will that stimulate the economy? Will that make banks more likely to lend? Are banks short of lending cash? The answers are, “No, no and no.”

Banks are not lending primarily because they can lend to the government, risk free, and make an easy 2% on their money. They are not short of lending funds. They don’t want the hassle of credit checking, defaults, collections, etc. Just borrow from the government at 0% and lend back at 2%. What could be easier?

The other reason banks haven’t lent is because business isn’t borrowing. Congress has made sure business has no idea what will happen, tomorrow. Taxes? Who knows? Interest rates? Unsure. A recovery? When? Expand my operations? Are you kidding? So with lenders and borrowers both unmotivated, lending is unlikely.

Well, what about the public? Do Fed bond purchases from the public stimulate the economy? When the Fed trades cash for T-bonds, this is tantamount to advancing the maturity date on those T-bonds. So what will the holder of T-bonds do when the government gives him cash for his bonds? He likes T-bonds, so if he can get a good price, he probably will buy more bonds – right back where he started.

But let’s say some people decide to invest those dollars in something other than T-bonds. Is that stimulative? Yes, but there is another problem. When the Fed buys bonds, the future interest on those bonds is not paid into the economy. The Fed’s purchase reduces future government interest payments, and that is anti-stimulative.

So my take on the $600 billion purchase is that it might have a very small and very temporary stimulative effect. Far better, and far more stimulative would be if the federal government cut taxes by $600 billion. But since our politicians don’t understand monetary sovereignty, that is unlikely to happen.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–The Fed’s $500 billion bond purchase

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================

Rumor has it the Fed soon will announce approximately $500 billion in Treasury bond purchases, with possibly more purchases in the future. The effect of the Fed buying government bonds will be to add dollars to the economy.

This is in recognition of two realities:

1. The economy has been starved for dollars by the economically suicidal, debt-hawk mantra of “lower federal deficits and less federal debt.” Bernanke and the Fed now will officially have acknowledged the economy needs more dollars and the federal government has to supply them.

2. Congress and the President either are ignorant of this economic fact or, more likely, are too afraid of the debt hawks to add dollars to the economy via deficit spending, and instead have passed that hot potato to the Fed.

The question now is whether adding $500 billion is sufficient to pull us out of this economic funk. I suspect it is not, and that something north of $1-2 trillion in actual spending will be needed.

Rather than relying on the indirect effect of bond purchases by the Fed, and hoping that somehow the dollars will find their way into the hands of business and consumers, Congress and the President should use a direct approach. They should reduce all tax rates and specifically eliminate FICA. That would provide both an immediate and long-lasting economic stimulus, resulting in stronger business and more jobs.

Yes, that would add to the dreaded and much maligned federal deficit and the debt, which is exactly what a growing economy needs. It also might bring the debt hawks to their senses, and finally we could stop, for instance, cutting Medicare payments to doctors and reducing Social Security benefits.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind one of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”