Why do we need to Tax?

[Iseree22]

Perhaps your right, then the next question is; why are people trying to reduce the national debt ?

Because like any debt, we're getting to the point that servicing the interest alone is becoming a significant part of our budget.  We're up to almost 5% of the budget at this point.  That's over $150 billion per year in interest charges.


Most importantly, go back to what you said about how government spending works.  We sell treasuries on the open market and people buy them because they believe they'll be paid back.  We're rapidly approaching the point where people are doubting whether they'll actually get paid back.  Of course we can just print money to pay them back with any time we want, but go back to the quote from Greenspan - giving them cash isn't the same thing as giving them value.  So if no one else wants to buy our debt, we're left with the Fed.  That's why the Fed is independent of the government.  They won't keep buying treasuries forever either.

So do we really NEED to reduce the national debt?  No.  But we absolutely have to stop adding to it, especially at the ridiculous rate we're going now.

The FED will continue to purchase Treasuries indefinitely. This is how they set interest rates. The FED generally doesn't print money and pay interest on peoples bank accounts. The FED sells treasuries in exchange for cash. Each Treasury has an associated yield and it is the 'tool' that actually sets interest rates.

So yes the FED will continue to purchase Treasuries indefinitely, as long as the inflation rate does not go above the FED limit. If the State uses the money collected from the sale of Treasuries to increase the productive capacity, then the risk of inflation deminishes. Correspondingly, the FED will continue to purchase Treasuries indefinitely.

So the National Debt should be increasing at a steady rate to increase the productive capacity of the economy. The money from the sale of Treasuries should go towards programes that private industry are unwilling to invest in. Things like education, the environment and healthcare. There will be a corresponding increase in the productive capacity of the U.S economy which will lead to real value for Treasury holders.

The National Debt has been increasing steadily since its inception, so why has it never been an issue before?? Because it isn't an issue.

[1714899511]

1714899511

[1714899511]

1714899511

[The Script]

Iseree22, you're one of those "monetarily sovereign nation" people, aren't you?  Please read some economics.  Any.  Keynes, Rothbard, Mankiw, Caplan, Mises, Friedman....whoever. 

You are stating that we can continue to increase the national debt forever.  This is absurd.  What happens when the national debt reaches 20 trillion dollars and interests rates rise to 10%?  At that point almost all the US revenues will be used on paying off the interest on the national debt.  Then what?

[AyeYo]

So yes the FED will continue to purchase Treasuries indefinitely, as long as the inflation rate does not go above the FED limit.

And IT WILL go above the Fed limit at some point.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Yes, you CAN print money indefinitely if the economy continues to expand exponentially... but the economy CAN'T forever expand exponentially

That's like saying you can have sex forever, as long as you don't blow your load.  Or like saying that this bottle of water will last forever, as long as it doesn't run out.  Your statement doesn't make any sense.

[Iseree22]

So yes the FED will continue to purchase Treasuries indefinitely, as long as the inflation rate does not go above the FED limit.

And IT WILL go above the Fed limit at some point.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Yes, you CAN print money indefinitely if the economy continues to expand exponentially... but the economy CAN'T forever expand exponentially

That's like saying you can have sex forever, as long as you don't blow your load.  Or like saying that this bottle of water will last forever, as long as it doesn't run out.  Your statement doesn't make any sense.

What do you think has been happening over the last 80 years(prob longer)? If GDP increased by some % then that is exponential growth. The growth of national debt has also been exponential, and yet strangely the FED is still purchasing Treasuries.

What happens when there is an inflation? The then the state should run a surplus, either by the government collecting more via taxes than it spends, or the central bank adjusting monetary policy which leads to a contraction in credit money. However taxation is a more effective method of regulating inflation than using monetary policy. Taxation can remove money from the sources of inflation more precisely than interest rates.

[AyeYo]

Taxation can remove money from the sources of inflation more precisely than interest rates.

That's assuming the state actually runs a surplus with the excess tax money.  If increase taxes AND increase spending, then they've done absolutely nothing to control the inflation because that extra tax money has gone right back into circulation, and that's exactly what they have a tendancy to to.  The US has run very few surpluses in modern history.

What do you think has been happening over the last 80 years(prob longer)? If GDP increased by some % then that is exponential growth. The growth of national debt has also been exponential, and yet strangely the FED is still purchasing Treasuries.

The GDP is NOT growing at a greater rate than the money supply is increasing.  It was, previously, but now we have a situation in which money supply is increasing tremendously and GDP is essentially stagnant or increasing only miniscule amounts.  This brings me back to what I originally said...

And IT WILL go above the Fed limit at some point.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Yes, you CAN print money indefinitely if the economy continues to expand exponentially... but the economy CAN'T forever expand exponentially

That's like saying you can have sex forever, as long as you don't blow your load.  Or like saying that this bottle of water will last forever, as long as it doesn't run out.  Your statement doesn't make any sense.

So how do you address the situation we're in now?  Yes, you can print to pay the bills as long as the economy is keeping pace, but the economy is not keeping pace anymore.  What do you propose we do in this situation?

Here's a good article on why we've had such huge monetary base increases, but yet very little actual inflation (so far).  We're teetering on the edge of a cliff and if things tip the wrong way, it'll get ugly.  Are you suggesting we just keep creating money and hope the economy revives and catching up?

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/03/money_creation_1.html

[Iseree22]

Taxation can remove money from the sources of inflation more precisely than interest rates.

That's assuming the state actually runs a surplus with the excess tax money.  If increase taxes AND increase spending, then they've done absolutely nothing to control the inflation because that extra tax money has gone right back into circulation, and that's exactly what they have a tendancy to to.  The US has run very few surpluses in modern history.

Yea, but there hasn't been a meteoric rise in inflation. Inflation is expected. But if inflation goes above some 'level', then in addition to raising interest rates and decreasing the amount of credit money, the state can tax.

The system atm is setup in favour of the banks. They want to be the ones who issue the currency. Then they can apply fees(bank collected taxes) and other crap that doesn't help society. They want surpluses so they can expand the amount of credit money. The ones who issue the currency have the power. Then they want bailouts so they can support their 'credit economies'.

What do you think has been happening over the last 80 years(prob longer)? If GDP increased by some % then that is exponential growth. The growth of national debt has also been exponential, and yet strangely the FED is still purchasing Treasuries.

The GDP is NOT growing at a greater rate than the money supply is increasing.  It was, previously, but now we have a situation in which money supply is increasing tremendously and GDP is essentially stagnant or increasing only miniscule amounts.  This brings me back to what I originally said...

The money supply(M2) has not increased significantly. If it had core inflation would be through the roof.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE?cid=124

This shows that as you say the amount of cash(M0) has increased dramatically. Unfortunately the article you posted didn't explain how the process works. That line also represents how many assets the FED has purchased. The FED has purchased Treasuries in exchange for cash. Treasuries function exactly like cash. So although the FED has injected a heap of cash(M0) it has also sucked a similar amount in Treasuries. The net effect is close to zero. This why there is no inflation and there won't be one. The price of gold is falling, USD/EUR is starting to increase, etc.

The only item of note, was when the FED purchased Morgage-Backed Securities during QE1. That amount is inflationary.

So how do you address the situation we're in now?  Yes, you can print to pay the bills as long as the economy is keeping pace, but the economy is not keeping pace anymore.  What do you propose we do in this situation?

Here's a good article on why we've had such huge monetary base increases, but yet very little actual inflation (so far).  We're teetering on the edge of a cliff and if things tip the wrong way, it'll get ugly.  Are you suggesting we just keep creating money and hope the economy revives and catching up?

Like I said before, there won't be any inflation unless the Treasury sells some more Government Debt, or the FED purchases credit money for real money.

Yes, atm we need more deficits to employ more people, and consequently increase the amount of Goods & Services produced. This has no net effect upon inflation, but a real effect upon the welfare of people. If I said, ok we are going to mint a heap of Bitcoins, but they will be used to improve Bitcoin infrastructure, do you think that would be inflationary? I would argue no, the additional bitcoin infrastructure would increase the demand for bitcoins(deflationary), and at the same time employ people.

People need to understand that functionally, there is little difference between Government Debt and Cash.

[AyeYo]

Yea, but there hasn't been a meteoric rise in inflation. Inflation is expected. But if inflation goes above some 'level', then in addition to raising interest rates and decreasing the amount of credit money, the state can tax.

No, there hasn't a been meteoric rise YET.  But what you're proposing is making this constant, massive money creation the norm and in fact the sole method of funding government liabilities.  How do you figure it'll be sustainable?

The system atm is setup in favour of the banks. They want to be the ones who issue the currency. Then they can apply fees(bank collected taxes) and other crap that doesn't help society. They want surpluses so they can expand the amount of credit money. The ones who issue the currency have the power. Then they want bailouts so they can support their 'credit economies'.

Agree 100%

The money supply(M2) has not increased significantly. If it had core inflation would be through the roof.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE?cid=124

This shows that as you say the amount of cash(M0) has increased dramatically. Unfortunately the article you posted didn't explain how the process works. That line also represents how many assets the FED has purchased. The FED has purchased Treasuries in exchange for cash. Treasuries function exactly like cash. So although the FED has injected a heap of cash(M0) it has also sucked a similar amount in Treasuries. The net effect is close to zero. This why there is no inflation and there won't be one. The price of gold is falling, USD/EUR is starting to increase, etc.

I'm not sure I follow here.  The Fed buying treasuries puts cash into circulation... so how are you saying the net effect is zero just because the Fed exchanged treasuries for cash?  Are you saying that because cash and treasuries are both included in M2 the Fed's buying cancels itself out?

I suppose that's an interesting point and intentionally overlooked by the hyperinflation cry babies.  However, that'd only apply if it was buying existing treasuries.  If NEW treasuries are being issued (which is what's happening) and the Fed is buying them, then you've still got a net increase in M2 due to more treasuries in the system.


 

Like I said before, there won't be any inflation unless the Treasury sells some more Government Debt, or the FED purchases credit money for real money.

Yes, atm we need more deficits to employ more people, and consequently increase the amount of Goods & Services produced. This has no net effect upon inflation, but a real effect upon the welfare of people. If I said, ok we are going to mint a heap of Bitcoins, but they will be used to improve Bitcoin infrastructure, do you think that would be inflationary? I would argue no, the additional bitcoin infrastructure would increase the demand for bitcoins(deflationary), and at the same time employ people.

People need to understand that functionally, there is little difference between Government Debt and Cash.

I agree 100% with the bolded.

As for the how much inflation we actually have.  I know the OFFICIAL figures are quite low (you quoted ~3%), but commodity prices pretty much across the board disagree with only 3% inflation.  What is your response to that?

[Iseree22]

The money supply(M2) has not increased significantly. If it had core inflation would be through the roof.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE?cid=124

This shows that as you say the amount of cash(M0) has increased dramatically. Unfortunately the article you posted didn't explain how the process works. That line also represents how many assets the FED has purchased. The FED has purchased Treasuries in exchange for cash. Treasuries function exactly like cash. So although the FED has injected a heap of cash(M0) it has also sucked a similar amount in Treasuries. The net effect is close to zero. This why there is no inflation and there won't be one. The price of gold is falling, USD/EUR is starting to increase, etc.

I'm not sure I follow here.  The Fed buying treasuries puts cash into circulation... so how are you saying the net effect is zero just because the Fed exchanged treasuries for cash?  Are you saying that because cash and treasuries are both included in M2 the Fed's buying cancels itself out?

I suppose that's an interesting point and intentionally overlooked by the hyperinflation cry babies.  However, that'd only apply if it was buying existing treasuries.  If NEW treasuries are being issued (which is what's happening) and the Fed is buying them, then you've still got a net increase in M2 due to more treasuries in the system.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The asset swap may result in some additional cash being added to the economy, but the amount is negligible and will have little effect upon the economy. IMO it has been deliberately overlooked to inflate the price of gold, and take attention away from the real source of money, government spending/debt. I think that only 10% of gold purchases are for economic purposes, 50% for consumption(jewelery) and the rest for investment. So there is no real economic demand for gold.
 

Like I said before, there won't be any inflation unless the Treasury sells some more Government Debt, or the FED purchases credit money for real money.

Yes, atm we need more deficits to employ more people, and consequently increase the amount of Goods & Services produced. This has no net effect upon inflation, but a real effect upon the welfare of people. If I said, ok we are going to mint a heap of Bitcoins, but they will be used to improve Bitcoin infrastructure, do you think that would be inflationary? I would argue no, the additional bitcoin infrastructure would increase the demand for bitcoins(deflationary), and at the same time employ people.

People need to understand that functionally, there is little difference between Government Debt and Cash.

I agree 100% with the bolded.

As for the how much inflation we actually have.  I know the OFFICIAL figures are quite low (you quoted ~3%), but commodity prices pretty much across the board disagree with only 3% inflation.  What is your response to that?

There three sources of inflation; money creation, money velocity, and essential resource shortage.

The first two are obvious, although some would argue that credit money is an expression of money velocity. Meaning, if a bank can lend out 10x the deposit amount, then it has actually made that same parcel of money 10x faster through parallelization. From this abstraction, money velocity obviously affects prices.

The third occurs when there is an essential resource shortage. The suppliers of such a resource can start to set the price of a resource, and economic agents are forced to pay to survive.  The way around this is to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand, which is usually achieved by contracting the money supply. This forces economic agents to fail faster than usual, and realign their productive capacities towards activities less dependent on the essential resource. This process works fine as long as the economic agents are not people, if they fail they die! In such circumstances, only rationing or a quota-system(same thing) will work. This is what happens during war of course.

Personally there is some 'opinion' that states that some commodities have been inflated. Gold is the obvious one, copper, and other commodities. TBH I haven't really looked much into it. But it seems that banks and other large pools of money are playing a Ponzi game with some commodities. They are using money from retirement funds to push the price up. 

http://tinyurl.com/6de6qcq
http://tinyurl.com/62nl5sz

[AyeYo]

Ok that's exactly what I've been saying for years now. I'm glad others see it as well, but we seem to be in a tiny minority. I'd like to talk further about your background and such, I'll probably shoot you a pm when I'm not at work and stuck using my phone.

[Iseree22]

Sure thing, you sound busy .

[Boussac]

There three sources of inflation; money creation, money velocity, and essential resource shortage.

The first two are obvious, although some would argue that credit money is an expression of money velocity. Meaning, if a bank can lend out 10x the deposit amount, then it has actually made that same parcel of money 10x faster through parallelization. From this abstraction, money velocity obviously affects prices.
The third occurs when there is an essential resource shortage.

About the relationship between inflation and monetary velocity:
When 1 $ is “printed”, assuming a velocity of  2, the GDP can increase by 2 $ without any effect on prices (leaving out of the discussion the effect of international trade balance for simplicity).
If the GDP growth is less than that (say 1 $), then we have either money going in slower motion (velocity has decreased to 1)  OR prices going down (divided by 2 = deflation).
If the GDP growth is stronger (say 4$), then it may be attributable to inflation (prices multiplied by 2) or to higher monetary velocity or to both effects combined.

In short, there is NO direct relationship between monetary velocity and inflation (dP) but a rather complex one between 4 variables:
V= PT/M
dV = TdP/M + PdT/M –PTdM/M2

I take it that you consider a resource shortage as a negative determinant of dT (T: amount of transactions in real terms, not monetary terms).

[AyeYo]

Sure thing, you sound busy .

Not at all, just don't want to type more than a sentence or two from my phone. 

[Iseree22]

There three sources of inflation; money creation, money velocity, and essential resource shortage.

The first two are obvious, although some would argue that credit money is an expression of money velocity. Meaning, if a bank can lend out 10x the deposit amount, then it has actually made that same parcel of money 10x faster through parallelization. From this abstraction, money velocity obviously affects prices.
The third occurs when there is an essential resource shortage.

About the relationship between inflation and monetary velocity:
When 1 $ is “printed”, assuming a velocity of  2, the GDP can increase by 2 $ without any effect on prices (leaving out of the discussion the effect of international trade balance for simplicity).
If the GDP growth is less than that (say 1 $), then we have either money going in slower motion (velocity has decreased to 1)  OR prices going down (divided by 2 = deflation).
If the GDP growth is stronger (say 4$), then it may be attributable to inflation (prices multiplied by 2) or to higher monetary velocity or to both effects combined.

In short, there is NO direct relationship between monetary velocity and inflation (dP) but a rather complex one between 4 variables:
V= PT/M
dV = TdP/M + PdT/M –PTdM/M2

I take it that you consider a resource shortage as a negative determinant of dT (T: amount of transactions in real terms, not monetary terms).

Maybe I mis-understood what you said, so I'll write what I think is 'right' and continue from there.


1BTC is printed and velocity is 2, then total money supply is 2BTC. Therefore if Real GDP(inflation adjusted) is 2BTC then inflation is zero. This means 2BTC worth of goods & services are produced.

If Real GDP growth is less than this, then the amount of Goods & Services will be less than 2BTC, which means inflation has occurred.
If Real GDP growth is above this, then the Real Output is above 2BTC, meaning that deflation will occur.

It appears you are using the Money Exchange Equation:

MV = PQ

     M is the total dollars in the nation’s money supply
     V is the number of times per year each dollar is spent
     P is the average price of all the goods and services sold during the year
     Q is the quantity of assets, goods and services sold during the year

So P = MV/Q, my calculus skills aren't as advanced as yours so I'll make observations on this relationship.

In short your right. My point about credit money, is that all things being equal, if credit money is derived from real money then this could be seen as increase in the velocity of real money. Therefore if M and Q remain constant, and V increases by definition P must increase.

Personally I think the Money Exchange Equation starts to fall apart during times of extreme resource shortage. This is because money will start to move towards the suppliers of such resource. Therefore you would expect to see prices fall according to the Money Exchange Equation as the supply of money falls, caused by the suppliers cash stockpile. Sometimes this is offset by a contraction in Real Output, but velocity usually falls as economic interactions fall due the lack of the essential resource. The suppliers don't care about the fact that there is only so much money circulating, therefore they will charge any price they like regardless of the Money Exchange Equation. The Money Exchange Equation functions in 'ideal' markets. When markets are no longer 'ideal' it falls apart.

[Elwar]

Printing money to inflate the currency is just a form of tax, it is a tax on wealth.

There is not much reason why you should not do one over the other. They both do the same thing just in different ways.

We currently do both in the US.

Getting rid of all taxes and just printing money would at least get rid of the huge amount of beurocracy that comes with paying taxes which would save hundreds of millions of dollars.

But it would shift our way of using money dramatically. Any money that you earn, you would benefit from spending as soon as possible. There would be no incentive to save money. Investment would be very difficult.

There would reach a point where people would drop the currency and use other means to trade. Then the cost of the IRS would be shifted to the cost of keeping people using our currency.

[AyeYo]

But it would shift our way of using money dramatically. Any money that you earn, you would benefit from spending as soon as possible. There would be no incentive to save money. Investment would be very difficult.

There would reach a point where people would drop the currency and use other means to trade. Then the cost of the IRS would be shifted to the cost of keeping people using our currency.

That would only be true if significant inflation occured.

[onesalt]

Minor inflation is good as it encourages investment in business assets which in turn grow the economy. People complain that this devalues their money but a majority of banks set their interest rates to inflation to prevent this very occurrence.

[hmongotaku]

In the early days of the colonies. Tax was for luxuries. America was paying too much Brit tax and hence the Boston tea party.

[NghtRppr]

Minor inflation is good as it encourages investment in business assets which in turn grow the economy.

If people hoard money, eventually the market figures it out. It's not necessary to strong-arm people into circulating it.