[lbo-talk] Money

[Steve Bruns]

I guess a larger question then is why is such an artificial fiscal  
constraint tolerated or even seen as useful?  Is it to provide the  
investor class a risk-free parking spot for excess cash?  A way of  
funneling tax dollars to the overclass?

On 6-Aug-11, at 10:22 AM, SA wrote:


> On 8/6/2011 11:50 AM, Steve Bruns wrote:
>
>> I'm having trouble parsing the fundamental difference between Brad  
>> Delong's $500B platinum coin, Bernanke's "computer keystroke"  
>> funding of QE 1, 2 and soon to be 3 and the Chartalist/MMT concept  
>> of money = points.  Doesn't this put to rest the notion that  
>> Treasury needs to borrow funds to deficit spend - other than the  
>> statutory requirement, of couse?  Could someone point me to a  
>> clarification?
>
> I don't really see the discrepancy you're trying to explain. I doubt  
> DeLong or Bernanke would dispute the MMT argument that, absent legal  
> constraints, Treasury *could* spend without issuing bonds.
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk