While the government can technically print money, it then has to tax people more to prevent inflation, so this “money doesn’t matter” “let’s build a utopia out of hopes and dreams” stuff is nonsense. I cannot take seriously claims that a party cares about people or causes if that party cannot be bothered to consider the actual logistics of solving problems. That’s just tribalism.
The government should absolutely drive economic activity by spending money to solve problems, and it does have a small advantage since very low inflation is desirable, but for the most part that money must come from carefully spent taxes – not taxes thrown blindly at corporations or pocketed by corrupt politicians.
I think you’ve read a lot into that person’s comment that wasn’t actually in the comment. What they said wasn’t that the government should spend with abandon; they said it shouldn’t be arbitrarily limited. And insisting on zero deficit spending at all times is indeed arbitrary.
If, for instance, they issue bonds in order to pay for better public education, that has a significant positive effect on the growth of the local economy a few years in the future, which they can reasonably expect to result in increased tax revenue at that time, and indeed a larger increase than what they’re spending in the present. Borrowing money to spend in this way isn’t fiscally irresponsible; quite the opposite. It pays for itself over a slightly longer time horizon and improves the city.
There are often similar effects with programs to support low-income residents, because support to these residents has a higher “velocity” than aid for higher-income residents. Infrastructure spending is also frequently justifiable.
Conversely, giving tax cuts to AI datacenters doesn’t become responsible stewardship if you offset the cost by increasing payroll taxes.
Budgeting for a government is really complicated, and oversimplifying that, whether it’s by saying “we need zero deficit!” or by saying “we have infinite money!” is gonna lead to bad decisions. But “we have infinite money” being false doesn’t make “we need zero deficit” true. Both are oversimplifications, and the right has been using the latter as a propaganda bludgeon for at least 40 years now.
While the government can technically print money, it then has to tax people more to prevent inflation
No, it doesn’t, this is a well-repeated lie from neoliberalism, but there is no experimental correlation between government spending (or debt) and inflation. It’s specially funny how we’re literally living through a severe inflationary period today with energy prices as consequence of the Iran war, and people keep blaming inflation on currency issuing. I repeat: there is no experimental data proving a correlation between currency issuing and inflation, inflation correlates primarily with supply shocks, and you’ve lived through this over the past 5 years twice.
This doesn’t mean that governments should create infinite money, just that the spending limit shouldn’t be dictated by balances when it comes to public institutions.
“money doesn’t matter” “let’s build a utopia out of hopes and dreams”
Huh? I explicitly said money does matter, I’m discussing monetary policy, not disregarding it. Also, utopia? What part of “issuing more currency” sounds utopian to you? Governments literally do this all the time… when it comes to funding wars, unfortunately. I’m yet to see a neoliberal economist complain about extra funding in EU or US for weapons over the past years in the grounds of inflation. Almost as if it wasn’t real, and it was just bullshit neoliberal dogma designed to keep welfare down.
not taxes thrown blindly at corporations or pocketed by corrupt politicians
I’m literally a communist, you don’t have to convince me of struggle against private companies and corrupt politicians.
While the government can technically print money, it then has to tax people more to prevent inflation, so this “money doesn’t matter” “let’s build a utopia out of hopes and dreams” stuff is nonsense. I cannot take seriously claims that a party cares about people or causes if that party cannot be bothered to consider the actual logistics of solving problems. That’s just tribalism.
The government should absolutely drive economic activity by spending money to solve problems, and it does have a small advantage since very low inflation is desirable, but for the most part that money must come from carefully spent taxes – not taxes thrown blindly at corporations or pocketed by corrupt politicians.
I think you’ve read a lot into that person’s comment that wasn’t actually in the comment. What they said wasn’t that the government should spend with abandon; they said it shouldn’t be arbitrarily limited. And insisting on zero deficit spending at all times is indeed arbitrary.
If, for instance, they issue bonds in order to pay for better public education, that has a significant positive effect on the growth of the local economy a few years in the future, which they can reasonably expect to result in increased tax revenue at that time, and indeed a larger increase than what they’re spending in the present. Borrowing money to spend in this way isn’t fiscally irresponsible; quite the opposite. It pays for itself over a slightly longer time horizon and improves the city.
There are often similar effects with programs to support low-income residents, because support to these residents has a higher “velocity” than aid for higher-income residents. Infrastructure spending is also frequently justifiable.
Conversely, giving tax cuts to AI datacenters doesn’t become responsible stewardship if you offset the cost by increasing payroll taxes.
Budgeting for a government is really complicated, and oversimplifying that, whether it’s by saying “we need zero deficit!” or by saying “we have infinite money!” is gonna lead to bad decisions. But “we have infinite money” being false doesn’t make “we need zero deficit” true. Both are oversimplifications, and the right has been using the latter as a propaganda bludgeon for at least 40 years now.
No, it doesn’t, this is a well-repeated lie from neoliberalism, but there is no experimental correlation between government spending (or debt) and inflation. It’s specially funny how we’re literally living through a severe inflationary period today with energy prices as consequence of the Iran war, and people keep blaming inflation on currency issuing. I repeat: there is no experimental data proving a correlation between currency issuing and inflation, inflation correlates primarily with supply shocks, and you’ve lived through this over the past 5 years twice.
This doesn’t mean that governments should create infinite money, just that the spending limit shouldn’t be dictated by balances when it comes to public institutions.
Huh? I explicitly said money does matter, I’m discussing monetary policy, not disregarding it. Also, utopia? What part of “issuing more currency” sounds utopian to you? Governments literally do this all the time… when it comes to funding wars, unfortunately. I’m yet to see a neoliberal economist complain about extra funding in EU or US for weapons over the past years in the grounds of inflation. Almost as if it wasn’t real, and it was just bullshit neoliberal dogma designed to keep welfare down.
I’m literally a communist, you don’t have to convince me of struggle against private companies and corrupt politicians.