• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: "Print More Money"

Mycroft said:
Only in Trump hater land does "according to Woodward" mean "Yup he actually said it".
Click to expand...

In Trump worship land, even actual video isn't proof that he said anything.
 
beefheart said:
Hey republicans, you elected a toddler.

You knew that, but you did it any way because you don't have an ounce of ethics.
Click to expand...

You elected a racist, and possibly Trayvon Martin's father.
 
Simple to solve.
Since Woodward said he records his interviews, he can produce the one where Trump told him (Woodward) that he told Cohn to "Just run the presses — print money,".
An added benefit would be to hear the quote (assuming it's true) in the context it was given.
 
American said:
You elected a racist, and possibly Trayvon Martin's father.
Click to expand...

People who thought Obama was racially divisive are probably racist.
 
OscarLevant said:
That is how the MMT people think, pure insanity.
Click to expand...

I defy you to come up with one MMTer that backs Trump, or even this idea of his.

It matters where the government spends money. Tax cuts for the rich are a stupid idea, because they don't help the economy. Tax cuts for the lower end, on the other hand, would boost aggregate demand and do wonders for the economy.

Trump is correct in that the government has this power, and he's correct that, operationally, we don't have to pay interest on government liabilities. But he's only correct by accident, because he doesn't understand why this stuff is true. And he demonstrated that lack of knowledge when he once suggested that defaulting, or at least making bondholders take a haircut, would be a "win" for the U.S. Because that's how he got ahead in the business world - borrowing and reneging.
 
washunut said:
Perhaps he did say it. How different would it be from QE1,2 and 3 that the Federal Reserve embarked upon. Or how different would be it that Paul Krugman advocated for to get around debt ceiling stalemate.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Trump himself doesn't understand what he is saying. He doesn't understand the difference between sovereign debt and real, private sector debt. He doesn't understand that a dollar is also a government liability, just like a bond is. He's an idiot.

QE was just an exchange of assets, bonds for reserves and account balances. Nobody's net financial position changed because of QE. The Fed expanded their balance sheet, holding a lot more bonds on their asset side, and on their liability side were a lot more reserves held by banks. Treasury still pays the interest on bonds, and the Fed (since QE) still pays interest on reserves. QE just meant that we paid a bit less interest (reserves earn less than bonds, usually); interest paid to the Fed (on the bonds they hold) is remitted back to the Treasury, after other Fed expenses (like interest on reserves).

I don't know what Krugman idea you were referring to, but if he was talking about zero-interest bonds (or, alternatively, the trillion-dollar platinum coin), those assets would sit on the asset side of the Fed's balance sheet, earning no interest. Which wouldn't matter, since the Fed remits its profits to the Treasury anyway.
 
phattonez said:
I'm actually not necessarily against this, if the money is given to workers rather than financial elites like it's historically been done.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's Trump's plan. Call me crazy.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't think that's Trump's plan. Call me crazy.
Click to expand...

I don't think so either, but if we're getting more populists elected it'll become more likely, even if it's not Trump who does it.
 
Amelia said:
Trump's pre-election discussion of debt is one reason my husband was impressed with Trump. My husband didn't realize that business debt is different from government debt. He can be excused. Trump not knowing is a different matter.

Well, all these things Trump didn't know might not have been that big of a problem, if Trump were interested in or able to learn enough to make up for his deficits. But he's not. He wallows in ignorance. Seems uninterested in changing. Wants us to give him gold stars for sitting still for ten minutes while other people are trying to bring him up to speed.

My husband now realizes what a fool Trump is, but dear hubby was dazzled by all the business-y words which had nothing to do with the realities of government. (And I admit to being a little dazzled myself, hoping Trump's business knowledge would be a silver lining to the election of a horrific human being, but the silver lining did not materialize.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it turns out that the US government cannot declare bankruptcy like Trump's businesses do when the succumb to too much debt.
 
washunut said:
Perhaps he did say it. How different would it be from QE1,2 and 3 that the Federal Reserve embarked upon. Or how different would be it that Paul Krugman advocated for to get around debt ceiling stalemate.
Click to expand...

Money Supply management is a function of the Federal Reserve and has to do with macro economics and how best to deal with it. The printing presses were never meant to be used to solve every little financial difficulty that crops up. You can't create value out of thin air and when you try to all you actually succeed in doing is redirect existing resources, i.e., inflation, which has a more severe impact on the poor than it does on the rich given that the rich can hedge with massive real estate Investments and so forth. An ultimate terms inflation is a transfer of wealth resources from the poor or those who cannot Hedge to the rich i.e., those who can hedge.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The problem is that Trump himself doesn't understand what he is saying. He doesn't understand the difference between sovereign debt and real, private sector debt. He doesn't understand that a dollar is also a government liability, just like a bond is. He's an idiot.

QE was just an exchange of assets, bonds for reserves and account balances. Nobody's net financial position changed because of QE. The Fed expanded their balance sheet, holding a lot more bonds on their asset side, and on their liability side were a lot more reserves held by banks. Treasury still pays the interest on bonds, and the Fed (since QE) still pays interest on reserves. QE just meant that we paid a bit less interest (reserves earn less than bonds, usually); interest paid to the Fed (on the bonds they hold) is remitted back to the Treasury, after other Fed expenses (like interest on reserves).

I don't know what Krugman idea you were referring to, but if he was talking about zero-interest bonds (or, alternatively, the trillion-dollar platinum coin), those assets would sit on the asset side of the Fed's balance sheet, earning no interest. Which wouldn't matter, since the Fed remits its profits to the Treasury anyway.
Click to expand...

Which president understood macroeconomics? Are you trying to tell us that Obama or either Bush did?

Why wouldn't the Krugman idea be the same as printing money? Seems exactly what is it. Yes it would make a difference for the Fed. They would have a bogus asset on their books while having to pay interest on their liabilities. All else being equal that would mean tens of billions of government money going to the Fed. You really think that would work?
 
PleasantValley said:
"...according to Bob Woodward's book "
This tells me a lot right there.
Talk about a CULT of haters.
Click to expand...

Tell ya one thing- Woodward has miles more credibility than Don Trump. Miles. Tons more professional integrity, too. If Woodward and Trump stood side by side and flat-out contradicted each other everyone who isn't a hard-core Trumpster would believe Woodward.
 
washunut said:
Which president understood macroeconomics? Are you trying to tell us that Obama or either Bush did?
Click to expand...

No, but they listened to people who do.

washunut said:
Why wouldn't the Krugman idea be the same as printing money? Seems exactly what is it. Yes it would make a difference for the Fed. They would have a bogus asset on their books while having to pay interest on their liabilities. All else being equal that would mean tens of billions of government money going to the Fed. You really think that would work?
Click to expand...

I still don't know exactly what Krugman idea you are referring to. Do you have a link?

Neither treasury bonds nor the platinum coin are "bogus assets." Treasury regularly issues liabilities so the government can deficit spend, and the liabilities that they issue are the most solid financial assets you (or the Fed) can own. The Treasury does not default on its obligations. While non-interest-bearing bonds and/or the coin would not give the Fed any income, the Fed does just fine otherwise. And like I said before, Fed profits go back to the Treasury anyway. The Fed is part of the government.

There are two definitions of "printing money." The one accepted by economists is when the Fed buys bonds in exchange for reserves. That increases MB and, to the extent that the bonds were purchased from non-banks, M1 (account balances) as well. But that operation does not increase the number of assets in the private sector, it just alters the makeup of those assets (reserves and account balances instead of bonds).

The other meaning of "printing money," which I suspect is being used here, is when the government deficit spends. That does add assets to the private sector - bonds. If the Fed so chooses, it can then purchase bonds in exchange for reserves and account balances, as I explained above.

I don't know why you think that any of this would result in "tens of billions of government money going to the Fed." The Fed makes its money like any other bank - it holds more assets than liabilities, and it collects interest off of its assets. Treasury doesn't just give the Fed money, other than when it pays interest on bonds that the Fed holds, and again, that is remitted right back to Treasury's account.
 
OscarLevant said:
Money Supply management is a function of the Federal Reserve and has to do with macro economics and how best to deal with it. The printing presses were never meant to be used to solve every little financial difficulty that crops up.
Click to expand...

The Fed has limited power to affect the real (M1) money supply. All they can do is tinker with interest rates, which has limited effect.

OscarLevant said:
You can't create value out of thin air and when you try to all you actually succeed in doing is redirect existing resources, i.e., inflation, which has a more severe impact on the poor than it does on the rich given that the rich can hedge with massive real estate Investments and so forth. An ultimate terms inflation is a transfer of wealth resources from the poor or those who cannot Hedge to the rich i.e., those who can hedge.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, all value is created out of thin air. Value is created when people produce, not when money is created, but they don't produce without demand. When the government spends, it creates demand that otherwise would not have happened. It's the same story with bank money and bank loans. It's all commerce, and commerce is a good thing.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The Fed has limited power to affect the real (M1) money supply. All they can do is tinker with interest rates, which has limited effect.
Click to expand...

Don't forget OMO!

On the contrary, all value is created out of thin air. Value is created when people produce, not when money is created, but they don't produce without demand. When the government spends, it creates demand that otherwise would not have happened. It's the same story with bank money and bank loans. It's all commerce, and commerce is a good thing.
Click to expand...

And that's why we need to remind people about what is unearned income and why we need less of it in our society.
 
phattonez said:
Don't forget OMO!
Click to expand...

Open market operations are how the Fed tinkers with interest rates. And that was before QE, when bonds set the overnight rate ceiling. Now, the Fed pays interest on reserves, which sets the overnight floor. OMOs don't do much now.

phattonez said:
And that's why we need to remind people about what is unearned income and why we need less of it in our society.
Click to expand...

Unearned income isn't a horrible thing, in and of itself. If the labor market was tight and wages were higher, giving labor a bigger piece of the income pie, unearned income would be harder to come by. As it is, there are tons of profits going to ownership, and the whole financial sector lives off of that money.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Open market operations are how the Fed tinkers with interest rates. And that was before QE, when bonds set the overnight rate ceiling. Now, the Fed pays interest on reserves, which sets the overnight floor. OMOs don't do much now.
Click to expand...

Going out and buying treasury securities and MBS directly increases money supply. That's the point I was making.

Unearned income isn't a horrible thing, in and of itself. If the labor market was tight and wages were higher, giving labor a bigger piece of the income pie, unearned income would be harder to come by. As it is, there are tons of profits going to ownership, and the whole financial sector lives off of that money.
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be completely eliminated, but making people aware of it and how it has come to dominate our economy would wake people up to how they're being robbed.

And yes, tariffs and immigration quotas would go a long way toward increasing labor share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom