Financing the Green New Deal

[Conaeolos]

There's a whole bunch of articles explaining the same thing...

Governments Are Nothing Like Households

Nutshell: "austerity policies can be unnecessary" plus high government debt brings down interest rates which is good for the private sector.

Yes austerity hurts an economy, just like austerity hurts quality of life in a household which can and often does lower a persons income. For example, say you cut back on your car expense and this means riding the bus. Not driving a car especially if you run your own business, means lost sales, lost revenues and lower profits. Fake it to you make is advice for a reason.

Low interest rates rise debt financing at the cost of equity financing. Low interest rates promote over consumption. So what that low interest rates are good for growth? So is extending your credit lines to buy a bunch of assets. High debt mean high risks. It is good in moderation. You don't think citzens have followed the lead and got 6x as leveraged as 1960?

"When interest rates fall, depressing returns on investment, younger people saving for their retirements cut back spending and save even more to ensure that they have enough money to live on in retirement."

This is where we go from naive to insane. What she means is more young people are less prepared for retirement and have less financial security. That is very very bad!!! The longterm is always more significant than the short.

A government is not a household | New Economics Foundation

"the government needs to live within its means" does not mean the government can't make investments, can't take on debt, can't take risks. This article speaks more on Franks poor understanding of his household finances rather than anything about the government.

The only aspect that matters being there is a difference between taking on a $10,000 loan so Sally can go to better school and $10,000 so Sally can go to Peru.

A cut, hurts a family. It also hurts an economy. That is always been true. No one wants cuts because they are inherently good nor is living poor well you have good income a net postive. The only way it could be is if it was for retirement. Governments shouldn't retire last I checked!

Healthy economies grow year to year. Healthy households income grows year to year. When a healthy household take out a debt they improve their circumstances, improving the chance they will even better off in future year on every defecit year. The same is true of a government.

Overspending on things with little or negative ROI; just increase risk with no net benefit.

Plenty of people have lived good lives with negative net-balance sheets for years but their investments paid off in the longterm and they lived even better in the future.

The only threat is the "cost of servicing the debt" which limits our ability to deal with risk. That's it. That's also true for households.

Seriously, we are bringing up public employees consumption is going to lead to more growth than their cost? There is only one way you get there: their alternative condition being unemployment.

What if the alternative is producing something of value that does not require taxes? Would that perhaps change your equation? Wouldn't it be important to establish where that line exists?….you help the unemployed or seriously underemployed great. You pull from the employed marketplace you just had the opposite effect. Do I need to explain why, again?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog.../13/AF21jOjD_blog.html?utm_term=.6c5854be9183

Yes, one has the most to gain when investing in times of hardship. In other-words, yes recessions are the worst time to cut certian types of spending. Let me tell you another tip from a healthy household. When times are bad, you invest more as it means needed ROI and quicker recovery. The only things worth cutting are the thing not returning, which in the government isn't things like public employees. Let me also say, it not the time to take on risky ventures which require excessive debt financing ratios. That doesn't mean not to take on debt, especially if you need debt to invest. It means you manage your risk!

 

[Conaeolos]

Why the federal budget can't be managed like a household budget | Money | The Guardian

"As long as you can afford the monthly tab, most financial experts would tell you a mortgage is a good thing to have. Why? Well, owning a home is a long-term investment, ultimately a good thing for your household bottom line."

Thank you. Point made!

The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here's Why - Roosevelt Institute

This article is a little more complex, but the jist is governments literally not households. And that is true. It an analogy. The principles not circumstances are the same. For example, a household does at some point wish to have a positive balance whereas with a government no such condition is necessary. A surplus is condition of overtaxation which should be avoided.

Thus, when someone says balance the budget they are more looking to reduce the taxation burden, increase potential pool later, work in the longterm by reducing future liabilities rather than actually getting some type of surplus in the government accounts which would be meaningless. It's a longterm play not a short-term reaction caused by necessity. You all seem intent on the later.

A healthy economy is about a condition of growth.
A healthy household a condition of relatively stability.

So what?

As to this "surpluses" causing depressions…dear God! It's called a boom and bust cycle and it has to do with how the market moves most things economic have very little to do with government. What happen post this period isn't just Keynesian, there was plenty of new insights and experiments.

In 1929 government spending was 3% of GDP whose biggest item was defence(40%) followed by the postal service(20%) with 3.8% on pensions, education and healthcare, agriculture a primary employer….that is totally comparable to 2019 where the top two items being pensions(25%) and healthcare(27%) with military being(21%) and post office (<1%) wth the government spending 7x that of GDP. :roll:

The cost of financing our debt is not out of control. So we are not in crisis. The cost of deficit spending is currently only increased risk. We are in a period in which we can deal with that before it evolves into a crisis. For a household, a corporation or a government that is the best time to act. If we instead choose to increased that risk it is very dangerous come 2030, when we see demographics causing issues, not to mention future economic woes, wars, ect ect.

Let us ignore it though, a government isn't like a household :roll: Shortsighted thinking and a casual attitude toward debt and inflation where you don't calculate in being wrong totally has paid off for governments in the past....right? :shock:

 

[Kushinator]

Small industry gets hit harder by trade policies when foreign competition undercuts. Small towns, by their own nature, tend to have mostly smaller companies.

You haven't provided any evidence to support such a position. And we know why.

Quit snarking, use your head.

Stop rationalizing your ideology and passing it off as fact. It's a weird thing to do.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You haven't provided any evidence to support such a position. And we know why.



Stop rationalizing your ideology and passing it off as fact. It's a weird thing to do.

Besides reality.

 

[Kushinator]

Besides reality.

Where is your support, that in any way, substantiates the notion that red states are net takers of federal tax dollars because of trade policies and wage pressure. Supposedly, all the businesses are flowing from blue to red states because of higher taxes, regulations, etc.... So which is it... or are you trying to have it both ways? :lol:

 

[OrphanSlug]

No one is weaponizing anything and the government very much should be run like a sustainable household or corporation. Based on averages, the problem is you likely don't run sustainable household or corporation. How is retirement looking? How able are you deal with a financial crisis? Lifestyle/prospects get better year to year?

The point of highlighting the unfunded liabilities is to reflect the ability of government to deficit spend same as it would a private entity. The greater the ability the more a government is able to absorb risk. That is it. They can run deficits to the cows come home as long as the cost to servicing that debt is in control. That true of any private entity as well.

No one is suggesting we should pay off 120+ Trillion or even 22 T to be financially stable. We are relatively financially stable but worsening. We do however need modest reductions in spending and promises so that we are better able to absorb risk as that has been in a free fall for awhile and are risk tables increasing. Demographics presents some real challanges starting in about 2030.

Personal swipes aside, you are missing a critical point about why the federal government is not a household or corporation. Neither one of those entities can issue currency or become the primary influence on interest rates, but the federal government can.

Federal government deficit spending is not the same thing as a household or corporation spending on credit. The cost to those entities is not the same, and the issuance of that debt is not the same.

A "modest reduction in spending" means a reduction in GDP. Again, the federal government is an active participant in the economy.

If anything a healthy economy and reasonable indicators for aggregate demand suggested leaving tax rates alone as the deficit was starting to diminish year on year. But ultimately Trump and Republicans decided a tax break for the rich was needed and now deficits are headed the wrong way at a time we are likely to see the next economic downturn.

That is our real issue, we were starting to see the right things happen with taxation and aggregate demand and Republicans made the wrong choice.

Now we are going to umpteenth down on the failed trickle down economic principles of the right that only benefit the highest earners. Much to the impact of our fiscal position as reduced tax revenues from that income quintile directly harms our ability to service the debt, we need to issue as a means to throttle the amplitude of the economic cycle.

Thew federal government should take on lower levels of debt during good times as investor sentiment moves away from save haven bets because aggregate demand is stable, the federal government should take on higher levels of debt during not so good times as that is the one means to handle aggregate demand faults. Regardless taxation should be looked at in terms of fiscal position and applied impact to aggregate demand at that time. Again, Republicans made a mistake.

 

[jaeger19]

Not only does Robert's article not say anything like that, you have also (continued to) misinterpret the point I made so long ago - money spent wisely is obviously more effective in the long run, BUT FOR THE CURRENT CALCULATION OF GDP, $1000 IS $1000.

As I point out.. it assumes that.

And if you are going to measure the effectiveness of an investment in infrastructure.. it would be much more valid to include whether it has a multiplier effect. Failure to do so is a serious flaw in anyone reasoning on the benefits of building infrastructure.

I get it.. you don't want to have a serious discussion on the merits of financing the New Green Deal... you just want to have another useless conversation about fiat currency.

 

[Born Free]

right... which means that under Obama... the taxpayer fared a heck a lot better than they would have under the Bush bailout.

Bush did not bailout GM, that was all Obama. We taxpayers would not have lost 11.2 billion if Obama had let GM fail.

 

[jaeger19]

Bush did not bailout GM, that was all Obama. We taxpayers would not have lost 11.2 billion if Obama had let GM fail.

Nope.. the GM bailout started under Bush.

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”

but please.. lets not let the pesky facts get in the way.

 

[Born Free]

Nope.. the GM bailout started under Bush.

Bush gave GM a loan, no different than the government giving out student loans, and the government backs loans, etc.

But Obama purchased stock in the company and when it was decided to sell the stock we lost 11.2 billion. That was an investment by Obama that failed, it's just one of many Obama's failures.

 

[jaeger19]

Bush gave GM a loan, no different than the government giving out student loans, and the government backs loans, etc.

But Obama purchased stock in the company and when it was decided to sell the stock we lost 11.2 billion. That was an investment by Obama that failed, it's just one of many Obama's failures.

Umm.. no. Bush gave a loan to a failing company.. with no assurance it would get paid back.

When the government gives a student loan.. they expect it to get paid back.. and if the person declares bankruptcy.. guess what.. they don't get their student loan forgiven.

Obama.. on the other hand.. got stock in the company... which meant.. that the taxpayer had security against the money given.

under bush. the bankruptcy would have simply wiped away... ALL taxpayer money.

Sorry man.. but you are just wrong.

 

[Conaeolos]

There seems to be straw-man at play, but I doubt it is on purpose. A household cutting expenses is a not a sign of health. A households relative economics goes down under austerity only her balance sheet improves. It's alwasys a net negative, just one people are familar with as most households don't have experts keeping them in check.

Governments work on a different time scale and are never without income, so the benefits to having a positive balance sheet and hence managing future risk is less. So, yes the goal with governments isn't a positive budget either(like most households) but a balanced one, rather minimizing surplus or deficits to say a range of +/- 3%.

The principle here is not cut now so that the economy improves. The principe is cut modestly now to avoid more drastic cuts down the road. Same as it would an upper class high asset household that has foreseeable future "income issues" but no prospect of no-income.

Inflation is a reserve for short-term volatility. Not a fix for downward trends. We agree on that at least, yes?

Neither one of those entities can issue currency or become the primary influence on interest rates, but the federal government can.

1. The effects of "issuing currency" in our current form is in line with use of credit as primary payment method. It is not uncommon for many upper class high asset households to have credit-lines that could be conceived of as unlimited. The metric that matter then is ability to "service that credit" with debt to income showing only the risk not comparable level of the problem.
2. Sure they can influence the interest rates to meet their needs. They are also interdependent on the many actors in their economy who share that interest rate. Power is overrated. Killing yourself by your own hand is just as bad as dying by anothers hand. You have to agree to any interest rate. No one is a passive actor.

Governments have unlimited creditlines and powers on the intrest rate, but that doesn't make them immune to the principles of a household with the same.

Federal government deficit spending is not the same thing as a household or corporation spending on credit.

Are they getting something of value now, which they have to pay it back at a future time? So….yes they are not literally the same, it's about the abstract concept.

:: Spending now if invested in economic growth means more later.

A "modest reduction in spending" means a reduction in GDP.

That is one potential outcome, and major concern, as yes they are a major player. There are many conditions at play. So unless your claim is this is always or mostly true? Then ,could we just agree: cutting spending is never desirable but sometimes beneficial in the longterm?

Specifically: beneficial when public resources currently being funded or subsidized by taxes are instead used to produce tax paying private goods and services but without additional costs of subsidy or tax revenues being necessary to fund them.

So if we say every economic action, requires some government cost. Some contribution. We ideally want contribution > costs.

If anything a healthy economy and reasonable indicators for aggregate demand suggested leaving tax rates alone as the deficit was starting to diminish year on year.

This is the ideal strategy although has proven time and time again politically impractical.

That is our real issue, we were starting to see the right things happen with taxation and aggregate demand and Republicans made the wrong choice.

The actions are certainly not those concerned by deficit spending. The growth strategy is different version of direct government stimulus. It also comes with the same higher risk downside. And so when the boom cycle turns bust, yes there will be much chagrin about tax cuts unless growth is unprecedented which is obviously not the most likely.

Honestly though, I think its a hail mary play. A gamble no doubt, but at least one with better odds than a GND gamble. Or toward want matters the likely Clinton/Bernie approch which is same cat in a differnt skin.

 

[Conaeolos]

Much to the impact of our fiscal position as reduced tax revenues from that income quintile directly harms our ability to service the debt, we need to issue as a means to throttle the amplitude of the economic cycle.

Your way over estimating how much progressive taxation can bring in. You disincentive the top you get less of the top. Families in the top 5%, that is 200,000+, its where you find most duel incomes, it where you find longest hours worked. You want higher revenues you raise it on working class and middle class. It in the data time and time again. I love that we live in a system where they get a break, but you're living in a fantasy if you think the rich don't pay their fair share: They currently pay a lot so we can artificially keep taxes low on 60% of the population who need the breaks most.

Here's tax revenue % by GDP: Between 1972 and 2017, check any country you want adn the coorsponding tax code changes...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US

All those changes here and what do you see ~11%. That's not by coincidence. Split that by income class, you'll see…you want higher revenues you can't just get it from the top. Raises taxes on the top all you want, but the result is equality at the cost of total pot, not more equality and total bigger pot. Total pots with inequality are better IMHO.

failed trickle down economic principles of the right that only benefit the highest earners.

You're mistaken. Yes it's top heavy. The fastest growth based on those actions are those getting into the top not just the incomes of the top, which is what you're implying. There is an important difference. It's not just extremely benefiting the top 1%, but the top 50%. You know the 50% that pay the public bills.

So just to be clear making more people extremely wealthy is not failed policy. 1/20 American millionaires is great accomplishment. No it doesn't solve the fact the bottom 50% hasn't really benefitted especially when government help and lower interest rates has increased support, yet we find the bottom 50th barely shifting and a solid case poverty problem with our seniors is increasingly harsh(1/2 of low income households).

An alternative strategy though that works for 100% is not on the table. Strategies based on higher government spending have been tried and mostly still produce same pattern just with less benefits and in some cases only income growth for the very top.

I am all for helping the bottom 50th, but don't assume we haven't tried. We have flooded money into social assistance by way of % of spending, year over year, and the results are less than spectacular. I don't think its a funding problem I think it's an approach problem. The solution just no on the table yet...

Thew federal government should take on lower levels of debt during good times as investor sentiment moves away from save haven bets because aggregate demand is stable, the federal government should take on higher levels of debt during not so good times as that is the one means to handle aggregate demand faults. Regardless taxation should be looked at in terms of fiscal position and applied impact to aggregate demand at that time. Again, Republicans made a mistake.

I am with you there. I would love to see a third option who doesn't want to stimulate in good years.

Btw, between that 1972 and 2017, social spending went 30% in 1972 to 66% in 2017. Deficit spending 1.6% to 16%. Private debt to GDP went from 87% to 202.80% of GDP. Seniors coming into retirement with little savings with more debts than 25-35 years olds. They already are as a group. Their wealth is in their real estate, which requires low interest to remain affordable and has a smaller buyer market even despite higher affordability by lower interest rates. Seniors are the lowest income class. Their demographics increasing. But I am sure inflation means this will not be a problem. What to dicuss how much we've been using it currently to keep that in check?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

As I point out.. it assumes that.

Not really what he was saying.

And if you are going to measure the effectiveness of an investment in infrastructure.. it would be much more valid to include whether it has a multiplier effect. Failure to do so is a serious flaw in anyone reasoning on the benefits of building infrastructure.

Yes, this is (normally) true. But one of the premises of the GND, and the article, is that addressing climate change right now is imperative. So assuming that is correct (and the need to address climate change should no longer be up for debate), it is more important to spend on reducing emissions than it is to spend on something else and maybe get a better return on investment. Like I said earlier, you don't worry about the ROI on treatment if your child is dying, you just pay for treatment to the best of your ability.

I get it.. you don't want to have a serious discussion on the merits of financing the New Green Deal... you just want to have another useless conversation about fiat currency.

I'm all for having a serious discussion. I started the thread, after all. It's just that your initial post was a terrible starting point for a serious discussion because your interpretation of RH's article was so out-of-bounds.

 

[Born Free]

Umm.. no. Bush gave a loan to a failing company.. with no assurance it would get paid back.

No he didn't, GM filed Chapter 11, effective Monday, June 8, 2009

However under Obamafail he took over GM in March 2009. And when the stock was sold we lost 11.2 billion,

When the government gives a student loan.. they expect it to get paid back.. and if the person declares bankruptcy.. guess what.. they don't get their student loan forgiven.

Government makes a lot of loans and backs Banks and financial institutions, and then there is Fanny and Freddy

Obama.. on the other hand.. got stock in the company... which meant.. that the taxpayer had security against the money given.

On the other hand Obamafail purchased stock at two high a price so there was no security to backup the purchase price, thus we lost 11.2 billion

Sorry man your Obamafail really ****ed up on buying stock in GM which did not have enough assets to back up Obama's purchase price. What a ****ing idiot

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

"When interest rates fall, depressing returns on investment, younger people saving for their retirements cut back spending and save even more to ensure that they have enough money to live on in retirement."

This is where we go from naive to insane. What she means is more young people are less prepared for retirement and have less financial security. That is very very bad!!! The longterm is always more significant than the short.

You missed the point of all five articles. The point is that (as Orphan Slug already tried to explain) governments do not actually borrow private sector assets in order to finance themselves, they simply create and spend their own currency. That shouldn't be hard to understand, but you seem to be going far out of the baseline to avoid getting tagged by that very important fact.

What the author was trying to say here is that, contrary to mainstream economic thinking, the demand for savings vehicles (bonds) drives their price up and their yield down. Mainstream thinking still holds that more bonds issued means that the government is borrowing more money, therefore interest rates should rise to reflect the higher risk. Of course, there is no true risk of default, and bond traders understand this, which is why yields behave the way MMTers predict, and not mainstream economists.

"the government needs to live within its means" does not mean the government can't make investments, can't take on debt, can't take risks. This article speaks more on Franks poor understanding of his household finances rather than anything about the government.

No, he was saying that "within its (the government's) means" refers to the economy's real resources and the ability to meet demand, not the number of dollars that the government can come up with (since that number is "unlimited").

The only threat is the "cost of servicing the debt" which limits our ability to deal with risk. That's it. That's also true for households.

Ah, but it doesn't limit our ability to deal with risk (i.e., print more money, bail out banks, etc.). The amount of government debt today is simply not a factor in how much more debt the government can issue tomorrow.

Seriously, we are bringing up public employees consumption is going to lead to more growth than their cost? There is only one way you get there: their alternative condition being unemployment.

Well, their alternative condition is unemployment. But beyond that, unless you believe that dollars earned by those employees are only spent once, it's true. If the government pays somebody to dig a hole and fill it up, his wages will be spent, and respent, and spent again until they are lost to savings.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

What if the alternative is producing something of value that does not require taxes? Would that perhaps change your equation? Wouldn't it be important to establish where that line exists?….you help the unemployed or seriously underemployed great. You pull from the employed marketplace you just had the opposite effect. Do I need to explain why, again?

We have already seen where that line is drawn - we are living it. The private sector does not go green on its own, it does not employ people unless there is a profit to be made from doing so, and it does not strive to benefit the nation as a whole. As for "pulling from the employed marketplace," I think you are greatly overestimating the instances of this actually happening. One of the benefits of a job guarantee is to provide some competition in the labor market. The government doesn't normally win the bidding war for labor against the private sector, and there is no reason to believe they would now. Private sector companies have seen their labor costs dropping relative to income for the past 40 years; there is more than enough space in there to pay labor more and still make a profit. I won't shed any tears for companies complaining about the rising cost of labor.

Yes, one has the most to gain when investing in times of hardship. In other-words, yes recessions are the worst time to cut certian types of spending. Let me tell you another tip from a healthy household. When times are bad, you invest more as it means needed ROI and quicker recovery. The only things worth cutting are the thing not returning, which in the government isn't things like public employees. Let me also say, it not the time to take on risky ventures which require excessive debt financing ratios. That doesn't mean not to take on debt, especially if you need debt to invest. It means you manage your risk!

I keep trying to explain to you that the government does not finance itself with debt, but you just keep on plowing ahead with the same old debt-based arguments.

Look, change a few outdated laws from the gold standard era, and Treasury could simply issue dollars directly, eliminating bonds altogether. Bonds are not necessary in order to finance the government, they are simply what we now use to effect monetary policy. Try to get the notion of the government going into debt out of your head, and think of things differently. That's the whole point of the thread.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Governments work on a different time scale and are never without income, so the benefits to having a positive balance sheet and hence managing future risk is less.

The government does not need the "income" from taxes in order to operate. You really seem to be stuck on this point.

Look at what actually happens when the government deficit spends. They are obviously able to create their own currency and spend it. There are about 17 trillion data points sitting in private sector hands that demonstrate this. They are not holding assets that were created in or by the private sector. They are holding assets created, and spent into the economy, by the government via budget deficits. Period. You cannot square that with the government borrowing assets from the private sector.

 

[Bullseye]

The government does not need the "income" from taxes in order to operate. You really seem to be stuck on this point.

Look at what actually happens when the government deficit spends. They are obviously able to create their own currency and spend it. There are about 17 trillion data points sitting in private sector hands that demonstrate this. They are not holding assets that were created in or by the private sector. They are holding assets created, and spent into the economy, by the government via budget deficits. Period. You cannot square that with the government borrowing assets from the private sector.

What economic mumbo-jumbo are you trying to sell here? The government doesn't need tax income to operate? In what universe? Is this some form of Modern Money Theory lunacy? A spin on "the government can print all the money it needs"?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

What economic mumbo-jumbo are you trying to sell here? The government doesn't need tax income to operate? In what universe? Is this some form of Modern Money Theory lunacy? A spin on "the government can print all the money it needs"?

Yes, it is.

Are you going to use the full force of your economic expertise to argue against it? Have at it.

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, it is.

Are you going to use the full force of your economic expertise to argue against it? Have at it.

Nah, that would give it credence that it doesn't deserve. And please do try to throw an appeal to authority fallacy at me.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Nah, that would give it credence that it doesn't deserve. And please do try to throw an appeal to authority fallacy at me.

What appeal to authority?

I just asked for someone to explain away the $17 trillion or so of savings sitting in private sector hands. Are you not going to take a crack at that? Or will answering questions give MMT too much credence (when you can't answer them)?

 

[Bullseye]

What appeal to authority?

Trying compare "the full force of my economic expertise" vs some Ivory Tower intellectuals.

I just asked for someone to explain away the $17 trillion or so of savings sitting in private sector hands. Are you not going to take a crack at that? Or will answering questions give MMT too much credence (when you can't answer them)?

First I've seen mention of this $17 trillion sitting in private sector hands. Not sure what you want me to "take a crack it". It's theirs to use as they see fit.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Trying compare "the full force of my economic expertise" vs some Ivory Tower intellectuals.

I'm not an ivory tower intellectual. I just study the stuff. And some ivory tower types are clearly wrong, because they don't all agree.

I was referring to your use of the term "mumbo jumbo" as an argument.

First I've seen mention of this $17 trillion sitting in private sector hands. Not sure what you want me to "take a crack it". It's theirs to use as they see fit.

I'm talking about the National Debt. People are holding that money as savings. It's money they have earned (or inherited, whichever), and it didn't come from banks. So if the government isn't able to create and spend its own money, where did all of that money come from? That was my point.

 

[Walking away]

The Green New Deal sounds good when you hear it, but it is like dancing to the piper's music, the piper has to be paid, and the piper wants all of your money. Anything that is free will not be worth the price you have to pay later.