A little inflation surely wouldn't hurt, but neither would a little
de-indexing of the
individual income tax brackets.  This would be a huge revenue raiser over time.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is fine, but it should be mentioned that the "public" debt (what
> should instead be called the "public sector's debt" or the
> "government's debt") represents an _asset_ for the public (outside the
> government), though much of that "public" is outside the US (in China,
> for example) these days. After WW2, the existence of treasury bills in
> a lot of peoples' savings helped create a cushion which significantly
> moderated the post-war US recession.
>
> The debt also should be compared to publicly-owned assets, so that we
> should be looking at the government's net worth instead. Even that
> should be compared to the total GDP (as an indicator of the potential
> tax base). The US "grew its way" out of the extremely large (and
> extremely larger than now) debts at the end of WW2.
>
> We should also remember that Greece is in a very different situation
> than the US. It's not a hegemonic power; it can't devalue its
> currency; etc. Finally, the US government's debt is the basis of much
> of the US and world financial systems, since almost all banks and
> other financial institutions use T-bills and the like as safe assets
> that allow they to take risks.
>
> By the way, a relatively easy solution to excessive debt of any sort
> is to "inflate it away" (something that Krugman's column today
> suggests is preferable to deflation, depression, and destruction).
> This would represent a redistribution away from those who own a lot of
> assets denominated in money terms.
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (My stupid blog is not working well.  But here's a few and rushed
>> thoughts on the public debt.)
>>
>> Media pundits, economists, and politicians claim that the current
>> level of public indebtedness in the U.S. and its further expansion are
>> "unsustainable."
>>
>> Seemingly, "our" profligacy is catching up with us.  The day of
>> reckoning approaches.  We should either prepare for a drastic decline
>> in social welfare tomorrow or accept a worsening of the economic
>> situation today -- e.g. the government should limit its meager
>> "stimulus" spending and allow the economy to slip into greater
>> joblessness to prevent the looming catastrophe.  The crisis in Greece,
>> that many commentators attribute to a borrowing binge by the Greek
>> government, is now being alluded as exhibit 1. (Let alone the fact
>> that the sudden increase in Greek public debt may have resulted from
>> the financial crisis and the attempt of the Greek government to
>> salvage banks that are now downgrading its debt, as Costas Lapavitsas
>> claims here: http://bit.ly/cMQeMn.) One of the latest additions to
>> this parade of nonsense is Arianna Huffington's "Life in the Age of
>> "Much Worse Than We Thought It Would Be"" (http://huff.to/bu0txF).
>>
>> Economists, of course, will pretend that fundamental scarcity -- i.e.
>> the fact that society's total labor time and its productive force are
>> never infinite -- is at the root of the dilemma.  Society's cake is
>> finite, and one cannot eat it and have it at once.  Except that this
>> is a false premise.  The public debt (or the private debt, for that
>> matter) has absolutely nothing to do with the finiteness of society's
>> resources and productive possibilities.  It's not nature but social
>> convention or, more precisely put, social structure.
>>
>> Public debt is not about the limited production possibilities of our
>> society.  Public debt is about how the wealth that exists (or will be
>> produced) is (or will be) held -- by whom and at whose exclusion.  In
>> other words, it is about how the ownership over existing wealth is
>> distributed.  It's about who owns today's wealth and, hence, holds the
>> enforceable claims over future production flows.  It is not about how
>> large these flows can be with existing resources and productivity.
>> Wealth distribution is a social condition, not a fact of nature.  It
>> is entirely within the reach of human capabilities to alter the form
>> in which wealth ownership is distributed.
>>
>> Of course, the smuggled pretension here is that the only conceivable
>> or legitimate way in which wealth ownership can be reshuffled in our
>> society is via the market mechanism: that private ownership is sacred.
>>  But, any thought about it shows that the pretension is exactly
>> contrary to the very (contradictory) institutional framework and modus
>> operandi of modern capitalist societies.  No modern capitalist society
>> would last long without a massive state -- tasked with enforcing and
>> protecting ownership rights, disciplining labor, undertaking social
>> programs to preempt unrest, waging wars, regulating commerce, and
>> plain taking from the poor (and the out-of-favor rich) to give to the
>> rich (and better connected).  A massive state requires taxation and
>> the allocation of expenditures outside of the market mechanism.
>>
>> Furthermore, historically, under capitalism, high levels of public (or
>> private) indebtedness have always been resolved, partially or
>> entirely, through politically-sanctioned or politically-induced
>> processes of wealth redistribution -- from land reforms and outright
>> expropriation to price management to relatively benign inflationary
>> processes.
>>
>> The McKinsey Global Institute (http://bit.ly/8bQV8z) estimates that
>> adjusting the imbalances that led to the ongoing crisis will require a
>> (on average) 6-7 year long process of "deleveraging," which should
>> wind up reducing the ratio of debt to GDP by 25%!  How can such a
>> massive transfer of wealth ownership ever happen anywhere without a
>> politically sanctioned process or carnage?  Can any society today
>> accomplish this feat by heeding Andrew Mellon's dictum alone --
>> liquidate, liquidate, liquidate?  At what human cost.  (Isn't the
>> point of an economy supposed to be "human welfare"?)
>>
>> Again, unless they are willing to see themselves reduced to chop
>> liver, working people are going to have to take matters on their own
>> hand. The Greek people are showing the way.  And this is not an
>> endorsement of the methods of small groups of anarchists or
>> professional provocateurs.  It's simply the notion that working people
>> will need to take action, rather than wait for the powers to decide
>> how to allocate the cost of the "adjustment."
>>
>> Just like the spike in public indebtedness in Greece followed the
>> financial panic and the government's effort to prop up its banks,
>> public indebtedness in the U.S. has next-to-zero to do with welfare
>> queens on Cadillacs or poor people getting over their heads with
>> subprime mortgage borrowing.  It has mostly to do with war making, tax
>> cuts for the rich, the secular decline in the real income and economic
>> security of working people since the 1970s, the financial blowout, all
>> rooted in traits inherent to capitalism.
>>
>> There's nothing inevitable here, but the struggle.  It is a class struggle.
>>
>> [Note to economic theorists: I am not claiming that distribution and
>> efficiency are independent variables under an abstract, pure, and
>> functional capitalist economy.  Those theoretical constructs assume
>> that capitalism functions smoothly.  In other words, they assume that
>> working people are reduced to perpetual political submission.  I'm
>> referring to the fact that things do not have to be that way.]
>> _______________________________________________
>> pen-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
> way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to