You seem to imply that the availability of Gov securities reduces consumption of the rich. If not, if their saving is no different, how are they richer?
Re: the alleged debasement, the initial borrowing finances something. Borrowing v. taxes just changes when the bill is paid. Present value of Gov spending is more likely to be increased by the use of borrowing, not reduced, since the bill is presented to future, richer generations. You classicist you. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 1:59 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Vulnerable logic in Dean Baker's argument? On May 18, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > Consider the counter-factual -- the bondholder doesn't buy the Gov > bond, he buys a private sector asset. > Abstracting from risk/return, how are the rich any richer? What kind of Keynesian are you? Much government borrowing represents money that wouldn't otherwise have been spent. There's no crowding out - it's an addition. That aside, higher gov debt service means less money to spend on better things, like education or health or environmental reconstruction. It's a debased use of public funds. Doug _______________________________________________ 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
