Also, I shudder whenever anyone says “Teh depreshunz are cauzed by lack of Aggregate Demand,” because the question I’m asking and the theory which I understand says that the level *from which* aggregate demand has fallen, was never sustainable in the first place.

First, much of what is quoted are descriptions of how the US monetary system actually works. They are descriptions, not my prescriptions. Those are the cards we’ve been dealt. And yes, it’s very close to a ‘command’ economy in many respects, though with important differences as well.

Yes, too much net government spending can be inflationary as I repeat continuously. But the issue is inflation, and not solvency. Government checks don’t bounce.

the trillion dollar bailout had no chance of working as indicated repeatedly on my website. it did not add to aggregate demand. it was only an exchange of financial assets.

socialism is the state owning the means of production. i have not advocated that apart from core public services such as the military and the legal system.

Also, govt. funding and govt. ownership are two different things.

I do not confuse real and nominal wealth as suggested.

The current problem, like most before it (but not all) is a lack of aggregate demand. This comes from the government restricting its spending to the point of causing a shortage of the net financial assets the economy currently needs to sustain higher levels of output and employment.

I am the first to point out the the currency itself is a public monopoly, and taxes coersive and not market events. And yes, monopolies are disruptive to market forces, which is what my analysis is all about.

That is why ‘the market’ can not sort out a lack of aggregate demand. Only the monopolist- the govt- can adjust the supply of net financial assets via fiscal policy to ‘get it right’ and allow market forces to sustain output and employment.

Yes, the govt. uses its monetary system to move real resources from private to public domain. Presumably for public purpose.

I don’t have a ‘brand of state capitalism’ I only describe what currently exists. Nor do I defend it.

Govt spending does not create a tax burden as written. Tax liabilities allow govt to spend its otherwise worthless currency.

You can talk about what the entrep ‘should’ do till the cows come home. What matters is what gets spent and what doesn’t get spent.

And why would anyone invest when sales are declining with questionable prospects of increasing any time soon?

few businesses can thrive if govt engineers a shortage of demand via its fiscal balance, as is the case today. it’s not about subsidizing anyone. it’s about not strangling aggregate demand.

govt ‘creating money out of thin air’ adds to real output and employment when the starting point is reduced output and employment due to a govt. engineered ‘money shortage’ as is the case today.

this is nothing more than a ‘shoot the messenger’ bit of propaganda

http://www.moslereconomics.com
post