Re:Rewarding Neglect and Punishing Investment in Struggling ...
by thaumasiotes on Thursday March 14, 2019 @03:13AM
(#19387091)
>> Having the ability to mint fiat money doesn't mean you can pay for whatever you want.
> It actually does when talking about pre-existing obligations denominated in the currency.
It still doesn't. It means you can default while calling the default "inflation". Doing so wipes out all other currency holders in addition to you, but it doesn't mean you met your obligations.
(This is basically the same thing as you're saying, but let's be clear about what it means.)
Re:Rewarding Neglect and Punishing Investment in Struggling ...
by dragonwriter on Thursday March 14, 2019 @08:26AM
(#19388566)
You're simply wrong: if the obligation is denominated in your currency, you absolutely do meet it: it's not any kind of default. Yes, the creditor gets less than they would have without the monetization, but that's not default, because currency value is expected to change over time and an obligation denominated in a currency accepts that variability by definition.
Re:Rewarding Neglect and Punishing Investment in Struggling ...
by omegaworks on Thursday March 14, 2019 @05:13PM
(#19393786)
>you might as well just leave monetary policy alone and tax money out of the system to pay for the pensions.
That's another potential solution. My point was that there are potentially many solutions that do not involve breaking our promises to working people.
It actually does when talking about pre-existing obligations denominated in the currency. It doesn't when talking about most other things, but existing pension obligations are pre-existing dollar-denominated obligations.
Now, the feds monetizing all the underfunded state and local pensions would effectively devalue the dollar, so those pensioners (and everyone else on a fixed dollar-denominated income) would be getting far less than they expect for it, and taxing extra money out of the system to counteract the inflationary effect negates the whole idea of monetizing the obligation in the first place—you might as well just leave monetary policy alone and tax money out of the system to pay for the pensions.