So why not print all the money everyone needs? I'd start off with a couple of million EURs. Oh, you also want a couple of million? No problem. Oops, hyper inflation and we're back at the start.

Seriously, this doesn't work.

It works to the extent there's slack in the economy. Circulating money is just a tool to allocate real resources (materials, people, manufacturing capacity, etc.) If the resources are under-allocated (i.e., high unemployment), then circulating more money can fix that problem.

>So why not print all the money everyone needs?

We do. That is how money is created and we tend to print a bit too much because not having enough restricts ability to trade. Inflation is essentially the money we printed and it turns out we didn't need.

But it does work. Basically all governments issue debt, and companies, too, by the way, and that's a good thing.

If debt is issued to invest productively, yes, then it's good. Now look at what caused 2008. I don't think it was good debt that got us into this situation.

The article claims that German/European inflation is too low, they should be printing more money (or an equivalent, like borrowing)

The ECB has been "printing money" like crazy for the last decade. Inflation in Germany is between 1 and 2 percent. Why is that a problem? If you've saved some money it's already eating up about 1% (or more) on an annual basis since you don't get any interest anymore.

Money has had a value until 2008. Then somehow the rules were rewritten and now you are getting penalized for saving so you can later invest. This doesn't make any sense.

Of course you should be penalizing for saving. Hiding a dollar away where it's not doing any good to the world economy? You should get rewarded for investing, taking risks and letting that dollar do something.

You are basically saying that I don't have a right to preserve my wealth for the time period I see fit and that the government (I consider the central banks to be part of the gov) should enforce that by manipulating interest rates.

What's next? Prohibit ownership of precious metals (again)?

Preserving your wealth in a risk free fashion is a service the government is providing to you. That's a big portion of the reason why the army, police et cetera exist. It costs them and you a lot more than 1% per annum.

>Preserving your wealth in a risk free fashion is a service the government is providing to you. That's a big portion of the reason why the army, police et cetera exist. It costs them and you a lot more than 1% per annum

Sure, but all that doesn't come out for free (and it isn't even cheap), as you pay taxes on your income.

Once it is in your pocket the money is "free" from the costs that have been already detracted from it for all the general government costs.

And besides once you have your income, you can spend it (and thus give to the government some more taxes, i.e. VAT or Mehrwersteuer) or save part of it, investing it (and BTW paying some more taxes on the interests or dividends your investments - hopefully - produce).

> Preserving your wealth in a risk free fashion is a service the government is providing to you. That's a big portion of the reason why the army, police et cetera exist. It costs them and you a lot more than 1% per annum.

No, the government doesn't provide me with the financial tools to preserve my wealth. The market wants to do that, because there's demand for it. It's the government that indirectly manipulates interest rates and thereby distorts the market so that it isn't capable anymore of providing these services.

It seems as if all is nice and cozy from your viewpoint with this situation as long as I spend my currency (immediately!) to "help the system". But nobody asks whether this allocates my resources towards the right investment.

When the time comes and I cannot retire, because I wasn't able to save, it's now again the problem of society that needs to step in, and you will probably opt for even more debt to "sustain" my standard of living.

Again, this financial/political ideology is severely damaging our prospects as a society. I wonder how it's so hard to understand.

This works if you GDP grows as well.

One design quirk of the Euro is that there is no sovereign to go with it.

Yes, Euro is a disaster. It's a predominantly ideological project that economically is totally unsound. Okay, it was conceived as a way to boost the German economy (before Euro the German mark was just too strong so Germany couldn't export as much as it does now) but ends up painfully backfiring at all Euro economies. First the weaker economies (Greece and Italy) and now Germany.

> it was conceived as a way to boost the German economy (before Euro the German mark was just too strong

Interesting theory, but I wonder when the German economy was so strong that Germany forced the rest of Europe to agree to the Euro:

When the first plans for an economic and monetary union within the EEC were brought up in 1969?

Or in 1979, when European currencies were pegged against the ECU, stabilizing exchange rates (and taking large parts of monetary policy out of the member states' hands)?

Maybe in 1989 when France made German reunification depend on Germany committing to the monetary union?

>Yes, Euro is a disaster. It's a predominantly ideological project that economically is totally unsound.

It has been running for about 20 years, becoming the world's second most traded currency after the dollar and without it Europe would still be a mixed bag of national currencies rather than being one of the big three economic powers.

If the euro is totally economically unsound, then I must say that it is doing rather well considering.

Personally, I store all my wealth in a 3 ton rai stone sunk in deep water 60 km NNW off the isle of Yap. There are some limits on fungibility, but the transaction security is excellent.