1. Because freedom of movement, of people, allows businesses to ignore the local workforce. This would be exacerbated by a good economic environment, whether produced by lean government or ports and bridges, together with attractive public services that draw-in workers from other regions. Or at the least, we have a break-even effect. I m…
1. Because freedom of movement, of people, allows businesses to ignore the local workforce. This would be exacerbated by a good economic environment, whether produced by lean government or ports and bridges, together with attractive public services that draw-in workers from other regions. Or at the least, we have a break-even effect. I mean there’s more aspects, some on the other side, but to simplify.
2. Actually, I didn't mention international trade, except perhaps as example. I mean: interstate trade. It also is devalued by interstate commerce the same way labor is: whatever a local government does to aid it's own locality is diluted by the influx of businesses that take advantage of it, and local businesses suffer also by the new competition, albeit being a short term benefit to consumers until the cross-border economy becomes the new economic unit and monopolization commences only on a larger scale.
3. Yes, but from WHERE does growth in the total quantity of non-credit money come from? Simply reallocating state taxes over to the federal government doesn't change the quantity of dollars, which quantity we need to *grow*! Where do the businesses in an economic boom get the money to pay their state taxes? It's all built on bank credit--how unstable!
By "stable," I am not referring to the *quantity* of spending--let it be as you say--you have all good ideas!--but merely to that part that is in deficit! The deficit is where state money comes from; the rest is bank credit. I estimate the current ratio of domestic state dollars to credit money, just talking about bank account money, is two to five. (International dollars are all credit money, I guess--a hundred thirty trillion?)
As for the Europeans: most ordinary Europeans would argue, I think, that the austerity-based Euro currency concept doesn't work--deficit spending limits as an arbitrarily derived percentage of GDP, which GDP *shrinks* in a bad economy! Although, you make a good case they are in many respects doing a better job of it than we are! I am not here to deny your essay! Sure, it's great! Don't worry. Just to present the other points surrounding the topic.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I see no reason why deficit money shouldn't still be part of the mix at the federal level, especially during economic downturns or to invest in public goods. It's an interesting idea to make that the central use for federal management of the treasury. (Especially over bank loans!)
Or if we really aren't just playing at State sovereignty, which I think we might be, we give them some sort of monetary independence. The era of coins and bills is probably over (or I can't get my head around my replacement idea for that). So:
-- Either we let them issue payments to banks in state tax credits--let the banks state the dollar to state "currency" exchange rate, no problem.
-- Or we leave dollar denomination, but let each state open a payments clearinghouse, a kind of mini-central bank, less all the bank woo, through which state taxes must be paid. Such a clearinghouse could even bypass the banks and allow businesses to make business-to-business payments on it.
If there is sufficient dollar demand in the economy, coming from state taxes and business demand, the Federal government doesn't require ANY taxes in order to spend--the states don't have to literally pass the money on upwards! In theory. We can talk details, of course...
You know, it's not a one-for-one, spending and taxes, or else we would still have the same MQ as in 1792! Not that we actually "need" any money at all, as there are other ways to hit the nail on the head.
1. Because freedom of movement, of people, allows businesses to ignore the local workforce. This would be exacerbated by a good economic environment, whether produced by lean government or ports and bridges, together with attractive public services that draw-in workers from other regions. Or at the least, we have a break-even effect. I mean there’s more aspects, some on the other side, but to simplify.
2. Actually, I didn't mention international trade, except perhaps as example. I mean: interstate trade. It also is devalued by interstate commerce the same way labor is: whatever a local government does to aid it's own locality is diluted by the influx of businesses that take advantage of it, and local businesses suffer also by the new competition, albeit being a short term benefit to consumers until the cross-border economy becomes the new economic unit and monopolization commences only on a larger scale.
3. Yes, but from WHERE does growth in the total quantity of non-credit money come from? Simply reallocating state taxes over to the federal government doesn't change the quantity of dollars, which quantity we need to *grow*! Where do the businesses in an economic boom get the money to pay their state taxes? It's all built on bank credit--how unstable!
By "stable," I am not referring to the *quantity* of spending--let it be as you say--you have all good ideas!--but merely to that part that is in deficit! The deficit is where state money comes from; the rest is bank credit. I estimate the current ratio of domestic state dollars to credit money, just talking about bank account money, is two to five. (International dollars are all credit money, I guess--a hundred thirty trillion?)
As for the Europeans: most ordinary Europeans would argue, I think, that the austerity-based Euro currency concept doesn't work--deficit spending limits as an arbitrarily derived percentage of GDP, which GDP *shrinks* in a bad economy! Although, you make a good case they are in many respects doing a better job of it than we are! I am not here to deny your essay! Sure, it's great! Don't worry. Just to present the other points surrounding the topic.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I see no reason why deficit money shouldn't still be part of the mix at the federal level, especially during economic downturns or to invest in public goods. It's an interesting idea to make that the central use for federal management of the treasury. (Especially over bank loans!)
Or if we really aren't just playing at State sovereignty, which I think we might be, we give them some sort of monetary independence. The era of coins and bills is probably over (or I can't get my head around my replacement idea for that). So:
-- Either we let them issue payments to banks in state tax credits--let the banks state the dollar to state "currency" exchange rate, no problem.
-- Or we leave dollar denomination, but let each state open a payments clearinghouse, a kind of mini-central bank, less all the bank woo, through which state taxes must be paid. Such a clearinghouse could even bypass the banks and allow businesses to make business-to-business payments on it.
Yes. You've got my idea:
If there is sufficient dollar demand in the economy, coming from state taxes and business demand, the Federal government doesn't require ANY taxes in order to spend--the states don't have to literally pass the money on upwards! In theory. We can talk details, of course...
You know, it's not a one-for-one, spending and taxes, or else we would still have the same MQ as in 1792! Not that we actually "need" any money at all, as there are other ways to hit the nail on the head.