Earthjade
Member
grinners said:Earthjade said:Of course, you can try to keep things propped up by printing money for a while, but in the end, it's not the total supply of money in the world that is determining the current situation (because most of what has been printed by Bernanke is still locked up in banks unwilling to lend or parked in US Treasuries).
If the money is in treasuries, then hasn't it been spent; namely as part of the US government budget?
It is being spent, this is true, but on the other side of the trade, it is not being spent.
In the end, it's all debt, so it can be spent both sides (which is perverse when you think about it).
But while the government needs to spend the money, this in and of itself does not create bubbles, per se.
As bonds are essentially dollar substitutes due to their high liquidity, the private holders of these treasuries need to be using them to buy up assets in order to create bubbles.
Governments can encourage bubbles, but it's up to private actors to actually make them.
So as long as banks hold onto treasuries and not use them, government spending alone is not enough to generate that omph of inflation that is really needed to get things going.
After all, Keynesianism prescribes temporary government spending to make up for demand shortfall in times of slump, but in practice it hasn't ever really worked.
To be fair to Keynes, he only ever advocated government spending in the short term. he never said governments should run permanent deficits - that was the Reagan adminsitration.