@MMT101DotORG The private sector ultimately "funds" (such an ambiguous word, I try to avoid it) by producing resources. There is no 'outside' money, nor 'net financial assets'. The agent domain simply holds claims for resources where it is itself the obligant.
@MMT101DotORG "Taxes fund spending" may be naive operationally, but it isn't wrong. The recipients of the spending gain claims on resources: the taxpayer releases his. It is much as if the taxpayer pays the funding recipient.
@Handre I might be more interested to read you @Handre but why the pedophile remark? Because that accusation has no bearing on the economics, even if it were true.
@Evanshm My issue is that: we use monetary values to account for the second, and "net financial assets" do not really exist, so MMT is not counting correctly.
@DrMShujat@IamRealKelvin That doesn't refute the hypothesis. IV vitamin C can be given safely and without identification of the venom. There is a striking failure to investigate it.
@carney@BobMurphyEcon Your error is that banks don't transfer 100% of their deposits. They are only required in daily trading to transfer a fraction of their deposits, and that is netted out in clearing with money coming in.
Excepting runs when we know what happens.
@malcolm_reavell There is also nothing inherently bad about maximising the value of your international trade as a country, as interpersonal trade is for the everyman.
@litewhisperer Then suppose the counterfeiter is actually the king. He just prints himself five pounds. He is five pounds richer. He puts it in his wallet. He's the sovereign, so it's perfectly legal. He promises not to do it again.
Who is poorer?
@litewhisperer I present an example to you. I counterfeit a dollar. It's perfect. I put it in my wallet. My financial equity rises. Who, if anyone, is poorer?
@litewhisperer Take the 1963 great train robbery, which has the same financial result as perfect counterfeiting. You cannot say that the cash they stole was "worthless". Otherwise they would not have stolen it.