patrick.net

I would say it's a little different. Money is used by people to trade wealth, goods and services.

The government sets the rules to keep that trade continuing, regardless of how it might impact a few people, the majority must be kept happy (moderately appeased?).

If people stop lending, the government will simply change the rules to keep things moving along.

If the world is willing to lend America an infinite amount of money, then the solution to all of our problems is obvious: eliminate taxes, send every American a tax rebate of $1 million each, and simply borrow as much as we need. Chip in an extra $1 million to commission a statue of Hizzoner for his brilliant insight that people "seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money." What could possibly go wrong?

What Mr Bloomberg failed to mention, is that these people that allegedly lend money today aren't actually lending money at all. What they are actually doing is fraudulently offering debt plus interest from a fraudulently owned credit system that also happens to be a Ponzi scheme.

Mick Russom says

If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.”

No but unlike you, THEY can afford to kick your Ass and take your country over. It's hard to get your enemy to loan you money for aircraft carriers and destroyers when they are at war with you.

CaptainShuddup says

Mick Russom says

If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.”

No but unlike you, THEY can afford to kick your Ass and take your country over. It's hard to get your enemy to loan you money for aircraft carriers and destroyers when they are at war with you.

Oh PLEASE! The American military is like a huge guard dog that keeps the rest of the world in line. It's bigger than common sense and it occassionally kills a family pet or two in its ferocity, but that only drills into the neighbors the futility of challenging its owners no matter how how loud they keep their music at 2AM (the owners being the international oligarchs that go around the globe and destroy local governments, ecosystems, and economies in the name of profit).

If there were any type of take over it would come economically, not militarily.

The problem lies here with the use of the term money. Conflating the term money with the term currency, muddys the waters.

Yes, in theory, the us has infinite access to currency, because they can print as they please.

Yes, in theory, the government can spend at will, without the treasury sweating who will buy the debt, and at what price, at auction. This works so long as our central bank proxy fed reserve attends treasury auction and buys debt that nobody else is interested in.

But currency is not money. Money can be anything so long as it serves three functions that define money, unit of account, medium of exchange, and a store of value. So currency cannot be money in this scenario, because it cannot serve as a store of value when the entire premise of having infinite money is to jimmie its value.

The question I'm surprised more people never ask is, why does the US treasury sell government debt + interest, to the central bank? Why aren't we demanding a higher price for our treasury debt, like 0%?