• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I lashed out in frustration with an insult, which wasn’t appropriate. I’m sorry. I was frustrated with how my use of “infinite money” was taken literally, when you as an economist would know that nothing regarding the economy could be infinite. I’m still a bit irritated that your entire disagreement is based on pendantry.

      • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “infinite money” was obviously hyperbole, for the record. They tried to make it seem like it wasn’t obvious, but if they really couldn’t tell then they were being oblivious.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This entire thing relies on the federal government having the ability to print money that is not backed by a commodity, and does not owe a significant amount of debt to another country. Taxes on the federal level literally don’t fund anything (note that this is not true of local or state taxes). They exist solely to drive demand for the currency. Instead, the upper limit to government spending is the amount of resources and labor available to the government, which is several trillions of dollars worth more than the federal budget. This is what’s known as the real economy. A single trillion is incomprehensible, hence why I called it “infinite money”.